PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

A. Concepts

Par in parem non habet imperium- Means an equal cannot have dominion over an equal

In international law, all states are treated as equals, regardless of population, size of territory, and
economic status

Pacta sund servanda, Pacts are to be complied with in good faith

Once a state had entered into a pact with other states, both must comply with the pact in good faith .
Breach of such pact may cause hostile relation between both states. It can also be a ground for a
sanction under the United Nations charter.

Pacta sund servanda- In international law, treaties, and executive agreements are equally binding
commitments of contracting states under the maxim pacta sund servanda . every state has the duty to
carry outn in good faith its obligations arising from treaties or other sources of international law , and it
may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform these duties.

B. Relationship between international and national law

Doctrine of Incorporation

By mere constitutional declaration, international law is deemed to have the force and effect of
municipal or domestic law.

Applicable customary rules accepted as binding to all states has the charter of opinion juris sive
necessitates

Opinion as to law or necesstiy.

Article II Sction2 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution – The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of
National Policy , adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the
land and adheres to the policy of peace equality and justice freedom, cooperation and amity to all
nations .
Doctrine of transformation- The generally accepted rules of international law are not per se binding
upon the state but must first be embodies in the legislation enacted by the lawmaking body and so
transformed will they become binding upon the state as a part of its municipal law .

Article VII- Section 21 of the Philippine Constitution- No treaty or international agreement shall be valid
and binding unless concurred in by at least two thirds of all the members of the senate.

C. Sources of obligations in international law

Sources of International law

Primary sources

Treaties – The general rule is that for a treaty to be considered a direct source of international law, it
must be concluded by a sizable number of states and thus reflect the will or at least the consensus
of the family of nations.

If the treaty was not concluded by the great body of states , such as bilateral treaties . But . a
bilateral treaty is binding between the parties especially if a dispute arose between them .

Custom- A practice which has grown up between states and has come to be accepted as binding
between states and has come nto be accepted as binding by the mere fact of persistent usage over a
long period of time . Custom is distinguished from usage. The latter while also a long establsied way
of doing things by states is not coupled with conviction that it is obligatory and right.

Requisites / elements of international custom

1.) Duration or long state practice

2.) Consistency of the state practice or the widespread repetition by states of similar acts over time.
3.) Generality of the state practice or that the acts are taken by a significant number of states and
not rejected by a significant number of states .
4.) Opinio juris sive necessitates or the requirement that the acts must occur out of a sense of
obligation

General principles of law- Mostly derived from the law of nature and are observed by the majority of
states because they are believed to be good and just
Secondary Sources : These sources are not authorities in deciding a case but only have a persuasive
effect because it only shows the interpretation of a state to a particular international law

1.) Decisions of international tribunals

2.) Writings and teachings of the most highly qualified publicists

Subjects

A subject of international law is an entity that has rights and responsibilities under that law. It has an
international personality in that it can directly assert rights and be held directly responsible under
the law of nations

An object of international law is merely indirectly vested with rights and obligations in the
international sphere

1. States

A state may be defined as a group of people living together in a definite territory under an
independent .government organized for political ends and capable of entering into international
relations .

The state is a legal cincept nation is only a racial or ethnic concept.

The term nation, strictly speaking as evidenced by its etymology indicates a relation of birth or origin
and implies a common race usually characterized by community of language and customs

The state of nation should possess the following elements in order to be regarded as an international
person

1. A permanent population.
2. 2. A defined territory
3. Government
4. Sovereignty or independence

Government – Is defined as the agency through which, the will of the state is formulated expressed and
realized.

International Persons

Belligerent communities if recognized Pending determination of whether or not the belligerent

community should be fully recognized as a state is treated as an international person and becomes
directly subject to the laws of war and neutrality
An independent state may be neutralized through agreement with other states by virtue of which the
latter will guarantee its integrity and independence provided it refrains from taking any act that will
involve it in war or other hostile activity except for defensive purposes .

