CHAPTER

 1:  THE  NATURE  OF  INTERNATIONAL  LAW  

 
• International  Law  –  the  law  which  deals  “with  the  conduct  of  states  and  of  international  
organizations  and  with  their  relations  inter  se,  as  well  as  with  some  of  their  relations  
with  persons,  whether  natural  or  juridical.”  
• Scope  –  all  the  interests  of  contemporary  international  and  even  domestic  life  
• There  is  a  general  respect  for  law  because  of  the  possible  consequences  of  defiance  
either  to  oneself  or  to  the  larger  society.  
• Some  theories  about  international  law  
o Command  theory  
o Consensual  theory  
o Natural  law  theory  
o International  law  is  law  because  it  is  seen  as  such  by  states  and  other  subjects  of  
international  law  
• Public  v  private  international  law  
o Public  –  governs  the  relationships  between  and  among  states  and  also  their  
relations  with  international  organizations  and  individual  persons;  criminal  cases  
o Private  –  really  domestic  law  which  deals  with  cases  where  foreign  law  intrudes  
in  the  domestic  sphere  where  there  are  questions  of  the  applicability  of  foreign  
law  or  the  role  of  foreign  courts;  civil  cases  
• History  
o Jus  gentium  –  law  common  to  all  men  
o Hugo  Grotius  –  father  of  modern  international  law  
§ “law  of  nations”    
§ -­‐>  “international  law”  (Jeremy  Bentham)  
o Significant  Milestones  
§ Peace  of  Westphalia  
• Ended  30  Years  War  (1618-­‐1648)  
• Established  a  treaty  based  framework  for  peace  cooperation  
• Pacta  sunt  servanda  –  agreements  must  be  kept  
§ Congress  of  Vienna  (1815)  
• Ended  Napoleonic  Wars  
• Created  a  sophisticated  system  of  multilateral  political  and  
economic  cooperation  
§ Covenant  of  the  League  of  Nations  (1920)    
• Included  Treaty  of  Versailles  which  ended  World  War  I  
• Created  the  Permanent  Court  of  International  Justice  
§ United  Nations  (1945)  
§ End  of  the  Cold  War  
• The  US  as  both  world  policeman  and  global  mediator  
• UN  seems  to  have  declined  as  an  international  agency  for  the  
maintenance  of  peace  
Case:  
  
Whitney  v.  Robertson  
 
• Facts  
o Whitney  imported  a  large  quantity  of  ‘centrifugal  and  molasses  sugars’  In  New  
York,  similar  to  sugars  produced  in  Hawaii  
o Whitney  (Plaintiff)  argued  that  the  treaty  between  the  US  and  the  Dominican  
Republic  (1861)  guaranteed  that  he  should  pay  no  duty  for  his  sugar  imports,  
which  is  also  because  of  the  treaty  of  the  US  with  the  King  of  Hawaii  (1575)  
o Hawaii  treaty  was  not  self-­‐executing  
o Dominican  Republic  treaty  was  self-­‐executing  
o A  law  was  enacted  by  Congress  later  which  overruled  the  treaty  with  Dominican  
Republic  
• Rule  of  Law  
o When  a  treaty  and  an  act  of  legislation  is  in  conflict,  the  one  with  later  date  of  
ratification  is  upheld  
o Treaties  and  legislations  are  of  equal  weight  
• Issue  
o When  treaties  and  legislations  are  in  conflict,  which  one  should  be  upheld  
• Body  
o Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  
 
CHAPTER  2:  THE  SOURCES  OF  INTERNATIONAL  LAW  
 
• Two  types  of  sources  
o Formal  –  various  processes  by  which  rules  come  into  existence  
§ Ex.  legislation  
o Material  –  substance  and  content  of  the  obligation.    They  identify  what  the  
obligations  are  
§ Ex.  State  practice,  UN  resolutions,  treaties,  judicial  decisions,  and  the  
writings  of  jurists  
§ “evidence”  of  international  law  
• Article  38(1)  of  the  Statute  of  the  International  Court  of  Justice  –  the  most  widely  
accepted  statement  of  the  “sources”  of  international  law  
o Not  a  source  of  law;  just  procedure  to  decide  on  cases  
o THE  COURT  SHALL  APPLY  THE  FOLLOWING:  
§ International  conventions  
§ International  custom  
§ The  general  principles  of  law  
§ Judicial  decisions  and  teachings  of  the  MOST  HIGHLY  QUALIFIED  
PUBLICISTS  OF  THE  VARIOUS  NATIONS  
o Shall  not  prejudice  the  power  of  the  court  to  decide  ex  aequo  et  bono  
(“according  to  the  right  and  good”  or  “from  equity  and  conscience”)  
• Restatement  (Third)  of  Foreign  Relations  Law  of  the  United  States  
o A  rule  of  international  law  is  one  that  has  been  accepted  as  such  by  the  
international  community  of  states  
§ In  the  form  of  customary  law;  
§ By  international  agreement;  or  
§ By  derivation  from  general  principles  common  to  the  major  legal  systems  
of  the  world  
o Customary  international  law  
o International  agreements  
o General  principles  common  to  the  major  legal  systems  
• Basically  
o Custom  
o Treaties  and  other  international  agreements  
o Generally  recognized  principles  of  law  
o Judicial  decisions  and  teachings  of  highly  qualified  and  recognized  publicists  
• SOURCES  
o Custom  –  “a  general  and  consistent  practice  of  states  followed  by  them  from  a  
sense  of  legal  obligation”  (Restatement)  
§ Two  basic  elements  
• Material  factor  (usus)  –  practice  of  states  
o Elements:  duration,  consistency,  and  generality  of  the  
practice  of  states  
o Duration  (diuturnitas)  –  can  be  either  long  or  short;  not  
most  important  element  
o MOST  IMPORTANT  ELEMENT:  consistency  and  the  
generality  of  the  practice  
§ Asylum  Case  (Colombia  v  Peru)  
o Uniformity  and  generality  of  practice  need  not  be  
complete,  but  SUBSTANTIAL  
• Subjective  factor  –  why  states  behave  the  way  they  do  (MORE  
IMPORTANT;  FULFILLS  THE  DEFINITION  BY  RESTATEMENT)  
o Opinio  juris  –  the  belief  that  a  certain  form  of  behavior  is  
obligatory  
§ It  is  possible  for  customary  law  to  develop  which  will  bind  only  some  
states  
§ EXCEPTIONS  AND  NOTES:    
• If  the  dissenting  state  had  consistently  objected  to  the  custom  
while  it  was  merely  in  the  process  of  formation  
• Dissent  only  protects  the  dissenter  and  does  not  apply  to  other  
states  
• Contrary  practice  may  become  the  recognized  customary  law  if  it  
gains  general  acceptance  
 § OPINIO  JURIS  IS  A  MATTER  OF  PROOF.  The  burden  is  on  the  state  
claiming  it  
• Right  of  Passage  over  Indian  Territory  
§ “Instant  custom”  –  from  spontaneous  activity,  ex.  World  Trade  Center  
§ The  Martens  Clause  –  put  the  “laws  of  humanity”  and  the  “dictates  of  
public  conscience”  on  the  same  level  as  “usages  of  states”  
o Treaties  –  determine  the  rights  and  duties  of  states;  comes  from  voluntary  
decision  of  sovereign  states  
§ CAN  BECOME  A  UNIVERSAL  LAW  depending  on  
• Number  of  contracting  parties  
• Generality  of  the  acceptance  of  the  rules  created  by  the  treaty  
§ Two  types  
• “contract  treaties”    
• “law  making  treaties”  –  creates  obligations  
§ Treaties  and  Customs  
• Adherence  to  treaties  can  be  indicative  also  of  adherence  to  
practice  as  opinion  juris  
• If  the  treaty  comes  later  than  a  custom,  treaty  prevails  
• If  the  custom  is  jus  cogens  (fundamental,  inviolable),  custom  
prevails  
• Nicaragua  v.  United  States  
o General  principles  of  law  –  principles  of  municipal  law  common  to  the  legal  
systems  of  the  world  
§ Chorzow  factory  case  
o Judicial  decisions  
§ Article  38  of  the  Statute  –  apply  judicial  decisions  as  subsidiary  means  for  
the  determination  of  the  rules  of  law  
§ NOTE  
• “the  decisions  of  the  court  have  no  binding  force  except  between  
the  parties  and  in  respect  of  that  particular  case”  
• NO  stare  de  crisis  –  precedent  
§ ICJ  is  a  source  of  widely  accepted  principles  in  international  law  
§ Nicaragua  v.  United  States  
§ Asylum  Case  
o Teachings  of  highly  qualified  writers  and  “publicists”  
§ Publicists  –  institutions  which  write  on  international  law  
o Equity  
§ Intra  legem  –  within  the  law;  the  law  is  adapted  to  the  facts  of  the  case  
§ Praeter  legem  –  beyond  the  law;  it  is  used  to  full  the  gaps  of  the  law  
§ Contra  legem  –  against  the  law;  the  law  is  seen  as  unjust  
o Other  supplementary  evidence  
§ UN  Resolutions  –  generally  considered  merely  recommendatory  
 • If  supported  by  all  the  states,  they  become  an  expression  of  
opinio  juris  communis  
• Can  also  be  a  reflection  of  what  has  become  customary  law  
§ “soft  law”  –  non-­‐treaty  agreements  
• administrative  rules  which  guide  the  practice  of  states  in  relation  
to  international  organizations  
• allows  for  simpler  and  more  flexible  foundation  for  states’  future  
relations  
 
Cases  
 
North  Sea  Continental  Shelf  Cases:  Federal  Republic  of  Germany  v.  Denmark  and  Netherlands  
(1969)  
 
• Facts  
o Germany’s  (plaintiff)  coast  is  concave  while  Denmark  and  Netherlands’  are  
convex.    According  to  equidistance  rule,  Germany  will  have  significantly  less  
portion  of  the  shelf  despite  having  longer  coastlines.    Germany  argued  that  the  
delimitation  should  be  determined  by  the  length  of  coastlines  
• Rule  of  Law  
o Customary  law  must  be  proven  before  it  can  be  applied  
• Issue  
o Is  Germany  obliged  to  accept  the  application  of  the  equidistance  principle  either  
as  a  customary  international  law  or  on  the  basis  of  the  Geneva  convention?  
• Decision  
o The  use  of  equidistance  principle  had  not  crystallized  into  customary  law,  
therefore  not  obligatory  for  the  delimitation  of  the  North  Sea  shelf  
o Geneva  Convention  is  not  binding  to  Germany  even  if  Germany  signed  it  
because  they  did  not  ratify  it  
• Body  
o ICJ  
 
