Table of Contents Chapter 1: The Nature of International Law Chapter 2: The Sources of International Law Chapter 3: The Law

of Treaties The making of treaties Application of treaties CASE CONCERNING THE TEMPLE O PREAH !IHEAR"##$ In%ali&it' of treaties Termination of treaties Re()s sic stanti()s ISHERIES *+RIS,ICTION CASE"""""""""""##NAMI.IA CASE""""""""""""""""""###/0 ,AN+.E ,AM CASE""""""""""""""""#/1 +NITE, 2ING,OM ! ICELAN,"""""""""""##/3 Chapter 4: International Law and Municipal Law International la4 in &omestic la4 Conflict (et4een international la4 an& &omestic la45 international r)le ! A CASES""""""""""""""""""""##/6 M)nicipal r)le HEA, MONE7 CASES"""""""""""""""###13 8HITNE7 ! RO.ERTSON""""""""""""""16 Chapter 5: Sub ects of International Law States Territor' PRINCIPALIT7 O SEALAN,""""""""""""##1Recognition of states INTERNATIONAL STAT+S O SO+TH 8EST A RICA..34 Recognition of go%ernment THE TINOCO AR.ITRATION"""""""""""""9+PRIGHT ! MERC+R7 .+SINESS MACHINES CO""#"3/ Chapter !: "urisdiction #$er Territor% Mo&es of ac:)isition of so%ereignt' o%er territor' ,isco%er' an& occ)pation 8ESTERN SAHARA CASE""""""""""""""39 THE ISLAN, O PALMAS CASE"""""""""""#3; LEGAL STAT+S O EASTERN GREENLAN, CASE"""#$/ O)ter space S27LA. PRO*ECT"""""""""""""""""##$9

Chapter &: Law of the Sea The continental <archipelagic= shelf NORTH SEA CONTINENTAL SHEL CASES""""""$$ Chapter ': "urisdiction of States The Territorialit' Principle COR + CHANNEL CASE""""""""""""##""#$> Effects ,octrine THE LOT+S CASE"""""""""""""""""###6/ TRAIL SMELTER AR.ITRATION"""""""""""69 The Nationalit' Principle .LAC2MER ! +NITE, STATES"""""""""""##6$ Effecti%e nationalit' link THE NOTTE.OHM CASE""""""""""""""##66 THE AS7L+M CASE""""""""""""""""###6; Stateless persons ME*O ! ,IRECTOR O PRISONS"""""""""">1 The +ni%ersalit' Principle ILARTIGA ! PE?A@IRALA"""""""""""""##>9 THE EICHMANN CASE"""""""""""""""##>3 The Passi%e Personalit' Principle +NITE, STATES ! A8AA 7+NIS""""""""""#>6 Conflicts of B)ris&iction +NITE, STATES ! AH SING""""""""""""">> ECtra&ition +NITE, STATES ! AL!AREA@MACHAIN"""""""#>SEC# O *+STICE ! HON# RALPH C# LANTION""""">; 2ER ! PEOPLE O STATE O ILLINOIS""""""""-/ Chapter (: I))unit% fro) "urisdiction Imm)nit' from B)ris&iction THE HOL7 SEE ! THE HON# ERI.ERTO +# ROSARIOD *R##-9 Imm)nit' of Hea& of State THE PINOCHET CASE""""""""""""""""-,iplomatic imm)nities 2HOSRO8 MIN+CHER ! CA""""""""""""##;9 THE REP+.LIC O IN,ONESIA !# !INAON"""""#";6 Cons)ls an& cons)lar imm)nities +S ,IPLOMATIC AN, CONS+LAR STA IN TEHRAN CASE"""""""""""""""";Imm)nit' of International OrganiEation *E RE7 LIANG <HE+ ENG= %# PEOPLE O THE PHILIPPINES""""""""""""""""/00 The Act of State ,octrine CASE CONCERNING THE TEMPLE O PREAH !IHEAR##/0/

Chapter 1*: State +esponsibilit% Protection of Aliens Corporations an& sharehol&ers CASE CONCERNING THE .ARCELONA TRACTIOND LIGHT AN, PO8ER COMPAN7D LIMITE,"""#/0$ Attri()tion to the State Acts of state organs CAIRE CLAIM""""""""""""""""""##/0> COR + CHANNEL CASE""""""""""""## "##/0; Acts of other persons +NITE, STATES ! IRAN""""""##"""""""//9 Acts of re%ol)tionaries HOME MISSIONAR7 SOCIET7 CLAIM""""""""//$ SHORT ! IRAN"""""""""""""""""#"//6 Reparation CHORAO8 ACTOR7 CASE""""""""""""//> Chapter 11: International ,u)an +i-hts Law The co%enant on ci%il an& political rights ree&om of Mo%ement LEGAL CONSEF+ENCES O THE CONSTR+CTION O A 8ALL IN THE OCC+PIE, PALESTINIAN TERRITOR7""""""""""""""""###//; Self@&etermination of peoples LEGAL CONSEF+ENCES O THE CONSTR+CTION O A 8ALL IN THE OCC+PIE, PALESTINIAN TERRITOR7""""""""""""""""###//; Chapter 12: International #r-ani.ations Imm)nities REPARATION OR IN*+RIES S+ ERE, IN THE SER!ICE O THE +NITE, NATIONS""""""""#""/1/ The +nite& Nations5 str)ct)re an& po4ers ECOSOC INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL ALLIANCE O E,+CATORS ! F+IS+M.INGD ET#AL""""""""""""###/19 Chapter 13: /eaceful Settle)ent of International 0ispute *)ris&iction of the IC*5 Contentio)s B)ris&iction AERIAL INCI,ENT O, 1> *+L7 /;$$""""""""###/1$ CASE CONCERNING EAST TIMOR"""""""###""/1Pro%isional meas)res NICARAG+A ! +NITE, STATES""""""""""##/90 CASE CONCERNING LEGALIT7 O THE +SE O ORCE"""""""""""""""""""#/91

Inter%ention EL SAL!A,OR ! HON,+RAS"""""""""""###/93 Chapter 14: The 1se of 2orce Short of 3ar The threat of force LEGALIT7 O THE THREAT OR +SE O N+CLEAR 8EAPONS"""""""""##""""""""/9$ Tra&itionall' allo4a(le coerci%e meas)res Reprisals NA+LILAA CASE5 GERMAN7 ! PORT+GAL""""""""""""""###""#/30 Chapter 15: 3ar and Neutralit% C)stomar' an& con%entional la4 Commencement an& termination of hostilities THE CAROLINE INCI,ENT ,+RING THE PATRIOT 8AR"""""""""""""""""""####/3/ Metho&s of 8arfare The Sol&ierGs R)les COMPAGNIE ,E COMMERCE ET ,E NA!IGATION ,HEITREME ORIENT ! THE HAM.+RG AMERI2A PAC2ET ACHT ACTIEN GESELLSCHA T"""""""""""""###"/39 Chapter 1!: International 4n$iron)ental Law Chapter 1&: International 4cono)ic Law ECceptions to ke' principles TA?A,A ! ANGARA""""""""""""###"""/36

Chapter 1: The Nature of International Law Chapter 2: The Sources of International Law Chapter 3: The Law of Treaties C5S4 C#NC4+NIN6 T,4 T4M/L4 #2 /+45, 7I,45+ 8Merits9 "ud-)ent of 15 "une 1(!2 The s)(Bect of the &isp)te (et4een Go%ernment of Cam(o&ia an& the Go%ernment of Thailan& 4as so%ereignt' of the region of the Temple of Preah !ihear# This ancient sanct)ar'D partiall' in r)insD stoo& on a promontor' of the ,angrek range of mo)ntains 4hich constit)te& the (o)n&ar' (et4een Cam(o&ia an& Thailan&# The &isp)te ha& its fons et origo in the (o)n&ar' settlements ma&e in the perio& /;03@/;0- (et4een ranceD then con&)cting the foreign relations of In&o@ChinaD an& Siam# The application of the Treat' of /9 e(r)ar' /;03 4asD in partic)larD in%ol%e&# That Treat' esta(lishe& the general character of the frontier the eCact (o)n&ar' of 4hich 4as to (e &elimite& (' a ranco@Siamese MiCe& Commission# In the eastern sector of the ,angrek rangeD in 4hich Preah !ihear 4as sit)ate&D the frontier 4as to follo4 the 4atershe& line# or the p)rpose of &elimiting that frontierD it 4as agree&D at a meeting hel& on 1 ,ecem(er /;06D that the MiCe& Commission sho)l& tra%el along the ,angrek range carr'ing o)t all the necessar' reconnaissanceD an& that a s)r%e' officer of the rench section of the Commission sho)l& s)r%e' the 4hole of the eastern part of the range# It ha& not (een conteste& that the Presi&ents of the rench an& Siamese sections &)l' ma&e this Bo)rne'D in the co)rse of 4hich the' %isite& the Temple of Preah !ihear# In *an)ar'@ e(r)ar' /;0>D the Presi&ent of the rench section ha& reporte& to his Go%ernment that the frontier@line ha& (een &efinitel' esta(lishe&# It therefore seeme& clear that a frontier ha& (een s)r%e'e& an& fiCe&D altho)gh there 4as no recor& of an' &ecision an& no reference to the ,angrek region in an' min)tes of the meetings of the Commission after 1 ,ecem(er /;06# Moreo%erD at the time 4hen the Commission might ha%e met for the p)rpose of 4in&ing )p its 4orkD attention 4as &irecte& to4ar&s the concl)sion of a f)rther ranco@Siamese (o)n&ar' treat'D the Treat' of 19 March /;0># The final stage of the &elimitation 4as the preparation of maps# The Siamese Go%ernmentD 4hich &i& not &ispose of a&e:)ate technical meansD ha& re:)este& that rench officers sho)l& map the frontier region# These maps 4ere complete& in the a)t)mn of /;0> (' a team of rench officersD some of 4hom ha& (een mem(ers of the

MiCe& CommissionD an& the' 4ere comm)nicate& to the Siamese Go%ernment in /;0-# Amongst them 4as a map of the ,angrek range sho4ing Preah !ihear on the Cam(o&ian si&e# It 4as on that map <file& as AnneC I to its Memorial= that Cam(o&ia ha& principall' relie& in s)pport of her claim to so%ereignt' o%er the Temple# Thailan&D on the other han&D ha& conten&e& that the mapD not (eing the 4ork of the MiCe& CommissionD ha& no (in&ing characterJ that the frontier in&icate& on it 4as not the tr)e 4atershe& line an& that the tr)e 4atershe& line 4o)l& place the Temple in Thailan&D that the map ha& ne%er (een accepte& (' Thailan& orD alternati%el'D that if Thailan& ha& accepte& it she ha& &one so onl' (eca)se of a mistaken (elief that the frontier in&icate& correspon&e& 4ith the 4atershe& line# The AnneC I map 4as ne%er formall' appro%e& (' the MiCe& CommissionD 4hich ha& cease& to f)nction some months (efore its pro&)ction# 8hile there co)l& (e no reasona(le &o)(t that it 4as (ase& on the 4ork of the s)r%e'ing officers in the ,angrek sectorD the Co)rt ne%ertheless concl)&e& thatD in its inceptionD it ha& no (in&ing character# It 4as clear from the recor&D ho4e%erD that the maps 4ere comm)nicate& to the Siamese Go%ernment as p)rporting to represent the o)tcome of the 4ork of &elimitationJ since there 4as no reaction on the part of the Siamese a)thoritiesD either then or for man' 'earsD the' m)st (e hel& to ha%e ac:)iesce&# The maps 4ere moreo%er comm)nicate& to the Siamese mem(ers of the MiCe& CommissionD 4ho sai& nothing# to the Siamese Minister of the InteriorD Prince ,amrongD 4ho thanke& the rench Minister in .angkok for themD an& to the Siamese pro%incial go%ernorsD some of 4hom kne4 of Preah !ihear# If the Siamese a)thorities accepte& the AnneC I map 4itho)t in%estigationD the' co)l& not no4 plea& an' error %itiating the realit' of their consent# The Siamese Go%ernment an& later the Thai Go%ernment ha& raise& no :)er' a(o)t the AnneC I map prior to its negotiations 4ith Cam(o&ia in .angkok in /;$-# .)t in /;93@/;9$ a s)r%e' ha& esta(lishe& a &i%ergence (et4een the map line an& the tr)e line of the 4atershe&D an& other maps ha& (een pro&)ce& sho4ing the Temple as (eing in Thailan&5 Thailan& ha& ne%ertheless contin)e& also to )se an& in&ee& to p)(lish maps sho4ing Preah !ihear as l'ing in Cam(o&ia# Moreo%erD in the co)rse of the negotiations for the /;1$ an& /;9> ranco@Siamese TreatiesD 4hich confirme& the eCisting frontiersD an& in /;3> in 8ashington (efore the ranco@Siamese Conciliation CommissionD it 4o)l& ha%e (een nat)ral for Thailan& to raise the matter5 she &i& not &o so# The nat)ral inference 4as that she ha& accepte& the frontier at Preah !ihear as it 4as &ra4n on the mapD irrespecti%e of its correspon&ence 4ith the 4atershe& line# Thailan& ha& state& that ha%ing (eenD at all material timesD in possession of Preah !ihearD she ha& ha& no nee& to raise the matterJ she ha& in&ee& instance& the acts of her a&ministrati%e a)thorities on the gro)n& as e%i&ence that she ha& ne%er accepte& the AnneC I line at Preah !ihear# .)t the Co)rt fo)n& it &iffic)lt to regar& s)ch local acts as negati%ing the consistent attit)&e of the central a)thorities# Moreo%erD 4hen in /;90 Prince ,amrongD on a %isit to the TempleD 4as officiall' recei%e& there (' the rench Resi&ent for the a&Boining Cam(o&ian pro%inceD Siam faile& to react#

The iss)e is 4hether or not Thailan& ha& accepte& the AnneC I map (' its fail)re to o(Bect to the map an& its contin)e& )se of the map there(' granting so%ereignt' to Cam(o&ia o%er Preah !ihear# rom the factsD the co)rt concl)&e& that Thailan& ha& accepte& the AnneC I map# E%en if there 4ere an' &o)(t in this connectionD Thailan& 4as not precl)&e& from asserting that she ha& not accepte& it since rance an& Cam(o&ia ha& relie& )pon her acceptance an& she ha& for fift' 'ears enBo'e& s)ch (enefits as the Treat' of /;03 has conferre& on her# )rthermoreD the acceptance of the AnneC I map ca)se& it to enter the treat' settlementJ the Parties ha& at that time a&opte& an interpretation of that settlement 4hich ca)se& the map line to pre%ail o%er the pro%isions of the Treat' an&D as there 4as no reason to think that the Parties ha& attache& an' special importance to the line of the 4atershe& as s)chD as compare& 4ith the o%erri&ing importance of a final reg)lation of their o4n frontiersD the Co)rt consi&ere& that the interpretation to (e gi%en no4 4o)l& (e the same# The Co)rt therefore felt (o)n& to prono)nce in fa%or of the frontier in&icate& on the AnneC I map in the &isp)te& area an& it (ecame )nnecessar' to consi&er 4hether the line as mappe& &i& in fact correspon& to the tr)e 4atershe& line# or these reasonsD the Co)rt )phel& the s)(missions of Cam(o&ia concerning so%ereignt' o%er Preah !ihear#

>

2IS,4+I4S C5S4 81nited :in-do) of 6reat ;ritain and Northern Ireland $s< Norwa%9 In past cent)riesD .ritish fishermen ha& ma&e inc)rsions in the 4aters near the Nor4egian coast# As a res)lt of complains from the 2ing of Nor4a'D the .ritish a(staine& from &oing so at the (eginning of the />th cent)r' an& for 900 'ears# .)t in /;06D .ritish %essels appeare& again# These 4ere tra4lers e:)ippe& 4ith impro%e& an& po4erf)l gears# The local pop)lation (ecame pert)r(e& an& meas)res 4ere taken (' Nor4a' 4ith a %ie4 to specif'ing the limits 4ithin 4hich fishing 4as prohi(ite& to foreigners# Inci&ents occ)rre&D (ecame more fre:)entD an& on *)l' /1D /;9$D the Nor4egian Go%ernment &elimite& the Nor4egian fisheries Eone (' ,ecree# Negotiations ha& (een entere& into (' the t4o Go%ernmentsJ the' 4ere p)rs)e& after the ,ecree 4as enacte&D ()t 4itho)t s)ccess# A consi&era(le n)m(er of .ritish tra4lers 4ere arreste& an& con&emne& in /;3- an& /;3;# It 4as then that the +nite& 2ing&om Go%ernment instit)te& procee&ings (efore the Co)rt# The coastal Eone concerne& in the &isp)te is of a &istincti%e config)ration# Its length eCcee&s /D$00 kilometers# Mo)ntaino)s along its 4hole length (roken (' fBor&s an& (a'sD &otte& 4ith co)ntless islan&sD islets an& reefs# The coast &oes not constit)te a clear &i%i&ing line (et4een lan& an& sea# The lan& config)ration stretches o)t into the sea an& 4hat reall' constit)tes the Nor4egian coastline is the o)ter line of the formations %ie4e& as a 4hole# Along the coastal Eone are sit)ate& shallo4 (anks 4hich are %er' rich in fish# These ha%e (een eCploite& from time immemorial (' the inha(itants of the mainlan& an& of the islan&sJ the' &eri%e their li%elihoo& essentiall' from s)ch fishing# The +nite& 2ing&om Go%ernment aske& the Co)rt to state 4hether the lines lai& &o4n (' the /;9$ ,ecree for the p)rpose of &elimitating the Nor4egian fisheries Eone ha%e or ha%e not (een &ra4n in accor&ance 4ith international lo4@4ater mark# R)le has not ac:)ire& the a)thorit' of a general r)le of international ional la4# The principle p)t for4ar& (' the +nite& 2ing&om is that the (ase@line m)st (e the lo4@4ater mark# This is the criterion generall' a&opte& in the practices of States# The parties agree to this criterion ()t the concl)sion that the rele%ant line is not that of the mainlan&D ()t rather that of the KskBaergaar&LD also lea& to the reBection of the re:)irement that the (ase@line sho)l& al4a's follo4 la4D neither in respect of (a's nor the 4aters separating the islan&s of an archipelago# )rthermoreD ten@mile r)le is inapplica(le as against Nor4a' inasm)ch as she has al4a's historicall' oppose& its application to the Nor4egian coast# Nor4a' arg)e& that the /;9$ ,ecree is an application of a tra&itional s'stem of &elimitation in accor&ance 4ith international la4# In its %ie4D international la4 takes into

acco)nt the &i%ersit' of acts an& conce&es that the &elimitation m)st (e a&apte& to the special con&itions o(taining in &ifferent regions# A Nor4egian ,ecree in /-/1D as 4ell as a n)m(er of s)(se:)ent teCts sho4s that the metho& of straight linesD impose& (' geograph'D has (een esta(lishe& in the Nor4egian s'stem an& consoli&ate& (' a constant an& s)fficient long practice# The application of this s'stem enco)ntere& no opposition from other States# E%en the +nite& 2ing&om &i& not contest it for man' 'earsJ it 4as onl' in /;99 that the +nite& 2ing&om ma&e formal an& &efinite protest# The general toleration of the international comm)nit' therefore sho4s that the Nor4egian s'stem 4as not regar&e& as contrar' to international la4# or these reasonsD the Co)rt concl)&e& that the metho& emplo'e& (' the ,ecree of /;9$ is not contrar' to international la4J an& that the (ase@lines fiCe& (' the ,ecree are not contrar' to international la4 either#

N5MI;I5 C5S4 85d$isor% #pinion9 1(&1 I<C<"< 1! MMMLegal conse:)ences for States of the Contin)e& Presence of So)th Africa in Nami(ia <So)th Africa= not4ithstan&ing Sec)rit' Co)ncil Resol)tion 1>6 </;>0=#MMM On 1> Octo(er /;66D the General Assem(l' &eci&e& that the man&ate for So)th 8est Africa 4as terminate& an& that So)th Africa ha& no other right to a&minister the Territor'# In /;6; the Sec)rit' Co)ncil calle& )pon So)th Africa to 4ith&ra4 its a&ministration from the Territor'D an& on 90 *an)ar' /;>0 it &eclare& that the contin)e& presence there of the So)th African a)thorities 4as illegal an& that all acts taken (' the So)th African Go%ernment on (ehalf of or concerning Nami(ia after the termination of the man&ate 4ere illegal an& in%ali&J it f)rther calle& )pon all States to refrain from an' &ealings 4ith the So)th African Go%ernment that 4ere incompati(le 4ith that &eclaration# On 1; *)l' /;>0D the Sec)rit' Co)ncil &eci&e& to re:)est of the Co)rt an a&%isor' opinion on the legal conse:)ences for States of the contin)e& presence of So)th Africa in Nami(ia# The iss)es to (e resol%e& are5 a#= +n&er international conteCtD in the contin)e& presence of So)th Africa in Nami(ia )n&er the man&ate s'stem illegal &espite the iss)ance of the Sec)rit' Co)ncil Resol)tion 1>6N (#= If the ans4er is in the affirmati%eD 4hat are the legal conse:)ences of s)ch factN The Co)rt sai&D the +nite& Nations acting thro)gh its competent organD m)st (e seen a(o%e all as the s)per%isor' instit)tion competent to prono)nce on the con&)ct of the Man&ator'# As s)ch the General Assem(l' of the +nite& NationsD in terminating the Man&ate of So)th Africa o%er Nami(iaD 4as not making a fin&ing on factsD ()t form)lating a legal sit)ation# It 4o)l& not (e correct to ass)me thatD (eca)se it is in principle %este& 4ith recommen&ator' po4ersD it is &e(arre& from a&optingD in special cases 4ithin the frame4ork of its competenceD resol)tions 4hich make &eterminations or ha%e operati%e &esign# Ho4e%erD since the General Assem(l' lacke& the necessar' po4ers to ens)re the 4ith&ra4al of So)th Africa from the Territor' an& thereforeD acting in accor&ance 4ith Article //D paragraph 1D of the CharterD enliste& the co@operation of the Sec)rit' Co)ncil# The Co)ncil for its partD 4hen it a&opte& the resol)tions concerne&D 4as acting in the eCercise of 4hat it &eeme& to (e its primar' responsi(ilit' for the maintenance of peace an& sec)rit'# Article 13 of the Charter %ests in the Sec)rit' Co)ncil the necessar' a)thorit'# Its &ecisions 4ere taken in conformit' 4ith the p)rposes an& principles of the

/0

CharterD )n&er Article 1$ of 4hich it is for mem(er States to compl' 4ith those &ecisionsD e%en those mem(ers of the Sec)rit' Co)ncil 4hich %ote& against them an& those Mem(ers of the +nite& Nations 4ho are not mem(ers of the Co)ncil# Th)sD the &etermination ma&e (' the Sec)rit' Co)ncil is (in&ing )pon So)th AfricaD henceD its contin)e& presence in Nami(ia is illegal an& sho)l& 4ith&ra4 its a&ministration in Nami(ia imme&iatel'# in&ing that the contin)e& presence of So)th Africa in Nami(ia is illegalD the Co)rt f)rther fo)n& that the legal conse:)ences of s)ch act 4o)l& (e5 <a= that State Mem(ers of the +nite& Nations 4ere )n&er an o(ligation to recogniEe the illegalit' of So)th AfricaHs presence in Nami(ia an& the in%ali&it' of its acts on (ehalf of or concerning Nami(iaJ an& <(= to refrain from an' acts impl'ing recognition of the legalit' ofD or len&ing s)pport or assistance toD s)ch presence an& a&ministration# inall'D it state& that it 4as inc)m(ent )pon States 4hich 4ere not Mem(ers of the +nite& Nations to gi%e assistance in the action 4hich ha& (een taken (' the +nite& Nations 4ith regar& to Nami(ia#

//

05N1;4 05M C5S4 8,un-ar% $ Slo$a=ia9 3& ILM 1!2 81(('9 In /;>>D The Treat' (et4een the H)ngarian PeopleGs Rep)(lic an& the CEechoslo%ak Socialist Rep)(lic concerning the Constr)ction an& Operation of the Ga(cOko%o@Nag'maros S'stem of Locks 4as concl)&e& on /6 Septem(er /;>>#The treat' 4as concl)&e& to facilitate the constr)ction of &ams on the ,an)(e Ri%er# It a&&resse& (roa& )tiliEation of the nat)ral reso)rces of the ,an)(e (et4een .ratisla%a an& .)&apestD representing t4o h)n&re& of the Ri%erGs t4o tho)san& eight h)n&re& an& siCt' kilometers# Intense criticism of the constr)ction at Nag'maros centere& )pon en&angerment of the en%ironment an& )ncertaint' of contin)e& economic %ia(ilit'# This gro4ing opposition engen&ere& political press)res )pon the H)ngarian Go%ernment# After initiating t4o ProtocolsD primaril' concerne& 4ith timing of constr)ctionD H)ngar' s)spen&e& 4orks at Nag'maros on 1/ *)l' /;-; pen&ing f)rther en%ironmental st)&ies# In responseD CEechoslo%akia carrie& o)t )nilateral meas)res# H)ngar' then claime& the right to terminate the treat'D at 4hich point the &isp)te 4as s)(mitte& to the International Co)rt of *)stice# H)ngar' also s)(mitte& that it 4as entitle& to terminate the treat' on the gro)n& that CEechoslo%akia ha& %iolate& Articles of the Treat' (' )n&ertaking )nilateral meas)resD c)lminating in the &i%ersion of the ,an)(e# Slo%akia (ecame a part' to the /;>> Treat' as s)ccessor to CEechoslo%akia# On /; Ma' /;;1 H)ngar' p)rporte& to terminate the /;>> Treat' as a conse:)ence of CEechoslo%akiaGs ref)sal to s)spen& 4ork &)ring the process of me&iation# As the Treat' itself &i& not feat)re a cla)se go%erning terminationD H)ngar' proffere& fi%e arg)ments to %ali&ate its actions5 a state of necessit'D s)per%ening impossi(ilit' of performanceD f)n&amental change of circ)mstancesD material (reach an& the emergence of ne4 norms of international en%ironmental la4# Slo%akia conteste& each of these (ases# The Co)rt easil' &ismisse& H)ngar'Gs first claimD simpl' stating that a state of necessit' is not a gro)n& for termination# E%en if a state of necessit' is esta(lishe&D as soon as it ceases to eCist treat' o(ligations a)tomaticall' re%i%e# The &octrine of impossi(ilit' of performance is encaps)late& in Article 6/ of the !ienna Con%ention on the La4 of TreatiesD 4hich re:)ires the Kpermanent &isappearance or &estr)ction of an o(Bect in&ispensa(le for the eCec)tion of the treat'L# In this caseD the legal regime go%erning the Ga(cOko%o@Nag'maros ProBect &i& not cease to eCist# Articles /$D /; an& 10 of the /;>> Treat' pro%i&e& the means thro)gh 4hich 4orks co)l& (e rea&B)ste& in accor&ance 4ith economic an& ecological imperati%es# )rthermoreD Article 6/<1= of the !ienna Con%ention on the La4 of Treaties precl)&es application of the &octrine 4here the impossi(ilit' complaine& of is the res)lt of a (reach (' the

/1

terminating Part'# If the Boint in%estment ha& (een hampere& to a point 4here performance 4as impossi(leD it 4as a conse:)ence of H)ngar'Gs a(an&onment of 4orks# Article 61 of the !ienna Con%ention on the La4 of Treaties co&ifies international la4 in respect of f)n&amental change of circ)mstances an& treat' relations# H)ngar' s)(mitte& that the /;>> Treat' 4as originall' inten&e& to (e a %ehicle for socialist integration# )n&amental changes cite& 4ere the &isplacement of a Ksingle an& in&i%isi(le operational s'stemL (' a )nilateral schemeJ the emergence of (oth States into a market econom'J the m)tation of a frame4ork treat' into an imm)ta(le normJ an& the transformation of a treat' consistent 4ith en%ironmental protection into Ka prescription for en%ironmental &isasterL# The Co)rt hel& that altho)gh political changes an& &iminishe& economic %ia(ilit' 4ere rele%ant to the concl)sion of a treat'D the' 4ere not so closel' linke& 4ith the o(Bect an& p)rpose of the /;>> Treat' so as to constit)te an essential (asis of the consent of the Parties# Ne4 &e%elopments in the efficac' of en%ironmental kno4le&ge 4ere not )nforeseen (' the Treat' an& cannot (e sai& to represent a f)n&amental change# The Co)rt &i& not consi&er 4hether the emergence of ne4 en%ironmental norms 4o)l& catal'Ee the application of Article 61 in a sit)ation 4here the terms of a treat' stan& a(horrent to ne4 norms# H)ngar' claime& that !ariant C materiall' (reache& Articles /$D /; an& 10 of the /;>> Treat'D concerning the protection of 4ater :)alit'D the preser%ation of nat)re an& g)ar&ianship of fishing interests# Article 60<9= of the !ienna Con%ention on the La4 of Treaties recogniEes material (reach of a treat' as a gro)n& for termination on the part of the inB)re& State# ECten&ing its reasoning on the principle of approCimate applicationD the Co)rt hel& that a material (reach onl' occ)rre& )pon the &i%ersion of the ,an)(e# As CEechoslo%akia &amme& the ,an)(e after /; Ma' /;;1D H)ngar'Gs p)rporte& termination 4as premat)re an& th)s in%ali&# As its final (asis for the B)stification of terminationD H)ngar' a&%ocate& thatD p)rs)ant to the preca)tionar' principle in en%ironmental la4D the o(ligation not to ca)se s)(stanti%e &amage to the territor' of another State ha& e%ol%e& into an o(ligation erga omnes <sic )tere t)o )t alien)m non lae&as=# Slo%akia co)ntere& this arg)ment 4ith the claim that there ha& (een no inter%ening &e%elopments in international en%ironmental la4 that ga%e rise to B)s cogens norms that 4o)l& o%erri&e pro%isions of the /;>> Treat'# The Co)rt a%oi&e& consi&eration of these propositionsD concl)&ing instea& that Kthese ne4 concerns ha%e enhance& the rele%ance of Articles /$D /; an& 10L# Gi%en that international en%ironmental la4 is in its formati%e stagesD it is )nfort)nate that the International Co)rt of *)stice &i& not grasp at this opport)nit' to &isc)ss its role in the go%ernance of relations (et4een States# To that en&D the Co)rt ma' ha%e clarifie& the contro%ersial application of the sic )tere principle to mo&if' notions of )nrestricte& so%ereignt' in the Trail Smelter ar(itration#

/9

1NIT40 :IN60#M #2 6+45T ;+IT5IN 5N0 N#+T,4+N I+4L5N0 7< IC4L5N0 International Court of "ustice 1& 5u- &2 > 25 "ul &4 ?1(&4@ IC" +ep< 3 On /3 April /;>1D the +nite& 2ing&om instit)te& procee&ings against Icelan& concerning a &isp)te o%er the propose& eCtension (' Icelan& of the limits of its eCcl)si%e fisheries B)ris&iction from /1 na)tical miles to $0 na)tical miles# +nite& 2ing&om conten&s that s)ch act)ation is a (reach of an agreement (et4een the partiesD e%i&ence& (' an ECchange of Notes in /;6/# It specifie& therein that the +nite& 2ing&om 4o)l& no longer o(Bect to a /1@mile fisher' EoneD that Icelan& 4o)l& contin)e to 4ork for the implementation of the /;$; resol)tion regar&ing the eCtension of fisheries B)ris&iction that 4o)l& gi%e the +nite& 2ing&om siC months notice of s)ch eCtension an& that in case of a &isp)te in relation to s)ch eCtensionD the matter shallD at the re:)est of either Part'D (e referre& to the International Co)rt of *)stice# Icelan& &eclare& that the Co)rt lacke& B)ris&ictionD an& &ecline& to (e represente& in the procee&ings# It arg)e& that the ECchange of Notes in /;6/ has alrea&' (een terminate& as e%i&ence& (' the polic' statement iss)e& (' its Go%ernment on 3 *)l' /;>/ stating that Kthe agreements on fisheries B)ris&iction 4ith the .ritish an& the 8est Germans (e terminate& an& that a &ecision (e taken on the eCtension of fisheries B)ris&iction to $0 na)tical miles from (ase linesD an& that this eCtension (ecome effecti%e not later than Septem(er /stD /;>1#P At the re:)est of the +nite& 2ing&om an& the e&eral Rep)(lic of German' <4hich also conteste& the claim of Icelan&=D the Co)rt in /;>1 in&icate&D an& in /;>9 confirme&D pro%isional meas)res to the effect that Icelan& sho)l& refrain from implementingD 4ith respect to their %esselsD the ne4 Reg)lations for the eCtension of the fisher' EoneD an& that the ann)al catch of those %essels in the &isp)te& area sho)l& (e limite& to certain maCima# In *)&gments &eli%ere& on 1 e(r)ar' /;>9D the Co)rt fo)n& that it possesse& B)ris&iction to &eal 4ith the merits of the &isp)te# The facts re:)iring the Co)rtGs consi&eration in a&B)&icating )pon the claim 4ere atteste& (' &oc)mentar' e%i&ence 4hose acc)rac' appeare& to (e no reason to &o)(t# As for the la4D altho)gh it 4as to (e regrette& that Icelan& ha& faile& to appearD the Co)rt 4as ne%ertheless &eeme& to take notice of international la4D 4hich la' 4ithin its o4n B)&icial kno4le&ge# Ha%ing taken acco)nt of the legal position of each Part' an& acte& 4ith partic)lar circ)mspection in %ie4 of the a(sence of the respon&ent StateD the Co)rt consi&ere& that it ha& (efore it the elements necessar' to ena(le it to &eli%er B)&gment#

/3

In *)&gments on the merits of 1$ *)l' /;>3D it fo)n& that the Icelan&ic Reg)lations constit)ting a )nilateral eCtension of eCcl)si%e fishing rights to a limit of $0 na)tical miles 4ere not opposa(le to the Go%ernment of the +nite& 2ing&omD that the Go%ernment of Icelan& 4as not entitle& )nilaterall' to eCcl)&e +nite& 2ing&om fishing %essels from the &isp)te& areaD an& that the parties 4ere )n&er m)t)al o(ligations to )n&ertake negotiations in goo& faith for the e:)ita(le sol)tion of their &ifferences concerning their respecti%e fisher' rights#

/$

Chapter 4: International Law and Municipal Law ?6<+< No< 13'5&*< #ctober 1*A 2***@ ;5B5N 8;a-on- 5l%ansan- Ma=aba%an9A a "1N: 725 M#74M4NTA ;IS,#/ T#M5S MILL5M4N5 ?6<+< No< 13'5&2< #ctober 1*A 2***@ On March /3D /;3>D the Philippines an& the +nite& States of America forge& a Militar' .ases Agreement 4hich formaliEe&D among othersD the )se of installations in the Philippine territor' (' +nite& States militar' personnel# To f)rther strengthen their &efense an& sec)rit' relationshipD the Philippines an& the +nite& States entere& into a M)t)al ,efense Treat' on A)g)st 90D /;$/# +n&er the treat'D the parties agree& to respon& to an' eCternal arme& attack on their territor'D arme& forcesD p)(lic %esselsD an& aircraft# In %ie4 of the impen&ing eCpiration of the RP@+S Militar' .ases Agreement in /;;/D the Philippines an& the +nite& States negotiate& for a possi(le eCtension of the militar' (ases agreement# On *)l' /-D /;;>D the +nite& States panelD hea&e& (' +S ,efense ,ep)t' Assistant Secretar' for Asia Pacific 2)rt Camp(ellD met 4ith the Philippine panelD hea&e& (' oreign Affairs +n&ersecretar' Ro&olfo Se%erino *r#D to eCchange notes on Kthe complementing strategic interests of the +nite& States an& the Philippines in the Asia@Pacific region#L .oth si&es &isc)sse&D among other thingsD the possi(le elements of the !isiting orces Agreement <! A for (re%it'=# Negotiations (' (oth panels on the ! A le& to a consoli&ate& &raft teCtD 4hich in t)rn res)lte& to a final series of conferences an& negotiations that c)lminate& in Manila on *an)ar' /1 an& /9D /;;-# ThereafterD then Presi&ent i&el !# Ramos appro%e& the ! AD 4hich 4as respecti%el' signe& (' p)(lic respon&ent Secretar' SiaEon an& +nites States Am(assa&or Thomas H)((ar& on e(r)ar' /0D /;;-# On Octo(er $D /;;-D Presi&ent *oseph E# Estra&aD thro)gh respon&ent Secretar' of oreign AffairsD ratifie& the ! A# On Octo(er 6D /;;-D the Presi&entD acting thro)gh respon&ent ECec)ti%e Secretar' Ronal&o AamoraD officiall' transmitte& to the Senate of the PhilippinesD the Instr)ment of RatificationD the letter of the Presi&ent an& the ! AD for conc)rrence p)rs)ant to Section 1/D Article !II of the /;-> Constit)tion# The SenateD in t)rnD referre& the ! A to its Committee on oreign RelationsD chaire& (' Senator .las # OpleD an& its Committee on National ,efense an& Sec)rit'D chaire& (' Senator Ro&olfo G# .iaEonD for their Boint consi&eration an& recommen&ation# ThereafterD Boint p)(lic hearings 4ere hel& (' the t4o Committees#

/6

On Ma' 9D /;;;D the Committees s)(mitte& Propose& Senate Resol)tion No# 339 recommen&ing the conc)rrence of the Senate to the ! A an& the creation of a Legislati%e O%ersight Committee to o%ersee its implementation# ,e(ates then ens)e&# On Ma' 1>D /;;;D Propose& Senate Resol)tion No# 339 4as appro%e& (' the SenateD (' a t4o@thir&s <1Q9= %ote of its mem(ers# Senate Resol)tion No# 339 4as then re@n)m(ere& as Senate Resol)tion No# /-# On *)ne /D /;;;D the ! A officiall' entere& into force after an ECchange of Notes (et4een respon&ent Secretar' SiaEon an& +nite& States Am(assa&or H)((ar&# The ! AD 4hich consists of a Pream(le an& nine <;= ArticlesD pro%i&es for the mechanism for reg)lating the circ)mstances an& con&itions )n&er 4hich +S Arme& orces an& &efense personnel ma' (e present in the Philippines# Petitioners R as legislatorsD non@go%ernmental organiEationsD citiEensD an& taCpa'ers R assail the constit)tionalit' of the ! A an& imp)te to herein respon&ents gra%e a()se of &iscretion in ratif'ing the agreement# The iss)es are5 I# ,o petitioners ha%e legal stan&ing as concerne& citiEensD taCpa'ersD or legislators to :)estion the constit)tionalit' of the ! AN II# Is the ! A go%erne& (' the pro%isions of Section 1/D Article !II or of Section 1$D Article I!III of the Constit)tionN III# ,o the +nite& States has to recogniEe ! A as a treat' to (e (in&ingN I At the o)tsetD respon&ents challenge petitioner is stan&ing to s)eD on the gro)n& that the latter ha%e not sho4n an' interest in the caseD an& that petitioners faile& to s)(stantiate that the' ha%e s)staine&D or 4ill s)stain &irect inB)r' (eca)se of the operation of the ! A# PetitionersD on the other han&D co)nter that the %ali&it' or in%ali&it' of the ! A is a matter of transcen&ental importance 4hich B)stifies their stan&ing# A part' (ringing a s)it challenging the constit)tionalit' of a la4D actD or stat)te m)st sho4 Knot onl' that the la4 is in%ali&D ()t also that he has s)staine& or in is in imme&iateD or imminent &anger of s)staining some &irect inB)r' as a res)lt of its enforcementD an& not merel' that he s)ffers there(' in some in&efinite 4a'#L He m)st sho4 that he has (eenD or is a(o)t to (eD &enie& some right or pri%ilege to 4hich he is la4f)ll' entitle&D or that he is a(o)t to (e s)(Becte& to some ()r&ens or penalties (' reason of the stat)te complaine& of# In the case (efore )sD petitioners faile& to sho4D to the satisfaction of this Co)rtD that the' ha%e s)staine&D or are in &anger of s)staining an' &irect inB)r' as a res)lt of the enforcement of the ! A# As taCpa'ersD petitioners ha%e not esta(lishe& that the ! A in%ol%es the eCercise (' Congress of its taCing or spen&ing po4ers#

/>

Clearl'D inasm)ch as no p)(lic f)n&s raise& (' taCation are in%ol%e& in this caseD an& in the a(sence of an' allegation (' petitioners that p)(lic f)n&s are (eing misspent or illegall' eCpen&e&D petitionersD as taCpa'ersD ha%e no legal stan&ing to assail the legalit' of the ! A# Similarl'D Representati%es 8ig(erto TaSa&aD Agapito A:)ino an& *oker Arro'oD as petitioners@legislatorsD &o not possess the re:)isite loc)s stan&i to maintain the present s)it# 8e cannotD at )phol& petitionersG stan&ing as mem(ers of CongressD in the a(sence of a clear sho4ing of an' &irect inB)r' to their person or to the instit)tion to 4hich the' (elong# In the same %einD petitioner Integrate& .ar of the Philippines <I.P= is strippe& of stan&ing in these cases# As aptl' o(ser%e& (' the Solicitor GeneralD the I.P lacks the legal capacit' to (ring this s)it in the a(sence of a (oar& resol)tion from its .oar& of Go%ernors a)thoriEing its National Presi&ent to commence the present action# II The /;-> Philippine Constit)tion contains t4o pro%isions re:)iring the conc)rrence of the Senate on treaties or international agreements# Section 1/D Article !IID 4hich herein respon&ents in%okeD rea&s5 KNo treat' or international agreement shall (e %ali& an& effecti%e )nless conc)rre& in (' at least t4o@thir&s of all the Mem(ers of the Senate#L Section 1$D Article I!IIID pro%i&es5 KAfter the eCpiration in /;;/ of the Agreement (et4een the Rep)(lic of the Philippines an& the +nite& States of America concerning Militar' .asesD foreign militar' (asesD troopsD or facilities shall not (e allo4e& in the Philippines eCcept )n&er a treat' &)l' conc)rre& in (' the senate an&D 4hen the Congress so re:)iresD ratifie& (' a maBorit' of the %otes cast (' the people in a national referen&)m hel& for that p)rposeD an& recogniEe& as a treat' (' the other contracting State#L Section 1/D Article !II &eals 4ith treaties or international agreements in generalD in 4hich caseD the conc)rrence of at least t4o@thir&s <1Q9= of all the Mem(ers of the Senate is re:)ire& to make the s)(Bect treat'D or international agreementD %ali& an& (in&ing on the part of the Philippines# This pro%ision la's &o4n the general r)le on treatise or international agreements an& applies to an' form of treat' 4ith a 4i&e %ariet' of s)(Bect matterD s)ch asD ()t not limite& toD eCtra&ition or taC treatise or those economic in nat)re# All treaties or international agreements entere& into (' the PhilippinesD regar&less of s)(Bect matterD co%erageD or partic)lar &esignation or appellationD re:)ires the conc)rrence of the Senate to (e %ali& an& effecti%e# In contrastD Section 1$D Article I!III is a special pro%ision that applies to treaties 4hich in%ol%e the presence of foreign militar' (asesD troops or facilities in the Philippines# +n&er this pro%isionD the conc)rrence of the Senate is onl' one of the re:)isites to ren&er compliance 4ith the constit)tional re:)irements an& to consi&er the agreement (in&ing on the Philippines# Section 1$D Article I!III f)rther re:)ires that

/-

Kforeign militar' (asesD troopsD or facilitiesL ma' (e allo4e& in the Philippines onl' (' %irt)e of a treat' &)l' conc)rre& in (' the SenateD ratifie& (' a maBorit' of the %otes cast in a national referen&)m hel& for that p)rpose if so re:)ire& (' CongressD an& recogniEe& as s)ch (' the other contracting state# It is o)r consi&ere& %ie4 that (oth constit)tional pro%isionsD far from contra&icting each otherD act)all' share some common gro)n&# These constit)tional pro%isions (oth em(o&' phrases in the negati%e an& th)sD are &eeme& prohi(itor' in man&ate an& character# In partic)larD Section 1/ opens 4ith the cla)se KNo treat' C C CDL an& Section 1$ contains the phrase Kshall not (e allo4e&#L A&&itionall'D in (oth instancesD the conc)rrence of the Senate is in&ispensa(le to ren&er the treat' or international agreement %ali& an& effecti%e# To o)r min&D the fact that the Presi&ent referre& the ! A to the Senate )n&er Section 1/D Article !IID an& that the Senate eCten&e& its conc)rrence )n&er the same pro%isionD is immaterial# or in either caseD 4hether )n&er Section 1/D Article !II or Section 1$D Article I!IIID the f)n&amental la4 is cr'stalline that the conc)rrence of the Senate is man&ator' to compl' 4ith the strict constit)tional re:)irements# As a 4holeD the ! A is an agreementD 4hich &efines the treatment of +nite& States troops an& personnel %isiting the Philippines# It pro%i&es for the g)i&elines to go%ern s)ch %isits of militar' personnelD an& f)rther &efines the rights of the +nite& States an& the Philippine go%ernment in the matter of criminal B)ris&ictionD mo%ement of %essel an& aircraftD importation an& eCportation of e:)ipmentD materialsD an& s)pplies# +n&o)(te&l'D Section 1$D Article I!IIID 4hich specificall' &eals 4ith treaties in%ol%ing foreign militar' (asesD troopsD or facilitiesD sho)l& appl' in the instant case# To a certain eCtent an& in a limite& senseD ho4e%erD the pro%isions of section 1/D Article !II 4ill fin& applica(ilit' 4ith regar& to the iss)e an& for the sole p)rpose of &etermining the n)m(er of %otes re:)ire& to o(tain the %ali& conc)rrence of the SenateD as 4ill (e f)rther &isc)sse& here)n&er# At this B)nct)reD 4e shall then resol%e the iss)e of 4hether or not the re:)irements of Section 1$ 4ere complie& 4ith 4hen the Senate ga%e its conc)rrence to the ! A# Section 1$D Article I!III &isallo4s foreign militar' (asesD troopsD or facilities in the co)ntr'D )nless the follo4ing con&itions are s)fficientl' metD %iE5 <a= it m)st (e )n&er a treat'J <(= the treat' m)st (e &)l' conc)rre& in (' the Senate an&D 4hen so re:)ire& (' congressD ratifie& (' a maBorit' of the %otes cast (' the people in a national referen&)mJ an& <c= recogniEe& as a treat' (' the other contracting state# There is no &isp)te as to the presence of the first t4o re:)isites in the case of the ! A# The conc)rrence han&e& (' the Senate thro)gh Resol)tion No# /- is in accor&ance 4ith the pro%isions of the Constit)tionD 4hether )n&er the general re:)irement in Section 1/D Article !IID or the specific man&ate mentione& in Section 1$D Article I!IIID the pro%ision in the latter article re:)iring ratification (' a maBorit' of the %otes cast in a national referen&)m (eing )nnecessar' since Congress has not re:)ire& it#

/;

As to the matter of %otingD Section 1/D Article !II partic)larl' re:)ires that a treat' or international agreementD to (e %ali& an& effecti%eD m)st (e conc)rre& in (' at least t4o@thir&s of all the mem(ers of the Senate# On the other han&D Section 1$D Article I!III simpl' pro%i&es that the treat' (e K&)l' conc)rre& in (' the Senate#L Appl'ing the foregoing constit)tional pro%isionsD a t4o@thir&s %ote of all the mem(ers of the Senate is clearl' re:)ire& so that the conc)rrence contemplate& (' la4 ma' (e %ali&l' o(taine& an& &eeme& present# 8hile it is tr)e that Section 1$D Article I!III re:)iresD among other thingsD that the treat'@the ! AD in the instant case@(e K&)l' conc)rre& in (' the SenateDL it is %er' tr)e ho4e%er that sai& pro%ision m)st (e relate& an& %ie4e& in light of the clear man&ate em(o&ie& in Section 1/D Article !IID 4hich in more specific termsD re:)ires that the conc)rrence of a treat'D or international agreementD (e ma&e (' a t4o @thir&s %ote of all the mem(ers of the Senate# In&ee&D Section 1$D Article I!III m)st not (e treate& in isolation to section 1/D ArticleD !II# As note&D the Kconc)rrence re:)irementL )n&er Section 1$D Article I!III m)st (e constr)e& in relation to the pro%isions of Section 1/D Article !II# In a more partic)lar lang)ageD the conc)rrence of the Senate contemplate& )n&er Section 1$D Article I!III means that at least t4o@thir&s of all the mem(ers of the Senate fa%ora(l' %ote to conc)r 4ith the treat'@the ! A in the instant case# +n&er these circ)mstancesD the charter pro%i&es that the Senate shall (e compose& of t4ent'@fo)r <13= Senators# 8itho)t a tinge of &o)(tD t4o@thir&s <1Q9= of this fig)reD or not less than siCteen </6= mem(ersD fa%ora(l' acting on the proposal is an )n:)estiona(le compliance 4ith the re:)isite n)m(er of %otes mentione& in Section 1/ of Article !II# The fact that there 4ere act)all' t4ent'@three <19= inc)m(ent Senators at the time the %oting 4as ma&eD 4ill not alter in an' significant 4a' the circ)mstance that more than t4o@thir&s of the mem(ers of the Senate conc)rre& 4ith the propose& ! AD e%en if the t4o@thir&s %ote re:)irement is (ase& on this fig)re of act)al mem(ers <19=# In this regar&D the f)n&amental la4 is clear that t4o@thir&s of the 13 SenatorsD or at least /6 fa%ora(le %otesD s)ffice so as to ren&er compliance 4ith the strict constit)tional man&ate of gi%ing conc)rrence to the s)(Bect treat'# III 8e shall no4 pass )pon an& &el%e on the re:)irement that the ! A sho)l& (e recogniEe& as a treat' (' the +nite& States of America# 8hether the +nite& States has to recogniEe ! A as a treat' to (e (in&ing# Petitioners conten& that the phrase KrecogniEe& as a treat'DL em(o&ie& in section 1$D Article I!IIID means that the ! A sho)l& ha%e the a&%ice an& consent of the +nite& States Senate p)rs)ant to its o4n constit)tional processD an& that it sho)l& not (e consi&ere& merel' an eCec)ti%e agreement (' the +nite& States# In oppositionD respon&ents arg)e that the letter of +nite& States Am(assa&or H)((ar& stating that the ! A is (in&ing on the +nite& States Go%ernment is concl)si%eD on the point that the ! A is recogniEe& as a treat' (' the +nite& States of America#