Certain administrative bodies created by agreement among states may be vested with international
personality when two conditions concur

1. That their purposes are mainly non political

2. That they are autonomous

3. International organizations

3. Individuals

E. Requisites of Statehood

F. Jurisdiction of states

Jurisdiction means the power of a state under international law to govern persons and property by
its municipal law. This may be criminal or civil, and may be exclusive or concurrent with other states
[HARRIS]. Types of Jurisdiction: a. Prescriptive Jurisdiction: This refers to the power of a State to
make its law applicable to the activities, relations, or status of persons, or the interests of persons in
things, whether by legislation, by executive act or order, by administrative rule or regulation, or by
determination by a court. b. Adjudicative Jurisdiction: This refers to the State’s jurisdiction to subject
persons or things to the process of its courts or administrative tribunals, whether in civil or in
criminal proceedings, whether or not the state is a party to the proceedings. c. Enforcement
Jurisdiction: This refers to the State’s jurisdiction to enforce or compel compliance or to punish
noncompliance with its laws or regulations, whether through the courts or by use of executive,
administrative, police, or other nonjudicial action. 1. Basis of Jurisdiction a. Territoriality Principle:
Jurisdiction is determined by reference to the place where the act occurred or was committed. A
State takes jurisdiction over persons or events within its territory. [MAGALLONA] Usually refers to
criminal jurisdiction. b. Nationality Principle: A State may exercise jurisdiction over an offender by
virtue of his being its national, without regard as to where he was at the time the offense was
committed and without respect to the nature of the offense [MAGALLONA]. c. Protective Principle:
 A State may exercise jurisdiction over an offense committed outside its territory by its national or
non-national, by reason of protecting its security or vital interests d. Universality Principle: A State
may exercise jurisdiction over crimes committed without respect to the nationality of the offender,
on the ground that such crimes are declared as international crimes by the international community
as a whole and thus are prohibited by international law [MAGALLONA]. Example: Jurisdiction is
asserted with respect to acts considered committed against the whole world [e.g. piracy, see People
v. Lol-lo and Saraw, G.R. No. 17958 (1922)]. e. Passive Personality Principle: A State may exercise
jurisdiction against foreign nationals who commit acts to the injury of its nationals within the
territory of another State [MAGALLONA]. A court has jurisdiction if the offended party of the act is a
national of the forum state [S.S. Lotus Case (PCA, 1927)].

Conflict of Jurisdiction This arises when two or more states can exercise jurisdiction based on one or
more different principles of jurisdiction (ex: Universality v. Territoriality)

2. Exemptions from Jurisdiction a. Acts of State Doctrine State Immunity General Rule: This refers
to a principle by which a state, its agents, and property are immune from the jurisdiction of
another state [MAGALLONA]. This principle is premised on the juridical equality of states,
according to which a state may not impose its authority or extend its jurisdiction to another
state without the consent of the latter, through a waiver of immunity. Thus, domestic courts
must decline to hear cases against foreign sovereigns out of deference to their role as
sovereigns. Exception: When a state waives the immunity or consents to being sued. Types of
State Immunity 1. Rationae Materiae: Attaches to the official acts of State officials and is
determined by reference to the nature of the acts in question rather than by reference to the
particular office of the official. a. Doctrine of Restrictive Immunity divides this immunity into two
categories: i. Acts performed jure imperii: that is, private or commercial transactions of States,
are subject to foreign jurisdiction. ii. Acts performed jure gestionis: the foreign State in its
capacity as a sovereign, are immune. 2. Rationae Personae: Attaches to the office itself.
However, in contrast, it covers official and personal acts. The Nature of State Immunity 1. It is
preliminary in nature and does not depend on the obligation breached by the State. 2. It is a
customary norm.

