PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

CASE

KEYWORDS (FACTS)

HELD

DOCTRINE

Cases on Customary Law

Kuroda vs. Jalandoni

Yamashita vs. Styer

Kookooritchkin vs. SolGen

EO 68 established a
National War Crimes office,
prescribing rules and regulations
governing the trial of accused war
criminals. Kuroda challenged the
jurisdiction
of
the
military
commission on the ground that
PH was not a signatory to the
Hague and Geneva Conventions.

The Commission had

jurisdiction to try him. The change
in our form of government from
commonwealth to republic does
not affect the prosecution of those
charged with the crime of treason
committed
during
the
Commonwealth because it is an
offense
against
the
same
sovereign people.

Even without the clause in

our Constitution (Article II, Section
2), generally accepted principles
of international law will continue to
be binding by virtue of our
membership in the community of
nations.

Prisoner of war was

treated as a war criminal. He
challenged that the Military
Commission had no jurisdiction.

SC decided that the

Military
Commission
had
jurisdiction because we were still
in a state of war.

Mankind, in general, has been

covered by laws governing as far
back the ancient times. As such,
the Philippines is bound by
customary law.

Russian did not want to

submit to the Bolshevik regime so
he went the Philippines and
became a guerilla. The SolGen
challenged the approval of his
naturalization on the ground that
there was no testimonial or
documentary evidence to prove
that he was lawfully admitted in
the Philippines.

Dissenting:
J.
Perfecto

Yamashita is entitled to be
accorded all the guarantees,
protections, and defenses.
Kookooritchkin,
as
a
stateless citizen, is also entitled to
naturalization.
Appellee's
testimony,
besides
being
uncontradicted, is supported by
the wellknown fact that the
ruthlessness
of
modern
dictatorship
has
scattered
throughout the world a large
number of stateless refugees or
displaced
persons,
without
country and without flag. The

General principles of law

automatically become part of
the law of the land.

We are civilized people and we do

not do harsh things to each other.

tyrannical intolerance of said

dictatorships toward all opposition
induced them to resort to beastly
oppression, concentration camps
and blood purges, and it is only
natural that the notsofortunate
ones who were able to escape to
foreign countries should feel the
loss of all bonds of attachment to
the hells which were formerly their
fatherland's. Petitioner belongs to
that group of stateless refugees.

Nicaragua vs. US

North
Shelf Cases

Sea

Continental

South-West Africa Case:

Ethiopia vs. Africa; Liberia vs.
South Africa

Nicaragua sued US for

intervening with its internal
political matters, for sending
mercenaries, for blocking its loans
in the international bank, and for
using threat and force all
because
the
Nicaraguan
government supported the El
Salvadoran rebellion.
U.S.
questioned
the
ICJs
jurisdiction.
Germany, and Denmark
and the Netherlands submitted to
the Court certain differences
concerning
the
delimitation
between the Parties on the areas
of the continental shelf in the
North
sea.
Denmark
and
Netherlands argued that the
principle of equidistance should
be used. Germany does not want
to submit to this principle because
it would be unfair to them (as they
will not get a proportionate share).
They argued that it was not
binding as customary international
law.
South West Africa was a
League of Nations Mandate
Territory placed under the
administration of South Africa.
Ethiopia and Liberia, included in
SWA, alleged that the govt of
South Africa failed to promote
the well being of the inhabitants
by enforcing apartheid.
SWA argued on the basis of
sacred trust, upon which the idea

U.S. cannot argue on the

basis of its multilateral treaty
because customary international
law operates separately from
treaties.
U.S. only ceased to take part in
the proceedings after a judgment
had been given adverse to its
contentions on jurisdiction and
admissibility.
Germany is not bound to
follow the equidistance principle.

The principle of non-intervention

means that every State has a right
to conduct its affairs without
outside interference.
Customary norms have to be
consistent with state practice.