10

Accor&ing to respon&entsD the ! AD to (e (in&ingD m)st onl' (e accepte& as a treat' (' the +nite& States# This Co)rt is of the firm %ie4 that the phrase KrecogniEe& as a treat'L means that the other contracting part' accepts or ackno4le&ges the agreement as a treat'# To re:)ire the other contracting stateD the +nite& States of America in this caseD to s)(mit the ! A to the +nite& States Senate for conc)rrence p)rs)ant to its Constit)tionD is to accor& strict meaning to the phrase# A treat'D as &efine& (' the !ienna Con%ention on the La4 of TreatiesD is Kan international instr)ment concl)&e& (et4een States in 4ritten form an& go%erne& (' international la4D 4hether em(o&ie& in a single instr)ment or in t4o or more relate& instr)mentsD an& 4hate%er its partic)lar &esignation#L There are man' other terms )se& for a treat' or international agreementD some of 4hich are5 actD protocolD agreementD compromis &G ar(itrageD concor&atD con%entionD &eclarationD eCchange of notesD pactD stat)teD charter an& mo&)s %i%en&i# All 4ritersD from H)go Groti)s on4ar&D ha%e pointe& o)t that the names or titles of international agreements incl)&e& )n&er the general term treat' ha%e little or no legal significance# Certain terms are )sef)lD ()t the' f)rnish little more than mere &escription# Th)sD in international la4D there is no &ifference (et4een treaties an& eCec)ti%e agreements in their (in&ing effect )pon states concerne&D as long as the negotiating f)nctionaries ha%e remaine& 4ithin their po4ers# International la4 contin)es to make no &istinction (et4een treaties an& eCec)ti%e agreements5 the' are e:)all' (in&ing o(ligations )pon nations# In o)r B)ris&ictionD 4e ha%e recogniEe& the (in&ing effect of eCec)ti%e agreements e%en 4itho)t the conc)rrence of the Senate or Congress# In Commissioner of C)stoms %s# Eastern Sea Tra&ingD 4e ha& occasion to prono)nce5 KC C C the right of the ECec)ti%e to enter into (in&ing agreements 4itho)t the necessit' of s)(se:)ent congressional appro%al has (een confirme& (' long )sage# rom the earliest &a's of o)r histor' 4e ha%e entere& into eCec)ti%e agreements co%ering s)ch s)(Bects as commercial an& cons)lar relationsD most@fa%ore&@nation rightsD patent rightsD tra&emark an& cop'right protectionD postal an& na%igation arrangements an& the settlement of claims# The %ali&it' of these has ne%er (een serio)sl' :)estione& (' o)r co)rts# K )rthermoreD the +nite& States S)preme Co)rt has eCpressl' recogniEe& the %ali&it' an& constit)tionalit' of eCec)ti%e agreements entere& into 4itho)t Senate appro%al# 8orth stressing tooD is that the ratificationD (' the Presi&entD of the ! A an& the conc)rrence of the Senate sho)l& (e taken as a clear an )ne:)i%ocal eCpression of o)r nationGs consent to (e (o)n& (' sai& treat'D 4ith the concomitant &)t' to )phol& the o(ligations an& responsi(ilities em(o&ie& there )n&er#

1/

Ratification is generall' hel& to (e an eCec)ti%e actD )n&ertaken (' the hea& of the state or of the go%ernmentD as the case ma' (eD thro)gh 4hich the formal acceptance of the treat' is proclaime&# A State ma' pro%i&e in its &omestic legislation the process of ratification of a treat'# The consent of the State to (e (o)n& (' a treat' is eCpresse& (' ratification 4hen5 <a= the treat' pro%i&es for s)ch ratificationD <(= it is other4ise esta(lishe& that the negotiating States agree& that ratification sho)l& (e re:)ire&D <c= the representati%e of the State has signe& the treat' s)(Bect to ratificationD or <&= the intention of the State to sign the treat' s)(Bect to ratification appears from the f)ll po4ers of its representati%eD or 4as eCpresse& &)ring the negotiation# In o)r B)ris&ictionD the po4er to ratif' is %este& in the Presi&ent an& notD as commonl' (elie%e&D in the legislat)re# The role of the Senate is limite& onl' to gi%ing or 4ithhol&ing its consentD or conc)rrenceD to the ratification# 8ith the ratification of the ! AD 4hich is e:)i%alent to final acceptanceD an& 4ith the eCchange of notes (et4een the Philippines an& the +nite& States of AmericaD it no4 (ecomes o(ligator' an& inc)m(ent on o)r partD )n&er the principles of international la4D to (e (o)n& (' the terms of the agreement# Th)sD no less than Section 1D Article II of the Constit)tionD &eclares that the Philippines a&opts the generall' accepte& principles of international la4 as part of the la4 of the lan& an& a&heres to the polic' of peaceD e:)alit'D B)sticeD free&omD cooperation an& amit' 4ith all nations# As an integral part of the comm)nit' of nationsD 4e are responsi(le to ass)re that o)r go%ernmentD Constit)tion an& la4s 4ill carr' o)t o)r international o(ligation# HenceD 4e cannot rea&il' plea& the Constit)tion as a con%enient eCc)se for non@compliance 4ith o)r o(ligationsD &)ties an& responsi(ilities )n&er international la4# Article /9 of the ,eclaration of Rights an& ,)ties of States a&opte& (' the International La4 Commission in /;3; pro%i&es5 KE%er' State has the &)t' to carr' o)t in goo& faith its o(ligations arising from treaties an& other so)rces of international la4D an& it ma' not in%oke pro%isions in its constit)tion or its la4s as an eCc)se for fail)re to perform this &)t'#L E:)all' important is Article 16 of the con%ention 4hich pro%i&es that KE%er' treat' in force is (in&ing )pon the parties to it an& m)st (e performe& (' them in goo& faith#L This is kno4n as the principle of pacta s)nt ser%an&a 4hich preser%es the sanctit' of treaties an& ha%e (een one of the most f)n&amental principles of positi%e international la4D s)pporte& (' the B)rispr)&ence of international tri()nals# As to the po4er to conc)r 4ith treatiesD the constit)tion lo&ges the same 4ith the Senate alone# Th)sD once the Senate performs that po4erD or eCercises its prerogati%e 4ithin the (o)n&aries prescri(e& (' the Constit)tionD the conc)rrence cannotD in like mannerD (e %ie4e& to constit)te an a()se of po4erD m)ch less gra%e a()se thereof# Corollaril'D the SenateD in the eCercise of its &iscretion an& acting 4ithin the limits of s)ch po4erD ma' not (e similarl' fa)lte& for ha%ing simpl' performe& a task conferre& an& sanctione& (' no less than the f)n&amental la4#

11

or the role of the Senate in relation to treaties is essentiall' legislati%e in characterJ the SenateD as an in&epen&ent (o&' possesse& of its o4n er)&ite min&D has the prerogati%e to either accept or reBect the propose& agreementD an& 4hate%er action it takes in the eCercise of its 4i&e latit)&e of &iscretionD pertains to the 4is&om rather than the legalit' of the act# In this senseD the Senate partakes a principalD 'et &elicateD role in keeping the principles of separation of po4ers an& of checks an& (alances ali%e an& %igilantl' ens)res that these cherishe& r)&iments remain tr)e to their form in a &emocratic go%ernment s)ch as o)rs# The Constit)tion th)s animatesD thro)gh this treat'@ conc)rring po4er of the SenateD a health' s'stem of checks an& (alances in&ispensa(le to4ar& o)r nationGs p)rs)it of political mat)rit' an& gro4th# Tr)e eno)ghD r)&imentar' is the principle that matters pertaining to the 4is&om of a legislati%e act are (e'on& the am(it an& pro%ince of the co)rts to in:)ire# In fineD a(sent an' clear sho4ing of gra%e a()se of &iscretion on the part of respon&entsD this Co)rt@ as the final ar(iter of legal contro%ersies an& sta)nch sentinel of the rights of the people @ is then 4itho)t po4er to con&)ct an inc)rsion an& me&&le 4ith s)ch affairs p)rel' eCec)ti%e an& legislati%e in character an& nat)re# or the Constit)tion no lessD maps o)t the &istinct (o)n&aries an& limits the metes an& (o)n&s 4ithin 4hich each of the three political (ranches of go%ernment ma' eCercise the po4ers eCcl)si%el' an& essentiall' conferre& to it (' la4# Petitions &ismisse&

19

,450 M#N4B C5S4S 40B4 7< +#;4+TS#N 112 1<S< 5'* 1''4 The s)it is (ro)ght to reco%er from Ro(ertsonD collector of the port of Ne4 7orkD s)m of mone' he recei%e& from the plaintiffsD on acco)nt of their lan&ing in that portD passengers not citiEens of the +nite& States# The collection 4as (ase& on the act of Congress entitle& KAn act to reg)late immigrationL on A)g)st 9D /--1# The act pro%i&es that there shall (e le%ie&D collecte&D an& pai& a &)t' of $0 cents for each an& e%er' passengerD not a citiEen of the +nite& StatesD 4ho shall come (' steam or sail %essel from a foreign port to an' port 4ithin the +nite& States# The sai& &)t' shall (e pai& to the collector of c)stoms of the port 4here the passenger shall come# The plaintiffs are partners in tra&e in the cit' of Ne4 7ork )n&er the firm name )nchD E&'e T Co# in%ol%e& in the ()siness of transporting passengers an& freight )pon the high seas (et4een Hollan& an& the +nite& States of America as consignees an& agents# On Octo(er 1D /--1D it saile& to the port of Ne4 7ork an& carrie& 9-1 persons not citiEens of +nite& States an& among sai& personsD there 4ere 10 se%erall' )n&er age of one 'ear an& $; 4ere se%erall' (et4een the ages of one 'ear an& eight 'ears# On this acco)ntD Ro(ertsonD the collector of the sai& portD &eci&e& that the plaintiffs m)st pa' a &)t' of /;/ &ollars for the sai& passengers costing $0 cents for each of the 9-1 passengers (efore the' (e permitte& to lan&# The plaintiffs pai& an& proteste& against the pa'ment# The circ)it co)rt ren&ere& B)&gment in fa%or of the &efen&ant an& 4hich is calle& )pon re%ie4# The iss)e is 4hether the act of Congress %iolates treaties (' the +nites States 4ith frien&l' nationsN The opinion of the co)rt is that as far as the pro%isions of the act ma' (e fo)n& to (e in conflict 4ith an' treat' 4ith foreign nationD the act m)st pre%ail in all B)&icial co)rts of this co)ntr'# The co)rt hel& that5 KA treat' is primaril' a compact (et4een in&epen&ent nations# It &epen&s for the enforcement of its pro%isions on the interest an& the honor of the go%ernments 4hich are parties to it# If these failD its infraction (ecomes the s)(Bect of international negotiations an& reclamationsD so far as the inB)re& part' chooses to seek re&ressD 4hich ma' in the en& (e enforce& (' act)al 4ar# It is o(%io)s that 4ith all this the B)&icial co)rts ha%e nothing to &o an& can gi%e no re&ress#

13

.)t a treat' ma' also contain pro%ision 4hich confer certain rights )pon the citiEens or s)(Bects of one nations resi&ing in the territorial limits of the otherD 4hich partake of the nat)re of m)nicipal la4D an& 4hich are capa(le of enforcement as (et4een pri%ate parties in the co)rts of the co)ntr'# ###The constit)tion of the +nite& States places pro%isions in the treaties in the same categor' as other la4s of Congress (' its &eclaration that Kthis constit)tion an& the la4s ma&e in p)rs)ance thereofD an& all treaties ma&e or 4hich shall (e ma&e )n&er a)thorit' of the +nite& StatesD shall (e the s)preme la4 of the lan&L# A treat'D thenD is a la4 of the lan& as an act of Congress isD 4hene%er its pro%isions prescri(e a r)le (' 4hich the rights of the pri%ate citiEen or s)(Bect ma' (e &etermine&# An& 4hen s)ch rights are of a nat)re to (e enforce& in a co)rt of B)sticeD that co)rt resorts to the treat' for a r)le &ecision for the case (efore it as it 4o)l& to a stat)te# .)t e%en in this aspect of the case there is nothing in this la4 4hich makes it irrepeala(le or )nchangea(le# The constit)tion gi%es it no s)periorit' o%er an& act of Congress in this respectD 4hich ma' (e repeale& or mo&ifie& (' an act of a later &ate# Nor is there an'thing in its essential characterD or in (ranches of the go%ernment (' 4hich the treat' is ma&eD 4hich gi%es it this s)perior sanctit'# The co)rt opine& that so far as a treat' ma&e (' the +nite& States 4ith an' foreign nation can (ecome the s)(Bect of B)&icial cogniEance in the co)rts of this co)ntr'D it is s)(Bect to s)ch acts as Congress ma' pass for its enforcementD mo&ificationD or repeal#L The B)&gment of the circ)it co)rt is affirme&#

1$

3hitne% $< +obertson 124 1<S< 1(* 81'''9 The plaintiffs are merchantsD &oing ()siness in the cit' of Ne4 7orkJ an& in A)g)stD /--1D the' importe& a large :)antit' of Hcentrif)gal an& molasses s)garsDH the pro&)ce an& man)fact)re of the islan& of San ,omingo# These goo&s 4ere similar in kin& to s)gars pro&)ce& in the Ha4aiian islan&sD 4hich are a&mitte& free of &)t' )n&er the treat' 4ith the king of those islan&sD an& the act of congress passe& to carr' the treat' into effect# The' 4ere &)l' entere& at the c)stom@ho)se at the port of Ne4 7orkJ the plaintiffs claiming thatD (' the treat' 4ith the rep)(lic of San ,omingoD the goo&s sho)l& (e a&mitte& on the same termsD that isD free of &)t'D as similar articlesD the pro&)ce an& man)fact)re of the Ha4aiian islan&s# The &efen&antD 4ho 4as at the time collector of the portD ref)se& to allo4 this claimD treate& the goo&s as &)tia(le articles )n&er the acts of congressD an& eCacte& &)ties on them to the amo)nt of U1/D;96# The plaintiffs appeale& from the collectorHs &ecision to the secretar' of the treas)r'D (' 4hom the appeal 4as &enie&# The' then pai&D )n&er protestD the &)ties eCacte&D an& (ro)ght the present action to reco%er the amo)nt# The &efen&ant &em)rre& to the complaintD the &em)rrer 4as s)staine&D an& final B)&gment 4as entere& in his fa%orJ to re%ie4 4hich the case is (ro)ght here# The iss)e is 4hether or not the treat' 4ith a foreign so%ereign has (een %iolate& S)preme Co)rt hel& that act of congress )n&er 4hich the &)ties 4ere collecte&D a)thoriEe& their eCaction# It is of general applicationD making no eCception in fa%or of goo&s of an' co)ntr'# It 4as passe& after the treat' 4ith the ,ominican rep)(licD an&D if there (e an' conflict (et4een the stip)lations of the treat' an& the re:)irements of the la4D the latter m)st control# A treat' is primaril' a contract (et4een t4o or more in&epen&ent nationsD an& is so regar&e& (' 4riters on p)(lic la4# or the infraction of its pro%isions a reme&' m)st (e so)ght (' the inB)re& part' thro)gh reclamations )pon the other# 8hen the stip)lations are not self@ eCec)tingD the' can onl' (e enforce& p)rs)ant to legislation to carr' them into effectD an& s)ch legislation is as m)ch s)(Bect to mo&ification an& repeal (' congress as legislation )pon an' other s)(Bect# If the treat' contains stip)lations 4hich are self@eCec)tingD that isD re:)ire no legislation to make them operati%eD to that eCtent the' ha%e the force an& effect of a legislati%e enactment# Congress ma' mo&if' s)ch pro%isionsD so far as the' (in& the +nite& StatesD or s)perse&e them altogether#

16

.' the constit)tionD a treat' is place& on the same footingD an& ma&e of like o(ligationD 4ith an act of legislation# .oth are &eclare& (' that instr)ment to (e the s)preme la4 of the lan&D an& no s)perior efficac' is gi%en to either o%er the other# 8hen the t4o relate to the same s)(BectD the co)rts 4ill al4a's en&ea%or to constr)e them so as to gi%e effect to (othD if that can (e &one 4itho)t %iolating the lang)age of eitherJ ()tD if the t4o are inconsistentD the one last in &ate 4ill control the other5 pro%i&e&D al4a'sD the stip)lation of the treat' on the s)(Bect is self@ eCec)ting# If the co)ntr' 4ith 4hich the treat' is ma&e is &issatisfie& 4ith the action of the legislati%e &epartmentD it ma' present its complaint to the eCec)ti%e hea& of the go%ernmentD an& take s)ch other meas)res as it ma' &eem essential for the protection of its interests# The co)rts can affor& no re&ress# 8hether the complaining nation has B)st ca)se of complaintD or o)r co)ntr' 4as B)stifie& in its legislationD are not matters for B)&icial cogniEance# It follo4sD thereforeD thatD 4hen a la4 is clear in its pro%isionsD its %ali&it' cannot (e assaile& (efore the co)rts for 4ant of conformit' to stip)lations of a pre%io)s treat' not alrea&' eCec)te&# Consi&erations of that character (elong to another &epartment of the go%ernment# The &)t' of the co)rts is to constr)e an& gi%e effect to the latest eCpression of the so%ereign 4ill# In Hea&@Mone' CasesD //1 +# S# $-0D it 4as o(Becte& to an act of congress that it %iolate& pro%isions containe& in treaties 4ith foreign nationsD ()t the co)rt replie& thatD so far as the pro%isions of the act 4ere in conflict 4ith an' treat'D the' m)st pre%ail in all the co)rts of the co)ntr'J an&D after a f)ll an& ela(orate consi&eration of the s)(BectD it hel& thatD Hso far as a treat' ma&e (' the +nite& States 4ith an' foreign nation can (e the s)(Bect of B)&icial cogniEance in the co)rts of this co)ntr'D it is s)(Bect to s)ch acts as congress ma' pass for its enforcementD mo&ificationD or repeal#H *)&gment affirme&#

1>

Chapter 5: Sub ects of International Law /+INCI/5LITB #2 S45L5N0 Sealan& 4as fo)n&e& as a so%ereign Principalit' in /;6> in international 4atersD siC miles off the eastern shores of .ritain# The islan& fortress is con%enientl' sit)ate& from 6$ to /00 miles from the coasts of ranceD .elgi)mD Hollan& an& German'# The official lang)age of Sealan& is English an& the Sealan& ,ollar has a fiCe& eCchange rate of one +#S# &ollar# Passports an& stamps ha%e (een in circ)lation since /;6;D ho4e%erD contrar' to man' mislea&ing 4e(sites an& ne4s articlesD Sealan& passports are not for saleD an& an'one offering s)ch are selling forgeries# 8ithin a ra&i)s of $00 miles of Sealan& li%e more than 100 million people 4ho enBo' some of the highest stan&ar&s of li%ing in the 4orl&# This area also encompasses the financialD in&)strial an& c)lt)ral heart of E)rope# The histor' of Sealan& is a stor' of a str)ggle for li(ert'# Sealan& 4as fo)n&e& on the principle that an' gro)p of people &issatisfie& 4ith the oppressi%e la4s an& restrictions of eCisting nation states ma' &eclare in&epen&ence in an' place not claime& to (e )n&er the B)ris&iction of another so%ereign entit'# The location chosen 4as Ro)ghs To4erD an islan& fortress create& in 8orl& 8ar II (' .ritain an& s)(se:)entl' a(an&one& to the B)ris&iction of the High Seas# The in&epen&ence of Sealan& 4as )phel& in a /;6.ritish co)rt &ecision 4here the B)&ge hel& that Ro)ghs To4er stoo& in international 4aters an& &i& not fall )n&er the legal B)ris&iction of the +nite& 2ing&om# This ga%e (irth to Sealan&Hs national motto of E Mare Li(ertasD or P rom the SeaD ree&omP# Prince Ro'Hs heir apparentD Michael of Sealan&D 4rote the follo4ing statement in relation to a recent inci&ent in%ol%ing a fake Sealan& passport# It can (e eCten&e& to other sit)ations 4here (asic facts regar&ing Sealan& ha%e (een misrepresente&# This 4e(site is the onl' official 4e(site of the Go%ernment of Sealan&# The 4e(site that 4as originall' constr)cte& for Sealan& is locate& at http5QQ444#fr)itsofthesea#&emon#co#)kQsealan&QD an& is maintaine& there for historical p)rposes# P8e 4o)l& like to make it clear that after 91 'ears of pioneering 4orkD an& the (loo& s4eat an& tears that ha%e (een part of the rich a&%ent)re in the formation an& esta(lishment of the Principalit' of Sealan&D o)r 4e( site is the onl' official 4e( site of the Principalit' of Sealan&# It has come to o)r attention that others are claiming to represent )s on the Internet an& in the pressD e%en sho4ing photographs of m' famil' an& offering mem(ership of ()siness fo)n&ationsD fake Sealan& passportsD an& other ser%ices# Some of these peopleD it seemsD 4ere in%ol%e& in the terrorist attack on Sealan& in the /;>0s that nearl' res)lte& in loss of lifeD an& &i&

1-

in%ol%e an international inci&ent 4ith the .ritishD ,)tch an& German go%ernments#P V Michael of Sealan&

,istor% #f Sealand ,)ring 8orl& 8ar IID the +nite& 2ing&om &eci&e& to esta(lish a n)m(er of militar' (asesD the p)rpose of 4hich 4as to &efen& Englan& against German air rai&s# These sea forts ho)se& eno)gh troops to man an& maintain artiller' &esigne& to shoot &o4n German aircraft an& missiles# The' 4ere sit)ate& along the east coast of Englan& on the e&ge of the English territorial 4aters# One of these (asesD consisting of concrete an& steel constr)ctionD 4as the famo)s ro'al fort Ro)ghs To4er sit)ate& slightl' north of the est)ar' region of the Thames Ri%er# In contrast to the original plan to locate the to4er 4ithin the so%ereign territor' of Englan&D this fortress 4as sit)ate& at a &istance of approCimatel' > na)tical miles from the coastD 4hich is more than &o)(le the then applica(le 9 mile range of territorial 4atersJ to p)t it (riefl'D this islan& 4as sit)ate& in the international 4aters of the North Sea# After 88II en&e&D the troops 4ere 4ith&ra4n from all (ases (' the .ritish A&miralt'# None of them 4as e%er )se& (' the +nite& 2ing&om againD lea%ing the forts &eserte& an& a(an&one&# ECcept for the aforementione& fortressD the (ases 4ere s)(se:)entl' p)lle& &o4n# This res)lte& in the portento)s )ni:)eness of the fortress# ort Ro)ghs To4erD sit)ate& at the high seasD ha& (een &eserte& an& a(an&one&D res &erelicta an& terra n)lli)s# rom a legal point of %ie4D it therefore constit)te& eCtra@national territor'# The ;irth of Sealand This pa%e& the 4a' for occ)pation# On 1 Septem(er /;6>D former English maBor Pa&&' Ro' .ates formall' occ)pie& the islan& an& settle& there 4ith his famil'# After intensi%e &isc)ssions 4ith skillf)l English la4'ersD Ro' .ates proclaime& the islan& his o4n state# Claiming B)s genti)mD he (esto4e& )pon himself the title of Prince an& the title of Princess to his 4ife an& s)(se:)entl' ma&e the state the Principalit' of Sealan&# Ro' .atesD henceforth Ro' of Sealan&D eCerte& state a)thorit' on the islan& an& th)s 4as an a(sol)te so%ereign# The ro'al famil' an& other persons that ha%e &eclare& lo'alt' to Sealan& ha%e occ)pie& Sealan& e%er since# Initial Challen-e to SealandCs So$erei-nt% .' late /;6-D the .ritish na%' ha& (ecome a4are of the ne4 sit)ation off the coast of Englan&# The' 4ere intereste& in terminating the state of affairs (ro)ght a(o)t (' an error committe& (' the most senior militar' a)thorities 4itho)t ca)sing too m)ch )proar#

1;

+nits of the na%' entere& the territorial 4aters claime& (' Ro' of Sealan&# As he 4as a4are of his so%ereignt'D Ro' of Sealan& threatene& the na%' (' )n&ertaking &efensi%e acti%it'# Shots 4ere fire& from Sealan& in 4arning# Since Ro' of Sealan& 4as still an English citiEenD he 4as th)s acc)se& of eCtensi%e crimes in .ritain an& 4as s)mmone& to an English co)rt# The res)lt of this la4s)it in Chelmsfor&D EsseC 4as a spectac)lar s)ccess for Sealan&Hs claim to so%ereignt'# In its B)&gment of 1$ No%em(er /;6-D the co)rt &eclare& that it 4as not competent in Ro' of Sealan&Hs case as it co)l& not eCert an' B)ris&iction o)tsi&e of .ritish national territor'# This is the first &e facto recognition of the Principalit' of Sealan&# English la4 ha& r)le& that Sealan& 4as not part of the +nite& 2ing&omD nor &i& an' other nation claim itD hence Prince Ro'Hs &eclaration of a ne4 So%ereign State 4as &e facto )phel&# ;uildin- a New Nation Se%en 'ears later on 1$ Septem(er /;>$D Ro' of Sealan& proclaime& the Constit)tion of the Principalit'# O%er timeD other national treas)res 4ere &e%elope&D s)ch as the flag of the Principalit' of Sealan&D its national anthemD stampsD as 4ell as gol& an& sil%er coins la)nche& as Sealan& ,ollars# inall'D passports of the Principalit' of Sealan& 4ere iss)e& to those 4ho ha& helpe& Sealan& in some 4a'D tho)gh the' 4ere ne%er for sale# Sealand 2i-hts #ff In$aders 8and 3ins a 3ar9 In A)g)st of /;>-D a n)m(er of ,)tch men came to Sealan& in the emplo' of a German ()sinessman# The' 4ere there to &isc)ss ()siness &ealings 4ith Sealan&# 8hile Ro' 4as a4a' in .ritainD these men ki&nappe& Prince Ro'Hs son MichaelD an& took Sealan& (' force# Soon afterD Ro' recapt)re& the islan& 4ith a gro)p of his o4n men an& hel& the attackers as prisoners of 4ar# ,)ring the time that he hel& the prisonersD the Go%ernments of the Netherlan&s an& German' petitione& for their release# irst the' aske& Englan& to inter%ene in the matterD ()t the .ritish go%ernment cite& their earlier co)rt &ecision as e%i&ence that the' ma&e no claim to the territor' of Sealan&# ThenD in an act of &e facto recognition of Sealan&Hs so%ereignt'D German' sent a &iplomat &irectl' to Sealan& to negotiate for the release of their citiEen# Ro' first release& the ,)tch citiEensD as the 4ar 4as o%erD an& the Gene%a Con%ention re:)ires the release of all prisoners# The German 4as hel& longerD as he ha& accepte& a Sealan& PassportD an& therefore 4as g)ilt' of treason# Prince Ro'D 4ho 4as gratef)l that the inci&ent ha& not res)lte& in a loss of lifeD an& &i& not 4ant to (loo&' the rep)tation of Sealan&D e%ent)all' release& him as 4ell# 4Dtension of Territorial 3aters

90

On / Octo(erD /;->D .ritain eCten&e& its territorial 4aters from 9 to /1 na)tical miles# The pre%io)s &a'D Prince Ro' &eclare& the eCtension of Sealan&Hs territorial 4aters to (e a like /1 na)tical milesD so that right of 4a' from the open sea to Sealan& 4o)l& not (e (locke& (' .ritish claime& 4aters# No treat' has (een signe& (et4een .ritain an& Sealan& to &i%i&e )p the o%erlapping areasD ()t a general polic' of &i%i&ing the area (et4een the t4o co)ntries &o4n the mi&&le can (e ass)me&# International la4 &oes not allo4 the claim of ne4 lan& &)ring the eCtension of sea rightsD so Sealan&Hs so%ereignt' 4as safel' Pgran&fathere&P in# .ritain has no more right to Sealan&Hs territor' than Sealan& has to the territor' of the .ritish coastline that falls 4ithin its claime& /1 na)tical mile arc# Some nations might ha%e trie& to )se this as an eCc)se to tr' to claim all of the territor' of the 4eaker an& not 4ell recogniEe& nation regar&less of international la4D ho4e%erD this has not (een the case# .ritain has ma&e no attempt to take Sealan&D an& the .ritish go%ernment still treats it as an in&epen&ent State# Prince Ro' contin)es to pa' no .ritish National Ins)rance &)ring the time he resi&es on Sealan& s)(se:)ent to a r)ling (' the .ritish ,epartment of Health an& Social Sec)rit'Hs solicitorHs (ranch# AlsoD there 4as another fire arms inci&ent in /;;0 4hen a ship stra'e& too near Sealan& an& 4arning shots 4ere again fire&# The shipHs cre4 ma&e complaints to .ritish a)thorities an& a ne4spaper article ran &etailing the inci&ent# 7et &espite .ritainHs se%ere prohi(ition of firearmsD .ritish a)thorities ha%e ne%er p)rs)e& the matter# This is a clear in&ication that .ritainHs Home Office still consi&ers Sealan& to (e o)tsi&e their Eone of control# 2a=e Sealand /assports In /;;>D forge& Sealan& passports starte& t)ning )p aro)n& the 4orl&# Some of these 4ere )se& to open (ank acco)nts )n&er false names in %ario)s co)ntries# Since fe4 people ha%e e%er seen a legitimate Sealan& passport <less than 900 eCist to&a'= it 4as &iffic)lt for these to (e easil' &etecte& as forgeries# The so)rce of these forgeries 4as trace& (ack to the same German man 4ho 4as in%ol%e& in the earlier attempt to take Sealan& (' force# ,)((ing himself Minister of inanceD he ha& create& a fake Sealan& .)siness o)n&ation an& (oasts that he has sol& o%er /$0 000 fake Sealan& Passports to all comers# Th)s there are no4 )nfort)natel' $00 times more forge& Sealan& Passports in circ)lation than real ones# Man' of the forge& passports 4ere apparentl' sol& to people lea%ing Hong 2ong at the time of Chinese reocc)pation for +S, / 000 each# Current 7iews of the /rincipalit% of Sealand The c)rrent go%ernment of the Principalit' of Sealan& consi&ers itself to (e so%ereignD an& to ha%e (een recogniEe& &e facto as s)ch on the (asis of the aforementione& statements (' m)ltiple 4orl& go%ernments# It states the follo4ing5 PThe Principalit' of Sealan& recogniEes B)s genti)m an& has )n&ertaken to reg)late an' acti%it' 4ith a %ie4 to compliance 4ith B)s genti)m an& international la4 or to ha%e it reg)late&#P

9/

The eCistence of the Principalit' as an in&epen&ent State an& the &e facto recognition of its so%ereignt' has (een &emonstrate& time an& time again o%er the last three &eca&es (' E)ropean an& other States an& in partic)lar (' its nearest neigh(o)rD the +nite& 2ing&om# .ritain has state& clearl' an& has &emonstrate& on a n)m(er of occasions either that it has no B)ris&iction 4ithin Principalit' territorial limits or that it has no interest in e%ents that ha%e taken place 4ithin the Principalit'# Moreo%erD a n)m(er of in&epen&ent legal eCperts ha%e 4eighe& caref)ll' all arg)ments for an& against Sealan& so%ereignt' an& )nanimo)sl' ha%e agree& that B)s genti)m applies as a (asic principle )n&erpinning the in&epen&ence of the Principalit'# This position is f)rther s)pporte& (' &e facto e%ents 4hich &emonstrate that realit'# On man' occasionsD other States ha%e either left Sealan& alone to &eal internationall' 4ith matters critical to its National interestD or ha%e recognise& Sealan& as the legal an& a&ministrati%e a)thorit' o%er all acti%ities 4ithin its territorial limits# E%en to&a'D the +nite& 2ing&om go%ernment recognisesD inter aliaD resi&enc' or 4ork in Sealan& as an o%erseas acti%it'# The Internet Co)es to Sealand 8hilst Sealan& has (een the pri&e an& Bo' of Prince Ro' an& his famil' for 4ell o%er 90 'earsD his recent poor health has ca)se& him f)n&amentall' to re%ie4 the arrangements 4hich ha%e (een in place for &eca&es an& to look to the f)t)re of his Principalit'# Conse:)entl'D his son Prince Michael 4as appointe& Prince Regent as So%ereign pro tempore (' Ro'al ,ecree in /;;;# Since that timeD the Ro'al amil' has str)ck a &eal 4ith Ha%enCo Limite&D an& that compan' no4 leases eCcl)si%el' its offices an& operations centres in Sealan&D 4here it offersD an& is a(le to offerD )nparallele& sec)rit' an& in&epen&ence to )sers 4ho 4ish to take a&%antage of its Internet colocation ser%ices# The presence of an acti%e an& rapi&l' gro4ing high@tech internet in&)str' in Sealan& has change& the character of the Principalit'J once moreD Sealan& rings 4ith the so)n& of %oicesD (oasts reg)lar s)pport ferr' ser%icesD an& is host to a gro4ing an& &'namic pop)lation# .eca)se of the high sec)rit' re:)ire& to s)pport Ha%enCoHs operationsD access to Sealan& remains highl' restricte& an& no p)(lic %isits are allo4e&# )rther information or specific :)eries ma' (e a&&resse& to the .)rea) of Internal Affairs <()rintWsealan&go%#org= at SEALAN, /00/D Sealan& Post .agD IP// ;SAD +2# ,)e to the c)rrent international sit)ation an& other factorsD %isits to the Principalit' of Sealan& are not normall' permitte&# Accor&ingl'D the application list for %isas is for the time (eing close&#

91

The Principalit' str)ct)re of go%ernment is &etermine& (' its Constit)tion an& a chart &escri(ing the link (et4een the %ario)s offices ma' (e fo)n& here# It sho)l& (e note& that there are no HministersHD HsecretariesHD or other similar titles associate& 4ith the Principalit'D its ci%il ser%antsD an& its go%ernment# It sho)l& also (e note& that the Principalit' offices &o not incl)&e legationsD em(assiesD cons)latesD or other &iplomatic offices in German' or in S4itEerlan& at locations set o)t in the 4e( sites a(o%e# Accor&ing to State ,ecree 1091 &ate& ; *)l' 1001D a central State .ankD the Ro'al .ank of Sealan&D has (een esta(lishe& for the reg)lation an& licensing of financial ()siness 4ithin the Principalit' an& for managing the State econom'# The Comptroller of the Ro'al .ankD Mr# *ean@Michel SpornD 4as appointe& (' the Hea& of State in April of 1009# Mr# Sporn has aske& the Office of the Hea& of State to gi%e notice that the Ro'al .ank is no4 f)ll' in operation from its principal office at $D The Ro4D Sealan& /00/ an& from its .)rea) of Representation locate& at >D r)e &es AlpesD PO .oC /00;D Gene%a /D S4itEerlan& CH@/1//# ,etails of its acti%ities an& other information 4ill (e a%aila(le on this go%ernment 4e( site soon# The Ro'al .ank has license& Gol&rain .ank Lt& to con&)ct ()siness )n&er State ,ecree 10/0D an& this (ank is also operational from its offices in the Principalit' an& its .)rea) of Representation in Gene%a locate& at >D r)e &es AlpesD PO .oC /00;D Gene%a /D S4itEerlan& CH@/1//#

99

INT4+N5TI#N5L ST5T1S #2 S#1T, 34ST 52+IC5 The Territor' of So)th@8est Africa 4as one of the German o%erseas possessions in respect of 4hich German'D (' Article //; of the Treat' of !ersailles reno)nce& all her rights an& titles in fa%o)r of the Principal Allie& an& Associate& Po4ers# After the 4ar of /;/3@/;/- this Territor' 4as place& )n&er a Man&ate conferre& )pon the +nion of So)th Africa 4hich 4as to ha%e f)ll po4er of a&ministration an& legislation o%er the Territor' as an integral portion of the +nion# The +nion Go%ernment 4as to eCercise an international Sanction of a&ministration on (ehalf of the Leag)eD 4ith the o(Bect of promoting the 4ell@(eing an& &e%elopment of the inha(itants# After the secon& 4orl& 4arD the +nion of So)th AfricaD alleging that the Man&ate ha& lapse&D so)ght the recognition of the +nite& Nations to the integration of the Territor' in the +nion# The +nite& Nations ref)se& their consent to this integration an& in%ite& the +nion of So)th Africa to place the Territor' )n&er Tr)steeshipD accor&ing to the pro%isions of Chapter III of the Charter# +N ref)se& an& instea&D re:)esting for an& a&%isor' opinionD pose& the follo4ing :)estions to the IC*5 a= ,oes the +nion of So)th Africa contin)e to ha%e international O(ligations )n&er the Man&ate for So)th 8est Africa an& if soD 4hat are those o(ligationsN (#= Are the pro%isions of Chapter III of the Charter applica(le to the Territor' of So)th 8est AfricaN c#= Has the +nion of So)th Africa the competence to mo&if' the international stat)s of the territor' of So)th 8est AfricaN 8here &oes the competence rest to &etermine an& mo&if' the stat)s of the Territor'N In its opinion the Co)rt eCamine& first if the Man&ate conferre& (' the Principal Allie& an& Associate& Po4ers on His .ritannic MaBest'D to (e eCercise& on his (ehalf (' the +nion of So)th AfricaD o%er the Territor' of So)th@8est Africa 4as still in eCistence# The Co)rt &eclare& that the Leag)e 4as not a Pman&atorP in the sense in 4hich this term is )se& in the national la4 of certain states# The Man&ate ha& onl' the name in common 4ith the se%eral notions of man&ate in national la4# The essentiall' international character of the f)nctions of the +nion appeare& from the fact that these f)nctions 4ere s)(Bect to the s)per%ision of the Co)ncil of the Leag)e an& to the o(ligation to present ann)al reports to itJ it also appeare& from the fact that an' Mem(er of the Leag)e co)l& 93

s)(mit to the Permanent Co)rt of International *)stice an' &isp)te 4ith the +nion Go%ernment relating to the interpretation or the application of the pro%isions of the Man&ate# The international o(ligations ass)me& (' the +nion of So)th Africa 4ere of t4o kin&s# One kin& 4as &irectl' relate& to the a&ministration of the Territor' an& correspon&e& to the sacre& tr)st of ci%iliEation referre& to in article 11 of the Co%enantJ the other relate& to the machiner' for implementation an& 4as closel' linke& to the s)per%ision an& control of the Leag)e# It correspon&e& to the Psec)rities for the performance of this tr)stP referre& to in the same Article# The o(ligations of the first gro)p represent the %er' essence of the sacre& tr)st of ci%iliEation# Their raison &HXtre an& original o(Bect remain# Since their f)lfillment &i& not &epen& on the eCistence of the Leag)e of NationsD the' co)l& not (e (ro)ght to an en& merel' (eca)se this s)per%isor' organ cease& to eCist# This %ie4 is confirme& (' Article -0D paragraph /D of the CharterD maintaining the rights of States an& peoples an& the terms of eCisting international instr)ments )ntil the territories in :)estion are place& )n&er the tr)steeship s'stem# Moreo%erD the resol)tion of the Leag)e of Nations of April /-D /;36D sai& that the Leag)eHs f)nctions 4ith respect to man&ate& territories 4o)l& come to an en&J it &i& not sa' that the Man&ates themsel%es came to an en&# .' this Resol)tion the Assem(l' of the Leag)e of Nations manifeste& its )n&erstan&ing that the Man&ates 4o)l& contin)e in eCistence )ntil Pother arrangementsP 4ere esta(lishe& an& the +nion of So)th AfricaD in &eclarations ma&e to the Leag)e of Nations as 4ell as to the +nite& NationsD ha& recogniEe& that its o(ligations )n&er the Man&ate contin)e& after the &isappearance of the Leag)e# Interpretation place& )pon legal instr)ments (' the parties to themD tho)gh not concl)si%e as to their meaningD ha%e consi&era(le pro(ati%e %al)e 4hen the' contain recognition (' a part' of its o4n o(ligations )n&er an instr)ment# 8ith regar& to the secon& gro)p of o(ligationsD the Co)rt sai& that some &o)(ts might arise from the fact that the s)per%isor' f)nctions of the Leag)e 4ith regar& to man&ate& territories not place& )n&er the ne4 tr)steeship s'stem 4ere neither eCpressl' transferre& to the +nite& NationsD nor eCpressl' ass)me& (' that OrganiEation# Ne%erthelessD the o(ligation inc)m(ent )pon a Man&ator' State to accept international s)per%ision an& to s)(mit reports is an important part of the Man&ates S'stem# It co)l& not (e concl)&e& that the o(ligation to s)(mit to s)per%ision ha& &isappeare& merel' (eca)se the s)per%isor' organ ha& cease& to eCist 4hen the +nite& Nations ha& another international organ performing similarD tho)gh not i&enticalD s)per%isor' f)nctions# These general consi&erations 4ere confirme& (' Article -0D paragraph /D of the CharterD 4hich p)rports to safeg)ar& not onl' the rights of StatesD ()t also the rights of the peoples of man&ate& territories )ntil tr)steeship agreements 4ere concl)&e&# The competence of the General Assem(l' of the +nite& Nations to eCercise s)ch s)per%ision an& to recei%e an& eCamine reports is &eri%e& from the pro%isions of Article /0 of the CharterD 4hich a)thoriEes the General Assem(l' to &isc)ss an' :)estions on an' matters

9$

4ithin the scope of the CharterD an& make recommen&ations to the Mem(ers of the +nite& Nations# Moreo%erD the Resol)tion of April /-thD /;36D of the Assem(l' of the Leag)e of Nations pres)pposes that the s)per%isor' f)nctions eCercise& (' the Leag)e 4o)l& (e taken o%er (' the +nite& Nations# The right of petition 4as not mentione& in the Co%enant or the Man&ateD ()t 4as organiEe& (' a &ecision of the Co)ncil of the Leag)e# The Co)rt 4as of opinion that this right 4hich the inha(itants of So)th@8est Africa ha& th)s ac:)ire&D 4as maintaine& (' Article -0D paragraph /D of the CharterD as this cla)se 4as interprete& a(o%e# The Co)rt 4as therefore of the opinion that petitions are to (e transmitte& (' the Go%ernment of the +nion to the General Assem(l' of the +nite& NationsD 4hich is legall' :)alifie& to &eal 4ith them# ThereforeD So)th@8est Africa is still to (e consi&ere& a territor' hel& )n&er the Man&ate of ,ecem(er />thD /;10# The &egree of s)per%ision (' the General Assem(l' sho)l& not eCcee& that 4hich applie& )n&er the Man&ates S'stem# These o(ser%ations appl' to ann)al reports an& petitions# Ha%ing regar& to Article 9> of the Stat)te of the International Co)rt of *)stice an& Article -0D paragraph /D of the CharterD the Co)rt 4as of opinion that this cla)se in the Man&ate 4as still in forceD an& therefore that the +nion of So)th Africa 4as )n&er an o(ligation to accept the comp)lsor' B)ris&iction of the Co)rt accor&ing to those pro%isions# 8ith regar& to :)estion <(= the Co)rt sai& that Chapter III of the Charter applie& to the Territor' of So)th@8est Africa in this senseD that it pro%i&es a means (' 4hich the Territor' ma' (e (ro)ght )n&er the tr)steeship s'stem# 8ith regar& to the secon& part of the :)estionD &ealing 4ith the manner in 4hich those pro%isions are applica(leD the Co)rt sai& that the pro%isions of this chapter &i& not impose )pon the +nion of So)th Africa an o(ligation to p)t the Territor' )n&er Tr)steeship (' means of a Tr)steeship Agreement# This opinion is (ase& on the permissi%e lang)age of Articles >$ an& >># These Articles refer to an PagreementP 4hich implies consent of the parties concerne&# The fact that Article >> refers to the P%ol)ntar'P placement of certain Territories )n&er Tr)steeship &oes not sho4 that the placing of other territories )n&er Tr)steeship is comp)lsor'# The 4or& P%ol)ntar'P )se& 4ith respect to territories in categor' <c= in Article >> can (e eCplaine& as ha%ing (een )se& o)t of an a()n&ance of ca)tion an& as an a&&e& ass)rance of free initiati%e to States ha%ing territories falling 4ithin that categor'# The Co)rt consi&ere& that if Article -0D paragraph 1 ha& (een inten&e& to create an o(ligation for a Man&ator' State to negotiate an& concl)&e an agreementD s)ch intention 4o)l& ha%e (een eCpresse& in a &irect manner# It consi&ere& also that this article &i& not create an o(ligation to enter into negotiations 4ith a %ie4 to concl)&ing a Tr)steeship Agreement as this pro%ision eCpressl' refers to &ela' or postponement Pof the negotiation an& concl)sionPD an& not to negotiations onl'# Moreo%erD it refers not

96

merel' to territories hel& )n&er man&ate ()t also to other territories# inall' the o(ligation merel' to negotiate &oes not of itself ass)re the concl)sion of Tr)steeship Agreements# It is tr)e that the Charter has contemplate& an& reg)late& onl' one single s'stemD the international Tr)steeship s'stem# If it ma' (e concl)&e& that it 4as eCpecte& that the man&ator' States 4o)l& follo4 the normal co)rse in&icate& (' the Charter an& concl)&e Tr)steeship AgreementsD the Co)rt 4as )na(le to &e&)ce from these general consi&erations an' legal o(ligation for man&ator' States to concl)&e or negotiate s)ch agreements# It is not for the Co)rt to prono)nce on the political or moral &)ties 4hich these consi&erations ma' in%ol%e# 8ith regar& to :)estion <c= the Co)rt &eci&e& that the +nion ha& no competence to mo&if' )nilaterall' the international stat)s of the Territor'# It repeate& that the normal 4a' of mo&if'ing the international stat)s of the Territor' 4o)l& (e to place it )n&er the Tr)steeship S'stem (' means of a Tr)steeship AgreementD in accor&ance 4ith the pro%isions of Chapter III of the Charter# Article > of the Man&ate re:)ire& the a)thoriEation of the Co)ncil of the Leag)e for an' mo&ifications of its terms# In accor&ance 4ith the repl' gi%en to :)estion <a= the Co)rt sai& that those po4ers of s)per%ision no4 (elong to the General Assem(l' of the +nite& Nations# Articles >; an& -$ of the Charter re:)ire& that a tr)steeship agreement (e appro%e& (' the General Assem(l'# .' analog' it co)l& (e inferre& that the same proce&)re 4as applica(le to an' mo&ification of the international stat)s of a territor' )n&er Man&ate 4hich 4o)l& not ha%e for its p)rpose the placing of the territor' )n&er the tr)steeship s'stem# Moreo%erD the +nion of So)th Africa itself &eci&e& to s)(mit the :)estion of the f)t)re international stat)s of the territor' to the PB)&gmentP of the General Assem(l' as the Pcompetent international organP# In so &oingD the +nion recognise& the competence of the General Assem(l' in the matter# On the (asis of these consi&erationsD the Co)rt concl)&e& that competence to &etermine an& mo&if' the international stat)s of the Territor' reste& 4ith the +nionD acting in agreement 4ith the +nite& Nations

9>

T,4 TIN#C# 5+;IT+5TI#N Great .ritain %s# Costa Rica </;19= 8illiam H# TaftD Ar(itrator In *an)ar' /;/>D the Go%ernment of Costa RicaD )n&er Presi&ent Alfre&o GonEaleED 4as o%erthro4n (' re&erico Tinoco# Tinoco ass)me& po4erD calle& an electionD an& esta(lishe& a ne4 constit)tion in *)neD /;/># His go%ernment contin)e& )ntil A)g)stD /;/;D 4hen Tinoco retire&D an& left the co)ntr'# His go%ernment fell in Septem(er follo4ing# ### the ol& constit)tion 4as restore& an& elections hel& )n&er it# The restore& go%ernment is a signator' to this treat' of ar(itration# On the 11n& of A)g)stD /;11D the Constit)tional Congress of the restore& Costa Rican Go%ernment passe& a la4 kno4n as La4 of N)llities NO#3/# It in%ali&ate& all contracts (et4een the eCec)ti%e po4er an& pri%ate personsD ma&e 4ith or 4itho)t appro%al of the legislati%e po4er (et4een *an)ar' 1>D /;/> an& Septem(er 1D /;/;D co%ering the perio& of the Tinoco go%ernment# It also n)llifie& the legislati%e &ecree No#/1 of the Tinoco go%ernmentD &ate& *)ne 1-D /;/;D a)thoriEing the iss)e of the fifteen million colones c)rrenc' notes ### Yan&Z the legislati%e &ecree of the Tinoco go%ernment of *)l' -D /;/;D a)thoriEing the circ)lation of notes of the nomination of /000 colonesD an& ann)lle& all transactions 4ith s)ch colones (ills (et4een hol&ers an& the state#P The claim of Great .ritain is that the Ro'al .ank of Cana&a an& the Central Costa Rica Petrole)m Compan' are .ritish corporations 4hose shares are o4ne& (' .ritish s)(BectsJ that the .anco Internacional of Costa Rica an& the Go%ernment of Costa Rica are (oth in&e(te& to the Ro'al .ank in the s)m of ;;-D000 colonesD e%i&ence& (' ;;- on tho)san& colones (ills hel& (' the .ankJ that the Central Costa Rica Petrole)m Compan' o4nsD (' &)e assignmentD a grant (' the Tinoco go%ernment in /;/-D of the right to eCplore for an& eCploit &eposits in Costa RicaD an& that (oth the in&e(te&ness an& the concession ha%e (een ann)lle& 4itho)t right (' the La4 of N)llities an& 4o)l& (e eCcepte& from its operation# She asks ### to ha%e the claim of the (ank pai&D an& the concession recogniEe& an& gi%en effect (' the Costa Rican Go%ernment# The Go%ernment of Costa Rica &enies its lia(ilit' for the acts or o(ligations of the Tinoco go%ernment an& maintains that the La4 of N)llities 4as a legitimate eCercise of its legislati%e go%erning po4er# It f)rther &enies the %ali&it' of s)ch claims on the meritsD )naffecte& (' the La4 of N)llities# Coming no4 to the general iss)es applica(le to (oth claimsD Great .ritain conten&sD firstD that the Tinoco go%ernment 4as the onl' go%ernment of Costa Rica &e facto an& &e B)re for t4o 'ears an& nine monthsJ that &)ring that time there is no other go%ernment &isp)ting its so%ereignt'D that it 4as in peacef)l a&ministration of the 4hole