3. Such immunity applies even if the claim against the state is for violation of a jus cogens norm in
international law. “Immunity from jurisdiction is an immunity not merely from being subjected to an
adverse judgment but from being subjected to the trial process. It is, therefore, necessarily preliminary
in nature. […]In addition, there is a substantial body of State practice from other countries which
demonstrates that customary international law does not treat a State’s entitlement to immunity as
dependent upon the gravity of the act of which it is accused or the peremptory nature of the rule which
it is alleged to have violated.” [Jurisdictional Immunities of the State, Germany v. Italy (ICJ, 2012)]

1. Basis of jurisdiction
 a. Territoriality principle
Basis of Jurisdiction a. Territoriality Principle: Jurisdiction is determined by reference to the
place where the act occurred or was committed. A State takes jurisdiction over persons or
events within its territory. [MAGALLONA] Usually refers to criminal jurisdiction. b. Nationality
Principle: A State may exercise jurisdiction over an offender by virtue of his being its national,
without regard as to where he was at the time the offense was committed and without respect
to the nature of the offense [MAGALLONA]. c. Protective Principle: A State may exercise
jurisdiction over an offense committed outside its territory by its national or non-national, by
reason of protecting its security or vital interests d. Universality Principle: A State may exercise
jurisdiction over crimes committed without respect to the nationality of the offender, on the
ground that such crimes are declared as international crimes by the international community as
a whole and thus are prohibited by international law [MAGALLONA]. Example: Jurisdiction is
asserted with respect to acts considered committed against the whole world [e.g. piracy, see
People v. Lol-lo and Saraw, G.R. No. 17958 (1922)]. e. Passive Personality Principle: A State may
exercise jurisdiction against foreign nationals who commit acts to the injury of its nationals
within the territory of another State [MAGALLONA]. A court has jurisdiction if the offended
party of the act is a national of the forum state [S.S. Lotus Case (PCA, 1927)]

b. Nationality principle and statelessness

Nationality Doctrine A State may exercise jurisdiction over its nationals, with respect to their conduct,
whether within or outside its territory.

Statelessness (1995 Bar) It is the condition or status of an individual who is either:

De jure stateless person – stripped of his nationality by their former government and without having
an opportunity to acquire another 2. De facto stateless person – one who possesses a nationality
whose country does not give him protection outside his own country and who is commonly referred
to as refugee (Frivaldo v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 123755, June 28, 1996). Consequences of Statelessness
(1995 Bar) 1. No State can intervene or complain in behalf of the Stateless person for an
international delinquency committed by another State in inflicting injury upon him. 2. He cannot be
expelled by the State if he is lawfully in its territory except on grounds of national security or public
order. (1994 Bar) 3. He cannot avail himself of the protection and benefits of citizenship like securing
for himself a passport or visa and personal documents. Rights of Stateless Persons A Stateless
person is not entirely without right, protection or recourse under the Law of Nations. Under the
Convention in Relation to the Status of Stateless Persons, the contracting States agree to accord the
stateless persons within their territories treatment at least as favorable as that accorded their
 nationals with respect to: 1. Freedom of religion 2. Access to the courts 3. Rationing of products in
short supply 4. Elementary education 5. Public relief and assistance 6. Labor legislation 7. Social
Security NOTE: They also agree to accord them treatment not less favorable than that accorded to
aliens generally in the same circumstances. The Convention also provides for the issuance of identity
papers and travel documents to the Stateless persons. Status of foundlings under Philippine laws As
a matter of law, foundlings are as a class, natural-born citizens. While the 1935 Constitution's
enumeration is silent as to foundlings, there is no restrictive language which would definitely
exclude foundlings either. The deliberations of the 1934 Constitutional Convention show that the
framers intended foundlings to be covered by the enumeration, pursuant to the amendment
proposed by Sr. Rafols. Though the Rafol’s amendment was not carried out, it was not because
there was any objection to the notion that persons of "unknown parentage" are not citizens but only
because their number was not enough to merit specific mention. Foundlings are likewise citizens
under international law. The common thread of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, United
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights obligates the Philippines to grant nationality from birth and ensure that no child is

stateless. This grant of nationality must be at the time of birth, and it cannot be accomplished by the
application of our present naturalization laws. Furthermore, the principles stated in Article 14 of the
1930 Hague Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality Laws under
which a foundling is presumed to have the nationality of the country of birth. While the Philippines
is not a party to the Hague Convention, it is a signatory to the Universal Declaration on Human
Rights, which effectively affirms Article 14 of the 1930 Hague Convention. (Poe v. Comelec, G.R. No.
221697, March 8, 2016)

