1

Alba

2
Aldenese

3
Avila

4
Baiddin

5
Cabading

6
Dalis

7
Daud

8
Decin

9
Delotina

10
Hassan

11
Joe

12
Kulani

13
Latip

14
Lim

15
Mangubat

16
Saphie

17
Yap

Public International Law

Draft Syllabus
Second Semester, 2014-2015
I. The Nature of International Law
A. Concepts
1. Obligations erga omnes
2. Jus cogens
3. Concept of ex aequo et bono
1.0Romulo v. Vinuya, GR 162230, April 29, 2010
Article 38(2), ICJ Statute
B. International and National law
2.0 Edye v. Robertson
3.0 Whitney v. Robertson
II. The Sources of International Law
Art. 38, ICJ Statute
Art. 53, 1969 Vienna Convention on Treaties
4.0 Kuroda v. Jalandoni. 83 SCRA 171
5.0 Yamashita v. Styer, 75 Phil 563
6.0 Kookooritchkin v. Solicitor General, 81 Phil 435
7.0 Military & Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. US), ICJ
Reports, 1986
8.0 North Sea Continental Shelf Case, ICJ Reports, 1969
9.0 South West Africa Case (2nd Phase), ICJ Reports, 1966
10.0 Asylum Case, ICJ Reports, 1950
Nuclear Test Cases, ICJ Reports:
11.0 New Zealand v. France, 1974
12.0 Australia v. France, 1974
Request for an examination of the situation in accordance with par. 63 of the
courts judgment of the 20
1

13.0 December 1974 in the Nuclear Tests (New Zealand v. France) Case,
1995
14.0 Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons, ICJ Reports, 1996
15.0 Paquete Habana, 175 US 677, 1900
16.0 Preah Vihear Temple Case, ICJ Reports, 1962
17.0 Case Concerning Right of Passage over Indian Territory (Portugal v. India)
18.0 Corfu Channel Case, ICJ Reports, 1949
1.1 Chorzow Factory Case, 1928 PCIJ Ser. A, No. 17
2.1 Barcelona Traction, Light & Power Company Case, ICJ Reports, 1970
3.1 Texaco v. Libya, 17 ILM or 53 ILR 389, 1978
4.1 BP v. Libya, 53 ILR 297
5.1 Saudi Arabia v. Arabian American Oil Company, 27 ILR 117
Generally Accepted Principles of International Law
6.1 Razon v. Tagitis, GR 182498, December 3, 2009
7.1 Ang Ladlad v. COMELEC, GR 190582, April 8, 2010
III.The Law of Treaties
8.1 Qatar v. Bahrain, ICJ 1994
9.1 Air France v. Saks, 470 US 392
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
Definition of treaty
10.1 Abaya v. Sec. Ebdane, G.R. No. 167919, February 14, 2007
11.1 DBM v. Kolonwel Trading; Vibal v. Kolonwel; DEPED v. Kolonwel, June 8, 2007
Definition of ratification
12.1 Lim v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 151445. April 11, 2002
13.1 Bayan v. Zamora, October 10, 2000
14.1 Pimentel v. Executive Secretary, GR 158088, July 6, 2005
15.1 Salonga Petition on the VFA, January 22, 2007
Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide
16.1 Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. US), ICJ
Reports, 1986
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations; Vienna Convention on Consular
Relations and Optional Protocols
17.1 US Diplomatic & Consular Staff (US v. Iran), ICJ Reports, 1980
18.1 Case Concerning Avena and other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. USA), March 31,
2004
IV. Subjects of International Law
2

A. States
1. Art. 1, Montevideo Convention on Rights & Duties of States, 49 Stat 3097, 1933
1.2 Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company Case, ICJ Reports, 1970
Reparations for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the UN, ICJ Reports, 1949
2.2 Mavrommatis Case, PCIJ, Ser. A, No. 2, 1924
Certain Expenses of the UN, ICJ Reports, 1962
3.2 Province of North Cotabato v. GRP Panel, GR 183591, October 14, 2008 (Concept of
Association of States)
2. Nationality and Statelessness
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
3. State Responsibility
Doctrine of state responsibility
4. Treatment of Aliens
Extradition
4.2 Wright v. CA, GR 113213, April 15, 1994
5.2 Government of Hong Kong v. Olalia, GR 153675, April 19, 2007
Deportation
6.2 Djumantan v. Domingo, GR 99358, January 30, 1995
7.2 Secretary of Justice v. Koruga, GR 166199, April 24, 2009
B. Other Subjects of International Law: International Organizations and
Individuals
8.2 Liban v. Gordon, GR 175352, January 18, 2011
V. Territory: Land, Air, Outer Space
9.2 Island of Las Palmas Case (US v. Netherlands), 2 RIAA 829
10.2 Eastern Greenland Case, PCIJ Ser. A/B, No. 53
11.2 SS Lotus Case, PCIJ Ser. A, No. 10
12.2 Minquiers & Ecrehos Case, ICJ Reports, 1951
13.2 Case Concerning Sovereignty Over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau
(Indonesia/Malaysia)
14.2 Eritrea-Yemen Arbitration, ICJ Reports, 1998
15.2 Preah Vihear Temple Case, ICJ Reports, 1962
16.2 Frontier Dispute Case (Burkina Faso v. Mali), ICJ Reports, 1986
17.2 Libya v. Chad, ICJ Reports 1994
18.2 Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case, ICJ Reports, 1951
1.3 Western Sahara Case, ICJ Reports, 1975
2.3 El Salvador v. Honduras, with Nicaragua intervening, ICJ Reports,1992

Sipadan

3.3 Clipperton Island Arbitration (France v. Mexico), January 28, 1931

VI. Territory: Law of the Sea
International Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), ILM 21, 1982
Agreement Relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the UNCLOS, ILM 33, 1994
Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the UNCLOS Relating to the
Conservation & Management of Straddling Fish Stocks & Highly Migratory Fish Stocks
Governing Principles
1. Principle of Freedom to ensure freedom of various uses of the oceans
2. Principle of Sovereignty to safeguard the interests of coastal states
3. Principle of Common Heritage of Mankind to promote the interest of present and
future gene
a. Internal Waters
Doctrines Regarding Boundary Rivers
a. Thalweg Doctrine in the absence of agreement, the boundary line is laid on the middle of the main
navigable channel.
b. middle of the bridge doctrine where there is a bridge over a boundary river, the boundary line is the
center of the bridge.
4.3 Military & Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. US), ICJ
Reports, 1986

