1. HWA PIA V CHINA BANKING (CONFISCATION VS.

SEQUESTRATION)
A belligerent state has the power to order the liquidation of an enemy bank in its occupied territories. Such
liquidation is not a confiscation or appropriation of private property by an enemy state, which is prohibited under
international law; rather, it is a mere sequestration of the banks assets, which suggests the conservation of such
assets, subject to further disposition by treaty between the belligerents at the end of the war. The purpose of the
sequestration is that to prevent the inhabitants of the occupied territory from using these properties to further the
interest of the enemy, and to impede the enemys war efforts.
2. THE INTERHANDEL CASE (RESERVATION, RECIPROCITY)
Reciprocity in the case of Declarations accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court enables a Party to invoke
a reservation to that acceptance which it has not expressed in its own Declaration but which the other Party has
expressed in its Declaration. Thus, if a party that has made a Declaration unconditionally is brought to court by
another that has made a Declaration with conditions, the former can invoke the conditions in the latters Declaration.
3. KURODA V. JALANDONI (HAGUE; GAIL)
Even if the Philippines was not a signatory to the Hague Convention and was only a signatory of the Geneva
Convention in1947, the Philippine Military Commission (a special military tribunal charged with the trial and
punishment of war criminals) had jurisdiction over war crimes in violation of the two conventions prior to 1947.
This is because the rules and regulations of the two conventions are wholly based on the generally accepted
principles of international law, and as such, they are adopted as part of the law of the land. The Court considered
jurisdiction over war crimes as part of customary law.
4. ICHONG V HERNANDEZ (RETAIL BUSINESS; EQUAL PROTECTION FOR ALIENS)
The law which nationalizes the retail trade business was a valid exercise of police power and it does not deny the
aliens the equal protection of the laws. There are real and actual, positive, and fundamental differences between an
alien and a citizen, which fully justify the legislative classification adopted.
The difference in status between citizens and aliens constitutes a basis for reasonable classification in the exercise of
police power. The alien is naturally lacking in that spirit of loyalty and enthusiasm for the Phil. where he temporarily
stays and makes his living. The alien owes no allegiance or loyalty to the State.
5. PAQUETTE HABANA CASE (FISHING VESSELS EXEMPTION)
The case enunciates the exemption of fishing vessels from capture as prize of war. Such customary law is the result
of long, almost immemorial, practice. There is a need to spare fishermen and their vessels from the effects of war, so
long as they remain harmless. In times of war, the freedom of fishing is to be respected by belligerents.
6. COUNT BERNADOTTE CASE (REPARATIONS; UN HAS PERSONALITY)
In the event that an agent of the United Nations, in the performance of his duties, suffers injury in circumstances
involving the responsibility of a State, the United Nations, as an Organization, has the capacity/personality to bring
an international claim against the responsible de jure or de facto government (whether a member or not) with a view
to obtaining the reparation due in respect of the damage caused by the breach of that State of its obligations towards
the UN. The UN has the capacity to exercise functional protection of its agents.
7. NUREMBERG JUDGMENT (PROSECUTION OF NAZI LEADERS)
The Nuremberg Trials had a great influence in the development of international criminal law. It is a series of military
tribunals carried out for the prosecution of prominent leaders of Nazi Germany. The charges against the defendants
were only defined as "crimes" -- i.e., crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity -- after they
were committee. Law was created ex post facto to suit the passion and clamor of time.
8. BANCO NACIONAL DE CUBA V. SABBATINO (ACT OF STATE DOCTRINE)
The "act of state" doctrine is a rule not of international law but of judicial restraint in domestic law whereby courts
refrain from making decisions in deference to the executive who is the principal architect of foreign relations. It has
constitutional underpinnings; it arises out of the basic relationships between branches of government in a system
of separation of powers. The engagement of the Judiciary in the task of passing on the validity of foreign acts of
state may hinder rather than further a countrys pursuit of goals both for itself and for the community of nations as a
whole in the international sphere.

In this case, the judiciary, in line with the Act of State Doctrine, will not examine the validity of a taking of property
within its own territory by a foreign sovereign government recognized by this country in the absence of
international agreements to the contrary, even if the taking violates customary international law.
9. CORFU CHANNEL CASE (STATE RESPONSIBILITY)
In this case, the Court concluded that the laying of the minefield could not have been accomplished without the
knowledge of Albania. Having knowledge of such, it became its duty to notify the ships proceeding through the
Strait of the danger to which they were exposed. The lack of attempt to prevent the disaster was a grave omission
which gave rise to its international responsibility and duty to pay compensation to the victims.
10. NOTTEBOHM CASE (EFFECTIVE NATIONALITY LINK)
The doctrine on effective nationality link is used to determine which of two states of which a person is a national
will be recognized as having the right to give diplomatic protection to the holder of dual nationality. Preference will
be given to the real and effective nationality, that which accorded with the facts, that based on stronger factual ties
between the person concerned and one of the States whose nationality is involved. Several factors, including his
tradition, his establishment, his interests, his activities, his family ties, and his intentions for the near future, are
considered to determine this effective link.
11. AMBATIELOS CASE (ARBITRATION)
One method which allows sovereign states to undergo arbitration is through a valid treaty. Without such valid treaty,
a government of a sovereign country lacks the consent necessary in order to bind them in decisions made by arbitral
commissions. Meanwhile, party to a treaty which provides for the submission to an arbitral process to settle claims
cannot later on refuse to undergo such arbitration.
12. OPOSA V FACTORAN (INTERGENERATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY)
Petitioner-minors' personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations is based on the concept of
intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. Their right
to a healthy environment carried with an obligation to preserve the environment for the succeeding generations.

**Constitution: The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord
with the rhythm and harmony of nature.

13. LLDA V. CA (CEASE-AND-DESIST)

LLDA has the mandate to carry out the national policy of promoting the development and balanced growth of the
Laguna Lake region. As provided in its charter, LLDA has the exclusive authority to regulate the exploitation of
Laguna Lake, as against the claim of municipalities around the lake, in order to effectively address the
environmental and ecological stress on Laguna Lake. It, therefore, had the authority to issue the cease-and-desist
order to the owners of unregistered fish pens.
14. MMDA V CONCERNED RESIDENTS OF MANILA BAY (MANDAMUS TO CLEAN)
Continuing mandamus is a writ issued by a court in an environmental case directing agency or
instrumentality of the government or officer thereof to perform an act or series of acts decreed by final
judgment which shall remain effective until judgment is fully satisfied. Even assuming the absence of a
categorical legal provision specifically prodding MMDA to clean up the bay, they and the men and women
representing them cannot escape their obligation to future generations of Filipinos to keep the waters of the
Manila Bay clean and clear as humanly as possible. Anything less would be a betrayal of the trust reposed in them.
15. NICARAGUA V US
In order to deduce the existence of customary rules, the Court deems it sufficient that the conduct of states should, in
general, be consistent with such rules, and that instances of state conduct inconsistent with a given rule should
generally have been treated as breaches of that rule, not as indications of the recognition of a new rule.
For a new customary rule to be formed, not only must the acts concerned amount to a settled practice, but they
must be accompanied by the opinio juris sive necessitatis. Either the States taking such action or other States in a
position to react to it, must have behaved so that their conduct is evidence of a belief that this practice is rendered
obligatory by the existence of a rule of law requiring it. The need for such a belief, i.e., the existence of a subjective
element, is implicit in the very notion of the opinio juris sive necessitatis.