LAW OF THE SEA
The Zones:
TERRA NULLIUS
the only territory that can be a subject of discovery
and occupation
1. A territory that had never been discovered;
OR
2. A territory that had actually been discovered
but the discoverer had not effectively
occupied
a. Island of Palmas Case Discovery
only gives an inchoate right to the
discoverer
b. Inchoate right means that the
discoverer will be given enough
time to exercise functions of the
state or government; any attempt of
the discover to repel any attempt of
third states would be lawful under
international law
LAW OF THE SEA
-One of the more difficult topics because of the vast
rules to remember
-UNCLOS 3 has 320 articles with 9 annexes (sir is not
sure with the figures)
-Law of the Sea is now found on UNCLOS 3 (1982)
Other Conventions to take note of however:
-1958 Convention on Continental Shelf
-1958 Convention on Territorial Sea
-1958 Convention on Fishing
-1958 Convention on (Sir Forgot)
-UNCLOS 2 of 1960
Why are these Conventions still needed?
We do cannot say that they have been superseded by
UNCLOS 3. There are parties to the four1958
conventions but have not yet ratified the 1982
UNCLOS. What will govern them then is not the 1982
UNCLOS but the 1958 Conventions. Outside the 1958
Conventions, they will be governed by CIL.
To understand the Law of the Seas, what you need to
do is first know and understand where to locate the
basic zones, nuances, and the regimes applicable to
each.
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW | DBL | EH 407 S.Y 2016-2017
1. Internal Waters
2. Territorial Sea
3. Contiguous Zone
4. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)
5. High Seas
6. Continental Shelf including the Extended
Continental Shelf
7. THE AREA
-The AREA is governed by the Common
Heritage of Mankind Regime and Res
Communes (things that are owned in
common and therefore cannot be
appropriated by any state)
The determination of these zones will depend on
where the baseline is. The way we decide the law of
the sea is on the basic principle that land dominates
the sea. We determine these zones based on what
we see in the land. For example, the natural curve of
the coast, the land elevation, high tide and low tide.
These all depend on the land.
Two Methods in Determining the Baseline:
Straight Baseline Method
Low Water Mark Method is applied to a state is not
archipelagic OR an area where there are no islands or
fringe of islands. The baseline is marked in that
portion of the shore/ coast where the water meets the
land during low tide. A low water mark is to be
determined by the state itself. Under the UNCLOS, all
states are required to draw their own baseline. Its
within the competence of the state to draw its own
baseline in accordance with the general notion on
what is a low water mark.
Complications arise when there are low tide
elevations which may or may not be included in the
determination of the low water mark.
What are low tide elevations as distinguished
from islands and rocks?
READ Decision of the Permanent Court of
Arbitration in Philippines v China involving
the Spratlys Islands (The Characterization of
islands etc. were important in this case).
LOW TIDE ELEVATIONS are formations in
the sea that only appear during low tide and
disappear during high tide. If they appear
regardless of high tide or low tide, it could be
either an island or a rock.
1
 It is an ISLAND if it is capable of human
habitation or can have economic life of its
own. The island would then have its own
territorial sea, contiguous zone, EEZ, and
continental shelf.
If its a ROCK it is not capable of human
habitation or cannot sustain economic life of
its own. (Note: Some scholars have
scrutinized what economic life is since its
too general.) A rock is not entitled to an EEZ
or continental shelf. A rock is only entitled to
a territorial sea.
The rule on low tide elevations is that you need to
distinguish between low tide elevations that are lying
or found on the expected territorial sea of the state
and those low tide elevations that are beyond the
territorial waters. Territorial waters refer to the
12nautical miles from the baseline
ILLUSTRATION:
There are states that are non-archipelagic but there
are parts of its territory that resemble an archipelago.
We therefore apply a different method in this portion
that resembles an archipelago. We apply the Low
Water Mark Method on the Non-Archipelagic portion
while we apply the straight baseline method to the
archipelagic portion.
ILLUSTRATION NI SIR: NO DRAWING. PLEASE
REFER TO TANYAS NOTES.
TS-Territorial sea
CZ Contiguous zone
EEZ Exclusive economic zone
So, let us assume that these are the baselines, 12NM.
If you notice, let us assume that these are low tide
elevations, meaning they only appear during low tide.
You can actually measure the low water mark from
these outermost low tide elevations. The state is
permitted these low water mark instead of the low
water mark in the mainland but where the low tide
elevation is located outside the territorial sea, the
state is not permitted to draw a low water mark in
these low tide elevation. What if naa sailaha, dibaang
coastal state man ang mudraw? if you are affected
then you can complain on the baseline of state a is
not based on IL. The straight baseline method on the
otherhand, applies to this one and archipelagic state.
A typical example is the Philippines. So what the
archipelagic straight baseline method means is that
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW | DBL | EH 407 S.Y 2016-2017
the state is permitted to draw straight lines instead of
identifying the low water mark but just draw imaginary
straight lines connecting all outermost points of the
outermost islands including the dry reefs and make
sure that these lines do not exceed 100NM, each line.
Except that 3% of all lines drawn may exceed 125NM.
The other rule in making the straight baseline method
is that the state is required to draw the straight line
following the natural direction of the coast of the
archipelago. So, that is also provided for by the
UNCLOS. Another limitation would be also, the
drawing of the straight lines enclosing therefore
waters would comply with the minimum ratio of water
to land from 1:1 to maximum of 9:1 water to land ratio.
