PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW:

A Research and Summary on Trea-

ties, Conventions, Cases and Current
International Issues.
___________________________________
PORTFOLIO

Submitted by:
Elna B. Elnar
LLB-II

Submitted to:
Atty. Niel John A. Villarico

As part of our requirement in Public International Law (P.I.L.), we were

tasked to make a portfolio out of the ten (10) given topics regarding different types
 PREFACE

of Treaties, Conventions, and Cases for the purpose of somewhat summarizing

everything that we have learned all through out the semester. I’m happy to say that

this was quite an interesting project for it did not only broaden my knowledge re-

garding International Law but it also light up my interest in such field. Being aware

that everything that has been happening between countries, may it be of positive

or negative outcome, all comes down to International Law when it comes to settling

such issues. And for that, I would like to first thank our very lavishing P.I.L. teacher,

Atty. Niel John A. Villarico, for giving us the opportunity for the purpose of broad-

ening our knowledge in such field.

I would also like to thank Roshcelle Lovelynest Medellin, Jesse Christelle

Comaling and Russell Kate Lorejo for giving me good company all through out

making this portfolio.

This portfolio would have not been possible without the help of Ailene

Heramil Ponio and Patrick Gerard Palabrica. They have been answering my ques-

tions with regards to the portfolio since day one, and for that, I am very grateful for

their patience and knowledge.

Last but not the least, I would like to thank our Heavenly Father for the

knowledge and strength for finishing this portfolio, and to my parents for the all out

support not only for this portfolio but all through out my journey since kindergarten

until law school. TO GOD BE THE GLORY.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
 TITLE PAGE
NUMBER
1 A Research on The Reimposition
of the Death Penalty in the Philip-
pines. ………………

2 A Research on Twenty (20) Ex-

amples of Jus Cogens Norms. ………………

3 A Digest on The Territorial Dis-

pute Against China in matter of
the South China Sea Arbitration
Ruling. ………………

4 A Research and Summary on As-

sociation of Southeast Asian Na-
tions (ASEAN). ………………

5 A Research on The Statute of

Rome. ………………

6 A Research on An International
Issue involving the United States,
Britain and France launching air
strikes against Syria. ………………

7 A Digest on Grace Poe’s case on

Citizenship as a Foundling. ………………

8 A Research and Reaction Paper

on The Enhance Defense Coop-
eration Agreement. ………………

9 A Summary on The Geneva Con-

vention. ………………

10 A Research on The Climate

Change Treaty of Paris and its Ef-
fects if the Philippines would be a
signatory. ………………
 A Research on The Reimposition of the
Death Penalty in the Philippines
____________________________________

The Article III, Section 19 paragraph (1) in the 1987 Constitution 1 prohibits
the use of the Death Penalty by stating “the Death Penalty shall not be imposed
unless for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter
provides for it. Any Death Penalty already imposed shall be reduced to Reclusion
Perpetua.

President Ramos’ Administration enacted Republic Act No. 76592 which is

an Act to impose the Death Penalty on certain Heinous Crimes, amending for that
purpose the Revised Penal Laws, as amended, other Special Penal Laws, and for
other purposes. It was approved on December 13, 1993.

The following crimes that penalized the punishment of Death were reim-
posed, these are also known as Heinous Crimes:

1. Article 114 - Treason;

2. Article 122 - Piracy and Mutiny in the High Seas or in the Philippine
Waters;
3. Article 123 - Qualified Piracy;
4. Article 211-A - Qualified Bribery;
5. Article 246 - Parricide;
6. Article 248 - Murder;
7. Article 255 - Infanticide;
8. Article 267 - Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention;
9. Article 294 - Robbery with Violence Against or Intimidation of Persons;
10. Article 320 - Destructive Arson;
11. Article 335 - Rape;
12. R.A. 7080 - Plunder;
13. R.A. 6425 - Dangerous Drugs Act; and
14. R.A. 6539 - Anti-Carnapping Act.

President Estrada enacted Republic Act No. 81773 which had seven death-
row convicts which were executed through lethal injection.

President Arroyo, in 2006, enacted Republic Act No. 9346 which abolished
the use of Capital Punishment.

RA 93464 states, inter alia, “The imposition of the penalty of death is hereby
prohibited. Accordingly, Republic Act No. Eight Thousand One Hundred Seventy-
Seven (R.A. No. 8177), otherwise known as the Act Designating Death by Lethal
Injection is hereby repealed, Republic Act No. Seven Thousand Six Hundred Fifty-
Nine (R.A. No. 7659), otherwise known as the Death Penalty Law, and all other
laws, executive orders and decrees, insofar as they impose the death penalty are
hereby repealed or amended accordingly.”

1
Article III, Section 19 paragraph (1) in the 1987 Constitution
2
RA 7659
3
RA 8177
4
RA 9346
 The Philippines is a party to 8 of the 9 core international human rights trea-
ties. The right to life is at the center of these international treaties and the Univer-
sal Declaration of Human Rights. The Philippines has led the way in Asia in pro-
hibiting the use of the death penalty. The 1987 Philippines’ Constitution was the
first in Asia to prohibit the use of the death penalty, stating that: the death penalty
shall not be imposed unless for compelling reasons “involving heinous crimes, the
Congress hereafter provides for it.”

The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights aimed at the abolition of the death penalty (adopted and proclaimed
by General Assembly resolution 44/128 of 15 December 1989.) In November 2007
the Philippines ratified and became a State party to the Second Optional Protocol.

