37

International Law 2012

/
elmerpaquitolalong @ www.sophialegis.weebly.com
latter may also be confiscated under the
doctrine of infection.
As for the disposition of the vessel carryingthe contraband, some states consider
itconfiscable if the contraband are more than of the total cargo by weight,
value,freight or volume.
o
Absolute Contraband
-consists of articlesof war (arms, munitions) destined forbelligerent territory.
o
Conditional/Relative Contrabandconsists of materials useful both in war andin peace (food, clothing) and is destined
forthe military authorities of the belligerentterritory. Under the doctrine of
usus
anticipitis
, articles of ambiguous use maysometimes be regarded as contraband ifused for
war purposes.
o

Free List

- includes goods useful for warand bound for the belligerents but exemptedfrom the
law on contraband forhumanitarian reasons (medicines, medicalsupplies).
o
Under the
Doctrine of UltimateDestination
, the liability of contraband tocapture is determined not by their ostensiblebut by
their real destination.This doctrine is called the
doctrine of
continuous voyage
when the goods arereloaded at the intermediate port on theSAME vessel and the
doctrine ofcontinuous
transport
when they arereloaded on ANOTHER vessel or other formof transportation.
o
Blockade

- is a hostile operation by meansof which the vessels and aircraft of onebelligerent

prevent all other vessels,including those of neutral states, fromentering or leaving
the ports or coasts of theother belligerent, the purpose being to shutoff the place
from international commerceand communication with other states.
To be valid, a blockade must be:1.
binding, i.e., duly communicated tothe neutral states;
2.
effective, meaning that it ismaintained by adequate force so as tomake ingress to or
egress from theport dangerous;
3.
established by the proper authoritiesof the belligerent government,generally the
head of state;
4.
limited only to the territory of theenemy and not extended to neutralplaces or
international rivers; and
5.
Impartially applied to all states alike.The liability of a neutral vessel tocapture for
breach of blockade iscontingent on its knowledge, actual orpresumptive, of the
blockade andcontinues as long as it is pursued bythe ships of the blockading force
afterit has left or tried to enter theblockaded
port. A vessel found guilty of breach ofblockade is liable to condemnation,and so is
the cargo unless it is provedthat at the time it was shipped theowner neither knew
nor could haveknown of the intention to violate theblockade.
Unneutral Service
- consists of acts, of a morehostile character than carriage of contraband orbreach
of blockade, which are undertaken bymerchant vessels of a neutral state in aid of
any of thebelligerents. According to the
Declaration of London
, and asgenerally accepted, a neutral vessel is liable tocondemnation for unneutral
service:
1.
if it is making a voyage special with a view tothe transport of individual passengers
who areembodied in the armed forces of the enemy orwith a view to the
transmission of information inthe interest of the enemy;
2.
If with the knowledge of the owner, or the onewho charters the entire vessel,or of
the master,it is transporting a military detachment of theenemy or one or more
persons who, during thevoyage, lend direct assistance to the operationsof the
enemy. The cargo, if belonging to theowner of the vessels, is likewise confiscable.
A neutral vessel is also liable to condemnationand to be treated as a
merchant vessel of theenemy:1.
if it takes a direct part of the hostilities;

2.
if it is under the orders or control of an agentplaced on board by the enemy
government;

38
International Law 2012
/
elmerpaquitolalong @ www.sophialegis.weebly.com
3.
it is chartered entirely by the enemygovernment; or
4.
If it is at the time and exclusively eitherdevoted to the transport of enemy troops
orthe transmission of information in the interestof the enemy.
Angary
- By the right of angary, a belligerent may,upon payment of just compensation,
seize, use ordestroy, in case of urgent necessity
for purposes ofoffense or defense, neutral property found in itsterritory, in enemy
territory, or on the high seas.
As will be noted, the exercise of the right isconditioned upon three
requisites, to wit:1.
that the property is in the territory under thecontrol or jurisdiction of the belligerent;
2.
that there is urgent necessity for the taking; and
3.
That just compensation is paid to the owner.While some authorities are of the
opinion that thesame purpose can be achieved through the exercise ofthe right of
eminent domain, it is claimed thatexpropriation cannot be exercised over property
that isonly temporarily
and usually over the owners
objection, under the control of the belligerent.Moreover, the expropriated property
is never taken forthe purpose of destroying it.
TERMINATION OF NEUTRALITY1.
when the neutral state itself joins the war;
2.
Upon the conclusion of peace.In the first case, the hitherto neutral state will
begoverned by the laws of war in its relations with theother belligerents and by the
laws of neutrality in itsrelations with all other states; and in the second, allstates will
again be governed by the laws of peace.

