Public International Law Digests PDF

Preview

Summary

The Paquete Habana Case (175 U. 677 [1900]) (January 8, 1900) FACTS:Two Spanish vessels were fishing off the coast of Cuba and were captured by blocking squadrons. At that time, the owners of the said fishing vessels had no knowledge regarding the war between the United States and Spain. The said ve...

Description

1.

The Paquete Habana Case (175 U.S. 677 [1900]) (January 8, 1900)

FACTS: Two Spanish vessels were fishing off the coast of Cuba and were captured by blocking squadrons. At that time, the owners of the said fishing vessels had no knowledge regarding the war between the United States and Spain. The said vessels also had no arms or ammunition and did not attempt to resist the capture. “A libel for the condemnation of each vessel and her cargo as prize of war was there filed”. “Each vessel was thereupon sold by auction”. Hence, there are two appeals from the owners of the vessels on the ground that fishing vessels are exempt from capture as prizes of war under international law. ISSUE: Whether “the fishing smacks were subject to capture by the armed vessels of the United States during the recent war with Spain.” RULING: No. “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 in fresh fish have been recognized as exempt, with their cargoes and crews, from capture as prize of war.” If there is no treaty, controlling executive or legislative act, or judicial decision, the customs and usages of civilized nations evidenced by the works of jurists and commentators can be the primary source of international law.

2.

The Chorzow Factory Case (Germany vs. Poland, P.C.I.J. Ser. A, No. 9 [1927])

FACTS: This is a case about violation of international agreement known as “The Chorzow Factory Case”. The question before the court was whether Poland can be made liable for such violation of an international agreement. After the First World War due to a bipartite agreement between Germany and Poland, Germany agreed to transfer the control of the Upper Silesia area to Poland. There was an agreement that Poland would not forfeit any property of Germany; However, Poland in breach of the agreement, sold two German factories located in that area. ISSUES: 1.

Whether the court has its jurisdiction over the matter or not?

2.

Whether there was any violation of the agreement between Germany and Poland or not?

3. Whether there was any international obligation on Poland due to the breach of the bipartite agreement between Germany and Poland? DECISIONS: 1. The Permanent Court of International Justice has its jurisdiction to try the case. The expropriation without compensation was contrary to Head III of the Geneva Convention; and that the application of the law of July 14th, 1920, was contrary to Article 6 and subsequent articles of the Geneva Convention, and the Court had express and definite jurisdiction of the subject matter by Article 23 of that Convention. - The PCIJ held that contrary to the claim made by Poland, the PCIJ’s jurisdiction under Article 23 of the Geneva Convention was not affected by the fact that the rights claimed were the rights claimed were based on other provisions of other treaties as well as Article 6 to 22 of the Geneva Convention. It further went on to hold that the suits pending before the German-Polish Arbitral Tribunal did not prevent the Court from exercising jurisdiction under Article 23 and the case was decided on merits. 2. Poland had violated the international agreement between Germany and Poland. 3. Poland would be liable to repair any loss suffered by Germany due to the forfeit of that two company as they violated that international agreement. - Poland was held to be in violation of the agreement entered with Germany and made liable to repair any loss suffered by Germany due to the forfeiture of the two companies as they violated the obligation that Poland had towards Germany in observance of International law.

It is a general principle of International law that every violation of an engagement involves an obligation to make reparation, adopted form municipal law, which is applied in this case, along with the principle of state responsibility, as a state is considered an individual entity when it comes to an international dispute and it was accepted by all, repetition of which confirms that the decision is conform to existing law. “The essential principle contained in the actual notion of an illegal act-a principle which seems to be established by international practice and in particular by the decisions of arbitral tribunals-is that reparation must, as far as possible, wipe out all the consequences of the illegal act and re-establish the situation which would, in all probability, have existed if that act had not been committed. Restitution in kind, or, if this is not possible, payment of a sum corresponding to the value which restitution in kind would bear; the award, if need be, of damages for loss sustained which would not be covered by restitution in kind or payment in place of it-such are the principles which should serve to determine the amount of compensation due for an act contrary to international law.”