 
Right  of  Passage  over  Indian  Territory:  Portugal  v.  India  1960  
 
• Facts  
o Portugal  held  small  enclaves  inside  India’s  territory,  some  coastal  but  some  
inland.    Portugal  claimed  they  have  the  right  of  passage  to  India’s  inland  
territories  which  India  interfered  with  
• Rule  of  Law  
o Opinio  juris  
o Customary  law  must  be  proven  before  it  can  be  applied  
• Issue  
 o Does  Portugal  have  customary  right  of  passage  over  Indian  territory  to  its  
enclaves?  
• Decision  
o The  existence  of  customary  law  was  proven  by  the  local  practice  that  has  been  
recognized  since  the  time  India  was  still  a  colony.  
o Portugal  has  the  automatic  right  of  passage  for  everything  that  is  necessary  for  
the  exercise  of  sovereignty  in  the  enclaves  
o This  right  of  passage  does  not  apply  to  armed  forces,  armed  police,  and  arms  
and  ammunition,  for  which  permission  from  India  is  necessary  
• Body  
o ICJ  
 
 
Legality  of  the  Threat  or  Use  of  Nuclear  Weapons  in  Armed  Conflict  (1996)  
 
• Deterrence  –  involves  a  threat  to  use  nuclear  weapons  under  certain  circumstances  on  a  
potential  enemy  or  an  enemy;  if  a  threatened  retaliatory  strike  was  consistent  with  
military  necessity  and  proportionality,  it  would  not  necessarily  be  illegal  
• Possession  of  nuclear  weapons  –  found  no  treaty  language  that  categorically  forbade  
the  possession  of  nuclear  weapons  
o the  rules  on  chemical  weapons  do  not  apply  on  nuclear  weapons  
o no  customary  law  
• Decision  
o There  is  neither  customary  nor  conventional  international  law  that  prohibits  
threat,  or  use,  or  possession  of  nuclear  weapons  
o Threat  or  use  of  force  by  means  of  nuclear  weapons  contrary  to  Art.  2,  par.  4  of  
the  UN  Charter  is  illegal  
o Threat  or  use  of  nuclear  weapons  should  be  compatible  with  the  requirements  
of  international  law  applicable  in  armed  conflict,  particularly  those  of  the  
principles  and  rules  of  humanitarian  law  
o Threat  or  use  of  nuclear  weapons  would  be  generally  contrary  to  the  rules  of  
international  law  applicable  in  armed  conflict;  the  court  cannot  conclude  
definitively  whether  the  threat  of  use  of  nuclear  weapons  would  be  illegal  in  an  
extreme  circumstance  of  self-­‐defense,  in  which  the  very  survival  of  a  State  would  
be  at  stake  
o There  exists  an  obligation  to  pursue  in  good  faith  and  bring  to  a  conclusion  
negotiations  leading  to  nuclear  disarmament  in  all  its  aspects  under  strict  and  
effective  international  control  
• Bodies  
o Requestor:  UN  General  Assembly  
o Grantor:  International  Court  of  Justice  
 
The  Lotus  Case  (1927)  
  
• Facts  
o The  Lotus  ship  collided  with  a  Turkish  vessel  Boz-­‐Kourt  in  high  seas  that  resulted  
to  the  death  of  eight  Turkish  nationals.    Demons,  the  captain  of  Lotus,  was  tried  
and  charged  for  manslaughter  in  Turkey.      
• Rule  of  Law  
o Lotus  principle  –  sovereign  states  may  act  in  any  way  they  wish  so  long  as  they  
do  not  contravene  an  explicit  prohibition  
§ A  State  cannot  exercise  its  jurisdiction  outside  its  territory  unless  an  
international  treaty  or  customary  law  permits  it  to  do  so  
§ Within  its  territory,  a  State  may  exercise  ABSOLUTE  sovereignty  
o 1958  High  Seas  Convention  –  only  the  flag  state  of  the  state  of  which  the  alleged  
offender  was  a  national  had  jurisdiction  over  sailors  regarding  incidents  
occurring  in  high  seas  
• Issue  
o Did  Turkey  violate  international  law  when  Turkish  courts  exercised  jurisdiction  
over  a  crime  committed  by  a  French  national,  outside  Turkey?  
• Decision  
o France,  as  the  flag  state,  did  not  enjoy  exclusive  territorial  jurisdiction  in  the  
high  seas  in  respect  of  a  collision  with  a  vessel  carrying  the  flag  of  another  state.  
The  “offense  produced  its  effects  on  the  Turkish  vessel  and  consequently  in  a  
place  assimilated  to  Turkish  territory”  
o A  state  would  have  territorial  jurisdiction  even  in  the  crime  was  committed  
outside  its  territory,  so  long  as  the  constitutive  element  of  the  crime  was  
committed  in  that  State  
• Body  
o Permanent  Court  of  International  Justice  
 
CHAPTER  3:  THE  LAW  OF  TREATIES  
 
• 1969  Vienna  Convention  on  the  Law  of  Treaties  
• 1986  Convention  on  the  Law  of  Treaties  Between  States  and  International  Organizations  
or  Between  International  Organizations  
• Treaty  –  “an  international  agreement  concluded  between  States  in  written  form  and  
governed  by  international  law,  whether  embodied  in  a  single  instrument  or  in  two  or  
more  related  instruments  and  whatever  its  particular  designation.”  (Vienna  Convention)  
• Even  an  oral  agreement  can  be  binding,  but  only  those  that  are  in  written  form  are  
covered  by  the  Convention  
• No  particular  form  is  prescribed  
• Qatar  v.  Bahrain  (1994)  
• For  something  to  be  considered  an  agreement:  
o The  commitment  was  very  specific  
o There  was  a  clear  intent  to  be  bound  
• Function  of  Treaties  
o Multilateral  treaties  –  open  to  all  states;  create  norms  which  are  the  basis  for  a  
general  rule  of  law  
§ Codification  treaties  
§ “law-­‐making  treaties”  
o Create  collaborative  mechanism  
o Bilateral  treaties  –  “contract  treaties”  
• The  making  of  treaties  
o Negotiation  
§ Bilateral  to  few  countries  multilateral  –  foreign  ministries  
§ Larger  multilateral  treaties  –  diplomatic  conferences  
o Power  to  negotiate  –  see  p.28  
§ Non-­‐automatic  
• If  he  produces  appropriate  full  powers  
• It  appears  from  practice  of  State  of  other  circumstances  that  they  
intend  to  consider  that  person  as  representing  the  State  
§ Automatic  
• Heads  of  State,  Government,  and  Ministers  of  Foreign  Affairs  
• Heads  of  Diplomatic  Mission  
o Authentication  of  text  -­‐  signatures  
§ Adoption  
• Consent  of  all  the  States  participating  in  its  drawing  up  
• 2/3  of  the  States  present  and  voting,  unless  they  decide  to  apply  a  
different  rule  
§ Authentication  of  the  text  
• By  procedure  agreed  by  the  States    
• By  the  signature,  signature  ad  referendum  or  initialing  by  the  
representatives  of  those  States  of  the  text  of  the  treaty  or  of  the  
Final  Act  of  a  conference  incorporating  the  text  
• MAKES  THE  TEXT  AUTHORITATIVE  AND  DEFINITIVE  
o Consent  to  be  bound  
§ Means  of  expressing  (States)  
• Signature,  exchange  of  instruments  constituting  a  treaty,  
ratification,  acceptance,  approval  or  accession,  or  by  any  other  
means  if  so  agreed  
• By  the  signature  of  the  state  representative  when  
o The  treaty  provides  that  signature  shall  have  that  effect  
o It  is  otherwise  established  that  the  negotiating  States  were  
agreed  that  signature  should  have  that  effect;  or  
o The  intention  of  the  State  to  give  that  effect  to  the  
signature  appears  from  the  full  powers  of  its  
representative  or  was  expressed  during  the  negotiation  
• By  an  exchange  of  instruments  constituting  a  treaty  when  
 o The  instruments  provide  that  their  exchange  shall  have  
that  effect  
• By  ratification  
o Explicit  ratification  
o Under  conditions  similar  to  those  which  apply  to  
ratification  
o Accession  to  a  treaty  –  may  or  may  not  be  allowed  depending  on  the  rules  of  the  
original  contracting  parties  
o Reservations  –  “a  unilateral  statement,  however  phrased  or  named,  made  by  a  
State,  when  signing,  ratifying,  accepting,  approving,  or  acceding  to  a  treaty,  
whereby  it  purports  to  exclude  or  to  modify  the  legal  effect  of  certain  provisions  
of  the  treaty  in  their  application  to  that  State  
§ Statutes  are  not  like  treaties.  They  must  apply  to  ALL.  
§ Different  from  “interpretive  declarations”  
§ Not  allowed  in  cases  where  the  treaty  does  not  allow  it  or  it  defeats  the  
purpose  of  the  treaty  
§ Meant  only  for  multilateral  treaties  
§ Reservations  may  be  not  recognized  by  some  states  
o Entry  into  force  of  treaties  –  on  the  date  agreed  upon  by  the  parties  
§ If  no  date  indicated,  on  the  day  consent  is  given  by  all  negotiating  States  
§ Provisional  application  possible  if  the  treaty  so  provides  or  negotiating  
states  have  in  some  other  manner  agreed;  revoked  if  a  State  notifies  the  
other  States  of  its  intention  not  to  become  a  party  of  the  treaty  
o Application  of  treaties  –  pacta  sunt  servanda  –  “agreements  must  be  kept”  
§ Internal  laws  cannot  be  used  as  excuse  for  not  performing  treaty  
§ Binding  upon  each  party  in  respect  of  its  entire  territory  
o Interpretation  of  treaties  –  Article  31  
§ Article  31(1)  –  “objective”  approach;  ordinary  meaning  
§ Article  31(2)  –  “teleological”  approach;  purpose  of  the  treaty  
§ Article  31(3)  –  “subjective”  approach;  honors  special  meaning  given  by  
the  parties  
§ Supplementary  means  of  interpretation  
• The  meaning  which  best  reconciles  the  texts,  having  regard  to  the  
object  and  purpose  of  the  treaty,  shall  be  adopted  
• In  conflict  among  “official  texts,”  the  language  agreed  by  the  
parties  as  “authoritative”  is  followed  
• Invalidity  of  Treaties  
o Invalidities  
§ Error  –  relates  to  a  fact  or  situation  assumed  by  the  state  to  exist  at  the  
time  when  the  treaty  was  concluded  and  formed  an  essential  basis  of  its  
content  to  be  bound  by  the  treaty  
• Error  does  not  apply  if  the  error  was  the  fault  of  the  State  
• Error  in  wording  does  not  invalidate  a  treaty  
 Fraud  (by  another  state)  
§
Corruption  of  a  representative  of  a  State  (by  another  state)  
§
Coercion  of  a  representative  of  a  state  
§
Coercion  of  a  state  by  the  threat  or  use  of  force  –  UN  Charter  
§
Jus  cogens  –  if  conflicting  with  jus  cogens  international  law  
§
• Unlawful  use  of  force  
• Acts  criminal  under  international  law  
• Conniving  towards  the  commission  of  acts  such  as  trade  in  slaves,  
piracy,  or  genocide  
o Losing  the  right  to  assert  invalidity  of  a  treaty  
§ Expressing  that  the  treaty  is  valid  or  it  remains  in  force  or  continues  in  
operation  
§ By  reason  of  its  conduct  it  has  acquiesced  in  the  validity  of  the  treaty  
§ Municipal  law  cannot  be  cited  as  justification  for  invalidating  treaty  
• Amendment  and  Modification  of  Treaties  
o Amendment  –  formal  revision  done  with  the  participation,  at  least  in  its  initial  
state,  by  all  the  parties  to  the  treaty  
§ Binding  only  to  States  that  participated  in  the  amendment  
o Modification  –  involves  only  some  of  the  parties  
§ Must  be  allowed  by  the  treaty  
§ Parties  in  question  shall  notify  the  other  parties  of  their  intention  to  
conclude  the  agreement  and  of  the  modification  to  the  treaty    
• Termination  of  Treaties  
o Terminated  or  suspended  according  to  the  terms  of  the  treaty  
o Expiration  
o Achievement  of  goal  
o Other  important  modes  
§ Material  breach  (Article  60)  –  if  the  other  party  violated  the  treaty  so  
much  
• Entitlements  of  parties  
o The  other  parties  by  unanimous  agreement  to  suspend  the  
whole,  in  part,  or  terminate  either  between  themselves  
and  the  defaulting  state  or  between  all  the  parties  
o A  party  specially  affected  by  the  breach  may  use  it  as  
ground  for  suspending  the  treaty  
o Any  other  party  than  the  defaulting  State  may  invoke  the  
breach  as  a  ground  for  suspending  the  operation  of  the  
treaty  in  whole  or  in  part  with  respect  to  itself  if  the  
provisions  by  one  party  radically  changes  the  position  of  
every  party  with  respect  to  the  further  performance  of  its  
obligations  under  the  treaty  
• Consists  of  
 o Repudiation  of  the  treaty  not  sanctioned  by  the  present  
convention  
o Violation  of  provision  essential  in  the  accomplishment  of  
the  object  or  purpose  of  the  treaty  
§ Supervening  impossibility  of  performance    
• Permanent  disappearance  of  destruction  of  an  object  
indispensable  for  the  execution  of  the  treaty;  if  not  permanent,  
suspension  only  
• May  not  be  invoked  if  the  impossibility  is  a  result  of  a  breach  by  
that  party  either  of  an  obligation  under  the  treaty  or  of  any  other  
international  obligation  owed  to  any  other  party  to  the  treaty  
§ Change  of  fundamental  conditions  (rebus  sic  stantibus)    
• applicable  only  when  
o The  existence  of  those  circumstances  constituted  an  
essential  bases  of  the  consent  of  the  parties  
o The  the  effect  of  the  change  is  radically  to  transform  the  
extent  of  obligations  still  to  be  performed  under  the  treaty  
• Not  applicable  when  
o If  the  treaty  establishes  a  boundary  
o If  the  fundamental  change  is  the  result  of  a  breach  by  the  
party  invoking  it  either  of  an  obligation  under  the  treaty  or  
of  any  other  international  obligation  owed  to  any  other  
party  to  the  treaty  
• Fisheries  Jurisdiction  Case  (ICJ)  
o If  it  has  resulted  in  a  radical  transformation  of  the  extent  
of  the  obligations  imposed  by  it,  may,  under  certain  
conditions,  afford  the  party  affected  a  ground  for  invoking  
the  termination  or  suspension  of  the  treaty  
o Must  have  increased  the  burden  of  the  obligations  to  be  
executed  to  the  extent  of  rendering  performance  
something  essentially  different  from  the  original  intention  
o Procedure  for  the  Termination  of  Treaties  (see  p.  54)  
o Authority  to  Terminate  
§ Not  defined  by  Goldwater  v.  Carter  
§ Logically  makes  sense  that  it  also  belongs  to  parties  that  can  enter  into  
treaties  
• Succession  to  Treaties  
o “Clean  slate  rule”  (Art.  16  of  1978  Vienna  Convention  on  the  Succession  of  States  
with  Respect  to  Treaties)  –  a  new  state  is  not  bound  to  enforce  treaties  of  the  
predecessor  state  
o A  new  state  may  agree  to  be  bound  by  the  treaties  made  by  its  predecessor  
o Does  not  apply  to  treaties  affecting  boundary  regimes  
 