States who are party to the treaty have a legal obligation to abolish the death
penalty within their borders, even in the event of future changes in national legis-
lation. Reintroduction of the death penalty is not allowed for any reason unless a
reservation allowing execution "in time of war pursuant to a conviction for a most
serious crime of a military nature committed during wartime” was made at the time
of ratification which is not the case for the Philippines.

There is no withdrawal or denunciation mechanism for State’s that are party

to the Second Optional Protocol. The absence in the Protocol of a procedural
clause for withdrawal means that once a State has ratified the Second Optional
Protocol the death penalty can never be reintroduced without violating international
law.
 A Research on Twenty (20) Examples of
Jus Cogens Norms
____________________________________

According to Marjorie M. Whiteman, an American government employee

and journalist who is an expert on International law and an author of a fifteen-
volume Digest of International Law known as the “Whiteman Digest”5, the following
are the projected list of Peremptory Norms of International Law (Jus Cogens).

The following acts are outlawed:

1. Genocide;

Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to de-
stroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to
bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.6

2. Slavery and the slave trade;

The Slavery Convention7 defines slavery as “the status or condition of a

person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are
exercised”. It defines slave trade as including:

All acts involved in the capture, acquisition or disposal of a person with in-
tent to reduce him to slavery; all acts involved in the acquisition of a slave with a
view to selling or exchanging him; all acts of disposal by sale or exchange of a
slave acquired with a view to being sold or exchanged, and, in general, every act
of trade or transport in slaves.

These definitions have served as the basis for the definition of “enslave-
ment” in the Statute of the International Criminal Court as “the exercise of any or
all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership over a person and includes the
exercise of such power in the course of trafficking in persons, in particular women
and children”.

The Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave

Trade, and Institutions and Practices similar to Slavery defines serfdom as “the
condition or status of a tenant who is by law, custom or agreement bound to live
and labour on land belonging to another person and to render some determinate
service to such other person, whether for reward or not, and is not free to change
his status”. In the Pohl case in 1947, the US Military Tribunal at Nuremberg held
that “involuntary servitude, even if tempered by humane treatment, is still slavery”.

5
The Whiteman Digest by Marjorie M. Whiteman
6
Genocide, (ushmm.org).
7
Slavery and Slave Trade, (https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-
ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule94).
3. Piracy;

The IMB Piracy Reporting Centre (IMB PRC) follows the definition of Piracy as laid
down in Article 101 of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS) and Armed Robbery as laid down in Resolution A.1025 (26) adopted
on 2 December 2009 at the 26th Assembly Session of the International Maritime
Organisation (IMO)8.

Article 101 Definition of piracy

Piracy consists of any of the following acts:

(a) Any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed
for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft,
and directed:

(i) On the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against

persons or property on board such ship or aircraft;
(ii) Against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place
outside the jurisdiction of any State;

(b) Any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with
knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft;

(c) Any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in subpara-

graph (a) or (b). (source: un.org)

4. International Crime of Terrorism;

The definition of International Terrorism9 found in the International Conven-

tion for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (1999), ratified by 179 States
at the time of writing, has been adopted as an authoritative definition of interna-
tional terrorism.32 That convention defines terrorism as any:

“Act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any

other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed con-
flict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a pop-
ulation, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to ab-
stain from doing any act.”

5. Hijacking of Air Crafts;

The following conventions are made for crimes against Hijacking:

1. The Tokyo Convention of 1963
2. The Hague Convention of 1970
3. The Montreal Convention of 1971

The Tokyo Convention of 1963 also titled as The Convention on Offences

and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft was signed at Tokyo in a

8
Piracy, (source: https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/aircraft-hijacking/).
9
International Terrorism, (source: a book by Thomas Weatherall titled The Status of the
Prohibition of Terrorism in International Law: Recent Developments)
diplomatic conference on September 14, 1963. It came into force on December 4,
1969.

The Hague Convention of 1970 was implemented due to the increase in

the number of incidents relating to hijacking and the shortcomings of the Tokyo
Convention compelled the States to think and take some effective measures to
solve the problem and to give deterrent punishment to hijackers.

Article 1 of the convention defines the offense that may be covered by the
Convention. It says:

Any person who onboard an aircraft in flight:

• Unlawfully, by force or threat thereof, or by any other form of intimidation,
seizes, or exercises control of, that aircraft, or attempts to perform any such
act, or
• Is an accomplice of a person who performs or attempts to perform such an
act, commits an offense.

Thus, in addition to actual wrongdoer, his accomplice also would be

deemed guilty of the offense under the Convention.

Article 2 of the Convention states that each contracting state is required to

make the offense punishable by severe penalties.

The Convention applies in international as well as domestic flights. Further,

the Convention applies in case of forced landing.

The Convention also stipulates regarding the extradition of offenders. Arti-

cle 8 says that “the offence shall be deemed to be included as an extraditable
offense in any extradition treaty”, and it shall be an obligation of the Contracting
States to include the offense as an extraditable offense in every future treaty. Thus,
the Convention may be considered as constituting an extradition treaty in respect
of the offense amongst the Contracting Parties. The provision implies that the of-
fense of hijacking shall not be deemed to as a political offense. The offender will
have to be extradited even if the offense has been committed for political gain.
However, the Convention also provides that “the extradition shall be subject to
other conditions provided by the law of the requested State.” In other words, ex-
tradition has to be made in accordance with the existing law of extradition of the
requesting State.