3.

Secretary of Justice vs. Lantion, January 18, 2000 Secretary of Justice vs. Lantion G.R. No. 139465 | January 18, 2000

FACTS: Petitioner has signed in Manila the “Extradition Treaty between the Government of the Philippines and the Government of the U.S.A.”. The Philippine Senate ratified the said Treaty. Thereafter, the Philippine Department of Justice received from the Department of Foreign Affairs of the U.S. a Verbal Note containing a request for the extradition of Mark Jimenez to the United States. On the same day, petitioner designated and authorized a panel of attorneys to take charge of and to handle the case. Pending evaluation of the extradition documents, Mark Jimenez, through counsel, wrote a letter to Justice Secretary requesting copies of the official extradition request from the U.S Government and that he be given ample time to comment on the request after he shall have received copies of the requested papers, but the petitioner denied the request for the consistency of Article 7 of the RP-US Extradition Treaty. This provides that the Philippine Government must present the interests of the United States in any proceedings arising out of a request for extradition.

ISSUE:

WON PH must uphold a citizen’s basic due process rights or its ironclad duties under a treaty

HELD: Basic due process / human rights over treaty rights The human rights of a person, whether citizen or alien, and the rights of the accused guaranteed in our Constitution should take precedence over treaty rights claimed by a contracting state. The duties of the government to the individual deserve preferential consideration when they collide with its treaty obligations to the government of another state. This is so although we recognize treaties as a source of binding obligations under generally accepted principles of international law incorporated in our Constitution as part of the law of the land. The doctrine of incorporation is applied whenever municipal tribunals are confronted with a situation in which there appears to be a conflict between a rule of international law and the provision of the constitution or statute of the local state. Under this doctrine, rules of international law form part of the law of the land and no further legislative action are needed to make such rules applicable in the domestic sphere. It is also applied whenever municipal tribunals are confronted with situations in which there appears to be a conflict between a rule of international law and the provisions of the constitution or statute of the local state. In a situation, however, where the conflict is irreconcilable and a choice has to be made between a rule of international law and a municipal law, jurisprudence dictates that municipal law should be upheld by the municipal courts, for the reason that such courts are organs of municipal law and are accordingly bound by it in all circumstances.

4.

Tanada vs. Angara, May 2, 1997, G.R. No. 118295

Tanada vs. Angara (1997) G.R. No. 118295 | 1997-05-02 Facts: Secretary Navarro of the Department of Trade and Industry, representing the Philippines, signed the Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Negotiations. As a result, the Philippines agreed to submit the World Trade organization (WTO) Agreement for approval with the authorities of the country and adoption of the same. The President of the Philippines certified the necessity of the immediate adoption a resolution for the ratification of the WTO. On December 14, 1994, the Philippine Senate adopted Resolution No. 97, thereby concurring in the ratification by the President of the WTO Agreement.