9-

co)ntr'D 4ith the ac:)iescence of its people# The effects of the recognition of the go%ernment# Secon&D that the contracts an& o(ligations of the Tinoco go%ernmentD set )p (' Great .ritain on (ehalf of its s)(BectsD are %oi& ### (eca)se the go%ernment of Tinoco an& its acts 4ere in %iolation of the constit)tion of Costa Rica of /->/# Changes in the go%ernment or the internal polic' of a state &o not as a r)le affect its position in international la4 ### tho)gh the go%ernment changesD the nation remainsD 4ith rights an& o(ligations )nimpaire&# +n&er the principle of the contin)it' of statesD the state is (o)n& (' engagements entere& into (' go%ernments that ha%e cease& to eCistJ the restore& go%ernment is generall' lia(le for the acts of the )s)rper ### oreign po4ers &eal 4ith the eCisting &e facto go%ernmentD 4hen s)fficientl' esta(lishe& to gi%e reasona(le ass)rance of its permanenceD an& of the ac:)iescence of those 4ho constit)te the state in its a(ilit' to maintain itself an& &ischarge its ### eCternal o(ligations ###P Taft cites other authorities in support of this principleA and then proceeds to deter)ine whether the Tinoco re-i)e constituted a de facto -o$ern)ent: P### In *an)ar'D /;/>D re&erico A# Tinoco 4as Secretar' of 8ar )n&er Alfre&o GonEaleED the then Presi&ent of Costa Rica# On the gro)n& that GonEaleE 4as seeking reelection as Presi&ent in %iolation of a constit)tional limitationD Tinoco )se& the arm' an& na%' to seiEe the Go%ernmentD Yan&Z ass)me& the pro%isional hea&ship of the Rep)(lic ### Tinoco constit)te& a pro%isional go%ernment at once ### a ne4 constit)tion 4as a&opte& *)ne -D /;/>D s)pplanting the constit)tion of /->/# YAn election 4as hel& 4hich Tinoco 4on (' a margin of 6/D000 %otes to 1$; %otes#Z or a f)ll t4o 'ears Tinoco an& the legislati%e assem(l' )n&er him peacea(l' a&ministere& the affairs of the Go%ernment of Costa RicaD an& there 4as no &isor&er of a re%ol)tionar' character &)ring that inter%al# No other go%ernment of an' kin& asserte& po4er in the co)ntr' ### The people seeme& to ha%e accepte& TinocoHs go%ernment 4ith great goo& 4ill ### there is no s)(stantial e%i&ence that Tinoco 4as not in act)al an& peacea(le a&ministration 4itho)t resistance or conflict or contest (' an'one )ntil a fe4 months (efore the time 4hen he retire& an& resigne&### I m)st hol& that ### the Tinoco go%ernment 4as an act)al so%ereign go%ernment# .)t it is )rge& that man' lea&ing Po4ers ref)se& to recogniEe the Tinoco go%ernment ### +n&o)(te&l' recognition (' other Po4ers is an important e%i&ential factor in esta(lishing proof of the eCistence of a go%ernment in the societ' of nations# The non@recognition (' other nations of a go%ernment claiming to (e a national personalit'D is )s)all' appropriate e%i&ence that it has not attaine& the in&epen&ence an& control entitling it (' international la4 to (e classe& as s)ch# .)t 4hen recognition of a go%ernment is (' s)ch nations &etermine& (' in:)ir'D not into its &e facto so%ereignt'

9;

an& complete go%ernmental controlD ()t into its illegitimac' or irreg)larit' of originD their non@recognition loses something of e%i&ential 4eight ### YitZ cannot o)t4eigh the e%i&ence &isclose& (' this recor& (efore me as to the &e facto character of TinocoHs go%ernment ### It is arg)e& on (ehalf of Costa Rica that the Tinoco go%ernment cannot (e consi&ere& a &e facto go%ernmentD (eca)se it 4as not esta(lishe& an& maintaine& in accor& 4ith the constit)tion of Costa Rica of /->/# To hol& that a go%ernment ### &oes not (ecome a &e facto go%ernment )nless it conforms to a pre%io)s constit)tion 4o)l& (e to hol& that 4ithin the r)les of international la4 a re%ol)tion contrar' to the f)n&amental la4 of the eCisting go%ernment cannot esta(lish a ne4 go%ernment# This cannot (eD an& is notD tr)e# It is f)rther o(Becte& (' Costa Rica that Great .ritain (' her fail)re to recogniEe the Tinoco go%ernment is estoppe& no4 to )rge claims of her s)(Bects &epen&ent )pon the acts an& contracts of the Tinoco go%ernment ### YThe +#S# cases cite& in s)pportZ ha%e no (earing on the point (efore )s# Here the eCec)ti%e of Great .ritain takes the position that the Tinoco go%ernment 4hich it &i& not recogniEeD 4as ne%ertheless a &e facto go%ernment that co)l& create rights in .ritish s)(Bects 4hich it no4 seeks to protect# Non@recognition ma' ha%e ai&e& the s)ccee&ing go%ernment to come into po4erJ ()t s)(se:)ent presentation of claims (ase& on the &e facto eCistence of the pre%io)s go%ernment ### &oes not 4ork an inB)r' to the s)ccee&ing go%ernment in the nat)re of a fra)& or (reach of goo& faith# Anent secon& iss)eD The YoilZ concession is no4 o4ne& (' the Central Costa Rica Petrole)m Compan' of Cana&aD an& all its stock is o4ne& (' the .ritish Controlle& Oil iel&sD Lt&# ### The concessionaire 4as grante& the eCcl)si%e right &)ring fift' 'ears to &e%elop an& eCploit the &eposits locate& (' him ### The grant 4as ma&e on Ycertain con&itionsD incl)&ing pro%ision of oil to the go%ernment an& local in%estmentZ ### It seems to me that s)(stantiall' e%er'thing 4as &one (' the concessionaires or their assignee re:)ire& (' the contract ### The most serio)s o(Bection to the concession is that it 4as grante& (' a (o&' 4itho)t po4er to grant it# Its %ali&it' isD as I ha%e alrea&' sai&D to (e &etermine& (' the la4 in eCistence at the time of its granting ### YAfter a &isc)ssion of the /;/> constit)tionZ### the go%ernment of Tinoco itself co)l& ha%e &efeate& this concession on the gro)n& of a lack of po4er in the Cham(er of ,ep)ties Ythe granting instit)tionZ to appro%e it# ThereforeD is that the La4 of N)llities 4ill 4ork no inB)r' of 4hich Great .ritain can complainD if Costa Rica assigns all her interest in the mortgage for U/00D000 )pon TinocoHs estate# M' a4ar& f)rther is that the La4 of N)llities in &ecreeing the in%ali&it' of the Amor' concession 4orke& no inB)r' to the Central Costa Rica Petrole)m Compan' of 4hich Great .ritain can complainD (eca)se the concession 4as in fact in%ali& )n&er the Constit)tion of /;/>#

30

1/+I6,T 7< M4+C1+B ;1SIN4SS M5C,IN4S C#< PlaintiffD an in&i%i&)alD s)es as the assignee of a tra&e acceptance &ra4n on an& accepte& (' &efen&ant in pa'ment for ()siness t'pe4riters sol& an& &eli%ere& to it (' a foreign corporation# The tra&e acceptance is in the amo)nt for U1>D90>#3$ an& 4as assigne& to plaintiff after &ishonor (' &efen&ant# In%ol%e& in this appeal is onl' the legal s)fficienc' if the first affirmati%e &efense# It alleges that the foreign corporation is the creat)re of the East German Go%ernmentD a go%ernment not recogniEe& (' the +nite& States# It allegesD moreo%erD that s)ch corporation is an enterprise controlle& (' an& that it is an arm an& instr)ment of s)ch go%ernment# On Motion a&&resse& to its s)fficienc' Special Term s)staine& &efense# reasons that follo4 the &efense sho)l& ha%e (een stricken as legall' ins)fficient# or the

A foreign go%ernmentD altho)gh not recogniEe& (' the political arm of the +nite& States Go%ernmentD Da' ne%ertheless ha%e &e facto eCistence 4hich is B)ri&icall' cogniEa(le# The acts of s)ch a &e facto go%ernment ma' affect pri%ate rights an& o(ligations arising either as a res)lt of acti%it' inD or 4ith persons or corporations 4ithinD the territor' controlle& (' s)ch &e facto go%ernment# In the R)ssian Reins)rance Co# caseD LehmanD *#D later Chief *)&geD s)mmariEe& the principles5 KThe fall of one go%ernmental esta(lishment an& the s)(stit)tion of another go%ernmental esta(lishment 4hich act)all' go%ernsD 4hich is a(le to enforce its claims (' militar' force an& is o(e'e& (' the people o%er 4hom it r)lesD m)st profo)n&l' affect all the acts an& &)tiesD all the relations of those 4ho li%e 4ithin the territor' o%er 4hich the ne4 esta(lishment eCercises r)le# Its r)le ma' (e 4itho)t la4f)l fo)n&ationJ ()t la4f)l or )nla4f)lD its eCistence is a factD an& that fact cannot (e &estro'e& (' B)ri&ical concepts# The State ,epartment &etermines 4hether it 4ill recogniEe its eCistence as la4f)lD an&D )ntil the State ,epartment has recogniEe& the ne4 esta(lishmentD the co)rt ma' not pass )pon its legitimac' or ascri(e to its &ecrees all the effect 4hich inheres in the la4s or or&ers of a so%ereign# The State ,epartment &etermines onl' that :)estion# It cannot &etermine ho4 far the pri%ate rights an& o(ligations of in&i%i&)als are affecte& (' acts of a (o&' not so%ereignD or 4ith 4hich o)r go%ernment 4ill ha%e no &ealings# The :)estion &oes not concern o)r foreign relations# It is not a political :)estionD ()t a B)&icial :)estion# The co)rts in consi&ering that :)estion ass)me as a premise that )ntil recognition these acts are not in f)ll sense la4# Their concl)sion m)st &epen& )pon 4hether these ha%e ne%ertheless ha& s)ch an act)al effect that the' ma' not (e

3/

&isregar&e&# In s)ch case 4e &eal 4ith res)lt rather than ca)se# 8e &o not pass )pon 4hat s)ch an )nrecogniEe& go%ernmental a)thorit' ma' &oD or )pon the right or 4rong of 4hat it has &oneJ 4e consi&er the effect )pon others of that 4hich has (een &oneD primaril' from the point of %ie4 of fact rather than of theor'#L SoD tooD onl' limite& effect is gi%en to the fact that the political arm has not recogniEe& a foreign go%ernment# Realisticall'D the co)rts apprehen& that political non@ recognition ma' ser%e onl' narro4 p)rposes# 8hile the B)&icial arm o(ligates itself to follo4 the s)ggestions of the political arm in effecting s)ch narro4 p)rposesD ne%erthelessD it 4ill not eCaggerate or compo)n& the conse:)ences re:)ire& (' s)ch narro4 p)rposes in constr)ing rights an& o(ligations affecte& (' the acts of )nrecogniEe& go%ernments# Appl'ing these principlesD it is ins)fficient for &efen&ant merel' to allege the non@ recognition of the East German Go%ernment an& the plaintiffGs assignor 4as organiEe& (' an& is an arm an& instr)mentalit' of s)ch )nrecogniEe& East German Go%ernment# The lack of B)ral stat)s of s)ch go%ernment or its creat)re corporation is not &eterminati%e of 4hether transactions 4ith it 4ill (e &enie& enforcement in American co)rtsD so long as the go%ernment is not the s)itor <Act)all'D on the present plea&ings no iss)e is raise& that plaintiff assignee is that go%ernmentD or is an arm of that go%ernmentD or that the assignment to him of the tra&e acceptance is in%ali& or &oes not represent a gen)ine transfer#=

31

Chapter !: "urisdiction #$er Territor% 3estern Sahara Case 1(&5 IC" 85d$isor% #pinion9 YP)rs)ant to a resol)tion of the General Assem(l'D the Co)rt 4as re:)este& to ren&er an a&%isor' opinion on certain :)estions affecting the legal stat)s of the 8estern SaharaD to 4hich SpainD Ma)ritaniaD an& Algeria asserte& so%ereign rights# After ha%ing consi&ere& an& reBecte& a n)m(er of preliminar' o(Bections to compliance 4ith this re:)estD the Co)rt contin)e&5Z >$# Ha%ing esta(lishe& that it is seiEe& of a re:)est for a&%isor' opinion 4hich it is competent to entertain an& that it sho)l& compl' 4ith that re:)estD the Co)rt 4ill no4 eCamine the t4o :)estions 4hich ha%e (een referre& to it (' General Assem(l' Resol)tion 91;1 <IIII=# These :)estions are so form)late& that an ans4er to the secon& is calle& for onl' if the ans4er to the first is in the negati%e5

KI# 8as 8estern Sahara <Rio &e Oro an& Sakiet El Hamra= at the time of coloniEation (' Spain a territor' (elonging to no one <terra n)lli)s=N KIf the ans4er to the first :)estion is in the negati%eD KII# 8hat 4ere the legal ties (et4een this territor' an& the 2ing&om of Morocco an& the Ma)ritanian entit'NL >># In the %ie4 of the Co)rtD for the p)rposes of the present OpinionD Kthe time of coloniEation (' SpainL ma' (e consi&ere& as the perio& (eginning in /--3D 4hen Spain proclaime& a protectorate o%er the Rio &e Oro# MMM T)ring to F)estion ID the Co)rt o(ser%es that the re:)est specificall' locate& the :)estion in the conteCt of Kthe time of coloniEation (' SpainLD an& it therefore seems clear that the 4or&s K8as 8estern Sahara MMM a territor' (elonging to no one <terra n)lli)s=NL ha%e to (e interprete& (' reference to the la4 in force at that perio&# The eCpression Kterra n)lli)sL 4as a legal term of art emplo'e& in connection 4ith Kocc)pationL as one of the accepte& legal metho&s of ac:)iring so%ereignt' o%er territor'# KOcc)pationL (eing legall' an original means of peacea(l' ac:)iring so%ereignt' o%er territor' other4ise than (' cession or s)ccessionD it 4as a car&inal con&ition of a %ali& Kocc)pationL that the territor' sho)l& (e terra n)lli)s R a territor' (elonging to no one at the time of the act allege& to constit)te the Kocc)pation <cf# Legal

39

Stat)s of Eastern Greenlan&D P#C#I#*#D Series AQ.D No# $9D pp# 33 f# an& 69f#=# In the %ie4 of the Co)rtD thereforeD a &etermination that 8estern Sahara 4as a Kterra n)lli)sL at the time of coloniEation (' Spain 4o)l& (e possi(le onl' if it 4ere esta(lishe& that at that time the territor' (elonge& to no one in the sense that it 4as then open to ac:)isition thro)gh the legal process of Kocc)pation#L 8hate%er &ifferences of opinion there ma' ha%e (een among B)ristsD the State practice of the rele%ant perio& in&icates that territories inha(ite& (' tri(es or peoples ha%ing a social an& political organiEation 4ere not regar&e& as terra n)lli)s# It sho4s that in the case of s)ch territories the ac:)isition of so%ereignt' 4as not generall' consi&ere& as effecte& )nilaterall' thro)gh Kocc)pationL of terra n)lli)s (' original title ()t thro)gh agreements concl)&e& 4ith local r)lers# On occasionD it is tr)eD the 4or& Kocc)pationL 4as )se& in a non@technical sense &enoting simpl' ac:)isition of so%ereignt'J ()t that &i& not signif' that the ac:)isition of so%ereignt' thro)gh s)ch agreements 4ith a)thorities of the co)ntr' 4as regar&e& as an Kocc)pationL of a Kterra n)lli)sL in the proper sense of these terms# On the contrar'D s)ch agreements 4ith local r)lersD 4hether or not consi&ere& as an act)al KcessionL of the territor'D 4ere regar&e& as &eri%ati%e roots of titleD an& not original titles o(taine& (' occ)pation of terra n)lli)s# In the present instanceD the information f)rnishe& to the Co)rt sho4s that at the time of coloniEation 8estern Sahara 4as inha(ite& (' peoples 4hichD if noma&icD 4ere sociall' an& politicall' organiEe& in tries an& )n&er chiefs competent to represent them# .efore the Co)rtD &iffering %ie4s 4ere eCpresse& concerning the nat)re an& legal %al)e of agreements (et4een a State an& local chiefs# .)t the Co)rt is not aske& (' F)estion I to prono)nce )pon the legal character or the legalit' of the titles 4hich le& to Spain (ecoming the a&ministering Po4er of 8estern Sahara# It is aske& onl' to state 4hether 8estern Sahara <Rio &e Oro an& Sakiet El Hamra= at the time of coloniEation (' Spain 4as Ka territor' (elonging to no one <terra n)lli)s=#L As to this :)estionD the Co)rt is satisfie& thatD for the reasons 4hich it has gi%enD its ans4er m)st (e in the negati%e# The Co)rtGs ans4er to F)estion I isD thereforeD in the negati%e an&D in accor&ance 4ith the terms of the re:)estD it 4ill not t)rn to F)estion II# F)estion II asks the Co)rt to state K4hat 4ere the legal ties (et4een this territor'L R that isD 8estern Sahara R Kan& the 2ing&om of Morocco an& the Ma)ritanian entit'#L The scope of this :)estion &epen&s )pon the meaning to (e attache& to the eCpression Klegal tiesL in the conteCt of the time of the coloniEation of the territor' (' Spain# That eCpressionD ho4e%erD )nlike Kterra n)lli)sL in F)estion ID 4as not a term ha%ing in itself a %er' precise meaning# Accor&ingl'D in the %ie4 of the Co)rtD the meaning of the eCpression Klegal tiesL in F)estion II has to (e fo)n& rather in the o(Bect an& p)rpose of General Assem(l' Resol)tion 91;1 <IIII=D (' 4hich it 4as &eci&e& to re:)est the present a&%isor' opinion of the Co)rt# Anal'sis of this resol)tionD as the Co)rt has alrea&' pointe& o)tD sho4s that the t4o :)estions containe& in the re:)est ha%e (een p)t to the Co)rt in the conteCt of

33

procee&ings in the General Assem(l' &irecte& to the &ecoloniEation of 8estern Sahara in conformit' 4ith Resol)tion /$/3 <I!= of /3 ,ecem(er /;60# ,)ring the &isc)ssion of this item accor&ing to Resol)tion 91;1 <IIII=D a legal contro%ers' arose o%er the stat)s of 8estern Sahara at the time of its coloniEation (' SpainJ an& the recor&s of the procee&ings make it plain that the Klegal contro%ers'L in :)estion concerne& pretensions p)t for4ar&D on the one han&D (' Morocco that the territor' 4as then a part of the Sherifian State an&D on the otherD (' Ma)ritania that the territor' then forme& part of the .ila& Shing)itti or Ma)ritania entit'# Accor&ingl'D it appears to the Co)rt that in F)estion II the 4or&s Klegal ties (et4een this territor' an& 2ing&om of Morocco an& the Ma)ritanian entit'L m)st (e )n&erstoo& as referring to s)ch Klegal tiesL as ma' affect the polic' to (e follo4e& in the &ecoloniEation of 8estern Sahara# In this connectionD the Co)rt cannot accept the %ie4 that the legal ties the General Assem(l' ha& in min& in framing F)estion II 4ere limite& to ties esta(lishe& &irectl' 4ith the territor' an& 4itho)t reference to the people 4ho ma' (e fo)n& in it# S)ch an interpretation 4o)l& )n&)l' restrict the scope of the :)estionD since legal ties are normall' esta(lishe& in relation to people# The Co)rt f)rther o(ser%e& thatD inasm)ch as F)estion II has its orgin in the contentions of Morocco an& Ma)ritaniaD it 4as for them to satisf' the Co)rt in the present procee&ings that legal ties eCiste& (et4een 8estern Sahara an& the 2ing&om of Morocco or the Ma)ritanian entit' at the time of the coloniEation of the territor' (' Spain# 8estern Sahara <Rio &e Oro an& Sakiet El Hamra= is a territor' ha%ing %er' special characteristics 4hichD at the time of coloniEation (' SpainD largel' &etermine& the 4a' of life an& social an& political organiEation of the peoples inha(iting it# In conse:)enceD the legal regime of 8estern SaharaD incl)&ing its legal relations 4ith neigh(o)ring territoriesD cannot properl' (e appreciate& 4itho)t reference to these special characteristics# The territor' forms part of the great Sahara &esert 4hich eCten&s from the Atlantic coast of Africa to Eg'pt an& the S)&an# At the time of its coloniEation (' SpainD the area of this &esert 4ith 4hich the Co)rt is concerne& 4as (eing eCploite&D (eca)se of its lo4 an& spasmo&ic rainfallD almost eCcl)si%el' (' noma&sD past)ring their animals or gro4ing crops as an& 4here con&itions 4ere fa%o)ra(le# It ma' (e sai& that the territor'D at the time of its coloniEationD ha& a sparse pop)lation thatD for the most partD consiste& of noma&ic tri(es the mem(ers of 4hich tra%erse& the &esert on more or less reg)lar ro)tes &ictate& (' the seasons an& the 4ells or 4ater@holes a%aila(le to them# In generalD the Co)rt 4as informe&D the right of past)re 4as enBo'e& in common (' these tri(esJ some areas s)ita(le for c)lti%ationD on the other han&D 4ere s)(Bect to a greater &egree to separate rights# Perennial 4ater@holes 4ere in principle consi&ere& the propert' of the tri(e 4hich p)t them intocommissionD tho)gh their )se also 4as open to allD s)(Bect to certain c)stoms as to priorities an& the amo)nt of 4ater taken# Similarl'D man' tri(es 4ere sai& to ha%e their recogniEe& ()rial gro)n&sD 4hich constit)te& a rall'ing point for themsel%es an& for allie& tri(es# Another feat)re of life in the regionD accor&ing to the information (efore the Co)rtD 4as that inter@tri(al conflict 4as not infre:)ent# These %ario)s points of attraction of a tri(e to partic)lar localities 4ere reflecte& in its noma&ic ro)tes# .)t 4hat is important for present p)rposes is the fact that the

3$

sparsit' of the reso)rces an& the spasmo&ic character of the rainfall compelle& all those noma&ic tri(es to tra%erse %er' 4i&e areas of the &esert# In conse:)enceD the noma&ic ro)tes of none of them 4ere confine& to 8estern SaharaJ some passe& also thro)gh areas of so)thern MoroccoD or of present@&a' Ma)ritania or AlgeriaD an& some e%en thro)gh f)rther co)ntries# All the tri(es 4ere of the Islamic faith an& the 4hole territor' la' 4ithin the ,ar al@Islam# In general a)thorit' in the tri(e 4as %este& in a sheikhD s)(Bect to the assent of the K*)maGaL that isD of an assem(l' of its lea&ing mem(ersD an& the tri(e ha& its o4n c)stomar' la4 applica(le in conB)nction 4ith the 2oranic la4# Not infre:)entl' one tri(e ha& ties 4ith anotherD either of &epen&ence or of allianceD 4hich 4ere essentiall' tri(al rather than territorialD ties of allegiance or %assalage# It is in the conteCt of s)ch a territor' an& s)ch a social an& political organiEation of the pop)lation that the Co)rt has to eCamine the :)estion of the Klegal tiesL (et4een 8estern Sahara an& the 2ing&om of Morocco an& the Ma)ritanian entit' at the time of coloniEation (' Spain# At the concl)sion of the oral procee&ingsD as 4ill (e seenD Morocco an& Ma)ritania took )p 4hat 4as almost a common position on the ans4er to (e gi%en (' the Co)rt on F)estion II# The contentions on 4hich the' respecti%el' (ase the legal ties 4hich the' claim to ha%e ha& 4ith 8estern Sahara at the time of its coloniEation (' Spain areD ho4e%erD &ifferent an& in some &egree oppose&# The inferences to (e &ra4n from the information (efore the Co)rt concerning internal acts of Moroccan so%ereignt' an& from that concerning international acts areD thereforeD in accor& in not pro%i&ing in&ications of the eCistenceD at the rele%ant perio&D of an' legal tie of territorial so%ereignt' (et4een 8estern Sahara an& the Moroccan State# The same timeD the' in accor& in pro%i&ing in&ications of a legal tie of allegiance (et4een the S)ltan of Morocco an& someD tho)gh onl' someD of the tri(es of the territor'D in pro%i&ing in&ications of some &ispla' of the S)ltanGs a)thorit' or infl)ence 4ith respect to those tri(es# .efore attemptingD ho4e%erD to form)late more precisel' its concl)sions as to the ans4er to (e gi%en to F)estion II in the case of MoroccoD the Co)rt m)st eCamine the sit)ation in the territor' at the time of coloniEation in relation to the Ma)ritanian entit'# This is so (eca)se the Klegal tiesL in%oke& (' Ma)ritania o%erlap 4ith those in%oke& (' Morocco# The Co)rt 4ill take )p the :)estion of 4hat 4ere the legal ties 4hich eCiste& (et4een 8estern SaharaD at the time of its coloniEation (' SpainD an& the Ma)ritanian entit'# As the %er' form)lation of F)estion II impliesD the position of the Islamic Rep)(lic of Ma)ritania in relation to 8estern Sahara at that &ate &iffers from that of Morocco for the reason that there 4as not then an' Ma)ritanian State in eCistence# In the present procee&ings Ma)ritania has eCpressl' accepte& that the KMa)ritanian entit'L &i& not then constit)te a StateJ an& also that the present statehoo& of Ma)ritania Kis not retroacti%e#L Conse:)entl'D it is clear that it is not legal ties of State so%ereignt' 4ith 4hich the Co)rt is concerne& in the case of the KMa)ritanian entit'L ()t other legal ties# In the case concerning Raparation for InB)ries S)ffere& in the Ser%ice of the +nite& NationsD the Co)rt o(ser%e&5 KThe s)(Bect of la4 in an' legal s'stem are not necessaril' i&entical in their nat)re or in the eCtent of their rightsD an& their nat)re

36

&epen&s )pon the nee&s of the comm)nit'L <IC* Reports /;3;D p# />-=# In eCamining the propositions of Ma)ritania regar&ing the legal nat)re of the .ila& Shing)itti or Ma)ritanian entit'D the Co)rt gi%es f)ll 4eight (oth to that o(ser%ation an& to the special characteristics of the Saharan region an& peoples 4ith 4hich the present procee&ings are concerne&# Some criterion hasD ho4e%erD to (e emplo'e& to &etermine in an' partic)lar case 4hether 4hat confronts the la4 is or is not legall' an Kentit'L# The Co)rtD moreo%erD notes that in the Reparation case the criterion 4hich it applie& 4as to in:)ire 4hether the +nite& Nations OrganiEation R the entit' in%ol%e& R 4as in s)ch a position that it possessesD in regar& to its Mem(ersD rights 4hich it is entitle& to ask them to respect <i(i&#= in that opinionD no &o)(tD the criterion 4as applie& in a some4hat special conteCt# Ne%erthelessD it eCpresses the essential test 4here a gro)pD 4hether compose& of StatesD of tri(es or of in&i%i&)alsD is claime& to (e a legal entit' &istinct from its mem(ers# In the present caseD the information (efore the Co)rt &iscloses thatD at the time of the Spanish coloniEationD there eCiste& ma' ties of a racialD ling)isticD religio)sD c)lt)ral an& economic nat)re (et4een %ario)s tri(es an& emirates 4hose peoples &4elt in the Saharan region 4hich to&a' is comprise& 4ithin the Territor' of 8estern Sahara an& the Islamic Rep)(lic of Ma)ritania# It also &isclosesD ho4e%erD the in&epen&ence of the emirates an& man' of the tri(es in relation to one another an&D &espite some forms of common acti%it'D the a(sence among them of an' common instit)tions or organsD e%en of a :)ite minimal character# Accor&ingl'D the Co)rt is )na(le to fin& that the information (efore it pro%i&es an' (asis for consi&ering the emirates an& tri(es 4hich eCiste& in the region to ha%e constit)te&D in another phrase )se& (' the Co)rt in the Reparation caseD Kan entit' capa(le of a%ailing itself of o(ligations inc)m(ent )pon its Mem(ers#L 8hether the Ma)ritanian entit' is &escri(e& as the .ila& Shing)ittiD or as the Shing)itti KnationDL as Ma)ritania s)ggestsD or as some form of leag)e or associationD the &iffic)lt' remains that it &i& not ha%e the character of a personalit' or corporate entit' &istinct from the se%eral emirates an& tri(es 4hich compose& it# The propositionD thereforeD that the .ila& Shing)itti sho)l& (e consi&ere& as ha%ing (een a Ma)ritanian Kentit'L enBo'ing some form of so%ereignt' in 8estern Sahara is not one that can (e s)staine&# The Co)rt m)st concl)&e that at the time of coloniEation (' Spain there &i& not eCist (et4een the territor' of 8estern Sahara an& the Ma)ritanian entit' an' tie of so%ereignt'D or of allegiance of tri(esD or of Ksimple incl)sionL in the legal entit'# This concl)sion &oes notD ho4e%erD mean that the repl' to F)estion II sho)l& necessaril' (e that at the time of coloniEation (' Spain no legal ties at all eCiste& (et4een the territor' of 8estern Sahara an& the Ma)ritanian entit'# The lang)age emplo'e& (' the General Assem(l' in F)estion II &oes not appear to (e the Co)rt to confine the :)estion eCcl)si%el' to those legal ties 4hich impl' territorial so%ereignt'# On the contrar'D the )se of the eCpression Klegal tiesL in conB)nction 4ith KMa)ritanian entit'L in&icates that F)estion II en%isage the possi(ilit' of other ties of legal character# To confine the :)estion to ties of so%ereignt' 4o)l&D moreo%erD (e to ignore the special characteristics of the Saharan region an& peoples to 4hich reference has (een ma&eD an&

3>

also to &isregar& the possi(le rele%ance of other legal ties to the %ario)s proce&)res concerne& in the &ecoloniEation process# The information (efore the Co)rt makes it clear that the noma&ism of the great maBorit' of the peoples of 8estern Sahara at the time of its coloniEation ga%e rise to certain ties of a legal character (et4een the tri(es of the territor' an& those of neigh(oring regions of the .ila& Shing)itti# The migration ro)tes of almost all the noma&ic tri(es of 8estern SaharaD the Co)rt 4as informe&D crosse& 4hat 4ere to (ecome the colonial frontiers an& tra%erse&D inter aliaD s)(stantial areas of 4hat is to&a' the territor' of the Islamic Rep)(lic of Ma)ritania# The tri(esD in their migrationsD ha& graEing past)resD c)lti%ate& lan&sD an& 4ells or 4ater@holes in (oth territoriesD an& their ()rial gro)n&s in one or other territor'# The (asic elements of the noma&sG 4a' of lifeD as state& earlierD 4ere in some meas)re the s)(Bect of tri(al rightsD an& their )se 4as in general reg)late& (' c)stoms# )rthermreD the relations (et4een all the tri(es of the region in s)ch matters as inter@tri(al clashes an& the settlement of &isp)tes 4ere also go%erne& (' a (o&' of inter@tri(al c)stoms# .efore the time of 8estern SaharaGs coloniEation (' SpainD those legal ties neither ha& not co)l& ha%e an' other so)rce than the )sage of the tri(es themsel%es of 2oranic la4# Accor&ingl'D altho)gh the .ila& Shing)itti has not (een sho4n to ha%e eCiste& as a legal entit'D the noma&ic people of the Shing)itti co)ntr' sho)l&D in %ie4 of the Co)rtD (e consi&eres as ha%ing in the rele%ant thro)gh perio& possesse& rightsD incl)&ing some rights relating to the lan&s thro)gh 4hich the' migrate&# These rightsD the Co)rt concl)&esD constit)te& legal ties (et4een the territor' of 8estern Sahara an& the KMa)ritanian entit'DL this eCpression (eing taken to &enote the %ario)s tri(es li%ing in the territories of the .ila& Shing)itti 4hich are no4 comprise& 4ithin the Islamic Rep)(lic of Ma)ritania# The' 4ere ties 4hich kne4 no frontier (et4een the territories an& 4ere %ital to the %er' maintenance of life in the region#

3-

Island of /al)as Case Netherlands $< 1nited States The s)(Bect of the &isp)te is the so%ereignt' of the Islan& of Palmas <or Miangas=# Palmas is a singeD isolate& islan&# It lies a(o)t half@4a' (et4een Cape San A)g)stin <Min&anaoD Philippines= an& the most northerl' islan& of Nan)sa <Nanoesa= gro)p <Netherlan&s East In&ies=# .oth the Netherlan&s an& the +nite& States claim the Islan& of Palmas as a territor' attache& for a %er' long perio& of time to territories close at han& 4hich are )n&er the so%ereignt' of the one or the other of them# The +nite& States (ase its title in the first place on &isco%er'# The eCistence of so%ereignt' is confirme& (' the Treat' of M)nster of /63- to 4hich Netherlan&s is a part'# Nothing has occ)rre& of a nat)re to ca)se the ac:)ire& title to &isappear 4hen Spain ce&e& the Philippines to the +nite& States (' the Treat' of /0 ,ecem(er /-;-# +nite& States maintaine& that the Palmas forms a geographical part of the Philippine gro)p an& in %irt)e of the principle of contig)it' (elongs to the Po4er ha%ing so%ereignt' o%er the Philippines# The Netherlan&s arg)ment en&ea%ors to sho4 that the Netherlan&s ha%e possesse& an& eCercise& rights of so%ereignt' from /6>> to the present &a'# This so%ereignt' arose o)t of con%entions entere& 4ith nati%e princes of Islan& of Sangi esta(lishing the s)Eeraint' of the Netherlan&s o%er the territories of these princesD incl)&ing Palmas# So%ereignt' in the relations (et4een States signifies in&epen&ence# In&epen&ence in regar& to a portion of the glo(e is the right to eCercise thereinD to the eCcl)sion of an' other StateD the f)nctions of a State# If a &isp)te arises as to the so%ereignt' o%er a portion of territor'D it is c)stomar' to eCamine 4hich States claiming so%ereignt' possesses a title s)perior to the other State# Ho4e%er if the other Part' has act)all' &ispla'e& so%ereignt'D it cannot (e s)fficient to esta(lish titleJ it m)st also (e sho4n that the territorial so%ereignt' 4as %ali&l' ac:)ire&# This &emonstration consists in the act)al &ispla' of State acti%itiesD s)ch as (elongs onl' to the territorial so%ereign# The title allege& (' the +nite& States as the imme&iate fo)n&ation of its claim is cession (ro)ght a(o)t (' the Treat' of Paris# It is e%i&ent that Spain co)l& not transfer more rights than she herself possesse&# It 4o)l& seem that the cessionar' Po4er ne%er en%isage& that the cession sho)l& comprise territories 4hich Spain has not a %ali& title#

3;

The +nite& States (ases its claimD as s)ccessor of SpainD in the first place of &isco%er'# The fact that the islan& 4as originall' calle& (' a name (orro4e& from a E)ropean lang)ageD an& referring to the %egetationD ser%es perhaps to sho4 that no lan&ing 4as ma&e# In&ee&D the reports on recor& on the &isco%er' of the Islan& of Palmas state onl' that the islan& 4as seen# No mention 4as ma&e of lan&ing or of contact 4ith the nati%es# An& in an' case no signs of taking possession or of a&ministration (' Spain ha%e (een sho4n or e%en allege& to eCist# ,isco%er' aloneD 4itho)t an' s)(se:)ent actD cannot at the present time pro%e so%ereignt' o%er the Islan& of Palmas# An inchoate title of &isco%er' m)st (e complete& 4ithin a reasona(le perio& (' the effecti%e occ)pation of the region claime& to (e &isco%ere&# No act of occ)pation or an' eCercise of so%ereignt' at Palmas (' Spain has (een allege&# Moreo%erD an inchoate title co)l& not pre%ail o%er the contin)o)s an& peacef)l &ispla' of a)thorit' (' the other State# The Netherlan&s fo)n& their claim to so%ereignt' essentiall' on the title of peacef)l an& contin)o)s &ispla' of State a)thorit' o%er the islan&# Since this title 4o)l& in international la4 pre%ail o%er a title of ac:)isition of so%ereignt' not follo4e& (' act)al &ispla' of State a)thorit'D it is necessar' to ascertain 4hether the claim of Netherlan&s is s)fficientl' esta(lishe& (' e%i&enceD an& if soD for 4hat perio& of time# The acts of in&irect or &irect &ispla' of Netherlan&s so%ereignt' at Palmas are not n)mero)s an& there are consi&era(le gaps in the e%i&ence of contin)o)s &ispla'# .)t apart from the consi&eration that the manifestations of so%ereignt' o%er a small an& &istant islan&D inha(ite& onl' (' nati%esD cannot (e eCpecte& to (e fre:)entD it is not necessar' that the &ispla' of so%ereignt' sho)l& go (ack to a %er' &istant perio&# It ma' s)ffice that s)ch &ispla' eCiste& in the critical perio& of /-;- an& ha& alrea&' eCiste& as contin)es an& peacef)l (efore that &ate# The &ispla' has (een open an& p)(lic in conformit' 4ith )sages as to eCercise of so%ereignt' o%er colonial States# The Ar(itrator &eci&es in fa%or of Netherlan&s setting forth that the Islan& of Palmas forms in its entiret' is a part of Netherlan&s territor'#

$0

L465L ST5T1S #2 45ST4+N 6+44NL5N0 C5S4 /er)anent Court of International "ustice "ud-)entA 5pril 5A 1(33 Series 5E;< No<53 <,enmark %# Nor4a'= On *)l' /0thD /;9/D the Nor4egian Go%ernment p)(lishe& a proclamation &eclaring that it ha& procee&e& to occ)p' certain territories in Eastern Greenlan&D on the theor' that the territor' 4as terra n)lli)sD 4hichD in the contention of the ,anish Go%ernmentD 4ere s)(Bect to the so%ereignt' of the Cro4n of ,enmark# The first ,anish arg)ment is that the Nor4egian occ)pation of part of the East coast of Greenlan& is in%ali& (eca)se ,enmark has claime& an& eCercise& so%ereign rights o%er Greenlan& as a 4hole for a long time an& has o(taine& there(' a %ali& title to so%ereignt'# The &ate at 4hich s)ch ,anish so%ereignt' m)st ha%e eCiste& in or&er to ren&er the Nor4egian occ)pation in%ali& is the &ate at 4hich the occ)pation took placeD %iE#D *)l' I0thD /;9/# The ,anish claim is not fo)n&e& )pon an' partic)lar act of occ)pation ()t alleges @ to )se the phrase emplo'e& in the Palmas Islan& &ecision of the Permanent Co)rt of Ar(itration April 3thD /;1- @ a title P fo)n&e& on the peacef)l an& contin)o)s &ispla' of State a)thorit' o%er the islan&P# It is (ase& )pon the %ie4 that ,enmark no4 enBo's all the rights 4hich the 2ing of ,enmark an& Nor4a' enBo'e& o%er Greenlan& )p till /-/3# .oth the eCistence an& the eCtent of these rights m)st therefore (e consi&ere&D as 4ell as the ,anish claim to so%ereignt' since that &ate# The iss)e is to 4hich territor' &oes Greenlan& (elongN It m)st (e (orne in min&D ho4e%erD that as the critical &ate is *)l' l0thD /;9/D it is not necessar' that so%ereignt' o%er Greenlan& sho)l& ha%e eCiste& thro)gho)t the perio& &)ring 4hich the ,anish Go%ernment maintains that it 4as in (eing# E%en if the material s)(mitte& to the Co)rt might (e tho)ght ins)fficient to esta(lish the eCistence of that so%ereignt' &)ring the earlier perio&sD this 4o)l& not eCcl)&e a fin&ing that it is s)fficient to esta(lish a %ali& title in the perio& imme&iatel' prece&ing the occ)pation# .efore procee&ing to consi&er in &etail the e%i&ence s)(mitte& to the Co)rtD it ma' (e 4ell to state that a claim to so%ereignt' (ase& not )pon some partic)lar act or title s)ch as a treat' of cession ()t merel' )pon contin)e& &ispla' of a)thorit'D in%ol%es t4o elements each of 4hich m)st (e sho4n to eCist5 the intention an& 4ill to act as so%ereignD an& some act)al eCercise or &ispla' of s)ch a)thorit'#

$/

Another circ)mstance 4hich m)st (e taken into acco)nt (' an' tri()nal 4hich has to a&B)&icate )pon a claim to so%ereignt' o%er a partic)lar territor'D is the eCtent to 4hich the so%ereignt' is also claime& (' some other Po4er# In most of the cases in%ol%ing claims to territorial so%ereignt' 4hich ha%e come (efore an international tri()nalD there ha%e (een t4o competing claims to the so%ereignt'D an& the tri()nal has ha& to &eci&e 4hich of the t4o is the stronger# One of the pec)liar feat)res of the present case is that )p to /;9/ there 4as no claim (' an' Po4er other than ,enmark to the so%ereignt' o%er Greenlan&# In&ee&D )p till /;1/D no Po4er &isp)te& the ,anish claim to so%ereignt'# It is impossi(le to rea& the recor&s of the &ecisions in cases as to territorial so%ereignt' 4itho)t o(ser%ing that in man' cases the tri()nal has (een satisfie& 4ith %er' little in the 4a' of the act)al eCercise of so%ereign rightsD pro%i&e& that the other State co)l& not make o)t a s)perior claim# This is partic)larl' tr)e in the case of claims to so%ereignt' o%er areas in thinl' pop)late& or )nsettle& co)ntries# The Co)rt hol&s thatD in conse:)ence of the %ario)s )n&ertakings res)lting from the separation of Nor4a' an& ,enmark an& c)lminating in Article ; of the Con%ention of Septem(er /stD /-/;D Nor4a' has recogniEe& ,anish so%ereignt' o%er the 4hole of Greenlan& an& conse:)entl' cannot procee& to the occ)pation of an' part thereof# In accepting these (ilateral an& m)ltilateral agreements as (in&ing )pon herselfD Nor4a' reaffirme& that she recogniEe& the 4hole of Greenlan& as ,anishJ an& there(' she has &e(arre& herself from contesting ,anish so%ereignt' o%er the 4hole of Greenlan&D an&D in conse:)enceD from procee&ing to occ)p' an' part of it# In %ie4 of the a(o%e factsD 4hen taken in conB)nction 4ith the legislation she ha& enacte& applica(le to Greenlan& generall'D the n)mero)s treaties in 4hich ,enmarkD 4ith the conc)rrence of the other contracting Part'D pro%i&e& for the non@application of the treat' to Greenlan& in generalD an& the a(sence of all claim to so%ereignt' o%er Greenlan& (' an' other Po4erD ,enmark m)st (e regar&e& as ha%ing &ispla'e& &)ring this perio& of /-/3 to /;/$ her a)thorit' o%er the )ncoloniEe& part of the co)ntr' to a &egree s)fficient to confer a %ali& title to the so%ereignt'# E%en if the perio& from /;1/ to *)l' /0thD /;9/D is taken (' itself an& 4itho)t reference to the prece&ing perio&sD the concl)sion reache& (' the Co)rt is that &)ring this time ,enmark regar&e& herself as possessing so%ereignt' o%er all Greenlan& an& &ispla'e& an& eCercise her so%ereign rights to an eCtent s)fficient to constit)te a %ali& title to so%ereignt'# 8hen consi&ere& in conB)nction 4ith the facts of the prece&ing perio&sD the case in fa%o)r of ,enmark is confirme& an& strengthene&# It follo4s from the a(o%e that the Co)rt is satisfie& that ,enmark has s)ccee&e& in esta(lishing her contention that at the critical &ateD namel'D *)l' /0thD /;9/D she possesse& a %ali& title to the so%ereignt' o%er all Greenlan&#

$1

S=%Lab /ro ect The Sk'la( space station 4as la)nche& Ma' /3D /;>9D from the NASA 2enne&' Space Center (' a h)ge Sat)rn ! la)nch %ehicleD the moon rocket of the Apollo Space Program# It 4as AmericaHs first eCperimental space station# ,esigne& for long &)ration missionD Sk'la( program o(Becti%es 4ere t4ofol&5 To pro%e that h)mans co)l& li%e an& 4ork in space for eCten&e& perio&sD an& to eCpan& o)r kno4le&ge of solar astronom' 4ell (e'on& Earth@(ase& o(ser%ations# Ho4e%erD a pro(lem arose 4hen the air trappe& (et4een the meteoroi& ()mper an& spacecraft s)rface co)l& not escape fast eno)gh &)ring ascentJ a press)re &ifferential ()ilt )p 4hich tore the ()mper off# In the processD the thermal protection on the spacecraft s)rface 4as (a&l' &amage&D an& one of the t4o (ig solar panels 4as torn off# As a res)ltD the electric po4er a%aila(le for Sk'la( operation 4as s)(stantiall' c)rtaile&D an& the interior of Sk'la( heate& )p to &angero)s le%els )n&er the solar heat infl)C# A frantic effort imme&iatel' (egan on Earth (' MarshallD *ohnsonD an& se%eral of the in&)strial firms to repair the &amage as far as possi(le# La)nching of the first astrona)ts 4as &ela'e& a fe4 &a'sD ()t the' s)ccee&e& in (ringing the temperat)re insi&e the o%erheate& Sk'la( (ack to normal 4ith the help of the s)nshiel&D an& the' manage& to get the normal operational proce&)res going on the re&)ce& electric po4er le%el# The first cre4 @ Conra&D 2er4inD an& 8eitE @ sta'e& 1- &a's in Sk'la(J the secon& cre4 @ .eanD GarriottD an& Lo)sma @ sta'e& $; &a'sJ an& the thir& cre4 @ CarrD Gi(sonD an& Pog)e @ -3 &a's# ,amage control pro%e& to (e a f)ll s)ccessD an& the Sk'la( proBect t)rne& o)t to (e (' far the most prolific an& s)ccessf)l scientific an& technical enterprise in space# The scientific 'iel& 4as o%er4helmingJ for eCampleD there 4ere 30D000 photographs taken of the EarthHs s)rface[ O)r kno4le&ge of the S)n rose (' a &ramatic B)mpD the first cr'stals )n&er microgra%it' 4ere gro4nD an& o)r &ata (ase for (iome&ical effects an& reactions )n&er the 4eightlessness of space increase& &ecisi%el'# A total of a(o)t ninet' &ifferent eCperiments an& o(ser%ations 4ere carrie& o)t on Sk'la(D prepare& an& monitore& (' scientists from n)mero)s )ni%ersities an& research instit)tes# .esi&es all these accomplishmentsD there 4as the ass)rance for the space engineers that it is reall' possi(le to repair a (a&l' &amage& spacecraft in or(itD an& to restore it to almost normal f)nctioning# ollo4ing the final manne& phase of the Sk'la( missionD gro)n& controllers performe& some engineering tests of certain Sk'la( s'stems@@tests that gro)n& personnel 4ere rel)ctant to &o 4hile men 4ere a(oar&# Res)lts from these tests helpe& to &etermine

$9

ca)ses of fail)res &)ring the mission an& to o(tain &ata on long term &egra&ation of space s'stems# +pon completion of the engineering testsD Sk'la( 4as positione& into a sta(le attit)&e an& s'stems 4ere sh)t &o4n# It 4as eCpecte& that Sk'la( 4o)l& remain in or(it eight to ten 'ears# Ho4e%erD in the fall of /;>>D it 4as &etermine& that Sk'la( 4as no longer in a sta(le attit)&e as a res)lt of greater than pre&icte& solar acti%it'# In /;>;D The spacecraft 4as t)rne& offD its or(it &eca'e&D an& it (roke )p as it reentere& the atmosphere# // *)l' /;>;D most of its pieces ()rne& )p in the atmosphere# Of the pieces that s)r%i%e& the heat of reentr' D most fell into the So)theastern In&ian Ocean# Se%eral tonnes of &e(ris crashe& into the Great A)stralian ,esertD ha%ing re@ entere& the EarthGs atmosphere se%eral tho)san& kilometers from its planne& or(ital track# None ca)se& an' &amage# This pro%oke& a h)rrie& an& rather em(arrasse& apolog' to the A)stralian Go%ernment (' Presi&ent Carter# Ne%erthelessD this e%ent f)rther )rge& the international comm)nit' to make 4a' on ho4 to han&le lia(ilities that co)l& (e ca)se& (' space eCploration# The Lia(ilit' Con%ention that esta(lishe& an a(sol)te lia(ilit' for &amages on Earth ca)se& (' space acti%ities 4as gi%en more massi%e attention# Lia(ilit' (ase& on fa)lt is a)thoriEe& for &amage in space <Article //=# The Lia(ilit' Con%ention also pro%i&es that nations are Bointl' an& se%erall' lia(le for &amages ca)se& (' their cooperati%e space effort <Articles I! an& !=# One nation ma' (e hel& lia(le for the entire acci&ent#

$3

Chapter &: Law of the Sea North Sea Continental Shelf Cases 2ederal +epublic of 6er)an% $< 0en)ar=F 2ederal +epublic of 6er)an% $< The Netherlands International Court of "ustice 2ebruar% 2*A 1(!( 6eneral List: Nos< 51 G 52 "ud-)ent of 2* 2ebruar% 1(!( A n)m(er of (ilateral agreements ha& (een ma&e &ra4ing lateral me&ian lines &elimiting the North Sea continental shel%es of a&Bacent an& opposite StatesD incl)&ing t4o lateral agreements (et4een Netherlan&s an& the e&eral Rep)(lic of German' </;63= an& ,enmark an& the e&eral Rep)(lic of German' </;6$=# Each of these last t4o agreementsD ho4e%erD &i& no more than &ra4 a &i%i&ing line for a short &istance from the coastD (eginning at the point at 4hich the lan& (o)n&ar' of the t4o States concerne& 4as locate&# There 4ere no f)rther agreements ma&e# The pro(lem 4as referre& to the International Co)rt of *)stice# 8hat principles an& r)les of international la4 are applica(le to the &elimitation as (et4een the Parties of the areas of continental shelf in the North Sea that appertain to each of them (e'on& the partial (o)n&ar' alrea&' &etermine&N ,enmark an& Netherlan&s arg)e& that the Ke:)i&istance@special circ)mstances principlesL in Article 6<1= of the /;$- Gene%a Con%ention on the Continental Shelf applie& 4hile e&eral Rep)(lic propose& Kthe &octrine of the B)st an& e:)ita(le share#L The (asis of the e&eral Rep)(licGs opposition is that the principle has the effect of gi%ing 8est German' a smaller continental shelf than it might other4ise o(tain# The Co)rt reBecte& the 8ets German proposal an& no4 t)rns to the legal position regar&ing e:)i&istance metho&# The first :)estion to (e consi&ere& is 4hether the /;$- Gene%a Con%ention on the Continental Shelf is (in&ing for all PartiesD as conten&e& (' ,enmark an& Netherlan&s# It is a&mitte& on (ehalf of ,enmark an& the Netherlan&s that in these circ)mstancesD the e&eral Rep)(lic is not contract)all' (o)n& (' it# Ho4e%erD it is still arg)e& that the Con%entionD or the regime of the Con%entionD an& in partic)lar Article 6D has (ecome (in&ing on the e&eral Rep)(lic in another 4a'D@namel' (eca)se (' con&)ctD (' p)(lic

$$

statements an& proclamationsD an& in other 4a'sD the Rep)(lic has )nilaterall' ass)me& the o(ligations of the Con%entionJ or has manifeste& its acceptance of con%entional regimeJ or has recogniEe& it as (eing generall' applica(le to the &elimitation of continental shelf areas# The essential point is that e%en if these instances of action (' non@parties to the Con%ention 4ere m)ch more n)mero)s than in fact the' areD the' 4o)l& notD e%en in the aggregateD s)ffice themsel%es to constit)te opinio B)ris# In or&er to achie%e thisD not onl' m)st the acts concerne& amo)nt to settle& practiceD ()t the' m)st also (e s)chD or (e carrie& o)t in s)ch a 4a'D as to (e e%i&ence of a (elief that this practice is ren&ere& o(ligator' (' the eCistence of a r)le of la4 re:)iring it# The nee& for s)ch a (eliefD i#e#D the eCistence of a s)(Becti%e elementD is implicit in the %er' notion of the opinio B)ris si%e necessitat)s# The States concerne& m)stD thereforeD feel that the' are con forming to 4hat amo)nts to a legal o(ligation# The fre:)enc'D or e%en ha(it)al character of the acts is not itself eno)gh# There are man' international actsD e#g#D in the fiel& of ceremonial an& protocolD 4hich are performe& in%aria(leD ()t 4hich are moti%ate& onl' (' consi&erations of co)rtes'D con%enience of tra&itionD an& not (' the sense of legal &)t'# The Co)rt follo4s the %ie4 a&opte& (' the Permanent Co)rt of International *)stice in the Lot)s CaseD the principle of 4hich isD (' analog'D applica(le almost 4or& for 4or& Ym)tatis m)tan&isZ# Appl'ing this &ict)mD the States concerne& agree& to &ra4 or &i& &ra4 the (o)n&aries concerne& accor&ing to the principle of e:)i&istance# There is no e%i&ence that the' so acte& (eca)se the' felt legall' compelle& to &ra4 them in this 4a' (' reason of a r)le of c)stomar' la4 o(liging them to &o so@ especiall' consi&ering that the' might ha%e (een moti%ate& (' other o(%io)s factors# The Co)rt concl)&es that if the Gene%a Con%ention 4as not in its origins or inception &eclarator' of a man&ator' r)le of c)stomar' international la4 enBoining the )se of e:)i&istance principleD neither has its s)(se:)ent effect (een constit)ti%e of s)ch r)le# The Co)rt fo)n& that neither of the approaches arg)e& (' the parties 4as a part of international la4D the Co)rt procee&e& to la' &o4n principles an& r)les that appl'#