so di kapwede mag enclose ug lapas sa 9:1 water to
land ratio. This is found in Art. 47 of the UNCLOS. So
for example, you have here the land mass and upon
property drawing of the baseline, you have these
different zones. Water before the baseline would be
classified as internal waters. From the baseline, 12NM
from that is your territorial sea, 12NM from territorial
sea is the contiguous zone, 200NM from the baseline
is your exclusive economic zone. After the EEZ is the
high seas. High seas is different from international
waters because in international maritime law, we only
distinguish between territorial waters and international
waters. Waters within the territorial sea is called
territorial waters. Beyond that is international waters
which includes CZ and EEZ. O tagaan kas quizbowl,
X is in the 23NM distance from the baseline of State
A, asa mana cya nga zone? You are in the CZ and
the EEZ. So the rights and privileges given to the
coastal state with regard to the CZ and EEZ. Would
that also be possible that X is within the continental
shelf zone? The continental shelf is the natural
prolongation of the continent that extends until the
seabed. For example, here 12NM TS, you add 12NM,
that is CZ, kaning 200NM should be counted from the
baseline. Diri ni actually ang meaning sa 200, pero
kung muingon kag EEZ regime, it only applies to the
zone outside the territorial sea, kay if it is within the
TS, you already speak of not of rights or privileges but
you speak of jurisdiction because the TS is the
assimilation of the entire territory of the state. So, the
correct thinking is that when we talk about the EEZ,
we only talk about the territory outside the TS. The
Continental Shelf Regime, the EEZ is very much
related to the Continental shelf because the
continental shelf is measured from the baseline up to
200NM, as a rule. But it may be extended to more
than 200NM if the natural prolongation of this
continent submerged in water is more than 200NM,
maximum is 350NM. Exception to the 350NM which is
now considered the Extended Continental Shelf is the
2
isobath rule. The difference is that the EEZ regime
refers to the waters superjacent to the subsoil or this
Continental shelf. Beneath the water is governed by
the continental shelf regime which means natural
resources above the continental shelf will be
governed by EEZ. Natural resources found beneath
will be governed by continental shelf. They do not only
pertain to different zones, although related. EEZ is the
general regime. To the extent it concerns about the
continental shelf, it is to be concerned with the
continental shelf regime. The EEZ is required to be
claimed by the coastal claim. For the coastal state to
exercise its rights and privileges in the EEZ, the
coastal state must make a claim. Mao nadunay
proclamation. If there is a failure to make a claim, then
the coastal state may not be able to exercise its rights
and privileges in so far as the EEZ is concerned.
Whereas, a continental shelf however, does not
require the state to make a claim. Even if the state
has, objectively speaking, a continental shelf and
does not make a claim, no other state can explore or
exploit that. That is really exclusive.
THE AREA
The way we distinguish the EEZ regime and the
Continental Shelf Regime, similar ra nas pag disguish
nimo sa territorial sea ugsa high seas. After the EEZ,
and we are referring to the superjacent water, mao na
ang atong giingon nga high seas. If the natural
prolongation of the continental shelf extends beyond
200NM, it can extend to 350NM. Lets say mao ni ang
mark sa 350NM. This one is still continental shelf. So
it is possible that the continental shelf to be beneath
the high seas. that area is that portion of the sea
beneath the high seas continuation of the continental
shelf but beyond the continental shelf. Mao naa tong
gitawag nga the deep seabed. Kani siya, mao ni ang
high seas, so we talk about the basic freedoms in the
high seas katong navigation, laying of pipes, etc. Lain
sad ang mu govern sa deep area, the area after the
continental shelf kung dira na mi end ang drop sa
continental shelf. In other words, kung diriang natural
prolongation and drop dayon siya diri, so if imong
gimeasure diri ang 200NM, part gihapon ni siya sa
continental shelf maski mi drop nani sya diri (lisod I
transcribe kay murag ga draw si sir ani nga part). In
this situation, parehaug distance ang high seas ugang
The Area, in that situation, miextend man ang natural
prolongation ug 200NM so pwede muextend to
350NM. In other words, the Area can be here, not
here. What is the relevance.because the Area is
covered by the common heritage of mankind regime.
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW | DBL | EH 407 S.Y 2016-2017
Since the Area is governed by the common heritage
of mankind principle, you cannot appropriate whatever
it is that you may catch in said area. This is because,
the ISA (International Seabed Authority) regulates the
conduct in the area. The ISA provides ways by which
you may exploit and ways by which the produce of the
exploitation will be shared among all states for the
benefit of all mankind especially for the developing
countries. So this is the regime which governs the
area.
Argument of the Philippines in the West Philippine
Sea case : The other islands were included in the
extended continental shelf. The formations or the
structures were not considered islands and mostly
were actually low tide elevations. So it cannot be
appropriated by China. Even if China had an old map,
it cannot be made a basis for acquisition of that
territory because it was not really part of their territory
being a low tide elevation.
Q : There was a Chinese survey ship exploring the
Benham Rise.
A : The Benham Rise had been awarded to the
Philippines since it is connected to its Continental
Shelf. Pasagdii lang daw na sila, the point is the
Benham plateau had already been awarded to the
Philippines.
Q : What if the continental shelf still continues on
beyond the 350 nautical mile limit?
A : It is not included anymore. The exception to that
general rule is the Isopath Rule. This is the only
exception. It means that if there is a sudden drop in
the continental shelf, you can actually extend up to
100 nautical miles from that sudden drop.
This is the Isopath Rule applied to the continental
shelf problem. Kung inganiang way ang natural
prolongation of the shelf, naay area nga 2,500 meters
deep. From there, which is the Isopath, you can
actually extend your margin up to 100 nautical miles.
That is the only exception where it can go beyond 350
nautical miles as shown here. Lets say that the 2,500
Isopath is there, then it can extend up to 100 nautical
miles.
As Ive notice, these rules are based on Science. For
instance, the 200 nautical miles is based on Marine
Science since Fish Habitats are usually found within
200 nautical miles. Mao nang niingon ko ginigabotsa
high seas, shokoynaimongmakuha. So kanang usual
ngamga fish stocks ngamagamitsa fish farming,
usually naa rana sa 200 nautical miles. If you go
beyond that, lain nanga creatures imongmakuha.
3
Problem :
X, an American , was in possession of marijuana,
while on board M/V Francois, a vessel registered in
France, and while the vessel was in British internal
waters. When accosted by Y, a Filipino captain of the
vessel, X killed Y in the upper deck of the vessel
A. Which court/s have jurisdiction over the
crime/s committed on board M/V
Francois. Explain your answer/s.
In your textbook, you must have encountered a
distinction between the French rule and the English
rule. There is a distinction between Civil Law (French)
practice and Common Law (English) practice. If you
apply these two rules, the outcome of these methods
of determining jurisdiction would actually be the same.
The UNCLOS has not referred to either the French
rule or the English rule precisely because the
outcome is still the same. Basically, we just refer to
UNCLOS 3 in order to solve this problem.
Just the same, by the French rule (Negative Rule), the
coastal state will not exercise jurisdiction over
offenses on board a merchant vessel unless the
commission of the act would threaten the peace and
security of the coastal state.
By the British rule (Positive Rule), the coastal state
will exercise jurisdiction over the offense unless the
offense or act simply refers to internal matters of the
ship. That is why I said the outcome of these rules
would actually be the same.
It is recognized in International Law that the basis of
jurisdiction would either be the French rule or the
English rule. In any case, applying any of these will
give the same result.
B. Would your answer/s be the same if M/V
Francois were in the territorial sea of UK?
Why or why not?