Doctrine of Indelible Allegiance It states that an individual may be compelled to retain his original
nationality notwithstanding that he has already renounced it under the law of another State whose
nationality he has acquired. Doctrine of Effective Nationality A person having more than one
nationality shall be treated as if he had only one – either the nationality of the country in which he is
habitually and principally resident or the nationality of the country with which in the circumstances
he appears to be in fact most closely connected. NOTE: Also known as Nottebohm principle
(International Court of Justice, Liechtenstein v. Guatemala, 1955) or the Genuine Link Doctrine
Doctrine of Genuine Link It states that the bond of nationality must be real and effective in order
that a State may claim a person as its national for the purpose of affording him diplomatic
protection.

c. Protective principle

PROTECTIVE PRINCIPLE Any State has the right to punish acts even if committed outside its territory,
when such acts constitute attacks against its security, as long as that conduct is generally recognized as
criminal by states in the international community. (2009 Bar) Examples are plots to overthrow the
government, forging its currency, and plot to break its immigration regulations.
 d. Universality principle

UNIVERSALITY PRINCIPLE Certain offenses are so heinous and so widely condemned that any state that
captures an offender may prosecute and punish that person on behalf of the international community
regardless of the nationality of the offender or victim or where the crime was committed. (2005 Bar)

A: The principle of territorial sovereignty merely requires that the State exercises its power to punish
within its own borders, not outside them; that subject to this restriction every State may exercise a wide
discretion as to the application of its laws and the jurisdiction of its courts in respect of acts committed
outside the State; and that only in so far as it is possible to point to a specific rule prohibiting the
exercise of this discretion. That view was based on the following two grounds: (1) It is precisely the
conception of State sovereignty which demands the preclusion of any presumption that there is a
restriction on its independence; and (2) Even if it is true that the principle of the territorial character of
criminal law is firmly established in various States, it is no less true that in almost of such States criminal
jurisdiction has been extended so as to embrace offenses committed outside its territory. However, it is
the universal character of the crimes in question which vests in every State the power to try those who
participated in the preparation of such crimes, and to punish them therefor. It follows that the State
which prosecutes and punishes a person for that offense acts solely as the organ and agent of the
international community, and metes out punishment to the offender for his breach of the prohibition
imposed by the law of nations (Attorney-General of the Government of Israel v. Eichmann, Israel Sup. Ct.
1962)

e. Passive personality principle

PASSIVE PERSONALITY PRINCIPLE It authorizes states to assert jurisdiction over offenses committed
against their citizens abroad. It recognizes that each state has a legitimate interest in protecting the
safety of its citizens when they journey outside national boundaries. Act of State Doctrine A State should
not inquire into the legal validity of the public acts of another State done within the territory of the
latter (Nachura, 2009).

Exemptions from jurisdiction

 a. State Immunity from Suit

b. Act of State doctrine

Act of State Doctrine A State should not inquire into the legal validity of the public acts of another State
done within the territory of the latter (Nachura, 2009). CONFLICTS OF JURISDICTI

c. Diplomatic Immunity

DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY (2001, 2005 Bar) Nature Diplomatic immunity is essentially a political question
and the courts should refuse to look beyond the determination by the executive branch. Q: Besides the
head of the mission, who can enjoy diplomatic immunities and privileges? A: Diplomatic suite or retinue
which consist of: 1. Official staff- it is made up of the administrative and technical personnel of the
mission, including those performing clerical work, and the member of their respective families 2. Non-
official staff- composed of the household help, such as the domestic servants, butlers, and cooks and
chauffeurs employed by the mission NOTE: As a rule, however, domestic servants enjoy immunities and
privileges only to the extent admitted by the receiving State and insofar as they are connected with the
performance of their duties. Privileges and immunities of diplomatic mission 1. Personal inviolability –
Members of diplomatic mission shall not be liable for any form of arrest or imprisonment 2. Inviolability
of premises – Premises, furnishings and means of transport shall be immune from search, seizure,
attachment or execution. 3. Archives or documents shall be inviolable 4. Diplomatic agents are immune
from criminal, civil or administrative liability. 5. Receiving State shall protect official communication and
official correspondence of diplomatic mission. 6. Receiving State shall ensure all members of diplomatic
mission freedom of movement and travel. 7. A diplomatic agent is exempted to give evidence as a
witness. 8. Exemption from general duties and taxes including custom duties with certain exceptions. 9.
Use of flag and emblem of sending State on premises of receiving State.