Provisions of the Hague Convention show that it is devoted largely to the

problem of hijacking of aircraft. However the scope of the Convention is not as
wide as it should be. However, the Convention is a firm improvement in the law of
aircraft hijacking.

The Montreal Convention of 1971 or The Convention for the Suppression

of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation was adopted on September
23, 1971 at a diplomatic conference in Montreal. The Convention came into force
on December 14, 1973

The Convention under Article 1 enumerates the following unlawful acts as

offenses for the purposes of the convention, viz., act of violence against a person
on board an aircraft in flight, if that act is likely to endanger the safety of the aircraft;
destroying or causing damage to an aircraft in service so as to render it incapable
of flight; placing an aircraft in service any device or substance which is likely to
endanger its safety in flight; the destruction or damage of navigation facilities, or
interference with their operation, if any such act is likely to endanger the safety of
aircraft in flight; and the communication of information which is known to be false,
thereby endangering the safety of an aircraft in flight.[viii]

The Montreal Convention is directed against not only unlawful acts but also
acts done with the intention against a person on board an aircraft in flight if that act
is likely to endanger the safety of the aircraft in flight.[ix]

Other provisions of the Montreal Convention regarding prosecution and ex-

tradition are identical to that of the Hague Convention.[x]

Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detec-

tion, 1991

The International Conference on Air Law adopted the Convention on the

Marking on Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detection in a conference held in
February-March 1991 at the Montreal Headquarters of the ICAO.

The Convention requires the countries to prohibit and prevent the manufac-
ture in their territory of unmarked explosives, as well as movement of such explo-
sives into or out of their territory. All plastic explosives will have to be marked by
manufacturers with anyone of four ‘detection agents’ agreed upon by the Confer-
ence.

Within three years, plastic explosive stocks not specifically held for military
or police activities are to be destroyed, used or rendered ineffective. Those for
military or police functions are to be similarly disposed of within 15 years.

The International Technical Commission set up by the Convention as-

sesses development in plastic explosive manufacturing, marking and detection,
keep the international community informed and propose amendments to the tech-
nical annex to the Convention.

6. Recourse to war, except in self-defense;

The norm prohibiting force in interstate relations, is widely recognized as

prohibiting the threat or use of armed force against the territorial integrity and/or
political independence of another state. This prohibition is not limited to wars of
aggression but also extends to the use or threat of aggressive armed force.10

7. Threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independ-

ence of another State (intervention);

The prohibition of the threat of force is binding on all members of the United
Nations because it is explicitly provided for in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter: “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.”11

10
Recourse to War, (source: Jus Cogens and the Inherent Right to Self-Defense by
Carin Kahgan).
11
Threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of an-
other State, (source: The Threat of Force as an Action in Self-Defense Under Interna-
tional Law by James A. Green and Francis Grimal.).
8. Armed Aggression;

An “armed attack” does not include “assistance to rebels in the form of the
provision of weapons or logistical or other support.”35 Instead, the Court deemed
such “assistance” to be a “threat or use of force, or . . . intervention in the internal
or external affairs of other States.”

It is unlikely that either the provision of weapons or other forms of logistical

support involve the actual use of force. For example, if state A supplies machine
guns to a paramilitary organization for use against state B, there has been no use
of force by state A against state B, even indirectly. However, this action is clearly
a threat: supplying the paramilitary organization with weaponry indirectly threatens
state B. Therefore, this aspect of the Nicaragua judgment does little more than
indicate one possible manifestation of an unlawful threat of force.12

9. Recognition of situations brought about by force, including fruits of ag-

gression;

The prohibition of the threat of force, although equally important in terms of

its normative status to the prohibition on use, has attracted far less academic com-
mentary to date. This Article examines the relationship between the two prohibi-
tions—of the use and threat of force—and considers the largely unexplored possi-
bility of states utilizing a threat of force as a means of lawful defensive response:
self-defense in the form of a threat.13

10. Treaty provisions imposed by force;

Articles 46–53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties set out the
only ways that treaties can be invalidated—considered unenforceable and void
under international law. A treaty will be invalidated due to either the circumstances
by which a state party joined the treaty, or due to the content of the treaty itself.
Invalidation is separate from withdrawal, suspension, or termination (addressed
above), which all involve an alteration in the consent of the parties of a previously
valid treaty rather than the invalidation of that consent in the first place.

A state's consent may be invalidated if there was an erroneous understand-

ing of a fact or situation at the time of conclusion, which formed the "essential
basis" of the state's consent. Consent will not be invalidated if the misunderstand-
ing was due to the state's own conduct, or if the truth should have been evident.