We have a specific rule on this which is largely
influenced by the English and the French rules. If you
were to answer the question, which act we are going
to assess as whether within or outside the jurisdiction
of the coastal state, there are two acts involved. X
was in possession of marijuana. In a 1920s case of
People v Wong Cheng (GR No. l 18924). I realized
in this case that possession of marijuana in the
Philippines was not punished. This is because the
interest of the state is only on the use. It is only the
use of the prohibited drug which affects the interests
of the coastal state. More or less, the facts of the case
are as follows. Wong Cheng was accosted for the
possession of opium. Supreme Court said that it did
not affect the interests of the Philippines, the coastal
state, since it was merely possession, the accused did
not actually use it. Basically, this was because the
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW | DBL | EH 407 S.Y 2016-2017
court did not consider the mere possession of opium
as a threat to the peace and security of the coastal
state.
I do not think that this case is squarely applicable at
present considering that even the possession of
marijuana is definitely punished under our law.
Second of all, murder (the act of X in killing Y) would
definitely affect the peace and order of the coastal
state. When you commit this crime, you are disturbing
the peace.
C. Will your answer/s be the same if the case
involved a Naval Ship of France? Why or
why not?
General Rule: Naval Ships are outside the jurisdiction
of the coastal state because we still follow the
principle that a naval ship is an assimilation of the
territory of the flag state. So in a way, the naval ship is
an extension of the territory of the flag state. They are
immune.
Exception: While in the internal waters, it has to
function governmental or public functions. Since the
moment a government of public ship is used for
commercial purposes, it will lose its character as a
public ship.
Your first zone is the internal waters which includes
ports, harbors, rivers, lakes, low tide elevations. The
problem with internal waters is with regard to bays.
Take a look at the definition of a bay found in Article
10, of the UNCLOS 3.
1.This article relates only to bays the coasts of which
belong to a single State.
2. For the purposes of this Convention, a bay is a
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. An indentation shall not,
however, be regarded as a bay unless its area is as
large as, or larger than, that of the semi-circle whose
diameter is a line drawn across the mouth of that
indentation.
3. For the purpose of measurement, the area of an
indentation is that lying between the low-water mark
around the shore of the indentation and a line joining
the low-water mark of its natural entrance points.
Where, because of the presence of islands, an
indentation has more than one mouth, the semi-circle
shall be drawn on a line as long as the sum total of
4
the lengths of the lines across the different mouths.
Islands within an indentation shall be included as if
they were part of the water area of the indentation.
4. If the distance between the low-water marks of the
natural entrance points of a bay does not exceed 24
nautical miles, a closing line may be drawn between
these two low-water marks, and the waters enclosed
thereby shall be considered as internal waters.
5. Where the distance between the low-water marks
of the natural entrance points of a bay exceeds 24
nautical miles, a straight baseline of 24 nautical miles
shall be drawn within the bay in such a manner as to
enclose the maximum area of water that is possible
with a line of that length.
6. The foregoing provisions do not apply to so-called
"historic" bays, or in any case where the system of
straight baselines provided for in article 7 is applied.
This refers to your semi circle rule. A bay has to be a
semi circle so you may be permitted to use the water,
when enclosed may be regarded as part of a states
internal waters.
Imagine that indention is lets say, 20 nautical miles,
so the penetration is also 20 nautical miles but then
the opening of the mouth is 100 nautical miles, well
that is not a semi circle.
State is not permitted to enclose. di na pwede
matawag ug internal water kana nga area. But if it is a
semi-circle and where the state is permitted to
enclose because they have discussed earlier, the
distance between the 2 points of the mouth of the bay
during low tide is less than 24 nautical miles, so
permitted sya mu enclose and the waters therefore as
enclosed will be considered internal waters.
The relevance of that class really is that in internal
waters, full jurisdiction of the state, coastal state and
there is 1 exception. the coastal state can prohibit in
its internal waters all foreign ships except when the
ship is in distress.
. peace of the coastal state. apparently conducting a
Under UNCLOS there is a provision where the coastal
state is obliged in fact to assist, help those ships that
are in distress. so naa pud na nga obligation. So take
note of that exception. That is the only exception that
justifies a foreign ship in internal waters when the
ship is in distress.
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW | DBL | EH 407 S.Y 2016-2017
In the case of archipelagic states, the archipelagic
state after drawing its baseline, therefore enclosing in
the process certain sea waters, are required to treat
these waters as archipelagic waters. If you notice our
definition under Art. 1 of the Constitution on internal
waters, wala sya nag create actually ug archipelagic
waters. Do you remember Art. 1 of the constitution?
All waters in the archipelago abound, between and
connecting all the islands of archipelago are
considered internal waters but under UNCLOS, these
waters are supposed to be called archipelagic waters.
So unsa man difference nga water man gihapon na?
Ang difference of course is if it is an archipelagic
water, the right of innocent passage applies.
Internal water, there is no such thing as right of
innocent passage. The only exception is a ship in
distress.
However the archipelagic state is given the discretion
as to where the archipelagic exercise the right of
innocent passage may be done. That is why an
archipelagic state is given the discretion to determine,
locate or draw its archipelagic ceiling.
If you are coming from the Philippine west sea, and
you are going to the Pacific Ocean, the shorter
distance is to pass through that strait passing the
island of Siquijor Visayas Mindanao straight ba. If
you are coming from the west Philippine sea, that is
really a shorter route pero since we are not having an
archipelagic ceiling, Kaning mga ships either they go
south or go north. Ambot lang karong panahon ni
duterte kay mura mag friendship kaayo sya sa mga
chinese vessels.
The territorial sea of course, 12 nautical miles from
the baseline. we have already discussed the way we
determine baselines normal and the straight
baseline method. If the limitation to our internal waters
would be ship in distress, the limitation to the territorial
sea is that we permit the right of innocent passage by
foreign ships. Generally the definition of innocent
passage is when it is not prejudicial to the peace,
good order or security of the coastal state. In the
UNCLOS you noticed there are enumerations of
certain activities that are already declared by the
UNCLOS as prejudicial to the peace, good order or
security of the coastal state.
Please familiarize yourselves with these activities
because they are already pronounced by the
UNCLOS as prejudicial to the good order, security or
survey for research purposes is not one of them but
that doesnt mean it is already innocent passage
because if that is the case, if it is not among those
listed by the UNCLOS, there will still be a
determination really of the actual activity and the
consequences of that activity.
5
Definitely kung research, di manghilabot ang
Philippines kung naa ka sa high seas kay that is part
of the 7 freedoms in the high seas conducting
research but while in the EEZ, you must establish that
it has not affected the peace, good order or security of
the coastal state.