$6

Chapter ': "urisdiction of States C#+21 C,5NN4L C5S4 "ud-)ent of ( 5pril 1(4( The facts are as follo4s# On Octo(er 11n&D /;36D t4o .ritish cr)isers an& t4o &estro'ersD coming from the so)thD entere& the North Corf) Strait# The channel the' 4ere follo4ingD 4hich 4as in Al(anian 4atersD 4as regar&e& as safe5 it ha& (een s4ept in /;33 an& check@s4ept in /;3$# One of the &estro'ersD the Saumarez, when off Saran&aD str)ck a mine an& 4as gra%el' &amage&# The other &estro'erD the Volage, 4as sent to her assistance an&D 4hile to4ing herD str)ck another mine an& 4as also serio)sl' &amage&# ort'@fi%e .ritish officers an& sailors lost their li%esD an& fort'@t4o others 4ere 4o)n&e&# An inci&ent ha& alrea&' occ)rre& in these 4aters on Ma' /$thD /;365 an Al(anian (atter' ha& fire& in the &irection of t4o .ritish cr)isers# The +nite& 2ing&om Go%ernment ha& proteste&D stating that innocent passage thro)gh straits is a right recogniEe& (' international la4J the Al(anian Go%ernment ha& replie& that foreign 4arships an& merchant %essels ha& no right to pass thro)gh Al(anian territorial 4aters 4itho)t prior a)thoriEationJ an& on A)g)st 1n&D /;36D the +nite& 2ing&om Go%ernment ha& replie& that ifD in the f)t)reD fire 4as opene& on a .ritish 4arship passing thro)gh the channelD the fire 4o)l& (e ret)rne&# inall'D on Septem(er 1/stD /;36D the A&miralt' in Lon&on ha& ca(le& to the .ritish Comman&er@in@Chief in the Me&iterranean to the follo4ing effect5 PEsta(lishment of &iplomatic relations 4ith Al(ania is again )n&er consi&eration (' His MaBest'Hs Go%ernment 4ho 4ish to kno4 4hether the Al(anian Go%ernment ha%e learnt to (eha%e themsel%es# Information is re:)este& 4hether an' ships )n&er 'o)r comman& ha%e passe& thro)gh the North Corf) Strait since A)g)st an&D if notD 4hether 'o) inten& them to &o so shortl'#P After the eCplosions on Octo(er 11n&D the +nite& 2ing&om Go%ernment sent a Note to Tirana anno)ncing its intention to s4eep the Corf) Channel shortl'# The repl' 4as that this consent 4o)l& not (e gi%en )nless the operation in :)estion took place o)tsi&e Al(anian territorial 4aters an& that an' s4eep )n&ertaken in those 4aters 4o)l& (e a %iolation of Al(aniaHs so%ereignt'# The s4eep effecte& (' the .ritish Na%' took place on No%em(er /1thQ/9th /;36D in Al(anian territorial 4aters an& 4ithin the limits of the channel pre%io)sl' s4ept# T4ent'@t4o moore& mines 4ere c)tJ the' 4ere mines of the German G7 t'pe# The t4o Parties concl)&e& a Special Agreement asking the Co)rt to gi%e B)&gment on the follo4ing :)estions5 $>

/# Is Al(ania responsi(le for the eCplosionsD an& is there a &)t' to pa' compensationN 1# Has the +nite& 2ing&om %iolate& international la4 (' the acts of its Na%' in Al(anian 4atersD first on the &a' on 4hich the eCplosions occ)rre& an&D secon&l'D on No%em(er /1 an& /9D /;36D 4hen it )n&ertook a s4eep of the StraitN /# In its *)&gment the Co)rt &eclare& on the first :)estion that Al(ania 4as responsi(le# The Co)rt fin&sD in the first placeD that the eCplosions 4ere ca)se& (' mines (elonging to the minefiel& &isco%ere& on No%em(er /9th# It is notD in&ee&D conteste& that this minefiel& ha& (een recentl' lai&J it 4as in the channelD 4hich ha& (een pre%io)sl' s4ept an& check@s4ept an& co)l& (e regar&e& as safeD that the eCplosions ha& taken place# The nat)re of the &amage sho4s that it 4as &)e to mines of the same t'pe as those s4ept on No%em(er /9thJ finall'D the theor' that the mines &isco%ere& on No%em(er /9th might ha%e (een lai& after the eCplosions on Octo(er 11n& is too impro(a(le to (e accepte&# In these circ)mstances the :)estion arises 4hat is the legal (asis of Al(aniaHs responsi(ilit'N The Co)rt &oes not feel that it nee& pa' serio)s attention to the s)ggestion that Al(ania herself lai& the mines5 that s)ggestion 4as onl' p)t for4ar& pro memoria, 4itho)t e%i&ence in s)pportD an& co)l& not (e reconcile& 4ith the )n&isp)te& fact thatD on the 4hole Al(anian littoralD there are onl' a fe4 la)nches an& motor (oats# .)t the +nite& 2ing&om also allege& the conni%ance of Al(ania5 that the mine la'ing ha& (een carrie& o)t (' t4o 7)gosla% 4arships (' the re:)est of Al(aniaD or 4ith her ac:)iescence# The Co)rt fin&s that this coll)sion has not (een pro%e&# A charge of s)ch eCceptional gra%it' against a State 4o)l& re:)ire a &egree of certaint' that has not (een reache& hereD an& the origin of the mines lai& in Al(anian territorial 4aters remains a matter for conBect)re# The +nite& 2ing&om also arg)e& thatD 4hoe%er might (e the a)thors of the mine la'ingD it co)l& not ha%e (een effecte& 4itho)t Al(aniaHs kno4le&ge# Tr)eD the mere fact that mines 4ere lai& in Al(anian 4aters neither in%ol%es prima facie responsi(ilit' nor &oes it shift the ()r&en of proof# On the other han&D the eCcl)si%e control eCercise& (' a State 4ithin its frontiers ma' make it impossi(le to f)rnish &irect proof of facts 4hich 4o)l& in%ol%e its responsi(ilit' in case of a %iolation of international la4# The State 4hich is the %ictim m)stD in that easeD (e allo4e& a more li(eral reco)rse to inferences of fact an& circ)mstantial e%i&enceJ s)ch in&irect e%i&ence m)st (e regar&e& as of especial 4eight 4hen (ase& on a series of factsD linke& together an& lea&ing logicall' to a single concl)sion# In the present case t4o series of factsD 4hich corro(orate one anotherD ha%e to (e consi&ere&# $-

The first relates to the Al(anian Go%ernmentHs attit)&e (efore an& after the catastrophe# The la'ing of the mines took place in a perio& in 4hich it ha& sho4n its intention to keep a Bealo)s 4atch on its territorial 4aters an& in 4hich it 4as re:)iring prior a)thoriEation (efore the' 4ere entere&D this %igilance sometimes going so far as to in%ol%e the )se of force5 all of 4hich ren&er the assertion of ignorance a priori impro(a(le# The secon& series of facts relates to the possi(ilit' of o(ser%ing the mine la'ing from the Al(anian coast# Geographicall'D the channel is easil' 4atche&5 it is &ominate& (' heights offering eCcellent o(ser%ation pointsD an& it r)ns close to the coast <the nearest mine 4as $00 m# from the shore=# 1# In regar& to the secon& :)estionD The Co)rt &eclare& that the +nite& 2ing&om &i& not %iolate Al(anian so%ereignt' on Octo(er 11J ()t it &eclare& that it %iolate& that so%ereignt' on No%em(er /1thQ/9thD an& that this &eclarationD in itselfD constit)te& appropriate satisfaction# The Al(anian claim to make the passage of ships con&itional on a prior a)thoriEation conflicts 4ith the generall' a&mitte& principle that StatesD in time of peaceD ha%e a right to sen& their 4arships thro)gh straits )se& for international na%igation (et4een t4o parts of the high seasD pro%i&e& that the passage is innocent# The Corf) Strait (elongs geographicall' to this categor'D e%en tho)gh it is onl' of secon&ar' importance <in the sense that it is not a necessar' ro)te (et4een t4o parts of the high seas= an& irrespecti%e of the %ol)me of traffic passing thro)gh it# A fact of partic)lar importance is that it constit)tes a frontier (et4een Al(ania an& GreeceD an& that a part of the strait is 4holl' 4ithin the territorial 4aters of those States# It is a fact that the t4o States &i& not maintain normal relationsD Greece ha%ing ma&e territorial claims precisel' 4ith regar& to a part of the coast (or&ering the strait# Ho4e%erD the Co)rt is of opinion that Al(ania 4o)l& ha%e (een B)stifie& in %ie4 of these eCceptional circ)mstancesD in iss)ing reg)lations in respect of the passageD ()t not in prohi(iting s)ch passage or in s)(Becting it to the re:)irement of special a)thoriEation# Al(ania has &enie& that the passage on Octo(er 11 4as innocent# She alleges that it 4as a political mission an& that the metho&s emplo'e&D the n)m(er of shipsD their formationD armamentD mane)%ersD etc# sho4e& an intention to intimi&ate# The Co)rt eCamine& the &ifferent Al(anian contentions so far as the' appeare& rele%ant# Its concl)sion is that the passage 4as innocent (oth in its principleD since it 4as &esigne& to affirm a right 4hich ha& (een )nB)stl' &enie&D an& in its metho&s of eCec)tionD 4hich 4ere not )nreasona(le in %ie4 of the firing from the Al(anian (atter' on Ma' /$th# As regar&s the operation on No%em(er /1thQ/9thD it 4as eCec)te& contrar' to the clearl' eCpresse& 4ish of the Al(anian Go%ernmentJ it &i& not ha%e the consent of the international mine clearance organiEationsJ it co)l& not (e B)stifie& as the eCercise of the right of innocent passage# The +nite& 2ing&om has state& that its o(Bect 4as to sec)re the $;

mines as :)ickl' as possi(le for fear lest the' sho)l& (e taken a4a' (' the a)thors of the mine la'ing or (' the Al(anian a)thorities5 this 4as presente& either as a ne4 an& special application of the theor' of inter%entionD (' means of 4hich the inter%ening State 4as acting to facilitate the task of the international tri()nalD or as a metho& of self@protection or self-help. The Co)rt cannot accept these lines of &efense# It can onl' regar& the allege& right of inter%ention as the manifestation of a polic' of force 4hich cannot fin& a place in international la4# As regar&s the notion of self-help, the Co)rt is also )na(le to accept it5 (et4een in&epen&ent States the respect for territorial so%ereignt' is an essential fo)n&ation for international relations# Certainl'D the Co)rt recogniEes the Al(anian Go%ernmentHs complete fail)re to carr' o)t its &)ties after the eCplosions an& the &ilator' nat)re of its &iplomatic notes as eCten)ating circ)mstances for the action of the +nite& 2ing&om# .)tD to ens)re respect for international la4D of 4hich it is the organD the Co)rt m)st &eclare that the action of the .ritish Na%' constit)te& a %iolation of Al(anian so%ereignt'# This &eclaration is in accor&ance 4ith the re:)est ma&e (' Al(ania thro)gh her co)nsel an& is in itself appropriate satisfaction#

60

T,4 L#T1S C5S4 The Lotus Case 82rance $< Tur=e%9 1(2& /<C<I<"< 8Ser< 59 No< 1* A rench mail@steamer Lot)sD on the 4a' to ConstantinopleD colli&e& 4ith the T)rkish c)tter .oE@2o)rt on the high seas# The .oE@2o)rt sank 4ith the loss of eight sailorsD all T)rkish nationals# +pon arri%al of Lot)s in ConstantinopleD T)rkish a)thorities arreste& Lie)teneant ,emonsD the rench Officer in charge of Lot)s at the time of the collision an& Hassan .e'D captain of .oE@2o)rt# .oth 4ere charge& 4ith mansla)ghter# Lie)tenant ,emons arg)e& that the T)rkish Co)rts ha& no B)ris&iction# This arg)ment 4as reBecte& an& he 4as sentence& to eight' <-0= &a's of imprisonment an& a fine of t4ent'@t4o <11= po)n&s# The rench Go%ernment o(Becte& to the actions of the T)rkish Co)rt# The rench an& the T)rks agree& to s)(mit the &isp)te to the Permanent Co)rt of International *)stice# The rench Go%ernment conten&s that the T)rkish Co)rtD in or&er to ha%e B)ris&ictionD sho)l& (e a(le to point to some title to B)ris&iction recogniEe& (' international la4 in fa%or of T)rke'# 8hile the T)rkish Go%ernment (elie%es that it has B)ris&iction as long as it &oes not conflict 4ith international la4# The iss)e is 4hether T)rke' has B)ris&iction o%er the allege& offense committe& on the high seas (et4een t4o %essels fl'ing &ifferent flagsN T)rke'D in %irt)e of the &iscretion 4hich international la4 lea%es to e%er' so%ereign StateD (' instit)ting the criminal procee&ing has not acte& in a manner contrar' to the principles of international la4# There is no r)le of international la4 in regar& to collision cases to the effect that criminal procee&ings are eCcl)si%el' 4ithin the B)ris&iction of the State 4hose flag is flo4n# Tho)gh it is tr)e that in all s'stems of la4 the principle of the territorial character of criminal la4 is f)n&amentalD it is not an a(sol)te principle of international la4 an& (' no mean coinci&es 4ith territorial so%ereignt'# The Co)rt &oes not think it necessar' to consi&er the rench contention that a State cannot p)nish offenses committe& a(roa& (' a foreigner simpl' (' reason of the nationalit' of the %ictim#

6/

In %irt)e if the principle of the free&om of the seasD the a(sence of an' territorial so%ereignt' )pon the high seasD no State ma' eCercise an' kin& of B)ris&iction o%er foreign %essels )pon them# .)t it (' no mean follo4s that a State can ne%er in its o4n territor' eCercise B)ris&iction o%er actsD 4hich ha%e occ)rre& on (oar& a foreign ship on high seas# # all that can (e sai& is that (' %irt)e of the principle of the free&om of the seasD a ship is place& in the same position as national territor'# It follo4s that 4hat occ)rs on (oar& a %essel )pon high seas m)st (e regar&e& as if it occ)rre& on the territor' of the State 4hose flag the ship flies# If thereforeD a g)ilt' act committe& on the high seas pro&)ces its effects on a %essel fl'ing another flag or in foreign territor'D the same principles m)st (e applie& an& the concl)sion m)st therefore (e &ra4n that there is no r)le of international la4 prohi(iting the State to 4hich the ship on 4hich the effects of the offense ha%e taken place (elongsD from regar&ing the offense as ha%ing (een committe& in its territor' an& prosec)ting the &elin:)ent#

61

T+5IL SM4LT4+ 5+;IT+5TI#N 81S 7< C5N5059 The Go%ernment of the +nite& States has complaine& to the Go%ernment of Cana&a that f)mes &ischarge& from the smelter of the consoli&ate& Mining an& Smelting compan' at TrailD .ritish Col)m(iaD ha%e (een ca)sing &amage in the State of 8ashington# The Smelter has (ecome one of the (est an& largest e:)ippe& smelting plants# The smelter greatl' increase& its &ail' smelting of Einc an& lea& ores# This increase& pro&)ct res)lte& in more s)lph)r &ioCi&e f)mes an& higher concentrations (eing emitte& in to the airJ an& it is claime& (' one go%ernment that the a&&e& height of the stacks increase& the area of &amage of the +nite& States# .oth parties &eci&e& to concl)&e a con%ention for the settlement of the follo4ing5 /# 8hether &amage ca)se& (' the Trail Smelter in 8ashington has occ)rre& since the first &a' of *an)ar' of /;91 an& if soD 4hat in&emnit' sho)l& (e pai& thereforeN 1# If ans4er to the first part of the prece&ing F)estion is in the affirmati%eD 4hether Trail Smelter (e re:)ire& to refrain from ca)sing &amage in 8ashington in the f)t)re an& ifD so to 4hat eCtentN 9# 8hat meas)res sho)l& (e a&opte& (' Trail SmelterN 3# 8hat in&emnit' sho)l& (e pai& on acco)nt of an' &ecision or &ecision ren&ere& (' the Tri()nalN The iss)e is 4hether or not the responsi(ilit' of Cana&a to the allege& &amage occ)rring in the territor' of +S &)e to an agenc' sit)ate& in the territor' of the former Cana&a# As (et4een the t4o co)ntries in%ol%e&D each has an e:)al interest that if a n)isance is pro%e&D the in&emnit' to &amage& parties for pro%en &amage shall (e B)st an& a&e:)ate an& each has also an e:)al interest that )npro%e& or )n4arrante& claims shall not (e allo4e&#

69

A State o4es at all times a &)t' to protect other States against inB)rio)s acts (' in&i%i&)als from 4ithin its B)ris&iction# The &esire to reach a sol)tion B)st to all parties concerne& m)st (e )phel&# Trails Smelter operation shall contin)e ()t )n&er s)ch restrictions an& limitations as 4o)l& pre%ent &amage in the f)t)re in the +nite& States# As earl' as /;1$D the Smelter compan' ha& ma&e an in%estigation an& 4as con%ince& that it ha& ca)se& &amage& an& negotiate& 4ith the propert' o4ners# S)(se:)entl'D it has (een &)l' pro%en that the trail Smelter ha& ca)se &amage to 8ashington since *an)ar' /D /;91# Cana&a is responsi(le in international la4 for the con&)ct of the Trail Smelter# It is the &)t' of Cana&a to see to it that this con&)ct sho)l& (e in conformit' 4ith the o(ligation of Cana&a )n&er international la4# The Trail Smelter 4as re:)ire& to refrain from ca)sing an' &amage f)mes in the State of 8ashington#

63

;L5C:M4+ 7 1<S PetitionerD Harr' M# .lackmerD a citiEen of the +nite& States an& 4ho is a resi&ent of ParisD ranceD 4as a&B)&ge& g)ilt' of contempt of the S)preme Co)rt of the &istrict of Col)m(ia for fail)re to respon& to s)(poenas ser%e& )pon him in rance an& re:)iring him to appear as 4itness on (ehalf of the +nite& States at a criminal trial in that co)rt# T4o s)(poenas 4ere iss)e&D for appearances at &ifferent timesD an& there 4as a seperate procee&ing 4ith respect to each# The t4o cases 4ere hear& togetherD an& a fine of U90D000#00 4ith cost 4as impose& in each caseDto (e satisfie& o)t of the propert' of the petitioner 4hich ha& (een seiEe& (' ther or&er of the co)rt#The s)(poenas 4ere iss)e& an& ser%e&D an& the procee&ings to p)nish for contempt 4ere takenD )n&er the pro%ision of the Stat)te# The stat)te pro%i&e& that 4hene%er the atten&ance at the trial of a criminal action of a 4itness a(roa&D 4ho is a citiEen of the +nite& States or &omecile& thereinD is &esire& (' the Attorne' GeneralD or an' assistant or &istrict attorne' acting )n&er himD the B)&ge of the co)rt in 4hich the action is pen&iong ma' or&er a s)(poena to iss)eD to (e a&&rrese& to a Cons)l of the +nite& States an& to (e ser%e& (' him personall' )pon the 4itness 4ith a ten&er of tra%elling eCpenses# The iss)e is 4hether or not the +nite& States can eCercise a)thorit' or B)ris&iction o%er the person of its citiEen 4ho resi&es in foreign co)ntr'# The Co)rt hel& that )n&er the Nationalit' PrincipleD e%er' state has B)ris&iction o%er its nationals e%en 4hen those nationals are o)tsi&e the state#8hile it appears that the petitioner remo%e& his resi&ence to ranceD it is )n&isp)te& that he 4asD an& contin)e& to (eD a citiEen of the +nite& States#He contin)e& to o4e allegiance to the +nite& States#.' %irt)e of the o(ligations of citiEenshipD the +#S# retaine& its a)thorit' o%er himD an& he 4as (o)n& (' its la4s ma&e applica(le to him in a foreign co)ntr'#Th)sD altho)gh resi&ent a(roa&D the petitioner remaine& s)(Bect to the B)ris&iction an& a)thorit' of the +#S#

6$

T,4 N#TT4;#,M C5S4 Liechtenstein $ 6uate)ala 1(55 I<C<"< 4 Notte(ohmD (orn at Ham()rgD 4as still a German national 4henD in Octo(er /;9;D he applie& for nat)raliEation in Liechtenstein# In /;0$ he 4ent to G)atemalaD 4hich he ma&e the centre of his ()siness acti%itiesD 4hich increase& an& prospere&# He sometimes 4ent to German' on ()siness an& to other co)ntries for holi&a'sD an& also pai& a fe4 %isits to LiechtensteinD 4here one of his (rothers ha& li%e& since /;9/J ()t he contin)e& to ha%e his fiCe& a(o&e in G)atemala )ntil /;39D that is to sa'D )ntil the e%ents 4hich constit)te& the (asis of the present &isp)te# In /;9; he left G)atemala at approCimatel' the en& of MarchJ he seems to ha%e gone to Ham()rg an& to ha%e pai& a fe4 (rief %isits to LiechtensteinD 4here he 4as at the (eginning of Octo(er /;9;# It 4as thenD on ;th Octo(erD /;9;D a little more than a month after the opening of the Secon& 8orl& 8arD marke& (' German'Hs attack on Polan&D that he applie& for nat)raliEation in Liechtenstein# In his application for nat)raliEationD Notte(ohm also applie& for the pre%io)s conferment of citiEenship of Ma)renD a comm)ne of Liechtenstein# He so)ght &ispensation from the con&ition of three 'earsH prior resi&enceD 4itho)t in&icating the special circ)mstances 4arranting s)ch a 4ai%er# He )n&ertook to pa' <in S4iss francs= 1$D000 francs to the Comm)ne an& /1D$00 francs to the StateD the costs of the procee&ingsD an& an ann)al nat)raliEation taC of /D000 francs @ s)(Bect to the pro%iso that the pa'ment of these taCes 4as to (e set off against or&inar' taCes 4hich 4o)l& fall &)e if the applicant took )p resi&ence in Liechtenstein @ an& to &eposit as sec)rit' the s)m of 90D000 S4iss francs# A ,oc)ment &ate& /$th Octo(erD /;9; certifies that on that &ate the citiEenship of Ma)ren ha& (een conferre& )pon him# A Certificate of />th Octo(erD /;9; e%i&ences the pa'ment of the taCes re:)ire& to (e pai&# On 10th Octo(er Notte(ohm took the oath of allegiance an& on 19r& Octo(er an arrangement concerning lia(ilit' to taCation 4as concl)&e&# A Certificate of Nationalit' 4as also pro&)ce& to the effect that Notte(ohm ha& (een nat)raliEe& (' a S)preme Resol)tion of the Prince of /9th Octo(erD /;9;# Notte(ohm then o(taine& a Liechtenstein passport an& ha& it %isa@e& (' the Cons)l General of G)atemala in A)rich on /st ,ecem(erD /;9;D an& ret)rne& to G)atemala at the (eginning of /;30D 4here he res)me& his former ()siness acti%ities# The iss)es are5 /# 4hether the nat)raliEation th)s grante& co)l& (e %ali&l' in%oke& against G)atemalaJ an&

66

1# 4hether it (esto4e& )pon Liechtenstein a s)fficient title to eCercise protection in respect of Notte(ohm as against G)atemala an& therefore entitle& it to seiEe the Co)rt of a claim relating to him# In or&er to esta(lish that the Application m)st (e hel& a&missi(leD Liechtenstein arg)e& that G)atemala ha& formerl' recogniEe& the nat)raliEation 4hich it no4 challenge&# ECamining G)atemalaHs attit)&e to4ar&s Notte(ohm since his nat)raliEationD the Co)rt consi&ere& that G)atemala ha& not recogniEe& LiechtensteinHs title to eCercise protection in respect to Notte(ohm# It then consi&ere& 4hether the granting of nationalit' (' Liechtenstein &irectl' entaile& an o(ligation on the part of G)atemala to recogniEe its effectD in other 4or&sD 4hether that )nilateral act (' Liechtenstein 4as one 4hich co)l& (e relie& )pon against G)atemala in regar& to the eCercise of protection# The Co)rt &ealt 4ith this :)estion 4itho)t consi&ering that of the %ali&it' of Notte(ohmHs nat)raliEation accor&ing to the La4 of Liechtenstein# Nationalit' is 4ithin the &omestic B)ris&iction of the StateD 4hich settlesD (' its o4n legislationD the r)les relating to the ac:)isition of its nationalit'# .)t the iss)e 4hich the Co)rt m)st &eci&e is not one 4hich pertains to the legal s'stem of LiechtensteinJ to eCercise protection is to place oneself on the plane of international la4# International practice pro%i&es man' eCamples of acts performe& (' States in the eCercise of their &omestic B)ris&iction 4hich &o not necessaril' or a)tomaticall' ha%e international effect# 8hen t4o States ha%e conferre& their nationalit' )pon the same in&i%i&)al an& this sit)ation is no longer confine& 4ithin the limits of the &omestic B)ris&iction of one of these States ()t eCten&s to the international fiel&D international ar(itrators or the Co)rts of thir& States 4hich are calle& )pon to &eal 4ith this sit)ation 4o)l& allo4 the contra&iction to s)(sist if the' confine& themsel%es to the %ie4 that nationalit' is eCcl)si%el' 4ithin the &omestic B)ris&iction of the State# In or&er to resol%e the conflict the' ha%eD on the contrar'D so)ght to ascertain 4hether nationalit' has (een conferre& in circ)mstances s)ch as to gi%e rise to an o(ligation on the part of the respon&ent State to recogniEe the effect of that nationalit'# In or&er to &eci&e this :)estionD the' ha%e e%ol%e& certain criteria# The' ha%e gi%en their preference to the real an& effecti%e nationalit'D that 4hich accor&e& 4ith the factsD that (ase& on stronger fact)al ties (et4een the person concerne& an& one of these States 4hose nationalit' is in%ol%e&# ,ifferent factors are taken into consi&erationD an& their importance 4ill %ar' from one case to the neCt5 there is the ha(it)al resi&ence of the in&i%i&)al concerne& ()t also the centre of his interestsD his famil' tiesD his participation in p)(lic lifeD attachment sho4n (' him for a gi%en co)ntr' an& inc)lcate& in his chil&renD etc# The same ten&enc' pre%ails among 4riters# Moreo%erD the practice of certain StatesD 4hich refrain from eCercising protection in fa%o)r of a nat)raliEe& person 4hen the latter has in fact se%ere& his links 4ith 4hat is no longer for him an'thing ()t his nominal co)ntr'D manifests the %ie4 thatD in or&er to (e in%oke& against another StateD nationalit' m)st correspon& 4ith a fact)al sit)ation# The character th)s recogniEe& on the international le%el as pertaining to nationalit' is in no 4a' inconsistent 4ith the fact that international la4 lea%es it to each

6>

State to la' &o4n the r)les go%erning the grant of its o4n nationalit'# This is so failing an' general agreement on the r)les relating to nationalit'# It has (een consi&ere& that the (est 4a' of making s)ch r)les accor& 4ith the %ar'ing &emographic con&itions in &ifferent co)ntries is to lea%e the fiCing of s)ch r)les to the competence of each State# .)tD on the other han&D a State cannot claim that the r)les it has lai& &o4n are entitle& to recognition (' another State )nless it has acte& in conformit' 4ith this general aim of making the nationalit' grante& accor& 4ith an effecti%e link (et4een the State an& the in&i%i&)al# Accor&ing to the practice of StatesD nationalit' constit)tes the B)ri&ical eCpression of the fact that an in&i%i&)al is more closel' connecte& 4ith the pop)lation of a partic)lar State# Conferre& (' a StateD it onl' entitles that State to eCercise protection if it constit)tes a translation into B)ri&ical terms of the in&i%i&)alHs connection 4ith that State# Is this the case as regar&s Mr# Notte(ohmN At the time of his nat)raliEationD &oes Notte(ohm appear to ha%e (een more closel' attache& (' his tra&itionD his esta(lishmentD his interestsD his acti%itiesD his famil' tiesD his intentions for the near f)t)reD to Liechtenstein than to an' other StateN In this connection the Co)rt state& the essential facts of the case an& pointe& o)t that Notte(ohm al4a's retaine& his famil' an& ()siness connections 4ith German' an& that there is nothing to in&icate that his application for nat)raliEation in Liechtenstein 4as moti%ate& (' an' &esire to &issociate himself from the Go%ernment of his co)ntr'# On the other han&D he ha& (een settle& for 93 'ears in G)atemalaD 4hich 4as the centre of his interests an& his ()siness acti%ities# He sta'e& there )ntil his remo%al as a res)lt of 4ar meas)res in /;39D an& complains of G)atemalaHs ref)sal to rea&mit him# Mem(ers of Notte(ohmHs famil' ha&D moreo%erD asserte& his &esire to spen& his ol& age in G)atemala# In contrastD his act)al connections 4ith Liechtenstein 4ere eCtremel' ten)o)s# If Notte(ohm 4ent to chat co)ntr' in /;36D this 4as (eca)se of the ref)sal of G)atemala to a&mit him# There is th)s the a(sence of an' (on& of attachment 4ith LiechtensteinD ()t there is a long@stan&ing an& close connection (et4een him an& G)atemalaD a link 4hich his nat)raliEation in no 4a' 4eakene&# That nat)raliEation 4as not (ase& on an' real prior connection 4ith LiechtensteinD nor &i& it in an' 4a' alter the manner of life of the person )pon 4hom it 4as conferre& in eCceptional circ)mstances of spee& an& accommo&ation# In (oth respectsD it 4as lacking in the gen)ineness re:)isite to an act of s)ch importanceD if it is to (e entice& to (e respecte& (' a State in the position of G)atemala# It 4as grante& 4itho)t regar& to the concept of nationalit' a&opte& in international relations# Nat)raliEation 4as aske& for not so m)ch for the p)rpose of o(taining a legal recognition of Notte(ohmHs mem(ership in fact in the pop)lation of LiechtensteinD as it 4as to ena(le him to s)(stit)te for his stat)s as a national of a (elligerent State that of the s)(Bect of a ne)tral StateD 4ith the sole aim of th)s coming 4ithin the protection of Liechtenstein ()t not of (ecoming 4e&&e& to its tra&itionsD its interestsD its 4a' of life or of ass)ming the o(ligations @ other than fiscal o(ligations @ an& eCercising the rights pertaining to the stat)s th)s ac:)ire&# or these reasons the Co)rt hel& the claim of Liechtenstein to (e ina&missi(le#

6-

5SBL1M C5S4 Colo)bianH/eru$ian 5s%lu) case "ud-)ent of 2* No$e)ber 1(5* 8b% +< 0e 6u.)an9 On Octo(er 9D /;3-D a militar' re(ellion (roke o)t in Per)J it 4as s)ppresse& the same &a'# On the follo4ing &a'D a &ecree 4as p)(lishe& charging a political part'D the American PeopleHs Re%ol)tionar' Part'D 4ith ha%ing prepare& an& &irecte& the re(ellion# The hea& of the Part'D !ictor Ra\l Ha'a &e la TorreD 4as &eno)nce& as (eing responsi(le# 8ith other mem(ers of the part'D he 4as prosec)te& on a charge of militar' re(ellion# As he 4as still at li(ert' on No%em(er /6thD s)mmonses 4ere p)(lishe& or&ering him to appear (efore the ECamining Magistrate# On *an)ar' 9D /;3;D he 4as grante& as'l)m in the Colom(ian Em(ass' in Lima# Mean4hileD on Octo(er 1>D /;3-D a Militar' *)nta ha& ass)me& po4er in Per) an& ha& p)(lishe& a &ecree pro%i&ing for Co)rts@martial for s)mmar' B)&gment in cases of re(ellionD se&ition an& riotingJ ()t this &ecree 4as not applie& to the legal procee&ings against Ha'a &e la Torre an& othersD an& it has (een &eclare& (efore the Co)rt that this ,ecree 4as not applica(le to the sai& procee&ings# )rthermoreD &)ring the perio& from Octo(er 3th to the (eginning of e(r)ar'D /;3;D Per) 4as in a state of siege# On *an)ar' 3D /;3;D the Colom(ian Am(assa&or in Lima informe& the Per)%ian Go%ernment of the as'l)m grante& to Ha'a &e la TorreD at the same time he aske& that a safe@con&)ct (e iss)e& to ena(le the ref)gee to lea%e the co)ntr'# On *an)ar' /3D he f)rther state& that the ref)gee ha& (een :)alifie& as a political ref)gee# The Per)%ian Go%ernment &isp)te& this :)alification an& ref)se& to grant a safe@con&)ct# A &iplomatic correspon&ence ens)e& 4hich terminate& in the signat)reD in LimaD on A)g)st 9/D /;3;D of an Act (' 4hich the t4o Go%ernments agree& to s)(mit the case to the International Co)rt of *)stice# Colom(ia maintaine& (efore the Co)rt thatD accor&ing to the Con%ention in forceD the .oli%arian Agreement of /;// on ECtra&itionD the Ha%ana Con%ention of /;1- on As'l)m the Monte%i&eo Con%ention of /;99 on Political As'l)m an& accor&ing to American International La4D she 4as entitle& to :)alif' the nat)re of the offense for the p)rposes of the as'l)m# Colom(ia also maintaine& that Per) 4as )n&er the o(ligation to iss)e a safe@ con&)ct to ena(le the ref)gee to lea%e the co)ntr' in safet'# In a co)nter@claimD Per) ha& aske& the Co)rt to &eclare that as'l)m ha& (een grante& to Ha'a &e la Torre in %iolation of the Ha%ana Con%entionD firstD (eca)se Ha'a &e

6;

la Torre 4as acc)se&D not of a political offense ()t of a common crime an&D secon&l'D (eca)se the )rgenc' 4hich 4as re:)ire& )n&er the Ha%ana Con%ention in or&er to B)stif' as'l)m 4as a(sent in that case# The first of the Treaties 4hich it in%oke& @ the .oli%arian AgreementD 4hich is the Treat' on eCtra&ition @ confine& itself in one Article to recogniEing the instit)tion of as'l)m in accor&ance 4ith the principles of international la4# .)t these principles &o not entail the right of )nilateral :)alification# On the other han&D 4hen the .oli%arian Agreement lai& &o4n r)les for eCtra&itionD it 4as not possi(le to &e&)ce from them concl)sions concerning &iplomatic as'l)m# In the case of eCtra&itionD the ref)gee 4as on the territor' of the State of ref)ge5 if as'l)m 4ere grante& to himD s)ch &ecision 4o)l& not &erogate from the so%ereignt' of the States in 4hich the offense 4as committe&# On the contrar'D in the case of &iplomatic as'l)mD the ref)gee 4as on the territor' of the State in 4hich he ha& committe& the offense5 the &ecision to grant as'l)m &erogate& from the so%ereignt' of the territorial State an& remo%e& the offen&er from the B)ris&iction of that State# As for the secon& treat' in%oke& (' Colom(ia the Ha%ana Con%ention it &i& not recogniEe the right of )nilateral :)alification either eCplicitl' or implicitl'# The thir& treat' @ the Con%ention of Monte%i&eo @ ha& not (een ratifie& (' Per) an& co)l& (e in%oke& against that co)ntr'# inall'D as regar&e& American international la4D Colom(ia ha& not pro%e& the eCistenceD either regionall' or locall'D of a constant an& )niform practice of )nilateral :)alification as a right of the State of ref)ge an& an o(ligation )pon the territorial State# The facts s)(mitte& to the Co)rt &isclose& too m)ch contra&iction an& fl)ct)ation to make it possi(le to &iscern therein a )sage pec)liar to Latin America an& accepte& as la4# It therefore follo4e& that Colom(iaD as the State granting as'l)mD 4as not competent to :)alif' the nat)re of the offense (' a )nilateral an& &efiniti%e &ecision (in&ing on Per)# The Co)rtD setting asi&e for the time (eing the :)estion of 4hether as'l)m 4as reg)larl' grante& an& maintaine&D note& that the cla)se in the Ha%ana Con%ention 4hich pro%i&e& g)aranties for the ref)gee 4as applica(le solel' to a case 4here the territorial State &eman&e& the &epart)re of the ref)gee from its territor'5 it 4as onl' after s)ch a &eman& that the &iplomatic Agent 4ho grante& as'l)m co)l&D in t)rnD re:)ire a safe@ con&)ct# There 4asD of co)rseD a practice accor&ing to 4hich the &iplomatic Agent imme&iatel' re:)este& a safe@con&)ctD 4hich 4as grante& to him5 ()t this practiceD 4hich 4as to (e eCplaine& (' reasons of eCpe&ienc'D lai& no o(ligation )pon the territorial State# In the present caseD Per) ha& not &eman&e& the &epart)re of the ref)gee an& 4as therefore not (o)n& to &eli%er a safe@con&)ct# In this connectionD the Co)rt note& that the onl' charge against the ref)gee 4as that of militar' re(ellionD 4hich 4as not a common crime# Conse:)entl'D the Co)rt reBecte& the co)nter@claim of Per) on that pointD &eclaring it to (e ill@fo)n&e&#

>0

On the :)estion of )rgenc'D the Co)rtD ha%ing o(ser%e& that the essential B)stification of as'l)m la' in the imminence or persistence of a &anger to the person of the ref)geeD anal'Ee& the facts of the case# Three months ha& elapse& (et4een the militar' re(ellion an& the grant of as'l)m# There 4as no :)estion of protecting Ha'a &e la Torre for h)manitarian consi&erations against the %iolent an& )ncontrolle& action of irresponsi(le elements of the pop)lationD the &anger 4hich confronte& Ha'a &e la Torre 4as that of ha%ing to face legal procee&ings# The Ha%ana Con%ention 4as not inten&e& to protect a citiEen 4ho ha& plotte& against the instit)tions of his co)ntr' from reg)lar legal procee&ings# It 4as not s)fficient to (e acc)se& of a political offense in or&er to (e entitle& to recei%e as'l)mJ as'l)m co)l& onl' inter%ene against the action of B)stice in cases 4here ar(itrar' action 4as s)(stit)te& for the r)le of la4# It ha& not (een pro%e& that the sit)ation in Per) at the time implie& the s)(or&ination of B)stice to the eCec)ti%e or the a(olition of B)&icial g)arantees# .esi&esD the Ha%ana Con%ention 4as )na(le to esta(lish a legal s'stem 4hich 4o)l& g)arantee to persons acc)se& of political offenses the pri%ilege of e%a&ing their national B)ris&iction# S)ch a conception 4o)l& come into conflict 4ith one of the ol&est tra&itions of Latin AmericaD that of noninter%ention# or if the Ha%ana Con%ention ha& 4ishe& to ens)re general protection to all persons prosec)te& for political crimes in the co)rse of re%ol)tionar' e%entsD for the sole reason that it sho)l& (e pres)me& that s)ch e%ents interfere 4ith the a&ministration of B)sticeD this 4o)l& lea& to foreign interference of a partic)larl' offensi%e nat)re in the &omestic affairs of States#

>/

M4"#22 7 0I+4CT#+ #2 /+IS#NS (* /hil &* 81(519 The petitioner .oris MeBoff is an alien of R)ssian &escent 4ho 4as (ro)ght to this co)ntr' from Shanghai as a secret operati%e (' the *apanese forces &)ring the latterHs regime in these Islan&s# +pon li(eration he 4as arreste& aa a *apanese sp'D (' +# S# Arm' Co)nter Intelligence Corps# Later he 4as han&e& to the Common4ealth Go%ernment for &isposition in accor&ance 4ith Common4ealth Act No# 6-1# Thereafter the PeopleHs Co)rt or&ere& his release# .)t the &eportation (oar& taking his case )pD fo)n& that ha%ing no tra%el &oc)ments MeBoff 4as illegall' in this co)ntr'D an& conse:)entl' referre& the matter to the immigration a)thorities# After the correspon&ing in%estigationD the .oar& o Commissioners of Immigration on April $D /;3-D &eclare& that MeBoff ha& entere& the Philippines illegall' in /;33D 4itho)t inspection an& a&mission (' the immigration officials at a &esignate& port of entr' an&D thereforeD it or&ere& that he (e &eporte& on the first a%aila(le transportation to R)ssia# The petitioner 4as then )n&er c)sto&'D he ha%ing (een arreste& on March /-D /;3-# In Ma'D /;3-D he 4as transferre& to the Ce() Pro%incial *ail together 4ith three other R)ssians to a4ait the arri%al of some R)ssian %essels# In *)l' an& in A)g)st of that 'ear t4o (oats of R)ssian nationalit' calle& at the Ce() Port# .)t their masters ref)se& to take petitioner an& his companions alleging lack of a)thorit' to &o so# In Octo(erD /;3-D after repeate& fail)res to ship this &eportee a(roa&D the a)thorities remo%e& him to .ili(i& Prison at M)ntingl)pa 4here he has (een confine& )p to the present timeD inasm)ch as the Commissioner of Immigration (elie%es it is for the (est interest of the co)ntr' to keep him )n&er &etention 4hile arrangements for his &eportation are (eing ma&e# It is conten&e& on (ehalf of petitioner that ha%ing (een (ro)ght to the Philippines legall' (' the *apanese forcesD he ma' not no4 (e &eporte&# It is eno)gh to sa' that the arg)ment 4o)l& &en' to this Go%ernment the po4er an& the a)thorit' to eBect from the Islan&s an' an& all of that mem(er of the Nipponese Arm' of occ)pation 4ho ma' still (e fo)n& hi&ing in remote places# Petitioner like4ise conten&s that he ma' not (e &eporte& (eca)se the stat)tor' perio& to &o that )n&er the la4s has long eCpire&# +n&er section 9> of the Philippine Immigration Act of /;30 an' alien 4ho enters this co)ntr' P4itho)t inspection an& a&mission (' the immigration a)thorities at a &esignate& point of entr'P is s)(Bect to &eportation 4ithin fi%e 'ears# PIt m)st (e a&mitte& that temporar' &etention is a necessar' step in the process of eCcl)sion or eCp)lsion of )n&esira(le aliens an& that pen&ing arrangements for his &eportationD the Go%ernment has the right to hol& the )n&esira(le alien )n&er

>1

confinement for a reasona(le length of time# Ho4e%erD )n&er esta(lishe& prece&entsD too long a &etention

2IL5+TI65 7 /4I5HI+5L5 !3 2<2d '&! 81('*9 This 4as an action (ro)ght (' t4o Parag)a' nationalsD the father an& sister of a />@ 'ear ol& Parag)a'anD 4ho 4as allege&l' tort)re& to &eath (' the &efen&ant Pena@Irala 4ho 4as the Inspector@General of the Police then# The iss)e is 4hether or not tort)re )n&er the color of a)thorit' %iolates the )ni%ersal principles of international la4 4itho)t regar& of of the nationalit' of the parties# The Co)rt r)le& that &eli(erate tort)re )n&er the color of official a)thorit'D as 4hat ha& happene& in the instant caseD %iolates the )ni%ersal principles of international la4 regar&less of the nationalit' of the parties# As (asis for the concl)sionD the Co)rt referre& to the +ni%ersal ,eclaration of H)man RightsD partic)larl' the /;>$ ,eclaration on the Protection of all Persons from Tort)reD that the prohi(ition of tort)re has (ecome part of c)stomar' international la4# inall'D the Co)rt fo)n& little &iffic)lt' in resol%ing the act of tort)re in this case appl'ing the )ni%ersal ren)nciation of s)ch act in the mo&ern )sage an& practice of nations#

>9

T,4 4IC,M5NN C5S4 3! Intl< L< +ep< 5 8IsraelA 0ist< Ct< "erusale) 1(!19

A&olf Eichmann 4as a high ranking officer 4ho pla'e& %ital role in the planning an& implementation of the persec)tion of *e4s in German'D Polan&D H)ngar' an& se%eral other co)ntries (efore an& &)ring 8orl& 8ar II# At the en& of the 4arD he escape& to Argentina 4here he li%e& an& 4ork )n&er an alias )ntil Ma'D /;60 4hen he 4as ki&nappe& (' Israeli agents# Argentina complaine& to the +N Sec)rit' Co)ncil a(o)t this clear %iolation of Argentine so%ereignt'# The Sec)rit' Co)ncilD 4hile making it clear that it &i& not con&one EichmannGs crimesD &eclare& that5 KActs s)ch as that )n&er consi&eration i#e# the ki&napping of EichmannD 4hich affect so%ereignt' of a mem(er state an& therefore ca)se international frictionD ma'D if repeate&D en&anger international peace an& sec)rit'#L The Sec)rit' Co)ncil re:)este& the Go%ernment of Israel Kto make appropriate reparation in accor&ance 4ith the Charter of the +nite& Nations an& the r)les of international la4#L Argentina &i& not &eman& the ret)rn of EichmannD an& in A)g)st /;60D the Argentine an& Israeli go%ernments resol%e& in a Boint comm)ni:)] ^to regar& as close& the inci&ent 4hich arose o)t of the actions taken (' CitiEens of IsraelD 4hich infringe& the f)n&amental rights of the State of Argentina#L Eichmann 4as then trie& in Israel )n&er IsraelGs NaEi Colla(orators La4# He 4as fo)n& g)ilt' an& the con%iction 4as s)(se:)entl' )phel& (' the S)preme Co)rt of Israel# On Ma' 9/D /;61D Eichmann 4ent to the gallo4sD the onl' person e%er formall' eCec)te& (' the State of Israel# The iss)e is 4hether or not in the e%ent of a conflict (et4een local legislation an& international la4D it is an imperati%e to gi%e reference to the principles of international la4# The S)preme Co)rt of Israel hel& that in case of conflict (et4een local legislation an& international la4D it is not an imperati%e to gi%e reference to international la4# Accor&ing to the La4 of IsraelD the relationship (et4een m)nicipal an& international la4 is go%erne& (' the follo4ing r)les5 The principle in :)estion (ecomes incorporate& into the m)nicipal la4 onl' after it has achie%e& general international recognition# Ho4e%erD this onl' applies 4hen there is no conflict (et4een the pro%isions of m)nicipal la4 an& a r)le of international la4# 8hen conflict arisesD it is the co)rt that has a &)t' to gi%e preference to an& appl' the la4s of the local legislat)re#

>3

It is conten&e& that 4e m)st appl' international la4 as it isD an& not as it o)ght to (e from the moral point of %ie4D then 4e m)st repl' that precisel' from a legal point of %ie4 there is no s)ch pro%ision in itJ it follo4s a)tomaticall' that the principle cannot (e &eeme& to (e part of the Israel m)nicipal la4 (' %irt)e of international la4D ()t that the eCtent of its application in this co)ntr' is the same as in Englan&# The contention that since the State of Israel ha& not eCiste& at the time of the commission of the offenseD its competence to impose p)nishment therefore is limite& to its o4n citiEens is e:)all' )nfo)n&e&# This arg)ment too m)st (e reBecte& on the (asis that the lo4er co)rt ha& to appl' local legislation# On the :)estion of the B)ris&iction of a state to p)nish persons 4ho are not its nationals for acts committe& (e'on& its (or&ersD there is as 'et no intentional accor&# It follo4s that in the a(sence of general agreement as to the eCistence of s)ch a r)le of international la4D there isD againD no escape from the concl)sion that it cannot (e &eeme& to (e em(o&ie& in Israel m)nicipal la4D an& therefore on that gro)n&D tooD contention fails# The r)les of the la4 of nations are not &eri%e& solel' from international treaties an& cr'stalliEe& international )sage# In the a(sence of a s)preme legislati%e a)thorit' an& international co&es the process of its e%ol)tion resem(les that of the common la4J its r)les are esta(lishe& from case to caseD (' analog' 4ith the r)les em(o&ie& on treaties an& international c)stomD on the (asis of general principles of la4 recogniEe& (' ci%iliEe& nationsD an& in the light of the %ital international nee&s that impel an imme&iate sol)tion# It has also (een taken into consi&eration the possi(le &esire of other co)ntries to tr' the appellant in so far as the crimes 4ere committe& in those co)ntries against con&)cting trial in Israel# It is arg)e& (' the co)nsel that Article 6 of the Genoci&e Con%ention pro%i&es that a person acc)se& of this crime shall (e trie& (' a co)rt of competent B)ris&iction of the state in 4hich it 4as committe&# Article 6 imposes )pon the parties contract)al o(ligation 4ith f)t)re effectD o(ligations 4hich (in& them to prosec)te crimes of Kgenoci&eL 4hich 4ill (e committe& 4ithin their territories in the f)t)re# The o(ligationD ho4e%erD has nothing to &o 4ith the )ni%ersal po4er %este& in e%er' state to prosec)te for crimes of this t'pe committe& in the pastD a po4er 4hich is (ase& on c)stomar' international la4# The State of Israel 4as entitle&D p)rs)ant to the principle of )ni%ersal B)ris&iction an& acting in the capacit' of g)ar&ian of international la4 an& agent for its enforcementD to tr' the appellant# This (eing so is immaterial that the State of Israel &i& not eCist at the time the offense 4as committe&# The B)ris&iction 4as a)tomaticall' %este& in the State of Israel on its esta(lishment in /;3- as a so%ereign State# ThereforeD in (ringing the appellant to trialD it f)nctione& as an organ of international la4 an& acte& to enforce the pro%isions thereofD thro)ghD its o4n la4# Conse:)entl'D it is immaterial that the crimes in :)estion 4ere committe&D 4hen the State of Israel &i& not eCistD an& o)tsi&e its territor'# The moment it