Cases  
 
Fisheries  Jurisdiction  Case:  United  Kingdom  v.  Iceland  (1973)  
 
• Facts  
o Iceland’s  (D)  claim  to  a  12-­‐mile  fisheries  limit  was  recognized  by  the  United  
Kingdom  (P)  in  1961  in  return  for  Iceland’s  agreement  that  any  dispute  
concerning  Icelandic  fisheries  jurisdiction  beyond  the  12-­‐mile  limit  be  referred  
to  the  International  court  of  Justice.  
o Application  was  filed  before  the  ICJ  when  Iceland  proposed  to  extent  its  
exclusive  fisheries  jurisdiction  from  12  to  50  miles  around  its  shores  in  1972  
• Rule  of  Law  
o Termination  of  treaty  requires  result  in  a  radical  transformation  of  the  extent  of  
obligations  still  to  be  performed  
• Issue  
o Is  a  radical  transformation  of  the  extent  of  the  obligation  still  to  be  performed  
necessary  to  invoke  termination  of  a  treaty?  
o Does  the  change  of  circumstance  claimed  by  Iceland  qualify  as  such?  
• Decision  
o Yes.  
o No.  
• Body  
o ICJ  
 
 
Namibia  Case  (1971)  
 
• Facts  
o South  Africa  (D)  occupied  Western  Sahara  (Namibia)  under  a  claim  of  right  to  
annex  that  territory  and  under  a  claim  that  the  people  of  Namibia  desired  South  
African  rule  
o S  Africa  was  a  member  state  of  the  United  Nations  and  subject  to  a  UN  mandate  
prohibiting  member  states  from  taking  physical  control  of  other  territories  
o UNGA  adopted  Resolution  2145  terminating  the  Mandate  for  S  Africa  
o UNSC  adopted  Resolution  276  declaring  S  Africa’s  continued  presence  in  
Namibia  illegal  and  calling  other  member  states  to  act  accordingly  
o ICJ  was  called  upon  to  render  an  advisory  opinion  
• Rule  of  Law  
o UN  mandates  are  binding  upon  all  member  states  
o Violations  or  breaches  result  in  a  legal  obligation  on  the  part  of  the  violator  to  
rectify  the  violation    
o Other  member  states  are  required  to  recognize  the  conduct  as  a  violation  and  
refuse  to  aid  in  such  violation  
 o The  decisions  and  resolutions  of  the  Security  Council  in  enforcing  such  
termination  are  binding  upon  all  Member  States,  regardless  of  how  they  voted  
on  the  measure  when  adopted.  
• Issue  
o Are  UN  mandates  binding  upon  all  member  states?  
o Does  violation  of  mandate  require  for  violator  to  rectify  its  violation  and  for  
other  members  to  act  accordingly?  
• Decision  
o Yes.  
o Yes.  Member  states  have  assumed  an  obligation  to  keep  intact  and  preserve  the  
rights  of  other  states  and  the  people  in  them.  
o The  UNGA  found  that  South  Africa  was  in  material  breach  of  the  Mandate  
because  of  deliberate  and  persistent  violations  of  it  by  occupying  Namibia  
• Body  
o ICJ  
 
 
Danube  Dam  Case:  Hungary  v.  Slovakia  (1998)  
 
• Facts  
o In  1977,  Hungary  (P)  and  Czechoslovakia  (D)  signed  a  Treaty  (Budapest  Treaty)  
for  the  construction  of  dams  and  other  projects  along  the  Danube  river  that  
bordered  both  nations  
o Czechoslovakia  began  work  on  damming  the  river  in  its  territory  but  Hungary  
stopped  working  on  the  project  (due  to  economic  issues)  
o Negotiation  could  not  resolve  the  matter  so  Hungary  terminated  the  treaty  
o Czechoslovakia  carried  out  unilateral  measures  (executed  Plan  B)  
o Iron  curtain  fell,  their  regimes  changed,  Czechoslovakia  split  into  Czech  Republic  
and  Slovakia  
o Hungary  claimed  right  to  terminate  treaty  because  of  unilateral  measures  that  
resulted  to  diversion  of  Danube  then  submitted  the  case  to  ICJ  
o Slovakia  became  a  party  to  the  1977  Treaty  as  successor  to  Czechoslovakia  
o  
• Rule  of  Law  
o “pacta  sunt  servanda”  –  agreements  must  be  kept  
• Issue  
o Did  Hungary’s  termination  of  the  treaty  violate  international  law?  
o Did  Slovakia’s  unilateral  finishing  of  the  project  give  Hungary  the  right  to  
terminate  the  treaty?  
• Decision  
o Yes.  If  a  state  of  necessity  is  found  to  exist,  it  is  not  a  ground  for  the  termination  
of  a  treaty,  only  for  exoneration  from  its  responsibility  to  implement  a  treaty  
 § Other  changes  of  circumstances  such  as  change  of  political  nature  are  
not  seen  as  something  that  would  radically  transform  the  extent  of  the  
obligations  still  to  be  performed  in  order  to  accomplish  the  project  
§ The  changes  must  have  been  unforeseen  and  grave  
o No.  It  was  justified  because  Hungary  did  not  follow  through.    The  violation  of  
other  treaty  rues  or  rules  of  general  international  law  may  justify  the  taking  of  
certain  measures,  including  countermeasures,  by  the  injured  state,  but  it  does  
not  constitute  a  ground  for  termination  under  the  law  of  treaties.  
• Body  
o ICJ  
 
 
Goldwater  v.  Carter  (1979)  
 
• Facts  
o President  Carter  terminated  a  treaty  (Sino-­‐American  Mutual  Defense  Treaty)  
with  Taiwan  without  congressional  approval  
o President  Carter  wanted  to  transfer  recognition  of  the  One  True  China  to  the  
People’s  Republic  of  China  (China)  from  Republic  of  China  (Taiwan),  in  
accordance  with  the  One  China  Policy  
o No  congressional  action  was  taken  in  retaliation  for  what  President  Carter  did  
o Plaintiff:  Sen.  Barry  Goldwater  
• Rule  of  Law  
o The  Court  does  not  answer  political  questions  
• Issue  
o Was  Carter’s  action  constitutional?  
o Is  this  issue  of  whether  a  President  can  terminate  a  treaty  without  Congressional  
approval  a  non-­‐justiciable  political  question?  
• Decision  
o Maybe,  maybe  not.  The  issue  is  not  ripe  because  no  action  was  taken  by  the  
Senate.    The  court  has  the  power  to  review  whether  or  not  a  particular  branch  
of  government  has  exclusive  decision-­‐making  power  over  an  issue.  
o Yes.    Whether  or  not  a  President  can  terminate  a  treaty  closely  involves  his  
foreign  relations  authority  and  therefore  is  not  reviewable  by  the  Supreme  
Court  
• Body  
o US  Supreme  Court  
 