Petitioners filed this petition, questioning the constitutionality of the ratification by the Senate. Petitioners allege that the WTO Agreement contravenes the mandate of the 1987 Constitution, specifically Art, 11 Sec 19, and Art 12, sec 10. They contended that the agreement places nationals and products of member countries on the same footing as Filipinos and local products in contravention of the “Filipino First” Policy. Issues: Whether or not the WTO agreement violates the “Filipino First” policy in the constitution Held: While the Constitution indeed mandates a bias in favor of Filipino goods, services, labor and enterprises, at the same time, it recognizes the need for business exchange with the rest of the world on the bases of equality and reciprocity and limits protection of Filipino enterprises only against foreign competition and trade practices that are unfair—the Constitution did not intend to pursue an isolationist policy. There is hardly any basis for the statement that under the WTO, local industries and enterprises will all be wiped out and that Filipinos will be deprived of control of the economy, for, quite to the contrary, the weaker situations of developing nations like the Philippines have been considered. The WTO reliance on “most favored nation,” “national treatment,” and “trade without discrimination” cannot be struck down as unconstitutional as in fact they are rules of equality and reciprocity that apply to all WTO members. The fundamental law encourages industries that are “competitive in both domestic and foreign markets,” thereby demonstrating a clear policy against a sheltered domestic trade environment, but one in favor of the gradual development of robust industries that can compete with the best in the foreign markets. It is a legitimate exercise of the sovereign duty and power of the Senate that, after deliberation and voting, it voluntarily and overwhelmingly gave its consent to the WTO Agreement thereby making it “a part of the law of the land” is a legitimate exercise of its sovereign duty and power. What the Senate did was a valid exercise of its authority. As to whether such exercise was wise, beneficial or viable is outside the realm of judicial inquiry and review. That is a matter between the elected policy makers and the people. As to whether the nation should join the worldwide march toward trade liberalization and economic globalization is a matter that our people should determine in electing their policy makers. 5. Facts:

Ang Ladlad vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 190582, April 8, 2010

Ang Ladlad LGBT Party is an organization composed of men and women who identify themselves as lesbians, gays, bisexuals, or trans-gendered individuals (LGBTs). Ang Ladlad first applied for registration with the COMELEC in 2006. The application for accreditation was denied on the ground that the organization had no substantial membership base. In 2009, Ang Ladlad again filed a petition for registration with the COMELEC. However, the COMELEC (Second Division) dismissed the petition on moral grounds, and held that “the definition of the LGBT sector makes it crystal clear that petitioner tolerates immorality which offends religious beliefs.' When Ang Ladlad sought reconsideration, the COMELEC Chairman, breaking the tie and speaking for the majority, upheld the denial of Ang Ladlad's petition for accreditation as a sectoral party in the party-list system. Ang Ladlad filed this Petition, praying that the Court annul the Assailed Resolutions and direct the COMELEC to grant Ang Ladlad's application for accreditation. Ang Ladlad argues that the assailed Resolutions contravened its constitutional rights to privacy, freedom of speech and assembly, and equal protection of laws, as well as constituted violations of the Philippines' international obligations against discrimination based on sexual orientation. Issue: W/N Ang Ladlad is qualified to register as a party-list organization Ruling: YES. European and United Nations judicial decisions have ruled in favor of gay rights claimants on both privacy and equality grounds, citing general privacy and equal protection provisions in foreign and international texts. These foreign authorities, while not formally binding on Philippine courts, may nevertheless have persuasive influence on the Court’s analysis. Principle of Non- Discrimination under International Law Our Decision today is fully in accord with our international obligations to protect and promote human rights. In particular, we explicitly recognize the principle of non-discrimination as it relates to the right to electoral participation, enunciated in the UDHR and the ICCPR. The principle of non-discrimination is laid out in Article 26 of the ICCPR. In this context, the principle of non-discrimination requires that laws of general application relating to elections be applied equally to all persons, regardless of sexual orientation. Although sexual orientation is not specifically enumerated as a status or ratio for discrimination in Article