Consent will also be invalidated if it was induced by the fraudulent conduct

of another party, or by the direct or indirect "corruption" of its representative by
another party to the treaty. Coercion of either a representative, or the state itself
through the threat or use of force, if used to obtain the consent of that state to a
treaty, will invalidate that consent.14

12
Armed Aggression, (source: The Threat of Force as an Action in Self-Defense Under
International Law by James A. Green and Francis Grimal.).
13
Recognition of situations brought about by force, including fruits of aggression,
(source: The Threat of Force as an Action in Self-Defense Under International Law by
James A. Green and Francis Grimal.)
14
(source: Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties)
11. War Crimes (“Superior Orders” prima facie no answer to war crimes.);

The definition of “war crime” for the purpose of International Law can be
found in Article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. A war
crime is an act that constitutes a serious violation of the laws of war that gives rise
to individual criminal responsibility. Examples of war crimes include intentionally
killing civilians or prisoners, torture, destroying civilian property, taking hostages,
perfidy, rape, using child soldiers, pillaging, declaring that no quarter will be given,
and serious violations of the principles of distinction and proportionality, such as
strategic bombing of civilian populations.15

12. Crimes against peace and humanity (“Superior Orders” prima facie no
answer.);

A crime against peace, in international law, is "planning, preparation, initi-

ation, or waging of wars of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties,
agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the
accomplishment of any of the foregoing”.16

Crimes against humanity are certain acts that are deliberately committed
as part of a widespread or systematic attack or individual attack directed against
any civilian or an identifiable part of a civilian population. Unlike war crimes, crimes
against humanity can be committed during peace or war.17

13. Offenses against the peace and/or order of security of mankind;

The Commission decided not to propose a general definition of crimes

against the peace and security of mankind. It took the view that it should be left to
practice to define the exact contours of the concept of crimes against peace, war
crimes and crimes against humanity, as identified in article 6 of the Charter of the
Niiraberg Tribunal.18

14. Dispersion of germs with a view to harming or extinguishing human life;

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant

of Social, Economic and Cultural Rights both include a right to health. While the
Universal Declaration is not binding law, meaning it does not have the power to be
enforced as law, it shows that the international community considers the right to
health to be broad. The International Covenant, while binding and thus enforcea-
ble, has a much narrower right to health; however, general comment from its over-
seeing committee has said the International Covenant should address underlying

15
War Crimes, (source: Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Oxford Univer-
sity Press. pp. 63–66.).
16
Crimes Against Peace, (source: Nicolas Werth, Karel Bartošek, Jean-Louis Panné,
Jean-Louis Margolin, Andrzej Paczkowski, Stéphane Courtois, The Black Book of Com-
munism: Crimes, Terror, Repression.).
17
Crimes Against Humanity, (source: Margaret M. DeGuzman,"Crimes Against Human-
ity" Research Handbook on International Law, Bartram S. Brown, ed., Edgar Elgar Pub-
lishing, 2011).
18
Offenses against the peace and/or order of security of mankind, (source: Draft Code
of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, 2005, legal.un.org.)
determinants of health. Further, the World Health Organization’s constitution and
recent policies recognize a broad right to health.19

15. All methods of mass destruction (including nuclear weapons) used for
other than peaceful purposes;

Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) technologies is by no

means a new concern for the international community. Indeed, since the signing
of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty in 1968, tremendous energies have been
expended upon diplomatic efforts to create a web of treaties and international or-
ganizations regulating the production and stockpiling of WMD sensitive materials
within states, as well as their spread through the increasingly globalized channels
of international trade to other states and non-state actors.

However, the intervention in 2003 by Western powers in Iraq has served as

an illustration of the importance of greater understanding of and attention to this
area of law, as disagreements over its content and application have once again
lead to a potentially destabilizing armed intervention by members of the United
Nations into the sovereign territory of another member state. Other ongoing dis-
putes between states regarding the character of obligations work assumed under
non-proliferation treaty instruments, and the effect of international organizations'
decisions in this area, form some of the most contentious and potentially destabi-
lizing issues of foreign policy concern for many states.20

16. Contamination of the air, sea, or land with a view to making it harmful or
useless to mankind;

Air pollution is most commonly viewed in the context of climate change, and
international action in this regard is one of the most prominent, in particular through
the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Nota-
ble conventions that relate to air pollution are the 1979 Convention on Long-Range
Transboundary Air Pollution, the 1985 Vienna Convention for the Protection of the
Ozone Layer and the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the
Ozone Layer. Furthermore, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol deals with air pollution and its
impact on the climate. Although the above-mentioned Conventions and Protocols
focus on air pollution and its effects on human health and the environment, little
reference is being made to the illegality of certain kinds of air pollution.

Besides pollution in the seas and in the air, pollution on land is another
significant problem encompassing a variety of practices. The most notable inter-
national instrument related to the issue of Hazardous Wastes is the 1989 Basel
Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes
and Their Disposal (Basel Convention). The overarching objective of the Basel
Convention is to protect human health and the environment against the negative
effects of hazardous wastes. In specific, it aims to reduce hazardous wastes, re-
strict the transboundary movement of hazardous wastes and putting in place a
regulatory framework that applies to cases where the movement of wastes can be
permitted.21

19
Dispersion of germs with a view to harming or extinguishing human life, (source: A
JOINT PROJECT OF CCLA AND PRO BONO STUDENTS CANADA, rightswatch.ca)
20
21
Contamination of the air, sea, or land with a view to making it harmful or useless to
mankind, (source: “Overview“, Basel Convention, accessed 15 December, 2014.)
17. Hostile modification of weather;

The Environmental Modification Convention (ENMOD), formally the Con-

vention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental
Modification Techniques is an international treaty prohibiting the military or other
hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-last-
ing or severe effects. It opened for signature on 18 May 1977 in Geneva and en-
tered into force on 5 October 1978.

