Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 25

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW CHAPTER 1: GENERAL PRINCIPLES * Law body of rules passed by sovereign authority - there are sanctions

s for non-compliance - governs conduct within society - governs relationships between the state and the natural or juridical person * International Law body of legal rules which apply between sovereign states and such other entities as have been granted international personality - there are no sanctions - there is no superior/sovereign authority - governs relationships between states and other international entities - the subject is between states only 3 Divisions of International Law: 1. Laws of peace govern normal relationship of states 2. Laws of war govern when war breaks out between or among nations; and for the duration of the hostilities 3. Laws of neutrality govern the relations of states not involved in the war to those states which are involved in the hostilities or belligerence Distinctions with Municipal Law: Monist vs. Dualist: a. To monists, there is no substantial distinction between international and municipal law. But to dualists, the distinctions lie in that the municipal law (ML) is issued by the political superior for observance by those under its authority, while international law (IL) is not imposed but simply adopted by states as a common rule of action. b. ML consists of enactments of the law making authority, while IL is derived from such sources as international customs, conventions or general principles of law c. ML regulates relations of individuals among themselves, while IL applies to relations between states and internal persons. d. Violations of ML are redressed through local and administrative processes, while IL are resolved through state to state transactions. e. Breaches of ML entail individual responsibility, while in IL there is collective responsibility. However, it is possible for a principle of municipal law to become part of IL, as when the principle is embodied a treaty or convention. Relation to Municipal law - It is universally accepted that, with or without an express declaration, the states admitted to the family of nations are bound by the rules prescribed for the regulation of international intercourse. Doctrine of Incorporation vs. Doctrine of Transformation Doctrine of incorporation The law of nations, although not specially adopted by the constitution or any municipal act, is essentially part of the law of the land. Doctrine of Transformation The generally accepted rules of IL are not per se binding upon the state but it must first be embodied in legislation enacted by the law making body and so transformed into municipal law. It should be presumed that municipal law is always enacted by each state with due regard for and never in defiance of the generally accepted principles of IL. Constitution vs. Treaty The constitution authorizes the SC to decide the constitutionality of a treaty, because a treaty is always subject to qualification or amendment by a subsequent law, and the same may never curtail or restrict the scope of the police power of the state. The constitution authorizes the nullification of a treaty not only when it conflicts with the constitution, but also when it runs counter to an act of congress Basis of International Law: 1. The Law of Nature There is a natural and universal principle of right and wrong, independent of mutual intercourse or compact, which can be discovered and recognized by every individual through the use of his reason and conscience. Since individuals compose the State whose will is but the collective will of the inhabitants, the State also becomes bound by the law of nature. 2. The Positivist School The binding force of international law is derived from the agreement of the states to be bound by it. In this context, international is not a law of subordination but of cooperation. 3. The Eclectic or Grotian School In so far as it conforms to the dictates of right reason, the voluntary law may be said to blend with the natural law and be indeed an expression of it. In case of conflict, the natural law prevails being the more fundamental law. Grotius: the Father of International Law voluntary law + natural law = basis of international law according to Grotius The system of international law is based on the dictate of right reason as well as the practice of the states. Sanctions of International Law: described as the compulsive force of reciprocal advantage and fear of retaliation They may consist of appeal to public opinion, publication of correspondence, censure by parliamentary vote, demand for arbitration with the odium attendant on a refusal to arbitrate, rupture of relations, reprisal, etc.


Page 1

Enforcement of International Law: Enforcement is the process by which such observance may be compelled, usually by force or at least the threat of force. States are able to enforce international law among each other through international organizations or regional groups such as UN and the organization of American states. Grievances of the disagreeing states may be presented to and discussed in these bodies, which may thereafter adopt such measures as may be necessary to compel compliance with international obligations or vindicate the wrong committed. Functions of International Law: The primary function of international law is to establish peace and order in the community of nations and to prevent the employment of force, including war, in all international relations. To promote world friendship by leveling the barriers, as of color or creed, that have so far obstructed the fostering of a closer understanding in the family of nations. To encourage and ensure greater internal cooperation in the solution of certain common problems of a political, economic, cultural or humanitarian character. To provide for the orderly management of the relations of states on the basis of substantive rules they have agreed to observe as members of the international community. CHAPTER 2: SOURCES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW Primary sources: 1. International treaties and conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting states 2. International customs, as evidence of a general practice accepted as binding law through persistent usage over a long period of time. It is necessary however that the customs be (a) prevailing practice by a number of states; (b) repeated over a considerable period of time; and (c) attended by opinion juris or a sense of legal obligation 3. General principles of law, these are rules derived mainly from natural law, observed and recognized by civilized nations. Secondary Sources 1. Judicial decisions, generally of international tribunals, the most authoritative being the international court of justice. They are not really sources but subsidiary means for finding what the law is and whether a norm has been accepted as a rule of IL the decision of a national court may be used depending upon the prestige and perceived impartiality of the domestic court, not being in conflict with the decisions of international tribunals, and its admissibility in the forum where it is cited. 2. Writings of publicists, which must be fair and unbiased representation of international law by acknowledged authorities in the field. CHAPTER 3: THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY *International Community The body of juridical entities which are governed by the law of nations. Composed of not only states but also other international persons like UN, the Vatican city, colonies and dependencies, mandates and trust territories, international administrative bodies, belligerent communities and even individuals. These are generally recognized subjects of IL. Subject of International Law A subject is an entity that has rights and responsibilities under international law; it can be proper party in transactions involving the application of the law of nations among the members of the international community. Object of International Law An object is a person or thing in respect of which rights are held and obligations are assumed by the subject. It is not directly governed by the rules of IL, its rights are received, and its responsibilities imposed, indirectly through the instrumentality of an international agency.

State is a group of people, living together in a fixed territory, organized for political ends under an independent government and capable of entering into international relations with other states Elements of a State: 1. People a group of individuals, of both sexes, living together as a community. They must be sufficient in number to maintain and perpetuate themselves. 2. Territory fixed portion on the earths surface occupied by the inhabitants. 3. Government must be recognized, exercising control over and capable of maintaining law and order within the territory. It can be held internationally responsible for the acts of its inhabitants. The identity of the states is not affected by changes in the government. 4. Sovereignty or independence freedom from outside control in the conduct of its foreign (and internal) affairs. Classification of States: a. Independent states a state which is not subject to dictation from others b. Simple states which is placed under a single and centralized government exercising power over both its internal and external affairs c. Composite states consists of two or more states, each with its own separate government but bound under a central authority exercising, to a greater or less degree, control over their external affairs c.1. real union, created when two or more states are merged under a unified authority so that they form a single international person through which they act as one entity. States forming unions retain their separate identities as such, but their respective international personalities are extinguished and blended in the new international person, which however is not regarded as a state itself. Ex. Norway and Sweden 1815-1905 c.2. federal union, is a combination of two or more states which upon merger ceases to be states, resulting in the creation of a new state with full international personality to represent them in their external relations as well as certain degree of power over their domestic affairs and their inhabitants. Ex. US c.3. confederation, an organization of states which retain their internal sovereignty and to some degree, their external sovereignty, while delegating to the collective body power to represent them as a whole for certain limited and specified purposes. Ex. German states joined in 1866 until they eventually developed into a closely-knit federation. c.4 personal union, when 2 or more states are brought together under the rule of the same monarch, who nevertheless does not become one international person for the purpose of representing any or all of them. Ex. Congo and Belgium 1885-1905


Page 2

c.5 incorporate union, a union of two or more states under a central authority empowered to direct both their external and internal affairs and possessed of a separate international personality. It differs from a real union in that only external affairs are placed under the control of the latter. Ex. UK and Northern Ireland Naturalized States - The state is removed from all vicissitudes of international politics and all their attendant expenses and anxiety. - Any state may be naturalized 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 twill involve it in war or other hostile activity except for defensive purposes. Dependent states - A legal paradox because the status of statehood implies the idea of independence. - 2 general categories: protectorate and suzerainty. There is no unanimity as to their basic distinctions; some writers even say they are identical. The United Nations - A mere organization of states but is regarded as an international person for certain purposes. - Enjoys certain privileges and immunities like; non-suability, inviolability of its premises and archives, and exemption from taxation. - Has the right to legation, i.e., it can send and receive diplomatic agents who possess the same rights accorded regular envoys. - It can assert a diplomatic claim on behalf of its officials and treaties may also be concluded by it through the general assembly. The Vatican City - Italy gave up a part of its territory for the purpose of a new state being established on it. - all the elements of a state in the sense of international law are present. Colonies and Dependencies - A colony or dependency is part and parcel of the parent state, through which all its external relations are transacted with other states. - It has no legal standing in the family of nations. Mandates and Trust Territories - 3 kinds of trust territories: 1. Those held under mandate and under the League of Nations. 2. Those territories detached from the defeated states after World War II. 3. Those voluntarily placed under the system by the states responsible for their administration. - These territories enjoy certain rights directly available to them under the UN charter that vest them with a degree of international personality. - However, these territories are not sovereign. Belligerent Communities - When a portion of the population rises up in arms against the legitimate government of the state, it is ordinarily regarded as merely internal affair, the state is held internationally responsible for all injuries caused upon third states by reason of the disorder and the members of the uprising are accountable for their acts under the laws of the legitimate government. - But when the conflict widens and aggravates, it may become necessary to accord the rebels recognition of belligerency. - The recognizing state, while not conferring all the rights of an independent state, concedes to the government recognized rights and imposes upon the belligerents the obligations, of an independent state in matters relating to war being waged. - The belligerent community is fully recognized as a state, it is treated as an international person and becomes directly subject to the laws of war and neutrality. - It is directly held responsible for its unlawful acts. International Administrative Bodies - Certain administrative bodies may be created by agreement among states and be vested with international personality when their purposes are mainly non political and that they are autonomous. Ex. World health organization Individuals - Traditional concept regards the individual only as an object of international law who can act only through the instrumentality of his own state in matters involving other states. Hence, it is the state of the individual and not the individual himself that can be the proper party in the assertion of a claim for damages. - Of late, many writers view individual as not merely an object but a subject of IL. One argument is that the individual is the basic unit of society, national and international, and must, therefore, ultimately be governed by the law of this society, including those that are theoretically binding on the state as agent of the individual. CHAPTER 4: THE UNITED NATIONS Creation of the UN -October 30, 1943 Moscow declaration was signed by the representative of China, Soviet Union, US and UK which recognized the necessity of establishing the earliest practicable date a general international organization, based on the principle of sovereign equality of all peace loving state, and open to membership by all such states, large or small for the maintenance of international peace and security. - followed by Teheran conference wherein Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin acknowledged the supreme responsibility resting upon us and all the UN to make a peace which will command the overwhelming mass of the people of the world and banish the scourge and terror of war for many generation. - During the conference in Washington the initial blue print of the Organization known as Dumbarton Oaks Proposal was prepared by the representative of UK, U.S.S.R., and the US later joined by China. It was at this time that the Security Council was conceived as the key body of the UN, with the conferee of France as its permanent members. -Feb.11, 1945 voting rules in this organ was agreed by Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin at the Yalta Conference in the Crimea. -April 25, 1945 General conference in San Francisco for the preparation of the charter of the international organization. Delegates of Fifty nations met at the conference and approved unanimously the charter of the UN.