For customary law to emerge

the court held that it needed:
1. widespread
and
representative participation
2. virtually uniform practice
3. opinion
juris
(general
recognition of the legal
obligation)
NORM = STATE PRACTICE +
OPINIO JURIS

In order that such interest

might take on a specifically legal
character, the sacred trust itself
must be or become more than a
moral or humanitarian ideal. It
must have juridical expression
and must be clothed in legal form.
The principle of sacred trust had
no residual juridical content which
could, so far as any particular
mandate is concerned, operate
per se to give rise to legal rights

The ICJ can only rule on legal

rights, not on moral or ethical
issues. The duty of the Court is to
apply the law; not to make it.

of a Mandate is based implies a

sacred trust of civilizations,
meaning that all civilized nations
had an interest in seeing that it
was carried out.

and obligations outside

system as a whole.

the

Asylum Case (Colombian

vs. Peru)

Leader
of
military
rebellion
sought
asylum
in
Colombia.
The
Colombian
ambassador in Lima informed the
Peruvian govt of the asylum
granted to Haya dela Torre and at
the same time he asked that a
safe conduct be issued to enable
the refugee to leave the country.

Colombia was not allowed

to unilaterally grant political
asylum.
Colombia cannot invoke the
Havana Convention on Asylum of
1928 (Does not contain any
provision conferring on the State
granting asylum a unilateral
competence to qualify the offence
with definitive and binding force
for the territorial state) and the
Montevideo
Convention
on
Political Asylum of 1933 (not
ratified by Peru, thus cannot
invoked against it)

Extradition the refugee is within

the territory of the State of refuge
Diplomatic asylum the refugee is
within the territory of the State
where the offence was committed.
Conditions
to
grant
asylum:
1. It can be granted only
to political offenders who are not
accused or condemned for
common crimes and only in urgent
cases and for the time strictly
indispensable for the safety of the
refugee.
2. Article 2, Havana
Convention: The government of
the State may require that the
refugee be sent out of the national
territory within the shortest time
possible; and the diplomatic agent
of the country who has granted
asylum may in turn require the
guarantees necessary for the
departure of the refugee from the
country with due regard to the
inviolability of his person. >
Peru had not demanded the
departure of the refugee and was
therefore not bound to deliver a
safe conduct.

Nuclear Test Cases

Australia
and
New
Zealand filed a complaint against
France for the fall outs caused by
its nuclear tests. On the basis of
Frances several declarations, the
two complainants said that it was

France was bound by its

declarations.

Declarations are legal obligations.

Unilateral declarations from States
are not sources of international
law; but they form a basis for the
operation of estoppel.

bound to stop the nuclear testing.

Legality of the use by a

state of nuclear weapons in armed
conflict

The Paquete Habana

Right
of
(Portugal vs. India)

Passage

Is the threat or use of

nuclear
weapons
in
any
circumstance permitted under
international law? General
Assembly of United Nations
Several states contended that
rendering an advisory opinion
could also lead to making
hypothetical declarations outside
the scope of judicial function that
could affect current disarmament
negotiations.
Fishing smacks were
captured and cargo became the
prize of war.

Portugal allegedly had a

territory in the Indian Peninsula.
India prevented Portugal from
exercising its right of passage.

Article 96, par. 1: The

General Assembly or the Security
Council
may
request
the
International Court of Justice to
give an advisory opinion on any
legal question.

Use of nuclear weapons in

general is contrary to international
laws applicable in armed conflict
but the court cannot conclude
definitively whether the use or
threat of the same is lawful or
unlawful
in
an
extreme
circumstance of self-defense in
which survival of the State
would be at stake.

Capture of the fishing

smacks and taking the fish they
captured as prize of war, were
unlawful and without probable
cause. according to precedents

Ancient usage has ripened into

international law.