The Convention bans weather warfare, which is the use of weather modifi-
cation techniques for the purposes of inducing damage or destruction. The Con-
vention on Biological Diversity of 2010 would also ban some forms of weather
modification or geo-engineering.22

18. Appropriation of outer space and/or celestial bodies;

According to specialists, origin and existence of international legal order

norms, which have higher rank, or peremptory norms, how we used to call them,
is connected with different concepts and categories. In Arnold D. McNair’s view
international norms “which stand in a higher category and which can not be aside
or modified by contracting States” are necessary “to protect the public interests of
the society of States or to maintain the standards of public morality recognized by
them”(McNair, 1961). As a result, McNair connects existence of peremptory norms
with such categories as “public interest” and “public morality”.23

19. Disruption of international communications with a view to disturbing the

peace; and

International law impinges on the life of every citizen several times daily. A
person cannot post a letter, travel abroad, receive an innoculation, refuel a car,
purchase groceries, or use a telephone but for the fact that international law is
smoothly working behind the scenes, attending to and regulating the transactions
relevant to these services. Health relies on international standards and controls;
international travel depends on a series of treaties and international law principles;
the carriage of a letter would be impossible without international postal regulations;
the normal stock of groceries regularly purchased almost surely contains a fair
proportion of materials imported across national borders; and telephone services
depend heavily on satellites and international telecommunication agreements.

Hundreds of multilateral treaties subscribed to by most of the nations of the

world regulate such important functions as commerce, health, travel, aviation, ship-
ping, outer space, telecommunication, and currency. Every citizen’s life today is so
heavily dependent on international standards that life would be impossible without
them and the international law which makes them work. No longer is it true to say

22
Hostile modification of weather(source: Grand-Geneve website [grand-geneve.org] 14
July 2016)
23
Appropriation of outer space and/or celestial bodies, (source: Jus Cogens Norms in
International Space Law by Yevgeniya Oralova, November 2015.)
 A Digest on The Territorial Dispute Against
China in matter of the South China Sea Ar-
bitration Ruling
____________________________________

that any country, however powerful, can regulate its own affairs. Life within nations
relies on the smooth functioning of international law.24

20. Economic Warfare with the purpose of upsetting:

a) The world’s banking system;
b) The world’s currencies;
c) The world’ supply of energy; or
d) The world’s food supply.

Economic warfare refers to a hostile relationship between two countries or

more countries in which one country tries to damage another country’s economy
for economic, political or military purpose. Economic warfare is conducted through
various collective measures such as:

1.Blockade;
2.Blacklisting;
3.Preclusive purchasing;
4.Rewards;
5.Capturing of enemy assets; or
6.Boycotts.

Economic warfare was prominent during World War II. Economic warfare is
used as defensive means by countries to maintain their economic potential and
diminish the economic potential of an enemy nation and its allies. [Livadas v. Brad-
shaw, 512 U.S. 107 (U.S. 1994)].25

IN THE MATTER OF THE SOUTH CHINA SEA ARBITRATION

AN ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL CONSTITUTED UNDER ANNEX VII TO THE 1982 UNITED NA-
TIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA

- between -

THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

- and -

THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

FACTS:

24
Disruption of international communications with a view to disturbing the peace,
(source: Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, 2005, le-
gal.un.org.)
25
Economic Warfare, [Livadas v. Bradshaw, 512 U.S. 107 (U.S. 1994)].
 The Republic of the Philippines(Philippines) instituted an arbitration case against the
People’s Republic of China(China) under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law
of the Sea(Convention or UNCLOS) since both parties have ratified the Convention. How-
ever, China have consistently stated its view on the lack of jurisdiction of the Tribunal on
the matter.

The arbitration concerns disputed between the parties regarding the legal basis of
maritime rights and entitlements in the South China Sea, the status of certain geographic
features in the South China Sea, and the lawfulness of certain actions taken by China in
the South China Sea.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the Tribunal has jurisdiction?

2. Whether or not China have claims under historical rights and the “nine-dash-line?
3. What is the status of features in the South China Sea?
4. Whether or not the activities of China in the South China Sea is lawful?
5. Whether or not the actions of China since the commencement of arbitration have ag-
gravated and extended the dispute?
6. What is China’s future conduct?

RULING:

1. Article 288 of the Conventions states that “In the event of a dispute as to whether a
court or tribunal has jurisdiction, the matter shall be settled by decision of that court or
tribunal.”

2. With respect to Submission No. 1, for the reasons set out above, the Tribunal concludes
that, as between the Philippines and China, the Convention defines the scope of maritime
entitlements in the South China Sea, which may not extend beyond the limits imposed
therein. The Tribunal concludes that, as between the Philippines and China, China’s claims
to historic rights, or other sovereign rights or jurisdiction, with respect to the maritime
areas of the South China Sea encompassed by the relevant part of the ‘nine-dash line’ are
contrary to the Convention and without lawful effect to the extent that they exceed the
geographic and substantive limits of China’s maritime entitlements under the Conven-
tion. The Tribunal concludes that the Convention superseded any historic rights or other
sovereign rights or jurisdiction in excess of the limits imposed therein.

3. Features that are above water at high tide generate an entitlement to at least a 12
nautical mile territorial sea, whereas features that are submerged at high tide do not. The
Tribunal noted that the reefs have been heavily modified by land reclamation and con-
struction, recalled that the Convention classifies features on their natural condition, and
relied on historical materials in evaluating the features.