Page 3

The UN Charter Consist of 111 articles besides the preamble and the concluding provisions. Statute of ICJ is also included which id annexed to and made an integral part of it. In one sense it is consider a treaty bec. it derives its binding force from the agreement of the parties to it. In another sense, it may be regarded as a constitution in so far as it provides for the organization and operation of the different organs of the UN and for the adoption of any change in its provisions through a formal process of amendment. Apply not only to member but also to non-member of the states in so far as maybe necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security. Obligation under the charter shall prevail over the obligation of the members under any other international agreement. Amendment to the charter shall come into force for all the members of the UN when they have been adopted by a vote of two-thirds of the members of the General Assembly and ratified in accordance with their respective constitutional processes by two-third of the members of the UN, including all the permanent members of the Security Council. Amendments may be proposed by two thirds vote of the conference and shall take effect when ratified by two-thirds of the members of the UN, including the permanent member of the Security Council. A general Conference may also be called by a majority vote of the General Assembly and any nine members of the Security Council for the purpose of reviewing the charter. Purpose of the UN 1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace; 2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace; 3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and 4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends. Principles 1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members. 2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter. 3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered. 4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. 5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action. 6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security. 7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll. Membership: the distinction between the two is based only on the manner of their admission and does not involve any difference in the enjoyment of right and discharge of obligations. Original -States having participated in the UN Conference on international organization at San Francisco or having previously signed the declaration by the UN of Jan. 1, 1942, signed and ratified the Charter of the UN. - there were fifty original members although Poland was unable to participate in the drafting of the Charter. Elective -by decision of the General Assembly upon the favorable recommendation of the Security council which must be peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations.

Suspension of Members A Member of the United Nations against which preventive or enforcement action has been taken by the Security Council may be suspended from the exercise of the rights and privileges of membership by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. The exercise of these rights and privileges may be restored by the Security Council. Effect: Cannot participate in the meeting of the General Assembly or from being elected to or continuing to serve in the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council or trusteeship council.

Expulsion A Member of the United Nations which has persistently violated the Principles contained in the present Charter may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. Withdrawal of Members No provision in the UN charter because of the fear that it might encourage successive withdrawal that might weaken the Organization. Nevertheless, the San Francisco Conference approved a special committee report that a member might withdraw from the UN if: 1. The organization was revealed to be unable to maintain peace or could do so only at the expense of law and justice. 2. The members right and obligation ass such has changed by a charter amendment in which it had not occurred or which it finds itself unable to accept. 3. An amendment duly accepted by necessary majority either in the general assembly or in general conference is not ratified.


Page 4

Organs of the UN A) THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY- The General Assembly shall consist of all the Members of the United Nations. Each Member shall have not more than five representatives in the General Assembly. Function may be classified as: 1. Deliberative, initiate studies and make recommendations toward the progressive development of international law and its codification. 2. Supervisory, shall receive and consider reports from the other organs of the United Nations. 3. Financial, consider and approve the budget of the Organization and budgetary arrangements with specialized agencies. 4. Elective, the election of the non-permanent members of the Security Council, the election of the members of the Economic and Social Council, the election of members of the Trusteeship Council. 5. Constituent, such as ad mission of the members and the amendment of the charter of the UN. B) THE SECURITY COUNCIL- The key organ of UN in the maintenance of international peace and security. It consists of fifteen Members of the United Nations. The Republic of China, France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America shall be permanent members of the Security Council. The other Member are elected for two-years term by the General Assembly, five from African and Asian states, two from Latin American states, two from western European and one from eastern European state. Voting: Yalta Formula which provides that: 1. Each member of the Security Council shall have one vote. 2. Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members. 3. Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting. C) THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL - consist of fifty-four Members of the United Nations elected by the General Assembly. Specifically, these organs should exert effort toward: Higher standard of living, full employment and condition of economic and social progress and development. 2. Solutions of international economic, social, health and related problems, and international, cultural and educational cooperation; and Universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race sex language or religion. D) THE TRUSTEESHIP COUNCIL- assist the Security Council and the General Assembly in the administration of the international trusteeship system. It consist of the following Members of the United Nations: a. those Members administering trust territories; b. such of those Members mentioned by name in Article 23 as are not administering trust territories; and c. as many other Members elected for three-year terms by the General Assembly as may be necessary to ensure that the total number of members of the Trusteeship Council is equally divided between those Members of the United Nations which administer trust territories and those which do not. The General Assembly and, under its authority, the Trusteeship Council, in carrying out their functions, may: 1. consider reports submitted by the administering authority; 2. accept petitions and examine them in consultation with the administering authority; 3. provide for periodic visits to the respective trust territories at times agreed upon with the administering authority; and 4. take these and other actions in conformity with the terms of the trusteeship agreements. E) THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE-the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. It shall function in accordance with the Statute, which is based upon the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice and forms an integral part of the present Charter. Function: Decide contentious cases and to render advisory opinions. Only states including non-members of the UN may be parties in contentious cases. Jurisdiction: Based on the consent of the parties as manifested under the optional jurisdiction clause. F) THE SECRETARIAT-the administrative organ of the UN. Headed by the Secretary-General which shall be appointed by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. He shall be the chief administrative officer of the Organization. Secretary General the highest representative of the UN and its authorized to act in its behalf. He may bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security. In the performance of their duties the Secretary-General and the staff shall not seek or receive instructions from any government or from any other authority external to the Organization. They shall refrain from any action which might reflect on their position as international officials responsible only to the Organization. CHAPTER 5: THE CONCEPT OF THE STATE PRINCIPLE OF STATE CONTINUITY from the moment of its creation, the state continues as a juristic being notwithstanding changes in its circumstances, provided, only that they do not result in loss of any of its essential elements. EXTINCTION OF STATES results when there is a radical impairment of the essential elements of the state. PRINCIPLE OF STATE SUCCESSION A. B. 1. 2. STATE SUCCESSION is the substitution of one State by another, the latter taking over the rights and some of the obligations of the former. 2 types of State Succession: UNIVERSAL- takes place when a State is completely annexed by another, or is dismembered or dissolved, or is created as a result of merger of 2 or more States. PARTIAL - takes place when a portion of the territory of a State loses part of its sovereignty by joining a confederation or becoming a protectorate or suzerainty.


Page 5

C. Effects of State Succession: 1. The allegiance of the inhabitants of the predecessor State is transferred to the successor State. 2. The political laws of the predecessor State are automatically abrogated but the non-political laws are deemed continued unless expressly repealed or contrary to the institutions of the new sovereign. 3. The public property of the predecessor State is acquired by the successor State but not the tort liability of the former. 4. Treaties entered into by the predecessor State are not considered binding on the successor State except those dealing with local rights and duties such as servitudes and boundaries. People vs. Perfecto (G.R. No. L-18463, October 4, 1922) Article 256 of the Penal Code is contrary to the genius and fundamental principles of the American character and system of government. The gulf which separates this article from the spirit which inspires all penal legislation of American origin, is as wide as that which separates a monarchy from a democratic Republic like that of the United States. This article was crowded out by implication as soon as the United States established its authority in the Philippine Islands. Penalties out of all proportion to the gravity of the offense, grounded in a distorted monarchical conception of the nature of political authority, as opposed to the American conception of the protection of the interests of the public, have been obliterated by the present system of government in the Islands. From an entirely different point of view, it must be noted that this article punishes contempts against executive officials, although its terms are broad enough to cover the entire official class. Punishment for contempt of non-judicial officers has no place in a government based upon American principles. Our official class is not, as in monarchies, an agent of some authority greater than the people but it is an agent and servant of the people themselves. These officials are only entitled to respect and obedience when they are acting within the scope of their authority and jurisdiction. The American system of government is calculated to enforce respect and obedience where such respect and obedience is due, but never does it place around the individual who happens to occupy an official position by mandate of the people any official halo, which calls for drastic punishment for contemptuous remarks. SUCCESSION OF GOVERNMENT 1. In succession of government, the integrity of the original State is not affected as what takes place is only a change in one of its elements, the government. 2. Effects of a change in government: a. If effected by peaceful means, the new government inherits all rights and obligations of the old government. b. If effected by violence, the new government inherits all the rights of the old government. However, the new government may reject the obligations of the old government if they are of a political complexion. If the obligations are the consequence of the routinary act of administration of the old government, they should be respected. PEOPLE vs. PERFECTO Topic: The Concept of the State Facts: This case arose when La Nacion newspaper edited by Gregorio Perfecto published an article reading as follows: Half a month has elapsed since the discovery, for the first time, of the scandalous robbery of records which were kept and preserved in the iron safe of the Senate, yet up to this time there is not the slightest indication that the author or authors of the crime will ever be discovered. To find them, it would not, perhaps, be necessary to go out of the Senate itself, and the persons in charge of the investigation of the case would not have to display great skill in order to succeed in their undertaking, unless they should encounter the insuperable obstacle of official concealment. In that case, every investigation to be made would be but a mere comedy and nothing more. After all, the perpetration of the robbery, especially under the circumstances that have surrounded it, does not surprise us at all. The execution of the crime was but the natural effect of the environment of the place in which it was committed. How many of the present Senators can say without remorse in their conscience and with serenity of mind, that they do not owe their victory to electoral robbery? How may? The author or authors of the robbery of the records from the said iron safe of the Senate have, perhaps, but followed the example of certain Senators who secured their election through fraud and robbery. Gregorio Perfecto was prosecuted for the crime of lese majeste, Article 256 of the Spanish Penal Code. Issue: WON Gregorio Perfecto can be prosecuted under the Spanish Penal Code with the change of sovereignty from the Spaniards to the Americans? Held: NO. It is a general principle of the public law that on acquisition of territory the previous political relations of the ceded region are totally abrogated. "Political" is here used to denominate the laws regulating the relations sustained by the inhabitants to the sovereign. xxxxxxxxx According to our view, article 256 of the Spanish Penal Code was enacted by the Government of Spain to protect Spanish officials who were the representatives of the King. With the change of sovereignty, a new government, and a new theory of government, as set up in the Philippines. It was in no sense a continuation of the old, although merely for convenience certain of the existing institutions and laws were continued. The demands which the new government made, and makes, on the individual citizen are likewise different. No longer is there a Minister of the Crown or a person in authority of such exalted position that the citizen must speak of him only with bated breath. "In the eye of our Constitution and laws, every man is a sovereign, a ruler and a freeman, and has equal rights with every other man. We have no rank or station, except that of respectability and intelligence as opposed to indecency and ignorance, and the door to this rank stands open to every man to freely enter and abide therein, if he is qualified, and whether he is qualified or not depends upon the life and character and attainments and conduct of each person for himself. Every man may lawfully do what he will, so long as it is not malum in se or malum prohibitum or does not infringe upon the equally sacred rights of others." xxxxxxxxx The crime of lese majeste disappeared in the Philippines with the ratification of the Treaty of Paris. Ministers of the Crown have no place under the American flag. To summarize, the result is, that all the members of the court are of the opinion, although for different reasons, that the judgment should be reversed and the defendant and appellant acquitted.


Page 6

CHAPTER 6: RECOGNITION RECOGNITION act by which a state acknowledges existence of another state, government or belligerent community and indicates its willingness to deal with the entity as such under rules of international law. Even if an entity has already acquired the elements of international personality, it is not for this reason alone automatically entitled to membership in the family of nations. The extent of its membership in the international community is dependent on the number of states prepared to admit it. If no one recognizes you as a state, you do not obtain any rights. You automatically become a legal body but no rights because acquisition of the rights comes from the acquiescence of other states. Recognition assures the state sovereignty (freedom from external control- willingness of other states to allow you to act as member of the international body) Theories: 1. Declaratory merely affirms an existing fact like the possession by the state of the essential elements. Discretionary and political; (this is what is more applicable) 2. Constitutive - it is the act of recognition that constitutes the entity into an international person. Compulsory and legal; may be compelled once the elements of a state are established. Objects: 1. State generally held to be irrevocable and imports the recognition of its govt. 2. Government may be withdrawn and does not necessarily signify the existence of a state, as the government may be that of a mere colony. 3. Belligerent community rebels are accorded international personality only in connection with the hostilities they are waging. Kinds: 1. Express may be verbal or in writing like through a formal proclamation, an announcement, a stipulation in a treaty, and the likes. 2. Implied happens when the recognizing state enters into official intercourse with a new member by exchanging diplomatic representatives, concluding bipartite treaties, acknowledging its flag, etc. 3. conditional or permanent Recognition should give a clear indication of an intention as follows; 1. To treat with the new state as such. 2. To accept the new government as having authority to represent the state it purports to govern and to maintain diplomatic relations with it. 3. To recognize in the case of insurgents that they are entitled to exercise belligerent rights. ABSENT or short of such intention will not give rise to recognition. Effect of common membership in an international organization of states that have not recognized each other is that they are deemed to recognized each other only within the said body and not elsewhere. Recognition of States It is the free act by which one or more states acknowledge the existence on a definite territory of a human society politically organized, independent of any existing state, and capable of observing the obligations of international law, and by which they manifest therefore their intention to consider it a member of the international community. Recognition of a new Government It is the free act by which one or several states acknowledge that a person or a group of persons is capable of binding the state which they claim to represent and witness their intention to enter into relations with them. Effects of Recognition of a State or Government: 1. Diplomatic relations; 2. Right to sue in courts of recognizing state; 3. Right to possession of properties of predecessor on the reorganizing state. 4. All acts of the recognized state or government are validated retroactively, preventing the recognizing state from passing upon their legality in its own courts. Conditions for Recognition of Belligerency: --- either be expressed or implied 1. organized civil government; 2. rebels occupy a substantial portion of territory; 3. conflict is serious and outcome is uncertain; 4. rebels are willing to observe the laws of war. * absence of one state of insurgency Effects of Recognition of Belligerency: 1. Responsibility for acts of rebels resulting to injury to nationals of recognizing state shall be shifted to rebel government; 2. The legitimate government recognizing the rebels as belligerents shall observe laws/customs of war in conducting hostilities; 3. Third states recognizing belligerency should maintain neutrality; 4. Recognition is only provisional and only for purposes of hostilities.