d. International organizations and its officers

F. General principles of treaty law

Treaty- A formal agreement, usually but not necessarily in writing, which is entered into by states or
entities possessing the treaty-making capacity, for the purpose of regulating their mutual relations
under the law of nations.

Executive Agreement- Is not a treaty insofar as the concurrence thereto of the Senate is not
required under our Constitution.

Note: the distinction is purely municipal and has no international significance. From the viewpoint of
international law, ―treatise and executive agreements are alike in that both constitute equally
binding obligations upon the nation.

VARIOUS APPELLATIONS GIVEN TO “TREATIES”:

1. Pact – a special treaty which is formally sentimental;

2. Convention– this is more or less an informal treaty dealing with specific subjects: sometimes it
does not even require ratification.

3. ―Agreement‖/ ―Arrangement‖/ ―Accord‖ – conventions on administrative or technical matters;

4. ―Concordats‖ – agreement entered into by the Pope (as head of the church) with various chiefs
of States;

5. Declarations – these are formal reciprocal agreements which may deal with:

a) the rights and privileges of the national of a state;

b) principles in accordance with which states propose to act or

c) Grounds for mutual action on the part of states.

6. Protocol – this may refer either to a supplemental treaty or to an amendment to a treaty

FUNCTION OF TREATIES 1. Treaties enable parties to settle finally actual and potential conflicts. 2.
Treaties make it possible for the parties to modify the rules of international customary law by means
of optional principles or standards. 3. They may lead to a transformation of unorganized
international society into one which may be organized on any chosen level of social integration. 4.
They frequently provide the humus for the growth of international customary law.

RULE ON OBSERVANCE OF TREATIES General Rule: Pacta sunt servanda – performance in good faith
of treaty obligations Exception: Rebus sic stantibus– the doctrine constitutes an attempt to
formulate a legal principle which would justify non-performance of a treaty obligation if the
conditions with relation to which the parties contracted have changed so materially and so
unexpectedly as to create a situation in which the exaction of performance would be unreasonable.
Requisites of rebus sic stantibus: 1. it applies only to treaties of indefinite duration; 2. the vital
change must have been unforeseen or unforeseeable and should not have been caused by the party
invoking the doctrine; 3. the doctrine must be invoked within a reasonable time; and 4. It cannot
operate retroactively upon the provisions of the treaty already executed prior to the change of
circumstances.

INTERPRETATION OF TREATIES (Vienna Convention Section 3) General Rule of Interpretation (Art.

31): 1. A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be
given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.

The context for the purpose of the interpretation of a treaty shall comprise, in addition to the text,
including preamble and annexes: o Any agreement relating to the treaty which was made between
all the parties in connection with the conclusion of the treaty. o Any instrument which was made by
one or more parties in connection with the conclusion of the treaty and accepted by the other
parties as an instrument related to the party. 3. There shall be taken into account, together with the
context: o Any subsequent agreement between the parties regarding the interpretation of the
treaty or the application of its provision. o Any subsequent practice in the application of the treaty
which establishes the agreement of the parties regarding its interpretation. o Any relevant rules of
international law applicable in the relations between the parties. 4. A special meaning shall be given
to a term if its established that the parties so intended. SUPPLEMENTARY MEANS OF
INTERPRETATION (ART. 32) Recourse may be had to supplementary means of interpretation
including the preparatory work of the treaty and the circumstances of its conclusion, in order to
confirm the meaning resulting from the application of article 31, or to determine the meaning when
the interpretation according to Art. 31:  Leaves the meaning ambiguous or obscure; or  Leads to
result which is manifestly absurd or unreasonable. Note: Article 32 is not an alternative recourse in
the interpretation of a treaty; rather it must be taken in relation to Article 31