FACTS:
US military laid mines in Nicaraguan internal waters and in its territorial sea and along
Nicaraguan ports causing material damage to Nicaragua and innocent vessels. The US
Government did not issue any public and official warning to international shipping of
the existence and location of the mines.
RULING:
Internal waters. Coastal States Sovereignty extends to internal waters and airspace.
Coastal States Laws apply in Internal Waters. The laying of mines within the ports
of another State is governed by the law relating to internal waters, which
4

are subject to the sovereignty of the coastal State. The position is similar as
regards mines placed in the territorial sea. It is therefore the sovereignty of the coastal
State which is affected in such cases. It is also by virtue of its sovereignty that the
coastal State may regulate access to its ports. On the other hand, it is true that
in order to enjoy access to ports, foreign vessels possess a customary right of innocent
passage in territorial waters for the purposes of entering or leaving internal waters.
Freedom of Navigation hampered. Such is guaranteed, first in the exclusive
economic zones and beyond territorial waters and on the high seas, it follows that any
State which enjoys a right of access to ports for its ships also enjoys all the freedom
necessary for maritime navigation. If this right of access to the port is hindered by the
laying of mines by another State, what is infringed is the freedom of communications
and of maritime commerce. At all events, it is certain that interference with navigation
in these areas prejudices both the sovereignty of the coastal State over its internal
waters, and the right of free access enjoyed by foreign ships.
5.3 Saudi Arabia v. Arabian American Oil Company, 27 ILR 117

FACTS:
The Arabian American Oil Company and Saudi Government entered into a concession
agreement, wherein Saudi Govt gave Aramco the exclusive right for oil exploration and
extraction, which includes the transport of oil, however, the Saudi govt objected to the
fact that the oil deposits shall be transported by sea.
RULING:
What governs between Arabian American Oil Company and the Government of Saudi
Arabia is the agreement entered into by them.
The Arbitrator looked into the contents of the agreement, and found the definition of
transport which is means to carry beyond persons or things from one place to
another, whatever the distance between them. Surely it does not imply any specials means of
transportation. It can apply to land, water or sea transport.
The arbitrator said that according to international law ports of every state must be
open to foreign vessels and can only be closed when vital interests of the state so
requires.
5

b. Territorial Sea
Arts. 27-32, UNCLOS

Article27Criminaljurisdictiononboardaforeignship
ThecriminaljurisdictionofthecoastalStateshouldnotbeexercisedonboardaforeignshippassing
throughtheterritorialseatoarrestanypersonortoconductanyinvestigationinconnectionwithany
crimecommittedonboardtheshipduringitspassage,except:
1. iftheconsequencesofthecrimeextendtothecoastalState
2. ifthecrimeisofakindtodisturbthepeaceofthecountryorthegoodorderoftheterritorial
sea;
3. iftheassistanceofthelocalauthoritieshasbeenrequestedbythemasteroftheshiporbya
diplomaticagentorconsularofficeroftheflagState;
4. ifsuchmeasuresarenecessaryforthesuppressionofillicittrafficinnarcoticdrugsor
psychotropicsubstances
Article28Civiljurisdictioninrelationtoforeignships
ThecoastalStateshouldnot:
1. stopordivertaforeignshippassingthroughtheterritorialseaforthepurposeofexercising
civiljurisdictioninrelationtoapersononboardtheship.
2. levyexecutionagainstorarresttheshipforthepurposeofanycivilproceedings,saveonly
Article29Definitionofwarships
1.
2.
3.
4.

ashipbelongingtothearmedforcesofaState
bearingtheexternalmarksdistinguishingsuchshipsofitsnationality,
underthecommandofanofficerdulycommissionedbythegovernmentoftheStateand
whosenameappearsintheappropriateservicelistoritsequivalent,andmannedbyacrew
whichisunderregulararmedforcesdiscipline.

Article30NoncompliancebywarshipswiththelawsandregulationsofthecoastalState

thecoastalStatemayrequireittoleavetheterritorialseaimmediately.

Article 31International Responsibility of the flag State for damage caused by a warship or other
government ship operated for non-commercial purposes
Article32Immunitiesofwarshipsandothergovernmentshipsoperatedfornoncommercial
purposes
The Gulf of Sidra Incidents, 5 Italian Yearbook of International Law
6

6.3 Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case, ICJ Reports, 1951

FACTS:
Norway delimited a certain fisheries zone which was exclusively reserved to its
nationals. This delimitation, using straight baselines, was opposed by the UK. The
coastal zone involved has a distinctive configuration (long and very broken). The Court
upheld this Norwegian delimitation.
RULING:
Use the low-water mark. For the purpose of measuring the breadth of the territorial
sea, it is the low-water mark as opposed to the high- water mark, or the mean
between the two tides, which has generally been adopted in the practice of States.
This criterion is the most favourable to the coastal State and clearly shows the
character of territorial waters as appurtenant to the land territory.
Straight baselines method. This method consists of selecting appropriate points on
the low-water mark and drawing straight lines between them. This has been validly
done, not only in the case of well-defined bays, but also in cases of minor curvatures
of the coast line where it was solely a question of giving a simpler form to the belt of
territorial waters.
Norway s baselines were valid. But the Norwegian delimitation is still subject to
certain principles which make it possible to judge the delimitation s validity under
international law. The delimitation of sea areas has always an international
aspect; it cannot be dependent merely upon the will of the coastal State as
expressed in its municipal law. Although it is true that the act of delimitation is
necessarily a unilateral act, because only the coastal State is competent to
undertake it, the validity of the delimitation with regard to other States
depends upon international law. Certain basic considerations inherent in the
nature of the territorial sea bring to light certain criteria which, though not entirely
precise, can provide courts with an adequate basis for their decisions, which can be
adapted to the diverse facts in question. Among these some reference must be made
to the close dependence of the territorial sea upon the land domain. It is the land
which confers upon the coastal State a right to the waters off its coasts. It follows that
while such a State must be allowed the latitude necessary in order to be able to adapt
its delimitation to practical needs and local requirements, the drawing of base-lines
must not depart to any appreciable extent from the general direction of the coast.
7