By an ancient usage among

civilized
nations,
beginning
centuries ago and gradually
ripening into a rule of international
law, coast fishing vessels pursuing
their vocation of catching and
bringing
fish
have
been
recognized as exempt, with their
cargoes and crews, from capture
as prize of war.
Portugal did not have
the right of passage in respect of
armed forces, armed police, and
arms and ammunition.
India had not acted
contrary to its obligations resulting
from Portugals right of passage in
respect of private persons, civil
officials, and goods in general.

International Humanitarian Law is

not only customary in nature but
also jus cogens.
Exempting of fishing vessels was
founded on considerations of
humanity to a poor and industrious
order of men, and of the mutual
convenience of belligerent states
which rely on the livelihood of
fishing.

Constant and uniform

practice between states is also a
source of international law. There
is no need to resort to general
international custom nor to
general principles of law in
disposing of such cases when
there is an established practice
between the parties.

 When the British

became the sovereign in India,
Portuguese
sovereignty
was
tacitly recognized in those areas.
With regard to private
persons, civil officials, and goods
in general, there existed during
the British and post-British periods
a constant and uniform practice
allowing free passage between
Daman and enclaves. That that
practice was accepted as law by
the parties and has given rise to a
right and correlative obligation,
India has to grant a qualified right
of passage to the alleged
territories of Portugal.

Prosecutor vs. Tadic

Salonga
Secretary

vs.

Executive

Medellin vs. Texas

First person to ever be

prosecuted by the International
Tribunal for the Prosecution of
Persons
Responsible
for
Serious
Violations
of
International Humanitarian Law
Committed in the Territory of
Former
Yugoslavia.
He
questioned the jurisdiction of the
international tribunal

Case of the treaty of U.S.

and Philippines VFA and Mutual
Defense Treaty.

Medellin is one of the

persons supposed to be granted

Jurisdiction of the
International Tribunal The
narrow concept of jurisdiction
as the legal power to state the
law is not applicable in
international law because it lacks
a centralized structure and has no
integrated judicial system.
General Assembly
was not involved in the creation
of the tribunal Just because
the security council is not a
judicial body does not mean that it
cannot set up one. It merely
wanted to establish an instrument
to exercise its own principal
function of maintenance of peace
and security. No delegation of
powers happened.
Romulo-Kenney
agreement not valid because it
was inconsistent with the VFA.
VFA is constitutional because it is
a self-executing agreement, as it
only intended to carry out the
obligations
and
undertakings
under the RP-US Mutual Defense
Treaty.

When the President

asserts the power to enforce a

International humanitarian
law governs the conduct of both
international and internal armed
conflicts. (ARTICLE 5)
It is now a settle rule of
customary international law that
crimes against humanity do not
require
a
connection
to
international armed conflict. If so,
the Security Council may have
defined the crime in Article 5 more
narrowly than necessary under
customary international law.

It was not the intention of

the
framers
of
the
1987
Constitution, in adopting Article
XVIII, Sec. 25, to require the other
contracting State to convert their
system to achieve alignment and
parity with ours. It was simply
required that the treaty be
recognized as a treaty by the
other contracting State. With that,
it becomes for both parties a
binding international obligation
and the enforcement of that
obligation is left to the normal
recourse and processes under
international law.
While
comprise

treaties
may
international

pardon by virtue of being

non-self-executing
treaty
by
unilaterally creating domestic law,
he acts in conflict with the implicit
understanding of the ratifying
Senate. The non-self-executing
character of the treaty constrains
the Presidents ability to comply
with treaty commitments by
unilaterally making the treaty
binding on domestic courts.
Due to the absence of
any legislation regarding these
treaties and the lack of any
contention that no legislation
exists, the SC concludes that the
Avena
judgment
is
not
automatically binding domestic
law. The general rule is that
judgment
of
foreign
courts
awarding injunctive relief , even as
to private parties, let alone
sovereign states, are not generally
entitled to enforcement.
While treaties may
comprise
international
commitments, they are not
domestic law unless Congress
enacted implementing rules or the
treaty is self-executing.

commitments, they are not

domestic law unless Congress
enacted implementing rules or the
treaty is self-executing.