 
Maritime  Delimitation  and  Territorial  Questions:  Qatar  v.  Bahrain  (1994)  
 
• Facts  
 o Qatar  (Plaintiff)  filed  a  claim  to  settle  a  dispute  involving  sovereignty  over  
certain  islands  and  rights  over  certain  shoals  and  delimitation  of  a  maritime  
boundary  against  Bahrain  (Defendant)  
o A  Tripartite  Committee  “for  the  purpose  of  approaching  the  International  Court  
of  Justice”  was  formed  by  representatives  of  Qatar,  Bahrain,  and  Saudi  Arabia  
o The  Committee  failed  to  produce  an  agreement  on  the  specific  terms  for  
submitting  the  dispute  to  the  Court  
o The  meetings  culminated  in  “Minutes”  which  reaffirmed  the  process  and  
stipulated  that  the  parties  “may”  submit  the  dispute  to  the  ICJ  after  giving  the  
Saudi  King  six  months  to  resolve  the  dispute  
o The  Court’s  jurisdiction  was  disputed  by  Bahrain  
• Rule  of  Law  
o An  international  agreement  creating  rights  and  obligations  can  be  constituted  by  
the  signatories  to  the  minutes  of  meetings  and  letters  exchanged  
• Issue  
o Does  ICJ  have  jurisdiction?  
o Can  an  international  agreement  be  constituted  by  the  signatories  to  the  minutes  
of  meetings  and  letters  exchanged?  
• Decision  
o YES.    Though  Bahrain  argued  that  the  Minutes  were  only  a  record  of  negotiation  
and  could  not  serve  as  a  basis  for  the  ICJ’s  jurisdiction,  both  parties  agreed  that  
the  letters  constituted  an  international  agreement  with  binding  force  
o YES.    International  agreements  do  not  take  a  single  form  
o  
• Body  
o ICJ  
 
 
Anglo-­‐Iranian  Oil  Co.  Case:  United  Kingdom  v.  Iran  (1952)  
 
• Facts  
o BP  (formerly  Anglo-­‐Iranian)  signed  a  contract  with  the  Iranian  government  in  
1933.  
o In  1952,  Iran  nationalized  the  oil  industry,  in  which  BP  and  the  Iranian  
government  had  a  conflict.  The  UK  filed  the  case  on  behalf  of  BP.      
• Rule  of  Law  
o Compulsory  jurisdiction  –  only  applies  to  treaties  between  states  over  signed  
treaties  or  conventions  
§ Corporations  cannot  be  represented  by  their  own  state  unless  they  were  
party  to  a  signed  treaty  between  the  two  states  
o Corporations  do  not  have  international  legal  personality    
o ICJ  cannot  rule  on  cases  that  are  not  conflicts  between  two  states  over  signed  
treaties  
 • Issue  
o Does  ICJ  have  jurisdiction  on  the  case?    
§ Iran  says  compulsory  jurisdiction  only  applies  to  treaties  created  after  
the  ratification  of  the  declaration.  
§ UK  says  the  1933  was  a  double  charter  and  counts  as  a  treaty  
• Decision  
o The  ICJ  has  no  jurisdiction  over  the  case  because  there  is  no  treaty  between  Iran  
and  UK.  
o It  does  not  matter  that  BP  was  not  treated  right  based  on  other  treaties  because  
UK  was  not  part  of  these  treaties  
o UK  was  not  party  to  the  original  treaty,  therefore  ICJ  cannot  have  jurisdiction  
under  compulsory  jurisdiction  
• Body  
o ICJ  
 
CHAPTER  4:  INTERNATIONAL  LAW  AND  MUNICIPAL  LAW  
 
• Two  theories  
o Dualism  –  when  international  law  and  municipal  law  conflict,  municipal  law  must  
prevail;  there  are  two  separate  systems  of  law  
§ Positivist  
§ Strong  emphasis  on  SOVEREIGNTY  
§ Prevailing  practice  
o Monism  –  international  law  and  domestic  law  belong  to  one  system  of  law  
§ International  law  >  municipal  law  
• Supported  by  Kelsen  (Austrian  jurist,  legal  philosopher,  and  
political  philosopher)  
• Flowing  from  a  deep  suspicion  of  local  sovereigns  and  from  the  
conviction  that  international  law  can  imbue  the  domestic  order  
with  a  sense  of  moral  purpose  
§ International  law  <  municipal  law  
• Municipal  Law  in  International  Law    
o local  laws  must  be  adjusted  accordingly  to  accommodate  treaties  
o states  cannot  invoke  local  laws  for  terminating  agreements  
• International  Law  in  Domestic  Law  
o Transformation  –  international  law  must  be  created  as  a  law  by  parliament  
o Incorporation  –  law  of  nations  is  adopted  in  its  full  extent  by  the  common  law,  
and  held  to  be  part  of  the  law  of  the  land  
• Philippines:  dualist  and  incorporation  
o Conflict  between  International  Law  and  Domestic  Law:  International  Rule  
§ EXCEPTION  FROM  APPLYING  INTERNATIONAL  LAW  AUTOMATICALLY:  the  
constitutional  “violation  was  manifest  and  concerned  a  rule  of  its  internal  
law  of  fundamental  importance”  (Article  46)  
 Violation  is  “manifest  if  it  would  be  objectively  evident  to  any  State  
§
conducting  itself  in  the  matter  in  accordance  with  normal  practice  and  in  
good  faith”  
§ If  the  treaty  was  found  unconstitutional,  it  can  be  ignored  domestically  at  
the  risk  of  international  repercussions  before  an  international  court  
o Conflict  between  International  Law  and  Domestic  Law:  Municipal  rule  
§ The  treaty  would  not  be  valid  and  operative  as  domestic  law  
§ Dualism:  unconstitutionality  of  a  treaty  is  purely  a  domestic  matter  
 
GENERALLY  RECOGNIZED  PRINCIPLES  OF  LAW  (Galing  lang  sa  notes  ko,  not  sure  if  these  
concepts  really  fall  under  this)  
 
• Restitution  –  compensation  for  damages  or  seizing  of  properties  
o Chorzow  Factory  Case  
• Judicial  Decisions  –  contains  principles  that  can  be  used  as  evidence  in  other  newer  
cases  
• Common  law  countries  don’t  rely  that  much  on  publicists  
• Equity  –  used  of  law  is  silent  
• Right  to  self-­‐determination  
 
Case  
 
Chorzow  Factory  Case:  Germany  v.  Poland  (1928)  
 
• Facts  
o After  a  plebiscite  and  three  uprisings,  the  eastern  part  of  Silesia,  including  
Chorzow,  was  separated  from  Germany  and  awarded  to  Poland  
o The  company  that  owned  the  nitrogen  factory  argued  to  the  PCIJ  for  restitution  
• Rule  of  Law  
o A  State  is  held  responsible  for  expropriation  of  alien  property  
o A  nation  is  responsible  for  acts  of  government  organs  or  officers  
o It  is  a  basic  rule  of  international  law  that  reparation  is  to  be  made  for  violations  
of  international  law  
• Issue  
o Whether  or  not  the  Polish  government  should  be  made  liable  to  make  
reparations  to  the  German  government  
• Decision  
o Germany  was  awarded  compensation  by  Poland  
• Body  
o PCIJ  
 
JUDICIAL  DECISIONS  AND  TEACHINGS  OF  HIGHLY  QUALIFIED  AND  RECOGNIZED  PUBLICISTS  
 
Cases  
Military  and  Paramilitary  Activities  in  and  against  Nicaragua:  Nicaragua  v.  United  States  (1986)  
 
• Facts  
o Government  of  President  Somoza  collapsed  after  an  armed  opposition  led  by  
FSLN  (Sandinista)  
o New  Sandinista  government  faced  armed  opposition  from  supporters  of  former  
Somoza  government  and  ex-­‐members  of  the  National  Guard  
o Nicaragua  accused  the  US  of  planning  and  undertaking  activities  directed  against  
Nicaragua  
o FDN  and  ARDE  –  armed  opposition  to  new  government;  covertly  supported  by  
the  US,  which  they  later  acknowledged  
o Nicaragua:  US  was  effectively  in  control  of  the  contras  
o US  used  ‘inherent  right  of  collective  self-­‐defense’  as  excuse  for  its  actions  
• Issues  
o Did  the  US  breach  customary  international  law  of  not  intervening  in  affairs  of  
another  state?  
o Of  not  using  force  against  another  state?  
o Can  the  military  and  paramilitary  activities  the  US  undertook  be  justified  as  
collective  self-­‐defense?  
o Of  not  violating  the  sovereignty  of  another  state?  
• Decision  
o Yes  
o Yes.  Prohibition  on  the  use  of  force  is  clearly  found  on  Article  2(4)  of  the  UN  
Charter.  
o No.  Self-­‐defense  is  only  available  against  a  use  of  force  that  amounts  to  an  
armed  attack.  There  should  also  be  a  request  for  assistance  from  the  victim  
state.  
o Yes  
• Body  
o ICJ  
 
Asylum  case:  Colombia  v.  Peru  (1950)  
 
• Facts  
o Colombian  ambassador  in  Lima,  Peru  allowed  Victor  Raul  Haya  de  la  Torre,  head  
of  the  American  People’s  Revolutionary  Alliance  sanctuary  after  his  faction  lost  a  
one-­‐day  civil  war  in  Peru  
o Colombian  government  granted  him  asylum,  but  Peru  did  not  grant  him  right  of  
passage  
o Colombia  cited  various  conventions  (Bolivian  Agreement  of  1911  on  Extradition,  
Havana  Convention  of  1928  on  Asylum,  Montevideo  Convention  of  1933  on  
Political  Asylum,  American  International  Law)  that  they  are  entitled  to  decide  if  
 asylum  should  be  granted  and  their  unilateral  decision  on  this  was  binding  on  
Peru  
• Rule  of  Law  
o The  burden  of  proving  a  custom  exists  resides  in  the  plaintiff  
• Issue  
o Is  Peru  obligated  to  grant  right  of  passage  in  accordance  with  Colombia’s  
unilateral  granting  of  asylum?  
• Decision  
o No  such  custom  dictates  that  Peru  should  grant  the  person  right  of  passage.  
• Body  
o ICJ  
 