Article 121 establishes a regime of islands as follows:

“Article 121 Regime of Islands

1. An island is a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water
at high tide.
2. Except as provided for in paragraph 3, the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the ex-
clusive economic zone and the continental shelf of an island are determined in accordance
with the provisions of this Convention applicable to other land territory.

3. Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have
no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.

The tribunal found that although there were evidence of transient habitation on the
features, there was no showing of permanent habitation that the features could support
a stable community therefore they are considered rocks. Thus, Having found that none of
the features claimed by China was capable of generating an exclusive economic zone, the
Tribunal found that it could—without delimiting a boundary—declare that certain sea ar-
eas are within the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines, becausethose areas are not
overlapped by any possible entitlement of China.”

4. The Tribunal finds that China has, by virtue of the conduct of Chinese law enforcement
vessels in the vicinity of Scarborough Shoal, created serious risk of collision and danger to
Philippine vessels and personnel. The Tribunal finds China to have violated Rules 2, 6, 7,
8, 15, and 16 of the COLREGS and, as a consequence, to be in breach of Article 94 of the
Convention.

5.Yes, it has.

(a) China has aggravated the Parties’ dispute concerning their respective rights and enti-
tlements in the area of Mischief Reef by building a large artificial island on a low-tide
elevation located in the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines.

(b) China has aggravated the Parties’ dispute concerning the protection and preservation
of the marine environment at Mischief Reef by inflicting permanent, irreparable harm to
the coral reef habitat of that feature.

(c) China has extended the Parties’ dispute concerning the protection and preservation of
the marine environment by commencing large-scale island-building and construction
works at Cuarteron Reef, Fiery Cross Reef, Gaven Reef (North), Johnson Reef, Hughes
Reef, and Subi Reef.

(d) China has aggravated the Parties’ dispute concerning the status of maritime features
in the Spratly Islands and their capacity to generate entitlements to maritime zones by
permanently destroying evidence of the natural condition of Mischief Reef, Cuarteron
Reef, Fiery Cross Reef, Gaven Reef (North), Johnson Reef, Hughes Reef, and Subi Reef.

6. The Tribunal considers it beyond dispute that both Parties are obliged to comply with
the Convention, including its provisions regarding the resolution of disputes, and to re-
spect the rights and freedoms of other States under the Convention. Neither Party con-
tests this, and the Tribunal is therefore not persuaded that it is necessary or appropriate
for it to make any further declaration.26

26
IN THE MATTER OF THE SOUTH CHINA SEA ARBITRATION AN ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL CONSTI-
TUTED UNDER ANNEX VII TO THE 1982 UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE
SEA,(https://pca-cpa.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/175/2016/07/PH-CN-20160712-Award.pdf)
 A Research and Summary on Association
of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)
____________________________________

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or ASEAN, was established

on 8 August 1967 in Bangkok, Thailand, with the signing of the ASEAN Declaration
(Bangkok Declaration) by the Founding Fathers of ASEAN, namely Indonesia,
Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand. Brunei Darussalam then
joined on 7 January 1984, Viet Nam on 28 July 1995, Lao PDR and Myanmar on
23 July 1997, and Cambodia on 30 April 1999, making up what is today the ten
Member States of ASEAN. (source: http://www.asean2017.ph/wp-content/uploads/ASEAN-Chairmanship-Primer.pdf)

AIMS AND PURPOSES

As set out in the ASEAN Declaration, the aims and purposes of ASEAN are:

1 To accelerate the economic growth, social progress and cultural develop-

ment in the region through joint endeavours in the spirit of equality and part-
nership in order to strengthen the foundation for a prosperous and peaceful
community of Southeast Asian Nations;
2 To promote regional peace and stability through abiding respect for justice
and the rule of law in the relationship among countries of the region and
adherence to the principles of the United Nations Charter;
 A Research and Summary on Association
of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)
____________________________________

3 To promote active collaboration and mutual assistance on matters of com-

mon interest in the economic, social, cultural, technical, scientific and ad-
ministrative fields;
4 To provide assistance to each other in the form of training and research
facilities in the educational, professional, technical and administrative
spheres;
5 To collaborate more effectively for the greater utilisation of their agriculture
and industries, the expansion of their trade, including the study of the prob-
lems of international commodity trade, the improvement of their transporta-
tion and communications facilities and the raising of the living standards of
their peoples;
6 To promote Southeast Asian studies; and
7 To maintain close and beneficial cooperation with existing international and
regional organisations with similar aims and purposes, and explore all ave-
nues for even closer cooperation among themselves.

FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES

In their relations with one another, the ASEAN Member States have adopted the
following fundamental principles, as contained in the Treaty of Amity and Cooper-
ation in Southeast Asia (TAC) of 1976:
1 Mutual respect for the independence, sovereignty, equality, territorial integ-
rity, and national identity of all nations;
2 The right of every State to lead its national existence free from external in-
terference, subversion or coercion;
3 Non-interference in the internal affairs of one another;
4 Settlement of differences or disputes by peaceful manner;
5 Renunciation of the threat or use of force; and
6 Effective cooperation among themselves.

What is the International Criminal Court?

The International Criminal Court (ICC)27 is the first permanent and inde-
pendent international judicial body established pursuant to the Rome Statute
adopted on July 17, 1998 by 120 states in an international conference held in
Rome, Italy. With 139 signatures and the required 60 ratifications, it entered into
force on July 1, 2002. It is the first treaty based court governed by an Assembly of
States Parties comprised of states that have ratified it. The seat of the ICC is in
The Hague, the Netherlands.