>$

is a&mitte& that the State of Israel possesses criminal B)ris&iction (oth accor&ing to local la4 an& accor&ing to the la4 of nationsD it m)st also (e conce&e& that the co)rt is not (o)n& to in%estigate the manner an& legalit' of the &etention#

1NIT40 ST5T4S 7 2535J B1NIS !'1 2< Supp< '(!1 81(''9 0octrine: The /assi$e /ersonalit% /rinciple On *)ne //D /;-$D a *or&anian ci%il aircraftD the Ro'al *or&anian airlines flight 301 4as hiBacke& (' se%eral Ara( menD 4hom the &efen&ant 4as one of them# The aircraft 4as at the .eir)t International airport at .eir)tD Le(anon D sche&)le& &epart)re to AmmanD *or&an 4as storme& (' the &efen&ant an& his gro)pD or&ering the pilot to fl' the plane to T)nisD T)nisia 4here a meeting of the Ara( Leag)e Conference 4as )n&er4a'# The passengers are hel& as hostages incl)&ing Americans# 8hen the aircraft 4as nearing T)nisD it 4as &enie& to lan& on T)nis thereforeD the plane 4ent (ack to .eir)t# 8hen the' lan&e&D the' or&ere& the hostages to get o)t of the plane an& calle& an imprompt) press conference# After the press conferenceD the hiBackers (le4 the plane an& escape# 7)nis 4as ca)ght (' the +#S# an& 4as trie&# 7)nis mo%e& to &ismiss the entire case against him (eca)se +#S# has no B)ris&iction in his person# +#S# e&eral Co)rts has no B)ris&iction (eca)se the' ha%e no B)ris&iction to prosec)te foreign national for crimes committe& in foreign airspace an& on foreign soil# He f)rther claims that the presence of the Americans in the plane as hostages is an ins)fficient (asis for eCercise of B)ris&iction# The iss)e is 4hether or not +#S# has a (asis to eCercise B)ris&iction o%er the &efen&ant# The Co)rt hel& the +#S# has B)ris&iction o%er the &efen&ant e%en tho)gh the crime 4as committe& o)tsi&e the B)ris&iction of +#S# )n&er the Passi%e Personalit' Principle# This principle states that a state ma' appl' la4D partic)larl' criminal la4D to an act committe& o)tsi&e its territor' (' a person not its national 4here the %ictim of the act 4as a national of it# +n&er the facts an& circ)mstance of the caseD its o(%io)s that some American nationals 4here hel& hostage (' the &efen&ant 4hen the &efen&ant an& his gro)p ha& hiBacke& the aircraft# Altho)gh the principle has not (een or&inaril' accepte& for or&inar' torts or crimesD ()t 4hen it come to terrorist an& other organiEe& attacks on a stateGs national (' reason of their nationalit'D or to assassination of a stateGs &iplomatic representati%es or other officialsD s)ch principle can (e applie&# +#S# has B)ris&iction o%er 7)nis#

>6

1nited StatesA appellee $< 5h Sin-A appellant

Appellant Ah Sing is a s)(Bect of China emplo'e& as a fireman on the steamship S)n Chang# The S)n Chang is a foreign steamer 4hich arri%e& at the port of Ce() on April 1$D /;/> from Saigon# Appellant (o)ght eight cans of opi)m in Saigon an& (ro)ght them on (oar& the steamship 4hich 4as &isco%ere& (' a)thorities )pon making a search on the steamship# The appellant confesse& that he 4as the o4ner of the opi)m# The appellant 4as con%icte& for illegal importation of opi)m into the Philippine Islan&s# Appellant no4 conten&s the B)ris&iction of the Philippine co)rts to tr' the caseD he (eing a Chinese national on (oar& a foreign %essel# The iss)e of the case is 4hether the Philippines has criminal B)ris&iction o%er a foreign s)(Bect a(oar& a foreign %essel# Altho)gh the mere possession of a thing prohi(ite& in the Philippines a(oar& a foreign %essel in transitD in an' of the portsD &oes notD as a general r)leD constit)te a crime tria(le (' the co)rts of this co)ntr'D on acco)nt of s)ch %essel (eing consi&ere& as an eCtension of its o4n nationalit'D the same &oes not appl' 4hen the article is lan&e& from the %essel )pon Philippine soilD th)s committing an open %iolation of the la4s of the lan&# The %essel 4as not merel' in transitD ()t ratherD its ro)te 4as from an& to Saigon an& Ce()D 4hen the cans of opi)m 4ere &isco%ere& (' a)thorities at the port# 8itho)t an agreement )n&er an international treat'D the co)rt of the place 4here the crime has committe& has competent B)ris&iction to tr' the same#

>>

1NIT40 ST5T4S 7 5L75+4JHM5C,5IN 5*4 1<S< !55 81((29 Acc)se&D Al%areE@MachainD 4as in&icte& for allege&l' participating in the ki&nap an& m)r&er of +nite& States ,r)g Enforcement A&ministration <,EA= special agent an& a MeCican pilot# The ,EA (elie%e& that Al%areE@MachainD thro)gh his eCpertise as a me&ical &octorD participate& in the m)r&er (' prolonging the agentHs life so that others co)l& f)rther tort)re an& interrogate him# Respon&ent 4as forci(l' a(&)cte& from MeCico to TeCasD 4here he 4as arreste& (' ,EA officials# ThereafterD he mo%e& to &ismiss the in&ictment hol&ing that his a(&)ction constit)te& o)trageo)s go%ernmentfal con&)ctD an& that the ,istrict Co)rt lacke& B)ris&iction to tr' him (eca)se the a(&)ction %iolate& the eCtra&ition treat' (et4een the +nite& States an& MeCico# The iss)e is 4hether or not the +S co)rt has B)ris&iction to tr' the case as 4ell as o%er the person of the acc)se&# Appl'ing the r)ling in 2er %# IllinoisD //; +#S# 396 </--6=D the Co)rt hel& in affirmati%e that the po4er of a co)rt to tr' a person for crime is not impaire& (' the fact that he ha& (een (ro)ght to trial 4ithin the co)rtHs B)ris&iction (' reason of his forci(le a(&)ction# S)ch forci(le a(&)ction is no s)fficient reason 4h' the part' sho)l& not ans4er 4hen (ro)ght 4ithin the B)ris&iction of the co)rt 4hich has the right to tr' him for s)ch an offenseD an& presents no %ali& o(Bections to his trial in s)ch co)rt# )rthermoreD the Co)rt sai& that there 4as nothing in the +S@MeCico ECtra&ition Treat' that sai& a(o)t the o(ligations of the +nite& States an& MeCico to refrain from forci(le a(&)ctions of people from the territor' of the other nationD or the conse:)ences )n&er the Treat' if s)ch forci(le a(&)ction 4o)l& occ)r#

>-

S4C< #2 "1STIC4 7 ,#N< +5L/, C< L5NTI#N 6<+< No< 13(4!5 #ctober 1&A 2*** The B)g)lar iss)e is 4hether or not the pri%ate respon&ent is entitle& to &)e process right to notice an& hearing &)ring the e%al)ation stage of the eCtra&ition process# 8e hol& that the pri%ate respon&ent is (ereft of the right to notice an& hearing &)ring the e%al)ation stage of the eCtra&ition process (ase& on the follo4ing gro)n&s5 irst5 There is no pro%ision in the RP@+S ECtra&ition Treat' an& in P#,# /06; 4hich gi%es an eCtra&ite the right to &eman& from the petitioner Secreatar' of *)stice copies of the eCtra&ition re:)est from the +S Go%ernment an& its s)pporting &oc)ments an& to comment thereon 4hile the re:)est is still )n&ergoing e%al)ation# Secon&5 All treatiesD incl)&ing the RP@+S ECtra&ition Treat'D sho)l& (e interprete& in light of their intent# Nothing less than the !ienna Con%ention on the La4 of Treaties to 4hich the Philippines is a signator' pro%i&es that a treat' shall (e interprete& in goo& _faith in accor&ance 4ith the or&inar' meaning to (e gi%e to the terms of the treat' in their conteCt an& in light of its o(Bect an& p)rpose# It o)ght to follo4 that the RP@+S ECtra&ition Treat' calls for an interpretation that 4ill minimiEe if not pre%ent the escape of eCtra&ites from the long arm of the la4 an& eCpe&ite the trial# Thir&5 The r)le is recogniEe& that 4hile co)rts ha%e the po4er to interpret the treatiesD the meaning gi%en them (' the &epartments of go%ernments partic)larl' charge& 4ith their negotiation an& enforcement is accor&e& great 4eight# O)r eCec)ti%e &epartment of go%ernmentD thr) ,epartment of oreign Affairs an& the ,epartment of *)stice ha& stea&fastl' maintaine& that the RP@+S ECtra&ition Treat' an& P#,# No# /06; &o not grant the pri%ate respon&ent a right to notice an& hearing &)ring the e%al)ation stage of an eCtra&ition process# This )n&erstan&ing of the treat' is share& (' the +S go%ernmentD the other part' to the treat'# This interpretation of the t4o go%ernments cannot (e gi%en scant significance# It 4ill (e pres)mpt)o)s for the co)rt to ass)me that (oth go%ernments &i& not )n&erstan& the terms of the treat' the' concl)&e&# o)rth5 Pri%ate respon&ent ho4e%erD pe&&les the post)late the he m)st affor&e& the right to notice an& hearing as re:)ire& (' o)r constit)tion# He ()ttresses his position (' likening an eCtra&ition procee&ing to a criminal procee&ing an& the e%al)ation stage to a preliminar' in%estigation# 8e are not pers)a&e&# An eCtra&ition procee&ing is a s)i generis# It is not a criminal procee&ing 4hich 4ill call into operation all the right of an acc)se& as g)arantee& (' the .ill of Rights# The process of eCtra&ition &oes not in%ol%e the &etermination of the g)ilt or innocence of an acc)se&# His g)ilt or innocence shall (e &_a&B)&ge& (' the co)rt of the state he 4ill (e eCtra&ite&# HenceD as a r)leD constit)tional >;

right shall onl' (e rele%ant to &etermine the g)ilt or innocence of an acc)se& cannot (e in%oke (' an eCtra&ite especiall' (' one 4hose eCtra&ition papers are still )n&ergoing e%al)ation# ifth5 Pri%ate respon&ent 4o)l& also impress )pon the co)rt the )rgenc' of his right to notice an& hearing consi&ering the allege& threat to his li(ert'# The s)ppose& threat to pri%ate respon&entGs li(ert' is percei%e& to come from se%eral pro%isions of the ECtra&ition Treat' an& its implementing la4 4hich allo4 pro%isional arrest an& temporar' &etention# Ho4e%erD (oth the RP@+S ECtra&ition Treat' an& P#,# /06; clearl' pro%i&e that pri%ate respon&ent ma' (e pro%isionall' arreste& onl' pen&ing receipt of the re:)est for eCtra&ition# O)r , A has long recei%e& the eCtra&ition re:)est from the +nite& States an& has t)rne& it o%er to the ,O*# It is )n&isp)te& that )ntil to&a'D the +nite& States has not re:)este& for pri%ates respon&entGs pro%isional arrest# ThereforeD the threat to pri%ate respon&entGs li(ert' has passe&# It is more imagine& than real# SiCth5 To (e s)reD pri%ate respon&entGs plea for &)e process &eser%es serio)s consi&eration in%ol%ing as it &oes his primor&ial right to li(ert'# His plea to &)e process ho4e%erD colli&es 4ith the important state interest 4hich cannot also (e ignore& for the' ser%e the interest of the greater maBorit'# The clash of rights &eman&s a &elicate (alancing of interest approach 4hich is a f)n&amental post)late of constit)tional la4# The approach re:)ires that 4e take conscio)s an& &etaile& consi&eration of the interpla' of interest o(ser%a(le in a gi%en sit)ation or t'pe of sit)ation# These interests )s)all' consist in the eCercise (' an in&i%i&)al of his (asic free&oms on the one han&D an& the go%ernmentGs promotion of f)n&amental p)(lic interest or polic' o(Becti%es on the other# Consi&ering that in the case at (arD the eCtra&ition procee&ing is onl' at its e%al)ation stageD the nat)re of the right (eing claime& (' the pri%ate respon&ent is ne()lo)s an& the &egree of preB)&ice he 4ill allege&l' s)ffer is 4eakD 4e accor& greater 4eight in the interest espo)se& (' the go%ernment thr) the petitioner Secretar' of *)stice#

-0

:er $< /eople of State of Illinois 11( 1<S< 43! 80ece)ber !A 1''!9

8hile re&erick M# 2er 4as in LimaD Per)D he 4as ki&nappe& an& (ro)ght to +nite& State& against his 4ill to face the charges for larcen' instit)te& in the criminal co)rt of Cook co)nt'# The in&ictment also incl)&e charges of em(eEElement# 2er in&ictment 4as starte& 4hen Go%# HamiltonD of Illinois ma&e a re:)est to eCtra&ite 2erD the Presi&ent grante& the re:)est an& &irecte& Henr' G# *)lianD as messengerD to recei%e the &efen&ant from the a)thorities of Per)D )pon a charge of larcen'D in compliance 4ith the treat' (et4een the +nite& States an& Per) on that s)(BectJ that the sai& *)lianD ha%ing the necessar' papers 4ith himD arri%e& in LimaD ()tD 4itho)t presenting them to an' officer of the Per)%ian go%ernmentD or making an' &eman& on that go%ernment for the s)rren&er of 2erD forci(l' an& 4ith %iolence arreste& himD place& him on (oar& the +nite& States %essel EsseCD in the har(or of Callao# He 4as kept prisoner )ntil the' arri%e& in Honol)l) 4here he 4as transferre& again to a &ifferent %essel 4hich (ro)ght him to San ranciscoD California# Go%# Hamilton again ma&e a re:)est that 2er (e s)rren&er to him as a f)giti%e of B)sticeD 4ho ha& escape& to that state on acco)nt of the same offenses charge& in the re:)isition on Per) an& in the in&ictment in this case# This re:)est 4as grante& an& 2er 4as transferre& to Cook Co)nt' 4here he 4as hel& to ans4er the in&ictment alrea&' mentione& 2er allege that he 4as &enie& &)e process 4hen he 4as in&icte& from Per) to the +nite& State&# He also allege that (' %irt)e of the treat' of eCtra&ition 4ith Per)D he ac:)ire& (' his resi&ence in that co)ntr' a right of as'l)m@ a right to (e free from molestation for the crime committe& in Illinois# The iss)es are5 a#= 8hether or not 2er 4as &enie& &)e process of la4 4hen he 4as in&icte&N (#= 8hether or not the in&ictment 4as in %iolation of fe&eral treat' (et4een the +nite& States an& Rep)(lic of Per)N ,)e Process The H&)e process of la4H here g)arantie& is complie& 4ith 4hen the part' is reg)larl' in&icte& (' the proper gran& B)r' in the state co)rtD has a trial accor&ing to the forms an& mo&es prescri(e& for s)ch trialsD an& 4henD in that trial an& procee&ingsD he is &epri%e& of no rights to 4hich he is la4f)ll' entitle&# 8e &o not inten& to sa' that there ma' not (e procee&ings pre%io)s to the trialD in regar& to 4hich the prisoner co)l& in%oke

-/

in some manner the pro%isions of this cla)se of the constit)tionJ ()tD for mere irreg)larities in the manner in 4hich he ma' (e (ro)ght into c)sto&' of the la4D 4e &o not think he is entitle& to sa' that he sho)l& not (e trie& at all for the crime 4ith 4hich he is charge& in a reg)lar in&ictment# He ma' (e arreste& for a %er' heino)s offense (' persons 4itho)t an' 4arrantD or 4itho)t an' pre%io)s complaintD an& (ro)ght (efore a proper officerJ an& this ma' (eD in some senseD sai& to (e H4itho)t &)e process of la4#H .)t it 4o)l& har&l' (e claime& thatD after the case ha& (een in%estigate& an& the &efen&ant hel& (' the proper a)thorities to ans4er for the crimeD he co)l& plea& that he 4as first arreste& H4itho)t &)e process of la4#H So hereD 4hen fo)n& 4ithin the B)ris&iction of the state of IllinoisD an& lia(le to ans4er for a crime against the la4s of that stateD )nless there 4as some positi%e pro%ision of the constit)tion or of the la4s of this co)ntr' %iolate& in (ringing him into co)rtD it is not eas' to see ho4 he can sa' that he is there H4itho)t &)e process of la4DH 4ithin the meaning of the constit)tional pro%ision Treat' There is no lang)age in this treat'D or in an' other treat' ma&e (' this co)ntr' on the s)(Bect of eCtra&itionD of 4hich 4e are a4areD 4hich sa's in terms that a part' fleeing from the +nite& States to escape p)nishment for crime (ecomes there(' entitle& to an as'l)m in the co)ntr' to 4hich he has fle&# It cannot (e &o)(te& that the go%ernment of Per) co)l&D of its o4n accor&D 4itho)t an' &eman& from the +nite& StatesD ha%e s)rren&ere& 2er to an agent of the state of IllinoisD an& that s)ch s)rren&er 4o)l& ha%e (een %ali& 4ithin the &ominions of Per)# It is i&leD thereforeD to claim thatD either (' eCpress terms or (' implicationD there is gi%en to a f)giti%e from B)stice in one of these co)ntries an' right to remain an& resi&e in the otherJ an&D if the right of as'l)m means an'thingD it m)st mean this# The right of the go%ernment of Per) %ol)ntaril' to gi%e a part' in 2erHs con&ition an as'l)m in that co)ntr' is :)ite a &ifferent thing from the right in him to &eman& an& insist )pon sec)rit' in s)ch an as'l)m# The treat'D so far as it reg)lates the right of as'l)m at allD is inten&e& to limit this right in the case of one 4ho is pro%e& to (e a criminal fleeing from B)sticeJ so thatD on proper &eman& an& procee&ings ha& thereinD the go%ernment of the co)ntr' of the as'l)m shall &eli%er him )p to the co)ntr' 4here the crime 4as committe&# An& to this eCtentD an& to this aloneD the treat' &oes reg)late or impose a restriction )pon the right of the go%ernment of the co)ntr' of the as'l)m to protect the criminal from remo%al there from#

-1

Chapter (: I))unit% fro) "urisdiction

T,4 ,#LB S44A petitionerA $s< T,4 ,#N< 4+I;4+T# 1< +#S5+I#A "+<A as /residin- "ud-e of the +e-ional Trial Court of Ma=atiA ;ranch !1 and ST5+;+I6,T S5L4S 4NT4+/+IS4SA INC<A respondents< 6<+< No< 1*1(4( 0ece)ber 1A 1((4 This is a petition for certiorari )n&er R)le 6$ of the Re%ise& R)les of Co)rt to re%erse an& set asi&e the Or&ers &ate& *)ne 10D /;;/ an& Septem(er /;D /;;/ of the Regional Trial Co)rtD .ranch 6/D MakatiD Metro Manila in Ci%il Case No# ;0@/-9# Petitioner is the Hol' See 4ho eCercises so%ereignt' o%er the !atican Cit' in RomeD Ital'D represente& in the Philippines (' the Papal N)ncio# Pri%ate respon&entD Star(right Sales EnterprisesD Inc#D is a &omestic corporation engage& in the real estate ()siness# The s)(Bect of the petition is a parcel of lan& consisting of 6D000 s:)are meters <Lot $@AD Transfer Certificate of Title No# 9;0330= locate& in the M)nicipalit' of ParaSa:)eD Metro Manila an& registere& in the name of petitioner# Sai& Lot $@A is contig)o)s to Lots $@. an& $@, 4hich are co%ere& (' Transfer Certificates of Title Nos# 1>//0- an& 16$9-- respecti%el' an& registere& in the name of the Philippine Realt' Corporation <PRC=# The three lots 4ere sol& to Ramon Lic)pD thro)gh Msgr# ,omingo A# CirilosD *r#D acting as agent to the sellers# LaterD Lic)p assigne& his rights to the sale to pri%ate respon&ent# The lots 4ere s)rro)n&e& an& occ)pie& (' s:)atters# An iss)e arose as to 4ho sho)l& e%ict the sai& s:)atters# The relations se%ere& 4hen the Lot $@A 4as thereafter sol& (' petitioner to Tropicana Properties an& ,e%elopment Corporation <Tropicana=# On *an)ar' 19D /;;0D pri%ate respon&ent file& a complaint 4ith the Regional Trial Co)rtD .ranch 6/D MakatiD for ann)lment of sale of the three parcels of lan&D an& for specific performance an& &amages against petitionerD represente& (' the Papal N)ncioD an& three other &efen&ants5 namel'D Msgr# ,omingo A# CirilosD *r#D the PRC an& Tropicana <Ci%il Case No#;0@/-9=# The complaint allege& that5 </= on April />D /;--D Msgr# CirilosD *r#D on (ehalf of petitioner an& the PRCD agree& to sell to Ramon Lic)p Lots $@AD $@. an& $@, at the price of P/D130#00 per s:)are metersJ <1= the agreement to sell 4as ma&e on the con&ition that earnest mone' of P/00D000#00 (e pai& (' Lic)p to the sellersD an& that the sellers 4ill clear the sai& lots of s:)atters 4ho 4ere then occ)p'ing the sameJ <9= Lic)p pai& the

-9

earnest mone' to Msgr# CirilosJ <3= in the same monthD Lic)p assigne& his rights o%er the propert' to pri%ate respon&ent an& informe& the sellers of the sai& assignmentJ <$= thereafterD pri%ate respon&ent &eman&e& from Msgr# Cirilos that the sellers f)lfill their )n&ertaking an& clear the propert' of s:)attersJ ho4e%erD Msgr# Cirilos informe& pri%ate respon&ent of the s:)attersH ref)sal to %acate the lotsD proposing instea& either that pri%ate respon&ent )n&ertake the e%iction or that the earnest mone' (e ret)rne& to the latterJ <6= pri%ate respon&ent co)nterpropose& that if it 4o)l& )n&ertake the e%iction of the s:)attersD the p)rchase price of the lots sho)l& (e re&)ce& from P/D130#00 to P/D/$0#00 per s:)are meterJ <>= Msgr# Cirilos ret)rne& the earnest mone' of P/00D000#00 an& 4rote pri%ate respon&ent gi%ing it se%en &a's from receipt of the letter to pa' the original p)rchase price in cashJ <-= pri%ate respon&ent sent the earnest mone' (ack to the sellersD ()t later &isco%ere& that on March 90D /;-;D petitioner an& the PRCD 4itho)t notice to pri%ate respon&entD sol& the lots to TropicanaD as e%i&ence& (' t4o separate ,ee&s of SaleD one o%er Lot $@AD an& another o%er Lots $@. an& $@,J an& that the sellersH transfer certificate of title o%er the lots 4ere cancelle&D transferre& an& registere& in the name of TropicanaJ <;= Tropicana in&)ce& petitioner an& the PRC to sell the lots to it an& th)s enriche& itself at the eCpense of pri%ate respon&entJ </0= pri%ate respon&ent &eman&e& the rescission of the sale to Tropicana an& the recon%e'ance of the lotsD to no a%ailJ an& <//= pri%ate respon&ent is 4illing an& a(le to compl' 4ith the terms of the contract to sell an& has act)all' ma&e plans to &e%elop the lots into a to4nho)se proBectD ()t in %ie4 of the sellersH (reachD it lost profits of not less than P90D000#000#00# Pri%ate respon&ent th)s pra'e& for5 </= the ann)lment of the ,ee&s of Sale (et4een petitioner an& the PRC on the one han&D an& Tropicana on the otherJ <1= the recon%e'ance of the lots in :)estionJ <9= specific performance of the agreement to sell (et4een it an& the o4ners of the lotsJ an& <3= &amages# The iss)e is 4hether or not petitioners are entitle& to the pri%ilege of so%ereign imm)nit' The ,epartment of oreign AffairsD thro)gh the Office of Legal Affairs mo%e& 4ith this Co)rt to (e allo4e& to inter%ene on the si&e of petitioner# The Co)rt allo4e& the sai& ,epartment to file its memoran&)m in s)pport of petitionerHs claim of so%ereign imm)nit'# The petition is ()r&ene& 4ith the contention that respon&ent trial co)rt has no B)ris&iction o%er petitionerD (eing a foreign state enBo'ing so%ereign imm)nit'# On the other han&D pri%ate respon&ent insists that the &octrine of non@s)a(ilit' is not an'more a(sol)te an& that petitioner has &i%este& itself of s)ch a cloak 4henD of its o4n free 4illD it entere& into a commercial transaction for the sale of a parcel of lan& locate& in the Philippines# .efore 4e &etermine the iss)e of petitionerHs non@s)a(ilit'D a (rief look into its stat)s as a so%ereign state is in or&er# The !atican Cit' fits into none of the esta(lishe& categories of statesD an& the attri()tion to it of Pso%ereignt'P m)st (e ma&e in a sense &ifferent from that in 4hich it is applie& to other states < en4ickD International La4 /13@

-3

/1$ Y/;3-ZJ Cr)ED International La4 9> Y/;;/Z=# In a comm)nit' of national statesD the !atican Cit' represents an entit' organiEe& not for political ()t for ecclesiastical p)rposes an& international o(Bects# ,espite its siEe an& o(BectD the !atican Cit' has an in&epen&ent go%ernment of its o4nD 4ith the PopeD 4ho is also hea& of the Roman Catholic Ch)rchD as the Hol' See or Hea& of StateD in conformit' 4ith its tra&itionsD an& the &eman&s of its mission in the 4orl&# In&ee&D the 4orl&@4i&e interests an& acti%ities of the !atican Cit' are s)ch as to make it in a sense an Pinternational stateP < en4ickD s)pra#D /1$J 2elsenD Principles of International La4 /60 Y/;$6Z=#The Rep)(lic of the Philippines has accor&e& the Hol' See the stat)s of a foreign so%ereign# The Hol' SeeD thro)gh its Am(assa&orD the Papal N)ncioD has ha& &iplomatic representations 4ith the Philippine go%ernment since /;$> <RolloD p# ->=# This appears to (e the )ni%ersal practice in international relations# There are t4o conflicting concepts of so%ereign imm)nit'D each 4i&el' hel& an& firml' esta(lishe&# Accor&ing to the classical or a(sol)te theor'D a so%ereign cannotD 4itho)t its consentD (e ma&e a respon&ent in the co)rts of another so%ereign# Another school of tho)ght hol&s the ne4er or restricti%e theor'D that the imm)nit' of the so%ereign is recogniEe& onl' 4ith regar& to p)(lic acts or acts B)re imperii of a stateD ()t not 4ith regar& to pri%ate acts or acts B)re gestionis The restricti%e theor'D 4hich is inten&e& to (e a sol)tion to the host of pro(lems in%ol%ing the iss)e of so%ereign imm)nit'D has create& pro(lems of its o4n# Legal treatises an& the &ecisions in co)ntries 4hich follo4 the restricti%e theor' ha%e &iffic)lt' in characteriEing 4hether a contract of a so%ereign state 4ith a pri%ate part' is an act B)re gestionis or an act B)re imperii# The restricti%e theor' came a(o)t (eca)se of the entr' of so%ereign states into p)rel' commercial acti%ities remotel' connecte& 4ith the &ischarge of go%ernmental f)nctions# This is partic)larl' tr)e 4ith respect to the Comm)nist states 4hich took control of nationaliEe& ()siness acti%ities an& international tra&ing# This Co)rt has consi&ere& the follo4ing transactions (' a foreign state 4ith pri%ate parties as acts B)re imperii5 </= the lease (' a foreign go%ernment of apartment ()il&ings for )se of its militar' officers <S':)ia %# LopeED -3 Phil# 9/1 Y/;3;ZJ <1= the con&)ct of p)(lic (i&&ing for the repair of a 4harf at a +nite& States Na%al Station <+nite& States of America %# R)iED s)pra#=J an& <9= the change of emplo'ment stat)s of (ase emplo'ees <San&ers %# !eri&ianoD /61 SCRA -- Y/;--Z=# On the other han&D this Co)rt has consi&ere& the follo4ing transactions (' a foreign state 4ith pri%ate parties as acts B)re gestionis5 </= the hiring of a cook in the recreation centerD consisting of three resta)rantsD a cafeteriaD a (aker'D a storeD an& a coffee an& pastr' shop at the *ohn Ha' Air Station in .ag)io Cit'D to cater to American ser%icemen an& the general p)(lic <+nite& States of America %# Ro&rigoD /-1 SCRA 633 Y/;;0Z=J an& <1= the (i&&ing for the operation of (ar(er shops in Clark Air .ase in Angeles Cit' <+nite& States of America %# G)intoD /-1 SCRA 633 Y/;;0Z=# The operation of the resta)rants an& other facilities open to the general p)(lic is )n&o)(te&l' for profit as a commercial an& not a go%ernmental acti%it'# .' entering into the emplo'ment

-$

contract 4ith the cook in the &ischarge of its proprietar' f)nctionD the +nite& States go%ernment implie&l' &i%este& itself of its so%ereign imm)nit' from s)it# In the a(sence of legislation &efining 4hat acti%ities an& transactions shall (e consi&ere& PcommercialP an& as constit)ting acts B)re gestionisD 4e ha%e to come o)t 4ith o)r o4n g)i&elinesD tentati%e the' ma' (e# The mere entering into a contract (' a foreign state 4ith a pri%ate part' cannot (e the )ltimate test# S)ch an act can onl' (e the start of the in:)ir'# The logical :)estion is 4hether the foreign state is engage& in the acti%it' in the reg)lar co)rse of ()siness# If the foreign state is not engage& reg)larl' in a ()siness or tra&eD the partic)lar act or transaction m)st then (e teste& (' its nat)re# If the act is in p)rs)it of a so%ereign acti%it'D or an inci&ent thereofD then it is an act B)re imperiiD especiall' 4hen it is not )n&ertaken for gain or profit# As hel& in +nite& States of America %# G)intoD <s)pra=5 There is no :)estion that the +nite& States of AmericaD like an' other stateD 4ill (e &eeme& to ha%e implie&l' 4ai%e& its non@s)a(ilit' if it has entere& into a contract in its proprietar' or pri%ate capacit'# It is onl' 4hen the contract in%ol%es its so%ereign or go%ernmental capacit' that no s)ch 4ai%er ma' (e implie&# In this caseD if petitioner has (o)ght an& sol& lan&s in the or&inar' co)rse of a real estate ()sinessD s)rel' the sai& transaction can (e categoriEe& as an act B)re gestionis# Ho4e%erD petitioner has &enie& that the ac:)isition an& s)(se:)ent &isposal of Lot $@A 4ere ma&e for profit ()t claime& that it ac:)ire& sai& propert' for the site of its mission or the Apostolic N)nciat)re in the Philippines# Pri%ate respon&ent faile& to &isp)te sai& claim# The iss)e of petitionerHs non@s)a(ilit' can (e &etermine& (' the trial co)rt 4itho)t going to trial in the light of the plea&ingsD partic)larl' the a&mission of pri%ate respon&ent# .esi&esD the pri%ilege of so%ereign imm)nit' in this case 4as s)fficientl' esta(lishe& (' the Memoran&)m an& Certification of the ,epartment of oreign Affairs# As the &epartment taske& 4ith the con&)ct of the PhilippinesH foreign relations <A&ministrati%e Co&e of /;->D .ook I!D Title ID Sec# 9=D the ,epartment of oreign Affairs has formall' inter%ene& in this case an& officiall' certifie& that the Em(ass' of the Hol' See is a &)l' accre&ite& &iplomatic mission to the Rep)(lic of the Philippines eCempt from local B)ris&iction an& entitle& to all the rightsD pri%ileges an& imm)nities of a &iplomatic mission or em(ass' in this co)ntr' <RolloD pp# /$6@/$>=# The &etermination of the eCec)ti%e arm of go%ernment that a state or instr)mentalit' is entitle& to so%ereign or &iplomatic imm)nit' is a political :)estion that is concl)si%e )pon the co)rts <International Catholic Migration Commission %# CalleBaD /;0 SCRA /90 Y/;;0Z=# 8here the plea of imm)nit' is recogniEe& an& affirme& (' the eCec)ti%e (ranchD it is the &)t' of the co)rts to accept this claim so as not to em(arrass the eCec)ti%e arm of the go%ernment in con&)cting the co)ntr'Hs foreign relations <8orl& Health OrganiEation %# A:)inoD 3-

-6

SCRA 131 Y/;>1Z=# As in International Catholic Migration Commission an& in 8orl& Health OrganiEationD 4e a(i&e (' the certification of the ,epartment of oreign Affairs# Pri%ate respon&ent is not left 4itho)t an' legal reme&' for the re&ress of its grie%ances# +n&er (oth P)(lic International La4 an& Transnational La4D a person 4ho feels aggrie%e& (' the acts of a foreign so%ereign can ask his o4n go%ernment to espo)se his ca)se thro)gh &iplomatic channels# Pri%ate respon&ent can ask the Philippine go%ernmentD thro)gh the oreign OfficeD to espo)se its claims against the Hol' See# Its first task is to pers)a&e the Philippine go%ernment to take )p 4ith the Hol' See the %ali&it' of its claims# Of co)rseD the oreign Office shall first make a &etermination of the impact of its espo)sal on the relations (et4een the Philippine go%ernment an& the Hol' See <7o)ngD Reme&ies of Pri%ate Claimants Against oreign StatesD Selecte& Rea&ings on Protection (' La4 of Pri%ate oreign In%estments ;0$D ;/; Y/;63Z=# Once the Philippine go%ernment &eci&es to espo)se the claimD the latter ceases to (e a pri%ate ca)se# Accor&ing to the Permanent Co)rt of International *)sticeD the forer)nner of the International Co)rt of *)stice5 .' taking )p the case of one of its s)(Bects an& (' reporting to &iplomatic action or international B)&icial procee&ings on his (ehalfD a State is in realit' asserting its o4n rights ` its right to ens)reD in the person of its s)(BectsD respect for the r)les of international la4 <The Ma%rommatis Palestine ConcessionsD / H)&sonD 8orl& Co)rt Reports 1;9D 901 Y/;13Z=# 8HERE ORED the petition for certiorari is GRANTE, an& the complaint in Ci%il Case No# ;0@/-9 against petitioner is ,ISMISSE,#

->

T,4 /IN#C,4T C5S4 25 No$e)ber 1((' ,ouse of Lords On // Septem(er /;>9 General A)g)sto Pinochet +garte ass)me& po4er in Chile after a militar' co)p# He 4as appointe& presi&ent of the Go%erning *)nta the same &a'# On 11 Septem(er the ne4 regime 4as recognise& (' Her MaBest'Hs Go%ernment# .' a &ecree &ate& // ,ecem(er /;>3 General Pinochet ass)me& the title of Presi&ent of the Rep)(lic# In /;-0 a ne4 constit)tion came into force in ChileD appro%e& (' a national referen&)m# It pro%i&e& for eCec)ti%e po4er in Chile to (e eCercise& (' the Presi&ent of the Rep)(lic as hea& of state# ,emocratic elections 4ere hel& in ,ecem(er /;-;# As a res)ltD General Pinochet han&e& o%er po4er to Presi&ent A'l4in on // March /;;0# On /; April /;>-D 4hile General Pinochet 4as still hea& of stateD the senate passe& a &ecree granting an amnest' to all persons in%ol%e& in criminal acts <4ith certain eCceptions= (et4een // Septem(er /;>9 an& /0 March /;>-# The p)rpose of the amnest' 4as state& to (e for the Pgeneral tran:)illit'D peace an& or&erP of the nation# After General Pinochet fell from po4erD the ne4 &emocratic go%ernment appointe& a Commission for Tr)th an& ReconciliationD th)s foresha&o4ing the appointment of a similar commission in So)th Africa# The Commission consiste& of eight ci%ilians of %ar'ing political %ie4points )n&er the chairmanship of ,on Ra)l Rettig# Their terms of reference 4ere to in%estigate all %iolations of h)man rights (et4een /;>9 an& /;;0D an& to make recommen&ations# The Commission reporte& on ; e(r)ar' /;;/# In /;;3 Senator Pinochet came to the +nite& 2ing&om on a special &iplomatic mission5 <he ha& pre%io)sl' (een appointe& senator for life=# He came again in /;;$ an& /;;># Accor&ing to the e%i&ence of Professor 8altersD a former foreign minister an& am(assa&or to the +nite& 2ing&omD Senator Pinochet 4as accor&e& normal &iplomatic co)rtesies# The oreign Office 4as informe& in a&%ance of his %isit to Lon&on in Septem(er /;;-D 4here at the age of -1 he has )n&ergone an operation at the Lon&on Clinic# At //#1$ p#m# on /6 Octo(er he 4as arreste& 4hile still at the Lon&on Clinic p)rs)ant to a pro%isional 4arrant iss)e& )n&er section -</=<(= of the ECtra&ition Act /;-;# On /> Octo(er the Chilean Go%ernment proteste&# The protest 4as rene4e& on 19 Octo(er# The p)rpose of the protest 4as to claim imm)nit' from s)it on (ehalf of Senator Pinochet (oth as a %isiting &iplomat an& as a former hea& of stateD an& to re:)est his imme&iate release# all e%entsD *)&ge GarEon in Ma&ri& iss)e& a secon& international 4arrant of arrest &ate& /- Octo(erD alleging crimes of genoci&e an& terrorism# This in t)rn le& to a secon& pro%isional 4arrant of arrest in Englan& iss)e& on this occasion (' Mr# Ronal& .artle# Senator Pinochet 4as re@arreste& in p)rs)ance of the secon& 4arrant on 19 Octo(er#

--

In the ,i%isional Co)rt the Lor& Chief *)stice s)mmariEe& the position sa'ing that the thr)st of the 4arrant Pmakes it plain that the applicant is charge& not 4ith personall' tort)ring or m)r&ering %ictims or or&ering their &isappearanceD ()t 4ith )sing the po4er of the State to that en&P# Rel'ing on the information containe& in the re:)est for eCtra&itionD it is necessar' to eCpan& the cr'ptic acco)nt of the facts in the 4arrant# The re:)est alleges a s'stematic campaign of repression against %ario)s gro)ps in Chile after the militar' co)p on // Septem(er /;>9# The case is that of the or&er of 3D000 in&i%i&)als 4ere kille& or simpl' &isappeare&# S)ch killings an& &isappearances mostl' took place in Chile ()t some also took place in %ario)s co)ntries a(roa&# S)ch acts 4ere committe& &)ring the perio& from // Septem(er /;>9 )ntil /;;0# The climaC of the repression 4as reache& in /;>3 an& /;>$# The principal instr)mentalit' of the oppression 4as the ,irection &e Inteligencia Nacional <,INA=D the secret police# The s)(se:)ent re@ naming of this organiEation is immaterial# The case is that agents of ,INAD 4ho 4ere speciall' traine& in tort)re techni:)esD tort)re& %ictims on a %ast scale in secret tort)re cham(ers in Santiago an& else4here in Chile# The tort)rers 4ere in%aria(l' &resse& in ci%ilian clothes# Hoo&e& &octors 4ere present &)ring tort)re sessions# The case is not one of interrogators acting in eCcess of Eeal# The case goes m)ch f)rther# The re:)est eCplains5 PThe most )s)al metho& 4as Pthe grillP consisting of a metal ta(le on 4hich the %ictim 4as lai& nake& an& his eCtremities tie& an& electrical shocks 4ere applie& to the lipsD genitalsD 4o)n&s or metal prosthesisJ also t4o personsD relati%es or frien&sD 4ere place& in t4o metal &ra4ers one on top of the other so that 4hen the one a(o%e 4as tort)re& the ps'chological impact 4as felt (' the otherJ on other occasions the %ictim 4as s)spen&e& from a (ar (' the 4rists an&Qor the kneesD an& o%er a prolonge& perio& 4hile hel& in this sit)ation electric c)rrent 4as applie& to himD c)tting 4o)n&s 4ere inflicte& or he 4as (eatenJ or the P&r' s)(marineP metho& 4as applie&D i#e# placing a (ag on the hea& )ntil close to s)ffocationD also &r)gs 4ere )se& an& (oiling 4ater 4as thro4n on %ario)s &etainees to p)nish them as a foretaste for the &eath 4hich the' 4o)l& later s)ffer#P As the ,i%isional Co)rt o(ser%e& it is not allege& that General Pinochet personall' committe& an' of these acts (' his o4n han&# The case isD ho4e%erD that agents of ,INA committe& the acts of tort)re an& that ,INA 4as &irectl' ans4era(le to General Pinochet rather than to the militar' B)nta# An& the case is that ,INA )n&ertook an& arrange& the killingsD &isappearances an& tort)ring of %ictims on the or&ers of General Pinochet# The iss)e is 4hether Senator Pinochet ma' (e entitle& to imm)nit' as a ormer Hea& of StateN The appellants state& in para# 16 of their 4ritten case5 PNo international agreement specificall' pro%i&es for the imm)nities of a former hea& of state# Ho4e%erD )n&er c)stomar' international la4D it is accepte& that a state is entitle& to eCpect that its former hea& of state 4ill not (e s)(Becte& to the B)ris&iction of the co)rts of another state

-;

for certain categories of acts performe& 4hile he 4as hea& of state )nless imm)nit' is 4ai%e& (' the c)rrent go%ernment of the state of 4hich he 4as once the hea&# The imm)nit' is accor&e& for the (enefit not of the former hea& of state himself ()t for the state of 4hich he 4as once the hea& an& an' international la4 o(ligations are o4e& to that state an& not to the in&i%i&)al#P The important point to notice in this form)lation of the imm)nit' principle is that the rationale is the same for former hea&s of state as it is for c)rrent hea&s of state# In each case the o(ligation in international la4 is o4e& to the stateD an& not the in&i%i&)alD tho)gh in the case of a c)rrent hea& of state he 4ill ha%e a conc)rrent imm)nit' ratione personae# This rationale eCplains 4h' it is the stateD an& the state aloneD 4hich can 4ai%e the imm)nit'# 8hereD thereforeD a state is seeking the eCtra&ition of its o4n former hea& of stateD as has happene& in a n)m(er of casesD the imm)nit' is 4ai%e& eC h'pothesi# It cannot (e asserte& (' the former hea& of state# .)t here the sit)ation is the re%erse# Chile is not 4ai%ing its imm)nit' in respect of the acts of Senator Pinochet as former hea& of state# It is asserting that imm)nit' in the strongest possi(le termsD (oth in respect of the Spanish international 4arrantD an& also in respect of the eCtra&ition procee&ings in the +nite& 2ing&om# ,eci&e& cases s)pport the same approach# In Hatch %# .aeE </->6= > H)n# $;6 the plaintiff complaine& of an inB)r' 4hich he s)staine& at the han&s of the &efen&ant 4hen presi&ent of the ,ominican Rep)(lic# After the &efen&ant ha& cease& to (e presi&entD he 4as arreste& in Ne4 7ork at the s)it of the plaintiff# There 4as a f)ll arg)ment (efore 4hat 4o)l& no4D I thinkD (e calle& the Secon& Circ)it Co)rt of AppealsD 4ith eCtensi%e citation of a)thorit' incl)&ing ,)ke of .r)ns4ick %# 2ing of Hano%er# The co)rt r)le&5 PThe 4rongs an& inB)ries of 4hich the plaintiff complains 4ere inflicte& )pon him (' the Go%ernment of St# ,omingoD 4hile he 4as resi&ing in that co)ntr'D an& 4as in all respects s)(Bect to its la4s# The' consist of acts &one (' the &efen&ant in his official capacit' of presi&ent of that rep)(lic#P PThe fact that the &efen&ant has cease& to (e presi&ent of St# ,omingo &oes not &estro' his imm)nit'# That springs from the capacit' in 4hich the acts 4ere &oneD an& protects the in&i%i&)al 4ho &i& themD (eca)se the' emanate& from a foreign an& frien&l' go%ernment#P In +n&erhill %# Hernan&eE </-;>= /6- +#S# 1$0 the plaintiff 4as an American citiEen resi&ent in !eneE)ela# The &efen&ant 4as a general in comman& of re%ol)tionar' forcesD 4hich after4ar&s pre%aile&# The plaintiffs (ro)ght procee&ings against the &efen&ant in Ne4 7orkD alleging 4rongf)l imprisonment &)ring the re%ol)tion# In a cele(rate& passage Chief *)stice )ller sai&D at 1$15 PE%er' so%ereign state is (o)n& to respect the in&epen&ence of e%er' other so%ereign stateD an& the co)rts of one co)ntr' 4ill not sit in

;0

B)&gment on the acts of the go%ernment of another &one 4ithin its o4n territor'# Re&ress of grie%ances (' reason of s)ch acts m)st (e o(taine& thro)gh the means open to (e a%aile& of (' so%ereign po4ers as (et4een themsel%es#P In or&er for the act of state &octrine to appl'D the &efen&ant m)st esta(lish that his acti%ities are Hacts of stateHD i#e# that the' 4ere taken on (ehalf of the state an& notD as pri%ate actsD on (ehalf of the actor himself# That the acts m)st (e p)(lic acts of the so%ereign has (een repeate&l' affirme&# Tho)gh the &istinction (et4een the p)(lic an& pri%ate acts of go%ernment officials ma' pro%e el)si%eD this &iffic)lt' has not pre%ente& co)rts from scr)tiniEing the character of the con&)ct in :)estion# In committing the crimes 4hich are allege& against himD 4as Senator Pinochet acting in his pri%ate capacit' or 4as he acting in a so%ereign capacit' as hea& of stateN He 4as acting in a so%ereign capacit'# It has not (een s)ggeste& that he 4as personall' g)ilt' of an' of the crimes of tort)re or hostage@taking in the sense that he carrie& them o)t 4ith his o4n han&s# 8hat is allege& against him is that he organiEe& the commission of s)ch crimesD incl)&ing the elimination of his political opponentsD as hea& of the Chilean go%ernmentD an& that he &i& so in co@operation 4ith other go%ernments )n&er Plan Con&orD an& in partic)lar 4ith the go%ernment of Argentina# These circ)mstances he cannot (e treate& as ha%ing acte& in a pri%ate capacit'# The appellants ha%e t4o f)rther arg)ments# irst the' sa' that the crimes allege& against Senator Pinochet are so horrific that an eCception m)st (e ma&e to the or&inar' r)le of c)stomar' international la4# Secon&l' the' sa' that the crimes in :)estion are crimes against international la4D an& that international la4 cannot (oth con&emn con&)ct as a (reach of international la4 an& at the same time grant imm)nit' from prosec)tion# It cannot gi%e 4ith one han& an& take a4a' 4ith the other# In the first s)(missionD the &iffic)lt' is to kno4 4here to &ra4 the line# Tort)re is a horrific crimeD ()t so is m)r&er# It is a regretta(le fact that almost all lea&ers of re%ol)tionar' mo%ements are g)ilt' of killing their political opponents in the co)rse of coming to po4erD an& man' are g)ilt' of m)r&ering their political opponents thereafter in or&er to sec)re their po4er# 7et it is not s)ggeste& that the crime of m)r&er p)ts the s)ccessf)l re%ol)tionar' (e'on& the pale of imm)nit' in c)stomar' international la4# It is strange to think of m)r&er or tort)re as PofficialP acts or as part of the hea& of stateHs Pp)(lic f)nctions#P .)t if for PofficialP one s)(stit)tes Pgo%ernmentalP then the tr)e nat)re of the &istinction (et4een pri%ate acts an& official acts (ecomes apparent# or reasons alrea&' mentione& there is no &o)(t that the crimes of 4hich Senator Pinochet is acc)se&D incl)&ing the crime of tort)reD 4ere go%ernmental in nat)re# Other4ise one 4o)l& get to this position5 that the crimes of a hea& of state in the eCec)tion of his go%ernmental a)thorit' are to (e attri()te& to the state so long as the' are not too serio)s# .)t (e'on& a certain <)n&efine&= &egree of serio)sness the crimes cease to (e attri()ta(le to the stateD an& are instea& to (e treate& as his pri%ate crimes# That 4o)l& not make sense#

;/

The secon& s)(missionD the :)estion is 4hether there sho)l& (e an eCception from the general r)le of imm)nit' in the case of crimes 4hich ha%e (een ma&e the s)(Bect of international con%entionsD s)ch as the International Con%ention against the Taking of Hostages </;-0= an& the Con%ention against Tort)re </;-3=# The p)rpose of these con%entionsD in %er' (roa& termsD 4as to ens)re that acts of tort)re an& hostage@taking sho)l& (e ma&e <or remain= offences )n&er the criminal la4 of each of the state partiesD an& that each state part' sho)l& take meas)res to esta(lish eCtra@territorial B)ris&iction in specifie& cases# Th)s in the case of tort)re a state part' is o(lige& to esta(lish eCtra@ territorial B)ris&iction 4hen the allege& offen&er is a national of that stateD ()t not 4here the %ictim is a national# In the latter case the state has a &iscretion5 see article $#/<(= an& <c=# In a&&ition there is an o(ligation on a state to eCtra&ite or prosec)te 4here a person acc)se& of tort)re is fo)n& 4ithin its territor'@@a)t &e&ere a)t B)&icare5 see article ># .)t there is nothing in the Tort)re Con%ention 4hich to)ches on state imm)nit'# The contrast 4ith the Con%ention on the Pre%ention an& P)nishment of the Crime of Genoci&e </;3-= co)l& not (e more marke&# Article 3 of the Genoci&e Con%ention pro%i&es5 PPersons committing genoci&e or an' of the other acts en)merate& in article 9 shall (e p)nishe& 4hether the' are constit)tionall' responsi(le r)lers or p)(lic officials or pri%ate in&i%i&)als#P There is no e:)i%alent pro%ision in either the Tort)re Con%ention or the Taking of Hostages Con%ention# Moreo%erD 4hen the Genoci&e Con%ention 4as incorporate& into English la4 (' the Genoci&e Act /;6;D article 3 4as omitte&# So Parliament m)st clearl' ha%e inten&e&D or at least contemplate&D that a hea& of state acc)se& of genoci&e 4o)l& (e a(le to plea& so%ereign imm)nit'# If the Tort)re Con%ention an& the Taking of Hostages Con%ention ha& containe& a pro%ision e:)i%alent to article 3 of the Genoci&e Con%ention <4hich the' &i& not= it is reasona(le to s)ppose thatD as 4ith genoci&eD the e:)i%alent pro%isions 4o)l& ha%e (een omitte& 4hen Parliament incorporate& those con%entions into English la4# It cannot (e seen an' inconsistenc' (et4een the p)rposes )n&erl'ing these Con%entions an& the r)le of international la4 4hich allo4s a hea& of state proce&)ral imm)nit' in respect of crimes co%ere& (' the Con%entions# Senator Pinochet 4as hel& entitle& to imm)nit' as former hea& of state at common la4# The appeal 4as permitte&#