Wilson/Tobar Doctrine precludes recognition of government established by revolution, civil war, coup detat or other forms of internal violence until the freely elected representatives of people have organized a constitutional government (Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Tobar and US Pres. Woodrow Wilson)


Page 7

Stimson Doctrine precludes recognition of any government established as result of external aggression (US Sec of State Henry Lewis Stimson) Estrada Doctrine dealing or not dealing with the government established through a political upheaval is not a judgment on the legitimacy of the said government (Mexican Minister Genaro Estrada)

Requisites for recognition de jure: 1. Government is stable and effective; 2. No substantial resistance to its authority; 3. The government must show willingness and ability to discharge its international obligations; 4. The government must enjoy popular consent or approval of the people. * absence of one recognition de facto RECOGNITION DE JURE 1. 2. 3. Relatively permanent vests title to properties of government abroad brings about full diplomatic relations 1. 2. 3. RECOGNITION DE FACTO Provisional (duration of armed struggle) does not vest title to properties of government abroad limited to certain juridical relations

CHAPTER 7: THE RIGHT OF EXISTENCE AND SELF-DEFENSE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF STATES E 1. Existence and self-defense; I 2. Sovereignty and Independence; E 3. Equality; T 4. Territorial Integrity and jurisdiction; L 5. Legation or diplomatic intercourse (Key: TILE2) A. RIGHT TO EXISTENCE AND SELF- DEFENSE most comprehensive as all other rights of state flow from it; state may take measures including use of force as may be necessary to counteract any danger to its existence. Aggression use of armed force by a state against sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another state or in other manner inconsistent with the UN charter. Requisites for Proper Exercise of Right of Self-defense: 1. armed attack Idealistic View: applies only when there is a necessity of self-defense instant, overwhelming and leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation. Mere apprehended danger or any direct threat to the state, does not by itself alone, warrant the employment by the state of any force against a suspected or potential enemy. The right can only be resorted to upon a clear showing of a grave and actual danger to the security of the state, and the self-defensive measure must be limited by the necessity and kept within it. Regular Practice: the very state of armed preparedness of a nuclear power for instance is per se a potent threat to the security of any country with which it may have some differences. Such a country would, under this view, have a right to beat the other to the draw, as it were, and justify its act under the right of self defense. And history is replete with instances of the application of this more pragmatic concept of the right of self-defense. For example, Korea was invaded by Japan in 1904 on the ground that Russia, its enemy then, also had its eye on Korea and might use it as a base of operation against Japan. Russian similarly invaded Finland and sought to justify its act as a strategic measure to defend itself from an anticipated German invasion. And just recently, The US attacked Iraq on the ground that it was storing biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction that it was intending to use against the Americans. 2. 3. self-defensive action taken by attacked state must be reported immediately to Security Council; and such action shall not in any way affect right of Security Council to take at any time action as it deems necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security.

REGIONAL ARRANGEMENT - Collective self-defense is recognized not only in Article 51 of the UN Charter but also implied in Article 7 on Regional Arrangements. In Article 52 sec. 1, it is provided that nothing in the present charter precludes the existence of regional arrangements or agencies for dealing with such matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security as are appropriate for regional action, provided such activities are consistent with the purposes and principles of the United Nations. Purpose to create a balance of power. It is an arrangement of affairs so that no state shall be in a position to have absolute mastery and dominion over others. Example: Organization of American States, and NATO although not strictly regional.


Page 8

CHAPTER 8: THE RIGHT OF INDEPENDENCE Sovereignty supreme, uncontrollable power inherent in a state by which that state is governed - the supreme power of the state to command and enforce obedience, the power to which, legally speaking, all interests are practically subject and all wills subordinate 2 aspects of sovereignty: 1. internal sovereignty the power of the state to direct its domestic affairs, as when it establishes its government, enacts laws for observance within its territory, or adopts economic policies 2. external sovereignty signifies the freedom of the state to control its own foreign affairs, as when it includes treaties, makes war or peace, and maintains diplomatic and commercial relations; often more referred to as independence * The right to independence is a natural aspiration of people that has, albeit only lately, received international recognition. * The State must refrain from intervention. intervention an act by which a state interferes with the domestic or foreign affairs of another state or states through the employment of force or threat of force. 2 instances when the use of force is allowed under the charter of the United Nations: 1. exercised as an act of self-defense 2. decreed by the Security Council as a preventive or enforcement action for the maintenance of international peace and security CHAPTER 9: THE RIGHT OF EQUALITY RIGHT OF SOVEREIGNTY AND INDEPENDENCE Sovereignty totality of the powers, legal competence, and privileges arising from customary international law, and not dependent on the consent of another state. Independence means freedom from control by other state or group of states and not freedom from the restrictions that are binding on all states forming the family of nations; carries with it by necessary implication the correlative duty of non-intervention RIGHT OF EQUALITY every state is entitled to same protection and respect as are available to other state under rules of international law. INTERNATIONAL CATHOLIC MIGRATION COMMISSION vs. FERRER-CALLEJA Topic: Rights of States Facts: ICMC was one of those accredited by the Philippine Government to operate a refugee processing center in Morong, Bataan, pursuant to an Agreement forged between the Philippine Government and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, in response to the plight of Vietnamese refugees as an aftermath of the Vietnam War. It is duly registered with the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and enjoys Consultative Status, Category II. Trade Unions of the Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS) filed with the then Ministry of Labor and Employment a Petition for Certification Election among the rank and file members employed by ICMC. The latter opposed the petition on the ground that it is an international organization registered with the United Nations and, hence, enjoys diplomatic immunity. Later during the course of the litigation, the Philippine Government, through the Department of Foreign Affairs (DEFORAF), granted ICMC the status of a specialized agency with corresponding diplomatic privileges and immunities. This immunity was immediately invoked by ICMC as a ground for the dismissal of the case. On a similar note, the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) was established by a Memorandum of Understanding signed by the Philippine Government and the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations, and was located at Los Baos, Laguna. Initially, IRRI was organized and registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission as a private corporation subject to all laws and regulations. However, by virtue of Pres. Decree No. 1620, IRRI was granted the status, prerogatives, privileges and immunities of an international organization. The Kapisanan ng Manggagawa at TAC sa IRRI (Kapisanan), a labor union, filed a Petition for Direct Certification Election DOLE. IRRI opposed the petition invoking Pres. Decree No. 1620 conferring upon it the status of an international organization and granting it immunity from all civil, criminal and administrative proceedings under Philippine laws. Issue: Held: Whether or not the grant of diplomatic privileges and immunities to ICMC and IRRI extends to immunity from the application of Philippine labor laws SC ruled that it did.

The grant of immunity from local jurisdiction to ICMC and IRRI is clearly necessitated by their international character and respective purposes. The objective is to avoid the danger of partiality and interference by the host country in their internal workings. The exercise of jurisdiction by the Department of Labor in these instances would defeat the very purpose of immunity, which is to shield the affairs of international organizations, in accordance with international practice, from political pressure or control by the host country to the prejudice of member States of the organization, and to ensure the unhampered performance of their functions. There are basically three propositions underlying the grant of international immunities to international organizations. These principles, contained in the ILO Memorandum are stated thus: 1) international institutions should have a status which protects them against control or interference by any one government in the performance of functions for the effective discharge of which they are responsible to democratically constituted international bodies in which all the nations concerned are represented; 2) no country should derive any national financial advantage by levying fiscal charges on common international funds; and 3) the international organization should, as a collectivity of States members, be accorded the facilities for the conduct of its official business customarily extended to each other by its individual member States. The theory behind all three propositions is said to be essentially institutional in character. It is not concerned with the status,


Page 9

dignity or privileges of individuals, but with the elements of functional independence necessary to free international institutions from national control and to enable them to discharge their responsibilities impartially on behalf of all their members. The raison d'etre for these immunities is the assurance of unimpeded performance of their functions by the agencies concerned. The eventuality of Court litigation is neither remote and from which international organizations are precisely shielded to safeguard them from the disruption of their functions. Clauses on jurisdictional immunity are said to be standard provisions in the constitutions of international Organizations. The immunity covers the organization concerned, its property and its assets. It is equally applicable to proceedings in personam and proceedings in rem. Definition of international organizations and specialized agencies: The term "international organization" is generally used to describe an organization set up by agreement between two or more states. Under contemporary international law, such organizations are endowed with some degree of international legal personality such that they are capable of exercising specific rights, duties and powers. They are organized mainly as a means for conducting general international business in which the member states have an interest. The United Nations, for instance, is an international organization dedicated to the propagation of world peace. "Specialized agencies" are international organizations having functions in particular fields. The Charter of the United Nation provides that those agencies which have "wide international responsibilities" are to be brought into relationship with the United Nations by agreements entered into between them and the Economic and Social Council, are then to be known as "specialized agencies."/anel SOUTHEAST ASIA FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CENTER vs. NLRC Topic: Rights of States Facts: Respondent Yong filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against petitioner Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center (SEAFDEC). The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision ordering petitioner to reinstate respondent to his former position with full back wages and to pay complainant moral damages. NLRC affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter. Petitioner filed an urgent motion for the issuance of an order restraining NLRC from issuing a writ of execution. This Court, without giving due course to the petition, issued a temporary restraining order. Previously, this Court, in Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center-Aquaculture Department v. National Labor Relations Commission, 206 SCRA 283 (1992) held that NLRC had no jurisdiction over petitioner, the latter being "an international agency beyond the jurisdiction of the courts or local agencies of the Philippine Government." By reason of this Court's pronouncement in the aforementioned case, petitioner filed a supplemental petition raising the issue of lack of jurisdiction on the part of NLRC to hear and decide the case. Issue: WON NLRC had jurisdiction over the petitioner SEAFDEC, being an international agency. Held: NLRC had no jurisdiction. SEAFDEC, as an international agency, enjoys diplomatic immunity. The Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center-Aquaculture Department (SEAFDEC-AQD) was established by the Government of Burma, the Kingdom of Cambodia, the Republic of Indonesia, Japan, the Kingdom of Laos, Malaysia, the Republic of the Philippines, the Republic of Singapore, the Kingdom of Thailand and the Republic of Vietnam. The Philippines was a signatory to the Agreement establishing SEAFDEC. What is the concept of immunity of international organizations from the jurisdiction of local courts??? One of the basic immunities of an international organization is immunity from local jurisdiction, i.e., that it is immune from the legal writs and processes issued by the tribunals of the court where it is found. The obvious reason for this is that the subjection of such an organization to the authority of the local courts would afford a convenient medium thru which the host government may interfere in their operations or even influence or control its policies and decisions of the organization; besides, such subjection to local jurisdiction would impair the capacity of such body to discharge its responsibilities impartially, on behalf of its member-states. In the case at bar, for instance, the entertainment by the National Labor Relations Commission of Mr. Madamba's reinstatement cases would amount to interference by the Philippine Government in the management decisions of the SEARCA governing board; even worse, it could compromise the desired impartiality of the organization since it will have to suit its actuations to the requirements of Philippine law, which may not necessarily coincide with the interests of the other member-states. It is precisely to forestall these possibilities that in cases where the extent of the immunity is specified in the enabling instruments of international organizations, (jurisdictional immunity is specified in the enabling instruments of international organizations) jurisdictional immunity from the host country is invariably among the first accorded. The petition is GRANTED. The restraining order is made PERMANENT. /hazel US vs. GUINTO Topic: Rights of States Facts: These cases have been consolidated because they all involve the doctrine of state immunity. The United States of America was not impleaded in the complaints below but has moved to dismiss on the ground that they are in effect suits against it to which it has not consented. It is now contesting the denial of its motions by the respondent judges. In G.R. No. 76607, the private respondents are suing several officers of the U.S. Air Force stationed in Clark Air Base in connection with the bidding conducted by them for contracts for barber services in the said base. Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss and opposition to the petition for preliminary injunction on the ground that the action was in effect a suit against the United States of America, which had not waived its non-suability. The individual defendants, as official employees of the U.S. Air Force, were also immune from suit. Trial Court denied its motion.