Another fundamental consideration is the more or less close relationship existing

between certain sea areas and the land formations which divide or surround them. The
real question raised in the choice of base-lines is in effect whether certain sea areas
lying within these lines are sufficiently closely linked to the land domain to be subject
to the regime of internal waters. This idea, which is at the basis of the determination of
the rules relating to bays, should be liberally applied in the case of a coast, the
geographical configuration of which is as unusual as that of Norway. The last
consideration is that of certain economic interests peculiar to a region, the reality and
importance of which are clearly evidenced by long usage.
7.3 El Salvador v. Honduras, with Nicaragua Intervening, ICJ Reports, 1992

FACTS:
The legal status of the 3 islands located in the Gulf of Fonseca became an issue of
dispute, namely El Tigre, Menguera and Menguerita; ultimately resulted to an armed
conflict betweenElSalvadorandHonduras.
RULING:
TheCourtfoundoutthatnoneofthese3islandshadbeenownedbyanycountry,becausenodocumentcan
bepresentedastowhatcountryexercisessovereigntyoverthem.
Sowhatthecourtdidwastofocusonthebehaviorofthepeopleoftheseislands,andthefindingswere:El
tigreappertainedtoHonduras,andMengueraandMengueritatoElSalvador.
OntheissueoftheGulfoffronsecainconnectiontoterritorialsea,itistobeconsideredtobeahistoricbay,
although,ifthepresentinternationallawshouldapplyitshallbeajuridicalbay.Court held that Gulf of
Fonseca was a case of "historic waters", whereby the three coastal States had
succeeded to communal sovereignty. In contrast to the frontier delimited on land, the
waters of the Gulf had never been divided or otherwise delimited after the
independence of the three coastal States. Thus, the communal succession for the
three States was a logical consequence of the uti possidetis juris principle (colonial
boundaries are continually adopted) with regard to the sovereignty of the Gulf.

8.3 US v. California, 382 US, 1966

California is a coastal area, located west of USA, Facing pacific ocean.
Case involves the interpretation of some terms used in the Submerged Lands Act.
State of California and the Federal government are trying to determine who owns and
has jurisdiction over the subsoil, seabed of the continental shelf and the resources
located therein along the California. To resolve such, the Court discusses the definition
of relevant maritime terms.
US federal government owns and has the right over the
Jurisdiction:
Federal Government beyond 3 miles seaward from the coastline;
California within 3 miles along its coast.
Definitions (International Convention of Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone)
Coastline - (Art. 8 of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone)
(a) The line of mean lower low water on the mainland, on islands, and on low-tide
elevations lying wholly or partly within three geographical miles from the line of mean
lower low water on the mainland or on an island; and
9

(b) The line marking the seaward limit of inland waters.This includes modifications by
natural or artificial means, and includes the outermost permanent harbour works that
form an integral part of the harbour system
"Island" - a naturally-formed area of land surrounded by water, which is above the
level of mean high water;
"Low-tide elevation" - a naturally-formed area of land surrounded by water at mean
lower low water, which is above the level of mean lower low water but not above the
level of mean high water;
"Mean lower low water" - the average elevation of all the daily lower low tides
occurring over a period of 18.6 years;
"Mean high water" - the average elevation of all the high tides occurring over a
period of 18.6 years;
"Geographical mile" - a distance of 1852 meters (6076.10333 U.S. Survey Feet or
approximately 6076.11549 International Feet).
Roadsteads - waters between islands, and waters between islands and the mainland
are not per se inland waters.
"Inland waters" (Par. 2(b) Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone)
waters landward of the baseline of the territorial sea
9.3 US v. Louisiana, 382 US 11, 1969
FACTS:
Louisiana is a coastal area located south of USA, facing gulf of mexico.
The issue is about the correct definition of Inland Waters . U.S. argues that the
definitions of inland waters contained in the International Convention on the Territorial
Sea (ICTS) should prevail over Louisiana s contention that it should be the Inland
Water Line (IWL) fixed by the Commandant of the Coast Guard in 1895.
Sustained the California case. Court sustains the adoption of the ICTS definitions in the
U.S. v. California case. The ICTS definition prevails and it is as follows - "the line of
ordinary low water along that portion of the coast which is in direct contact with the
open sea and the line marking the seaward limit of inland waters."
Baseline. The line marking the seaward limit of inland waters, is also to be drawn in
accordance with the definitions of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the
Contiguous Zone.
Historic title. Whether particular waters are inland has depended on historical as well
as geographical factors but as we said in United States v. California, it is generally
agreed that historic title can be claimed only when the "coastal nation has traditionally
10

asserted and maintained dominion with the acquiescence of foreign nations."

c. Straits
note:
Transit passage is the exercise of the freedoms of navigation and overflight solely for
the purpose of expeditious and continuous transit (thus they must proceed without
delay) of the strait. During transit passage, foreign ships, including maritime scientific
research and hydrographic survey ships, may not carry out any research or survey
activities without the prior authorization of the bordering states.
Transit passage is inapplicable in three instances:
1.

if there exists through the strait a route through the high seas or an EEZ of similar
convenience, in which case the freedoms of navigation and overflight would apply

2.

if the strait is formed by an island of a state bordering the strait and its mainland, and
there exists seaward of the island a route to the high seas or EEZ of similar
convenience, in which case the right of innocent passage would apply

3.

if the strait is between a part of the high seas or EEZ and the territorial sea of another
state, in which case the right of innocent passage would apply.
Bordering states have the following duties:
1. not to impede the right of transit passage
2. to give appropriate publicity to any danger to navigation or overflight within or over
the strait of which they have knowledge
3. not to suspend transit passage.
Ships and aircraft exercising the right of transit passage have the following
duties:
1. to proceed without delay through or over the strait
2. refrain from any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity,
or political independence of States bordering the strait, or in any manner in violation
of the principles in the UN Charter
3. refrain from any activities other than those incident to their normal modes of
continuous and expeditious transit unless necessary due to force majeure or distress
4. to comply with the other provisions of UNCLOS.Also, foreign vessels may not carry
out research and survey activities without the prior authorization of the bordering
States.
11