Now fishing vessels must comply with the local laws.
submarines, when they are to navigate exercising the
right to innocent passage they are required to
navigate on surface and show their flag. That is very
specific and it was asked in 1 bar exam already. This
is important because if submarines do not navigate on
the surface, this conduct can already be considered
by coastal state as a threat to its territorial integrity or
national security.
You go to Article 17 for the provision on innocent
passage and it says ALL SHIPS of all states. The
passage for purposes of exercising innocent passage
must be for the purpose of traversing the sea without
entering internal waters, proceeding to or from internal
water and the passage however must be continuous
and expeditious. stoppages may be permitted but only
insofar as they are incidental to the ordinary
navigation or as a result of force majeure or distress
or for the purpose of rendering assistance of ships,
aircrafts in danger in distress which by the way is a
recognized obligation under the UNCLOS.
So go to article 19 for the enumeration of activities
that are already declared prejudicial to the peace,
good order or security of the coastal state. Threat of
use of force, weapon exercise, espionage, launching
or landing of. (long joke about benham rice to yang
chow rice)
JURISDICTION
Lets talk about jurisdiction. You may divide it into civil
and criminal. Civil jurisdiction in relation to foreign
states in Article 28. The coastal state is not permitted
to stop or divert a foreign ship passing through the
territorial sea for the purpose of exercising civil
jurisdiction in relation to a person onboard the ship.
Kung passing through the territorial sea, you cannot
serve summons or processes in order to acquire
jurisdiction over the person onboard the ship.
The coastal state may not levy execution against the
ship for purposes of civil proceedings. Unless the ship
is constituted as a subject of the civil proceeding. For
example it is made a collateral of a certain obligation,
of course the exercise of civil jurisdiction may be
permitted.
But for foreign ship that is lying in the territorial sea,
not passing, then it may still be subjected to civil
jurisdiction or that ship passing from internal waters
(meaning leaving from internal waters) and passing
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW | DBL | EH 407 S.Y 2016-2017
through the territorial sea. so kung passing through
the territorial sea lang not having entered internal
waters and not having been in the territorial sea for
quite some time to be considered lying in the territorial
sea, then civil jurisdiction could not be exercised. the
only exception of course is when the purpose of the
exercise of civil jurisdiction is to implement claims (?)
when the ship itself is being made subject of the
trade. gihimo diay na syang mortgaged property.
In the case of criminal jurisdiction onboard a foreign
ship, we have article 27. And you will notice that this
actually reflects both the English and the French
rules. General rule is that the coastal state cannot
exercise criminal jurisdiction onboard a foreign ship
passing through the territorial sea. to arrest any
person or to conduct any investigation and following
are considered the exemptions: in those instances
where the consequences of the crime extends to the
coastal state, disturbs the peace, when there is a call
for assistance by the captain or master of the ship,
and very specific, if such measures are necessary for
the suppression of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs or
psychotropic substances.
One of the suggested courses of actions is that the
Duterte administration should have taken, either in
lieu or addition to the extrajudicial killings is to really
guard our borders against illicit traffic of narcotic
drugs. But when I spoke to a commodore in the navy,
who happened to be our graduate, he said "it is true
that it is the best way if we have the naval ships that
are able to do that." It is ironic that we are an
archipelagic state that does not have enough naval
ships.
I think a year ago, nag donate ang Japan ug 10 ka
naval ships. Even with the donation, kuwang ra
gihapon. Mura lage ang storya sa Abuera, Leyte. Ang
drugs diha gikan sa shipments sa sea. Unya daghag
points ang pwedeng ma trapo diri sa archipelago.
In UK, they already have this technology nga ang
intero nila ay exclusive economic zone. They will
really be able to detect any ship or any floating object
entering, including submarines, in these zones. When
the alarm will sound, the planes will follow. We do not
have that in the Philippines yet. We only have a weak
radar with a blurred telescope.
Warships and other government ships operated for
non-commercial purposes are immune from the
jurisdiction of the coastal state. That is just the
general rule, but there is an added requirement. It
should not be operated for commercial purposes in
order to continue to enjoy immunity. Kay kung naval
forces used for commercial purposes, kay naa tingali
6
business ang usa ka state nga magdeliver ug ore or
other minerals, then that can be considered as
commercial.
If it is immune, is it subject to violation? Of course. It
may be subject to abuses, but there is a remedy in
case of abuses of government ships or warships. For
violation of the rules of the territorial sea, the
government vessel may be ordered to leave the
territorial sea, and the flag state will incur the
responsibility in case of loss or damage suffered as a
result. It is like declaring persona non grata, similar to
the remedy of abuses of diplomatic officials.
Contiguous zone, which is 12 nm from the territorial
sea, permits or gives, rather, the coastal state limited
jurisdiction. It is not full anymore, as it is beyond the
territorial sea, but only limited. We call this the
Protective Jurisdiction Regime. Although it is called
protective jurisdiction, there are actually 2 purposes
for exercise of jurisdiction in the contiguous zone. One
is for the prevention, and the other is the prosecution
or punishment of infringement of the coastal state's
customs, fiscal immigration or sanitary regulations. So
fake bills or coins, for example, even if they are
outside the territorial sea, may be subject of our
limited protective jurisdiction, either for the purpose of
prevention and punishment.
Good rules, so customs, immigration and sanitary
regulations. What that means is that we can enact
laws, Republic Acts or statutes,that would enforce this
protective jurisdiction, but only with regards to these
customs, fiscal immigration or sanitary regulations.
The contiguous zone must be claimed. I mentioned
about the difference between the exclusive economic
zone and the continental shelf. The EEZ is required to
be claimed by the coastal state, and the continental
shelf does not need to be claimed by the coastal
state. The same with the contiguous zone, it must
also be claimed by the coastal state. For EEZ, the
regime is found in Art. 55, or rather it is described in
Art. 55, 200 nm in Art. 57. 12 nm would be around 20-
21km, and 200 nm would be around 360km. mura na
ug north to south of Cebu province, that's more than
300km more or less. A big portion of the Benham rise
is within the EEZ, but we are privileged enough to
claim extended continental shelf over the Benham
rise, which is about 13 million hectares. Not the entire
Spratly islands are part of the EEZ, only a portion of
them.
That is why in this case of Philippines v. China, the
Permanent Court of Arbitration was not able to rule on
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW | DBL | EH 407 S.Y 2016-2017
the claim of China on its exercise of sovereignty over
the Spratly islands. What they claim is ownership. The
UNCLOS is not for the purpose of determining
ownership or territory, but it is only for the purposes of
determining maritime zones. I am referring to Art. 56
insofar as the regime of the EEZ is concern. The
Philippines and China cannot claim the Benham rice
and Spratly Islands as part of our territory, but that is
not our claim. Our claim is that we have sovereign
rights and privileges over these areas. The sovereign
right includes exploring and exploiting, including
conservation and management of the natural
resources, whether living or non-living, of the waters
subjacent to the seabed, and of the seabed with its
subsoil. If it is your seabed and its subsoil, it will now
be governed by the continental shelf regime. So the
rights stated with regards to the seabed and the
subsoil shall be exercised with accordance with Part 6
of the Continental Shelf.