Page 10

In G.R. No. 79470, Fabian Genove filed a complaint for damages against petitioners Anthony Lamachia, Wilfredo Belsa, Rose Cartalla and Peter Orascion for his dismissal as cook in the U.S. Air Force Recreation Center at the John Hay Air Station in Baguio City. It had been ascertained after investigation, from the testimony of Belsa Cartalla and Orascion, that Genove had poured urine into the soup stock used in cooking the vegetables served to the club customers. Lamachia, as club manager, suspended him and thereafter referred the case to a board of arbitrators conformably to the collective bargaining agreement between the Center and its employees. The board unanimously found him guilty and recommended his dismissal. Genove's reaction was to file his complaint in the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City against the individual petitioners. Defendants in this case move for the dismissal of the complaint, alleging that Lamachia, as an officer of the U.S. Air Force stationed at John Hay Air Station, was immune from suit for the acts done by him in his official capacity. They argued that the suit was in effect against the United States, which had not given its consent to be sued. This motion was denied by the respondent judge. In G.R. No. 80018, Luis Bautista, who was employed as a barracks boy in Camp O' Donnell, an extension of Clark Air Base, was arrested following a buybust operation conducted by the individual petitioners herein, namely, Tomi J. King, Darrel D. Dye and Stephen F. Bostick, officers of the U.S. Air Force and special agents of the Air Force Office of Special Investigators (AFOSI). On the basis of the sworn statements made by them, an information for violation of R.A. 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act, was filed against Bautista in the Regional Trial Court of Tarlac. The above-named officers testified against him at his trial. As a result of the filing of the charge, Bautista was dismissed from his employment. He then filed a complaint for damages against the individual petitioners herein claiming that it was because of their acts that he was removed. The law firm of Luna, Sison and Manas, having been retained to represent the defendants, filed with leave of court a motion to withdraw the answer and dismiss the complaint. The ground invoked was that the defendants were acting in their official capacity when they did the acts complained of and that the complaint against them was in effect a suit against the United States without its consent. The motion was denied by the respondent judge. In G.R. No. 80258, a complaint for damages was filed by the private respondents against the herein petitioners (except the United States of America), for injuries allegedly sustained by the plaintiffs as a result of the acts of the defendants. There is a conflict of factual allegations here. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants beat them up, handcuffed them and unleashed dogs on them which bit them in several parts of their bodies and caused extensive injuries to them. The defendants deny this and claim the plaintiffs were arrested for theft and were bitten by the dogs because they were struggling and resisting arrest, The defendants stress that the dogs were called off and the plaintiffs were immediately taken to the medical center for treatment of their wounds. In a motion to dismiss the complaint, the United States of America and the individually named defendants argued that the suit was in effect a suit against the United States, which had not given its consent to be sued. The defendants were also immune from suit under the RP-US Bases Treaty for acts done by them in the performance of their official functions. The motion to dismiss was denied by the trial court. Issue: Ruling: Doctrine of State Immunity The rule that a state may not be sued without its consent, now expressed in Article XVI, Section 3, of the 1987 Constitution, is one of the generally accepted principles of international law that we have adopted as part of the law of our land under Article II, Section 2. Even without such affirmation, we would still be bound by the generally accepted principles of international law under the doctrine of incorporation. Under this doctrine, as accepted by the majority of states, such principles are deemed incorporated in the law of every civilized state as a condition and consequence of its membership in the society of nations. Upon its admission to such society, the state is automatically obligated to comply with these principles in its relations with other states. While the doctrine appears to prohibit only suits against the state without its consent, it is also applicable to complaints filed against officials of the state for acts allegedly performed by them in the discharge of their duties. The rule is that if the judgment against such officials will require the state itself to perform an affirmative act to satisfy the same, such as the appropriation of the amount needed to pay the damages awarded against them, the suit must be regarded as against the state itself although it has not been formally impleaded. In such a situation, the state may move to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it has been filed without its consent. The doctrine is sometimes derisively called "the royal prerogative of dishonesty" because of the privilege it grants the state to defeat any legitimate claim against it by simply invoking its non-suability. That is hardly fair, at least in democratic societies, for the state is not an unfeeling tyrant unmoved by the valid claims of its citizens. In fact, the doctrine is not absolute and does not say the state may not be sued under any circumstance. On the contrary, the rule says that the state may not be sued without its consent, which clearly imports that it may be sued if it consents. Rationale of State Immunity As applied to the local state, the doctrine of state immunity is based on the justification given by Justice Holmes that "there can be no legal right against the authority which makes the law on which the right depends." There are other practical reasons for the enforcement of the doctrine. In the case of the foreign state sought to be impleaded in the local jurisdiction, the added inhibition is expressed in the maxim par in parem, non habet imperium. All states are sovereign equals and cannot assert jurisdiction over one another. A contrary disposition would, in the language of a celebrated case, "unduly vex the peace of nations." WON the doctrine of immunity from suit is applicable.


Page 11

Manifestation of the consent to be sued Express consent- may be embodied in the general law or a special law Implied consent- when the state enters into a contract or it itself commences litigation

The general law waiving the immunity of the state from suit is found in Act No. 3083, under which the Philippine government "consents and submits to be sued upon any moneyed claim involving liability arising from contract, express or implied, which could serve as a basis of civil action between private parties." A special law was passed to enable a person to sue the government for an alleged tort. When the government enters into a contract, it is deemed to have descended to the level of the other contracting party and divested of its sovereign immunity from suit with its implied consent. 16 Waiver is also implied when the government files a complaint, thus opening itself to a counterclaim The above rules are subject to qualification. Express consent is effected only by the will of the legislature through the medium of a duly enacted statute. 18 We have held that not all contracts entered into by the government will operate as a waiver of its non-suability; distinction must be made between its sovereign and proprietary acts. As for the filing of a complaint by the government, suability will result only where the government is claiming affirmative relief from the defendant. Suability vs. Liability There seems to be a failure to distinguish between suability and liability and a misconception that the two terms are synonymous. Suability depends on the consent of the state to be sued, liability on the applicable law and the established facts. The circumstance that a state is suable does not necessarily mean that it is liable; on the other hand, it can never be held liable if it does not first consent to be sued. Liability is not conceded by the mere fact that the state has allowed itself to be sued. When the state does waive its sovereign immunity, it is only giving the plaintiff the chance to prove, if it can, that the defendant is liable. Case of United States In the case of the United States of America, the customary rule of international law on state immunity is expressed with more specificity in the RP-US Bases Treaty. Article III thereof provides as follows: It is mutually agreed that the United States shall have the rights, power and authority within the bases which are necessary for the establishment, use, operation and defense thereof or appropriate for the control thereof and all the rights, power and authority within the limits of the territorial waters and air space adjacent to, or in the vicinity of, the bases which are necessary to provide access to them or appropriate for their control. It bears stressing at this point that the above observations do not confer on the United States of America a blanket immunity for all acts done by it or its agents in the Philippines. Neither may the other petitioners claim that they are also insulated from suit in this country merely because they have acted as agents of the United States in the discharge of their official functions. There is no question that the United States of America, like any other state, will be deemed to have impliedly waived its non-suability if it has entered into a contract in its proprietary or private capacity. It is only when the contract involves its sovereign or governmental capacity that no such waiver may be implied. Application in the case at bar It is clear from a study of the records of G.R. No. 80018 that the individually-named petitioners therein were acting in the exercise of their official functions when they conducted the buy-bust operation against the complainant and thereafter testified against him at his trial. The said petitioners were in fact connected with the Air Force Office of Special Investigators and were charged precisely with the function of preventing the distribution, possession and use of prohibited drugs and prosecuting those guilty of such acts. It cannot for a moment be imagined that they were acting in their private or unofficial capacity when they apprehended and later testified against the complainant. It follows that for discharging their duties as agents of the United States, they cannot be directly impleaded for acts imputable to their principal, which has not given its consent to be sued. G.R. No. 80258. The contradictory factual allegations in this case deserve in our view a closer study of what actually happened to the plaintiffs. The record is too meager to indicate if the defendants were really discharging their official duties or had actually exceeded their authority when the incident in question occurred. Lacking this information, this Court cannot directly decide this case. The needed inquiry must first be made by the lower court so it may assess and resolve the conflicting claims of the parties on the basis of the evidence that has yet to be presented at the trial. Only after it shall have determined in what capacity the petitioners were acting at the time of the incident in question will this Court determine, if still necessary, if the doctrine of state immunity is applicable. In G.R. No. 79470, the Court can assume that the restaurant services offered at the John Hay Air Station partake of the nature of a business enterprise undertaken by the United States government in its proprietary capacity. The consequence of this finding is that the petitioners cannot invoke the doctrine of state immunity to justify the dismissal of the damage suit against them by Genove. Such defense will not prosper even if it be established that they were acting as agents of the United States when they investigated and later dismissed Genove. For that matter, not even the United States government itself can claim such immunity. The reason is that by entering into the employment contract with Genove in the discharge of its proprietary functions, it impliedly divested itself of its sovereign immunity from suit.