10.3 Corfu Channel Case, ICJ Reports, 1949

A squadron of British warships, the cruisers Mauritius and Leander, and the destroyers
Saumarez and Volage, left the port of Corfu and proceeded northward through a
channel previously swept for mines in the North Corfu Strait. Several ships struck a
mine and were damaged. UK sues People's Republic of Albania
Albania s failed its Duty it is liable. Obligation incumbent upon Albanian authorities
consisted in notifying for the benefit of the shipping in general, the existence of a
minefield in Albanian territorial waters and in warning the British warships of the
imminent danger to which the minefield exposed them.
BASIS of such an obligation:
1. elementary considerations of humanity, even more exacting in peace than in war
2. the principle of freedom of maritime communication
3. every State's obligation not to allow knowingly its territory to be used for acts
contrary to the rights of other States. Albania was aware of the minelaying since the
geography of the strait easily allowed Albanian lighthouse watchers to view such
activities.

d. Archipelagos
12

Arts. 49, UNCLOS

Article49Legalstatusofarchipelagicwaters,oftheairspaceoverarchipelagicwatersandof
theirbedandsubsoil
1.ThesovereigntyofanarchipelagicStateextendstothewatersenclosedbythearchipelagic
baselinesdrawninaccordancewitharticle47,describedasarchipelagicwaters,regardlessoftheir
depthordistancefromthecoast.
2.Thissovereigntyextendstotheairspaceoverthearchipelagicwaters,aswellastotheirbedand
subsoil,andtheresourcescontainedtherein.
3.ThissovereigntyisexercisedsubjecttothisPart.

4.

TheregimeofarchipelagicsealanespassageestablishedinthisPartshallnotinotherrespectsaffect
thestatusofthearchipelagicwaters,includingthesealanes,ortheexercisebythearchipelagicState
ofitssovereigntyoversuchwatersandtheirairspace,bedandsubsoil,andtheresourcescontained
therein.
Art 52-53 UNCLOS

Article52Rightofinnocentpassage
1.Subjecttoarticle53andwithoutprejudicetoarticle50,shipsofallStatesenjoytherightof
innocentpassagethrougharchipelagicwaters,inaccordancewithPartII,section3.
2.ThearchipelagicStatemay,withoutdiscriminationinformorinfactamongforeignships,
suspendtemporarilyinspecifiedareasofitsarchipelagicwaterstheinnocentpassageofforeign
shipsifsuchsuspensionisessentialfortheprotectionofitssecurity.Suchsuspensionshalltake
effectonlyafterhavingbeendulypublished.
Article53Rightofarchipelagicsealanespassage
1.AnarchipelagicStatemaydesignatesealanesandairroutesthereabove,suitableforthe
continuousandexpeditiouspassageofforeignshipsandaircraftthroughoroveritsarchipelagic
watersandtheadjacentterritorialsea.
2.Allshipsandaircraftenjoytherightofarchipelagicsealanespassageinsuchsealanesandair
routes.
3.ArchipelagicsealanespassagemeanstheexerciseinaccordancewiththisConventionofthe
rightsofnavigationandoverflightinthenormalmodesolelyforthepurposeofcontinuous,
expeditiousandunobstructedtransitbetweenonepartofthehighseasoranexclusiveeconomic
zoneandanotherpartofthehighseasoranexclusiveeconomiczone.
4.Suchsealanesandairroutesshalltraversethearchipelagicwatersandtheadjacentterritorialsea
andshallincludeallnormalpassageroutesusedasroutesforinternationalnavigationoroverflight
13

throughoroverarchipelagicwatersand,withinsuchroutes,sofarasshipsareconcerned,allnormal
navigationalchannels,providedthatduplicationofroutesofsimilarconveniencebetweenthesame
entryandexitpointsshallnotbenecessary.
5.Suchsealanesandairroutesshallbedefinedbyaseriesofcontinuousaxislinesfromtheentry
pointsofpassageroutestotheexitpoints.Shipsandaircraftinarchipelagicsealanespassageshall
notdeviatemorethan25nauticalmilestoeithersideofsuchaxislinesduringpassage,providedthat
suchshipsandaircraftshallnotnavigateclosertothecoaststhan10percentofthedistance
betweenthenearestpointsonislandsborderingthesealane.
6.AnarchipelagicStatewhichdesignatessealanesunderthisarticlemayalsoprescribetraffic
separationschemesforthesafepassageofshipsthroughnarrowchannelsinsuchsealanes.
7.AnarchipelagicStatemay,whencircumstancesrequire,aftergivingduepublicitythereto,
substituteothersealanesortrafficseparationschemesforanysealanesortrafficseparation
schemespreviouslydesignatedorprescribedbyit.
8.Suchsealanesandtrafficseparationschemesshallconformtogenerallyacceptedinternational
regulations.
9.Indesignatingorsubstitutingsealanesorprescribingorsubstitutingtrafficseparationschemes,
anarchipelagicStateshallreferproposalstothecompetentinternationalorganizationwithaviewto
theiradoption.Theorganizationmayadoptonlysuchsealanesandtrafficseparationschemesas
maybeagreedwiththearchipelagicState,afterwhichthearchipelagicStatemaydesignate,
prescribeorsubstitutethem.
10.ThearchipelagicStateshallclearlyindicatetheaxisofthesealanesandthetrafficseparation
schemesdesignatedorprescribedbyitonchartstowhichduepublicityshallbegiven.
11.Shipsinarchipelagicsealanespassageshallrespectapplicablesealanesandtrafficseparation
schemesestablishedinaccordancewiththisarticle.
12.IfanarchipelagicStatedoesnotdesignatesealanesorairroutes,therightofarchipelagicsea
lanespassagemaybeexercisedthroughtheroutesnormallyusedforinternationalnavigation.
Coquia, Analysis of the Archipelago Doctrine in the Law of the Sea, 8 PYIL 30
11.3 Corfu Channel Case, ICJ Reports, 1949