;1

:,#S+#3 MIN1C,4+A petitionerA $s< ,#N< C#1+T #2 5//45LS and 5+T,1+ SC5LJ#A respondents< An Information for %iolation of the ,angero)s ,r)gs Act of /;>1D 4as file& against petitioner 2hosro4 Min)cher an& one A((as Tora(ian 4ith the Regional Trial Co)rtD Pasig Cit'# The criminal charge follo4e& a K()'@()st operationL (' the Philippine police narcotic agents in the ho)se of Min)cherD an Iranian nationalD 4here a :)antit' of heroinD a prohi(ite& &r)gD 4as sai& to ha%e (een seiEe&# The narcotic agents 4ere accompanie& (' pri%ate respon&ent Arth)r ScalEo (ecame one of the principal 4itnesses for the prosec)tion# Min)cher &isclose& that he is an Iranian national# He came to the Philippines to st)&' in the +ni%ersit' of the Philippines in /;>3# In /;>6D )n&er the regime of the Shah of IranD he 4as appointe& La(or Attach] for the Iranian Em(assies in Tok'oD *apan an& ManilaD Philippines# 8hen the Shah of Iran 4as &epose&D plaintiff (ecame a ref)gee of the +nite& Nations an& contin)e& to sta' in the Philippines# He came to kno4 the &efen&ant on Ma' /9D /;-6D 4hen the latter 4as intro&)ce& to him (' *ose ISigoD an informer of the Intelligence +nit of the militar'# ,)ring their intro&)ction in that meetingD the &efen&ant ga%e the plaintiff his calling car&D 4hich sho4e& that he is 4orking at the +S Em(ass' in the Philippines# It 4as also &)ring this first meeting that plaintiff eCpresse& his &esire to o(tain a +S !isa for his 4ife an& the 4ife of a co)ntr'man name& A((as Tora(ian# The &efen&ant tol& him that he Yco)l&Z help plaintiff for a fee of U1D000#00 per %isa# At a(o)t 9500 in the afternoon of Ma' 1>D /;-6D the &efen&ant came (ack again to plaintiffHs ho)seD 4here the latter an& his co)ntr'manD A((as Tora(ianD 4ere pla'ing chess# Plaintiff opene& his safe in the (e&room an& got U1D000#00 from itD ga%e it to the &efen&ant for the latterHs fee in o(taining a %isa for plaintiffHs 4ife# The &efen&ant re:)este& him to come o)t of the ho)se for a 4hile so that he can intro&)ce him to his co)sin 4aiting in a ca(# To his s)rpriseD an American B)mpe& o)t of the ca( 4ith a &ra4n high@po4ere& g)n# He 4as in the compan' of a(o)t 90 to 30 ilipino sol&iers 4ith 6 AmericansD all arme&# He 4as han&c)ffe& 4as (ro)ght insi&e the ho)se (' the &efen&ant# Plaintiff 4as not tol& 4h' he 4as (eing han&c)ffe& an& 4h' the pri%ac' of his ho)seD especiall' his (e&room 4as in%a&e& (' &efen&ant# He aske& for an' 4arrantD ()t the &efen&ant tol& him to ash)t )p#G That his arrest as a heroin trafficker ha& (een 4ell p)(liciEe& thro)gho)t the 4orl&D in %ario)s ne4spapers# He 4as i&entifie& in the papers as an international &r)g trafficker# On /3 *)ne /;;0D after almost t4o 'ears since the instit)tion of the ci%il caseD ScalEo in%oke& that (eing a special agent of the +nite& States ,r)g Enforcement A&ministrationD he 4as entitle& to &iplomatic imm)nit'# 8hile the trial co)rt ga%e cre&ence to the claim of ScalEo an& the e%i&ence presente& (' him that he 4as a &iplomatic agent entitle& to imm)nit' as s)chD it r)le& that heD ne%erthelessD sho)l& (e hel& acco)nta(le for the acts complaine& of committe& o)tsi&e his official &)ties# On appealD the Co)rt of Appeals re%erse& the &ecision of the trial co)rt an& s)staine& the

;9

&efense of ScalEo that he 4as s)fficientl' clothe& 4ith &iplomatic imm)nit' &)ring his term of &)t' an& there(' imm)ne from the criminal an& ci%il B)ris&iction of the KRecei%ing StateL p)rs)ant to the terms of the !ienna Con%ention# HenceD this reco)rse (' Min)cher# The iss)e is 4hether or not Arth)r ScalEo is in&ee& entitle& to &iplomatic imm)nit'# ScalEo conten&s that the !ienna Con%ention on ,iplomatic RelationsD grants him a(sol)te imm)nit' from s)itD &escri(ing his f)nctions as an agent of the +nite& States ,r)gs Enforcement Agenc' as Kcon&)cting s)r%eillance operations on s)specte& &r)g &ealers in the Philippines# The Con%ention lists the classes of hea&s of &iplomatic missions to incl)&e <a= am(assa&ors or n)ncios accre&ite& to the hea&s of stateD <(= en%o'sD ministers or intern)ncios accre&ite& to the hea&s of statesJ an& <c= charges &H affairs accre&ite& to the ministers of foreign affairs# Comprising the Pstaff of the <&iplomatic= missionP are the &iplomatic staffD the a&ministrati%e staff an& the technical an& ser%ice staff# Onl' the hea&s of missionsD as 4ell as mem(ers of the &iplomatic staffD eCcl)&ing the mem(ers of the a&ministrati%eD technical an& ser%ice staff of the missionD are accor&e& &iplomatic rank# E%en 4hile the !ienna Con%ention on ,iplomatic Relations pro%i&es for imm)nit' to the mem(ers of &iplomatic missionsD it &oes soD ne%erthelessD 4ith an )n&erstan&ing that the same (e restricti%el' applie&# Onl' P&iplomatic agentsDP )n&er the terms of the Con%entionD are %este& 4ith (lanket &iplomatic imm)nit' from ci%il an& criminal s)its# The Con%ention &efines P&iplomatic agentsP as the hea&s of missions or mem(ers of the &iplomatic staffD th)s implie&l' 4ithhol&ing the same pri%ileges from all others# In&ee&D the main 'ar&stick in ascertaining 4hether a person is a &iplomat entitle& to imm)nit' is the &etermination of 4hether or not he performs &)ties of &iplomatic nat)re# ScalEo asserte&D that he 4as an Assistant Attach] of the +nite& States &iplomatic mission an& 4as accre&ite& as s)ch (' the Philippine Go%ernment# An attach] (elongs to a categor' of officers in the &iplomatic esta(lishment 4ho ma' (e in charge of its c)lt)ralD pressD a&ministrati%e or financial affairs# Attaches assist a chief of mission in his &)ties an& are a&ministrati%el' )n&er himD ()t their main f)nction is to o(ser%eD anal'Ee an& interpret tren&s an& &e%elopments in their respecti%e fiel&s in the host co)ntr' an& s)(mit reports to their o4n ministries or &epartments in the home go%ernment# These officials are not generall' regar&e& as mem(ers of the &iplomatic missionD nor are the' normall' &esignate& as ha%ing &iplomatic rank# The go%ernment of the +nite& States itselfD 4hich ScalEo claims to (e acting forD has form)late& its stan&ar&s for recognition of a &iplomatic agent# The State ,epartment polic' is to onl' conce&e &iplomatic stat)s to a person 4ho possesses an ackno4le&ge&

;3

&iplomatic title an& Kperforms &)ties of &iplomatic nat)re# .)t 4hile the &iplomatic imm)nit' of ScalEo might th)s remain contentio)sD it 4as s)fficientl' esta(lishe& thatD in&ee&D he 4orke& for the +nite& States ,r)g Enforcement Agenc' an& 4as taske& to con&)ct s)r%eillance of s)specte& &r)g acti%ities 4ithin the co)ntr' on the &ates pertinent to this case# If it sho)l& (e ascertaine& that Arth)r ScalEo 4as acting 4ell 4ithin his assigne& f)nctions 4hen he committe& the acts allege& in the complaintD the present contro%ers' co)l& then (e resol%e& )n&er the relate& &octrine of State Imm)nit' from S)it# The precept that a State cannot (e s)e& in the co)rts of a foreign state is a long@ stan&ing r)le of c)stomar' international la4 then closel' i&entifie& 4ith the personal imm)nit' of a foreign so%ereign from s)it# If the acts gi%ing rise to a s)it are those of a foreign go%ernment &one (' its foreign agentD altho)gh not necessaril' a &iplomatic personageD ()t acting in his official capacit'D the complaint co)l& (e (arre& (' the imm)nit' of the foreign so%ereign from s)it 4itho)t its consent# S)ing a representati%e of a state is (elie%e& to (eD in effectD s)ing the state itself# The proscription is not accor&e& for the (enefit of an in&i%i&)al ()t for the StateD in 4hose ser%ice he is )n&er# The official eCchanges of comm)nication (et4een agencies of the go%ernment of the t4o co)ntriesD certifications from officials of (oth the Philippine ,epartment of oreign Affairs an& the +nite& States Em(ass'D as 4ell as the participation of mem(ers of the Philippine Narcotics Comman& in the K()'@()st operationL con&)cte& at the resi&ence of Min)cher at the (ehest of ScalEoD ma' (e ina&e:)ate to s)pport the P&iplomatic stat)sP of the latter ()t the' gi%e eno)gh in&ication that the Philippine go%ernment has gi%en its imprimat)rD if not consentD to the acti%ities 4ithin Philippine territor' of agent ScalEo of the +nite& States ,r)g Enforcement Agenc'# The Bo( &escription of ScalEo has taske& him to con&)ct s)r%eillance on s)specte& &r)g s)ppliers an&D after ha%ing ascertaine& the targetD to inform local la4 enforcers 4ho 4o)l& then (e eCpecte& to make the arrest# In con&)cting s)r%eillance acti%ities on Min)cherD later acting as the pose)r@()'er &)ring the ()'@()st operationD an& then (ecoming a principal 4itness in the criminal case against Min)cherD ScalEo har&l' can (e sai& to ha%e acte& (e'on& the scope of his official f)nction or &)ties#

;$

T,4 +4/1;LIC #2 IN0#N4SI5 7< 7INJ#N PetitionerD Rep)(lic of In&onesiaD represente& (' its Co)nselorD Siti PartinahD entere& into a Maintenance Agreement in A)g)st /;;$ 4ith respon&ent *ames !inEonD sole proprietor of !inEon Tra&e an& Ser%ices# The Maintenance Agreement state& that respon&ent shallD for a consi&erationD maintain specifie& e:)ipment at the Em(ass' Main .)il&ingD Em(ass' AnneC .)il&ing an& the 8isma ,)taD the official resi&ence of petitioner Am(assa&or Soeratmin# The e:)ipment co%ere& (' the Maintenance Agreement are5 air con&itioning )nitsD generator setsD electrical facilitiesD 4ater heatersD an& 4ater motor p)mps# It is like4ise state& therein that the agreement shall (e effecti%e for a perio& of fo)r 'ears an& 4ill rene4 itself a)tomaticall' )nless cancelle& (' either part' (' gi%ing thirt' &a's prior 4ritten notice from the &ate of eCpir'# Petitioners claim that sometime prior to the &ate of eCpiration of the sai& agreementD or (efore A)g)st /;;;D the' informe& respon&ent that the rene4al of the agreement shall (e at the &iscretion of the incoming Chief of A&ministrationD Minister Co)nsellor AEhari 2asimD 4ho 4as eCpecte& to arri%e in e(r)ar' 1000# 8hen Minister Co)nsellor 2asim ass)me& the position of Chief of A&ministration in March 1000D he allege&l' fo)n& respon&entGs 4ork an& ser%ices )nsatisfactor' an& not in compliance 4ith the stan&ar&s set in the Maintenance Agreement# HenceD the In&onesian Em(ass' terminate& the agreement in a letter &ate& A)g)st 9/D 1000# Petitioners claimD moreo%erD that the' ha& earlier %er(all' informe& respon&ent of their &ecision to terminate the agreement# On the other han&D respon&ent claims that the aforesai& termination 4as ar(itrar' an& )nla4f)l# The trial co)rtGs &enial of the Motion to ,ismiss 4as (ro)ght )p to the Co)rt of Appeals (' herein petitioners in a petition for certiorari an& prohi(ition# Sai& petitionD &ockete& as CA@G#R# SP No# 66-;3D allege& that the trial co)rt gra%el' a()se& its &iscretion in r)ling that the Rep)(lic of In&onesia ga%e its consent to (e s)e& an& %ol)ntaril' s)(mitte& itself to the la4s an& B)ris&iction of Philippine co)rts an& that petitioners Am(assa&or Soeratmin an& Minister Co)nsellor 2asim 4ai%e& their imm)nit' from s)it# On Ma' 90D 1001D the Co)rt of Appeals ren&ere& its assaile& &ecision &en'ing the petition for lack of merit# On A)g)st /6D 1001D it &enie& herein petitionersG motion for reconsi&eration# The CA like4ise &enie& the petition# HenceD this petition# The iss)e is 4hether or not the CA erre& in s)staining the trial Co)rts ,ecision that petitioners ha%e 4ai%e& their imm)nit' from s)it (' )sing as its (asis the a(o%ementione& pro%ision in the maintenance agreement# The petition is impresse& 4ith merit#

;6

The eCistence alone of a paragraph in a contract stating that an' legal action arising o)t of the agreement shall (e settle& accor&ing to the la4s of the Philippines an& (' a specifie& co)rt is not necessaril' a 4ai%er of so%ereign imm)nit' from s)it# S)(mission (' a foreign state to local B)ris&iction m)st (e clear an& )ne:)i%ocal# There is no &isp)te that the mission is an act B)re imperii# Hence the state ma' enter into contracts 4ith pri%ate entities to maintain the f)rnishings of the em(ass'# It is clear therefore that the Rep)(lic 4as acting in p)rs)it of so%ereign acti%it'# The agreement relie& )pon (' the respon&ent 4as not a 4ai%er of their imm)nit' ()t a mere stip)lation that in the e%ent that the' &o 4ai%e their imm)nit'D Philippine la4s shall go%ern# Neither that the petitioner can (e hel& lia(le personall'# Art#9/ of the !ienna Con%ention pro%i&es that a &iplomatic agent shall enBo' imm)nit' from the criminal B)ris&iction of the recei%ing state# He shall also enBo' imm)nit' from ci%il an& a&ministrati%e B)ris&ictionD eCcept in case of5 a real action relating to pri%ate immo%a(le propert' sit)ate& in the territor' of the recei%ing state )nless he hol&s it in (ehalf of the sen&ing stateJ an action relating to s)ccession in 4hich the &iplomatic agent is in%ol%e& as eCec)torD a&ministratorD heirD or legateeJ an action relating to professional or commercial acti%it' eCercise& (' the &iplomatic agent o)tsi&e his official f)nction . HenceD since the act of the petitioner is not co%ere& (' the eCceptions the' cannot (e hel& personall' lia(le# The act of petitioners Am(assa&or Soeratmin an& Minister Co)nsellor 2asim in terminating the Maintenance Agreement is not co%ere& (' the eCceptions pro%i&e& in the a(o%ementione& pro%ision# The Solicitor General (elie%es that sai& act ma' fall )n&er s)(paragraph <c= thereofD ()t sai& pro%ision clearl' applies onl' to a sit)ation 4here the &iplomatic agent engages in an' professional or commercial acti%it' o)tsi&e official f)nctionsD 4hich is not the case herein# The petition is here(' GRANTE,# The &ecision an& resol)tion of the Co)rt of Appeals in CA G#R# SP No# 66-;3 are RE!ERSE, an& SET ASI,E an& the complaint in Ci%il Case No# /-109 against petitioners is ,ISMISSE,#

;>

1S 0I/L#M5TIC 5N0 C#NS1L5+ ST522 IN T4,+5N C5S4 81nited States $< Iran9 8Merits9 1('* I<C<" 3 8b% M<+< +e%9 On 3 No%em(er /;>;D Iranian st)&ents seiEe& the +S Em(ass' in Tehran an& a n)m(er of cons)lates in o)tl'ing cities# The Iranian a)thorities faile& to protect the Em(ass' an& later appeare& to a&opt the st)&entsG actions# O%er $0 +S nationals <mostl' &iplomatic an& cons)lar staff= 4ere hel& for 333 &a's# The IC* ha& in&icate& pro%isional meas)res against Iran </;>; I#C#*# >=D an& in this case the +S so)ght a &eclarationD inter aliaD that Iran ha& %iolate& the t4o !ienna Con%entionsD an& ceiling for the release of the hostages an& the %acation of the Em(ass' an& cons)lates# The Co)rt consi&ere& 4hether the initial attack (' the st)&ents co)l& (e attri()te& to the Iranian go%ernment an& 4hether Iran 4as therefore in %iolation of its international o(ligations# 6-# The Co)rt is therefore le& ine%ita(l' to concl)&eD in regar& to the first phase of the e%ents 4hich has so far (een consi&ere&D that on No%em(er /;>; the Iranian a)thorities5 <a= 4ere f)ll' a4are of their o(ligations )n&er the con%entions in force to take appropriate steps to protect the premises of the +nite& States Em(ass' an& its &iplomatic an& cons)lar staff from an' attack an& from an' infringement of their in%iola(ilit'D an& to ens)re the sec)rit' of s)ch other persons as might (e present on the sai& premiseJ <(= 4ere f)ll' a4areD as a res)lt of the appeals for help (' the +nite& States em(ass'D of the )rgent nee& for the action on their partJ <c= ha& the means at their &isposal to perform their o(ligationsJ <&= completel' faile& to compl' 4ith these o(ligations# Similarl'D the Co)rt is le& to concl)&e that the Iranian a)thorities 4ere e:)all' a4are of their o(ligations to protect the +nite& States cons)lates at Ta(riE an& ShiraED an& of the nee& for action on their partD an& similarl' faile& to )se the means 4hich 4ere at their &isposal to compl' 4ith their o(ligations# 6;# The secon& phase of the e%ents 4hich are the s)(Bect of the +nite& StatesG claims compromises the 4hole series of facts 4hich occ)rre& follo4ing the completion of the occ)pation of the +nite& States Em(ass' (' the militantsD an& the seiE)re of the Cons)lates at Ta(riE an& ShiraE# The occ)pation ha%ing taken place an& the &iplomatic an& cons)lar personnel of the +nite& StatesG mission ha%ing (een taken hostagesD the action re:)ire& of the Iranian Go%ernment (' the !ienna Con%entions an& (' general international la4 manifest# Its plain &)t' 4as at once to make e%er' effortD an& to take e%er' appropriate stepD to (ring this flagrant infringements of the in%iola(ilit' of the premisesD archi%es an& &iplomatic cons)lar staff of the +nite& States Em(ass' to a

;-

spee&' en&D to restore the Cons)lates at Ta(riE an& ShiraE to the +nite& States controlD an& in general to re@esta(lish the stat)s :)o an& to offer reparation for the &amage# >6# The Iranian a)thoritiesD &ecision t contin)e the s)(Bection of the premises of the +nite& States Em(ass' to occ)pation (' militants an& (' the Em(ass' Staff to &etention as hostagesD clearl' ga%e rise to repeate& an& m)ltiple (reaches of the applica(le pro%isions of the !ienna Con%entions e%en more serio)s than those 4hich arose from their fail)re to take an' steps to pre%ent the attacks on the in%iola(ilit' of these premises an& staff# -># In the present caseD the Iranian Go%ernment &i& not (reak off &iplomatic relations 4ith the +nite& StatesJ an& in response to a :)estion p)t to him (' a mem(er of the Co)rtD the +nite& States Agent informe& the Co)rt that no time (efore the e%ents of 3 No%em(er /;>; ha& the Iranian Go%ernment &eclare&D or in&icate& an' intention to &eclare an' mem(er of the +nite& States &iplomatic or cons)lar staff in Tehran persona non grata# The Iranian Go%ernment &i& notD thereforeD emplo' the reme&ies place& at its &isposal (' &iplomatic la4 specificall' for &ealing 4ith acti%ities of the kin& of 4hich it no4 complains# Instea&D it allo4e& a gro)p of militants to attack an& occ)p' the +nite& States Em(ass' (' forceD an& to seiEe the &iplomatic an& cons)lar staff as hostagesJ instea&D it has en&orse& that action of those militants an& has &eli(eratel' maintaine& their occ)pation of the Em(ass' an& &etention of its staff as a means of coercing the sen&ing States# The Co)rtD thereforeD can onl' concl)&e that Iran &i& not ha%e the reco)rse to the normal an& efficacio)s means at its &isposalD ()t resorte& to coerci%e action against the +nite& States Em(ass' an& its staff# ;1# It is a matter of &eep regret that the sit)ation 4hich occasione& those o(ser%ations has not (een rectifie& since the' 4ere ma&e# Ha%ing regar&e& to their importance the Co)rt consi&ers it essential to reiterate them in the present B)&gment# The fre:)enc' 4ith 4hich at the present time the principles of international la4 go%erning &iplomatic an& cons)lar relations are set in na)ght (' in&i%i&)als or gro)ps of in&i%i&)als is alrea&' &eplora(le# .)t this case is )ni:)e an& of %er' partic)lar gra%it' (eca)se here it is not onl' pri%ate in&i%i&)als or gro)ps of in&i%i&)als that ha%e &isregar&e& an& set at na)ght the in%iola(ilit' of a foreign em(ass'D ()t the go%ernment of the recei%ing State itselfD# Therefore in recalling 'et again the eCtreme importance of the principles of la4 4hich it is calle& )pon to appl' in the present caseD the Co)rt consi&ers it to (e its &)t' to &ra4 the attention of the entire international comm)nit'D of 4hich Iran itself has (een a mem(er since time immemorialD to the irrepara(le harm that ma' (e ca)se& (' e%ents of the kin& no4 (efore the Co)rt# S)ch e%ents cannot fail to )n&ermine the e&ifice of la4 caref)ll' constr)cte& (' mankin& o%er a perio& of cent)riesD the maintenance of 4hich is %ital for the sec)rit' an& 4ell@(eing of the compleC international comm)nit' of the present &a'D to 4hich it is more essential than e%er that the r)les &e%elope& to ens)re the or&ere& progress of relations (et4een its mem(ers sho)l& (e constantl' an& scr)p)lo)sl' respecte&#

;;

"422+4B LI5N6 8,4124N69 $< /4#/L4 #2 T,4 /,ILI//IN4S 6<+< No< 125'!5 March 2!A2**1

Petitioner Liang is a Chinese national emplo'e& as an Economist (' the Asian ,e%elopment .ank <A,.=# T4o criminal Informations for gra%e oral &efamation 4ere file& against petitioner for allege&l' )ttering &efamator' 4or&s to *o'ce Ca(alD a mem(er of the clerical staff of A,.# The Metropolitan Trial Co)rt of Man&al)'ongD ho4e%erD &ismisse& the complaints p)rs)ant to an a&%ice from , A that petitioner enBo'e& imm)nit' from legal processes# On a petition for re%ie4 on certiorari an& man&am)s file& (' the respon&entD the Regional Trial Co)rt of PasigD ho4e%erD re%erse& an& ann)lle& the &ecision of the MTC# HenceD this petition# The iss)e is 4hether the acts complaine& of are co%ere& (' the imm)nit' grante& to officers an& staff of A,.# The imm)nit' grante& to officers an& staff of A,. is not a(sol)teJ it is limite& to acts performe& in an official capacit'# The imm)nit' cannot co%er the commission of a crime s)ch as slan&er or oral &efamation on the name of official &)t'# The slan&er of a personD (' an' stretchD cannot (e consi&ere& as falling 4ithin the p)r%ie4 of the imm)nit' grante& to A,. officers an& staffD the same (eing not performe& in an official capacit'# Ho4e%erD the iss)e 4hether petitionerGs )tterances constit)te& oral &efamation is for the trial co)rt to &etermine#

/00

C5S4 C#NC4+NIN6 T,4 T4M/L4 #2 /+45, 7I,45+ 8Merits9 "ud-)ent of 15 "une 1(!2 The s)(Bect of the &isp)te (et4een Go%ernment of Cam(o&ia an& the Go%ernment of Thailan& 4as so%ereignt' of the region of the Temple of Preah !ihear# This ancient sanct)ar'D partiall' in r)insD stoo& on a promontor' of the ,angrek range of mo)ntains 4hich constit)te& the (o)n&ar' (et4een Cam(o&ia an& Thailan&# The &isp)te ha& its fons et origo in the (o)n&ar' settlements ma&e in the perio& /;03@/;0- (et4een ranceD then con&)cting the foreign relations of In&o@ChinaD an& Siam# The application of the Treat' of /9 e(r)ar' /;03 4asD in partic)larD in%ol%e&# That Treat' esta(lishe& the general character of the frontier the eCact (o)n&ar' of 4hich 4as to (e &elimite& (' a ranco@Siamese MiCe& Commission# In the eastern sector of the ,angrek rangeD in 4hich Preah !ihear 4as sit)ate&D the frontier 4as to follo4 the 4atershe& line# or the p)rpose of &elimiting that frontierD it 4as agree&D at a meeting hel& on 1 ,ecem(er /;06D that the MiCe& Commission sho)l& tra%el along the ,angrek range carr'ing o)t all the necessar' reconnaissanceD an& that a s)r%e' officer of the rench section of the Commission sho)l& s)r%e' the 4hole of the eastern part of the range# It ha& not (een conteste& that the Presi&ents of the rench an& Siamese sections &)l' ma&e this Bo)rne'D in the co)rse of 4hich the' %isite& the Temple of Preah !ihear# In *an)ar'@ e(r)ar' /;0>D the Presi&ent of the rench section ha& reporte& to his Go%ernment that the frontier@line ha& (een &efinitel' esta(lishe&# It therefore seeme& clear that a frontier ha& (een s)r%e'e& an& fiCe&D altho)gh there 4as no recor& of an' &ecision an& no reference to the ,angrek region in an' min)tes of the meetings of the Commission after 1 ,ecem(er /;06# Moreo%erD at the time 4hen the Commission might ha%e met for the p)rpose of 4in&ing )p its 4orkD attention 4as &irecte& to4ar&s the concl)sion of a f)rther ranco@Siamese (o)n&ar' treat'D the Treat' of 19 March /;0># The final stage of the &elimitation 4as the preparation of maps# The Siamese Go%ernmentD 4hich &i& not &ispose of a&e:)ate technical meansD ha& re:)este& that rench officers sho)l& map the frontier region# These maps 4ere complete& in the a)t)mn of /;0> (' a team of rench officersD some of 4hom ha& (een mem(ers of the MiCe& CommissionD an& the' 4ere comm)nicate& to the Siamese Go%ernment in /;0-# Amongst them 4as a map of the ,angrek range sho4ing Preah !ihear on the Cam(o&ian si&e# It 4as on that map <file& as AnneC I to its Memorial= that Cam(o&ia ha& principall' relie& in s)pport of her claim to so%ereignt' o%er the Temple# Thailan&D on the other han&D ha& conten&e& that the mapD not (eing the 4ork of the MiCe& CommissionD ha& no (in&ing characterJ that the frontier in&icate& on it 4as not the tr)e 4atershe& line an& that the tr)e 4atershe& line 4o)l& place the Temple in Thailan&D that the map ha& ne%er (een accepte& (' Thailan& orD alternati%el'D that if Thailan& ha& accepte& it she ha& &one so onl' (eca)se of a mistaken (elief that the frontier in&icate& correspon&e& 4ith the 4atershe& line#

/0/

The AnneC I map 4as ne%er formall' appro%e& (' the MiCe& CommissionD 4hich ha& cease& to f)nction some months (efore its pro&)ction# 8hile there co)l& (e no reasona(le &o)(t that it 4as (ase& on the 4ork of the s)r%e'ing officers in the ,angrek sectorD the Co)rt ne%ertheless concl)&e& thatD in its inceptionD it ha& no (in&ing character# It 4as clear from the recor&D ho4e%erD that the maps 4ere comm)nicate& to the Siamese Go%ernment as p)rporting to represent the o)tcome of the 4ork of &elimitationJ since there 4as no reaction on the part of the Siamese a)thoritiesD either then or for man' 'earsD the' m)st (e hel& to ha%e ac:)iesce&# The maps 4ere moreo%er comm)nicate& to the Siamese mem(ers of the MiCe& CommissionD 4ho sai& nothing# to the Siamese Minister of the InteriorD Prince ,amrongD 4ho thanke& the rench Minister in .angkok for themD an& to the Siamese pro%incial go%ernorsD some of 4hom kne4 of Preah !ihear# If the Siamese a)thorities accepte& the AnneC I map 4itho)t in%estigationD the' co)l& not no4 plea& an' error %itiating the realit' of their consent# The Siamese Go%ernment an& later the Thai Go%ernment ha& raise& no :)er' a(o)t the AnneC I map prior to its negotiations 4ith Cam(o&ia in .angkok in /;$-# .)t in /;93@/;9$ a s)r%e' ha& esta(lishe& a &i%ergence (et4een the map line an& the tr)e line of the 4atershe&D an& other maps ha& (een pro&)ce& sho4ing the Temple as (eing in Thailan&5 Thailan& ha& ne%ertheless contin)e& also to )se an& in&ee& to p)(lish maps sho4ing Preah !ihear as l'ing in Cam(o&ia# Moreo%erD in the co)rse of the negotiations for the /;1$ an& /;9> ranco@Siamese TreatiesD 4hich confirme& the eCisting frontiersD an& in /;3> in 8ashington (efore the ranco@Siamese Conciliation CommissionD it 4o)l& ha%e (een nat)ral for Thailan& to raise the matter5 she &i& not &o so# The nat)ral inference 4as that she ha& accepte& the frontier at Preah !ihear as it 4as &ra4n on the mapD irrespecti%e of its correspon&ence 4ith the 4atershe& line# Thailan& ha& state& that ha%ing (eenD at all material timesD in possession of Preah !ihearD she ha& ha& no nee& to raise the matterJ she ha& in&ee& instance& the acts of her a&ministrati%e a)thorities on the gro)n& as e%i&ence that she ha& ne%er accepte& the AnneC I line at Preah !ihear# .)t the Co)rt fo)n& it &iffic)lt to regar& s)ch local acts as negati%ing the consistent attit)&e of the central a)thorities# Moreo%erD 4hen in /;90 Prince ,amrongD on a %isit to the TempleD 4as officiall' recei%e& there (' the rench Resi&ent for the a&Boining Cam(o&ian pro%inceD Siam faile& to react# The iss)e is 4hether or not Thailan& ha& accepte& the AnneC I map (' its fail)re to o(Bect to the map an& its contin)e& )se of the map there(' granting so%ereignt' to Cam(o&ia o%er Preah !ihear# rom the factsD the co)rt concl)&e& that Thailan& ha& accepte& the AnneC I map# E%en if there 4ere an' &o)(t in this connectionD Thailan& 4as not precl)&e& from asserting that she ha& not accepte& it since rance an& Cam(o&ia ha& relie& )pon her acceptance an& she ha& for fift' 'ears enBo'e& s)ch (enefits as the Treat' of /;03 has conferre& on her# )rthermoreD the acceptance of the AnneC I map ca)se& it to enter the treat' settlementJ the Parties ha& at that time a&opte& an interpretation of that settlement 4hich ca)se& the map line to pre%ail o%er the pro%isions of the Treat' an&D as there 4as no reason to think that the Parties ha& attache& an' special importance to the line of the 4atershe& as s)chD as compare& 4ith the o%erri&ing importance of a final reg)lation of

/01

their o4n frontiersD the Co)rt consi&ere& that the interpretation to (e gi%en no4 4o)l& (e the same# The Co)rt therefore felt (o)n& to prono)nce in fa%or of the frontier in&icate& on the AnneC I map in the &isp)te& area an& it (ecame )nnecessar' to consi&er 4hether the line as mappe& &i& in fact correspon& to the tr)e 4atershe& line# or these reasonsD the Co)rt )phel& the s)(missions of Cam(o&ia concerning so%ereignt' o%er Preah !ihear#

2IS,4+I4S C5S4 81nited :in-do) of 6reat ;ritain and Northern Ireland $s< Norwa%9 In past cent)riesD .ritish fishermen ha& ma&e inc)rsions in the 4aters near the Nor4egian coast# As a res)lt of complains from the 2ing of Nor4a'D the .ritish a(staine& from &oing so at the (eginning of the />th cent)r' an& for 900 'ears# .)t in /;06D .ritish %essels appeare& again# These 4ere tra4lers e:)ippe& 4ith impro%e& an& po4erf)l gears# The local pop)lation (ecame pert)r(e& an& meas)res 4ere taken (' Nor4a' 4ith a %ie4 to specif'ing the limits 4ithin 4hich fishing 4as prohi(ite& to foreigners# Inci&ents occ)rre&D (ecame more fre:)entD an& on *)l' /1D /;9$D the Nor4egian Go%ernment &elimite& the Nor4egian fisheries Eone (' ,ecree# Negotiations ha& (een entere& into (' the t4o Go%ernmentsJ the' 4ere p)rs)e& after the ,ecree 4as enacte&D ()t 4itho)t s)ccess# A consi&era(le n)m(er of .ritish tra4lers 4ere arreste& an& con&emne& in /;3- an& /;3;# It 4as then that the +nite& 2ing&om Go%ernment instit)te& procee&ings (efore the Co)rt# The coastal Eone concerne& in the &isp)te is of a &istincti%e config)ration# Its length eCcee&s /D$00 kilometers# Mo)ntaino)s along its 4hole length (roken (' fBor&s an& (a'sD &otte& 4ith co)ntless islan&sD islets an& reefs# The coast &oes not constit)te a clear &i%i&ing line (et4een lan& an& sea# The lan& config)ration stretches o)t into the sea an& 4hat reall' constit)tes the Nor4egian coastline is the o)ter line of the formations %ie4e& as a 4hole# Along the coastal Eone are sit)ate& shallo4 (anks 4hich are %er' rich in fish# These ha%e (een eCploite& from time immemorial (' the inha(itants of the mainlan& an& of the islan&sJ the' &eri%e their li%elihoo& essentiall' from s)ch fishing# The +nite& 2ing&om Go%ernment aske& the Co)rt to state 4hether the lines lai& &o4n (' the /;9$ ,ecree for the p)rpose of &elimitating the Nor4egian fisheries Eone ha%e or ha%e not (een &ra4n in accor&ance 4ith international lo4@4ater mark# R)le has not ac:)ire& the a)thorit' of a general r)le of international ional la4# The principle p)t for4ar& (' the +nite& 2ing&om is that the (ase@line m)st (e the lo4@4ater mark# This is the criterion generall' a&opte& in the practices of States# The parties agree to this criterion ()t the concl)sion that the rele%ant line is not that of the

/09

mainlan&D ()t rather that of the KskBaergaar&LD also lea& to the reBection of the re:)irement that the (ase@line sho)l& al4a's follo4 la4D neither in respect of (a's nor the 4aters separating the islan&s of an archipelago# )rthermoreD ten@mile r)le is inapplica(le as against Nor4a' inasm)ch as she has al4a's historicall' oppose& its application to the Nor4egian coast# Nor4a' arg)e& that the /;9$ ,ecree is an application of a tra&itional s'stem of &elimitation in accor&ance 4ith international la4# In its %ie4D international la4 takes into acco)nt the &i%ersit' of acts an& conce&es that the &elimitation m)st (e a&apte& to the special con&itions o(taining in &ifferent regions# A Nor4egian ,ecree in /-/1D as 4ell as a n)m(er of s)(se:)ent teCts sho4s that the metho& of straight linesD impose& (' geograph'D has (een esta(lishe& in the Nor4egian s'stem an& consoli&ate& (' a constant an& s)fficient long practice# The application of this s'stem enco)ntere& no opposition from other States# E%en the +nite& 2ing&om &i& not contest it for man' 'earsJ it 4as onl' in /;99 that the +nite& 2ing&om ma&e formal an& &efinite protest# The general toleration of the international comm)nit' therefore sho4s that the Nor4egian s'stem 4as not regar&e& as contrar' to international la4# or these reasonsD the Co)rt concl)&e& that the metho& emplo'e& (' the ,ecree of /;9$ is not contrar' to international la4J an& that the (ase@lines fiCe& (' the ,ecree are not contrar' to international la4 either#

/03

Chapter 1*: State +esponsibilit% C5S4 C#NC4+NIN6 T,4 ;5+C4L#N5 T+5CTI#NA LI6,T 5N0 /#34+ C#M/5NBA LIMIT40 8S4C#N0 /,5S49 "ud-)ent of 5 2ebruar% 1(&* The .arcelona TractionD Light an& Po4er Compan'D Limite&D 4as incorporate& in /;// in Toronto <Cana&a=D 4here it has its hea& office# or the p)rpose of creating an& &e%eloping an electric po4er pro&)ction an& &istri()tion s'stem in Catalonia <Spain= it forme& a n)m(er of s)(si&iar' companiesD of 4hich some ha& their registere& offices in Cana&a an& the others in Spain# In /;96 the s)(si&iar' companies s)pplie& the maBor part of CataloniaHs electricit' re:)irements# Accor&ing to the .elgian Go%ernmentD some 'ears after the irst 8orl& 8ar .arcelona Traction share capital came to (e %er' largel' hel& (' .elgian nationalsD ()t the Spanish Go%ernment conten&s that the .elgian nationalit' of the sharehol&ers is not pro%en# .arcelona Traction iss)e& se%eral series of (on&sD principall' in sterling# The sterling (on&s 4ere ser%ice& o)t of transfers to .arcelona Traction effecte& (' the s)(si&iar' companies operating in Spain# In /;96 the ser%icing of the .arcelona Traction (on&s 4as s)spen&e& on acco)nt of the Spanish ci%il 4ar# After that 4ar the Spanish eCchange control a)thorities ref)se& to a)thoriEe the transfer of the foreign c)rrenc' necessar' for the res)mption of the ser%icing of the sterling (on&s# S)(se:)entl'D 4hen the .elgian Go%ernment complaine& of thisD the Spanish Go%ernment state& that the transfers co)l& not (e a)thoriEe& )nless it 4ere sho4n that the foreign c)rrenc' 4as to (e )se& to repa' &e(ts arising from the gen)ine importation of foreign capital into Spain an& that this ha& not (een esta(lishe&# In /;3three Spanish hol&ers of recentl' ac:)ire& .arcelona Traction sterling (on&s petitione& the co)rt of Re)s <Pro%ince of Tarragona= for a &eclaration a&B)&ging the compan' (ankr)ptD on acco)nt of fail)re to pa' the interest on the (on&s# On /1 e(r)ar' /;3- a B)&gment 4as gi%en &eclaring the compan' (ankr)pt an& or&ering the seiE)re of the assets of .arcelona Traction an& of t4o of its s)(si&iar' companies# In its memorial of *)ne /$D /;$;D the .elgian Go%ernment aske& the International Co)rt of *)stice to &eci&e that the (eha%ior of the organs of the Spanish State in &eclaring the .arcelona Traction Compan' in (ankr)ptc' an& seiEing then li:)i&ate& its assets 4as contrar' to international la4D an& that the Spanish State 4as responsi(le for the res)lting inB)r'# The Co)rt fo)n& that .elgi)m lacke& B)s stan&i to eCercise &iplomatic protection of sharehol&ers in a Cana&ian compan' 4ith respect to meas)res taken against that compan' in Spain# The Co)rt o(ser%e& that 4hen a State a&mitte& into its territor' foreign in%estments or foreign nationals it 4as (o)n& to eCten& to them the protection of the la4

/0$

an& ass)me& o(ligations concerning the treatment to (e affor&e& them# .)t s)ch o(ligations ho4e%er 4ere neither a(sol)te nor )n:)alifie& (eca)se s)ch o(ligation is not in the nat)re of an erga omnes o(ligation# That is 4h' in or&er to (ring a claim in respect of the (reach of s)ch an o(ligationD a State m)st first esta(lish its right to &o soD for the r)les on the s)(Bect rest on t4o oppositions# /# The first is that the &efen&ant state has (roken an o(ligation to4ar&s the national state in respect of its nationals# 1# The secon& is that onl' the part' to 4hom an international o(ligation is &)e can (ring a claim in respect of its (reach# In the present state of the la4D the protection of sharehol&ers re:)ires that reso)rces (e ha& to treat' stip)lations or special agreements &irectl' concl)&e& (et4een the pri%ate in%estor an& the state in 4hich the in%estment is place&# In this caseD no s)ch instr)ment is in force (et4een the parties# A theor' has (een &e%elope& to the effect that the state of the sharehol&ers has a right of &iplomatic protection 4hen state 4hose responsi(ilit' is in%oke& is the national state of the compan'# Ho4e%erD this theor' is certainl' not applica(le to the present case since Spain is not the national state of .arcelona Traction ()t a national state of Cana&a# On the other han&D the co)rt consi&ers that in the fiel& of &iplomatic protection as in all other fiel&s an& international laD it is necessar' that the la4 (e applie& reasona(l'# It has (een s)ggeste& that if in a gi%en caseD it is not possi(le to appl' the general r)le that the right of &iplomatic protection of a compan' (elongs to its national stateD consi&erations of e:)it' might call for the possi(ilit' of protection of the sharehol&ers in :)estion (' their o4n national state# This h'pothesis &oes not correspon& to the circ)mstances of the present case# The tra&itional r)le attri()tes the right of &iplomatic protection of a corporate entit' to the state )n&er the la4s of 4hich it is incorporate& an& in 4hose territor' it has its registere& office# In the present caseD it is not &isp)te& that the compan' 4as incorporate& in Cana&a an& has its registere& office in that co)ntr'# or the a(o%e reasons the co)rt is not of the opinion that in the partic)lar circ)mstances of the present case B)s stan&i is conferre& on the .elgian Go%ernment (' consi&erations of e:)it'#

/06

C5I+4 CL5IM 82rance $< MeDico9 2renchHMeDican Clai)s Co))ission 1(2( +I55 $< 51! YCaireD a rench nationalD 4as kille& in MeCico (' MeCican sol&iers after the' ha& &eman&e& mone' from him#Z !erEiBlD Presi&ing Commissioner <3= Responsi(ilit' of MeCico for actions of in&i%i&)al militar' personnelD acting 4itho)t or&ers or against the 4ishes of their comman&ing officers an& in&epen&entl' of the nee&s an& aims of the re%ol)tion# In approaching the eCamination of the :)estions in&icate& )n&er 3 in the light of the general principles I ha%e B)st o)tline&D I sho)l& like to make clear first of all that I am interpreting the sai& principles in accor&ance 4ith the &octrine of the Ko(Becti%e responsi(ilit'L of the StatesD that isD the responsi(ilit' for the acts of the officials or organs of a StateD 4hich ma' &e%ol%e )pon it e%en in the a(sence of an' Kfa)ltL of its o4n# It is 4i&el' kno4n that theoretical conceptions in this sphere ha%e a&%ance& a great &eal in recent timesD an& that the inno%ating 4ork of ,ionisio AnEilotti in partic)lar has pa%e& the 4a' for ne4 i&easD 4hich no longer rank the responsi(ilit' of the State for the acts of its officials as s)(or&inate to the :)estion of the Kfa)ltL attaching to the State itself# 8itho)t going into the :)estion of 4hether these ne4 i&easD 4hich are perhaps too a(sol)teD ma' re:)ire some mo&ifications in the &irection propose& (' ,r# 2arl Str)ppD I can sa' that I regar& them as perfectl' correct in that the' ten& to imp)te to the StateD in international affairsD the responsi(ilit' for all the acts committe& (' its officials or organs 4hich constit)te offences from the point of %ie4 of the la4 of the nationsD 4hether the official or organ in :)estion has acte& 4ithin or eCcee&e& the limits of his competence# KIt is generall' agree&DL as M# .o)r:)in has rightl' sai&D Kthat acts committe& (' the officials an& agent of a State entail the international responsi(ilit' of that StateD e%en if the perpetrator &i& not ha%e specific a)thoriEation#L This responsi(ilit' &oes not fin& its B)stification in general principles @@@ I mean those principles reg)lating the B)&icial organiEation of the State# The act of an official is onl' B)&iciall' esta(lishe& as an act of State if s)ch an act lies 4ithin the officialGs sphere of competence# The act of an official operating (e'on& this competence is not an act of State# It sho)l& not in principleD thereforeD affect the responsi(ilit' of the State# If it is accepte& in international la4 that the position is &ifferentD it is for reasons pec)liar to the mechanism of international lifeJ it is (eca)se it is felt that international relations 4o)l& (ecome too &iffic)ltD too complicate& an& too insec)re if foreign States 4ere o(lige& to take into acco)nt the often compleC B)&icial arrangements that reg)late competence in the international affairs of a State# rom this it is imme&iatel' clear that in the h'pothesis )n&er consi&erationD the international responsi(ilit' of the State is p)rel' o(Becti%e in characterD an& that it rests on an i&ea of g)aranteeD in 4hich the s)(Becti%e notion of fa)lt pla's no part#

/0>

.)t in or&er to (e a(le to a&mit this so@calle& o(Becti%e responsi(ilit' of the State for acts committe& (' its officials or organs o)tsi&e their competenceD the' m)st ha%e acte& at least to all appearances as competent officials or organsD or the' m)st ha%e )se& po4ers or metho&s appropriate to their official capacit'# If the principles state& a(o%e are applie& to the present caseD an& if it is taken into acco)nt that the perpetrators of the m)r&er of M#*#.# Caire 4ere militar' personnel occ)p'ing the ranks of Kma'orL an& Kcaptain primeroL ai&e& (' a fe4 pri%atesD it is fo)n& that the con&itions of responsi(ilit' form)late& a(o%e are completel' f)lfille&# The officers in :)estionD 4hate%er their pre%io)s recor&D consistentl' con&)cte& themsel%es as officers in the (riga&e of the !illista GeneralD Tomas +r(inaJ in this capacit' the' (egan (' eCacting the remittance of certain s)ms of mone'J the' contin)e& (' ha%ing the %ictim taken to a (arracks of the occ)p'ing troopsJ an& it 4as clearl' (eca)se of the ref)sal of M# Caire to meet their repeate& &eman&s that the' finall' shot him# +n&er these circ)mstancesD there remains no &o)(t thatD e%en if the' are to (e regar&e& as ha%ing acte& o)tsi&e their competenceD 4hich is (' no means certainD an& e%en if their s)perior officers iss)e& a co)nter@or&erD these t4o officers ha%e in%ol%e& the responsi(ilit' of the StateD in %ie4 of the fact that the' acte& in their capacit' of officers an& )se& the means place& at their &isposition (' %irt)e of that capacit'# On these gro)n&sD I ha%e no hesitation in stating that in accor&ance 4ith the most a)thoritati%e &octrine s)pporte& (' n)mero)s ar(itral a4ar&sD the e%ents of // ,ecem(er /;/3D 4hich le& to the &eath of M#*#.# CaireD fall 4ithin the categor' of acts for 4hich international responsi(ilit' &e%ol%es )pon the State to 4hich the perpetrators of the inB)r' are amena(le#

C#+21 C,5NN4L C5S4 8 ud-)ent of (5pril 1(4(9

/0-

The facts are as follo4s# On Octo(er 11n&D /;36D t4o .ritish cr)isers an& t4o &estro'ersD coming from the so)thD entere& the North Corf) Strait# The channel the' 4ere follo4ingD 4hich 4as in Al(anian 4atersD 4as regar&e& as safe5 it ha& (een s4ept in /;33 an& check@s4ept in /;3$# One of the &estro'ersD the Sa)mareED 4hen off Saran&aD str)ck a mine an& 4as gra%el' &amage&# The other &estro'erD the !olageD 4as sent to her assistance an&D 4hile to4ing herD str)ck another mine an& 4as also serio)sl' &amage&# ort'@fi%e .ritish officers an& sailors lost their li%esD an& fort'@t4o others 4ere 4o)n&e&# An inci&ent ha& alrea&' occ)rre& in these 4aters on Ma' /$thD /;365 an Al(anian (atter' ha& fire& in the &irection of t4o .ritish cr)isers# The +nite& 2ing&om Go%ernment ha& proteste&D stating that innocent passage thro)gh straits is a right recogniEe& (' international la4J the Al(anian Go%ernment ha& replie& that foreign 4arships an& merchant %essels ha& no right to pass thro)gh Al(anian territorial 4aters 4itho)t prior a)thoriEationJ an& on A)g)st 1n&D /;36D the +nite& 2ing&om Go%ernment ha& replie& that ifD in the f)t)reD fire 4as opene& on a .ritish 4arship passing thro)gh the channelD the fire 4o)l& (e ret)rne&# inall'D on Septem(er 1/stD /;36D the A&miralt' in Lon&on ha& ca(le& to the .ritish Comman&er@in@Chief in the Me&iterranean to the follo4ing C effect5 PEsta(lishment of &iplomatic relations 4ith Al(ania is again )n&er consi&eration (' His MaBest'Hs Go%ernment 4ho 4ish to kno4 4hether the Al(anian Go%ernment ha%e learnt to (eha%e themsel%es# Information is re:)este& 4hether an' ships )n&er 'o)r comman& ha%e passe& thro)gh the North Corf) Strait since A)g)st an&D if notD 4hether 'o) inten& them to &o so shortl'#P After the eCplosions on Octo(er 11n&D the +nite& 2ing&om Go%ernment sent a Note to Tirana anno)ncing its intention to s4eep the Corf) Channel shortl'# The repl' 4as that this consent 4o)l& not (e gi%en )nless the operation in :)estion took place o)tsi&e Al(anian territorial 4aters an& that an' s4eep )n&ertaken in those 4aters 4o)l& (e a %iolation of Al(aniaHs so%ereignt'# The s4eep effecte& (' the .ritish Na%' took place on No%em(er /1thQ/9th /;36D in Al(anian territorial 4aters an& 4ithin the limits of the channel pre%io)sl' s4ept# T4ent'@t4o moore& mines 4ere c)tJ the' 4ere mines of the German G7 t'pe# The t4o Parties concl)&e& a Special Agreement asking the Co)rt to gi%e B)&gment on the follo4ing :)estions5 /# Is Al(ania responsi(le for the eCplosionsD an& is there a &)t' to pa' compensationN 1# Has the +nite& 2ing&om %iolate& international la4 (' the acts of its Na%' in Al(anian 4atersD first on the &a' on 4hich the eCplosions occ)rre& an&D secon&l'D on No%em(er /1 an& /9D /;36D 4hen it )n&ertook a s4eep of the StraitN /# In its *)&gment the Co)rt &eclare& on the first :)estion that Al(ania 4as responsi(le#

/0;