CHAPTER  5:  SUBJECTS  OF  INTERNATIONAL  LAW:  STATES  
 
• Subjects  -­‐  Those  who  have  international  personality  
o Not  all  enjoy  the  same  rights  and  obligations  
o States  are  the  predominant  actors  
• Objects  –  those  who  indirectly  have  rights  under  or  are  beneficiaries  of  
international  law  through  subjects  of  international  law  
• States  enjoy  the  fullest  personality  in  international  law  
• Montevideo  Convention  of  1933  on  Rights  and  Duties  of  States  
o Permanent  population  
o Defined  territory  
o Government  
o Capacity  to  enter  into  relations  with  other  states  
• Elements  of  State  
o People  or  Population  –  community  of  persons  
§ Sufficient  in  number  
§ Capable  of  maintaining  the  permanent  existence  of  the  
community  
§ Held  together  by  a  common  bond  of  law  
o Territory  
§ Can  be  disputed  
§ State  does  not  cease  to  exist  when  it  loses  control  of  its  territory  
temporarily  
o Government  
§ State  does  not  cease  to  exist  in  temporary  absence  of  government  
o Sovereignty  
o Self-­‐determination  
§ Two  levels  of  claim  to  self-­‐determination  
• Establishment  of  new  states  –  the  claim  by  a  group  within  
an  established  state  to  break  away  and  form  a  new  entity  
 • Freedom  from  external  coercion,  or  the  claim  to  
overthrow  effective  rules  and  establish  a  new  government  
o Right  of  revolution  
o Claim  of  the  people  within  an  entity  to  be  given  
autonomy  
• Recognition  of  States  
o Declaratory  theory  –  recognition  is  merely  a  declaration  of  the  existence  
of  a  state,  and  that  its  being  a  state  depends  upon  its  possession  of  the  
required  elements  and  not  upon  recognition  
o Constitutive  theory  –  recognition  is  what  makes  a  state  a  state  
• Recognition  of  government  –  means  act  of  acknowledging  the  capacity  of  an  
entity  to  exercise  powers  of  government  of  a  state  
o Automatic  –  if  change  in  government  is  constitutional  
o Sketchy  –  a  new  government  comes  into  existence  through  Extra-­‐
constitutional  means  
o Tinoco  Arbitration  
o Upright  v.  Mercury  Business  Machines  Co.  
o Consequences  of  Recognition  or  Non-­‐recognition  
§ Highly  political  judgment  unlike  recognition  of  states  
§ Benefits  of  recognition  
• Prestige  
• Funding  agencies  and  loans  access  
• Access  to  foreign  courts  
• Military  and  financial  assistance  
• Immunity  from  suit  
o Admission  of  government  into  UN  DOES  NOT  mean  recognition  by  all  
members,  only  to  the  extent  of  the  activities  of  the  organization  
o Termination:  when  another  regime  is  recognized  
• Succession  of  states  (see  p.83)  
• Fundamental  Rights  of  States  
o Independence  –  free  from  the  domination  of  other  states  
§ Jurisdiction  over  territory  and  population  
§ Right  to  self  defense  
§ Right  of  legation  –  right  to  send  and  receive  diplomatic  missions  
§ Duty  not  to  interfere  in  the  internal  affairs  of  other  states  
o Equality  –  irrespective  of  the  size  or  power  of  the  state  
o Peaceful  co-­‐existence  
§ Mutual  respect  for  each  other’s  territorial  integrity  and  
sovereignty  
§ Mutual  non-­‐aggression  
§ Non-­‐interference  in  each  other’s  affairs  
§ Principle  of  equality  
• Some  incomplete  subjects  
 o Protectorates  –  controls  their  internal  affairs  but  external  affairs  are  
controlled  by  foreign  entity  
o Federal  state  
o Mandated  and  Trust  Territories  –  created  by  League  of  Nations;  replaced  
by  Trusteeship  by  the  UN  
o Taiwan  –  de  jure  part  of  China  
o The  Sovereign  Order  of  Malta  –  has  diplomatic  relations  with  over  40  
states  
o The  Holy  See  –  no  permanent  population  
 
Cases  
 
Tinoco  Arbitration:  Arbitration  between  Great  Britain  and  Costa  Rica  (1923)  
 
• Facts  
o Federico  Tinoco  seized  power  in  Costa  Rica  via  coup  in  1917.  
o The  new  government  was  not  recognized  by  the  US  and  the  UK  
o Tinoco  retired  after  one  year  and  the  new-­‐new  government  nullified  all  
contracts  made  by  the  Tinoco  government,  including  an  oil  concession  to  UK  
companies  (Central  Costa  Rica  Petroleum  Company  and  Royal  Bank  of  Canada)  
and  debts  
• Rule  of  Law  
o A  government  need  not  conform  to  a  previous  constitution  if  the  government  
had  established  itself  and  maintained  a  peaceful  de  facto  administration  and  
non-­‐recognition  of  the  government  by  other  government  does  not  destroy  the  
de  facto  status  of  the  government  
o An  illegal  government  may  bind  a  state  to  international  obligations:  
international  law  looks  at  the  state,  not  the  government  entity  within  the  state  
o Corporations  possess  nationality  and  a  government  can  assert  claims  on  behalf  
of  its  subjects  
• Issues  
o What  was  the  status  of  the  Tinoco  regime  in  international  law?  
o Was  UK  estopped  from  pursuing  its  claims  because  it  never  recognized  the  
Tinoco  government  either  de  jure  or  defacto?  
• Decision  
o Tinoco  regime  was  de  facto  government  
o UK  is  not  estopped  
• Body  
o William  H.  Taft  as  arbitrator  
 
 
Upright  v.  Mercury  Business  Machines  Co.  (1962)  
 
 • Facts  
o Walter  Upright,  US  Citizen  (Plaintiff)  sues  as  the  assignee  of  a  trade  acceptance  
drawn  on  and  accepted  by  defendant  Mercury  in  payment  for  business  
typewriters  sold  and  delivered  to  it  by  Polygraph  Export  GmbH.  
o Polygraph  is  a  GOCC  of  German  Democratic  Republic  which  is  not  recognized  by  
the  US  
• Rule  of  Law  
o A  foreign  government,  although  not  recognized  by  the  Untied  States  
government,  may  nevertheless  have  a  de  facto  existence  which  is  juridically  
cognizable  
• Issue  
o Can  the  Plaintiff  sue  the  company  if  the  US  does  not  recognize  GDR?  
• Decision  
o Yes.  The  SC  overturned  previous  decision  that  sustained  the  defense.  
• Body  
o Supreme  Court  of  New  York  
 
 
CHAPTER  6:  OTHER  SUBJECTS  OF  INTERNATIONAL  LAW  
 
• International  Organizations  –  an  organization  set  up  by  treaty  among  two  or  more  states  
o The  constituent  document  of  international  organizations  is  a  treaty;  treaty  
includes  all  rights,  obligations,  and  functions  of  an  IO  
o Only  states  can  be  members  of  international  organizations  
o Possess  international  personality  (Reparations  Case)  
§ The  UN  and  its  agents  are  protected  to  the  extent  that  allows  them  to  
exercise  their  functions  stated  by  the  Charter  
§ The  treaty  CREATED  an  entity  that  is  subject  to  recognition  by  everyone  
regardless  of  membership  
§ Not  the  same  as  personality  of  states  
• “principle  of  speciality”  –  they  are  invested  by  States  with  powers  
• “implied”  powers  –  subsidiary  powers  not  expressly  provided  for  
in  the  basic  instruments  which  govern  their  activities  
o Immunities  
§ Can  be  given  immunities  and  privileges  of  international  persons  
§ Basis:  the  need  for  effective  exercise  of  their  functions  
§ Article  105  of  UN  Charter  -­‐  Representatives  of  members  of  the  UN  and  
officials  of  the  org  
§ Supplemented  by  
• General  Convention  on  the  Privileges  and  Immunities  of  the  
United  Nations  (1946)  
• Convention  and  Privileges  of  Specialized  Agencies  
o The  United  Nations  
 § “international  constitutional  supremacy  clause”  -­‐  If  there  is  conflict  
between  obligation  of  member  states  under  the  present  Charter  and  any  
other  obligation  under  any  other  international  agreement,  their  
obligations  under  the  present  Charter  shall  prevail  
§ GA  –  important  and  other  questions  
§ SC  –  “primary  responsibility  for  the  maintenance  of  international  peace  
and  security”  
• Procedural  matters  and  all  other  matters  
• Abstain  =  veto  
• Insurgents  
o Protocol  II  –  first  and  only  international  agreement  exclusively  regulating  the  
conduct  of  parties  in  non-­‐international  armed  conflict  (1977  Protocol  II  to  the  
1949  Geneva  Conventions)  
§ Non-­‐international  armed  conflict  –  armed  conflicts  which  take  place  in  
the  territory  of  a  High  Contracting  Party  between  its  armed  forces  and  
dissident  armed  forces  or  other  organized  armed  groups  which,  under  
responsible  command,  exercise  such  control  over  a  part  of  its  territory  as  
to  enable  them  to  carry  out  sustained  and  concerted  military  operations  
and  to  implement  this  Protocol  
§ “material  field  of  application”  
• under  responsible  command  
• exercise  such  control  over  a  part  of  its  territory  as  to  enable  them  
to  carry  out  sustained  and  concerted  military  operations  and  to  
implement  this  Protocol  
• -­‐>  “para-­‐statal  entities  possessing  definite  if  limited  form  of  
international  personality”  
o Common  Article  3  –  minimum  humanitarian  protection  should  also  cover  
internal  conflicts    
• National  Liberation  Movements  
o Legitimacy:  goal  of  self-­‐determination  
o Ultimate  goal  of  controlling  a  definite  territory  is  necessary  to  be  recognized  as  
international  subjects  
• Individuals  
o Obligations  
§ Regulation  of  armed  conflicts  
§ Rules  on  international  crimes  to  which  individuals  are  subjects  
• Crimes  against  humanity  
• Genocide  
• Aggression  
• Terrorism  
o When  individual  rights  are  violated,  they  still  have  to  rely  on  the  enforcement  
powers  of  states  
 o Some  treaties  have  provided  for  the  right  of  individuals  to  petition  international  
bodies  alleging  that  a  contracting  state  has  violated  some  of  their  human  rights  
 