e. The Contiguous Zone

14

f. The Continental Shelf

12.3 North Sea Continental Shelf Case, ICJ Reports, 1969

This case concerned the delimitation of the continental shelf in the North Sea, which
involved Denmark, the Netherlands, and Germany.
Denmark and the Netherlands both wanted to apply the equidistance principle, while
Germany opposed as this would disproportionately reduce its area, due to the concave
German coastline.
Delimitation is a process which involves establishing the boundaries of an area
already, in principle, appertaining to the coastal State and not the determination de
novo of such an area. Delimitation in an equitable manner is one thing, but not the
same thing as awarding a just and equitable share of a previously undelimited area,
even though in a number of cases the results may be comparable, or even identical.
The Court said that the parties can use different methods as to the delimitation of the
continental shelf since equity does not necessarily imply equality.
However,here are 3 States whose North Sea coastlines are in fact comparable in length
and which, have been given broadly equal treatment by nature except that the
configuration of one of the coastlines would, if the equidistance method is used, deny
to one of these States treatment equal or comparable to that given the other two.
Inequity of the equidistance method, in certain geographical circumstances:
(a) The slightest irregularity in a coastline is automatically magnified by the
equidistance line as regards the consequences for the delimitation of the continental
15

shelf. Thus it has been seen in the case of concave or convex coastlines that if
the equidistance method is employed, then the greater the irregularity and
the further from the coastline the area to be delimited, the more
unreasonable are the results produced. So great an exaggeration of the
consequences of a natural geographical feature must be remedied or compensated for
as far as possible, being of itself creative of inequity.
(b) Where there is no outer boundary to the continental shelf, it happens that the
claims of several States converge, meet and intercross in localities where, despite
their distance from the coast, the bed of the sea still unquestionably consists of
continental shelf. A study of these convergences shows how inequitable would be the
apparent simplification brought about by a delimitation which, ignoring such
geographical circumstances, was based solely on the equidistance method.
TheCourtsaidothermethodsshouldbeformulatedandagreeduponbythese3statesaccordingtothe
criteriaof:
Geology,Geography,Unityofanydeposits,Reasonabledegreeofproportionality.
13.3 Libya v. Malta, ICJ Reports, 1985

This concerned the delimitation of the continental shelf between Libya and Malta. The
Mediterranean is bordered by Tunisia (east), Italy (north), Greece (west) and Libya
(south). Malta is a group of islands situated in the Mediterranean, to the south of Italy
and to the north of Libya. Libya s coast is significantly larger than that of Malta.
Relation to EEZ & legal basis of continental shelf rights. The two institutions continental shelf and EEZ are linked together :
1. There can be a continental shelf where there is no EEZ, there cannot be an EEZ
without a corresponding continental shelf. Distancefromthecoastarecommonincontinental
shelfandEEZ.
2.Rightsoverthecontinentalshelf=RightovertheseabedandsubsoilofanyEEZ.
16

Factors which weren t considered in this case which are of importance:

landmass, relative economic positions of the Parties, security considerations,
and the principle of equality.
What the Court intended was proportionality was to be used as a means of
identifying and then correcting the kind of distortion that could arise from
the use of a method inapt to take adequate account of some kinds of coastal
configuration.

Delimitation process:
1. Make a provisional delimitation by using a criterion and a method both of which are
clearly destined to play an important role in producing the final result.
2. Examination of the provisional solution in light of the requirements derived from
other criteria, which may call for a correction of the initial results.
14.3 Tunisia v. Libya, ICJ Reports, 1982

FACTS:
Libya and Tunisia requested the ICJ to determine what principles and rules of
international law may be applied for the delimitation of the area of the continental
shelf appertaining to Libya and to that of Tunisia; and to decide according to equitable
principle and relevant circumstances which characterizes the area as well as the
present convention of the law of the sea.
Tunisia argues that the special agreement between the states gives the Court the jurisdiction to not only rule
on the principles that may apply to this case, but also apply them to the delimitation area. Libya asserts that
the Court was only given the authority to rule on what principles should apply in this case but leave it to the
states to apply them.
However, the area to be delimited constitutes a single continental shelf as the
natural prolongation of both States, so principle of natural prolongation cannot be
used.
17

RULING:
TheICJusedthehalfeffectmethodinconsiderationof2facts:1.the existence of the line
employed de facto by each Party dividing their petroleum concessions; and 2. the
change in direction of the coast(2statesareadjacentbutbecauseofthechangeinthedirection
ofcoastofTunisiaitseemsoppositeatsomepoint.
The technique of half-effect involves drawing two delimitation lines, one giving to
the island the full effect attributed to it by the delimitation method in use, and the
other disregarding the island totally, as though it did not exist. The delimitation
line actually adopted is then drawn between the first two lines, either in such a way as
to divide equally the area between them, or as bisector of the angle which they make
with each other, or possibly by treating the island as displaced toward the mainland by
half its actual distance therefrom.

15.3 Guinea v. Guinea Bissau, ILR 77, 1985

FACTS:
This case involves the overlapping of jurisdiction over maritime areas between Guinea
and Guinea B.
Guinea asserted that the southern limit not only established which islands belonged to Portugal, but also
represented a general maritime boundary. They also contended that the delimitation should be sought by
applying the southern limit of the 1886 Convention, extending it as far as might be necessary, beyond the
meridian of Cape Roxo until 200-mile limit.
Guinea-Bissau contended that the only purpose of the southern limit mentioned in the 1886 Convention
was to designate the islands belonging to Potugal. Guinea-Bissau then argued that the delimitation should be
an equidistance line, starting from the low-mark of the coasts of the Parties.
18

The case regarding the marine delimitation was removed from the list of cases of the
ICJ because both parties mutually dropped the case. Their main reason was that both
parties agreed on establishing an international agency for the join exploitation of the
maritime zone in question.