26 of the ICCPR, the ICCPR Human Rights Committee has opined that the reference to "sex" in Article 26 should be construed to include "sexual orientation." Additionally, a variety of United Nations bodies have declared discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation to be prohibited under various international agreements. The UDHR provides: Article 21. (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. Yogarta Principles not recognized as obligatory norms Petitioners invoke the Yogyakarta Principles (the Application of International Human Rights Law In Relation to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity) which it declares to reflect binding principles of international law. We are not prepared to declare that these Yogyakarta Principles contain norms that are obligatory on the Philippines. There are declarations and obligations outlined in said Principles which are not reflective of the current state of international law, and do not find basis in any of the sources of international law enumerated under Article 38(1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. 6. The Nuclear Test Case (New Zealand vs. France), I.C.J. Reports 1974, December 20, 1974 FACTS: On 9 May 1973, Australia and New Zealand each instituted proceedings against France concerning tests of nuclear weapons. The aforementioned governments asked the International Court of Justice to declare that the conduct by the French Government constitutes a violation of New Zealand and Australia’s rights under international law, and that these rights will be violated by any such further tests. France stated that it considered the Court manifestly to lack jurisdiction and refrained from appearing at the public hearings or filing any pleadings. During the jurisdictional deliberation by the ICJ, France declared its intention to stop atmospheric nuclear testing under normal conditions and to shift its operation underground.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the unilateral declaration of France to stop the nuclear testing may be a source of an erga omnes obligation to stop nuclear testing. Erga omnes (obligations owed by states towards the community of states as a whole. An erga omnes obligation exists because of the universal and undeniable interest in the perpetuation of critical rights)

RULING: YES. Declaration made through unilateral acts may have the effect of creating legal obligations. In this case, the statement made by the President of France must be held to constitute an engagement of the State in regard to the circumstances and intention with which they were made. Therefore, this statement made by the French Government, which is conveyed to the world at large including the Applicant, is relevant and legally binding. The validity of these statements and their legal consequences must be considered within the general framework of the security of international intercourse, and the confidence and trust, which are so essential in the relations among States. The objects of these statements are clear and they were addressed to the international community as a whole, and the Court holds that they constitute an undertaking possessing legal effect.

7.

Finland vs. Denmark (1993) I.C.J. Reports

FINLAND V. DENMARK FACTS: On 17 May 1991, the Republic of Finland filed in the Registry of the Court an Application instituting proceedings against the Kingdom of Denmark in respect of a dispute concerning the question of passage of oil rigs through the Great Belt (Storebaelt - one of the three straits linking the Baltic to the Kattegat and thence to the North Sea). Finland cited as bases for the Court’s jurisdiction the declarations made by both States under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute. In its Application, Finland contended that there was no foundation in international law for the unilateral exclusion by Denmark, through the projected construction of a "high-level bridge ... 65 metres above mean sea level", of the passage between the Baltic and the North Sea by vessels such as drill ships and oil rigs or other existing or reasonably foreseeable ships with a height of 65 metres or above to and from Finnish shipyards and ports. Such exclusion allegedly violated Finland’s rights in respect of free passage through the Great Belt as established by the relevant conventions and customary international law. Finland recognized that Denmark was fully

entitled, as the territorial sovereign, to take measures to improve its internal and international traffic connections, but contended that Denmark’s entitlement to take such measures was necessarily limited by the established rights and interests of all States, and of Finland in particular, in the maintenance of the legal regime of free passage through the Danish straits. In Finland’s view, those rights had been ignored by Denmark’s refusal to enter into negotiations with Finland in order to find a solution and by its insistence that the planned bridge project be completed without modification. ISSUE: Whether or not Denmark has an obligation to allow free passage of ships

RULING: Under the 1858 Copenhagen Treaty on the Redemption of Sound Dues, ships of all nationalities are granted free passage through the Great Belt and are to be unhindered in their travel through the Great Belt. This treaty was established due to Denmark’s requirement that all ships that passed through the Great Belt were to pay a duty on the value of the cargo to the King of Denmark. In 1949, this Court ruled on the case United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. People's Republic of Albania, or as it is more commonly known Corfu Channel. This case is the first case that the Court has ruled on in terms of the right of passage. As the Court wrote, “Having regard to these various considerations, the Court has arrived at the conclusion that the North Corfu Channel should be considered as belonging to the class of international highways through which passage cannot be prohibited by a coastal State in time of peace.” Based on this ruling, Denmark cannot inhibit upon the passage of warships or any other types of vessels through an international waterway during a time of peace. Both the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Denmark ratified the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone. Article 16 §4 states “There shall be no suspension of the innocen...