CHAPTER  7:  TERRITORY:  LAND,  AIR,  OUTER  SPACE  
 
• Modes  of  Acquisition  of  Sovereignty  over  Territory  
o Discovery  AND  Occupation  
§ Occupation  –  effective,  i.e.  community  with  structure  of  government  
§ Acquisition  of  terra  nullius  (territory  which  prior  to  occupation  did  not  
belong  to  any  state  or  abandoned)  
§ Las  Palmas  (1928)  
§ Eastern  Greenland  Case  (1933)  
o Prescription  –  You  want  it,  you  occupy  it  for  a  long  time.  
§ May  be  negated  by  lack  of  acquiescence  by  the  prior  occupant  
o Cession  –  acquisition  of  territory  through  treaty  
o Conquest  –  not  allowed  anymore  
o Accretion  and  Avulsion  
§ Accretion  –  force  of  nature  creates  land  
§ Avulsion  –  violent  separation  of  piece  of  land  
o NOT  CONTIGUITY  –  proof  only  
o Intertemporal  law  –  the  laws  used  in  acquiring  territory  are  international  laws  
applicable  in  time  of  acquisition  
• Airspace  
o Chicago  Convention  on  International  Civil  Aviation  (1944)  (1974  effectivity)  
o International  Civil  Aviation  Organization  (ICAO)  
o Governing  principles  (see  p.114)  
• Outer  Space  
o Sovereignty  over  air  space  extends  only  until  where  outer  space  begins  (WDK)  
o 1967  Treaty  on  the  Exploration  and  Use  of  Outer  Space  
§ Everything  for  the  benefit  of  mankind  and  peace  
§ No  nuclear  weapons  please  
§ No  military  installations  
§ Astronauts  –  envoys  of  mankind;  give  all  necessary  assistance  
 
Cases  
 
The  Island  of  Palmas  (1928)  
 
• Facts  
o Palmas  or  Miangas  is  an  island  of  little  economic  value  or  strategic  location  near  
Mindanao  
o Palmas  is  included  in  the  territory  of  the  Philippines  according  to  Treaty  of  Paris  
(1898)  
 o US  through  Gen.  Leonard  Wood  discovered  that  Netherlands  also  claimed  
sovereignty  over  the  island  
• Rule  of  Law  
o Contiguity  has  no  standing  in  international  law  
o Title  by  discovery  is  inchoate  
o If  another  sovereign  exercises  sovereignty  continuously  and  the  other  state  does  
not  contest  the  claim,  the  claim  by  the  former  is  greater  than  a  title  based  on  
mere  discovery  
• Issue  
o Whether  Palmas  was  part  of  US  or  Netherlands  territory  
o Does  a  territory  belong  to  the  first  discoverer  or  to  the  state  that  actually  
exercises  sovereignty  over  it?  
• Decision  
o Palmas  is  part  of  Netherlands  territory  
o Netherlands  showed  that  the  Dutch  East  India  Company  had  negotiated  treaties  
with  the  local  princes  of  the  island  since  the  17th  century  and  had  exercised  
sovereignty,  including  requirement  of  Protestantism  and  the  denial  of  other  
nationals  on  the  island  
• Body  
o Permanent  Court  of  Arbitration  
 
 
Legal  Status  of  Eastern  Greenland  Case:  Denmark  v.  Norway  (1933)  
 
• Facts  
o First  European  settlement  in  Greenland  was  established  by  Norse  colonists  from  
Iceland  in  1000  
o 1260s  onwards,  the  Norse  colony  in  Greenland  recognized  the  King  of  Norway  as  
its  overlord  
o When  Norway  was  under  Danish  rule,  official  documents  state  that  Greenland  
was  part  of  Norway  
o Norse  population  died  out  around  1500  
o Denmark  sent  a  new  expedition  and  established  a  new  colony  finding  no  Norse  
there  
o 1919  –  Denmark  claimed  the  whole  Greenland  with  Norway’s  acquiescence  
(Ihlen  Declaration  –  verbal  lang  lol)  
o In  1931,  Norway  claimed  Eastern  Greenland  as  part  of  Norway  as  terra  nullius  
since  there  was  nothing  there  other  than  Norwegian  whalers  and  trappers  
o They  agreed  to  settle  dispute  at  the  PCIJ  
• Rule  of  Law  
o Effective  control  is  also  relative  to  the  strength  of  claims  
• Issue  
 o Is  a  country  bound  by  the  reply  given  on  its  behalf  by  its  Minister  of  Foreign  
Affairs?  
o In  the  case  of  two  competing  claims  of  sovereignty  over  the  same  territory,  
which  of  the  two  is  stronger?  
• Decision  
o Yes  
o Up  to  1931,  there  was  no  claim  by  any  power  other  than  Denmark  to  the  
sovereignty  over  Greenland.  Up  till  1921,  no  power  disputed  Danish  claim  to  
sovereignty  
• Body  
o PCIJ  
 
 
CHAPTER  8:  TERRITORY:  LAW  OF  THE  SEA  
 
• Convention  on  the  Law  of  the  Sea  of  1982  (LOS)  
o Sovereignty  over  the  territorial  sea  extends  to  airspace  as  well  as  to  its  bed  and  
subsoil  
• Territorial  Sea  –  up  to  12  nautical  miles  beyond  
o Overlapping  –  median  line  equidistant  from  the  opposite  baselines  
o Baselines:  “normal”  or  “straight”  
§ Baseline  –  “the  low-­‐water  line  along  the  coast  as  marked  on  large  scale  
charts  officially  recognized  by  the  coastal  State”  
§ Normal  –  drawn  following  the  definition  of  baseline;  normally  not  straight  
• Anglo-­‐Norwegian  Fisheries  case:  low-­‐water  mark  or  the  mean  
between  the  two  tides  
§ Straight  –  drawn  connecting  selected  points  on  the  coast  without  
appreciable  departure  from  the  general  shape  of  the  coast  
• The  ratio  of  the  water  to  the  area  of  the  land,  including  atolls,  is  
between  1  to  1  and  9  to  1  
• The  length  of  such  baseline  shall  not  exceed  100  nautical  miles,  
except  that  up  to  3  percent  of  the  total  number  of  baselines  may  
exceed  up  to  125  nautical  miles  
• Shall  not  be  drawn  to  and  from  low-­‐tide  elevations,  unless  
lighthouses  or  similar  installations  which  are  permanently  above  
sea  level  have  been  built  on  them  or  where  a  low-­‐tide  elevation  is  
situated  wholly  or  partially  at  a  distance  not  exceeding  the  
breadth  of  the  territorial  sea  of  another  state  
• Shall  not  apply  in  such  a  way  as  to  cut  off  from  the  high  seas  of  
the  EEZ  the  territorial  sea  of  another  state  
• See  p.122  
o Sovereignty  over  Territorial  Sea  
 § Right  of  innocent  passage  –  applies  to  ships  and  aircraft,  submarines  
must  surface  
§ Innocent  passage  –  not  prejudicial  to  the  peace,  good  order  or  security  of  
the  coastal  state  
• See  p.122  
• Coastal  states  have  the  unilateral  right  to  verify  the  innocent  
character  of  passage  
• Straits  –  in  time  of  peace,  states  have  a  right  to  send  their  
warships  through  straits  used  for  international  navigation  
between  two  parts  of  the  high  seas  without  the  previous  
authorization  of  a  coastal  state  provided  the  passage  is  innocent;  
no  right  for  coastal  state  to  prohibit  such  passage  in  time  of  peace  
• Internal  waters  –  all  waters  (part  of  the  sea,  rivers,  lakes,  etc.)  landwards  from  the  
baseline  of  the  territory  
• Archipelagic  waters  –  internal  waters  which  had  not  previously  been  considered  as  such  
o State  may  designate  sea  lanes  and  air  routes  
• Bays  –  considered  internal  waters  
o See  p.126  
• Contiguous  Zone  –  an  area  not  exceeding  24  nautical  miles  from  the  baseline  
o State  exercises  authority  to  the  extent  necessary  to    
§ prevent  infringement  of  its  customs,  fiscal,  immigration,  or  sanitation  
authority  over  its  territorial  waters  of  territory  
§ punish  such  infringement  
o Still  high  sea  
• Exclusive  economic  zone  or  “patrimonial  sea”  
o Not  more  than  200  nautical  miles  beyond  the  baseline  
o 2  primary  obligations  
§ ensure  the  living  resources  of  the  EEZ  are  not  subjected  to  over-­‐
exploitation  -­‐>  “maximum  sustainable  yield”  
§ promote  the  objective  of  “optimum  utilization”  of  the  living  resources  –  
determine  allowable  catch.  If  it  cannot  catch  the  allowable,  it  must  allow  
other  states  to  fish  
• The  Continental  (Archipelagic)  Shelf  
o The  seabed  and  subsoil  of  the  submarine  areas  adjacent  to  the  coastal  state  but  
outside  the  territorial  sea,  to  a  depth  of  two  hundred  meters  or,  beyond  that  
limit,  to  where  the  depth  allows  exploitation  
o The  seabed  and  subsoil  of  areas  adjacent  to  islands  
o The  coastal  state  alone  has  the  right  to  explore  and  exploit,  erect  installations  
needed,  erect  a  safety  zone  over  its  installations  with  a  radius  of  500  m  
• The  Deep  Seabed:  “Common  Heritage  of  Mankind”  
o May  not  be  appropriated  (Articles  135  to  153  of  the  1982  Convention)  
• Islands    
o Above  water  at  high  tide  
 o Has  EEZ  
o Rocks  not  qualified,  must  be  able  to  support  economic  life  
• The  High  Seas  –  “all  parts  of  the  sea  that  are  not  included  in  the  territorial  sea  or  in  the  
internal  waters  of  a  State”  
o Six  freedoms  
§ Navigation  
§ Overflight  
§ Fishing  
§ Lay  submarine  cables  and  pipelines  
§ Construct  artificial  islands  and  structures  
§ Scientific  research  
o Flag  state  has  jurisdiction  over  vessels  in  high  seas  
o Hot  pursuit  –  must  commence  within  internal  waters,  be  continuous,  stop  when  
they  entered  different  territory  
§ Mutatis  mutandis  –  the  right  of  hot  pursuit  
• Also  applies  to  violations  of  applicable  laws  and  regulations  of  the  
coastal  state  in  the  exclusive  economic  zone  or  the  continental  
self  including  safety  zones  
§ May  be  carried  out  only  by  vessels  marked  for  such  purpose  
• Settlement  of  disputes  
o Peaceful  means  are  compulsory  
o Tribunals  
§ International  Tribunal  for  the  Law  of  the  Sea  
§ ICJ  
§ An  arbitral  tribunal  constituted  under  the  Convention  
o Bilateral  agreements  allowed  
 