The act of China of establishing artificial islands
cannot be considered permissible precisely because
the Spratly Islands are beyond the EEZ of China. It is
very far from mainland China. The best way to guard
our natural resources in our EEZ is to come up with
certain installations and structures in order to man.
We can always allege that we made them because of
exploitation, research, preservation and protection of
marine environment, and other economic purposes.
The coastal state, in this case the Philippines, shall
have the exclusive jurisdiction of the artificial islands,
as well as its installations and structures. Most of
these structures in the Spratly Islands are rocks and
low tide elevations. You need to understand the
regime applicable to islands, rocks and low tide
elevations. For islands, these may be geological
formations that may appear even during high tide, and
can have its own economic life, subject to human life
habitation. Otherwise if they are rocks, the distinction
would be islands will have all zones: territorial,
contiguous, exclusive and continental shelf, but rocks
will not have continental shelf and EEZ, but may have
territorial sea.
Unlike exclusive economic zone, the continental shelf
is really exclusive because even if the coastal state
fails or even simply refuses to explore or exploit the
natural resources in the continental shelf, no other
state is permitted to explore or exploit these
resources. Regardless of whether a claim have been
made exclusive to the coastal state.
7
Ang theme sa memorial sa Philippines v. China our
rights and privileges in the continental shelf and the
extended continental shelf. READ THIS CASE DAW
By the way, super adjacent water lang and natural
resources living or non-living in the Exclusive
economic zone- fish and similar living resources.
Theres a particular kind of species that is not
governed by the exclusive zone. But ari siya
mabutang sa continental shelf regime. Ingon man gud
ang law na ang sea bed and subsoil would be
governed by the continental shaft regime.
Im talking about organism belonging to the sedentary
species. These are organisms which are harvestable
states either are immobile or under the sea bed or
unable to move except in constant physical contact in
the sea bed or the subsoil
So unsay ni nga mga creatures? Thats in the law.
There is a case that talks or argues about which
species belong to the sedentary species. In those
situations where the continental shelf extends of
particular coastal state, mahimo na siya ug subject to
dispute because sedentary species na naa sa area
cannot be appropriated or cannot be the subject of
exploration or exploitation because if it is beyond the
continental shelf, then that is already covered by the
common heritage of mankind principle.
So again, while coastal states are given the exclusive
right and the authority to establish artificial islands,
installations and structures in the exclusive economic
zone, we are also permitted to do that in our
continental shelf.
So article 60 which is your exclusive economic zone
on the authority or exclusive right to establish an
artificial island and installation of structures will apply
Mutatis mutandis to artificial islands on the continental
shelf. This is where i said kanang benham rice, we
can establish artificial islands there.
In regard to the high seas as I told you, please recall
the freedoms of the high seas. There are 7 of them
enumerated in Article 87, Freedom of Navigation,
fishing in the high seas.
What are the freedoms of the high seas?
And this freedoms are enjoyed by all states whether
coastal or land lock.
Generally the high seas is governed by international
law and the law of the flag state. In the case of
collision of vessels in the high seas we no longer
apply the lotus case because we have a specific
provision now in Article 97(Penal jurisdiction in
matters of collision or any other incident of
navigation). It will be governed by the flag state. It will
be the flag state applies or the nationality of the
offender. . . . i think. or victim bah because in your
lotus case in provides that there is no clear or that
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW | DBL | EH 407 S.Y 2016-2017
time there was no clear rule on jurisdiction with
respect to collision cases in the high seas. Of course
the lotus case was decided in 1957 even way before
the 1958 conventions.
The flag state refers to the nationality of the flag which
is determined by the place of registration and the ship
can only use one flag. International law may disregard
registration if it can be established that registration so
only for convenience. Nag man ban ships nag magpa
register in certain places only for convenience. So
what applies here would be the genuine link of that
ship rather than the flag. If its registered in state A for
convenience but it has no genuine link to state A, and
thats what makes it a registration for convenience,
like business. nagpa register ka diva pero wa gud ka
ug branch diha or office, no client no customer or
supplier. No member of the crew which has the
nationality of the place of registration, no genuine link.
Usually its because some places provide for easy
registration process. no strip requirements. Because
in international law, you need to sail under a flag. You
may be an unregistered vessel but in a particular
dispute, the registration a flag of convenience in which
case it is regarded by the tribunal and they would
need to look on the actual genuine link of that ship
and there are several factors to see that.
So where for example a ship is unregistered, it is a
stateless ship and interference by warship to these
ships may be permitted in the high seas and why is
this important? Because of the freedom of navigation.
one of the freedoms recognized under freedom
international law in the high seas but where a ship is
not registered, sir what if registered but under flag of
convenience? dili siya stateless but it is disregarded.
but the rule is if wall gyud.
Hot pursuit operations maybe permitted up to the high
seas. Usually theres a provision of hot pursuit there.
Under the law when a crime is committed in the
territorial sea or in the internal waters and a hot
pursuit had been initiated either in the internal waters
or territorial sea or even in the exclusive economic
zone, where violations are related to those laws that
are intended by the coastal state to preserve or
manage the nature resources. if the vessel had been
pursued in these areas all the way to high seas, the
pursuit may be continued.
And when will the hot pursuit end? When the vessel
been pursued reaches or enters the territorial sea of
another state, there is no more hot pursuit. if you
continue, that is subject to intervention.
I already mentioned about the Area where it consist of
the sea bed and the ocean floor and the subsoil
beyond national jurisdiction and pink longest or taas
ug reach is the continental shelf.
So beyond the shelf that is already the area and it is
governed by Common Heritage of Mankind Principle
8
Regime and therefore in exploitation or exploration of
natural resources in the Area can only be permitted to
the compliance of the Common Heritage of Man
principle. So cannot be exclusively appropriated, it is
monitored by International Seabed Authority (ISA).
Settlement of disputes involving maritime zones can
be in the International Tribunal in the Law of the SEA,
it could be in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) or
arbitral tribunals. Although these are all based on
consent, there are instances where even if theres no
consent and we have seen is in the Philippines v.