16.3 Aegean Sea Continental Shelf Case (Greece v. Turkey), ICJ Reports, 1978

FACTS:
The dispute between Greece and Turkey started when the Turkish Oil Company was
carrying exploration of oil in the sea beyond their limit granted by the law. Looking at the map location of
these 2 countries, several greek islands are scattered in the Aegean Sea.
The Greek government urged Turkey to act upon the agreement of Geneva, which was signed in 1958.
In 1974, the rights of Greece over the continental shelf of the Greek islands were reaffirmed contradictory to
the Turkish coastline. Turkey having claimed that the greek islands does not have continental shelf.
This case was dismissed by the ICJ due to lack of jurisdiction, since Turkey did not accept such
jurisdiction in the Rome Communique.
17.3 Anglo-French, ICJ Reports, 1979

19

Between the 1960 and 1970, the United Kingdom successfully delimited its continental shelf in the North
Sea through negotiation. During the same period, France delimited through negotiation also, its continentl
shelf in relation to spain.
After informal contracts, the UK and France began negotiations with view to delimiting the continental
shelfs areas that lay between them. The negotiations resulted in a partial agreement on a boundary east of 30
minutes longitude west of Greenwich. However, the two sides were in fundamental disagreement concerning
the portion of the continental shelf boundary west of 30 minutes longitude west of Greenwich. In order to
settle the differences, the parties entered into an arbitration agreement by which they submitted their dispute
to an ad hoc court of arbitration.
Both parties conformed to the Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf 1958.
3 areas were affected due to French reservation influencing the delimitation, namely:
1. The Eddystone Rocks;
2. The Channel Islands;
3. The Scilly Isles
France contended that the Geneva Convention on Continental Shelf was not in force between the parties as to
French reservation, but the applicable rule is the rule of customary law.
UK contended that the Geneva Convention on Continental Shelf was already in force in its entirety between
the parties. However, it also requested the court that if ever the applicable rule is the rule of customary law
then the boundary line should be drawn in such a way as to leave as much as possible the natural
prolongation of each party without encroachment, applying the principle of equidistance.
20

18.3 Case Concerning Maritime Delimitation in the area between Greenland and Jan
Mayen (Denmark v. Norway), 1993

Greenland is asking
1.4 Canada & France, St. Pierre

FACTS:
g. The Exclusive Economic
Arts. 55-58, 70-73, UNCLOS
Art 55 Theexclusiveeconomiczoneisanareabeyondandadjacenttotheterritorialseaxxx

Art56Rights,jurisdictionanddutiesofthecoastalStateintheexclusiveeconomiczone:
1.Intheexclusiveeconomiczone,thecoastalStatehas:
21

(a)sovereignrightsforthepurposeofexploringandexploiting,conservingandmanagingthe
naturalresources,whetherlivingornonliving,ofthewaterssuperjacenttotheseabedandofthe
seabedanditssubsoil,andwithregardtootheractivitiesfortheeconomicexploitationand
explorationofthezone,suchasthe
productionofenergyfromthewater,currentsandwinds;
(b)jurisdictionasprovidedforintherelevantprovisionsofthis
Conventionwithregardto:
(i)theestablishmentanduseofartificialislands,installations
andstructures;
(ii)marinescientificresearch;
(iii)theprotectionandpreservationofthemarine
environment;
(c)otherrightsanddutiesprovidedforinthisConvention.
2.InexercisingitsrightsandperformingitsdutiesunderthisConventionintheexclusiveeconomic
zone,thecoastalStateshallhavedueregardtotherightsanddutiesofotherStatesandshallactina
mannercompatiblewiththeprovisionsofthisConvention.
3.Therightssetoutinthisarticlewithrespecttotheseabedandsubsoilshallbeexercisedin
accordancewithPartVI.

Art57Breadthoftheexclusiveeconomiczoneshallnotextendbeyond200nauticalmilesfrom

thebaselines

Art58RightsanddutiesofotherStatesintheexclusiveeconomiczone
1. freedomofnavigationandoverflightinaccordancewithotherprovisionsoftheconvention.
2. Governingrulesandlaws
3. StatesshallhavedueregardtotherightsanddutiesofthecoastalStateandshallcomplywith

thelawsandregulationsadoptedbythecoastalStateinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofthis
Conventionandotherrulesofinternationallawinsofarastheyarenotincompatiblewith
thisPart.
Art70RightofgeographicallydisadvantagedStates
Therighttoparticipate,

onanequitablebasis,intheexploitationofanappropriatepartofthe
22

surplusofthelivingresourcesoftheexclusiveeconomiczonesofcoastalStatesofthesame
subregionorregion,takingintoaccounttherelevanteconomicandgeographicalcircumstancesof
alltheStatesconcernedandinconformitywiththeprovisions
ThetermsandmodalitiesofsuchparticipationshallbeestablishedbytheStatesconcernedthrough

bilateral,subregionalorregionalagreements
Art71Nonapplicabilityofarticles69and70thosestatesthatisoverwhelminglydependentuponits
EEZ.
Art72Restrictionsontransferofrights
1. Prohibitionofdirectorindirecttransferofrightsbyleaseorlicense(jointventures)UNLESSthe
stateconcernedalsoagreedupon.
2. Suchstatescanaskandreceivetechnicalorfinancialassistancefromthirdpartiesprovided..
Art73EnforcementoflawsandregulationsofthecoastalState

1.ThecoastalStatemay,intheexerciseofitssovereignrightstoexplore,exploit,conserveand
managethelivingresourcesintheexclusiveeconomiczone,takesuchmeasures,including
boarding,inspection,arrestandjudicialproceedings,asmaybenecessarytoensurecompliancewith
thelawsandregulationsadoptedbyitinconformitywiththisConvention.
2.Arrestedvesselsandtheircrewsshallbepromptlyreleaseduponthepostingofreasonablebond
orothersecurity.
3.CoastalStatepenaltiesforviolationsoffisherieslawsandregulationsintheexclusiveeconomic
zonemaynotincludeimprisonment,intheabsenceofagreementstothecontrarybytheStates
concerned,oranyotherformofcorporalpunishment.
4.IncasesofarrestordetentionofforeignvesselsthecoastalStateshallpromptlynotifytheflag
State,throughappropriatechannels,oftheactiontakenandofanypenaltiessubsequentlyimposed.

2.4 Spain v. Canada (facts only), ICJ Reports, 1966

3.4 M/V Saiga (St. Vincent & Grenadines v. Guinea), ITLOS Judgment, July 1, 1999
4.4 Camouco Case (Panama v. France), Judgment, 7 Feb 2000,
www.un.org/depts/ios/itlos/jud-camouco.htm)
h. Delimitation of Maritime Boundaries
What is Delimitation?
In the North Sea Continental Shelf case, the court defined delimitation as a process
23

which involves establishing the boundaries of an area.