The Co)rt fin&sD in the first placeD that the eCplosions 4ere ca)se& (' mines (elonging to the minefiel& &isco%ere& on No%em(er /9th# It is notD in&ee&D conteste& that this minefiel& ha& (een recentl' lai&J it 4as in the channelD 4hich ha& (een pre%io)sl' s4ept an& check@s4ept an& co)l& (e regar&e& as safeD that the eCplosions ha& taken place# The nat)re of the &amage sho4s that it 4as &)e to mines of the same t'pe as those s4ept on No%em(er /9thJ finall'D the theor' that the mines &isco%ere& on No%em(er /9th might ha%e (een lai& after the eCplosions on Octo(er 11n& is too impro(a(le to (e accepte&# In these circ)mstances the :)estion arises 4hat is the legal (asis of Al(aniaHs responsi(ilit'N The Co)rt &oes not feel that it nee& pa' serio)s attention to the s)ggestion that Al(ania herself lai& the mines5 that s)ggestion 4as onl' p)t for4ar& pro memoriaD 4itho)t e%i&ence in s)pportD an& co)l& not (e reconcile& 4ith the )n&isp)te& fact thatD on the 4hole Al(anian littoralD there are onl' a fe4 la)nches an& motor (oats# .)t the +nite& 2ing&om also allege& the conni%ance of Al(ania5 that the mine la'ing ha& (een carrie& o)t (' t4o 7)gosla% 4arships (' the re:)est of Al(aniaD or 4ith her ac:)iescence# The Co)rt fin&s that this coll)sion has not (een pro%e&# A charge of s)ch eCceptional gra%it' against a State 4o)l& re:)ire a &egree of certaint' that has not (een reache& hereD an& the origin of the mines lai& in Al(anian territorial 4aters remains a matter for conBect)re# The +nite& 2ing&om also arg)e& thatD 4hoe%er might (e the a)thors of the mine la'ingD it co)l& not ha%e (een effecte& 4itho)t Al(aniaHs kno4le&ge# Tr)eD the mere fact that mines 4ere lai& in Al(anian 4aters neither in%ol%es prima facie responsi(ilit' nor &oes it shift the ()r&en of proof# On the other han&D the eCcl)si%e control eCercise& (' a State 4ithin its frontiers ma' make it impossi(le to f)rnish &irect proof of facts 4hich 4o)l& in%ol%e its responsi(ilit' in case of a %iolation of international la4# The State 4hich is the %ictim m)stD in that easeD (e allo4e& a more li(eral reco)rse to inferences of fact an& circ)mstantial e%i&enceJ s)ch in&irect e%i&ence m)st (e regar&e& as of especial 4eight 4hen (ase& on a series of factsD linke& together an& lea&ing logicall' to a single concl)sion# In the present case t4o series of factsD 4hich corro(orate one anotherD ha%e to (e consi&ere&# The first relates to the Al(anian Go%ernmentHs attit)&e (efore an& after the catastrophe# The la'ing of the mines took place in a perio& in 4hich it ha& sho4n its intention to keep a Bealo)s 4atch on its territorial 4aters an& in 4hich it 4as re:)iring prior a)thoriEation (efore the' 4ere entere&D this %igilance sometimes going so far as to in%ol%e the )se of force5 all of 4hich ren&er the assertion of ignorance a priori impro(a(le# The secon& series of facts relates to the possi(ilit' of o(ser%ing the mine la'ing from the Al(anian coast# Geographicall'D the channel is easil' 4atche&5 it is &ominate&

//0

(' heights offering eCcellent o(ser%ation pointsD an& it r)ns close to the coast <the nearest mine 4as $00 m# from the shore=# 1# In regar& to the secon& :)estionD The Co)rt &eclare& that the +nite& 2ing&om &i& not %iolate Al(anian so%ereignt' on Octo(er 11J ()t it &eclare& that it %iolate& that so%ereignt' on No%em(er /1thQ/9thD an& that this &eclarationD in itselfD constit)te& appropriate satisfaction# The Al(anian claim to make the passage of ships con&itional on a prior a)thoriEation conflicts 4ith the generall' a&mitte& principle that StatesD in time of peaceD ha%e a right to sen& their 4arships thro)gh straits )se& for international na%igation (et4een t4o parts of the high seasD pro%i&e& that the passage is innocent# The Corf) Strait (elongs geographicall' to this categor'D e%en tho)gh it is onl' of secon&ar' importance <in the sense that it is not a necessar' ro)te (et4een t4o parts of the high seas= an& irrespecti%e of the %ol)me of traffic passing thro)gh it# A fact of partic)lar importance is that it constit)tes a frontier (et4een Al(ania an& GreeceD an& that a part of the strait is 4holl' 4ithin the territorial 4aters of those States# It is a fact that the t4o States &i& not maintain normal relationsD Greece ha%ing ma&e territorial claims precisel' 4ith regar& to a part of the coast (or&ering the strait# Ho4e%erD the Co)rt is of opinion that Al(ania 4o)l& ha%e (een B)stifie& in %ie4 of these eCceptional circ)mstancesD in iss)ing reg)lations in respect of the passageD ()t not in prohi(iting s)ch passage or in s)(Becting it to the re:)irement of special a)thoriEation# Al(ania has &enie& that the passage on Octo(er 11 4as innocent# She alleges that it 4as a political mission an& that the metho&s emplo'e&D the n)m(er of shipsD their formationD armamentD manoe)%resD etc# sho4e& an intention to intimi&ate# The Co)rt eCamine& the &ifferent Al(anian contentions so far as the' appeare& rele%ant# Its concl)sion is that the passage 4as innocent (oth in its principleD since it 4as &esigne& to affirm a right 4hich ha& (een )nB)stl' &enie&D an& in its metho&s of eCec)tionD 4hich 4ere not )nreasona(le in %ie4 of the firing from the Al(anian (atter' on Ma' /$th# As regar&s the operation on No%em(er /1thQ/9thD it 4as eCec)te& contrar' to the clearl' eCpresse& 4ish of the Al(anian Go%ernmentJ it &i& not ha%e the consent of the international mine clearance organiEationsJ it co)l& not (e B)stifie& as the eCercise of the right of innocent passage# The +nite& 2ing&om has state& that its o(Bect 4as to sec)re the mines as :)ickl' as possi(le for fear lest the' sho)l& (e taken a4a' (' the a)thors of the mine la'ing or (' the Al(anian a)thorities5 this 4as presente& either as a ne4 an& special application of the theor' of inter%entionD (' means of 4hich the inter%ening State 4as acting to facilitate the task of the international tri()nalD or as a metho& of self@protection or self@help# The Co)rt cannot accept these lines of &efense# It can onl' regar& the allege& right of inter%ention as the manifestation of a polic' of force 4hich cannot fin& a place in international la4# As regar&s the notion of self@helpD the Co)rt is also )na(le to accept it5 (et4een in&epen&ent States the respect for territorial so%ereignt' is an essential fo)n&ation for international relations# Certainl'D the Co)rt recogniEes the Al(anian Go%ernmentHs complete fail)re to carr' o)t its &)ties after the eCplosions an& the &ilator' ///

nat)re of its &iplomatic Notes as eCten)ating circ)mstances for the action of the +nite& 2ing&om# .)tD to ens)re respect for international la4D of 4hich it is the organD the Co)rt m)st &eclare that the action of the .ritish Na%' constit)te& a %iolation of Al(anian so%ereignt'# This &eclaration is in accor&ance 4ith the re:)est ma&e (' Al(ania thro)gh her co)nsel an& is in itself appropriate satisfaction

1NIT40 ST5T4S 7 I+5N ?1('*@ IC" +ep<

//1

In its *)&gment in the case concerning +nite& States ,iplomatic an& Cons)lar Staff in TehranD the Co)rt &eci&e&5 </= that Iran has %iolate& an& still %iolating o(ligations o4e& (' it to the +nite& StatesJ <1= that these %iolations engage IranGs responsi(ilit'J <9= that the Go%ernment of Iran m)st imme&iatel' release the +nite& States nationals hel& as hostages an& place the premises of the Em(ass' in the han&s of the protecting po4erJ <3= that no mem(er of the +nite& States &iplomatic or cons)lar staff ma' (e kept in Iran to (e s)(Becte& to an' form of B)&icial procee&ings or participate in them as 4itnessJ <$= that Iran is )n&er an o(ligation to make reparation for the inB)r' ca)se& to the +nite& StatesJ an& <6= that the form an& amo)nt of s)ch reparationD failing agreement (et4een the partiesD shall (e settle& (' the Co)rt# <a= The e%ents of 3 No%em(er /;>; <paras# $6@6-=#

The first phase of the e%ents )n&erl'ing the ApplicantGs claims co%ers the arme& attack on the +nite& States Em(ass' carrie& o)t on 1 No%em(er /;>; (' M)slim St)&ent ollo4ers of the ImamGs Polic' <f)rther referre& to as Kthe militantsL in the B)&gment=D the o%err)nning of its premisesD the seiE)re of its inmates as hostagesD the appropriation of its propert' an& archi%esD an& the con&)ct of the Iranian a)thorities in the face of these occ)rrences# The Co)rt points o)t that the con&)ct of the militants on that occasion co)l& (e &irectl' attri()te& to the Iranian State onl' if it 4ere esta(lishe& that the' 4ere in fact acting on its (ehalf# The information (efore the Co)rt &i& not s)ffice to esta(lish this 4ith &)e certaint'# Ho4e%erD the Iranian State 4hichD as the State to 4hich the mission 4as accre&ite&D 4as )n&er o(ligation to take appropriate steps to protect the +nite& States Em(ass' &i& nothing to pre%ent the attackD stop it (efore it reache& its completion or o(lige the militants to 4ith&ra4 from the premises an& release the hostages# This inaction 4as in contrast 4ith the con&)ct of the Iranian a)thorities on se%eral similar occasions at the same perio&D 4hen the' ha& taken appropriate steps# It constit)te&D the Co)rt fin&sD a clear an& serio)s %iolation of IranGs o(ligations to the +nite& States )n&er Articles 11<1=D 13D 1$D 16D 1> an& 1; of the /;6/ !ienna Con%ention on ,iplomatic RelationsD Articles $ an& 96 of the /;69 !ienna Con%ention on Cons)lar RelationsD an& of Article //</3= of the /;$$ Treat'# )rther (reaches of the /;69 Con%ention ha& (een in%ol%e& in fail)re to protect the Cons)lates at Ta(riE an& ShiraE# The Co)rt is therefore le& to concl)&e that on 3 No%em(er /;>;D the Iranian a)thorities 4ere f)ll' a4are of their o(ligations )n&er the con%entions in forceD an& also of the )rgent nee& for action on their partD that the' ha& the means at their &isposal to perform their o(ligationsD ()t that the' completel' faile& to &o so# <(= E%ents since 3 No%em(er /;>; <paras# 6;@>;=#

//9

The secon& phase of the e%ents )n&erl'ing the +nite& StatesG claims comprises the 4hole series of facts 4hich occ)rre& follo4ing the occ)pation of the Em(ass' (' the militants# Tho)gh it 4as the &)t' of the Iranian Go%ernment to take e%er' appropriate step to en& the infringement of the in%iola(ilit' of the Em(ass' premises an& staffD an& to offer reparation for the &amageD it &i& nothing of the kin&# Instea&D eCpressions of appro%al 4ere imme&iatel' hear& from n)mero)s Iranian a)thorities# A'atollah 2homeini himself proclaime& the Iranian StateGs en&orsement of (oth the seiE)re of the premises an& the &etention of the hostages# He &escri(e& the Em(ass' as a Kcentre of espionageDL &eclare& that the hostages 4o)l& <4ith some eCceptions= remain K)n&er arrestL )ntil the +nite& States ha& ret)rne& the former Shah an& his propert' to IranD an& for(a&e all negotiation 4ith the +nite& States on the s)(Bect# Once organs of the Iranian State ha& th)s gi%en appro%al to the acts complaine& of an& &eci&e& to perpet)ate them as a means of press)re on the +nite& StatesD those acts 4ere transforme& into acts of the Iranian State5 the militants (ecame agents of that StateD 4hich itself (ecame internationall' responsi(le for their acts# ,)ring the siC months 4hich ens)e&D the sit)ation )n&er4ent no material change5 the Co)rtGs Or&er of /$ ,ecem(er /;>; 4as p)(licl' reBecte& (' IranD 4hile A'atollah &eclare& that the &etention of hostages 4o)l& contin)e )ntil the ne4 Iranian parliament ha& taken a &ecision as to their fate# The Iranian a)thoritiesG &ecision to contin)e the s)(Bection of the Em(ass' to occ)pationD an& of its staff to &etention as hostagesD ga%e rise to repeate& an& m)ltiple (reaches of IranGs treat' o(ligationsD a&&itional to those alrea&' committe& at the time of the seiE)re of the Em(ass' </;6/ Con%ention5 Arts# 11D 13D 1$D 16D 1> an& 1;D /;69 Con%ention5 inter aliaD Art# 99J Treat'D Art# IIY3Z=# 8ith regar& to the Chargea & affaires an& t4o other mem(ers of the +nite& States mission 4ho ha%e (een in the Iranian Ministr' of oreign Affairs since 3 No%em(er /;>; the Co)rt fin&s that the Iranian a)thorities ha%e 4ithhel& from them the protection an& facilities necessar' to allo4 them to lea%e the Ministr' in safet'# Accor&ingl'D it appears to the Co)rt that in their respect there ha%e (een (reaches of Articles 16 an& 1; of the /;6/ !ienna Con%ention# Taking noteD f)rthermoreD that %ario)s Iranian a)thorities ha%e threatene& to ha%e some of the hostages s)(mitte& to trial (efore a co)rtD or to compel them to (ear 4itnessD the Co)rt consi&ers thatD if p)t into effectD that intention 4o)l& constit)te a (reach of Article 9/ of the same Con%ention#

,#M4 MISSI#N5+B S#CI4TB CL5IM 1<S< $ 6reat ;ritain 81(2*9

//3

1(2* +I55 $i< 42 In /;--D the collection of a taC ne4l' impose& (' Great .ritain on the nati%es of the Protectorate of the Sierra Leone kno4n as the Kh)t taCL 4as the signal for a serio)s an& 4i&esprea& re%olt in the Ronietta &istrict# In the co)rse of the re(ellion all the claimants Missions 4ere attacke&D an& either &estro'e& or &amage&D an& some of the missionaries 4ere m)r&ere&# The contention of the +nite& States Go%ernment (efore the Tri()nal is that the re%olt 4as the res)lt of the imposition an& attempte& collection of the Kh)t taCLJ that it 4as 4ithin the kno4le&ge of the .ritish Go%ernment that this taC 4as the o(Bect of &eep nati%e resentmentJ that in the face of the nati%e &anger the .ritish go%ernment 4holl' faile& to take proper steps for the maintenance of or&er an& protection of life an& propert'J that the loss of life an& &amage to propert' 4as the res)lt of this neglect an& fail)re of &)t'J an& therefore that it is lia(le to pa' compensation# E%en ass)ming that the Kh)t taCL 4as the effecti%e ca)se of the re(ellionD it 4as in itself a fiscal meas)re in accor&ance general )sage in colonial a&ministration# It 4as a meas)re to 4hich the .ritish Go%ernment 4as perfectl' entitle& to resort in the legitimate eCercise of its so%ereignt'# It is 4ell@esta(lishe& principle of international la4 that no go%ernment can (e hel& responsi(le for the act of re(ellio)s (o&ies of men committe& in %iolation of its a)thorit'D 4here it is itself g)ilt' of no (reach of goo& faithD or of no negligence in s)ppressing ins)rrection# The claim 4as &ismisse&#

S,#+T 7 I+5N 1<S $< Iran 81('&9

//$

IranH1<S< Clai)s Tribunal Alfre& L#8# Short claims less than +SU1$0D000 from go%ernment of Iran as presente& (' the +nite& States of America %# The Islamic Rep)(lic of Iran &eci&e& on *)l' /3D /;-># The claimantD ShortD is an American national 4ho 4as emplo'e& (' Lockhee& that is an American compan' in Iran# Ho4e%erD on e(r)ar' -D /;>; he 4as e%ac)ate& from Iran on compan' or&ers &)e to the sit)ation# The e%ac)ation 4as 9 &a's (efore the Islamic Re%ol)tionar' Go%ernment took office# The claimant seeks compensation for salar' an& other losses res)lting from his allege& eCp)lsion contrar' to international la4# He relies on acts committe& (' the re%ol)tionaries an& &eclarations ma&e (' the re%ol)tion lea&erD A'atollah 2homeini# The iss)e is 4hether or not the o%erthro4n go%ernment or the s)ccessor go%ernment is responsi(le for the claims The tri()nal &eci&e&D K8here a re%ol)tion lea&s to the esta(lishment of a ne4 go%ernmentD the State is hel& responsi(le for the acts of the o%erthro4n go%ernment insofar as the latter maintaine& control of the sit)ation# The s)ccessor go%ernment is also hel& responsi(le for the acts imp)ta(le to the re%ol)tionar' mo%ement 4hich esta(lishe& itD e%en if those acts occ)rre& prior to its esta(lishmentD as a conse:)ence of the contin)it' eCisting (et4een the ne4 organiEation of the State an& the organiEation of the re%ol)tionar' mo%ementL# Ho4e%erD in this case the claimant faile& to i&entif' the agent of the re%ol)tionar' mo%ement 4ho acte& an& compelle& him to lea%e Iran# The &eclaration of re%ol)tionar' lea&er 4as note& (' the Tri()nal as prono)ncements of a general nat)re an& &i& not specif' that Americans sho)l& (e eCpelle& en masse# The acts of the s)pporters of a re%ol)tion Yas oppose& to its agentsZ cannot (e attri()te& to the go%ernment follo4ing the s)ccess of the re%ol)tion B)st as the acts of the s)pporters of an eCisting go%ernment are not attri()ta(le to the go%ernment# The %ie4 of the Tri()nal is that the claimant faile& to pro%e that his &epart)re from Iran can (e imp)te& to the 4rongf)l con&)ct of Iran# The claim is therefore &ismisse&#

C,#+J#3 25CT#+B C5S4 6er)an% $s< /oland

//6

1(2' /CI" 8Ser< 59 No< 1& The case concerne& the eCpropriation (' Polan& of a factor' at ChorEo4 contrar'D as the co)rt ha& hel&D to the Gene%a Con%ention of /;11 (et4een German' an& Polan& on +pper Silesia# In this B)&gmentD the co)rt r)le& )pon a claim (' German' for an in&emnit' for the &amage& ca)se& (' the illegal eCpropriation# The action of Polan& 4hich the co)rt has B)&ge& to (e contrar' to the Gene%a Con%ention is not an eCpropriationJ it is a seiE)re of propert'D rights an& interest 4hich col& not (e eCpropriate& e%en against compensation# The iss)e is 4hether or not the compensation &)e to German Go%ernment is necessar' limite& to the %al)e of the )n&ertaking at the moment of &ispossession pl)s interest to the &a' of pa'mentN This limitation 4o)l& onl' (e a&missi(le if the Polish Go%ernment ha& the right to eCpropriateD an& if itGs 4rongf)l act consiste& merel' in not ha%ing pai& the t4o companies the B)st price of 4hat 4as eCpropriate&# In the present caseD s)ch a limitation might res)lt in placing German' an& the interest protecte& (' the Gene%a Con%entionD on (ehalf of 4hich interest the German Go%ernment is actingD in a sit)ation more )nfa%ora(le than that in 4hich German' an& these interest 4o)l& ha%e (een in Polan& ha& respecte& the sai& con%ention# S)ch a conse:)ence 4o)l& not onl' (e )nB)stD ()t also an& a(o%e all incompati(le 4ith the aim of Article 6 an& the follo4ing article of the Con%ention @@ that is to sa'D the prohi(itionD in principleD of the li:)i&ation of the propert' rights an& interest of the German nationals an& of companies controlle& (' German nationals in +pper Silesia`since it 4o)l& (e tantamo)nt to ren&ering la4f)l li:)i&ation an& )nla4f)l &ispossession in&isting)isha(le in so far as their financial res)lts are concerne&# The essential principle containe& in the act)al notion of an illegal act R principle 4hich seems to (e esta(lishe& (' international practice an& in partic)lar (' the &ecisions of ar(itral tri()nals`is that reparation m)stD as far as possi(leD 4ipe o)t all the conse:)ences of the illegal act an& re@esta(lish the sit)ation that 4o)l&D in all pro(a(ilit' ha%e eCite& if that act ha& not (een committe&# Restit)tion in kin&D orD if this is not possi(leD pa'ment of the s)m correspon&ing to the %al)e 4hich a restit)tion in kin& 4o)l& (earJ the a4ar&D if nee& (eD of &amages for loss s)staine& 4hich 4o)l& not co%er (' the restit)tion in kin& or pa'ment to place it@@ s)ch are the principle 4hich 4o)l& ser%e to &etermine the amo)nt of compensation &)e for an act contrar' to international la4# This concl)sion partic)larl' applies as regar& the Gene%a Con%entionD the o(Bect of 4hich is to pro%i&e for the maintenance of economic life in +pper Silesia on the (asis of respect for the stat)s :)o# The &ispossession in&)strial )n&ertaking an&D if this (e not possi(leD top pa' its %al)e at the time of the in&emnificationD 4hich %al)e is &esigne& to take the place of restit)tion 4hich has (ecome impossi(le# To this o(ligationD in %irt)e of the general principles of international la4D m)st (e a&&e&D that for compensating loss

//>

s)staine& as the res)lt of the seiE)re# The impossi(ilit'D on 4hich the parties are agree&D of restoring the ChorEo4 factor' co)l& therefore ha%e n other effect ()t that of s)(stit)ting pa'ment of the %al)e of the )n&ertaking for restit)tionJ it 4o)l& not (e in conformit' either 4ith the principles of la4 or 4ith the 4ish of the parties to infer from that agreement that the :)estion of compensation m)st henceforth (e &ealt 4ith as tho)gh an eCpropriation properl' so calle& 4as in%ol%e&#

Chapter 11: International ,u)an +i-hts Law

//-

Le-al ConseKuences of the Construction of a wall in the #ccupied /alestinian Territor% 8+eKuest for 5d$isor% #pinion9 Su))ar% of the 5d$isor% #pinion of ( "ul% 2**4 PalestineD ha%ing (een part of the Ottoman EmpireD 4as at the en& of the first 4orl& 4arD the s)(Bect of a class man&ate entr)ste& (' the Leag)e of Nations to Great .ritain# The hostilities of /;3-@/;3;D an& the armistice &emarcation line (et4een Israeli an& Ara( orces fiCe& (' a general armistice agreement of April 9D /;3; (et4een Israel an& *or&anD referre& to as the Green Line# The territories sit)ate& (et4een the Green Line an& the eastern (o)n&aries of Palestine )n&er the Man&ate 4ere occ)pie& (' Israel in /;6> &)ring the arme& conflict (et4een Israel an& *or&an# Thereon to com(at terrorist attacksD Israel ()ilt the 4all as fiCe& (' the Israeli Go%ernment incl)&es 4ithin the close& area <i#e # the part of the 8est (ank l'ing (et4een the Green Line an& the 4all= some -0 b of the settlers li%ing in the occ)pie& Palestinian Territor'D an& has (een trace& in s)ch a 4a' as to incl)&e 4ithin that area the great maBorit' of the Israeli settlements in the occ)pie& Palestinian territor'D incl)&ing east *er)salem# In this regar&D the contentions of Palestine an& other participants that the constr)ction of the 4all is an attempt to anneC the territor' contrar' to the international la4 an& a %iolation of the legal principle prohi(iting theac:)isition of territor' (' the )se of force an& that the &e facto anneCation of lan& interferes 4ith the territorial so%ereignt' an& conse:)entl' 4ith the right of the Palestinians to self@&eterminations# or its part Israel note of the ass)rance that the constr)ction of the 4all &oes not amo)nt to anneCation an& that the 4all is of temporar' nat)re# Israel conten&e& that the constr)ction of the 4all is consistent 4ith Article $/ of the charter of the +#ND its inherent right to self@ &efense an& state of necessit'# 8hat are the legal conse:)ences arising from the constr)ction of 4all (eing ()ilt (' IsraelD the occ)p'ing po4erD in the occ)pie& Palestinian territor'D incl)&ing in an& aro)n& East *er)salemN In s)mD the Co)rt fin&s thatD from the material a%aila(le to itD it is not con%ince& that the specific co)rse Israel has chosen for the 4all 4as necessar' to attain its sec)rit' o(Becti%es# The 4all along the ro)te chosenD an& its associate& regime gra%el' infringe a n)m(er of rights of Palestinians resi&ing in the territor' occ)pie& (' IsraelD an& the infringements res)lting from that ro)te cannot (e B)stifie& (' militar' eCigencies or (' the re:)irements of national sec)rit' or p)(lic or&er# The constr)ction of s)ch a 4all accor&ingl' constit)tes (reaches (' Israel of %ario)s of its o(ligations )n&er the applica(le international h)manitarian la4 an& h)man rights instr)ments#

//;

As to the principle of self@&eterminationD the co)rt notes that Israel is first o(lige& to compl' 4ith the international o(ligations it has (reache& (' the constr)ction of the 4all in the occ)pie& Palestinian Territor'# Conse:)entl'D Israel is (o)n& to compl' 4ith its o(ligations )n&er international h)manitarian la4 an& international h)man rights la4# The Co)rt o(ser%es that Israel also has an o(ligation to p)t an en& to the %iolation of its international o(ligations flo4ing from the constr)ction of the 4all in the occ)pie& Palestinian territor'# That the constr)ctionD the esta(lishment of a close& area (et4een the Green Line an& the 4all itselfD an& the creation of encla%esD ha%e moreo%er impose& s)(stantial restrictions on the free&om of mo%ement of the inha(itants of the occ)pie& Palestinian Territor'# The constr)ction of the 4all 4o)l& also &epri%e a significant n)m(er of Palestinians of the free&om to choose their resi&ence# Since a significant n)m(er of Palestinians ha%e alrea&' (een compelle& (' the constr)ction of the 4all an& its associate& regime to &epart from certain areasD a process that 4ill contin)e as more of the 4all is ()iltD that constr)ctionD co)ple& 4ith the esta(lishment of the Israeli settlements is ten&ing to alter the &emographic composition of the occ)pie& Palestinian territor'# HenceD the constr)ction of the 4all an& its associate& regime impe&e the li(ert' of mo%ement of the inha(itants of the occ)pie& Palestinian territor'# The' also impe&e the right of the people to 4orkD to healthD to e&)cation an& to an a&e:)ate stan&ar& of li%ing# In s)m the co)rt points o)t that the o(ligations %iolate& (' Israel incl)&e certain o(ligations erga omnes# The o(ligations erga omnes %iolate& (' Israel are the o(ligation to respect the right of the Palestinian people to self@&etermination# Gi%en the character an& the importance of the rights an& o(ligations in%ol%e&D the Co)rt is of the %ie4 that all states are )n&er an o(ligation not to recogniEe the illegal sit)ation res)lting from the constr)ction of the 4all# HenceD the constr)ction of the 4all (' Israel in the occ)pie& Palestinian territor' is contrar' to international la4#

Chapter 12: International #r-ani.ations

/10

+4/5+5TI#N 2#+ IN"1+I4S S1224+40 IN T,4 S4+7IC4 #2 T,4 1NIT40 N5TI#NS 85d$isor% #pinion of 11 5pril 1(4(9 The +nite& Nations General Assem(l' file& a Re:)est for Opinion 4ith the International Co)rt of *)stice <IC*=D referring to it :)estions concerning reparation for inB)ries s)ffere& in the ser%ice of the +nite& Nations <+N=# S)pposing an agent of the +ND in the performance of his &)tiesD s)ffere& inB)ries in circ)mstances in%ol%ing the responsi(ilit' of a StateD has the +ND as an organiEationD the capacit' to (ring an international claim against the responsi(le de jure or de facto go%ernment for reparation &)e in respect of the &amage ca)se& to the +N an& to the %ictim or the persons entitle&N An& if soD ho4 4ill the +NGs action (e reconcile& 4ith rights as ma' (e possesse& (' the State of 4hich the %ictim is a nationalN The +N General Assem(l' in its Re:)est for Opinion raise& these :)estions in ,ecem(er /;3-# The Co)rt comm)nicate& the Re:)est for Opinion to all States entitle& to appear (efore it# Some states sent 4ritten statements# Some other representati%esD incl)&ing that of the +N Secretar' General presente& oral arg)ments# After the preliminar' proce&)reD the Co)rt then procee&e& (' &efining terms in the Re:)est an& anal'Eing the cla)se Kcapacit' to (ring an international claim#L ,efinitel'D the capacit' (elongs to the State# The :)estion 4asD &oes it also (elong to the +N as an organiEationN ,oes it ha%e international personalit'N The +N Charter conferre& )pon the organiEation rights an& o(ligations &ifferent from those of its mem(er states# One of the most important political tasks of the organiEation is the maintenance of international peace an& sec)rit'# This taskD along 4ith the other rights an& o(ligationsD gi%es the organiEation a large meas)re of international personalit' an& capacit' to operate )pon an international plane# Th)sD it has international personalit'# .)t thenD &oes the +NGs possessing rights an& o(ligations an& international personalit' gi%e it the right to (ring an international claim to o(tain reparation from a state in respect of the &amage ca)se& (' the inB)r' of an agent of the organiEation in the co)rse of the performance of his &)tiesN The Co)rt )nanimo)sl' reache& the concl)sion that the organiEation has the capacit' to (ring an international claim against a state <4hether a mem(er or not= for &amage res)lting from a (reach (' that state of its o(ligations to4ar&s the organiEation# .)t 4hat a(o)t a :)estion in%ol%ing an international claim against a state to o(tain reparation &)e the %ictim or the persons entitle& an& not &)e the OrganiEation itselfN The Co)rt ans4ere& the :)estion in %ie4 of the matter of &iplomatic protection of nationals# It sai& that if an international claim has for its (asis a (reach (' the &efen&ant state of an o(ligation to4ar&s the OrganiEationD the OrganiEation has the capacit' to present a claim# /1/

This is (eca)se in a case 4here the state of 4hich the %ictim is a national co)l& not complain of a (reach of an o(ligation to4ar&s itselfD the o(ligation is ass)me& in fa%or of the OrganiEation# Inasm)ch as the OrganiEation entr)sts its agents 4ith important missionsD the OrganiEation has the capacit' to eCercise f)nctional protection in respect of its agents# This is simple in cases in%ol%ing mem(er statesD for the' ha%e ass)me& o(ligations to4ar&s the organiEation# In instances 4here the claim is (ro)ght against a non@mem(er stateD the Co)rt opine& that the mem(ers of the +N create& an entit' possessing o(Becti%e international personalit' an& not merel' personalit' recogniEe& (' them alone#

/11

INT4+N5TI#N5L SC,##L 5LLI5NC4 #2 401C5T#+S 7< L1IS1M;IN6A4T<5L< The International School 4ere hiring foreign an& local teachers to compose its fac)lt' an& staff#There 4ere fo)r tests applie& (' the school to &etermine 4hether a teacher sho)l& (e classifie& as a foreign hire or a local hireD namel'5 <a= the teacherHs &omicile J <(= the teacherHs home econom' J<c= the co)ntr' to 4hich the teacher o4e& economic allegianceJ an& <&= 4hether the in&i%i&)al 4as hire& a(roa& specificall' to 4ork in the schoolD an& 4as the school responsi(le for (ringing the in&i%i&)al into Philippines#If the ans4er to an' of the :)estions points to the PhilippinesD the fac)lt' mem(er 4o)l& (e classifie& as a local hire#At that timeD the school 4as pa'ing those forein hires a salar' rate of 1$ percent more than the salar' rate of the local hires#The school also grante& the foreign hires certain (enefits not affor&e& to local hires s)ch as ho)singD transportationD shipping costsD taCesD an& home@lea%e tra%el allo4ance# The International School Alliance of E&)cators <ISAE=D4hich represente& the local hires< (oth ilipinos an& foreigners=D conteste& the &ifference of the salar' rates &)ring negotiations for a ne4 collecti%e (argaining agreement#The ISAE claime& that the point@of@hire classification )se& (' the school 4as &iscriminator' as to ilipinos#The ISAE also stresse& that the grant of higher salar' to foreign hires constit)te& racial &iscrimination# The schoolD on their si&eD B)stifie& the &ifference in salaries an& (enefits on t4o significant economic &isa&%antages the foreign hires ha& to en&)re as oppose& to local hiresJ <a= the &islocation factor an& <(= the limite& ten)re#The school f)rther conten&e& that the ISAE ha& not presente& e%i&ence to sho4 that the local hires performe& 4ork e:)al to foreign hires# The iss)e is 4hether or not the point@of@hire classification )se& (' the school an& the h)ge &ifference in salar' rates an& other (enefits gi%en to foreign hires 4ere &iscriminator' to ilipinos# The S)preme Co)rt r)le& in fa%or if the ISAED sa'ing that the emlo'ees sho)l& (e gi%en e:)al pa' for 4ork of e:)al %al)e#The point@of@hire classification emplo'e& (' the school 4as an in%ali& classification# The Co)rt &etermine& that there 4as no reasona(le &istinction (et4een the ser%ices ren&ere& (' those foreign hires an& the local hires#The Co)rt pointe& o)t that Article /9$ of the La(or Co&eD for instanceD prohi(its an& penaliEes the pa'ment of lesser compensation to a female emplo'ee as against a male emplo'ee for 4ork of e:)al %al)e#Article 13- of the same Co&e &eclares it as )nfair la(or practice for an empo'er to &iscriminate 4ith regar& to 4ages in or&er to enco)rage or &isco)rage mem(ership in an' la(or organiEation#

/19

It is also important to note that Article !II<>= of the International Co%enant on EconomicD SocialDan& C)lt)ral Rights pro%i&es thatD PThe State Parties to the present co%enant recogniEe the right of e%er'one to the enBo'ment of B)st an& fa%ora(le con&itions of 4orkD 4hich ens)re in partic)larD rem)neration 4hich pro%i&es all 4orkersD as a minim)mD 4ith fair 4ages an& e:)al rem)neration for 4ork of e:)al %al)e 4itho)t &istinction of an' kin&Din partic)lar to 4omen (eing g)arantee& con&itions of 4ork not inferior to those enBo'e& (' menD 4ith e:)al pa' for e:)al 4ork#The forgoing pro%isions impregna(l' instit)tionaliEe in this B)ris&iction the long honore& legal tr)ism of H e:)al pa' for e:)al 4ork#H Persons 4ho 4ork 4ith s)(tantiall' e:)al :)alificationsD skillD effortD an& responsi(ilit'D )n&er similar con&itionsD sho)l& (e pai& similar salaries#P The S)preme Co)rt also reBecte& the schoolHs arg)ment that no e%i&ence 4as presente& to sho4 that local hires performe& 4ork e:)al to that of foreign hires#The Co)rt state& that if an emplo'er accor&s emplo'ees the same position an& rankD the pres)mption is that the emplo'ees perform e:)al 4ork#The Co)rt then r)le& that since the local hires performe& the same ser%ices as foreign hires &i&D the' sho)l& (e pai& the same salaries###

/13

Chapter 13: /eaceful Settle)ent of International 0ispute 54+I5L INCI04NT #2 2& "1LB 1((5 81<S< $< ;1L65+I59 1(!* IC" 14!

This case arose o)t of the &estr)ction (' .)lgarian anti@aircraft &efense forces of an aircraft (elonging to an Israeli airline# All fift' one passengers an& se%en cre4 mem(ers a(oar& 4ere kille&D incl)&ing siC Americal nationals Israel instit)te& procee&ings (efore the Co)rt (' means of an Application in Octo(er /;$># .)lgaria ha%ing challenge& the Co)rtHs B)ris&iction to &eal 4ith the claimD Israel conten&e& thatD since .)lgaria ha& in /;1/ accepte& the comp)lsor' B)ris&iction of the Permanent Co)rt of International *)stice for an )nlimite& perio&D that acceptance (ecame applica(leD 4hen .)lgaria 4as a&mitte& to the +nite& Nations in /;$$D to the B)ris&iction of the International Co)rt of *)stice (' %irt)e of Article 96D paragraph $D of the present Co)rtHs Stat)teD 4hich pro%i&es that &eclarations ma&e )n&er the Stat)te of the PCI* an& 4hich are still in force shall (e &eeme&D as (et4een the parties to the present Co)rtHs Stat)teD to (e acceptances applica(le to the International Co)rt of *)stice for the perio& 4hich the' still ha%e to r)n an& in accor&ance 4ith their terms# The iss)e is 4hether or not .)lgaria has B)ris&iction o%er the case# its *)&gment on the preliminar' o(BectionsD &eli%ere& on 16 Ma' /;$;D the Co)rt fo)n& that it 4as 4itho)t B)ris&iction on the gro)n& that Article 96D paragraph $D 4as inten&e& to preser%e onl' &eclarations in force as (et4een States signatories of the +nite& Nations CharterD an& not s)(se:)entl' to re%i%e )n&ertakings 4hich ha& lapse& on the &issol)tion of the PCI*# In or&er to fin& the (asis for the B)ris&iction of the Co)rtD the Go%ernment of Israel in%oke& the ,eclaration of acceptance of comp)lsor' B)ris&iction signe& (' .)lgaria in /;1/D at the same time as Protocol of Signat)re of the Stat)te of the Permanent Co)rt of International *)sticeD an& Article 96D paragraph $D of the Stat)te of the International Co)rt of *)sticeD 4hich rea&s as follo4s5 P,eclarations ma&e )n&er Article 96 of the Stat)te of the Permanent Co)rt of International *)stice an& 4hich are skill in force shall (e &eeme&D as (et4een the parties to the present Stat)teD to (e acceptances of the comp)lsor' B)ris&iction of the International Co)rt of *)stice for the perio& 4hich the' still ha%e to r)n an& in accor&ance 4ith their terms#P To B)stif' the application of the latter pro%ision to the .)lgarian ,eclaration of /;1/D the Go%ernment of Israel relie& on the fact that .)lgaria (ecame a part' to the Stat)te of the International Co)rt of *)stice on ,ecem(er /3thD /;$$D as the res)lt of its a&mission to the +nite& Nations# The .)lgarian Go%ernment &enie& that Article 96D

/1$

paragraph $D transferre& the effect of its ,eclaration to the B)ris&iction of the International Co)rt of *)stice# The Co)rt ha& to &etermine 4hether Article 96D paragraph $D is applica(le to the .)lgarian ,eclaration# That it sho)l& appl' in respect of &eclarations ma&e (' States 4hich 4ere represente& at the San rancisco Conference an& 4ere signatories of the Charter an& of the Stat)te can easil' (e )n&erstoo&# .)t is this pro%ision meant also to co%er &eclarations ma&e (' other StatesD incl)&ing .)lgariaN The teCt &oes not sa' so eCplicitl'# The Co)rt o(ser%es that at the time of the a&option of the Stat)te a f)n&amental &ifference eCiste& (et4een the position of the signator' States an& of the other States 4hich might s)(se:)entl' (e a&mitte& to the +nite& Nations# This &ifference &eri%e& from the sit)ation 4hich Article 96D paragraph $D 4as meant to reg)lateD namel'D the transfer to the International Co)rt of *)stice of &eclarations relating to the Permanent Co)rtD 4hich 4as on the point of &isappearing# The :)estion 4hich the signator' States 4ere easil' a(le to resol%e as (et4een themsel%es at that time 4o)l& arise in a :)ite &ifferent form in the f)t)re as regar&s the other States# Article 96D paragraph $D consi&ere& in its application to States signatories of the Stat)teD effecte& a simple operation# The position 4o)l& ha%e (een :)ite &ifferent in respect of &eclarations (' non@signator' States# or the latterD s)ch a transfer m)st necessaril' in%ol%e t4o &istinct operationsD 4hich might (e separate& (' a consi&era(le inter%al of time# On the one han&D ol& &eclarations 4o)l& ha%e ha& to ha%e (een preser%e& 4ith imme&iate effectJ on the other han&D the' 4o)l& ha%e ha& to (e transferre& to the B)ris&iction of the ne4 Co)rt# In a&&ition to this f)n&amental &ifference in respect of the factors of the pro(lemD there 4ere special &iffic)lties in resol%ing it in respect of acceptances (' non@signator' States# In the case of signator' StatesD Article 96 paragraph $D maintaine& an eCisting o(ligation 4hile mo&if'ing its s)(Bect@matter# So far as non@signator' States 4ere concerne&D the Stat)teD in the a(sence of their consentD co)l& neither maintain nor transform their original o(ligation# Shortl' after the entr' into force of the Stat)teD the &issol)tion of the Permanent Co)rt free& them from that o(ligation# Accor&ingl'D the :)estion of a transformation of an eCisting o(ligation co)l& no longer arise so far as the' 4ere concerne&J all that co)l& (e en%isage& in their case 4as the creation of a ne4 o(ligation (in&ing )pon them# To eCten& Article 96D paragraph $D to those States 4o)l& (e to allo4 that pro%ision to &o in their case something :)ite &ifferent from 4hat it &i& in the case of signator' States# It is tr)e that the States represente& at San rancisco co)l& ha%e ma&e an offer a&&resse& to other StatesD for instanceD an offer to consi&er their acceptance of the comp)lsor' B)ris&iction of the Permanent Co)rt as an acceptance of the B)ris&iction of the ne4 Co)rtD ()t there is nothing of this kin& in Article 96D paragraph $# To restrict the application of this pro%ision to the signator' States is to take into acco)nt the p)rpose for 4hich it 4as a&opte&# At the time of its a&optionD the impen&ing &issol)tion of the Permanent Co)rt an&D in conse:)enceD the lapsing of acceptances of its comp)lsor' B)ris&iction 4ere in contemplation# Rather than eCpecting that the signator'

/16

States of the ne4 Stat)te 4o)l& &eposit ne4 &eclarations of acceptanceD it 4as so)ght to pro%i&e for this transitor' sit)ation (' a transitional pro%ision# The sit)ation is entirel' &ifferent 4henD the ol& Co)rt an& the acceptance of its comp)lsor' B)ris&iction ha%ing long since &isappeare&D a State (ecomes part' to the Stat)te of the ne4 Co)rt# To the eCtent that the recor&s of the San rancisco Conference pro%i&e an' in&ication as to the scope of the application of Article 96D paragraph $D the' confirm that this paragraph 4as inten&e& to &eal 4ith &eclarations of signator' States onl' an& not 4ith a State in the sit)ation of .)lgaria# Ho4e%erD the Go%ernment of Israel constr)e& Article 96D paragraph $D as co%ering a &eclaration ma&e (' a State 4hich ha& not participate& in the San rancisco Conference an& 4hich onl' (ecame a part' to the Stat)te of the International Co)rt of *)stice m)ch later# The Co)rtD consi&ering the matter from this angle alsoD fo)n& that Article 96D paragraph $D co)l& not in an' e%ent (e operati%e as regar&s .)lgaria )ntil the &ate of its a&mission to the +nite& NationsD namel'D ,ecem(er /3thD /;$$# At that &ateD ho4e%erD the ,eclaration of /;1/ 4as no longer in force in conse:)ence of the &issol)tion of the Permanent Co)rt in /;36# The acceptance set o)t in that ,eclaration of the comp)lsor' B)ris&iction of the Permanent Co)rt 4as &e%oi& of o(BectD since that Co)rt 4as no longer in eCistence# An& there is nothing in Article 96D paragraph $D to re%eal an' intention of preser%ing all the &eclarations 4hich 4ere in eCistence at the time of the signat)re or entr' into force of the CharterD regar&less of the moment 4hen a State ha%ing ma&e a &eclaration (ecame a part' to the Stat)te# The pro%ision &eterminesD in respect of a State to 4hich it appliesD the (irth of the comp)lsor' B)ris&iction of the ne4 Co)rt# It makes it s)(Bect to t4o con&itions5 </= that the State ha%ing ma&e the &eclaration sho)l& (e a part' to the Stat)teD <1= that the &eclaration of that State sho)l& still (e in force# Since the .)lgarian ,eclaration ha& lapse& (efore .)lgaria 4as a&mitte& to the +nite& NationsD it cannot (e sai& that at that time that ,eclaration 4as still in force# The secon& con&ition is therefore not satisfie& in the present case# Th)s the Co)rt fin&s that Article 96D paragraph $D is not applica(le to the .)lgarian ,eclaration of /;1/# This %ie4 is confirme& (' the fact that it 4as the clear intention inspiring Article 96D paragraph $D to preser%e eCisting acceptances an& not to restore legal force to )n&ertakings 4hich ha& eCpire&# On the other han&D in seeking an& o(taining a&mission to the +nite& NationsD .)lgaria accepte& all the pro%isions of the Stat)teD incl)&ing Article 96# .)t .)lgariaHs acceptance of Article 96D paragraph $D &oes not constit)te consent to the comp)lsor' B)ris&iction of the Co)rtD s)ch consent can %ali&l' (e gi%en onl' in accor&ance 4ith Article 96D paragraph 1# Article 96D paragraph $D cannot therefore lea& the Co)rt to fin& that the .)lgarian ,eclaration of /;1/ pro%i&es a (asis for its B)ris&iction to &eal 4ith the case# In these circ)mstances it is )nnecessar' for the Co)rt to procee& to consi&eration of the other .)lgarian Preliminar' O(Bections

/1>

INT4+N5TI#N5L C#1+T #2 "1STIC4 83* "une 1((59 C5S4 C#NC4+NIN6 45ST TIM#+ 8/ortu-al $< 5ustralia9 East Timor is at the eastern part of the islan& of TimorJ it incl)&es the islan& of Ata)roD 1$ kilometers to the north# In the siCteenth cent)r'D East Timor (ecame a colon' of Port)gal 4hich remaine& there )ntil /;>$# The 4estern part of the islan& came )n&er the ,)tch r)le an& later (ecame part of in&epen&ent In&onesia# In resol)tion /$31 <I!= of /$ ,ecem(er /;60D the +nite& Nation General Assem(l' state& that East Timor is a non@self@go%erning territor' 4ithin the meaning of the charter an& it consi&ere& the territor' )n&er the a&ministration of Port)gal# Port)gal accepte& this position in /;>3# In A)g)st /;>$D follo4ing internal &ist)r(ance in East TimorD the Port)g)ese ci%il an& militar' a)thorities 4ith&re4 from the mainlan& of East Timor to the islan& of Ata)ro# On ,ecem(er >D /;>$D the arme& forces of In&onesia inter%ene& in East Timor an& the follo4ing &a'D the Port)g)ese left Ata)ro an& East Timor altogether# Since their &epart)reD In&onesia has occ)pie& the Territor'D an& the parties ackno4le&ge that the Territor' has remaine& )n&er the effecti%e control of the State# Asserting that on 9/ Ma' /;>6 the people of East Timor ha& re:)este& In&onesia Kto accept East Timor as an integrate& part of the Rep)(lic of In&onesiaLD on /> *)l' /;>6 In&onesia enacte& a la4 incorporating the territor' as part of its national territor'# On ,ecem(er /;>6D the Sec)rit' Co)ncil in a resol)tion calle& )pon al states to respect the territorial integrit' of East Timor as 4ell as the inaliena(le right of its people to self@&etermination# It also recogniEe& Port)gal as the a&ministering po4er of East Timor# The incorporation of East Timor as part of In&onesia 4as recogniEe& &e facto on 10 *an)ar' /;>-# This 4as follo4e& (' a negotiation (et4een A)stralia an& In&onesia a(o)t the &elimitation of the continental shelf (et4een the A)stralia an& East Timor# This &i& not come into fr)itionD soD instea& a treat' 4as concl)&e& a(o)t a pro%isional arrangement for a Boint eCploration an& eCploitation of the reso)rces of the sai& area# In the present caseD Port)gal alleges that A)stralia faile& to respect the &)ties an& right of Port)gal as a&ministering po4er of East Timor an& that it faile& to respect the right to self &etermination of the people of East Timor# A)straliaD on the other han& conten&s that the present case 4o)l& re:)ire the co)rt to r)le on the rights an& o(ligation of a state not a part' to the procee&ingD namel' In&onesia# The iss)e is 4hether or not the IC* can r)le on the rights an& o(ligation of a state not a part' to a procee&ing#

/1-

In the present caseD the Co)rt notes that Port)galGs claim that in entering into a Treat' 4ith In&onesiaD A)stralia %iolate& the o(ligation to respect Port)galGs stat)s as a&ministering Po4er an& that of East Timor as a non@self@go%erning territor'D is (ase& on the assertion that Port)gal aloneD in its capacit' as a&ministering Po4erD ha& the po4er to enter into the Treat' on (ehalf of East Timor# The last resol)tion of the Sec)rit' Co)ncil on East Timor goes (ack to /;>6 an& the last resol)tion of the General Assem(l' to /;-1# Port)gal takes no acco)nt of the passage of time an& the &e%elopment that ha%e taken place since then# The Sec)rit' Co)ncil resol)tions are not resol)tions 4hich are (in&ing )n&er Chapter !II of the charter or other4iseD moreo%er the' are not frame& in man&ator' terms# The Co)rt consi&ere& that the erga omnes character of a norm an& the r)le of consent to B)ris&iction are t4o &ifferent things# 8hate%er the nat)re of the o(ligations in%oke&D the Co)rt co)l& not r)le on the la4f)lness of the con&)ct of a State 4hen its B)&gment 4o)l& impl' an e%al)ation of the la4f)lness of the con&)ct of another State 4hich is not a part' to the case# 8here this is soD the Co)rt cannot actD e%en if the right in :)estion is a right erga omnes#

/1;

NIC5+5615 7 1NIT40 ST5T4S I<C<"< 3(2 The Co)rt o(ser%es that it o)ght not to in&icate pro%isional meas)res )nless the pro%isions in%oke& (' the Applicant appearD prima facieD to affor& a (asis on 4hich its B)ris&iction might (e fo)n&e&# It &oes not no4 ha%e to &etermine the %ali&it' or in%ali&it' of the &eclaration of Nicarag)a of 13 /;1; an&D the :)estion 4hether or not Nicarag)a co)l& &oes rel' on the +nite& States ,eclaration of /6 /;36D or the :)estion 4hether D as a res)lt of the &eclaration of 6 April /;-3D the Application is eCcl)&e& as from this &ate from the scope of the +nite& States acceptance of the comp)lsor' B)ris&iction of the Co)rt# It fin&s that the &eclarations &eposite& (' the t4o Parties respecti%el' in /;1; an& in /;36 ne%ertheless appear to affor& a (asis on 4hich the B)ris&iction of the Co)rt might (e fo)n&e&# Pro%isional Meas)res The Or&er sets o)t the circ)mstances allege& (' Nicarag)a as re:)iring the in&ication of pro%isional meas)resD an& the material it has pro%i&e& to s)pport its allegations# The Go%ernment of the +nite& States has state& that the +nite& States &oes not inten& to engage in a &e(ate concerning the facts allege& (' Nicarag)aD gi%en the a(sence of B)ris&ictionD ()t it has a&mitte& no fact)al allegations (' Nicarag)a 4hate%er# The Co)rt ha& a%aila(le to it consi&era(le information concerning the facts of the present caseD incl)&ing of official statements of +nite& States a)thoritiesD an& has to consi&er 4hether the circ)mstances &ra4n to its attention re:)ire the in&ication of pro%isional meas)resD ()t it makes it clear that the right of the respon&ent to &isp)te the fats allege& m)st remain )naffecte& (' its &ecision# After setting o)t the rights 4hichD accor&ing to Nicarag)aD sho)l& (e )rgentl' protecte& (' the in&ication of pro%isional meas)resD the Co)rt consi&ers three o(Bections raise& (' the +nite& States <in a&&ition to the o(Bection relating to B)ris&iction= against the in&ication of s)ch meas)res# irstD the in&ication of pro%isional meas)res 4o)l& interfere 4ith the negotiations (eing con&)cte& in the conteCt of the 4ork of the Conta&ora Gro)pD an& 4o)l& &irectl' in%ol%e the rights an& interests of States not Parties to this CaseJ secon&l'D these negotiations constit)te& a regional process 4ithin 4hich Nicarag)a is )n&er a goo& faith o(ligation to negotiateD thir&l'D the Application (' Nicarag)a raises iss)es 4hich sho)l& more properl' (e committe& to resol)tion (' the political organs of the +nite& Nations an& of OrganiEation of American States# Nicarag)a &isp)tes the rele%ance to this case of the Conta&ora process in 4hich it is acti%el' participatingJ &enies that its claims co)l& preB)&ice the rights of other StatesD an& recalls pre%io)s &ecisions of the Co)rtD (' %irt)e 4hichD in its opinionD the Co)rt is not re:)ire& to &ecline to )n&ertake an essentiall' B)&icial task merel' (eca)se the :)estion (efore it is intert4ine& 4ith political :)estions#