Texaco vs. Libya

Libya
promulgated
decrees for nationalization.

In determining the binding

nature of GA resolutions, the
Court looked into the voting
patterns of the participant states.
It is generally recommendatory
but may serve as an indicia of
norm.
Cases on General Principles of Law

Cambodia vs. Thailand

Question of who has

sovereignty over the region of
Temple of Preah Vihear.
The
commission
underwent three stages. In the
final stage, Cambodia transmitted
11 maps to the Siamese
government, which the latter
signed.
Cambodia relied on this
map in support of her claim to
sovereignty over the temple.

Corfu Channel Case

ICJ
ruled
that
Thailand/Siam was estopped from
questioning
the
validity
or
correctness of the map because it
has already signed it.
The map was even given
wide publicity.
The prince of Siam arrived
at the temple and saw a French
flag at the temple, but never
contested it. This constituted tacit
recognition of the sovereignty of
Cambodia over Preah Vihear.

Thailand contests any

claim based on this map, on the
following grounds: (1) It was not
the
work
of
the
Mixed
Commission/it was a unilateral
act; (2) It was a material error; (3)
Thailand never accepted it, but
merely adoped a passive attitude
towards the map.

Mistaken belief that the

map line was correctly drawn?
Strengthens case of Cambodia
because it would mean that
Siamese had, at the back of their
minds, believed that the Temple
was really part of Cambodias
territory.

Albanian ships fired at

Royal Navy Ships while the latter

Temple of Preah Vihear is

situated in territory under the
sovereignty of Cambodia.
Albania is liable for
damages.

Doctrine of specifically
affected states.

Estoppel
and
acquiescence
are
general
principles of law which can be a
basis of international law.
Elements of Estoppel:
1. Act or representations
2. Reliance on (1)
3. Damage

Since
a
State
has
exclusive control over its waters,

was crossing the Corfu Channel

after they had conducted an
inspection of the area. Albania
claimed that the Royal Navy Ships
were trespassing on Albanian
waters.
Royal Navy Ships tested
again if they would be fired at.
Two of their ships were not fired at
but they struck mines and
sustained damages. People said
that the mines were laid by
Yugoslavian minelayers and not
Albania.

1. The mines were newly

laid
when
the
explosions
happened.
2. Since a state has
exclusive control over its waters,
the victim of a breach of
international law, is often unable
to furnish direct proof of facts
giving rise to responsibility. Such a
State should be endowed a more
liberal recourse to inferences of
fact and circumstantial evidence.
3. Albanian government
constantly kept a close watch over
the waters of the North Corfu
Channel.
4. Albanian government
never notified anyone about the
mines in its waters.
5. Albanian government
had lookouts at Cape Kiephali,
Denta Point, and St. Georges
Monastery which were strategic
places to watch the channel.
The laying of mines could
not have been accomplished
without the knowledge of the
Albanian Government.
ICJ declared that the
Corfu
Channel
was
an
international highway therefore
Albania can only regulate the
passage of war ships and not
prohibit them altogether. Therefore
as to this issue, the sovereignty of
Albania was not violated.

the victim of a breach of

international law, is often unable to
furnish direct proof of facts giving
rise to responsibility. Such a State
should be endowed a more
liberal recourse to inferences of
fact
and
circumstantial
evidence.
Albanian Govt had the
obligation to warn ships. Based on
the ff general and well-recognized
principles:
1.
Elementary
considerations of humanity, even
more exacting in peace than in
war.
2. The principle of the
freedom
of
maritime
communication.
3. Every States obligation
not to allow knowingly its territory
to be used for acts contrary to the
rights of other States.

BUT UKs mine clearing

operation was illegal because it
was unauthorized by the Albanian
government.
Chorzow Factory
Barcelona Traction, Light
and Power Company
BP vs. Libya
Saudi
ARAMCO

Arabia

vs.