G. Doctrine of state responsibility

Under this doctrine, a state may be held responsible for :

1.) An international delinquency

2.) Directly or directly imputable to it
3.) Which causes injury to the national of another state. Liability will attach to the state where its
treatment of the alien falls below the international standard of justice. Or where it is remiss in
according him the protection or redress that is warranted by the circumstances
TYPES OF STATE RESPONSIBILITY 1. Direct Responsibility- Attaches to the state if the wrongful
act/omission was effected through any of its superior organs acting on its behalf.

4. Indirect Responsibility- Acts of the following are attributable to the state: o State organs o Other
persons exercising elements of governmental authority in the absence or default of the official
authorities and in circumstances calling for the exercise of those elements of authority. o
Insurrectional or other movement which becomes the new government.

Note: In case of injuries inflicted upon a foreigner in the course of quelling rebellion, state
responsibility will attach only if the rebellion succeeds and the rebels will take control of the
state, but not when the legitimate government remains in power as the act of quelling rebellion
is a valid exercise of defense. State liability will attach only if it fails to observe the minimum
international standard for the protection of aliens.

Instances of International Delinquency o Violation of a treaty o Denial of the injured alien to

access the court o The state where the injury happened did not institute measures to prevent
the incident. o The state concerned did not investigate the incident. Principle of Diplomatic
Protection- The state has the obligation to protect its nationals even though they are abroad.

International Standard of Justice

The standard of the reasonable state, that is, as referring to the ordinary to the ordinary norms
of official conduct observed in civilized jurisdictions.

But even assuming the liability of the state for an international delinquency, its enforcement
cannot be claimed by the injured foreigner unless he first exhausts all available local remedies
for the protection or vindication of his rights.

Deportation- Removal of an alien out of country, simply because his presence is deemed
inconsistent with the public welfare, and without any punishment being imposed or
contemplated either under the laws of the country out of which he is sent, or under those of the
country to which he is taken.

Exclusion– denial of entry to an alien

Enforcement of Claim- An international claim for damages may be resolved through:

1. negotiation 2. good offices 3. arbritation 4. judicial settlement 5. war

Such reparation may take the form of: 1. restitution 2. satisfaction or compensation 3.
restoration or replacement of the object of the offense 4. formal apology by the delinquent
state 5. payment of damages
 Calvo Clause– this is a stipulation by which the alien waives or restricts his right to appeal to his own
state in connection with any claim arising from the contract and agrees to limit himself to the
remedies available under the laws of the local state Q: under the rules of international law, may an,
alien lawfully make such a promise (as is embodied in the Calvo clause)? A: The Commission holds
that he may, but at the same time holds that he cannot deprive the government of his nation of its
undoubted right of applying international remedies to violations of international law committed to
his damage. Such government frequently has a larger interest in maintaining the principles of
international law than in recovering damage for one of its citizens in a particular case, and
manifestly such citizen cannot by contract tie in this respect the hands of his government.

H. Refugees

I. Extradition

Is the surrender of a person by one state to another state where he is wanted for prosecution or, if
already convicted for punishment. o It covers common crimes. Requisites of Extradition: 1. There must
be an extradition treaty. 2. The crime committed must not be a political offense. o Exception: presence
of Attentant Clause [French kaya pronounce it without the ‗nt‘] in the extradition treatyassassination of
head of states or any member of his family is not regarded as political offense for purposes of
extradition. Also for the crime of genocide.

