CASE FACTS ISSUE RULING

1. SS Lotus (CIL) Collision at the If Turkey violated Turkey has the

high seas: SS Lotus IL by ruling over a jurisdiction & the
(France) and SS crime outside authority to arrest
Boz-Kourt (Turkey) Turkey? Territorial
sank. 8 Turks Should Turkey jurisdiction
died pay outside territory &
compensation to within its territory,
SS Lotus at Turkey France? it can exercise
- criminally FRANCE: jurisdiction
prosecuted Lt. Convention on Boz-Kourt =
Demons Lausanne Turkeys territory:
(manslaughter) Turkey not effects to the
allowed to rule vessel and a place
over a case assimilated to
against a French Turkish territory;
national outside Turkish law
Turkey + IL cannot be
(states are not challenged
allowed to Turkey did not
extend their violate IL and
jurisdiction on a Article 15
crime committed Convention of
abroad) Lausanne (1923)
Turkey Not
obliged to pay for
reparations

2. Paquete US vs. Vessel Are fishing Capture was

Habana holders vessels exempt unlawful and
Time of the from prizes of without probable
Spanish-US war war? cause (CIL)
Fishing vessels US SUPREME Court found no
sailed under COURT: no evidence that the
Spanish flag, specific law on vessels or the
fishing at Cuba, prize of war. crew would aid
owned by Spanish DEFENDANTS: CIL the enemy. It is
person born in says that fishing just a fishing
Cuba and living in vessels are vessel
Havana exempted as Reparation to be
Paquete Haba (3 prizes of war & given to the
Cubans, no they are claimants
license) stopped commercial
 by US steamship fishermen
Cincinnati;
Warned not to go
to Havana but
allowed to Bahia
Honda but still
captured by US
steamship Dolphin
Vessel contains
fresh fish
Vessel and cargos
was subjected to
blockade. Were
brought to Key
West as prizes of
war
Vessel sold in an
auction: Paquete
Habana - $490
and the Lola -
$800
3. Yamashita v Yamashita Whether or not Art 15 of the law
Styver commanding the military of war: military
general of the tribunal has tribunals have
Japanese Imperial jurisdiction jurisdiction to try
Army in the offenders or
Philippines. offenses
Petition for Charged that he
habeas corpus and committed brutal
prohibition atrocities and
against Lt. Gen. other high crimes
Styver against the people
commanding of the U.S and
general of the U.S Philippines. (347
Army Forces rules of land
Before: prisoner warfare)
of war of the U.S The military
criminal. commission have
1. Asks to be a jurisdiction over
prisoner of war all japan and areas
again occupied by the
2. Asks prohibit armed forces
Military commanded by
 Commission from the commander in
further trying him chief, U.S army
(no jurisdiction forces (the
since not Philippines)
constituted and Spain nothing in
the Philippines is the convention
not an occupied that notice is a
territory) + Spain prerequisite to the
(protecting power jurisdiction of
of Japan) was not Military
given notice of the Commissions +
trial against Japans surrender
petitioner. Against and acceptance of
Geneva the Potsdam
Convention + Ultimatum =
Military waiver of notice;
Commission Spain ceased to be
denied him fair the protecting
trial power of Japan
Habeas corpus is
untenable since
the petitioner
sought for his
former status as
prisoner of war
and not a
discharge from
confinement
4. Bayan v Phil & U.S 1. Legality of 1. ZAMORA: have no
Zamora Military Bases petitioners legal standing to
Agreement 2. Is VFA question VFA: no
Mutual defense constitutional? funds raised or
treaty (to What article? misspent + need
strengthen 3. Grave abuse of to prove that
defense and discretion? there is direct
security injury caused by
relationship) the VFA tho it
RP-US military caused
base expired impairment of
Pres. Ramos legislative powers
approved VFA but no proof on
with public direct injury
respondent 2. Sec 25 Art 18 lex
specialis derogate
 secretary and US generali (special
ambassador provision)/ Sec 23
Pres. Estrada art 7 applicable