CHATPER  9:  JURISDICTION  OF  STATES  
 
• Jurisdiction  –  authority  to  affect  legal  interests  
• Five  Principles  
o Generally  accepted  
§ Territoriality  
§ Nationality  
§ Protective  
o Sketchy  
§ Universality  
§ Passive  Personality  
• Territoriality  –  a  state  has  absolute,  but  not  necessarily  exclusive  jurisdiction  within  
its  territory  
o Water  boundary  
§ Thalweg  doctrine  –  if  the  water  between  two  countries  is  navigable,  
the  middle  of  the  navigable  part  is  the  boundary  
 § If  non-­‐navigable,  the  middle  is  the  boundary  
o Effects  Doctrine  –  a  country  has  jurisdiction  to  acts  occurring  outside  its  
territory  but  has  effects  within  it  
§ Subjective  –  crime  commenced  within  the  state  but  completed  or  
consummated  abroad  
§ Objective  –  commenced  without  the  state  but  consummated  within  
its  territory  
o Jurisdiction  over  foreign  vessels  
§ English  –  norm  today  
§ French  
• Nationality  –  every  state  has  jurisdiction  over  its  nationals  everywhere  
o Effective  nationality  link  
§ Preference  to  the  REAL  and  EFFECTIVE  nationality  
• Habitual  residence  of  the  individual  
• Center  of  interests  
• Family  ties  
• Participation  in  public  life  
• Attachment  shown  by  him  for  a  country  and  inculcated  in  his  
children  
§ Must  correspond  with  factual  situation  
o Law  enacted  by  a  State  for  the  purpose  of  determining  who  are  its  nationals  
“shall  be  recognized  by  other  Sates  in  so  far  as  it  is  consistent  with  
international  custom  and  the  principles  of  law  generally  recognized  with  
regard  to  nationality”  
o A  legal  bond  having  as  its  basis  a  social  fact  of  attachment,  a  genuine  
connection  of  existence,  interests  and  sentiments,  together  with  the  
existence  of  reciprocal  rights  and  duties  
o Corporations  –  principal  place  of  business  or  registered  office  
§ Owned  or  controlled  by  nationals  
o Maritime  vessels  –  state  flag  
§ Flags  of  convenience  may  be  challenged  
o Stateless  persons  
§ De  jure  
§ De  facto  
• Protective  –  conduct  outside  its  territory  that  threatens  its  security,  as  long  as  that  
conduct  is  generally  recognized  as  criminal  by  states  in  the  international  community  
• Universality  –  activities  that  are  universally  dangerous  to  states  and  their  subjects,  
require  authority  in  all  community  members  to  punish  such  acts  wherever  they  may  
occur,  even  absent  a  link  between  the  state  and  the  parties  or  the  acts  in  question  
o See  p.157  
• Passive  Personality  –  act  committed  outside  its  territory  by  a  person  not  its  national  
where  the  victim  of  the  act  was  its  national  
o Increasingly  accepted  as  applied  to  terrorist  and  other  organized  attacks  
 o United  States  V.  Fawaz  Yuniz  
• Conflicts  of  Jurisdiction  
o The  Balancing  Test  –  compare/balance  interests  with  other  states  
§ Yes  to  all  questions  for  jurisdiction  
• Was  there  an  actual  or  intended  effect  on  American  foreign  
commerce?  
• Is  the  effect  sufficiently  large  to  present  a  cognizable  injury  to  
the  plaintiffs  and,  therefore,  a  civil  violation  of  the  anti-­‐trust  
laws?  
• Are  the  interests  of,  and  link  to,  the  United  States,  including  
effects  on  American  foreign  commerce  sufficiently  strong  
compared  to  other  nations?  
o International  Comity  –  Even  when  a  state  has  basis  for  exercising  jurisdiction,  
it  will  refrain  from  doing  so  if  its  exercise  will  be  unreasonable  
§ Link  of  the  activity  to  territory  
§ Connection  –  nationality,  residence,  economic  activity  of  the  person  
to  be  regulated  
§ Character  of  the  activity  
§ Existence  of  justified  expectations  that  might  be  protected  or  injured  
by  the  regulation  
§ Likelihood  of  conflict  with  regulation  by  another  state  
o Forum  non  conveniens  –  practical  side  of  the  trial  
§ Convenience  of  trial  or  locus  contractus  
§ Residence  or  domicile  of  parties  or  locus  solutionis  
§ Private  interests  –  mostly  money  and  logistics  
§ Public  interests  –  congestion,  desire  to  settle  local  controversies  at  
home  
• Extradition  –  created  by  treaty  
o A  state  may  surrender  a  fugitive  even  if  they  do  not  have  extradition  treaties  
if  surrendering  him  is  not  contrary  to  the  state’s  constitution  
 
Cases  
 
Nationality  Principle  
 
Blackmer  v.  United  States  (1932)  
 
• Facts  
o Blackmer  is  a  US  citizen  who  resided  in  France  
o He  was  served  subpoenas  to  appear  as  a  witness  regarding  the  trial  related  to  
the  Teapot  Dome  Scandal  as  well  as  pamasahe  
o When  he  failed  to  respond  to  the  subpoenas,  he  was  found  guilty  and  fined    
• Rule  of  Law  
 o There  must  be  due  process  for  the  exercise  of  judicial  jurisdiction  in  personam  
o State  has  jurisdiction  to  its  nationals  
• Decision  
o Guilty.  He  should  have  fulfilled  his  jury  duty  as  citizen.  
• Body  
o Supreme  Court  of  the  US  
 
Re  Immigration  Act  and  Hanna:  Canada  Supreme  Court  of  British  Columbia  (1957)  
 
• Facts  
o A  stateless  man  called  Hanna  wanted  to  get  off  a  stateless  ship  into  Canada  
o Canada  wanted  to  deport  him  
o He  was  effectively  prisoner  of  the  ship  
o Court  decided  he  cannot  be  kept  in  the  ship  
• Rule  of  Law  
o Rules  on  stateless  persons  –  they  have  human  rights  
 
 
Territoriality  Principle  
 
Trails  Smelter  Arbitration  –  Convention  for  the  Settlement  of  Difficulties  Arising  from  Operation  
of  Smelter  at  Trail  BC  (Ottawa  1935)  
 
• Facts  
o In  Trail,  British  Columbia  
o Pollution  problem  prompted  Canadians  to  increase  height  of  smoke  stacks  
o Higher  smoke  stacks  led  to  pollution  going  to  Washington,  US  
• Rule  of  Law  
o The  duty  to  protect  other  states  against  harmful  acts  by  individuals  from  within  
its  jurisdiction  at  all  times  is  the  responsibility  of  the  state  
• Decision  
o Canada  (D)  is  responsible  in  international  law  for  the  conduct  of  Trail  Smelter  
Company  
o Damages  must  be  paid  
o Trail  Smelter  must  stop  polluting  
 
 
Universality  Principle  
 
Attorney-­‐General  of  Israel  v.  Eichmann  (1961)  
 
• Facts  
 o Adolf  Eichmnann  was  a  high  ranking  SS  officer  who  played  a  central  role  in  the  
planning  and  implementation  of  the  persecution  of  Jews  in  Germany,  Poland,  
Hungary,  and  other  countries  during  WW2.  
o Escaped  to  Argentina  
o Kidnapped  by  Israeli  agents  and  brought  to  Israel  for  trial  
o Argentina  complained  violation  of  sovereignty  
o Security  Council  agreed  with  Argentina  and  asked  Israel  to  pay  damages  
o Argentina  and  Israel  just  agreed  that  the  issue  is  closed  
o Eichmann  was  tried  under  the  Nazi  Collaborators  Law  and  was  punished  by  
death  
• Rule  of  Law  
o International  law  needs  the  judicial  and  legislative  organs  of  every  country  to  
give  effect  to  its  criminal  interdictions  and  to  bring  the  criminals  to  trial  
o The  jurisdiction  to  try  crimes  under  international  law  is  universal  
• Issue  
o Was  the  kidnapping  legal,  did  it  violate  territorial  sovereignty  
o Should  he  be  held  accountable  for  his  acts  which  were  performed  in  official  
function  (Act  of  State)  
o Retroactive  effect  of  law?  
• Decision  
o Yes  (Rule  of  Law)  
o Yes,  such  responsibility  does  not  detract  one  iota  from  the  personal  
responsibility  of  the  accused  for  his  acts  
o No  rule  of  general  customary  international  law  on  retroactivity  
• Body  
 
 
Eichmann  v.  Attorney-­‐General  of  Israel  (1962)  
 
• Facts  
• Rule  of  Law  
o In  the  absence  of  supreme  legislative  authority  and  international  codes,  the  
process  of  its  evolution  resembles  that  of  the  common  law  
o Crimes  recognized  by  customary  international  law  are  those  which  damage  vital  
international  interests,  impair  the  foundations  and  security  of  the  international  
community;  violate  universal  moral  values  and  humanitarian  principles  which  
are  at  the  root  of  the  systems  of  criminal  law  adopted  by  civilized  nations  
o Example:  piracy  jure  gentium  
o They  involve  the  perpetration  of  an  intentional  crime  in  the  avoidance  of  which  
all  the  nations  of  the  world  are  interested  
o Power  is  vested  in  every  State  regardless  of  the  fact  that  the  offence  was  
committed  outside  its  territory  by  a  person  who  did  not  belong  to  it,  provided  
he  is  in  its  custody  at  the  time  he  is  brought  to  trial  
Passive  Personality  Principle  
 
United  States  v.  Fawaz  YUNIS  (1988)  
 
• Facts  
o Fawaz  Yunis  and  four  other  men  hijacked  a  Jordanian  Airlines  flight  in  Beirut,  
Lebanon  with  two  US  citizens  on  board.  
o They  wanted  to  go  to  Tunis  where  a  conference  of  the  Arab  League  was  
underway.  
o After  a  lengthy  trip,  they  arrived  back  at  Beirut,  held  a  press  conference,  then  
blew  up  the  plane  
o “Operation  Goldenrod”  by  the  US  aimed  at  arresting  Yunis  was  executed  
o He  was  brought  to  Washington,  DC  to  be  tried  
o He  was  charged  with  conspiracy,  aircraft  piracy,  and  hostage  taking  
• Rule  of  Law  
o Universality  Principle  
o Protective  Principle  
• Issue  
o Did  US  have  jurisdiction?  
o Was  the  kidnapping  illegal?  
• Decision  
o Yes.  
o No.  Universality.  
• Body  
o US  District  Court,  DC  
 
Extradition  
 
United  States  v.  Alvarez-­‐Machain  (1992)  
 
• Facts  
o Humberto  Alvarez  Machain,  a  Mexican  physician,  was  allegedly  involved  in  the  
1985  kidnapping,  torture,  and  murder  of  DEA  agent  Enrique  Camarena  Salazar  
by  prolonging  his  life  for  torture  and  interrogation  
o On  April  2,  1990,  he  was  kidnapped  from  his  medical  office  in  Guadalajara,  
Mexico,  to  be  flown  by  private  plane  to  El  Paso,  Texas  where  he  was  arrested  by  
DEA  officials  
o DC  court  concluded  that  DEA  agents  were  responsible  for  his  kidnapping  but  
were  not  personally  involved  with  it  
o Claimed  violation  of  extradition  treaty  with  Mexico  
• Rule  of  Law  
 o Forcible  abduction  is  no  sufficient  reason  why  the  party  should  not  answer  
when  brought  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court  which  has  the  right  to  try  him  
for  such  an  offence  
o The  treaty  does  not  say  anything  about  forcible  abductions  
• Decision  
o Kidnapping  is  okay  to  bring  people  to  court,  Universality  
• Body  
o SCOTUS  
 
 
Mark  Jimenez  v.  Judge  Puruganan  (2002)  
 
• Facts  
o Illegal  contribution  to  Democrats  
o Money  laundering  
o DOJ  received  the  US  request  for  extradition  from  DFA  
• Issue  
o Should  he  be  given  notice  before  being  issued  extradition  trial?  
• Decision  
o No.  That  will  defeat  the  purpose  of  extradition.  It’s  like  a  notice  to  flee.    Besides,  
there  will  still  be  fair  trial.  
 