Page 12

But these considerations notwithstanding, we hold that the complaint against the petitioners in the court below must still be dismissed. While suable, the petitioners are nevertheless not liable. It is obvious that the claim for damages cannot be allowed on the strength of the evidence before us, which we have carefully examined. Concerning G.R. No. 76607, we also find that the barbershops subject of the concessions granted by the United States government are commercial enterprises operated by private person's. They are not agencies of the United States Armed Forces nor are their facilities demandable as a matter of right by the American servicemen. These establishments provide for the grooming needs of their customers and offer not only the basic haircut and shave (as required in most military organizations) but such other amenities as shampoo, massage, manicure and other similar indulgences. And all for a fee. Interestingly, one of the concessionaires, private respondent Valencia, was even sent abroad to improve his tonsorial business, presumably for the benefit of his customers. No less significantly, if not more so, all the barbershop concessionaires are under the terms of their contracts, required to remit to the United States government fixed commissions in consideration of the exclusive concessions granted to them in their respective areas. This being the case, the petitioners cannot plead any immunity from the complaint filed by the private respondents in the court below. /jesa COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. GOTANCO & SONS, INC. AND CA Topic: Rights of States Facts: World Health Organization (WHO) as an international organization, it enjoys privileges and immunities which are defined more specifically in the Host Agreement entered into between the Republic of the Philippines and the said Organization on July 22, 1951. Section 11 of that Agreement provides, inter alia, that "the Organization, its assets, income and other properties shall be: (a) exempt from all direct and indirect taxes. It is understood, however, that the Organization will not claim exemption from taxes which are, in fact, no more than charges for public utility services; Sometime in May 1958, the WHO received an opinion from the Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue stating that "as the 3% contractor's tax is an indirect tax on the assets and income of the Organization, the gross receipts derived by contractors from their contracts with the WHO for the construction of its new building, are exempt from tax in accordance with . . . the Host Agreement." Subsequently, however, on June 3, 1958, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue reversed his opinion and stated that "as the 3% contractor's tax is not a direct nor an indirect tax on the WHO, but a tax that is primarily due from the contractor, the same is not covered by . . . the Host Agreement. Issue: Whether respondent John Gotanco & Sons, Inc. should pay the 3% contractor's tax under Section 191 of the National Internal Revenue Code on the gross receipts it realized from the construction of the World Health Organization office building in Manila. Held: In context, direct taxes are those that are demanded from the very person who, it is intended or desired, should pay them; while indirect taxes are those that are demanded in the first instance from one person in the expectation and intention that he can shift the burden to someone else. (Pollock vs. Farmers, L & T Co., 1957 US 429, 15 S. Ct. 673, 39 Law. Ed. 759.) The contractor's tax is of course payable by the contractor but in the last analysis it is the owner of the building that shoulders the burden of the tax because the same is shifted by the contractor to the owner as a matter of self-preservation. Thus, it is an indirect tax. And it is an indirect tax on the WHO because, although it is payable by the petitioner, the latter can shift its burden on the WHO. In the last analysis it is the WHO that will pay the tax indirectly through the contractor and it certainly cannot be said that 'this tax has no bearing upon the World Health Organization. /mier US vs. RUIZ Topic: Rights of States Facts: At times material to this case, the United States of America had a naval base in Subic, Zambales. The base was one of those provided in the Military Bases Agreement between the Philippines and the United States. Sometime in May, 1972, the United States invited the submission of bids for the following projects: 1. Repair fender system, Alava Wharf at the U.S. Naval Station Subic Bay, Philippines. 2. Repair typhoon damage to NAS Cubi shoreline; repair typhoon damage to shoreline revetment, NAVBASE Subic; and repair to Leyte Wharf approach, NAVBASE Subic Bay, Philippines. Eligio de Guzman & Co., Inc. responded to the invitation and submitted bids. Subsequent thereto, the company received from the United States two telegrams requesting it to confirm its price proposals and for the name of its bonding company. The company complied with the requests. [In its complaint, the company alleges that the United States had accepted its bids because "A request to confirm a price proposal confirms the acceptance of a bid pursuant to defendant United States' bidding practices." The truth of this allegation has not been tested because the case has not reached the trial stage.] In June, 1972, the company received a letter which was signed by William I. Collins, Director, Contracts Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest Pacific, Department of the Navy of the United States, who is one of the petitioners herein. The letter said that the company did not qualify to receive an award for the projects because of its previous unsatisfactory performance rating on a repair contract for the sea wall at the boat landings of the U.S. Naval Station in Subic Bay. The letter further said that the projects had been awarded to third parties. Held: The traditional rule of State immunity exempts a State from being sued in the courts of another State without its consent or waiver. This rule is a necessary consequence of the principles of independence and equality of States. However, the rules of International Law are not petrified; they are constantly developing and evolving. And because the activities of states have multiplied, it has been necessary to distinguish them between sovereign and governmental acts (jure imperii) and private, commercial and proprietary acts (jure gestionis). The result is that State immunity now extends only to acts jure imperii. The restrictive application of State immunity is now the rule in the United States, the United Kingdom and other states in western Europe. The restrictive application of State immunity is proper only when the proceedings arise out of commercial transactions of the foreign sovereign, its commercial activities or economic affairs. Stated differently, a State may be said to have descended to the level of an individual and can thus be deemed to have tacitly given its consent to be sued only when it enters into business contracts. It does not apply where the contract relates to the exercise of its sovereign functions. In this case the projects are an integral part of the naval base which is devoted to the defense of both the United States and the Philippines, indisputably a function of the government of the highest order; they are not utilized for nor dedicated to commercial or business purposes. /fred


Page 13

JBL REYES vs. RAMON BAGATSING Topic: Rights of States Facts: Petitioner, retired Justice JB L. Reyes, on behalf of the Anti-Bases Coalition sought a permit from the City of Manila to hold a peaceful march and rally starting from the Luneta, a public park, to the gates of the United States Embassy. Once there, and in an open space of public property, a short program would be held. There was likewise an assurance in the petition that in the exercise of the constitutional rights to free speech and assembly, all the necessary steps would be taken by it "to ensure a peaceful march and rally." Respondent Mayor denied such permit. Petitioner was unaware of such a fact as the denial was sent by ordinary mail. The reason for refusing a permit was due to police intelligence reports which strongly militate against the advisability of issuing such permit at this time and at the place applied for." To be more specific, reference was made to persistent intelligence reports affirm[ing] the plans of subversive/criminal elements to infiltrate and/or disrupt any assembly or congregations where a large number of people is expected to attend." Issue: Whether or not the act of the Mayor of denying the permit is valid? Held: Supreme Court ruled that denying the permit to rally by the Mayor was not valid. Supreme Court concluded that there was no showing of the existence of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil to a legitimate public interest that would justify the denial of the constitutional rights of free speech and peaceable assembly. There is a novel aspect to this case, If the rally were confined to Luneta, no question, as noted, would have arisen. So, too, if the march would end at another park. As previously mentioned though, there would be a short program upon reaching the public space between the two gates of the United States Embassy at Roxas Boulevard. That would be followed by the handing over of a petition based on the resolution adopted at the closing session of the Anti-Bases Coalition. The Philippines is a signatory of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations adopted in 1961. It was concurred in by the then Philippine Senate on May 3, 1965 and the instrument of ratification was signed by the President on October 11, 1965, and was thereafter deposited with the Secretary General of the United Nations on November 15. As of that date then, it was binding on the Philippines. The second paragraph of the Article 22 reads: "2. The receiving State is under a special duty to take appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity. " The Constitution "adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land. ..." To the extent that the Vienna Convention is a restatement of the generally accepted principles of international law, it should be a part of the law of the land. That being the case, if there were a clear and present danger of any intrusion or damage, or disturbance of the peace of the mission, or impairment of its dignity, there would be a justification for the denial of the permit insofar as the terminal point would be the Embassy. Moreover, respondent Mayor relied on Ordinance No. 7295 of the City of Manila prohibiting the holding or staging of rallies or demonstrations within a radius of five hundred (500) feet from any foreign mission or chancery and for other purposes. Unless the ordinance is nullified, or declared ultra vires, its invocation as a defense is understandable but not decisive, in view of the primacy accorded the constitutional rights of free speech and peaceable assembly. Even if shown then to be applicable, that question then confronts this Court. Respondent Mayor posed the issue of the applicability of Ordinance No. 7295 of the City of Manila prohibiting the holding or staging of rallies or demonstrations within a radius of five hundred (500) feet from any foreign mission or chancery and for other purposes. It is to be admitted that it finds support In the previously quoted Article 22 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. There was no showing, however, that the distance between the chancery and the embassy gate is less than 500 feet. Even if it could be shown that such a condition is satisfied. it does not follow that respondent Mayor could legally act the way he did. The validity of his denial of the permit sought could still be challenged. It could be argued that a case of unconstitutional application of such ordinance to the exercise of the right of peaceable assembly presents itself. As in this case there was no proof that the distance is less than 500 feet, the need to pass on that issue was obviated, Should it come, then the qualification and observation of Justices Makasiar and Plana certainly cannot be summarily brushed aside. The high estate accorded the rights to free speech and peaceable assembly demands nothing less. /mier BAER vs. TIZON Topic: Rights of States Facts: The case is about certiorari proceeding against Judge Tizon filed by Commander Baer of the US Naval Base, Subic Bay Olongapo Zambales seeking to nullify his order denying motion to dismiss complaint filed against him by Edgardo Gener. Edgardo Gener, the plaintiff filed a complaint against the petitioner Donald Baer alleging that the latter and that the American Naval Base Authorities stopped his logging business. He prayed that a writ of preliminary injunction be made against the petitioner (Baer) from interfering his logging operations. Subsequently a restraining order was issued by Judge Tizon. Commander Baer filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that he is a head or chief of an agency or instrumentality of the USA, with the subject matter of the action being official acts done by him for and in behalf of USA. He further alleged that his order for cessation of logging operations by respondent Gener in the Naval Base are within his scope of authority and official duty to maintain the security of the Naval Base. Principles of Law Applied: 1. The invocation of the doctrine of immunity from suit of a foreign state without its consent is appropriate. More specifically, insofar as alien armed forces is concerned. : "It is well settled that a foreign army, permitted to march through a friendly country or to be stationed in it, by permission of its government or sovereign, is exempt from the civil and criminal jurisdiction of the place." 2. The U.S. Government has not given its consent to the filing of this suit which is essentially against her, though not in name. Moreover, this is not only a case of a citizen filing a suit against his own Government without the latter's consent but it is of a citizen filing an action against a foreign government without said government's consent, which renders more obvious the lack of jurisdiction of the courts of his country. The principles of law behind this rule are so elementary and of such general acceptance that we deem it unnecessary to cite authorities in support thereof." 3. The doctrine of state immunity is not limited to cases which would result in a pecuniary charge against the sovereign or would require the doing of an affirmative act by it. Prevention of a sovereign from doing an affirmative act pertaining directly and immediately to the most important public function of any government - the defense of the state is equally as untenable as requiring it to do an affirmative act.


Page 14

Ruling: WHEREFORE, the writ of certiorari prayed for is granted, nullifying and setting aside the writ of preliminary injunction issued by respondent Judge in Civil Case No. 2984 of the Court of First Instance of Bataan. The injunction issued by this Court on March 18, 1965 enjoining the enforcement of the aforesaid writ of preliminary injunction of respondent Judge is hereby made permanent. Costs against private respondent Edgardo Gener. /louella WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION vs. AQUINO Topic: Rights of States Facts: Petitioner Dr. Leonce Verstuyft was assigned by the WHO to the Regional Office in Manila as Acting Assistant Director of Health Services pursuant to the Host Agreement between the Philippine Government and the World Health Organization. When petitioner Verstuyft's personal effects contained in twelve (12) crates entered the Philippines as unaccompanied baggage, they were accordingly allowed free entry from duties and taxes. The crates were directly stored at the Eternit Corporation's warehouse at Mandaluyong, Rizal, "pending his relocation into permanent quarters. Upon the application for a search warrant by the respondents COSAC officers on the ground that they "contain large quantities of highly dutiable goods" beyond the official needs of said petitioner, respondent judge issued the search warrants for alleged violation of Republic Act 4712 amending section 3601 of the Tariff and Customs Code directing the search and seizure of the dutiable items in said crates. Issue: Ruling: Whether Dr. Verstuyft is entitled "to all privileges and immunities, exemptions and facilities accorded to diplomatic envoys in accordance with international law" under the Host Agreement? The Court granting the petition ruled that:

It is a recognized principle of international law and under our system of separation of powers that diplomatic immunity is essentially a political question and courts should refuse to look beyond a determination by the executive branch of the government, and where the plea of diplomatic immunity is recognized and affirmed by the executive branch of the government as in the case at bar, it is then the duty of the courts to accept the claim of immunity upon appropriate suggestion by the principal law officer of the government, the Solicitor General in this case, or other officer acting under his direction. Hence, in adherence to the settled principle that courts may not so exercise their jurisdiction by seizure and detention of property, as to embarrass the executive arm of the government in conducting foreign relations, it is accepted doctrine that "in such cases the judicial department of (this) government follows the action of the political branch and will not embarrass the latter by assuming an antagonistic jurisdiction." x x x the Philippine Government is bound by the procedure laid down in Article VII of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies of the United Nations for consultations between the Host State and the United Nations agency concerned to determine, in the first instance the fact of occurrence of the abuse alleged, and if so, to ensure that no repetition occurs and for other recourses. This is a treaty commitment voluntarily assumed by the Philippine Government and as such, has the force and effect of law. /lemuel ARCHIPELAGIC DOCTRINE CHAPTER 10: TERRITORY Territory fixed portion of the surface of the earth as inhabited by the people of the state - must be permanent and indicated with precision because its limits generally define the jurisdiction of the state - must be big enough to provide for the needs of the population but should not be so extensive as to be difficult to administer or defend from external aggression * right to acquire territories one of the fundamental attributes of the state - this right can be asserted only in accordance with the generally accepted principles of international law and always with due regard for the territorial integrity of other states Acquisition and Loss of Territory Territory may be acquired by: o Discovery and occupation o Prescription o Cession o Subjugation o Accretion Territory may be lost by: o Abandonment or dereliction o Cession o Subjugation o Prescription o Erosion o Revolution o Natural causes 1. Discovery and Occupation original mode of acquisition by which territory not belonging to any state, or terra nullius, is placed under the sovereignty of the discovering state a) Requisites Possession; and Administration


Page 15


Dereliction territory is lost by dereliction when the state exercising sovereignty over it physically withdraws from it with the intention of abandoning it altogether

2. Prescription requires long, continued and adverse possession to vest acquisitive title in the claimant 3. Cession is a method by which territory is transferred from one state to another by agreement between them - familiar transactions such as sale, donation, barter or exchange, and even by testamentary disposition 4. Subjugation when having been previously conquered or occupied in the course of war by the enemy, it is formally annexed to it at the end of that war - formal act of annexation that completes the acquisition 5. Accretion mode of acquiring territory based on the principle of accession cedat principali - it is accomplished through both natural and artificial processes, as by the gradual and imperceptible deposit of soil on the coasts of the country through the action of the water or, more effectively, by reclamation projects Components of Territory: a) The Terrestrial Domain land mass, which may be integrate, or dismembered, or partly bounded by water, or consist of one whole island, or may be composed of several islands The Maritime and Fluvial Domain consists of the bodies of water within the land mass and the waters adjacent to the coasts of the state up to a specified limit Rivers may be classified as: national (situated completely in the territory of one state); multinational (flow through the territories of several states); international (navigable from the open sea and is open to the use of vessel from all states); and boundary (divides the territories of the riparian states) Bays well-marked indentation whose penetration is in such proportion to the width of its mouth as to contain land-locked waters and constitute more than a mere curvature of the coast The Territorial Sea the belt waters adjacent to the coasts of the state, excluding the internal waters in bays and gulfs, over which the state claims sovereignty and jurisdiction The UN Conferences on the Law of the Sea there were 3 international conferences to formulate a new law of the sea (Convention of the Law of the Sea) The Philippine Territorial Sea the claim of the Philippines to its territorial sea was based on historic right or title --- treaty limits theory The Archipelagic Doctrine the Philippines position on the definition of its internal waters Basis of Article I of the 1987 Constitution based on R.A. No. 3046, as amended by R.A. No. 5446 Methods of Defining the Territorial Sea territorial sea may be defined, regardless of its breadth, according either to the normal based or to the straight baseline method - Normal baseline method the territorial sea is simply drawn from the low-water mark of the coast, to the breadth claimed, following its sinuosities and curvatures but excluding the internal waters in bays and gulfs - Straight baseline method straight lines are made to connect appropriate points on the coast without departing radically from its general direction The Aerial Domain is the airspace above the terrestrial domain and the maritime and fluvial domain of the state, to an unlimited altitude but not including outer space



CHAPTER 11: JURISDICTION - the authority exercised by a state or persons and things within or sometimes outside its territory, subject to certain exceptions * Jurisdiction may be exercised by a state over: a) Its nationals b) The terrestrial domain c) The marine and fluvial domain d) The continental shelf e) The open seas f) The aerial domain g) Outer space h) Other territories Personal Jurisdiction is the power exercised by a state over its national Territorial Jurisdiction a state has jurisdiction over all persons and property within its territory * Exceptions: Foreign states, heads of states, diplomatic representatives, and consuls to a certain degree Foreign state property, including embassies, consulates, and public vessels engaged in non-commercial activities Acts of state Foreign merchant vessels exercising the rights of innocent passage or arrival under stress Foreign armies passing through or stationed in its territories with its permission Such other persons or property, including organizations like the United Nations, over which it may, by agreement, waive jurisdiction


Page 16

Land Jurisdiction everything found within the terrestrial domain of the state is under its jurisdiction Maritime and Fluvial Jurisdiction the internal waters of a state are assimilated to the land mass and subjected to the same degree of jurisdiction exercised over the terrestrial domain - civil, criminal & admin. jurisdiction is exercised by the flag state over its public vessels wherever they may be, provided theyre not engaged in commerce The Contiguous Zone besides extending the limits of their territorial sea beyond the traditional 3 miles from the low-water mark, some states have claimed a protective jurisdiction The Continental Shelf refers to: a) The seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas adjacent to the coast but outside the area of the territorial sea, to a depth of 200 meters, or beyond that limit, to where the depth of the superjacent waters admits of the exploitation of the natural resources of the said areas; and b) To the seabed and subsoil of similar areas adjacent to the coasts of islands The Patrimonial Sea the exclusive economic zone which extends 200 nautical miles from the coast or the baselines; all living and non-living resources found therein belong exclusively to the coastal state The Open Seas or high seas; are res communes and available to the use of all states for purposes of navigation, flying over them, laying submarine cables of fishing * A state may exercise jurisdiction on the open seas in the following instances: Over its vessels the flag state has jurisdiction over its public vessels at all times, whether they be in its own territory, in the territory of other states or on the open seas Over pirates pirates are enemies of all mankind and may be captured on the open seas by the vessels of any state, to whose territory they may be brought for trial and punishment In the exercise of the right of visit and search under the laws of neutrality, the public vessels or aircraft of a belligerent state may visit and search ay neutral merchant vessel on the open seas and capture it if it is found or suspected to be engaged or to have engaged in activities favorable to the other belligerent Under the Doctrine of Hot Pursuit if an offense is committed by a foreign merchant vessel within the territorial waters of the coastal state, its own vessels may pursue the offending vessel into the open sea and upon capture to bring it back to its territory for punishment Aerial Jurisdiction there are not traditional rules in international law regarding the rights of the subjacent state to its aerial domain - the local state has jurisdiction over the airspace above to it to an unlimited height, or at the most up to where outer space begins - no foreign aircraft, civil or military, may pass through the aerial domain of a state without its consent * 5 air freedoms: The freedom to fly across foreign territory without landing The freedom to land for non-traffic purposes The freedom to put down traffic originating in the state of the aircraft The freedom to embark destined for the state of the aircraft The freedom to embark traffic destined for or to put down traffic originating in a 3rd state * Convention on Offenses and Certain Other Act Committed on Board Aircraft - it is the state of registration of the aircraft that has jurisdiction over offenses and acts committed on board while it is in flight or over the high seas or any other area outside the territory if any state * No other state may exercise jurisdiction over such aircraft except when: 1) The offense has effect on the territory of such state 2) The offense has been committed by or against a national or permanent residence of such state 3) The offense is against the security of such state 4) The offense consists of a breach of any rule or regulations relating to the flight or maneuver of aircraft in force in such state 5) The exercise of jurisdiction is necessary to ensure the observance of any obligation of such state under a multi-lateral international agreement Outer Space is not subject to the jurisdiction of any state - including the moon and other celestial bodies shall be free for exploration and use by all states without discrimination of any kind, on a basis of equality and in accordance with international law; also not subject to national appropriation Other Territories a state may, by virtue or customary or conventional international law, extend its jurisdiction beyond its territory and over territory not falling under its sovereignty * This may be effected in the following ways: Through assertion of its personal jurisdiction over its national abroad or the exercise of its right to punish certain offenses committed outside its territory against its national interests even if the offenders are non-resident aliens On the strength of its relations with other states or territories, as when it establishes a colonial protectorate, or a condominium, or administers a trust territory, or occupies enemy territory in time of war As a consequence of the waiver of jurisdiction by the local state over persons and things within its territory Through acquisition of extraterritorial rights Through the enjoyment of easements or servitudes, such as the easement of innocent passage or the easement or arrival under stress


Page 17

CHAPTER 12: THE RIGHT OF LEGATION - is one of the most effective ways of facilitating and promoting intercourse among states - through the active right of sending diplomatic representatives and the passive right of receiving them, states are able to deal more directly and closely with each other in the improvement of their mutual interests Agents of Diplomatic Intercourse diplomatic relations are normally conducted through the head of the state, the foreign secretary or minister and the members of the diplomatic service The Head of State be he monarch or president - the embodiment of or at least represents the sovereignty of his state The Foreign Secretary the immediate representative of the head of state and directly under his control - also the head of the foreign office and has direction of all ambassadors and other diplomatic representatives of his government Diplomatic Envoys the regular or day-to-day conduct of international affairs is entrusted to the members of the foreign service who are accredited by the sending state as its permanent envoys to represent it in state with which it is maintaining diplomatic relations * The heads of these diplomatic missions are classified as follows by the Convention on Diplomatic Relations: Ambassadors or nuncios accredited to heads of state Envoys, ministers or internuncios accredited to heads of state Chargs daffaires accredited to ministers for foreign affairs The Diplomatic Corps a body consisting of the different diplomatic representatives who have been accredited to the same local or receiving state - it is headed by a doyen du corps who, by tradition, is the oldest member with the highest rank or, in Catholic countries, the Papal Nuncio Appointment of Envoys the Diplomatic Convention provides that the class to which the heads of their missions are to be assigned shall be agreed upon between the states concerned - sending state must make certain that the agrment of the receiving state has been given for the person it proposes to accredit as head of the mission to that state * agreation informal inquiries are addressed to the receiving state regarding a proposed diplomatic representative of the sending state - under our Constitution, it is the President who is empowered to appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, subject to the consent of the Commission on Appointments Commencement of the Diplomatic Mission the head of the mission is considered as having taken up his function in the receiving state either when he has presented his credential or when he has notified his arrival and a true copy of his credentials has been presented to the foreign ministry of the receiving state Diplomatic Functions: 1) Representing the sending state in the receiving state 2) Protecting in the receiving state the interests of the sending state and its nationals 3) Negotiating with the government of the receiving state 4) Ascertaining by all lawful means conditions and developments in the receiving state and reporting thereon to the government of the sending state 5) Promoting friendly relations between the sending and receiving states and developing their economic, cultural and scientific relations Conduct of Diplomatic Mission the diplomatic agent must exercise the utmost discretion and tact, taking care always to preserve the goodwill of the sending state and to avoid interference with its internal affairs Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges these privileges are necessary to give the envoy the fullest freedom or latitude in the exercise of his official functions a) Personal inviolability the envoy is regarded as sacrosanct and is entitled to the special protection of his person honor and liberty; except where the envoy cannot complain if he is injured because he himself caused the initial aggression b) Immunity from jurisdiction diplomatic agent shall be immune from the civil, criminal and administrative jurisdiction of the receiving state - exceptions: A real action relating to private immovable property situated in the territory of the receiving state, unless he holds it on behalf of the sending state for the purposes of the mission An action relating to succession in which the diplomatic agent is involved as executor, administrator, heir or legatee as a private person and not on behalf of the sending state An action relating to any professional or commercial activity exercised by the diplomatic agent in the receiving state outside his official functions c) Inviolability of diplomatic premises franchise de lhotel extends immunity from the local law to the diplomatic premises - these include the envoys offices, his residence and out-buildings, his means of transportation, and the compound where these are found, which may not be entered by the local authorities without his permission - exception: in cases of clear and urgent necessity d) Inviolability of archives the receiving state has no right to pry into the official papers and records of a foreign diplomatic mission e) Inviolability of communication the right to free communication is recognized and protected by international law; such communications are inviolable and the diplomatic bag containing it shall not be opened or detained f) Exemption from testimonial duties a diplomatic agent is not obliged to give evidence as a witness; he is not prohibited by international law from doing so and may waive this privilege when authorized by his government g) Exemption from taxation diplomatic envoy is also exempt from taxes, customs duties, and other dues, subject to the exception listed in the Diplomatic Convention, and as well as from social security requirements under certain conditions h) Other privileges the receiving state shall ensure to all members of the mission freedom of movement and travel in its territory