A fugitive who is extradited may be tried only for the crime specified in the request for extradition and
such crime is included in the list of extraditable offenses in the treaty [Principle of Specialty]. o
Exception: Principle of Double Criminality- the crime though not listed in the treaty is punishable by both
states. Note: o The extradition of a person is required only if there is a treaty between the state of
refuge and the state of origin. In the absence of such a treaty, the local state has every right to grant
asylum to the fugitive and to refuse to deliver him back to the latter state even if he is its national. o The
crime of genocide consists of any of the following acts, committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in
part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such: 1. Killing members of the group. 2. Causing
serious bodily or mental harm members of the group. 3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions
of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part. 4. Imposing measures
intended to prevent births within the group. 5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another
group.
PROCEDURE OF EXTRADITION: 1. Request through diplomatic representative. 2. DFA forwards the
request to the DOJ. 3. DOJ files petition for extradition with the RTC. 4. RTC issues summons or warrant
of arrest to compel the appearance of the individual. 5. Hearing (provide counsel de officio if necessary).

6. Appeal to the CA within 10 days whose decision shall be final and executory. 7. Decision forwarded to
DFA through the DOJ. 8. Individual placed at the disposal of the authorities of requesting state- costs
and expenses be shouldered by requesting state. ILLUSTRATIVE CASE: Gov‟t of US vs. Purganan,
September 24, 2002 Facts: By virtue of an extradition treaty between the US and the Philippines, the US
requested for the extradition of Mark Jimenez for violations of US tax and election laws. During the
proceeding, Jimenez invokes his constitutional due process and his right to bail. Issue: Won bail as a
matter of right and due process shall be observed in extradition proceedings. Held: NO! Bail is not
allowed because the extraditee is a flight risk. There is a great possibility of flight after bail. However as
an EXCEPTION bail is allowed if: (1) that, once granted bail, the applicant will not be a flight risk or a
danger to the community; and (2) that there exist special, humanitarian and compelling circumstances
including, as a matter of reciprocity, those cited by the highest court in the requesting state when it
grants provisional liberty in extradition cases therein. DUE PROCESS: Contrary to his contention, his
detention prior to the conclusion of the extradition proceedings does not amount to a violation of his
right to due process. We iterate the familiar doctrine that the essence of due process is the opportunity
to be heard but, at the same time, point out that the doctrine does not always call for a prior
opportunity to be heard. Where the circumstances -- such as those present in an extradition case -- call
for it, a subsequent opportunity to be heard is enough. In the present case, respondent will be given full
opportunity to be heard subsequently, when the extradition court hears the Petition for Extradition.
Hence, there is no violation of his right to due process and fundamental fairness. By nature then,
extradition proceedings are not equivalent to a criminal case in which guilt or innocence is determined.
Consequently, an extradition case is not one in which the constitutional rights of the accused are
necessarily available. It is more akin, if at all, to a court‘s request to police authorities for the arrest of
the accused who is at large or has escaped detention or jumped bail. Having once escaped the
jurisdiction of the requesting state, the reasonable prima facie presumption is that the person would
escape again if given the opportunity

J. Basic principles of International Human Rights Law

K. Basic principles of International Humanitarian Law

L. Law of the sea

1. Baselines
 2. Archipelagic states

3. Internal waters

4. Territorial sea

5. Contiguous zone

5. Exclusive economic zone

The exclusive economic zone (EEZ) is the stretch of area up to 200 miles from the baselines. Within this
zone, a State may regulate non-living and living resources, other economic resources, artificial
installations, scientific research, and pollution control. The extent of the state’s rights in the EEZ The
UNCLOS gives the coastal State sovereign rights over all economic resources of the sea, seabed, and
subsoil in an area extending not more than 200 nautical miles beyond the baseline from which the
territorial sea is measured [Arts. 55 and 57, UNCLOS]. Rights of the coastal state in the EEZ a. Establish
and use of artificial islands, installations and structures; b. Conduct scientific research; c. Preserve and
protect its marine environment; d. Board and inspect a ship; e. Arrest a ship and its crew; f. Institute
judicial proceedings against them