/90

The Co)rt fin&s that the circ)mstances re:)ire that it sho)l& in&icate pro%isional meas)resD as pro%i&e& (' Article 3/ of the Stat)teD in or&er to preser%e the rights claims# It emphasiEes that its &ecision in no 4a' preB)&ges the :)estion of its B)ris&iction to &eal 4ith the merits of the case an& lea%es )naffecte& the right of the Go%ernment of the +nite& States an& of the Go%ernment of Nicarag)a to s)(mit arg)ments in respect of s)ch B)ris&iction or s)ch merits# or these reasonsD the Co)rt ren&ers the follo4ing &ecisions5 ReBects the re:)est ma&e (' the +nite& States of America that the procee&ings on the Application file& (' the Rep)(lic of Nicarag)a on ; /;-3D an& on the re:)est file& the same &a' (' the Rep)(lic of Nicarag)a for the in&ication of pro%isional meas)resD (e terminate& (' the remo%al of the case from the listJ Pen&ing its final &ecision in the procee&ings instit)te& on ; April /;-3 (' the Rep)(lic of Nicarag)a against the +nite& States of AmericaD the follo4ing pro%isional meas)res5 The +nite& States of America sho)l& imme&iatel' cease an& refrain from an' action restrictingD (locking or en&angering access to or from Nicarag)an portsD an&D in partic)larD the la'ing of minesJ The right to so%ereignt' an& to political in&epen&ence possesse& (' the Rep)(lic of Nicarag)aD like an' other State of the region or of the 4orl&D sho)l& (e f)ll' respecte& an& sho)l& not in an' 4a' (e Beopar&iEe& (' an' militar' an& paramilitar' acti%ities 4hich are prohi(ite& (' the principles of international la4D in partic)lar the principle that States sho)l& refrain in their international relations from the threat or )se of force against the territorial integrit' or the political in&epen&ence of an' StateD an& the principle concerning the &)t' not to inter%ene in matters 4ithin the &omestic B)ris&iction of a StateD principles em(o&ie& in the +nite& Nations Charter an& the Charter of the OrganiEation of American States# The Go%ernment of the +nite& States of America an& the Rep)(lic of Nicarag)a sho)l& each of them ens)re that no action is taken 4hich might preB)&ice the rights of the other Part' in respect of the carr'ing o)t of 4hate%er &ecision the Co)rt ma' ren&er in the case# ,eci&es f)rther thatD )ntil the Co)rt &eli%ers its final B)&gment in the present caseD it 4ill keep the matters co%ere& (' this Or&er contin)o)sl' )n&er re%ie4# ,eci&es that the 4ritten procee&ings shall first (e a&&resse& to the :)estions of the B)ris&iction of the Co)rt to entertain the &isp)te an& of the a&missi(ilit' of the Application an& reser%es the fiCing of the time@limits for the sai& 4ritten procee&ingsD an& the s)(se:)ent proce&)re for f)rther &ecision#

/9/

C5S4 C#NC4+NIN6 L465LITB #2 1S4 #2 2#+C4 8Bu-osla$ia $< 1nited States of 5)erica9 1((( IC" +ep< The present case 4as re:)este& (' the e&eral Rep)(lic of 7)gosla%ia against the NATO statesD in relation to the (om(ings (eing carrie& o)t (' the NATO forces in 7)gosla%ia# The iss)e is 4hether or not the IC* has B)ris&iction o%er the &isp)te (et4een the +nite& States an& 7)gosla%ia# The International Co)rt of *)stice r)le& as follo4s5 The co)rtD (eing profo)n&l' concerne& 4ith h)man trage&'D the loss of life an& enormo)s s)ffering in 2oso%o 4hich form the (ackgro)n& of present &isp)teD an& 4ith the contin)ing loss of life an& h)man s)ffering in all parts of 7)gosla%ia realiEes that the present circ)mstances raises %er' serio)s of international la4# The co)rt herein &eems necessar' to emphasiEe that all parties appearing (efore it m)st act in conformit' 4ith their o(ligations )n&er the +N charter an& other r)les of international la4D incl)&ing h)manitarian la4# The IC*D )n&er its stat)teD &oes not a)tomaticall' ha%e B)ris&iction o%er legal &isp)te (et4een States parties to that stat)te or (et4een other States to 4hom access to the co)rt has (een grante&# The co)rt has repeate&l' state& Kthat one of the f)n&amental principles of its stat)te is that it cannot &eci&e a &isp)te (et4een States 4itho)t the consent of those states to its B)ris&ictionD an& 4hereasD the co)rt can onl' therefore eCercise B)ris&iction onl' (et4een states parties to a &isp)te 4ho not onl' ha%e access to the co)rt ()t also ha%e accepte& the B)ris&iction of the co)rtD either in general form or for the in&i%i&)al &isp)te concerne&# On the re:)est for pro%isional meas)res the co)rt nee& not (efore &eci&ing 4hether or not to in&icate themD finall' satisf' itself that it has B)ris&iction on the merits of the caseD 'et it o)ght not to in&icate s)ch meas)res )nless the pro%isions in%oke& (' the applicant appearD prima facieD to affor& a (asis on 4hich the B)ris&iction of the Co)rt might (e esta(lishe&# 7)gosla%iaD in its application claims to fo)n& the B)ris&iction of the co)rt )pon Article II of the Genoci&e Con%ention 4hich pro%i&es5 K,isp)tes (et4een the contracting parties relating to the interpretationD application or f)lfillment of the present con%entionD incl)&ing those relating to the responsi(ilit' of a state for genoci&e or for an' of the other acts en)merate& in Article IIID shall (e s)(mitte& to the IC* at the re:)est of an' parties to the &isp)teJL 4hereasD it is not &isp)te& that (oth 7)gosla%ia an& the +S are parties to the Genoci&e Con%entionJ ()t

/91

4hereas the +S ratifie& the con%ention on No%em(er 1$D /;--D it ma&e the follo4ing reser%ation5 KThat 4ith reference to Article II of the con%entionD (efore an' &isp)te to 4hich the +S is a part' ma' (e s)(mitte& to the B)ris&iction of the IC* )n&er this ArticleD the specific consent of the +S is re:)ire& in each caseL# 7)gosla%ia then &isp)te& the +S interpretation of the Genoci&e Con%ention ()t s)(mitte& no arg)ment concerning the reser%ation ma&e (' the +S# The conse:)ence of Article II cannot fo)n& the B)ris&iction of the co)rt to entertain a &isp)te (et4een 7)gosla%ia an& the +S allege& to fall 4ithin its pro%isionsJ an&D 4hereasD that Article manifestl' &oes not constit)te a (asis of B)ris&iction in the present case# Clearl'D in the a(sence of consent (' the +nite& StatesD gi%en p)rs)ant to Article 9-D paragraph $D of the R)lesD the Co)rt cannot eCercise B)ris&iction in the instant case# HenceD the re:)est for the in&ication of pro%isional meas)res s)(mitte& (' the e&eral Rep)(lic of 7)gosla%ia on April 1;D /;;; is here(' reBecte&#

/99

4L S5L750#+ 7 ,#N01+5S Nicara-ua Inter$ention 1((2 IC" +eports There is a lan&D Islan& an& maritime frontier &isp)te (et4een El Sal%a&or an& Hon&)ras# +nfort)natel'D the sai& s)(Bect of the &isp)te incl)&es the G)lf of onescaD o%er 4hichD the Rep)(lic of Nicarag)a has rights to (e protecte& on the sai& G)lf# +pon kno4ing the caseD Nicarag)a file& an application for permission to inter%ene in the &isp)te (et4een El Sal%a&or an& Hon&)ras# The gro)n&s for the filing are5 /# To protect the legal rights of the Rep)(lic of Nicarag)a in the G)lf of onesca an& the a&Bacent maritime areas (' all legal means a%aila(le# 1# To inter%ene in the procee&ings in or&er to inform the co)rt of the nat)re of the legal rights of Nicarag)a 4hich are in iss)e in the &isp)te# Nicarag)a file& this Application in Relation to Article 61 4hich states that KSho)l& a state consi&er it has an interest 4hich ma' (e affecte& (' the &ecision in the caseD it ma' s)(mit a re:)est to the co)rt to (e permitte& to inter%eneL an& Article -/D par#1 4hich states KStates seeking to inter%ene is re:)ire& to specif' the case to 4hich it relates an& to set o)t5 a# The interest of a legal nat)re 4hich the state appl'ing to inter%ene consi&ers ma'(e affecte& (' the &ecision in that caseJ (# The precise o(Bect of inter%entionJ c# An' (asis of B)ris&iction of B)ris&iction 4hich is claime& to eCist as (et4een the state appl'ing to inter%ene an& the parties to the caseJ The co)rt initiall' grante& the application of Nicarag)a# El Sal%a&or conteste& the application (eca)se it arg)e& that Nicarag)a faile& to present a K%ali& link of B)ris&ictionL as re:)ire in Art#-/D par#1# Is there a nee& for Nicarag)a to sho4 a K%ali& link of B)ris&ictionL to inter%ene in the caseN The co)rt hel& that Nicarag)a &oes not nee& to sho4 a K%ali& link of B)ris&ictionL (eca)se it 4ill onl' pla' as an inter%enor# It 4ants onl' to ens)re that its right 4ill not (e preB)&ice& (' the &ecision of the co)rt# It onl' 4ants to inform the co)rt a(o)t its rights in the G)lf of onesca# It 4o)l& (e &ifferent if Nicarag)a 4o)l& (e a thir& part' in the case 4hich 4ill not B)st (e gi%en the right to (e hear& ()t also to present its claims against the parties# If thatGs the caseD the nee& of a K%ali& link of B)ris&ictionL is nee&e&# The rights of Nicarag)a as an inter%enor 4o)l& (e limite& to the right to (e hear&D nothing moreD nothing less#

/93

Chapter 14: The 1se of 2orce Short of 3ar L465LITB #2 T,4 T,+45T #+ 1S4 #2 N1CL45+ 345/#NS 5d$isor% #pinion of ' "ul% 1((! The Co)rt han&e& &o4n its A&%isor' Opinion on the re:)est ma&e (' the General Assem(l' of the +nite& Nations on the :)estion concerning the Legalit' of the Threat or +se of N)clear 8eapons# The most &irectl' rele%ant applica(le la4 go%erning the :)estion is that relating to the )se of force enshrine& in the +nite& Nations Charter an& the la4 applica(le in arme& conflict 4hich reg)lates the con&)ct of hostilitiesD together 4ith an' specific treaties on n)clear 4eapons that the Co)rt might &etermine to (e rele%ant# /= +N Charter In Article 1D paragraph 3D of the Charter the )se of force against the territorial integrit' or political in&epen&ence of another State or in an' other manner inconsistent 4ith the p)rposes of the +nite& Nations is prohi(ite&# This prohi(ition of the )se of force is to (e consi&ere& in the light of other rele%ant pro%isions of the Charter# In Article $/D the Charter recogniEes the inherent right of in&i%i&)al or collecti%e self@&efense if an arme& attack occ)rs# A f)rther la4f)l )se of force is en%isage& in Article 31D 4here(' the Sec)rit' Co)ncil ma' take militar' enforcement meas)res in conformit' 4ith Chapter !II of the Charter# These pro%isions &o not refer to specific 4eapons# The' appl' to an' )se of forceD regar&less of the 4eapons emplo'e&# The Charter neither eCpressl' prohi(itsD nor permitsD the )se of an' specific 4eaponD incl)&ing n)clear 4eapons# The entitlement to resort to self@&efense )n&er Article $/ is s)(Bect to the con&itions of necessit' an& proportionalit'# An& the Co)rt notes that the %er' nat)re of all n)clear 4eapons an& the profo)n& risks associate& there4ith are f)rther consi&erations to (e (orne in min& (' States (elie%ing the' can eCercise a n)clear response in self@&efense in accor&ance 4ith the re:)irements of proportionalit'# In or&er to lessen or eliminate the risk of )nla4f)l attackD States sometimes signal that the' possess certain 4eapons to )se in self@&efense against an' State %iolating their territorial integrit' or political in&epen&ence# 8hether a signale& intention to )se force if certain e%ents occ)r is or is not a PthreatP 4ithin Article 1D paragraph 3D of the Charter &epen&s )pon %ario)s factors# The notions of PthreatP an& P)seP of force )n&er Article 1D paragraph 3D of the Charter stan& together in the sense that if the )se of force itself in a

/9$

gi%en case is illegal @ for 4hate%er reason @ the threat to )se s)ch force 4ill like4ise (e illegal# Th)sD a threat or )se of force (' means of n)clear 4eapons that is contrar' to Article 1D paragraph 3D of the +nite& Nations Charter an& that fails to meet all the re:)irements of Article $/D is )nla4f)l# 1= International c)stomar' la4 The Mem(ers of the international comm)nit' are profo)n&l' &i%i&e& on the matter of 4hether non@reco)rse to n)clear 4eapons o%er the past fift' 'ears constit)tes the eCpression of an opinio B)ris# +n&er these circ)mstances the Co)rt &oes not consi&er itself a(le to fin& that there is s)ch an opinio B)ris# It points o)t that the a&option each 'ear (' the General Assem(l'D (' a large maBorit'D of resol)tions recalling the content of resol)tion /6$9 <I!I=D an& re:)esting the mem(er States to concl)&e a con%ention prohi(iting the )se of n)clear 4eapons in an' circ)mstanceD re%eals the &esire of a %er' large section of the international comm)nit' to takeD (' a specific an& eCpress prohi(ition of the )se of n)clear 4eaponsD a significant step for4ar& along the roa& to complete n)clear &isarmament# The emergenceD as leC lataD of a c)stomar' r)le specificall' prohi(iting the )se of n)clear 4eapons as s)ch is hampere& (' the contin)ing tensions (et4een the nascent opinio B)ris on the one han&D an& the still strong a&herence to the &octrine of &eterrence<in 4hich the right to )se those 4eapons in the eCercise of the right to self@&efence against an arme& attack threatening the %ital sec)rit' interests of the State is reser%e&= on the other# There is in neither c)stomar' nor con%entional international la4 an' specific a)thoriEation or comprehensi%e an& )ni%ersal prohi(ition of the threat or )se of n)clear 4eapons# 9= A= International la4s applica(le in sit)ations of arme& conflict There is no principle or r)le of international la4 4hich 4o)l& make the legalit' of the threat or )se of n)clear 4eapons or of an' other 4eapons &epen&ent on a specific a)thoriEation# State practice sho4s that the illegalit' of the )se of certain 4eapons as s)ch &oes not res)lt from an a(sence of a)thoriEation ()tD on the contrar'D is form)late& in terms of prohi(ition# It &oes not seem to the Co)rt that the )se of n)clear 4eapons can (e regar&e& as specificall' prohi(ite& on the (asis of certain pro%isions of the Secon& Hag)e ,eclaration of /-;;D the Reg)lations anneCe& to the Hag)e Con%ention I! of /;0> or the /;1$ Gene%a Protocol# The pattern )ntil no4 has (een for 4eapons of mass &estr)ction to (e &eclare& illegal (' specific instr)ments# .)t the Co)rt &oes not fin& an' specific prohi(ition of reco)rse to n)clear 4eapons in treaties eCpressl' prohi(iting the )se of certain 4eapons of mass &estr)ctionJ an& o(ser%es thatD altho)ghD in the last t4o &eca&esD

/96

a great man' negotiations ha%e (een con&)cte& regar&ing n)clear 4eaponsD the' ha%e not res)lte& in a treat' of general prohi(ition of the same kin& as for (acteriological an& chemical 4eapons# Treaties &ealing eCcl)si%el' 4ith ac:)isitionD man)fact)reD possessionD &eplo'ment an& testing of n)clear 4eaponsD 4itho)t specificall' a&&ressing their threat or )seD certainl' point to an increasing concern in the international comm)nit' 4ith these 4eaponsJ It concl)&es from this that these treaties co)l& therefore (e seen as foresha&o4ing a f)t)re general prohi(ition of the )se of s)ch 4eaponsD ()t that the' &o not constit)te s)ch a prohi(ition (' themsel%es# As to the treaties of Tlatelolco an& Rarotonga an& their ProtocolsD an& also the &eclarations ma&e in connection 4ith the in&efinite eCtension of the Treat' on the Non@Proliferation of N)clear 8eaponsD it emerges from these instr)ments that5 <a= a n)m(er of States ha%e )n&ertaken not to use n)clear 4eapons in specific Eones <Latin AmericaJ the So)th Pacific= or against certain other States <non@n)clear@4eapon States 4hich are parties to the Treat' on the Non@Proliferation of N)clear 8eapons=J <(= ne%erthelessD e%en 4ithin this frame4orkD the n)clear@4eapon States ha%e reserved the right to use n)clear 4eapons in certain circ)mstancesJ an& <c= these reservations met with no objection from the parties to the Tlatelolco or Rarotonga Treaties or from the Sec)rit' Co)ncil# .= International h)manitarian la4# After sketching the historical &e%elopment of the (o&' of r)les 4hich originall' 4ere calle& Pla4s an& c)stoms of 4arP an& later came to (e terme& Pinternational h)manitarian la4PD the Co)rt o(ser%es that the car&inal principles containe& in the teCts constit)ting the fa(ric of h)manitarian la4 are the follo4ing# The first is aime& at the protection of the ci%ilian pop)lation an& ci%ilian o(Bects an& esta(lishes the &istinction (et4een com(atants an& non@com(atantsJ States m)st ne%er make ci%ilians the o(Bect of attack an& m)st conse:)entl' ne%er )se 4eapons that are incapa(le of &isting)ishing (et4een ci%ilian an& militar' targets# Accor&ing to the secon& principleD it is prohi(ite& to ca)se )nnecessar' s)ffering to com(atants5 it is accor&ingl' prohi(ite& to )se 4eapons ca)sing them s)ch harm or )selessl' aggra%ating their s)ffering# In application of that secon& principleD States &o not ha%e )nlimite& free&om of choice of means in the 4eapons the' )se# The Co)rt referre& to the Martens Cla)seD 4hich 4as first incl)&e& in the Hag)e Con%ention II 4ith Respect to the La4s an& C)stoms of 8ar on Lan& of /-;; an& 4hich has pro%e& to (e an effecti%e means of a&&ressing the rapi& e%ol)tion of militar' technolog'# A mo&ern %ersion of that cla)se is to (e fo)n& in Article /D paragraph 1D of A&&itional Protocol I of /;>>D 4hich rea&s as follo4s5

/9>

PIn cases not co%ere& (' this Protocol or (' other international agreementsD ci%ilians an& com(atants remain )n&er the protection and authority of the principles of international law derived from established custom, from the principles of humanity and from the dictates of public conscience#P The eCtensi%e co&ification of h)manitarian la4 an& the eCtent of the accession to the res)ltant treatiesD as 4ell as the fact that the &en)nciation cla)ses that eCiste& in the co&ification instr)ments ha%e ne%er (een )se&D ha%e pro%i&e& the international comm)nit' 4ith a corp)s of treat' r)les the great maBorit' of 4hich ha& alrea&' (ecome c)stomar' an& 4hich reflecte& the most )ni%ersall' recogniEe& h)manitarian principles# These r)les in&icate the normal con&)ct an& (eha%ior eCpecte& of States# T)rning to the applica(ilit' of the principles an& r)les of h)manitarian la4 to a possi(le threat or )se of n)clear 4eaponsD the Co)rt note& that n)clear 4eapons 4ere in%ente& after most of the principles an& r)les of h)manitarian la4 applica(le in arme& conflict ha& alrea&' come into eCistenceJ the Conferences of /;3; an& /;>3@/;>> left these 4eapons asi&eD an& there is a :)alitati%e as 4ell as :)antitati%e &ifference (et4een n)clear 4eapons an& all con%entional arms# Ho4e%erD in the Co)rtHs %ie4D it cannot (e concl)&e& from this that the esta(lishe& principles an& r)les of h)manitarian la4 applica(le in arme& conflict &i& not appl' to n)clear 4eapons# S)ch a concl)sion 4o)l& (e incompati(le 4ith the intrinsicall' h)manitarian character of the legal principles in :)estion 4hich permeates the entire la4 of arme& conflict an& applies to all forms of 4arfare an& to all kin&s of 4eaponsD those of the pastD those of the present an& those of the f)t)re# In this respect it seems significant that the thesis that the r)les of h)manitarian la4 &o not appl' to the ne4 4eaponr'D (eca)se of the ne4ness of the latterD has not (een a&%ocate& in the present procee&ings# Th)sD a threat or )se of n)clear 4eapons sho)l& also (e compati(le 4ith the re:)irements of the international la4 applica(le in arme& conflict partic)larl' those of the principles an& r)les of international h)manitarian la4D as 4ell as 4ith specific o(ligations )n&er treaties an& other )n&ertakings 4hich eCpressl' &eal 4ith n)clear 4eapons# It follo4s from the a(o%e@mentione& re:)irements that the threat or )se of n)clear 4eapons 4o)l& generall' (e contrar' to the r)les of international la4 applica(le in arme& conflictD an& in partic)lar the principles an& r)les of h)manitarian la4# $= Principle of Ne)tralit' The principle of ne)tralit'D 4hate%er its contentD 4hich is of a f)n&amental character similar to that of the h)manitarian principles an& r)lesD is applica(le <s)(Bect to the rele%ant pro%isions of the +nite& Nations Charter=D to all international arme& conflictD 4hate%er t'pe of 4eapons might (e )se&# Altho)gh the applica(ilit' of the principles an& r)les of h)manitarian la4 an& of the principle of ne)tralit' to n)clear 4eapons is har&l' &isp)te&D the concl)sions to (e &ra4n from this applica(ilit' areD on the other han&D contro%ersial#

/9-

Accor&ing to one point of %ie4D the fact that reco)rse to n)clear 4eapons is s)(Bect to an& reg)late& (' the la4 of arme& conflictD &oes not necessaril' mean that s)ch reco)rse is as s)ch prohi(ite&# Another %ie4 hol&s that reco)rse to n)clear 4eaponsD in %ie4 of the necessaril' in&iscriminate conse:)ences of their )seD co)l& ne%er (e compati(le 4ith the principles an& r)les of h)manitarian la4 an& is therefore prohi(ite&# A similar %ie4 has (een eCpresse& 4ith respect to the effects of the principle of ne)tralit'# Like the principles an& r)les of h)manitarian la4D that principle has therefore (een consi&ere& (' some to r)le o)t the )se of a 4eapon the effects of 4hich simpl' cannot (e containe& 4ithin the territories of the conten&ing States# In %ie4 of the )ni:)e characteristics of n)clear 4eaponsD to 4hich the Co)rt has referre& a(o%eD the )se of s)ch 4eapons in fact seems scarcel' reconcila(le 4ith respect for the re:)irements of the la4 applica(le in arme& conflict# It consi&ers ne%erthelessD that it &oes not ha%e s)fficient elements to ena(le it to concl)&e 4ith certaint' that the )se of n)clear 4eapons 4o)l& necessaril' (e at %ariance 4ith the principles an& r)les of la4 applica(le in arme& conflict in an' circ)mstance# )rthermoreD the Co)rt cannot lose sight of the f)n&amental right of e%er' State to s)r%i%alD an& th)s its right to resort to self@ &efenseD in accor&ance 4ith Article $/ of the CharterD 4hen its s)r%i%al is at stake# Nor can it ignore the practice referre& to as Ppolic' of &eterrencePD to 4hich an apprecia(le section of the international comm)nit' a&here& for man' 'ears# Accor&ingl'D in %ie4 of the present state of international la4 %ie4e& as a 4holeD the Co)rt cannot reach a &efiniti%e concl)sion as to the legalit' or illegalit' of the )se of n)clear 4eapons (' a State in an eCtreme circ)mstance of self@&efenseD in 4hich its %er' s)r%i%al 4o)l& (e at stake# 6= O(ligation to p)rs)e in goo& faith an& (ring to a concl)sion negotiations lea&ing to n)clear &isarmament In the long r)nD international la4D an& 4ith it the sta(ilit' of the international or&er 4hich it is inten&e& to go%ernD are (o)n& to s)ffer from the contin)ing &ifference of %ie4s 4ith regar& to the legal stat)s of 4eapons as &ea&l' as n)clear 4eapons# It is conse:)entl' important to p)t an en& to this state of affairs5 the long@promise& complete n)clear &isarmament appears to (e the most appropriate means of achie%ing that res)lt# In these circ)mstancesD the Co)rt appreciates the f)ll importance of the recognition (' Article !I of the Treat' on the Non@Proliferation of N)clear 8eapons an o(ligation to p)rs)e in goo& faith an& (ring to a concl)sion negotiations lea&ing to n)clear &isarmament in all its aspects )n&er strict an& effecti%e international control#

/9;

Naulilaa case: 6er)an% $< /ortu-al 1(2' 7ersailles Swiss arbitral panel Port)gal 4as ne)tral &)ring the 8orl& 8ar /# Sometime in Octo(erD German officials 4ent to a Port)gese colon' in AngolaD So)th4est Africa 4ent to %isit mem(ers of the post of Na)lilaa# So)th4est Africa 4as German an& Na)lilaa 4as Port)g)ese# The' 4ante& to &isc)ss foo& that 4o)l& (e importe&D ho4e%er the' )se& translators to &o the conference# +na(le to speak the lang)age clearl' the Port)g)ese speakers felt threatene&D so the' fire& )pon the German speakers# Three Germans &ie&# In retaliationD German troops &estro'e& forts an& posts in Angola# The Port)g)ese people of that region left for safet'# Nati%e )prisings occ)rre& shortl' after# The iss)e is 4hether or not German'Gs reprisal is legal consi&ering that the' retaliate& for an acci&entD 4itho)t making a &eman& for re&ress an& rai&e& a Port)gese colon' The Ar(itral Tri()nal r)le& that the German'Gs reprisals 4ere illegal# The re:)isites for a legal reprisal are the follo4ing5 </= The occasion for the reprisal m)st (e a pre%io)s act contrar' to international la4J <1= The reprisal m)st (e prece&e& (' an )nsatisfie& &eman&J <9= If the initial &eman& for re&ress is satisfie&D no f)rther &eman&s ma' (e ma&eJ <3= The reprisal m)st (e proportionate to the offense# These r)lesD eCcept for the thir& oneD 4ere s)pporte& an& reartic)late&# In a&&itionD the Na)lilaa &ecision a&&e& the fifth criteria that onl' a state can attempt a reprisal# )rtherD the tri()nal &isc)sse& the reprisal &octrine as it ha& &e%elope& )p )ntil the irst 8orl& 8ar5 Reprisals are an act of self@help on the part of the inB)re& statesD respon&ing after an )nsatisfie& &eman& to an act contrar' to international la4 on the part of the offen&ing State"# The' 4o)l& (e illegal if a pre%io)s act contrar' to international la4 ha& not f)rnishe& the reason for them# The' aim to impose on the offen&ing State reparation"or the ret)rn to legalit' in a%oi&ance of ne4 offenses# In this caseD the firstD secon& an& fo)rth re:)isites 4ere not met for the follo4ing reasons5 firstD the retaliation 4as for a mis)n&erstan&ing that 4as not a %iolation of international la4J secon&D the German go%ernment &i& not make an' &eman& on the Port)g)ese go%ernment prior to the reprisals# An& lastl'D the reprisals consiste& of siC separate actsD an& the' 4ere not proportionate to the prior offen&ing act# E%en if it 4ere proportionalD this 4o)l& still (e consi&ere& eCcessi%e#

/30

Chapter 15: 3ar and Neutralit% T,4 C5+#LIN4 INCI04NT 01+IN6 T,4 /5T+I#T 35+ It 4as in ,ecem(er of the &epression 'ear of /-9> that 8illiam L'on MackenEie ma&e his a(orti%e attempt to o%erthro4 the go%ernment of Cana&a an& set )p a separate rep)(lic# His follo4ers 4ere &efeate& in a (rief skirmish on the o)tskirts of TorontoD an& on ,ecem(er //D /-9>D MackenEie crosse& to Gran& Islan& so ma&e his 4a' to .)ffalo# The (or&er 4as in t)m)lt# Threatene& 4ith the loss of their homestea&s thro)gh foreclos)reD man' settlers 4ere rea&' for an' kin& of &esperate %ent)re an& onl' a spark 4as nee&e& to set the (or&er aflame again# MackenEieHs arri%al in .)ffalo seeme& to (e the sparkD for he 4as greete& (' the largest mass meeting in the histor' of the to4nD hel& in the .)ffalo Opera Ho)se# There 4as open recr)itment for the PPatriot Arm'P an& 4hen official protest 4as ma&e thro)gh &iplomatic channelsD Americans 4ere in%ite& to Boin PeCploration partiesP an& h)nts for P&eer an& re& foCesP in Cana&a# The o%ert act came 4hen the PPatriot Arm'P )n&er !an RensselaerD appointe& as General (' MackenEieD in%a&e& Na%' Islan& on ,ecem(er /9D /-9># Here the flag of the PCana&ian Rep)(licP 4as )nf)rle& for the first time# The conf)se& &escription of this flag is characteristic of the conf)sion of the recor& in regar& to this little kno4n 4ar# One goo& a)thorit' sa's it ha& one star an& t4o stripesD the latter representing )pper an& lo4er Cana&aJ an e:)all' goo& a)thorit' sa's it ha& t4o starsD 4ith a moon (reaking the clo)&s# An& a sol&ier in !an RensselaerHs arm' sa's it ha& t4o starsD 4itho)t an' moon[ The original lan&ing part' 4as compose& of a little more than t4o &oEen menD ()t MackenEie l)re& %ol)nteers 4ith offers of free lan& after the con:)est of Cana&a# In or&er to reinforce this part' an& to carr' s)ppliesD MackenEieHs s'mpathiEers chartere& the steamer CarolineD o4ne& (' 8illiam 8ellsD of .)ffaloD an& comman&e& (' Captain Apple(' of that cit'# In the morning of ,ecem(er 1;D the Caroline left .)ffalo an& mo%e& &o4n the ri%er to .lack Rock# Here a stop 4as ma&e an& the American flag r)n )pD the steamer then procee&ing &o4n the ri%er to4ar& Na%' Islan&# The captain &eclare& a %olle' of m)sket fire 4as &irecte& at him from the Cana&ian shoreD ()t no harm 4as &one# Arri%ing at Na%'D the CarolineD 4hile &ocke&D &ischarge& Ppassengers an& some freight#L At three oHclock in the afternoonD the steamer 4ent to SchlosserHs &ock Ylater Niagara allsZ on the American si&e an& after that ma&e t4o trips to Na%'D &ocking at 6500 p#m# The captain sa's he has onl' ten men in his cre4D ()t after he 4as tie& )p for the night 19 %isitors 4ere permitte& to sleep on the shipD ha%ing no other place to sta'# /3/

A(o)t mi&night the shipHs 4atchman sa4 a n)m(er of (oats approaching from Cana&a an& so)n&e& the alarm# This 4as a gro)p sent (' the .ritish comman&erD Colonel Allan N# MacNa(D to seiEe an& &estro' the CarolineD an& 4as estimate& (' the shipHs captain to incl)&e >0 to -0 men# In the ens)ing fightD Amos ,)rfee 4as kille& an& a n)m(er of others 4ere 4o)n&e&# The Caroline 4as set a&rift in flames# Th)s an international sit)ation precipitate&# .ritish arme& forces ha& in%a&e& American 4atersD kille& an American citiEen an& &estro'e& an American %essel# .)t (oth of 4hichD the citiEen an& the %esselD 4ere ai&ing an arme& in%asion of Cana&ian territor'# An& Henr' Arc)lari)sD Commissar'@General of Ne4 7ork StateD in a later report states that a g)n carriage (elonging to the State of Ne4 7ork 4ere reco%ere& from Na%' Islan& after the shooting 4as o%er# This affair 4as &istorte& for propagan&a p)rposes that to this &a' it is one of the most &iffic)lt stories of all frontier histor' to nail &o4n# Acco)nts of 4hat happene& %ar' 4i&el'D &epen&ing )pon their so)rce# One rep)ta(le Bo)rnal of the &a' sa's ;0 4ere kille&D altho)gh it is :)ite &efinite that ,)rfee 4as the sole cas)alt'# His (o&' 4as (ro)ght to .)ffalo an& eChi(ite& in front of recr)iting hea&:)artersD the Eagle Ta%ernD on the night of ,ecem(er 90# At the same time the .)ffalo cit' g)ar& 4as calle& o)t an& the 3>th militia (riga&e mo(iliEe&# The spectacle ca)se& (' this eChi(ition of ,)rfeeHs (o&' is &escri(e& (' a 4riter of the timeD Phis pale forehea& mangle& (' the pistol (all an& his locks matte& 4ith (loo&[ His frien&s an& fello4 citiEens looke& on the ghastl' spectacle an& thirste& for an opport)nit' to re%enge him#P The neCt &a' firemen an& sol&iers marche& in a h)ge procession (ehin& his casket an& a 'o)ng attorne' &eli%ere& a f)neral orationD Pmore eCcitingD thrilling an& m)ch more in&ignant than Mark Anthon'Hs#P Th)s 4as the f)neral of the frontier Caesar ma&e a so)n&ing (oar& for propagan&a# The pe((le &roppe& in the pon& of peace sprea& its ripples in an e%er@4i&ening circle# Henr' Cla' in the American Congress calle& the affair an PO)tragePJ Cana&ian parliamentarians 4ere e:)all' (itter on the s)(Bect of PPiratical operations#P .ritish Cons)ls &roppe& sharpl' in Lon&on on the 4ar scare 4hile tempers mo)nte& on (oth si&es of the (or&er#

/31

C#M/56NI4 04 C#MM4+C4 4T 04 N57I65TI#N 0C4MT+4M4 #+I4NTA plaintiffHappellantA $s< T,4 ,5M;1+6 5M4+I:5 /5C:4T25C,T 5CTI4N 64S4LLSC,52TA defendantHappellant< Gilbert, Cohn and isher for plaintiff-appellant. Crossfield and !"#rien for defendant-appellant.

This is an action (' the Compagnie &e Commerce et &e Na%igation ,HECtreme OrientD a corporation &)l' organiEe& an& eCisting )n&er an& (' %irt)e of the la4s of the Rep)(lic of ranceD 4ith its principal office in the cit' of ParisD ranceD an& a (ranch office in the cit' of SaigonD against the Ham()rg Amerika Packetfacht Actien GesellschaftD a corporation &)l' organiEe& )n&er an& (' %irt)e of the la4s of the Empire of German'D 4ith its principal office in the cit' of Ham()rgD German'D an& represente& in the cit' of Manila (' .ehnD Me'er T Compan' <Limite&=D a corporation# The plaintiff seeks to reco%er the f)ll %al)e if Saigon of a certain cargo of the steamship SambiaD allege& to amo)nt to the s)m of P166D;90D Philippine c)rrenc'D an& pra's that certain procee&s of the sale of sai& cargoD amo)nting to P/9$D>66#0/D no4 on &eposit in this co)rtD (e applie& on sai& B)&gmentD an& that B)&gment (e ren&ere& in fa%or of the plaintiff an& against the &efen&ant for s)ch s)m as ma' represent the &ifference (et4een the sai& amo)nt an& the %al)e of the pa'ment an& &eli%er' )nto plaintiff from sai& &epositD 4ith legal interest an& costs of s)it# A charter part' 4as eCec)te& (et4een Compagnie &e Commerce an& the o4ners of the %essel Sam(iaD )n&er 4hich the former as charterer loa&e& on (oar& the Sam(iaD at the port of SaigonD certain cargoes &estine& for the ports of ,)nkirk an& Ham()rg in E)rope# The Sam(iaD fl'ing the German flagD co)l& not in the B)&gment of its masterD reach its ports of &estination (eca)se of 4ar <8orl& 8ar I= ha& (een &eclare& (et4een German' an& rance# The master of Sam(ia &eci&e& to &e%iate from the stip)late& %o'age an& saile& instea& to the Port of Manila (eca)se of &anger of seiE)re of goo&s from the enemiesG port# Compaigne &e Commerce s)e& in the Philippines for &amages arising from (reach of the charter part' an& )na)thoriEe& sale of the cargo# The iss)es are as follo4s5 /=8hether the o4ners of the ship an& the masters thereof is B)stifie& in &e%iating from their ro)te as stip)late& in the contract of affreightment (eca)se of the risk of seiE)re of goo&s (' the enem' state# 1= 8hether the petitioner is entitle& to &amages ca)se (' the (reach of the charter part' The S)preme Co)rt A IRME, the &ecision of the trial co)rt &ismissing the complaintD o)r S)preme Co)rt hel& that the master of the Sam(ia ha& reasona(le gro)n&s

/39

to apprehen& that the %essel 4as in &anger of seiE)re an& capt)re (' the rench a)thorities in Saigon an& 4as B)stifie& (' necessit' to elect the co)rse 4hich he took to flee Saigon for the port of Manila 4ith the res)lt that the Ship o4ner 4as relie%e& from lia(ilit' for &amage to the cargo# /= The &anger from the master of the Sam(ia fle& 4as a real an& not merel' an imaginar' one as co)nsel for shipper conten&s# SeiE)re at the han&s of an Kenem' of the 2ingL tho)gh not ine%ita(leD 4as a possi(le o)tcome of a fail)re to lea%e the Port of SaigonJ an& 4e cannot sa' that )n&er the con&itions eCisting at the time 4hen the master electe& to flee from that portD there 4ere no gro)n&s for a ^reasona(le apprehension of &angerG from seiE)re (' the rench a)thoritiesD an& therefore no necessit' for flight # The 4or& necessit' 4hen applie& to mercantile affairs 4here the B)&gment m)st in nat)re of things (e eCercise& cannot of co)rseD mean an irresisti(le compelling po4er# 8hat is meant (' it in s)ch cases is the force of the circ)mstances 4hich &etermine the co)rse a man o)ght to take# Th)sD 4here (' the force of circ)mstancesD a man has the &)t' cast )pon him of taking some action for anotherD an& )n&er that o(ligation a&opts a co)rse 4hichD to the B)&gment of a 4ise an& pr)&ent manD is apparentl' the (est for the interest for the persons for 4hom he acts in a gi%en emergenc'D it ma' properl' (e sai& of the co)rse so taken that it 4as a in a mercantile sense necessar' to take it#L 8e concl)&e that )n&er the circ)mstances s)rro)n&ing the flight of the Sambia from the port of SaigonD her master ha& no s)ch ass)rancesD )n&er an' 4ell@settle& an& )ni%ersall' accepte& r)le of p)(lic international la4D as to the imm)nit' of his %essel from seiE)re (' the rench a)thoritiesD as 4o)l& B)stif' )s in hol&ing that it 4as his &)t' to remain in the port of Saigon in the hope that he 4o)l& (e allo4e& to sail for the port of &estination &esignate& in the contract of affreightment 4ith a laissez-passer or safe@ con&)ct 4hich 4o)l& sec)re the safet' of his %essel an& cargo en ro)te# It is tr)e that soon after the o)t(reak of the 4arD the Rep)(lic of rance a)thoriEe& an& &irecte& the grant of safe@con&)cts to enem' merchant %essels in its har(orsD )n&er certain reasona(le reg)lations an& restrictionsJ so that it 4o)l& appear that ha& the master of the Sambia a4aite& the iss)ance of s)ch a safe@con&)ctD he might ha%e (een ena(le& to compl' 4ith the terms of his contract of affreightment# .)t )ntil s)ch action ha& (een takenD the Sambia 4as eCpose& to the risk of seiE)re in the e%ent that the rench go%ernment sho)l& &ecline to conform to the practiceJ an& in the a(sence of an' ass)rance in that regar& )pon 4hich the master co)l& confi&entl' rel'D his &)t' to his o4ner an& to his %esselHs flag B)stifie& him in fleeing from the &anger of seiE)re in the port of an enem' to the a(sol)te sec)rit' of a ne)tral port# 1= Compaigne &e Commerce conten&e& that the ship o4ner sho)l&D at all e%entsD (e hel& responsi(le for the &eterioration in the %al)e of the cargo inci&ent to its long sta' on (oar& the %essel from the sate of its arri%al in manila )ntil the cargo 4as sol&# The S)preme Co)rtD in reBecting this contention also &eclare& that5

/33

^.)t it is clear that the master co)l& not (e re:)ire& to act on the %er' &a' of his arri%al5 or (efore he ha& a reasona(le opport)nit' to ascertain 4hether he co)l& hope to carr' o)t his contract an& earn his freightJ an& that he sho)l& not (e hel& responsi(le for a reasona(le &ela' inci&ent to an effort to ascertain the 4ishes of the freighterD an& )pon fail)re to sec)re prompt a&%iceD to &eci&e for himself as to the co)rse 4hich he sho)l& a&opt to sec)re the interest of the a(sent o4ner of the propert' a(oar& the %essel# The master is entitle& to &ela' for s)ch perio& as ma' (e reasona(le )n&er the circ)mstancesD (efore &eci&ing on the co)rse he ma' a&opt# He ma' claim fair opport)nit' of carr'ing o)t a contractD an& earning freightD 4hether (' repairing or transshipping# Sho)l& the repair of the ship (e )n&ertakenD it m)st (e procee&e& 4ith &iligentl'J an& if so &oneD the freighter 4ill ha%e no gro)n& of complaintD altho)gh the conse:)ent &ela' (e a long oneD )nlessD in&ee&D the cargo is perisha(leD an& likel' to (e inB)re& (' the &ela'# 8here that is the caseD it o)ght to (e for4ar&e&D or sol&D or gi%en )pD as the case ma' (eD 4itho)t 4aiting for repairs# A ship o4ner or shipmaster if comm)nication 4ith the ship o4ner is possi(leD 4ill (e allo4e& a reasona(le time in 4hich to &eci&e 4hat co)rse he 4ill a&opt in s)ch cases as those )n&er &isc)ssionJ time m)st (e allo4e& to him to ascertain the factsD an& to (alance the conflicting interest in%ol%e&D of ship o4nerD cargo o4nerD )n&er4riter on ship an& freight# .)t once time has elapse&D he is (o)n& to act promptl' accor&ing as he has electe& either to repairD or a(an&on the %o'ageD or transship# If he &ela'sD an& o4ing to that &ela' a perisha(le cargo s)ffers &amagesD the ship o4ner 4ill (e lia(le for that &amageJ he cannot escape that o(ligation (' plea&ing the a(sence of &efinite instr)ctions from the o4ners of the cargo or their )n&er4ritersD since he has control of the cargo an& is entitle& to elect#

/3$

Chapter 1!: International 4n$iron)ental Law Chapter 1&: International 4cono)ic Law 3I6;4+T# 4< T5I505A 4T 5L< $s< 4065+0# 5N65+5A 4T 5L< 6<+< No< 11'2(5 Ma% 2A 1((& The case is a petition to :)estioning constit)tionalit' of the 8TO@GATT Agreement# On April /$D /;;3D Respon&ent RiEalino Na%arroD then Secretar' of The ,epartment of Tra&e an& In&)str'D representing the Go%ernment of the Rep)(lic of the PhilippinesD signe& in MarrakeshD MoroccoD the inal Act Em(o&'ing the Res)lts of the +r)g)a' Ro)n& of M)ltilateral Negotiations# .' signing the inal ActD Secretar' Na%arro on (ehalf of the Rep)(lic of the PhilippinesD agree& to s)(mitD as appropriateD the 8TO Agreement for the consi&eration of their respecti%e competent a)thoritiesD 4ith a %ie4 to seeking appro%al of the Agreement in accor&ance 4ith their proce&)resJ an& to a&opt the Ministerial ,eclarations an& ,ecisions# On A)g)st /1D /;;3D the mem(ers of the Philippine Senate recei%e& a letter &ate& A)g)st //D /;;3 from the Presi&ent of the PhilippinesD stating among others that Pthe +r)g)a' Ro)n& inal Act is here(' s)(mitte& to the Senate for its conc)rrence p)rs)ant to Section 1/D Article !II of the Constit)tion#P On A)g)st /9D /;;3D the mem(ers of the Philippine Senate recei%e& another letter from the Presi&ent of the Philippines like4ise &ate& A)g)st //D /;;3D 4hich state& among others that Pthe +r)g)a' Ro)n& inal ActD the Agreement Esta(lishing the 8orl& Tra&e OrganiEationD the Ministerial ,eclarations an& ,ecisionsD an& the +n&erstan&ing on Commitments in inancial Ser%ices are here(' s)(mitte& to the Senate for its conc)rrence p)rs)ant to Section 1/D Article !II of the Constit)tion#P On ,ecem(er ;D /;;3D the Presi&ent of the Philippines certifie& the necessit' of the imme&iate a&option of P#S# /0-9D a resol)tion entitle& PConc)rring in the Ratification of the Agreement Esta(lishing the 8orl& Tra&e OrganiEation#P On ,ecem(er /3D /;;3D the Philippine Senate a&opte& Resol)tion No# ;> 4hich PResol%e&D as it is here(' resol%e&D that the Senate conc)rD as it here(' conc)rsD in the ratification (' the Presi&ent of the Philippines of the Agreement Esta(lishing the 8orl& Tra&e OrganiEation#P On ,ecem(er /6D /;;3D the Presi&ent of the Philippines signe& the Instr)ment of Ratification# The 8TO Agreement ratifie& (' the Presi&ent of the Philippines is compose& of the Agreement Proper an& Pthe associate& legal instr)ments incl)&e& in AnneCes one </=D t4o <1= an& three <9= of that Agreement 4hich are integral parts thereof#P On the other han&D the inal Act signe& (' Secretar' Na%arro em(o&ies not onl' the 8TO Agreement

/36

<an& its integral anneCes aforementione&= ()t also </= the Ministerial ,eclarations an& ,ecisions an& <1= the +n&erstan&ing on Commitments in inancial Ser%ices# The iss)es are as follo4s5 I </= 8hether or not the 8TO Agreement contra%enes the /;-> Philippine Constit)tion# <1= 8hether or not the conc)rrence of the Senate in the 8TO Agreement an& its anneCes 4as s)fficient an& %ali&D consi&ering that it &i& not incl)&e the inal ActD Ministerial ,eclarations an& ,ecisions# On the iss)e of constit)tionalit'D the Co)rt hel& that 4hile so%ereignt' has tra&itionall' (een &eeme& a(sol)te an& all@encompassing on the &omestic le%elD it is ho4e%er s)(Bect to restrictions an& limitations %ol)ntaril' agree& to (' the PhilippinesD eCpressl' or implie&l'D as a mem(er of the famil' of nations# +n:)estiona(l'D the Constit)tion &i& not en%ision a hermit@t'pe isolation of the co)ntr' from the rest of the 4orl&# In its ,eclaration of Principles an& State PoliciesD the Constit)tion Pa&opts the generall' accepte& principles of international la4 as part of the la4 of the lan&D an& a&heres to the polic' of peaceD e:)alit'D B)sticeD free&omD cooperation an& amit'D 4ith all nations#P .' the &octrine of incorporationD the co)ntr' is (o)n& (' generall' accepte& principles of international la4D 4hich are consi&ere& to (e a)tomaticall' part of o)r o4n la4s# One of the ol&est an& most f)n&amental r)les in international la4 is pacta s)nt ser%an&a ` international agreements m)st (e performe& in goo& faith# PA treat' engagement is not a mere moral o(ligation ()t creates a legall' (in&ing o(ligation on the parties # # # A state 4hich has contracte& %ali& international o(ligations is (o)n& to make in its legislations s)ch mo&ifications as ma' (e necessar' to ens)re the f)lfillment of the o(ligations )n&ertaken#P The Philippines has effecti%el' agree& to limit the eCercise of its so%ereign po4ers of taCationD eminent &omain an& police po4er in treaties prior to the 8TO@ GATT# The )n&erl'ing consi&eration in this partial s)rren&er of so%ereignt' is the reciprocal commitment of the other contracting states in granting the same pri%ilege an& imm)nities to the PhilippinesD its officials an& its citiEens# The same reciprocit' characteriEes the Philippine commitments )n&er 8TO@GATT# The point is thatD as sho4n (' the foregoing treatiesD a portion of so%ereignt' ma' (e 4ai%e& 4itho)t %iolating the Constit)tionD (ase& on the rationale that the Philippines Pa&opts the generall' accepte& principles of international la4 as part of the la4 of the lan& an& a&heres to the polic' of # # # cooperation an& amit' 4ith all nations# On the iss)e of the s)fficienc' an& %ali&it' of the Senate conc)rrenceD the Co)rt hel& that the SenateD after &eli(eration an& %otingD %ol)ntaril' an& o%er4helmingl' ga%e its consent to the 8TO Agreement there(' making it Pa part of the la4 of the lan&P# Inel)&i(l'D 4hat the Senate &i& 4as a %ali& eCercise of its a)thorit'# As to 4hether s)ch eCercise 4as 4iseD (eneficial or %ia(le is o)tsi&e the realm of B)&icial in:)ir' an& re%ie4# That is a matter (et4een the electe& polic' makers an& the people# As to 4hether the

/3>

nation sho)l& Boin the 4orl&4i&e march to4ar& tra&e li(eraliEation an& economic glo(aliEation is a matter that o)r people sho)l& &etermine in electing their polic' makers# After allD the 8TO Agreement allo4s 4ith&ra4al of mem(ershipD sho)l& this (e the political &esire of a mem(er# .ase& on the foregoingD the petition 4as ,ISMISSE,

/3-