What is the jurisdiction of the ICC?

The ICC has jurisdiction over the most serious crimes committed by individuals:
1. Genocide;
2. Crimes against humanity;
3. War crimes; and

27
ROME STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT, http://le-
gal.un.org/icc/statute/99_corr/cstatute.htm
4. Aggression.

The Court has jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the
entry into force of the Statute as the Statute has no retroactive effect. In cases
where the crime or complaint was referred by a State or initiated by the Prosecutor,
the ICC may exercise its jurisdiction if one or more of the following states are par-
ties to the Statute or have accepted the ICC’s jurisdiction:

(1) The State on the territory of which the alleged crime was committed;

(2) The State of which the person accused of the crimes is a national.

Those States which did not sign or ratify the Statute, although not under the
Court’s jurisdiction, may accept the jurisdiction of the ICC and cooperate in the
implementation of the Statute.

Under Article 13 of the Rome Statute, the United Nations Security Council
may also refer a situation to the Prosecutor, whether or not the accused is a na-
tional of a state party or irrespective of where the crime is committed.

What are the obligations of States when they join the ICC?

Under the Rome Statute, States Parties have two basic obligations: com-
plementarity and full cooperation.

What are the crimes within the jurisdiction of the ICC?

Genocide

The crime of genocide is any of the acts enumerated below, when commit-
ted with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, national, ethnical, racial or religious
groups:
a. Killing of members of the group;
b. Causing serious bodily injury or mental harm to members of the group;
c. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about
its physical destruction in whole or in part;
d. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and
e. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Crimes against humanity

The following acts constitute crimes against humanity, when committed as

part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population,
with knowledge of the attack:
a. Murder;
b. Extermination;
c. Enslavement;
d. Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
e. Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of
fundamental rules of international law;
f. Torture;
g. Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced
sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
h. Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political,
or racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender, or other grounds that
 are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in
connection with any act or any crime within the jurisdiction of
the ICC;
i. Enforced disappearance of persons;
j. The crime of apartheid; and
k. Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great
suffering or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

War crimes

The ICC will have jurisdiction over war crimes in particular when committed as part
of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes. It includes
grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions namely any acts against persons or
property protected under the Geneva Conventions, such as:
a. Willful killing;
b. Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments;
c. Willfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health;
d. Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by
military necessity carried out unlawfully and wantonly;
e. Compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the
forces of hostile power;
f. Willfully depriving prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights
of fair and regular trial;
g. Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement; and,
h. Taking of hostages.

Who can file complaints before the Court?

Anyone who is a victim of the crimes within the court’s jurisdiction can write
and send communication to the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC in The Hague.
Governments, international organizations, non-governmental organizations can
also send communications to the Prosecutor for his/her information. The Office of
the Prosecutor will determine whether the contents of the communications comes
within the jurisdiction of the Court and whether or not there are grounds to investi-
gate based on the evidence presented, and decide to open a new “situation”.

If the Prosecutor decides to open a new situation, investigation will follow.

The Court will set up a team to handle the investigation and will open a local office
to facilitate investigation on the ground, bringing together investigators and experts
to gather and validate evidence for the filing of indictments.

What are the rights of a person under investigation by the ICC?

A person under investigation by the ICC cannot be compelled to incriminate

himself or herself or to confess guilt. He/she cannot be subjected to any form of
coercion, duress or threat, to torture or to any other forms of cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment. Additionally, he/she has the right to an inter-
preter, free of cost, if he/she wants to be questioned in his own language. A person
under investigation shall not be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention and shall
not be deprived of liberty except in some cases in accordance with the Court’s
procedure.

If there are grounds to believe that a person has committed a crime within
the Court’s jurisdiction, and should be questioned by the Prosecutor or by national
authorities upon request by the Court, such person shall be informed prior to ques-
tioning that there are grounds to believe that he/she has committed a crime, that
he/she has a right to remain silent, to have counsel of his own choice or if he/she
cannot afford one, he/she should be provided with legal assistance without pay,
and the right to be questioned in the presence of his counsel, unless he/she has
waived it voluntarily.

What are the rights of the accused facing trial in the ICC?

The Rome Statute provides ample protection for the rights of an accused facing
trial in the ICC. These are:
a. The right to be informed of the charges against him/her in a language
that he/she can fully understand.
b. To have counsel of his/her own choice, or be provided with one when he/
she cannot afford one.
c. To have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his/her defense
and to communicate with his/her counsel freely.
d. To be tried without undue delay.
e. To be present during trial.
f. To examine witnesses against him/her and the right to present witness on
his/her behalf.
g. To have interpretation and translation, free of charge.
h. Not to be compelled to testify or to confess guilt and to remain silent.
i. To make an unsworn oral or written statement in his/her defense.
j. Not to have imposed on him/her any reversal of the burden of proof or
any onus of rebuttal.

In addition to these rights, the Prosecutor shall disclose to the defense as soon as
practicable, evidence in his possession or control which he/she believes will excul-
pate or mitigate the guilt of the accused, or which may affect the credibility of pros-
ecution’s evidence.

How can the ICC execute its orders?