In detention of foreign vessels, the coastal state has the duty to promptly notify the flag state of the
action taken Rights of the non-coastal state Under Art. 58, UNCLOS, all States enjoy the freedom of
navigation, over flight, and laying of submarine cables and pipelines in the EEZ of coastal states Coastal
States have the primary responsibility to utilize, manage and conserve the living resources within their
EEZ (i.e. ensuring that living resources are not endangered by overexploitation), and the duty to
promote optimum utilization of living resources by determining allowable catch. There is a duty to share
catch if the maximum allowable catch is determined to be above the capacity of the State to harvest.
The State shall give other States access to the surplus by means of arrangements allowable under the
UNCLOS. The UNCLOS, however, does not specify the method for determining “allowable catch.” The
right of geographically disadvantaged states or land locked states General Rule: These states have the
right to participate, on equitable basis, in the exploitation of the surplus of the living resources in the
EEZ of coastal states of the same sub region or region. Exception: A coastal state whose economy is
overwhelmingly dependent on the exploitation of its EEZ, however, is not required to share its resources
 6. Continental shelf and extended continental shelf

Continental Shelf Extended Continental Shelf It is the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas
extending beyond the territorial sea of the coastal state throughout the natural prolongation of its land
territory up to: a. The outer edge of the continental margin; or b. A distance of 200 nautical miles from
the baselines of the territorial sea where the outer edge of the continental margin does not extend up
to that distance. Continental Margin Submerged prolongation of the land mass of the continental state,
consisting of the continental shelf proper, the continental slope, and the continental rise Continental
Shelf a. The juridical or legal continental shelf covers the area until 200 nautical miles from baselines. b.
The extended continental shelf covers the area from the 200-mile mark to 350 nautical miles from the
baselines depending on geomorphologic or geological data and information. c. The continental shelf
shall not extend beyond 350 nautical miles from the baseline of the territorial sea, or 100 nautical miles
from the 2,500- meter isobath (i.e. the point where the waters are 2,500 meters deep). Exclusive Rights
of the Coastal State in the Continental Shelf: a. Sovereign rights with respect to the exploration and
exploitation of its natural resources, including the mineral and other non-living resources of the seabed
and subsoil together with living organisms belonging to the sedentary species. b. The coastal state has
the exclusive right to authorize and regulate oil-drilling on its continental shelf. Note: “Exclusive” means
that if the coastal does not explore or exploit its resources, no other state can without the State’s
consent

8. International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea

The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) The ITLOS is an independent judicial body
established by the Third United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to adjudicate disputes
arising out of the interpretation and application of the convention. Composition: Election of 21
members by the state parties. The settlement of Disputes 1. Peaceful Settlement of Disputes: Under
Par. 3, Art. 2, UN Charter, States have the duty to settle disputes by peaceful means. This obligation
extends to State parties of the UNCLOS, underscoring the right of the parties to resort to peaceful
means of their own choice on which they can agree any time. 2. Compulsory Settlement of Disputes:
Where no successful settlement can be achieved, or if the parties are unable to agree on the means
of settlement of a dispute concerning the application of UNCLOS, such dispute may be governed by
the principle of compulsory settlement, where procedures entail binding decisions. The parties may
choose, through a written revocable and replaceable declaration, to submit the dispute to the
following: a. ITLOS; b. ICJ; c. Arbitral tribunal; or d. Special arbitral tribunal

Jurisdiction of the ITLOS a. Any dispute submitted to it concerning the application or interpretation
of UNCLOS; or b. Any dispute concerning the interpretation or application of an international
agreement: i. Related to the purposes of the UNCLOS; or ii. When such dispute is submitted to it in
 accordance with that agreement Sources of Law to be applied in ITLOS: The court or tribunal shall
apply the UNCLOS and other rules of international law not incompatible with the UNCLOS [Art. 293,
UNCLOS]. It may also decide a case ex aequo et bono (what is equitable and just) if the parties so
agree

M. Basic principles of International Environmental Law

1. Precautionary principle

Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be
used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation When it
is uncertain as to the consequence of the proposed activity to the environment, doubts should be
resolved on the side of caution by taking measures to prevent or avoid environmental degradation.
[Principle 15, Rio Declaration].