China, the Arbitral Tribunal was still permitted to
resolve the merits of the case. Its all up to the parties
where the complaint will be lodged. if you go to the
ICJ, then they are permitted to apply international Law
and one of the brilliant moves of the Philippine seas to
leave it to the arbitral tribunal so that the tribunal can
only apply strict provisions of the old laws. if ICJ there
may be other conventions they may apply. Media
mural vague and application sa ICJ because it is
difficult because china showed no interest in
participating in the proceedings.
Your air space and the outer space is governed by the
heritage of mankind similar to the Area but it is not
part of the coverage already. International human
rights law is also not part. Environmental law is not
part.
IMPORTANT MATTER IN THE USE OF FORCE
Lawfulness of War, Use of Force
Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the
Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance
with the following Principles:
(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.
What is meant by force in article 2(4) of the UN But when use of nuclear weapons is in relation to a
Charter, Can it also allow?
- For example economic force., State A is the
main supplier of oil to State B. State B
suddenly commits an act offensive to State
A. State A declares no more oil for you
State B.
- psychological force, a state threatens
another state of something that is not armed
force so that a particular state form a
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW | DBL | EH 407 S.Y 2016-2017
particular conduct or a policy in a particular
way.
Is that a settled rule that the term force can be
expanded to include economic, psychological,
political force?
-Its not a settled rule, the international community
is divided. Developing countries which are usually
the victims of force that is short of armed or
military force will always argue that it should be
expanded into other kinds of force. BUT developed
state would argue that the term force in article 2(4)
should be limited to military force.
-the problem of IL is most principles cannot really
preempt or anticipate the varying conditional
circumstances. Especially when it comes to the
degree of particular act or its level of intensity.
DBL: Its hard for International Law to narrow down
certain norms. It can only have a general norm on a
particular conduct. Because if the International
community have been experiencing certain
misconduct repeatedly then probably international
community itself, thru state practice, will develop a
new norm. Unlike in local statutes that its made
anticipating its usefulness in future generations. Its
not like that IL.
What is the meaning of threat of force that would
provoke rules of aid?
DBL: Precisely in the legality of the use or the threat
of use of weapons , the court is divided as to whether
use of nuclear weapons violate article 2(4).
But in the same advisory opinion of the court, it
suggested that if theres a use of nuclear weapon and
it is intended to violate political independence,
territorial integrity or violate any purpose of the United
Nations then it will constitute threat of force.
possible invocation of self-defense or in anticipation of
self-defense then it cannot be considered as threat of
force. In other words, it will depend on the intended
purpose of the nuclear weapons.
Must force be used for a particular objective To
make it a violation of art 2(4)?
Example: State A sends military troops to State B to
rescue some hostages in the territory of State B who
happens to military officers of State A
9
 In the situation above, if it can be argued that it
DOES NOT fall under article 2(4), then how do you
call it? What violation had been incurred by State A in
our example?
DBL: What im trying to say is, article 2(4) may have
limited scope but there is the 1970 Declaration on
Friendly Relations which is agreed upon by states
after they have realized the limited application of art
2(4).The international community found a need to
back-up with the 1970 Declaration on Friendly
Relations. And according to scholars, this 1970
Declaration on Friendly relations also manifest CIL on
non-intervention.
1970 Declaration on Friendly Relations
-It says further that State should not in any manner
intervene directly or indirectly in the internal affairs of
other State. In fact all forms of interference whether
direct or indirect, prohibited.
DBL: It doesnt mean that just because it does not fall
under art 2(4) then there is no violation of international
law. We are only talking about whether it is
appropriate to invoke art 2(4) or whether we should
invoke another regime as basis for saying that there is
violation of IL. For me, it seems like the 1970
declaration on friendly relations prohibiting all forms of
interference in the internal affairs of other state,
retouched all regime is all encompassing.
Article 51 of the UN Charter
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the
inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if
an armed attack occurs against a Member of the
United Nations, until the Security Council has taken
measures necessary to maintain international peace
and security. Measures taken by Members in the
exercise of this right of self-defense shall be
immediately reported to the Security Council and shall
not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of
the Security Council under the present Charter to take
at any time such action as it deems necessary in
order to maintain or restore international peace and
security.
What level of armed force gives rise to self-
defense? Does the use of force prohibited under
art 2(4) of the UN charter gives rise to the right of
self-defense?
- If you look at Art. 51 of the UN Charter of
self-defense, is use of force an element for the
invocation of self defense? None. What is
required then? Armed attack .
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW | DBL | EH 407 S.Y 2016-2017
DBL: So this is where we can see a gap in the
relationship of Art 2(4) and Art 51 because. While Art
2(4) uses the term force it does not specify armed
force. While the Art 51, its not force that is being
used to justify use of force by way of self defense but
it is armed attack so its more specific. So theres
force that will fall short of an armed attack, theres
also force that would qualify as an armed attack in
which case Art 51 applies.
Nicaragua Case
US was accused of using force in violation of IL
against Nicaragua. US invoked it was collective self
defense. They simply supported rebels in El Salvador
by funding, arming, training them. Because US said
El Salvador,an ally, sought the assistance of US on
the ground that EL Salvador have been a subject of
an armed attack by Nicaragua
ICJ said we distinguish between a high level use of
force and a low level use of force with respect to the
interpretation of armed attack as an element of self-
defense so we take as illustrations the case of
Nicaragua, if the acts of supporting, financing, training
even the sending of arms may indeed violate notions
or principle of IL but however that is not the kind of
force considered as armed attack for purposes of self-
defense.
Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures
provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have
proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by
air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to
maintain or restore international peace and security.
Such action may include demonstrations, blockade,
and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of
Members of the United Nations.
DBL: In fact under Art. 42, victim state would report all
measures exercising self-defense it had taken to the
UN Security Council. And as far as practicable should
seize all hostilities made by use of force by the victim
state when a UN security council had already
intervened and stepped in. Unless the victim state be
authorized by the security council to continue the use
of force, hence Self-defense is highly exceptional.
International law has not settled and it cannot be done
up to the present, where to put the threshold. Should
the threshold of armed attack be higher or lower?
Theres also a varying interest and practices of states.
USA for example is an advocate of preemptive self-
defense in the new era of technology involving
10
weapons. It is settled that there really is a gap
because of the varying interests between the victims
of the use of force and the states on the use of force.
Must the author of the armed attack e a state
to trigger right of self-defense?
The UN Charter does not really distinguish whether it
will be a state or not which should be the author of the
armed attack. In particular Art. 51 is cited as to the
author of the attack but what is clear is that it must be
the state that is subjected to the attack. Who authored
the armed attack? This is now relevant in the
discussion because when Al Qaeda caused the 9/11
attack, right after the incident the Security Council
issued a resolution reaffirming the inherent right of
states of self-defense. Why did the UN Security
Council pass it when Al Qaeda was not even a state.