Page 18

- the receiving state shall also exempt diplomatic agents from all personal services, from all public services of any kind whatever, and from military obligation - the mission and its head shall have the right to use the flag and emblem of the sending state The Diplomatic Suite or Retinue consists of the diplomatic staff, the administrative and technical staff and the service staff Duration every person entitled to diplomatic privileges and immunities shall enjoy them from the moment he enters the territory of the receiving state on proceeding to take up his post or, if already there, from the moment his appointment is notified to the foreign ministry - when his functions have come to an end, his privileges and immunities shall normally cease from the moment he leaves the country or on expiry of a reasonable time in which to do so, but shall subsist until such time even in case of armed conflict Termination of Diplomatic Mission a diplomatic mission may come to an end by any of the usual methods of terminating official relations, like death, resignation, removal, abolition of the office, etc. CHAPTER 13: CONSULS Consuls state agents residing abroad for various purposes but mainly in the interest of commerce and navigation - they are not charged with the duty of representing their states in political matters nor are they accredited to the state where they are supposed to discharge their functions 2 kinds of consuls: 1. Consules missi are professional or career consuls who are nationals of the appointing state and are required to devote their full time to the discharge of their consular duties 2. Consules electi may or may not be nationals of the appointing state and perform their consular functions only in addition to their regular callings Classification of consuls according to importance: 1. Consul-general 2. Consul 3. Vice-consul 4. Consular agent Appointment of consuls: 1. Latter patent or lettr de provision which is the commission issued by the sending state 2. Exequatur which is the authority given to them by the receiving state to exercise their duties therein Functions: Principal duties is to promote the commercial interests of their country in the receiving state and to observe the commercial trends and developments therein for report to their home government They perform duties relating to national navigation visiting and inspecting vessel of their own states which may be in a consular district; exercising a measure of supervision over such vessels; adjusting matters pertaining to their internal order and discipline; visiting and inspecting foreign vessel destined for a port of the sending state They are also empowered to issue passports to nationals of the sending state; visa passports; documents relating to entry and travel within the territory of the sending state; visa invoices; certification of origin of goods destined for the territory of that state They are also to look after the interests of fellow national and to extend them official assistance whenever needed Immunities and privileges Do not ordinarily enjoy the traditional diplomatic immunities and privileges Consuls have a right to official communication and may correspond with their home government or other official bodies by any means, including cipher or code, without being subjected to censorship or unreasonable restraint; however may be curtailed/restricted if its to the prejudice of receiving state They also enjoy inviolability of their archives They are exempt from the local jurisdiction for crimes committed by them in the discharge of their official functions They are also generally exempted from taxation, customs duties, service in the militia, and social security rules, and are privileged to display their national flag and insignia in the consulate These immunities and privileges are available not only to the consul but also to the members of the consular post, their respective families and the private staffs Termination of Consular Mission The consuls office may end in accordance with the usual modes of terminating official relations such as removal, resignation, death, expiration of term, and the like It should be noted that severance of consular relations does not necessarily terminate diplomatic relations CHAPTER 14: TREATIES Treaty 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 Functions of treaties: 1. Enable parties to settle finally actual and potential conflicts 2. They make it possible for the parties to modify the rules of international 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


Page 19

Essential requisites of a valid treaty: 1. Treaty-making capacity all states have full treaty-making capacity unless limited by reason of their status or by previous self-imposed prohibitions 2. Authorized representatives it is for municipal law to determine which organ of the state shall be empowered to enter into treaties in its behalf 3. Freedom of consent it is uniformly recognized that fraud or mistake will invalidate a treaty as it would an ordinary contract 4. Lawful subject-matter a treaty with such unlawful purposes would be null and void 5. Compliance with constitutional processes treaty-making process is governed by international law except with respect to the method of ratification as required by the municipal law of most states at present Treaty-making processes: 1. Negotiation may be undertaken directly by the head of state but he now usually assigns this task to his authorized representatives - it is a standard practice for one of the parties to submit a draft of the proposed treaty which together with the counter-proposals, becomes the basis of the subsequent negotiations - negotiations may be brief or protracted, depending on the issues involved, and may even collapse in case the parties are unable to come to an agreement on the points under consideration 2. Signature as a means of authenticating the instrument and for the purpose of symbolizing the good faith of the parties; but, it does not indicate the final consent of the state in cases where ratification of the treaty is required 3. Ratification the formal act by which a state confirms and accepts the provisions of a treaty concluded by its representatives 4. Exchange of instruments of ratification also signifies the effectivity of the treaty unless a different date has been agreed upon by the parties Binding effect of treaties: As a rule, a treaty is binding only on the contracting parties, including not only the original signatories but also other states which, although they may not have participated in the negotiation of the agreement, have been allowed by its terms to sign it later by a process known as accession. There are instances, however, when 3rd states may be validly held to the observance of or benefit from the provisions of a treaty: 1. The treaty may be merely a formal expression of customary international law which, as such, is enforceable on all civilized states because if their membership in the family of nations. 2. It is provided under Article 2 of the UN Charter that the Organization shall ensure that non-member States act in accordance with the principles of the Charter so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security, and under Article 103 that the obligations of member-states shall prevail in case of conflict with any other international agreement, including those concluded with non-members. 3. The treaty itself may expressly extend its benefits to non-signatory states. Observance of treaties Pacta sunt servanda requires the performance of good faith of treaty obligations Rebus sic stantibus the equivalent exception to the maxim pacta sunt servanda; 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 o Limitations: It applies only to treaties of indefinite duration The vital change must have been unforeseen or unforeseeable and should not have been cause by the party invoking the doctrine The doctrine must be invoked within reasonable time It cannot operate retroactively upon the provisions of the treaty already executed prior to the change of circumstances Treaty interpretation The basic rule in the interpretation of treaties is to give effect to the intention of the parties. Termination of treaties: 1. By expiration of the term, which may be fixed or subject to a resolutory condition 2. By accomplishment of the purpose 3. By impossibility of performance 4. By loss of the subject matter 5. By desistance of the parties, through express mutual consent; desuetude, or the exercise of the right of denunciation (or withdrawal), when allowed 6. By novation 7. By extinction of one of the parties if the treaty is bipartite 8. By vital change of circumstances under the doctrine of rebus sic stantibus 9. By outbreak of war between the parties in most cases, save specifically when the treaty was intended to regulate the conduct of the signatories during the hostilities, or to cede territory, or to fix boundaries 10. By violence of the treaty because of defects in its conclusion, violation of its provisions by one of the parties, or incompatibility with international law or the UN Charter. CHAPTER 15: NATIONALITY AND STATELESSNESS The individual is merely an object and not a subject of international law and is thus not directly governed by its rules, both in the enjoyment of rights and performance of duties.

Nationality the tie that binds an individual to his state, from which he can claim protection and whose law he is obliged to obey Citizenship has a more exclusive scope in that it applies only to certain member of the state accorded more privileges than the rest of the people who also owe it allegiance Subject has a particular reference to the nationals of monarchial regimes


Page 20

Acquisition of nationality: 1. Jus soli acquires the nationality of the state where he is born 2. Jus sanguinis acquires the nationality of his parents 3. Naturalization a process by which a foreigner acquires, voluntarily or by operation of law, the nationality of another state Direct naturalization is effected: a) By individual proceedings, usually judicial, under general naturalization laws b) By special act of legislature, often in favor of distinguished foreigners who have rendered some notable service to the local state c) By collective change of nationality (naturalization en masse) as a result of cession or subjugation d) In some cases, by adoption of orphan minors as national of the state where they are born Derivative naturalization in turn is conferred: a) On the wife of the naturalized husband b) On the minor children of the naturalized parent c) On the alien woman upon marriage to a national Multiple nationality An individual may sometimes find himself possessed of more than one nationality because of the concurrent application to him of the municipal laws of the states claiming him as their national Doctrine of Indelible Allegiance an individual may be compelled to retain his original nationality notwithstanding that he has already renounce or forfeited it under the laws of a second state whose nationality he has acquired Loss of nationality Voluntary methods renunciation (express or implied); request for release Involuntary methods forfeiture as a result of some disqualification or prohibited act; substitution of one nationality for another following a change of sovereignty or any act conferring derivative naturalization Conflict of nationality laws Embodied in the Hague Convention of 1930 of the Conflict of Nationality Laws (Articles 1 to 6) Statelessness is the condition or status of an individual who is born without any nationality or who loses his nationality without retaining or acquiring another In such cases, the individual is, from the traditional viewpoint, powerless to assert any right that otherwise would be available to him under international law were he a national of a particular state. Any wrong suffered by him through the act or omission of a state would be damnum absque injuria for in theory no other state had been offended and no international delinquency committed as a result of the damage caused upon him It is provided that children shall have the nationality of the state of their birth whenever their parents are: a) Unknown; b) Stateless or of unknown nationality c) A father who is stateless or of unknown nationality and a mother who is a national of the state where they are born CHAPTER 16: TREATMENT OF ALIENS It is well settled that every state has the right, as inherent in sovereignty and essential to its own security and existence, to determine in what cases and under what conditions foreigners may be admitted to its territory. The alien cannot as a rule claim a preferred position vis--vis the national of the state where he is at best only a guest. It is, in fact, a cardinal rule of international law that the foreigner must accept the institutions of the local state as he finds them. It is also an accepted principle that the state is not an insurer of the life or property of the alien when he is within its territory. Doctrine of State Responsibility - a state may be held responsible for: a) An international delinquency b) Directly or indirectly imputable to it c) Which cause injury to the national of another state International Standard of Justice Is a concept of controversial content that has defied precise definition The standard of the reasonable state, that is, as referring to the ordinary norms of official conduct observed in civilized jurisdictions Failure of Protection or Redress Even if its laws conform to the international standard of justice, the state may still be held liable if it does not make reasonable efforts to prevent injury to the alien or, having done so unsuccessfully, fails to repair such injury. The degree of diligence required must vary with the circumstances of the case. It is important to remember in this connection that responsibility does not immediately attach to the state upon a showing failure to prevent or redress an injury to aliens. Distinction must be made between direct and indirect state responsibility. Rules: o Where international delinquency was committed by superior government officials or organs liability will attach immediately as their acts may not be effectively prevented or reversed under the constitution and laws of the state o Where the offense is committed by inferior government officials or, more so, by private individuals the state will be held liable only if, by reason of its indifference in preventing or punishing it, it can be considered to have connived in effect in its commission