Delimitation process:
1. Make a provisional delimitation by using a criterion and a method both of which are
clearly destined to play an important role in producing the final result.
2. Examination of the provisional solution in light of the requirements derived from
other criteria, which may call for a correction of the initial results.
5.4 Gulf of Maine Case (Canada v. US), ICJ Reports, 1994

In this case, Canada & the US asked the Court to delimit both the continental shelf and
the exclusive fishing zone in the Gulf of Maine area, using only a single boundary.
The Gulf of Maine area is a broad oceanic indentation, which is shaped like a rectangle,
bordered on the 3 sides by land, and on the fourth by the Atlantic Ocean.
The US proposed the method of the perpendicular (a vertical line, perpendicular to the
general of the coast). Canada relied on the equidistance method.
What are the rules, methods applicable?
States have a duty to negotiate with a view to reaching an agreement and to do so in
good faith with a genuine intention to achieve a positive result. Any delimitation must
be effected by agreement between the States concerned either by the conclusion of a
direct agreement or by some alternative method which must be based on consent.
And any agreement or other equivalent solution should involve the application of
equitable criteria - those derived from equity which are not in themselves principles
and rules of international law.
The Convention on Continental Shelf is inapplicable. Why? Because the issue in this
case is not only about the continental shelf, but the exclusive fishing zone as well.
Fundamental norm in delimitation:
24

The boundary be determined according to the applicable law, in conformity with

equitable principles, having regard to all relevant circumstances, in order to achieve
an equitable result. A more complete, precise reformulation of the fundamental norm,
prescribed by general international law for all maritime delimitations between
neighbour states:
(1) No maritime delimitation between States with opposite or adjacent coasts may be
effected unilaterally by one of those States. Such delimitation must be sought and
effected by means of an agreement, following negotiations conducted in good faith
and with the genuine intention of achieving a positive result. Where, however, such
agreement cannot be achieved, delimitation should be effected by recourse to a third
party possessing the necessary competence.
(2) In either case, delimitation is to be effected by the application of equitable criteria
and by the use of practical methods capable of ensuring, with regard to the
geographic configuration of the area and other relevant circumstances, an equitable
result.
The delimitation was done in two steps. First, a provisional delimitation line
was provided. Next, the provisional solution was examined, taking account
of special circumstances. If necessary, the initial results were corrected.
i. The High Seas
Arts. 86-97, 105-111, UNCLOS
Art 86
Definition - allpartsoftheseathatarenotincludedintheexclusiveeconomiczone,inthe

territorialseaorintheinternalwatersofaState,orinthearchipelagicwatersofanarchipelagic
State.
Article87Freedomofthehighseas(NOLFConS)
1. freedom of navigation
2. freedom of overflight
3. freedom to lay submarine cables and pipelines
4. freedom of fishing
5. freedom to construct artificial islands and structures
6. freedom of scientific research.

j. Conservation & Management of Living Resources of the High Seas

6.4 Southern Blue Fin Tuna Cases (NZ & Australia v. Japan), Order on Request for
Provisional Measures, ITLOS Order, August 27, 1999
25

k. Right of Land-Locked States to & from the Sea

l. International Seabed Area
m. Navigation
n. Marine Pollution
Civil Liability Convention of 1969
International Fund Convention of 1971
TOVALOP
CRISTAL
1984 Protocols to CLC & FC Conventions
1992 CLC & FC
TOVALOP Supplement of 1994
Crystal 1992
o. Settlement of Disputes
p. Peaceful Use of the Oceans
q. Archaeological & Historical Objects
r. International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea
VII.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Jurisdiction of States

Territoriality principle
Nationality principle and statelessness
Protective principle
Universality principle
Passive personality principle
Conflicts of jurisdiction

7.4 Brownwell v. Sunlife, 95 Phil 228

8.4 People v. Lol-lo & Saraw, 43 Phil 19
9.4 Tubb v. Greiss, 78 Phil 249
10.4 Haw Pia v. China Banking, 80 Phil 604
VIII. Immunity from Jurisdiction
11.4 PCGG v. Sandiganbayan, GR 124772, August 14, 2007 (Act of State Doctrine)
12.4 Hilao v. Estate of Ferdinand Marcos, Judgment of Feb 1985 & Opinion/Order of
November 1995
13.4 JUSMAG Philippines v. NLRC, 239 SCRA 224
14.4 USA v. Reyes, 219 SCRA 192
15.4 Wylie v. Rarang, 209 SCRA 357
16.4 USA v. Ruiz, 136 SCRA 487
17.4 WHO v. Aquino, 48 SCRA 242
26

1.5 Lyons Inc. v. USA, 104 Phil 593

2.5 Liang v. People, March 26, 2001
3.5 Minucher v. CA, 214 SCRA 242
4.5 Holy See v. Rosario, 238 SCRA 524
5.5 SEAFDEC v. Acosta, 226 SCRA 49
6.5 ICMC v. Calleja
7.5 Ex Parte Pinochet, 38 ILM 581, March 1999
8.5 Israel v. Eichmann, 1962
9.5 Ker v. Illinois, December 6, 1886
10.5 Machain v. Sosa
11.5 Sosa v. Machain
12.5 Ebrahim Case
13.5 UNOCAL Case: Decision by the California Central District Court
14.5 Congo v. Belgium, ICJ Reports, February 14, 2002
15.5 US v. Purganan (Mark Jimenez Cases) = 2 cases: SC & MFR
16.5 Flowers v. Clinton
17.5 Teotico v. Governor General
1.6 Regina v. Bartle and the Commissioner of Police
2.6 Republic of Indonesia v. Vinzons
3.6 Nicolas v. Romulo, GR 175888, February 11, 2009 (Immunity of Foreign Armed
Forces)
IX.State Responsibility
4.6 Corfu Channel Case, ICJ Reports, 1949
5.6 Rainbow Warrior Arbitration (Report)
6.6 US Diplomatic & Consular Staff (US v. Iran), ICJ Reports, 1980
7.6 DC Decision on UNOCAL
8.6 Chorzow Factory Case, 1928 PCIJ Ser. A, No. 17
9.6 Prosecutor v. Tadic
10.6 Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the
Occupied Palestinian Territories
11.6 Bosnia Case (Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of
the Crime of 12.6 Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro)),
February 26, 2007
13.6 Union Bridge Company Claim (US v. Great Britain), 1924
14.6 Youmans Claim (US v. Mexico), 1926
15.6 Zafiro Claim (Great Britain v. US), 1925
16.6 Bolivar Railway Company Claim (Great Britain v. Venezuela), 1903
17.6 Neer Claim (US v. Mexico, 1926)
1.7 Starrett Housing Corp. v. Iran (Interlocutory Award) (US v. Iran), 1983
X. International Human Rights Law
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
2.7 Republic v. Sandiganbayan, GR 104768, July 21, 2003
International Convention on Civil and Political Rights
International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
27

International Criminal Court

XI.

Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes

3.7 Aerial Incidence Case

4.7 Nicaragua v. US2
5.7 El Salvador v. Honduras
XII.

The Use of Force Short of War

XIII. International Humanitarian Law

1. Categories of armed conflicts
a) International armed conflicts
b) Internal or non-international armed conflict
c) War of national liberation
2. Core international obligations of states in International Humanitarian Law
3. Principles of International Humanitarian Law
a) Treatment of civilians
b) Prisoners of war
4. Law on neutrality
A. IHL
a.
1949 Geneva Conventions
b.
1978 Additional Protocol to the Geneva Convention
c.
Security Council Resolution No. 827 (Yugoslavia War Crimes Tribunal)
d.
Security Council Resolution No. 955 (Rwanda War Crimes Tribunal)
e.
1998 Rome Convention on the International Criminal Court
f.
RA 9851, Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian
Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity
Advisory Opinion on the Legality of Nuclear Weapons (WHO Request), ICJ Reports,
1996
6.7 Yugoslavia War Crimes Tribunal Decision on Tadic, July 15, 1999 (www.un.org/icyt/
pressreal/tad-sumj99)
7.7 Yamashita v. Styer, 75 Phil 563
8.7 Dizon v. Commanding General (Report)
B. The UN Charter & the Use of Force
Arts. 2(3), 2(4), 24(1), 25, 23(1), 27(3), UN Charter
9.7 Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. US), ICJ
Reports, 1986
Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons, ICJ Reports, 1966
10.7 Legality of the Use of Force (Yugoslavia v. US), 38 ILM 1199
28

11.7 The Relationship between the UN Charter and General International Law
regarding non-use of force: The Case of NATOs air campaign in the Kosovo Crisis of
1999, Shinya Murase
12.7 The Caroline Case
13.7 M.W. Reisman, Assessing Claims to Revise the Laws of War, 97 AJIL 82 at 87,
2003
14.7 Case Concerning Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of
America), December 12, 1996
C. International Court of Justice
Arts. 92, 93, 94, 96, UN Charter
Arts. 1, 34(1), 35(1), ICJ Statute
a.

b.

c.

Applicable Law
Arts. 38 & 59, ICJ Statute
Jurisdiction
Art. 36(1), (2) & (3), ICJ Statute
Advisory Opinions

Cases on Jurisdiction:
15.7 Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. US), ICJ
Reports, 1986
16.7 Lockerbie Case (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. USA), ICJ Reports, 1988
17.7 ELSI Case, ICJ Reports, 1989
1.8 South West Africa Cases, ICJ Reports, 1966
2.8 Nauru v. Australia, ICJ Reports, 1992
3.8 Case Concerning East Timor (Portugal v. Australia), ICJ Reports, 1995
Cases on Provisional Measures:
4.8 Bosnia Case (Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of
the Crime of 5.8 Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro)),
February 26, 2007
6.8 Lockerbie Case (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. USA), ICJ Reports, 1988
Cases on Dispute:
7.8 Admissions Case (Conditions of Admission of a state to membership in the United
Nations), ICJ Reports, May 28, 1948
8.8 Free Zones Case (Case of the Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex),
PCIJ Ser. A/B. No. 45, June 7, 1932
9.8 Marvrommatis Case, PCIJ Ser. A, No. 2, 1924
UN Headquarters Advisory Opinion (Applicability of the Obligation to Arbitrate under
Sec. 21 of the UN Headquarters Agreement of June 26, 1947), ICJ Reports, April 26,
1988
Cases on Advisory Opinions:
29

Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict (WHO Request),
ICJ Reports, 1996
10.8 Monetary Gold Case (Monetary Gold Removed from Rome in 1943 (Italy v. France,
UK of Great Britain & Northern Ireland, & the USA)), ICJ Reports, June 15, 1954
11.8 Certain Expenses of the UN, ICJ Reports, 1962
12.8 Western Sahara Case, ICJ Reports, 1975
13.8 Botswana v. Namibia (Case Concerning kasikili/Sedudu Island), ICJ Reports, 1999
14.8 Status of Eastern Carelia (Finland v. Russia), PCIJ Ser. B, No. 5, July 23, 1923
Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the
Occupied Palestinian Territories
XIV. International Environmental Law
Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration
XV.

International Economic Law

Madrid Protocol and the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial
Property
Foreign Investments & Natural Resources
15.8 Texaco v. Libya, 17 ILM or 53 ILR 389, 1978
16.8 BP v. Libya, 53 ILR 279
17.8 Saudi Arabia v. Arabian American Oil Company, 27 ILR 117
1.9 Chorzow Factory Case, PCIJ Ser. A, No. 17, 1928
2.9 LIAMCO v. Libyan Arab Republic, 62 ILR 140
3.9 Starrett Housing Case, 4 Iran-US Claims Tribunal Report
4.9 Kuwait v. Aminoil, 66 ILR 518
5.9 Sapphire Case, 35 ILR 136
6.9 Starrett Housing Case, 4 Iran-US Claims Tribunal Report
7.9 AMOCO Case (US v. Iran), 27 ILM 1314
8.9 Phillips Petroleum Company Iran, v. The Islamic Republic of Iran, and The National
Iranian Oil, 21 Iran-US Claims Report
Jimenez de Arechega, State Responsibility for the Nationalization of Foreign Property,
11 NHUJ of International Law & Politics 189, 1978
E. Lauterpacht, Issues of Compensation and Nationality in the Taking of Alien
Property, 8 JENRL 241, 1990
M. Meldelson, What Price Expropriation? Compensation for Expropriation: The Case
Law, 79 AJIL 414, 1985

30