39
International Law 2012
/
elmerpaquitolalong @ www.sophialegis.weebly.com
This article is an offshoot of the incident which happened on April 23 2004, where a
member of thePanamanian diplomatic envoy to the Philippines allegedly forced a
Filipina to sniff a drug causing her tobe unconscious and thereafter, raped her in his
apartment. The issue is whether or not Erick SchcksBairnals, a technical officer of
the Panama Maritime Authority, enjoys protection under the 1961
ViennaConvention.
RAPE!Rev. Fr. Ranhilio Callagan Aquino
A Panamian diplomat, it has been alleged, raped a Filipina

and in the aftermath of that

dastardly incident, international law has been raped by irate but hardly informed
legislators, each with
his or her own version of diplomatic immunity. We did not invent diplomatic
immunity. States, forcenturies, have always recognized that immunities attend the
representatives of other States and history
records the fact that breach of these immunities has, in several cases, been casus
belli
a cause of awar. The proposition advanced by one female senator was therefore not
accurate: that diplomaticimmunities only go so far as to allow a diplomat to perform
his or her duties. The privilege of libertyfrom arrest, apprehension, prosecution and
trial also have to do with the very dignity of the entityrepresented by a diplomat

an elite in the world-stage (where elite is a matter neither of wealth nor ofsize but of
international juridical personality)!The present law on diplomatic immunity is
the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Infact, it did not create the law. In
many respects, it only codified customary international law. Theimmunity of
diplomats has long been part of general international law, or international common
law. Inrespect to diplomats, the immunity from criminal jurisdiction is absolute: no
ifs, no buts. All the rhetoric
then about rape never being part of ones official functions and therefore lying
beyond the shield of
immunity should be reserved for sophomoric declamation contests. That simply is
not the law. Anambassador is a diplomat, but one need not be an ambassador to
be a diplomat. The determination ofdiplomatic status is a matter that, by
constitutional allocation of powers, belongs to the Executive, since itis the latter
that conducts foreign relations in behalf of the Republic of the Philippines. However,
in
Liang v. People of the Philippines (2001)
, the Supreme Court maintained that Executivedeterminations did not necessarily
preclude courts from inquiring into the status of one who pleads hisdiplomatic
immunity as an exempting circumstance. It is for the person who claims immunity
to prove it,and for the courts to examine the proof. But it is one thing to demand
proof of immunity, and it is quiteanother to misstate the law, no matter that done so

with unction and fervor! In fact, the same fullimmunity from criminal jurisdiction can
rightly be claimed by members of the administrative and technicalstaff of a
diplomatic mission!Some who spoke first and researched later must have mixed up
the rules on diplomatic immunitywith the immunities of agents representing
international organizations: the International Red Cross, theWorld Health
Organization or even such entities as the World Bank and the Asian
DevelopmentBank. Most of the time, the scope of immunity will be the result of
treaty provisions. (International lawprovides for treaties between States and
international organizations.) In their regard, immunity is
functional, meaning principally that the breadth o
f immunity is determined by the functions theyperform

and only to that extent.So, what happens when a diplomat goes berserk and hurts
and maims indiscriminately? Suchrestraint as may be necessary to prevent him
from visiting more harm and injury may, as dictated byreason, be used on
him. However, this should not result in detention or apprehension. And
amiddemands of militants that the diplomat concerned waive his immunity, it will
be well to remind thedelirious mob that diplomatic immunity, enjoye
d not for the diplomats sake, but for the sake of the State
he represents, can be waived only by the sending State. It cannot be presumed; it
must be express, anda waiver of immunity from prosecution is a different thing from
a waiver of immunity from the executionof whatever penalty may be
imposed.Things have turned out as they should

the Philippines has declared the person concerned

persona non grata (unacceptable, we are not happy [non grata]
to have him), which is a diplomatic
speak for shoo, shoo!
The sending State then has the obligation to recall him or risk his apprehensionby
Philippine authorities after the government declares that it no longer recognizes
his diplomatic status.Rape is always a terrible crime, but ignorance displayed in
high places is despicable, indeed!