Although there was a statement that Afghanistan
should be held liable because it was Afghanistan
which helped them train, etc. Thats why I told you
about an issue in IL whether we should stick to the
effective control test as a test of attribution for acts of
private individuals to the state with regard to terrorism
or we lower the threshold to the teachings of
Prosecutor v Tadic on the overall control test. There
are discussions now that the threshold should be
lowered. Remember the one in Pakistan involving
Osama Bin Laden.
Is pre-emptive self-defense permitted?
It is permitted in highly-exceptional cases because
there is no prohibition on engaging in self-defense if
we base it on the Lotus Principle where it states that
in the absence of a clear conventional or customary
international law, restrictions to a States sovereignty
should never be presumed.
It may be permitted but it does not say it has reached
the level of an acceptable norm what may be
permitted may not be an acceptable norm under IL. In
the Lotus case, permitted siya but for lack of
conventional or costumary IL limiting self-defense to
the Caroline standard test instant, overwhelming,
leaving no choice of the use of weapons and other
much improved means of warfare. Unlike before that it
was conventional, you can really predict the attack.
May a state intervene in the civil wars of other
states?
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW | DBL | EH 407 S.Y 2016-2017
A state can intervene for humanitarian reasons (Right
to Protect) but using the teleological approach of the
UN charter, it may be permitted. If you say
humanitarian reasons it presupposes that there are
gross violations of human rights. What if the rebel
groups and the regular armed forces observed the
laws of war? So you cannot say that there is a
violation of human rights.
Another one possible permissible state intervention in
civil wars is when the interests of the intervening state
are at stake especially when its citizens are subjected
to the use of force or armed attacks. This is still
humanitarian reason or may be not just a security of
the citizens.
Another state could intervene when the own
government of that state in question or involved in the
civil war is not capable of deterring these armed
forces and preventing the civil war from actually
contributing more harm to its own citizens and its
territorial boundaries.
When you say a third state may not intervene in civil
wars of the other state, which holds true only when
the intervention is directed in favor of the rebel group.
When you assist, not the rebel group but the
government itself, that is not intervention because we
said before intervention of the internal affairs
presupposes that it is without the consent of the state.
So if you intervene by assisting the rebels definitely
that is without consent. But if it is intervention in favor
of the government, it is not prohibited intervention.
That is why we distinguish between prohibited and
permissible intervention. There are scholars who
would still consider it intervention because of a
recognition that there is such a thing as the right to
revolt. But why do you suppress rebellion in a way
that it is in a way an exercise of an inherent right. In
fact the Philippines recognizes the right to revolt. We
are a good example especially in the EDSA
revolution. So why do we suppress that when it is only
a recognition of a right?
There must be a simple rule on intervention. If there
is civil war whether the intervention is directed in
favor of the rebel group or the regular armed group,
the intervening state must not participate. That is the
contention of some scholars but the justification of
that is if we accept the right to revolt but the only time
we can accept that right is if we believe the Social
Contract Theory of John Locke because that is the
only justification of the right to revolt.
11
I already mentioned about role of UN Security Council
of maintaining peace please refer to Article 24, 41 and
42 of the UN Charter in regard to the role of UN
Security Council.
Q: What if sir, the intervening state recognizes the
government of the rebel group?
There is no question on recognition but some would
say recognition would be premature if the war is still
ongoing. But if recognition after the war and there was
established government although unlawfully
established, then there is de jure and de facto
government. There is no question kinsa iya
girecognize, it can still retain the recognition of the de
jure government even if it is not in effective control.
There is no violation, it is a political question but while
the war is ongoing, it recognizes the government of
the belligerents that is a premature recognition. That
may still be treated as intervention.
International Wars, Civil wars and Right to self-
determination: Jus Ad Bellum
Jus In Bello laws in the conduct of war.
- rules governing the Actual Conduct
of Armed Conflict (Lawful Acts in
Times of War). [International
Humanitarian Law]
- presupposes that theres already an
armed conflict and so there are
rules regulating the conduct of war,
now this is without regard as to
whether the war is lawful.
Jus Ad Bellum - Rules governing the resort to Armed
Conflict (Lawful War).
- this determines lawfulness of
engaging in war. So lawfulness in the
use of force.
DBL: If State A attacks State B without any
provocation and that results to war, definitely State A
violated jus ad bellum because it resulted to war that
is not permitted under international law. But while
there is an ongoing war, there are still rules that apply
and this is jus in bello.
What do you think is the main objective of
International Humanitarian Law? Why does it
exist in the first place?
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW | DBL | EH 407 S.Y 2016-2017
We need to begin of an understanding of what is the
reason for this regime of IL. It seeks to protect all
persons from all acts of aggression but particularly
those victims of the combatants that is the source of
the aggression itself. In other words, there is a need
to protect civilians and civilian objects which are non-
combatants.
The international community found the need to come
up a regime that aims to protect the non-combatants
during war because war admittedly inevitable while
the private purpose of the UN is to prevent war. But
you cannot actually prevent especially that you
recognize the inherent right to self-defense. Suppose
there is war, should we not guaranty the safety and
welfare of those who are not participating in war?
Therefore the main objective is to humanize. That
explains why it is called international humanitarian law
because the effect of the regime is really to humanize
the effects of war so it calls for the balancing military
necessity at the same time the need for humanity.
Because there is recognition that war can occur
anytime and in the conduct of war, some operations
attack or conduct may be permitted for as long as it is
to gain military advantage. There is recognition that in
times of war, all combatants would really strive for a
victorious conduct of war. Kinsa man mu go into war
without an intention of winning the battle? So IL
recognizes that in times of war, permitted gyud ang
degree of violence for the purpose of winning the war
and as observed there can be casualties who are not
participants to the conduct of war.
How do we reconcile that? that the conducts are
permissible in order to achieve the tenets of war and
at the same time protect non-combatants? That is
why IHL was created. Our material source for the
study of IHL would be the 4 Geneva Conventions of
1949 including its 3 additional protocols.
What is International Criminal Law? (not
included sa quiz bowl)
There are what we called grave breaches of the
Geneva Conventions, There are different violations of
the Geneva Conventions. If you attack a singular
soldier who is sick or wounded or probably has
surrendered, under the principle of distinguishing
combatants and non-combatants with that of the
principle of hors de combat, combatants could no
longer become combatants, who cease to become
combatants. These are combatants who are sick,
wounded or surrendered. If you violate that, that is a
12
violation of IHL. But it would not qualify as grave
breaches of Geneva Conventions.