Page 21

Exhaustion of Local Remedies 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. Resort to Diplomatic Protection If the injured foreigner has exhausted all local remedies but without success, he may then avail himself of the assistance of his state but only if he has a state. Otherwise, he will have no party to represent him, and he by himself, being a mere individual, cannot institute his claim in his own name. Enforcement of Claim An international claim for damages may be resolved through negotiation or, if this fails, any of the other methods of settling disputes, like good offices, arbitration, and judicial settlement. There have been cases also where hostile and forcible measures have been employed and when war itself has been resorted to as a means of compliance with the demands of the injured state. Avoidance of State Responsibility To avoid the intervention of the aliens state in contracts of this nature, the local state sometimes incorporates therein what is known as the Calvo clause. Calvo clause This is a stipulation by which the alien waives or restricts his right to appeals 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. Exclusion of Aliens The practice of most states now is to regulate the immigration and stay of aliens and to provide for their deportation whenever warranted. Arrangements may also be made, in proper case, for the extradition of alien fugitives. Deportation removal of an alien out of the 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 Extradition the surrender of a person by one state to another state where he is wanted for prosecution or, if already convicted for punishment Basis of Extradition The extradition of a person is required only if there is a treaty between the state of refuge and the state of origin. Fundamental Principles of Extradition 1) Extradition is based on the consent of the state of asylum as expressed in a treaty or manifested as an act of goodwill. 2) Under the principle of specialty, a fugitive who is extradited may be tried only for the crime specified in the request for extradition and included in the list of offenses in the extradition treaty. 3) Any person may be extradited, whether he be a national of the requesting state, of the state of refuge or of another state. 4) Political and religious offenders are generally not subject to extradition. Attentat clause the murder of the head of state or any member of his family is not to be regarded as a political offense for purposes of extradition 5) In the absence of special agreement, the offense must have been committed within the territory or against the interests of the demanding state. 6) The act for which the extradition is sought must be punishable in both requesting and requested states under what is known as the rule of double criminality. Procedure of Extradition If the surrender of a fugitive is sought, a request for his extradition is presented through diplomatic channels to the state of refuge. This request will be accompanied by the necessary papers relative to the identity of the wanted person and the crime he is alleged to have committed or of which he has already been convicted. Upon receipt of this request, the state of refuge will conduct a judicial investigation to ascertain if the crime is covered by the extradition treaty and if there is prima facie case against the fugitive according to its own laws. If there is, a warrant of surrender will be drawn and the fugitive will be delivered to the state of origin. CHAPTER 17: SETTLEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES International dispute is an actual disagreement between states regarding the conduct to be taken by one of them for the protection or vindication of the interests of the other Situation the initial stage of a dispute - the disagreement has not yet ripened into a full-blown conflict or the issues have not yet been sufficiently formulated and defined * a dispute is legal if it involves justiciable rights based on law or facts susceptible of adjudication by a judicial or arbitral tribunal * a dispute is political if it cannot be decided by legal processes on the basis of substantive rules of international law because the differences if the parties spring from animosities in their mutual attitudes rather than from an antagonism of legal rights Methods of settling disputes From basic principles of the UN, by peaceful means in such manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered. The closest approach in the international society to such agencies is the International Court of Justice, but its jurisdiction is not general or obligatory; indeed, its competence to act is dependent on the consent of the parties involved States have on many occasions found it necessary to settle their disputes by themselves alone without regard to higher authority.


Page 22

Amicable methods 1) Negotiation the discussion undertaken by the parties themselves of their respective claims and counterclaims with view to their just and orderly adjustment 2) Inquiry an investigation of the points in question, on the theory that their elucidation will contribute to the solution of the differences between the parties 3) Good offices a method by which a 3rd party attempts to bring the disputing states together in order to enable them to discuss the issues in contention and arrive at an agreement 4) Mediation by means of which the 3rd party does not merely provide the opportunity for the antagonists to negotiate but also actively participates in their discussions in order to reconcile their conflicting claims and appease their feelings of resentment - the suggestions of the mediator are merely persuasive, however, and may be rejected without offense by the parties to the dispute 5) Conciliation also calls for the active participation of a 3rd party in the attempt of the disputants to settle their conflict, and the recommendations made by it are likewise not binding - the services of the conciliator are not offered by the 3rd party but solicited by the parties in dispute 6) Arbitration the solution of a dispute by an impartial 3rd party, usually a tribunal created by the parties themselves under a charter known as the compromise, which will provide for, among other, the composition of the body and the manner of the selections of its members, its rules of proceedings and sometimes even the law to be applied by it, and the issues of fact or law to be resolved - the proceedings are essentially judicial and the award is, by previous agreement, binding on the parties to the dispute 7) Judicial settlement similar to arbitration - not only in the nature if the proceedings and the binding character of the decisions but also in the facts that the disputes submitted for adjudication are legal rather than political Judicial settlement Arbitration Judicial tribunal is a pre-existing and permanent body. Arbitral tribunal is an ad hoc body created and filled by the parties to the dispute themselves. Jurisdiction is usually compulsory. Jurisdiction is voluntary. The law applied is independent of the will of the parties. The law applied may be limited by the parties. * The judicial settlement of international disputes is now entrusted to the International Court of Justice. * The jurisdiction of the court is not compulsory but dependent on the agreement of the parties to submit to and be bound by its decisions. * compromissary clause which empowers the Court to settle disputes arising from the interpretation or the application of such treaty 8) Resort to regional and international organizations which may be resorted to by the parties on their own volition or taken by the body itself at its own instance if allowed by agreement of the members * Except for negotiation, they all involve the participation of a 3rd party, such as a state or a prestigious statesman or jurist. Hostile methods Where the pacific methods of settling disputes are unsuccessful, states sometimes find it expedient to resort to what are known as the hostile or nonamicable methods. These methods are not only unfriendly but may even involve illegal and coercive acts and are usually imposed upon weak countries by strong powers. They are regarded as a mild alternative compared to war, in the sense that they may avoid the necessity of creating a more serious state of hostilities which might not be justified by the nature of the dispute. Hostile methods of settling disputes; classifications: 1) Retorsions any action taken in retaliation where the acts complained of do not constitute a legal ground of offense but are rather in the nature of unfriendly acts but indirectly hurtful to other states - the act of retaliation is also unfriendly but not illegal 2) Reprisals are an act of self-help on the part of the injured state, responding after an unsatisfied demand to an act contrary to international law on the part of the offending state - they have the effect of suspending momentarily in the relations of the 2 states the observance of this or that rule of international law 3) Intervention - act by which a state interferes with the domestic or foreign affairs of another state or states through the employment of force or threat of force The United Nations The Security Council shall have jurisdiction to intervene in: a) All disputes affecting international peace and security b) All disputes which, although coming under the domestic jurisdiction clause, have been submitted to it by the parties for settlement Such disputes may be brought to it by: 1) The Security Council itself, on its own motion 2) The General Assembly 3) The Secretary-General 4) Any member of the UN 5) Any party to the dispute, provided that in the case of non-members of the UN, they should accept in advance, for the purposes of the dispute, the obligations of pacific settlement under the Charter In case they are unable to adjust their differences by themselves through the peaceful methods suggested, the Security Council may recommend appropriate measures or methods of adjustment, taking into consideration: a) Any amicable measures already adopted by the parties; and b) That legal disputes should as a rule be referred to the International Court of Justice


Page 23

Where the terms of settlement are rejected by any of the parties, the Security Council is empowered to take more drastic steps, to wit: 1) It may adopt such measures not involving the use of armed force 2) Should it consider that such measures would be or have proved inadequate, it may then take such action by air, sea or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security (known as enforcement action) CHAPTER 18: WAR War an armed contention between the public forces of states or other belligerent communities, implying the employment of violence among the parties as a means of enforcing their respective demands upon each other (war may exist even without the use of force) * The fact war must be ascertained by the competent authorities. As long as no objective authority is established, it is for the states concerned to ascertain the existence of the fact war in the international sense. Outlawry of War Abhorrence of the widespread suffering it has caused through the ages has inspired many attempts to suppress it. The Charter of UN is categorically committed to the outlawry of war. 2 instances is the use of force allowed: 1) In the exercise of the inherent right of self-defense 2) In pursuance of the so-called enforcement action that may be decreed by the Security Council Laws of War: 1) The Declaration of Paris of 1856 2) The Hague Conventions of 1907 3) The Geneva Convention of 1925 4) The Geneva Convention of 1929 5) The Declaration of London of 1936 6) The Geneva Convention of 1949 7) The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Commencement of War The Hague Conventions of 1907 provide that hostilities must not commence without a previous and explicit warning, in the form of either a reasoned declaration of war or of an ultimatum with conditional declaration. War is supposed to commence on the date specified in the declaration or on the date it is communicated to the enemy. The war may start: 1) With a declaration of war; or 2) With the rejection of an ultimatum; or 3) With the commission of an act of forces regarded by at least one of the belligerents as an act of war. Effects of the Outbreak of War: 1) The laws of peace cease to regulate the relations of the belligerents and are superseded by the law of war. 2) Diplomatic and consular relations between the belligerents are terminated and their respective representatives are allowed to return to their own countries. 3) Treaties of a political nature are automatically canceled, but those which are precisely intended to operate during war are activated. 4) Individuals are impressed with enemy character: a. Under the nationality test, if they are nationals of the other belligerent, wherever they may be; b. Under the domiciliary test, it they are domiciled aliens in the territory of the other belligerent, on the assumption that they contribute to its economic resources c. Under the activities test, if, being foreigners, they nevertheless participate in the hostilities in favor of the other belligerent 5) Enemy public property found in the territory of the other belligerent at the outbreak of hostilities is, with certain exceptions, subject to confiscation. Combatants and Non-combatants Combatants those who are engaged directly in the hostilities Non-combatants those who do not engage directly in the hostilities The following are regarded as combatants: 1) Members of the armed forces 2) The irregular forces; provided that: a. They are commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates b. They wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance c. They carry arms openly d. They conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war 3) The inhabitants of unoccupied territory who, on approach of the enemy, spontaneously take arms to resist the invading troops without having hard time to organize themselves, provided that they carry arms openly and observe the laws and customs of war (levee en masse) 4) The officers and crew of merchant vessels who forcibly resist attack


Page 24

Conduct of hostilities 3 basic principles underlie the rules of warfare: 1) Principle of military necessity the belligerents may, subject to the other 2 principles, employ any amount and kind of force to compel the complete submission of the enemy with the least possible loss of lives, time and money 2) Principle of humanity prohibits the use of any measure that is not absolutely necessary for the purposes of the war 3) Principle of chivalry the basis of such rules as those that require the belligerents to give proper warning before launching a bombardment or prohibits the use of perfidy in the conduct of the hostilities Kinds of warfare Aerial warfare Naval warfare Land warfare Belligerent occupation Occupation of hostile territory by a belligerent that exercise authority over it until its forces voluntarily withdraw or are expelled by the enemy Territory is deemed occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army, but this occupation is limited only to the area where such authority has been established and can be effectively exercised. Postliminium The right of postliminy Is that in which persons or things taken by the enemy are restored to the former state on coming actually into the power of the nation to which they belong Jus postliminium Now also imports the reinstatement of the authority of the displaced government once control of the enemy is lost over the territory affected Non-hostile intercourse; certain relations between the belligerents which are not strictly hostile: Flag of truce a white flag carried by an individual authorized by one belligerent to enter into communications with the other Cartels are agreements to regulate intercourse during war on such matters Passport written permission given by the belligerent government or its authorized agent to the subjects of the enemy state to travel generally in belligerent territory Safe-conduct a pass given to any enemy subject or to any enemy vessel allowing passage between defined points Safeguard a protection granted by a commanding officer either to enemy persons or property within his command License to trade a permission given by the competent authority to individuals to care on trade even though there is a state of war Suspension of hostilities Suspension of arms temporary cessation of hostilities by agreement of the local commanders for such purposes as the gathering of the wounded and burial of the dead Armistice suspension of all hostilities within a certain areas (local) or in the entire region of war (general) agreed upon by the belligerent governments, usually for the purpose of arranging the terms of the peace Armistice Purpose is political May be concluded only by the commander-in-chief of the belligerent governments Usually is writing Cease-fire an unconditional stoppage hostilities by order of an international body Truce regarded as a cease-fire with conditions attached Capitulation surrender of military forces, places or districts in accordance with the rules of military honor Suspension of arms Purpose is military May be agreed upon by the local commanders May oral

Termination of war War may be terminated by simple cessation of hostilities, by the conclusion of a negotiated treaty of peace, or by the defeat of one of the belligerents followed by a dictated treaty of peace or annexation of the conquered country. The war may be terminated by the defeat of one of the belligerents, which surrender either conditionally or unconditionally. Aftermath of war One of the inevitable consequences of war is the implied judgment, right or wrong, that the vanquished belligerent is the guilty party in the dispute that caused the hostilities


Page 25