CHAPTER  10:  IMMUNITY  FROM  JURISDICTION  
 
• Immunity  from  jurisdiction  
o Sovereign  immunity  
o Immunity  of  the  representative  of  states  or  diplomatic  and  consular  immunities  
• Immunity  of  head  of  state  
o Only  for  a  sitting  head  of  state  
• State  immunity  
o The  Schooner  Exchange  v.  McFaddon  
o Absolute  immunity  of  states  
o Development  
§ Jure  imperii  (governmental  acts)  
§ Jure  gestionis  (trading  and  commercial  acts)  
• Diplomatic  and  consular  immunities  –  functional;  based  on  customary  law  
• Diplomatic  immunities  –  Vienna  Convention  on  Diplomatic  Relations  
o See  p.204  
o Functions  of  the  diplomatic  mission  
§ Representing  the  State  
§ Protecting  interests  of  sending  state  and  nationals  
§ Negotiating  with  Government  of  receiving  state  
 § Ascertaining  by  all  lawful  means  conditions  and  developments  in  the  
receiving  state  and  reporting  them  to  sending  state  
§ Promoting  friendly  relations  
o Purely  mutual  consent  
• Consuls  and  consular  immunities  
o Not  concerned  with  political  matters  
o Vienna  Convention  on  Consular  Relations  
o Issuing  passports  and  visas  
o See  p.211  
• The  Act  of  State  Doctrine  –  courts  of  one  country  will  not  sit  in  judgment  on  the  acts  of  
the  government  of  another,  done  within  its  own  territory  
o Alfred  Dunhill  –  limited  the  scope  of  Act  of  State  Doctrine  
§ Should  not  be  extended  to  include  the  repudiation  of  a  purely  
commercial  obligation  owed  by  a  foreign  sovereign  or  by  one  of  its  
commercial  instrumentalities.  
 
Cases  
 
Sovereign  Immunity  of  States  
 
The  Schooner  Exchange  v.  McFaddon  
 
• Facts  
o The  ship  was  originally  civilian  owned  by  McFaddon  but  was  seized  by  Napoleon  
near  Spain  and  transformed  into  a  warship  Balou  
o It  had  to  dock  in  Philadelphia  US  because  of  storm  damages  
o The  owner  recognized  it  was  his  ship  
• Rule  of  Law  
o Doctrine  of  foreign  state  immunity  
• Issue  
o Does  the  US  court  have  jurisdiction?  
• Decision  
o Court  did  not  exercise  jurisdiction  because  the  vessel  belonged  to  a  different  
state,  therefore  immune,  appealed,  then  appealed  again  (Supreme  Court)  
• Body  
o SCOTUS  
 
Dralle  v.  Republic  of  Czechoslovakia  (1950)  
 
• Acta  gestionis  
• Dralle,  a  German  company,  filed  suit  in  Austria  against  Czechoslovakia  over  trademarks  
that  belonged  to  a  nationalized  Czech  subsidiary  of  the  German  company  
 • State  immunity  cannot  be  applied  because  the  case  was  concerned  with  commercial  
activities  
 
 
United  States  of  America  v.  Hon.  VM  Ruiz  (1985)  
 
• Facts  
o US  bases  in  Subic  
o Eligio  de  Guzman  &  Co.,  Inc  submitted  bids  for  repair  of  typhoon  damages  
o Nalaman  ng  US  na  incompetent  yung  company  so  they  want  injunction  
o The  company  sued  
• Rule  of  Law  
o Contract  was  necessary  in  the  performance  of  treaty  as  states,  therefore  does  
not  quality  under  jure  gestionis  
 
 
Holy  See  v.  The  Hon.  Eriberto  U.  Rosario,  Jr.  (1994)  
 
• Church  received  donation  of  land  for  Nuncio’s  house  
• Decided  to  just  sell  the  lot  through  an  agent  to  Ramon  Licup  who  assigned  his  rights  to  
respondents  Starbright  Sales  Enterprises  
• Squatters  do  not  want  to  leave  so  Church  and  Starbright  dispute  who  should  make  them  
leave  
• Church  said  Starbright  should  do  it  or  else  they’ll  just  return  earnest  money,  which  they  
did  
• Church  sold  land  to  Tropicana  Properties  instead  
• Starbright  sued  Church  for  annulment  of  sale  
• DECISION:  Church  is  immune  because  the  land  was  for  official  purpose  originally  
 
United  States  of  America  v.  Hon  Luis  R.  Reyes  (1994)  
 
• Nelia  Montoya,  respondent,  US  citizen,  employed  as  ID  checker  at  the  US  Navy  
Exchange  at  JUSMAG  in  QC  
• Bradford,  US  citizen,  is  the  activity  exchange  manager  in  the  JUSMAG  HQ  
• Respondent’s  body  and  belongings  were  searched  by  Yong  Kennedy,  also  an  ID  checker  
upon  the  instruction  of  the  store  manager,  Ms.  Bradford,  while  she  was  already  at  the  
parking  area  in  the  presence  of  the  defendant  and  numerous  curious  onlookers  
• She  is  not  covered  by  state  immunity  because  it  happened  in  the  parking  lot,  and  it  was  
outside  her  function  
• Case  was  about  discrimination  
 
Immunity  of  International  Organizations  
 
Department  of  Foreign  Affairs  v.  National  Labor  Relations  Commission  (1996)  
 
• Magnayi  filed  illegal  dismissal  case  against  ADB  
• ADB  enjoys  immunity  in  everything  except  in  specified  cases  of  borrowing  and  
guarantee  operations,  as  well  as  the  purchases,  sale  and  underwriting  of  securities  
• Bank’s  officers  enjoy  immunity  in  the  exercise  of  their  functions  
• ADB  did  not  lose  immunity  because  the  act  was  not  jure  gestionis  
• DFA  must  relay  cases  against  immune  personalities  
 
 
Kapisanan  ng  Manggagawa  at  TACSA  v.  Secretary  of  Labor  and  Employment  and  International  
Rice  Research  Institute,  Inc.  
 
• Kapisanan  filed  a  Petition  for  Direct  Certification  Election  with  DOLE  
• IRRI  opposed  the  petition  citing  immunity  from  all  civil,  criminal  and  administrative  
proceedings  under  PH  laws  
• Immunity  was  upheld  
• BLR  reversed  the  decision,  allowed  the  election  
• Appeared  to  Secretary  of  Labor:  Immunity  UPHELD  
• Because  of  INTERNATIONAL  NATURE  of  IRRI  
• Different  solution  to  problem  was  used:  better  management-­‐employee  relationship  
 
Lasco  et.  Al  v.  United  Nations  Revolving  Fund  for  Natural  Resources  Exploration  (UNRFNRE)  
(1995)  
 
• Petitioners  were  fired  from  UNRFNRE,  a  joint  PH-­‐UN  project  exploration  project  in  
Dinagat  Islands  for  minerals  
• Filing  case  for:  illegal  dismissal  and  damages  
• Decision:  UN  has  immunity,  other  modes  of  settlement  must  be  pursued    
 
Act  of  State  Doctrine  
 
Underhill  v.  Hernandez  (1987)  
 
• George  Underhill  was  a  US  citizen  who  constructed  the  waterworks  system  for  the  city  
of  Bolivar  
• Underhill  applied  for  passport  to  leave  the  city  but  was  denied  because  he  was  being  
blackmailed  to  operate  his  waterworks  for  the  benefit  of  the  community  and  
revolutionary  forces  until  he  was  allowed  to  leave  
• Sued  to  recover  damages  caused  by  refusal  to  grant  passport  
• Tried  in  New  York  court  
• Decision:  act  of  state  doctrine,  no  jurisdiction  
 
Banco  Nacional  de  Cuba  v.  Sabbatino  (1964)  
 
• Farr  was  supposed  to  buy  sugar  from  CAV  but  the  industry  was  nationalized  
• He  bought  it  directly  from  Cuban  government  instead  
• Upon  receiving  the  sugar,  he  did  not  pay  directly  to  the  government,  but  to  Sabbatino,  
CAV’s  representative  
• Applying  the  Act  of  State  Doctrine,  SCOTUS  decided  it  will  not  exercise  jurisdiction  even  
if  the  seizing  of  the  property  by  another  state  was  committed  within  its  territory  
• Banco  Nacional  filed  a  lawsuit  in  the  US  on  behalf  of  the  Cuban  government  against  
Sabbatino  to  recover  the  money  
• Act  of  State  doctrine  upheld,  which  upheld  the  legality  of  expropriation  by  the  Cuban  
government  even  if  it  was  a  violation  of  international  law  
• The  state  can  sue,  but  cannot  be  sued  
 
Alfred  Dunhill  of  London,  Inc.  v.  Cuba  (1976)  
 
• Cuba  nationalized  the  cigar  industry  and  seized  assets  
• Companies  thought  they  had  to  pay  the  Cuban  government  for  it  
• Companies  want  to  get  back  the  money  they  mistakenly  paid  to  the  government  which  
they  government  does  not  want  to  return  
• SCOTUS  found  the  act  of  not  returning  the  money  does  not  constitute  Act  of  State,  
because  it  is  not  acting  as  a  state,  only  as  a  business  entity  that  does  not  want  to  return  
other  businesses’  money  
• The  burden  of  proving  what  they  did  was  Act  of  State  was  on  the  Cuban  government  
 
Kirkpatrick  Co.  v.  Environmental  Tectonics  Corp.  (1990)  
 
• Kirkpatrick  won  a  bid  con  a  contract  by  bribing  Nigerian  government  officials  
• Tectonics  lost  the  bid  as  a  result  
• Act  of  State  doctrine  applies,  according  to  lower  court  
• For  Tectonics  to  win,  they  must  prove  that  Nigerian  government  officials  accepted  
bribes  and  that  that  was  the  reason  for  Kirkpatrick  winning  the  bid  
• SCOTUS  says  Act  of  State  Doctrine  does  not  apply.    It  only  applies  when  the  case  turns  
on  whether  the  court  gives  legal  effect  to  the  act  of  a  foreign  state  in  its  own  territory  
• Whether  the  bribe  took  place  and  influenced  the  outcome  of  the  bidding  or  not  does  
not  require  the  court  to  decide  whether  what  the  Nigerian  government  did  was  an  act  
of  state.