ratified VFA with on votes required.
secretary of FA In IL no
VFA senate difference
(instrument of between treaties
ratification, letter and E.A (Art 25
of president and VCLT: binding
VFA) for upon parties in
concurrence. good faith)
3. Power to ratify
president, not
legislature + no
abuse discretion
in the president
because he is the
chief architect of
FP and there was
concurrence and
no abuse of
senate
5. Gabcikovo- Hungary and Fundamental Hungary was not
Nagyamaros Czechoslovakia change of entitled to
Danube Dam signed a treaty circumstances suspend and
construction of Must a subsequently
dams and other fundamental abandon the
projects along the change of treaty
Danube river circumstances Czechoslovakia
Czechoslovakia have been was entitled to
began work in its unforeseen and start variant C
territory when must the (alternative
Hungary stopped existence of the provision) but not
working on the circumstances at to put that
project and the time of the solution into
negotiation could treatys operation in oct
not resolve the conclusion have 1992 as a
matter (entailed constituted an unilateral measure
grace risks to the essential basis of Hungarys
Hungarian the consent of notification of the
environment and the parties to be treaty did not
the water supply bound? legally terminate
of Budapest) them. It is still in
Slovakia the force
 successor of Slovakia is a party
Czechoslovakia to the treaty
denied allegations because of its
and insisted that successor
Hungry carry out The 2 states must
its treaty negotiate in good
obligations. It faith to ensure the
made an achievement of
alternative project the objectives of
on Slovak territory the 1977 treaty
which had effects (1st treaty)
on Hungarys A joint operational
access to the regime for the
water of the dam on Slovak
Danube territory must be
Led to Hungary to established in
terminate the accordance with
treaty. Based its the treaty of 1977
action on the fact (unless the parties
that the damming agree otherwise)
of the river had Each party must
been agreed to compensate the
only on the other party for the
ground of a joint damage caused by
operation and their conduct
sharing of benefits Construction and
associated with operation of the
the project to works must be
which settled in
Czechoslovakia accordance with
had unlawfully the relevant
unilaterally provisions of the
assumed control 1977 treaty and
of a shared related
resource instruments
6. Barcelona BLTPC Does the state of The state of
Traction incorporated in the shareholders shareholders
Canada. of a company corporation has
Registered offices have a right of right of diplomatic
in Spain. diplomatic protection only
After WWI protection if the when state who is
shares are majorly state whose asked is a national
from Belgian responsibility is of the company
Spanish Civil War invoked is not (Belgian
 bonds was the national state shareholders
suspended of the company? would have
After war Spain diplomatic
refused to transfer protection if Spain
foreign currency was the national
for the company company but its
to resume not. Its
bankrupt Canadian.)
Belgium filed to There must be an
ICJ against Spanish obligation before
gov for reparation a breach can be
for damages to claimed.
Belgian Protection of
shareholders shareholders
Belgium cancelled must be in the
since negotiations form of treaty or
between private special arguments
interests hoping it concluded
will solve the between private
problem investor and state
Negotiations where investment
failed, new is placed.
application by the Belgium has no jus
Belgian Gov. standi to exercise
protection of
shareholders in a
Canadian
company with
respect to
measures taken
against the
company in Spain
Shareholders are
not entities, the
company should
help the
shareholder
because it is the
legal entity (has
nationality and
personality)
It should have
been the parent
 state (Canada) vs.
branch (Spain)