What are the grave breaches of the Geneva
Conventions?
Genocide
War Crimes
Crimes against humanity
Acts of Aggressions
So we are creating a specific regime in IHL for the
purpose of imputing criminal liability of those who
would violate important norms in IHL and the violation
would amount to grave breaches in the Geneva
Convention. And as identified, there is another thing
which is limited to genocide, war crimes, crimes
against humanity and acts of aggression. So there is
a separate body dealing with the prosecution and the
criminal liability of individuals. This is not state
responsibility! As I have said , it is still contentious as
to whether we can make states criminally liable but
definitely, individuals yes. So that is International
Criminal Law, our material source on the study of IC
Law is the Rome Statute and the Rome Statute has
annexes and one of the annexes of the Rome Statute
is the elements of crime. So nagbutang siyag crimes
so Rome Statute and at the same enumerate
elements of crime.
If we talk about IHL, we need to talk about the 4
Geneva Conventions of 1949.
1st - amelioration of the condition of the sick and
wounded in the armed forces
2nd - amelioration of the sick, wounded and shielded
members of the armed forces at sea.
3rd - the treatment of prisoners of war
4th - protection of civilian persons in times of war
The two additional protocols mandate that certain
crimes can be committed in both International and
non-international armed conflict. Common Article 3 in
all 4 Geneva Conventions as applied to International
Armed Conflict.
For example, additional protocol 1 (1977) mandates
that the protection of victims in an armed conflict is
applicable to an international armed conflict.
Additional protocol 2 reiterates protection of victims in
a non-international armed conflict.
If I am not mistaken, this is already asked in the bar.
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW | DBL | EH 407 S.Y 2016-2017
How do you distinguish International Human
rights Law with International Humanitarian
Law?
So if you imagine International Human Rights Law
and International Humanitarian Law on the other and
then you have to come up with a Venn Diagram, they
are not mutually exclusive. There is an area there in
the middle that they will overlap. In other words,
International Human Rights Law may also be applied
in times of war. But I assume when we talk about
International Human Rights Law, there is the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ICCPR,
ICESCR, we talk about the right to travel, right of
freedom of expression, right against arbitrary
detention, freedom of religion. It doesnt mean that
these principles are only applicable in times of peace.
There are what we call non-derogable or absolute
non-derogable human rights under the International
Human Rights Law that are applicable in times of war.
I told you from the beginning about laws of
neutrality, laws of war and laws of peace and then
we came up with a basic understanding on why do we
need to study these regimes in IL.
We learned that we have to understand it that way
because the general idea is whenever there is war,
we dispense with laws of peace and laws of war
comes in place of the laws of peace. That is correct
but not in its entirety. There will still be principles in
the laws of peace that will continue. We mentioned
about the obligations in the Vienna Convention on
Diplomatic Relations - that will continue even in times
of war. If there is an armed conflict between states, it
doesnt mean that states will dispense the obligations
towards diplomatic premises. Same with ICCPR, the
right against torture is a non-derogable right. Even in
times of war, states are not permitted to use torture. In
one of the basic principles of IHL is the prohibition of
the employment of unnecessary suffering to
combatants.
There are really rights that continue to exist even in
times of war but some rights in the International
Human Rights Law may be suspended like freedom of
expression, freedom of movement, etc. in times of war
but some cannot be dispensed with. Very important in
the study of IHL is for you to know that IHL is
applicable only to a particular kind of armed conflict
which means if there is an armed conflict but not
falling within the definition of armed conflict under the
4 Geneva Conventions then it is not governed by IHL.
If it is not governed by IHL, what will govern?
Domestic Law.
13
That is why we distinguish between an armed conflict is when a state intervenes with the armed conflict then
that is merely considered in the IHL as mere it becomes internationalized. The required
disturbance, internal conflicts or mere disturbances intervention will vary.
and riots. They are not governed by IHL so that if you
look at the definition here: TN: Not all kinds of intervention will
internationalize the armed conflict.
The kind of armed conflict governed by IHL would
only be: - Mere financial support, training (not
necessarily internationalize)
International armed conflict - armed conflict that is - Sharing of intelligence reports (not
taking place between two or more states. (IHL will internationalize)
apply) - Sending troops (will internationalize)
- Overflight committed by intervening state
Non-International Armed Conflict - protracted (will internationalize)
Armed Violence between the governmental authorities
and an organized armed group. Protected Persons and Objects in IHL:

NOTE: There is a requirement that the armed 1. Civilian any person who does not belong
violence must be PROTRACTED and engaged in by to armed force and who is not a combatant.
an ORGANIZED GROUP. Riot2x lang, it is not
governed by IHL. Even civilians can be lawful targets but if
hors de combat not lawful targets
How do we distinguish between internal armed (combatants that are no longer participating
conflict or internal disturbance and non- in hostilities because they may be sick,
international armed conflict which is governed by wounded or have surrendered)
IHL?
Civilians can be lawful targets when they
There are tests: partake directly in hostilities. Take note of
DIRECTLY. Villagers for example assisting
1. Intensity of the Conflict (Protracted) - consider
rebels or belligerents short of participating
the seriousness of the attacks, increase in armed
directly like taking care of the wounded,
clashes, spread of clashes over territory and over
preparing food, providing shelter and
a period of time, etc.
clothing. These are not sufficient to make
them lawful targets THEY MUST TAKE
Because in the definition, it was stated or
ARMS in order to make them civilians as
protracted armed violence of the governmental
lawful targets for military operations.
authorities and the organized armed groups that
is one non-international armed conflict. The other
2. Civilian Objects objects which are not
one is the same, armed group and then
military objects. Military Objects are those
protracted. So the duration of military
which by their nature, location, purpose or
confrontations or armed clashes, mu-matter na.
use make effective contribution to military
For example, armed clashes, that is not
action and advantage.
protracted. That should only be governed by
domestic law.
Take note of these important principles: (Wala
siya niingon sa mga meaning but this is included
2. Organization of the Parties there is
sa quiz bowl)
organizational chart, headquarters, zones of
operations, ability to procure and transport arms, Principle of Distinction (Article 48, Additional
etc. Protocol 1)
Principle of Military Necessity
NOTE: This requires high threshold
Principle of Proportionality
There is also Internationalized Armed Conflict Principle of Precautionary Measures
governed by the regime by the International Armed
Conflict. This is a non-international armed conflict but
becoming an international armed conflict. The reason

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW | DBL | EH 407 S.Y 2016-2017 14

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW | DBL | EH 407 S.Y 2016-2017 15