7. River Meuse Belgium and Netherlands Court used the

Netherlands wants the court first treaty (1863)
treaty to settle to declare that since its specific.
diversion of water Belgium Did not use int.
from River Meuse committed a river law
Another breach to Rejected all of
agreement was discontinue work Netherlands and
signed regarding and feeding Belgiums claims
the construction Belgium declares Netherlands is not
and enlargement that Netherlands forbidden to alter
of canals. has no basis; the water in Meuse
Netherlands construction was without Belgiums
declined based on the consent
Netherlands treaty. Pointed Belgium does not
complained that that Netherlands have the proof to
Belgiums constructed a show that
expansion is lock which was Netherlands was
against the treaty also against the interfering on the
treaty construction
Principle of equity
like the Roman
law: neither could
compel the other
to perform unless
he had done, or
tendered his own
part
Both are doing the
same thing
8. Filartiga v Filartiga (Paraguay For purpose of Jurisdiction: a.
Pena-Irala citizen) filed a the Allen Tort when foreigner
case against Pena- Statute, may within US territory
Irala for torture torture be filed complaint
against his son in considered as a against torturer,
Paraguay because violation of the USC applies
his father is an law of nations? federal
opponent of the jurisdictionb.
gov of Paraguay torturer is like a
Dolly filartiga pirate and slave
 went to the US, trader which is
applied for considered "hostis
political asylum humani generis--
Pena-Irala went to an enemy of all
the US for mankind"
vacation (visitors CIL violation: a.
visa) Alien Tort Statute
Dolly learned (the district courts
Penas presence in shall have original
the US filed jurisdiction of any
complaint before civil action by an
US court alleging alien for a tort
that Pena had only, committed
wrongfully caused in violation of the
Joelitos death by law of nations or
torture and of a treaty of the
seeking United States)
compensatory make torture a
damages violation of law of
Filartiga family nations and is part
relied on the alien of CIL. Several UN
tort claims act declarations
(federal statute of prohibited this act
1789) + sought to and made it part
enjoin Penas of CIL (several
deportation to nations have
ensure his renounced it,
availability for hence CIL)
testimony at trial Pena Irala was in
District court violation of CIL
dismissed the case under ATS
on the grounds The district courts
that subject have jurisdiction
matter jurisdiction over the case
was absent
Succeeded when
the court of
appeals, second
circuit, ruled that
even though the
Filartiga family are
not US nationals
and that the crime
 was outside the
US, the family was
allowed to bring a
claim before US
courts
Torture was a
violation of the
laws of nation and
federal jurisdiction
was provided
9. Nottebohm German citizen Refusal of Citizenship sole
but lived in another state to concern of the
Guatemala for 34 admit its granting state
yrs nationals--should (only that state
After WWII one Guatemala will be responsible
month applied automatically for him + cannot
for citizenship to recognize Notte's ask other states to
Liechtenstein Liech citizenship recognize
(neutral state) given that it was citizenship unless
Approved provided by in relation to its
naturalization by Liech? + national)
Liechtenstein + Principality of Nottebohm is not
gave 3 year liech to Liechs national
residency Guatemala rules (no intent to
requirement so he Liechtenstein: reside or do
frequently visited Guatemala business there)
Return to should accept He changed his
Guatemala: not him and honor nationality for
admitted because his Liech convenience since
he was a German citizenship war was coming
national and his Guatemala: (he wants to be
Liechtenstein questioned his part of a neutral
citizenship was citizenship + right state since
not honored of liech to Germany is
Liechtenstein jurisdiction and involved)
ICJ against say that he is a Liechtenstein
Guatemala for not German national cannot say that
admitting its Guatemala has to
national accept his
citizenship.
10. Republic of Indonesia Whether or not Indonesia cannot
Indonesia v agreement with court of appeals be deemed to
Vinzons James Vinzon of erred in agreeing have waived
Vinzon Trade and with RTCs immunity to suit
Services. decision that merely by an
Vinzon should petitioners existence of a
maintain waived immunity paragraph in an
equipment at the from suit based agreement
embassy buildings on provision of Jurei imperii vs.
and residence of the Maintenance Jure Gestio
the ambassador agreement The establishment
(air condition Vinzon: of the agreement
units, generator termination was was part of
sets and electrical unlawful and Indonesia fulfilling
facilities) arbitrary its governmental
Indonesia told Indonesia: functions, it needs
Vinzon that the sovereign to establish
agreement should immunity, cannot diplomatic mission
be at the be sued as a which has to be
discretion of party in the Phil. maintained and
Counselor Kasim + Ambassador necessitated an
who would arrive and Counselor agreement with
in Feb 2000. have diplomatic private entities
Kasim found immunity Cannot be said to
Vinzons work waiver immunity,
unsatisfactory and it only says: in the
not in their case that
standards so he Indonesia decides
terminated the to waive their
agreement immunity, they
Vinzon filled will be subjected
complaint in RTC to Phil laws and
Makati. court.
Indonesia filled a
motion to dismiss
sovereign state,
it has immunity
from suit and the
ambassador and
counselor are
diplomatic agents
under Vienna
convention on
 diplomatic
relations =
diplomatic
immunity
Vinzon: provision
in the agreement
made Indonesia
waive its
immunity from
suit can be
sued
Trial court: denied
Indonesia dto
dismiss and
motion for
reconsideration
Indonesia brought
the case to Court
of Appeals: RTC
abused its
discretion by
saying that
Indonesia gave its
consent to submit
itself under the
laws of the Phil.
Making them
waive their
immunity from
suit.
Court of Appeals:
petitioners cannot
file motion for
reconsideration