The ICC has no police or armed force to execute its orders like implement-
ing arrests and summons. It relies mainly on the cooperation of States Parties and
the international community as a whole. When they ratify the Rome Statute, states
are bound to cooperate with the ICC in its investigations, in arresting persons by
virtue of a warrant of arrest, in looking for evidence and witnesses, and in some
cases, in the relocation of witnesses. The ICC also executes agreements with
States Parties in the execution of its judgments, such as the hosting by a State
Party of a convicted person in its penal institution as the ICC has no prison facility
of its own.
 A Research on An International Issue in-
volving the United States, Britain and
France launching air strikes against Syria
____________________________________

The United States along with Britain and France launched a combined mil-
itary operation against Syria28 on April 14, 2018. The military operation is in re-
sponse to an alleged chemical attack in Douma, a Syrian town near Damascus.

The announcement was made by US President Donald Trump through a

television address to the nation. Trump stated that he had ordered the United
States armed forces to launch precision strikes on targets associated with the
chemical weapons capabilities of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

What they said!

Trump stated that the joint action was aimed at establishing a strong deter-
rent against the production, spread and use of chemical weapons.

Shortly after Trump’s address, US Defense Secretary Jim Mattis described

the attack as a one-time shot and said that the strikes had ended.

Speaking on the same, British Prime Minister Theresa May said that the
attacks were not about regime change or intervening in a civil war, but were to
deter the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government.

28
(source: https://www.jagranjosh.com/current-affairs/us-britain-and-france-launch-air-
strikes-against-syria-1523699816-1?ref=list_ca / An article by Sangeeta Krishnan)
 French President Emmanuel Macron also issued a statement saying that
he had ordered the French army to intervene as a part of the international opera-
tion in coalition with the US and Britain.

While Israel, Turkey, Netherlands and Germany supported the strikes and
called them necessary and appropriate to stop chemical attacks in Syria, Iran
termed the attack as a crime and Russia warned of consequences and said that it
would call an emergency session of UN Security Council over the issue.

UN’s response

The UN Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres has urged all the member

states to show restraint and avoid any acts that could escalate the situation and
worsen the suffering of the Syrian people.

The UN Chief stated that while currently Syria indeed represents the most
serious threat to international peace and security, there is an obligation, when deal-
ing with matters of peace and security, to act consistently with the Charter of the
United Nations and with international law.

Impact

Following the announcements, huge blasts were reported around Damas-

cus early on April 14.

The sky of Damascus erupted with anti-aircraft fire and smoke as the US-
led alliance launched an attack targeting different parts of the Syrian capital Da-
mascus.

According to General Joseph Dunford, the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs

of Staff, the precision strikes targeted a chemical weapons research facility near
Damascus, a storage site near Homs and a nearby command post.

Syria’s air defenses reportedly responded by shooting down several mis-

siles.

Background

• On April 7, 2018, a suspected chemical attack took place in the Syrian

town of Douma, which killed over 60 people including men, women and children
and injured several others.

• While it is still not proven that it was indeed a chemical attack, the on-site
medics stated that the cause of most deaths was due to exposure to chlorine and
sarin gas.

• Many of the injured showed signs of respiratory distress, central cyanosis

(blue skin or lips), excessive oral foaming, corneal burns and emitted a chlorine-
like odour.

• Syria and its allies including Russia have denied that such a chemical at-
tack had taken place at all.

• The attack evoked large-scale criticism of President Bashar al-Assad’s

regime.
 A Digest on Grace Poe’s case on Citizen-
ship as a Foundling
____________________________________

G.R. No. 221697 and G.R. No. 221698-700

MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioners,
vs.
COMELEC AND ESTRELLA C. ELAMPARO Respondents.
COMELEC, FRANCISCO S. TATAD, ANTONIO P. CONTRERAS AND AMADO
D. VALDEZ Respondents.

FACTS:

In her COC for Presidency on the May 2016 elections, Grace Poe declared
that she is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines and that her residence up to
day before May 9, 2016 would be 10 years and 11 months counted from May 24,
2005.

Grace Poe was born in 1968., found as newborn infant in Jaro, Iloilo and
was legally adopted by RONALD ALLAN KELLY POE (FPJ) and JESUS SONORA
POE (SUSAN ROCES) in 1974. She immigrated to the US in 1991 after her mar-
riage to Theodore Llamanzares who was then based at the US. Grace Poe then
became a naturalized American citizen in 2001.

On December 2004, he returned to the Philippines due to his father’s dete-

riorating medical condition, who then eventually demice on February 3,2005. She
then quitted her job in the US to be with her grieving mother and finally went home
for good to the Philippines on MAY 24, 2005.
 On JULY 18, 2006, the BI granted her petition declaring that she had reac-
quired her Filipino citizenship under RA 9225. She registered as a voter and ob-
tained a new Philippine Passport.

In 2010, before assuming her post as appointes Chairperson of the MTRCB

, she renounced her American citizenship to satisfy the RA 9225 requirements as
to Reacquistion of Filipino Citizenship. From then on, she stopped using her Amer-
ican passport.

Petitions were filed before the COMELEC to deny or cancel her candidacy
on the ground particularly among others, that she cannot be considered a natural
born Filipino citizen since she was a FOUNDLING and that her bioligical parents
cannot be proved as Filipinos. The Comelec en banc cancelled her candidacy on
the ground that she is in want of citizenship and residence requirements and that
she committed misrepresentation in her COC.

On CERTIORARI, the SUPREME COURT, reversed the ruling and held a

vote of 9-6 that POE is qualified as candidate for Presidency.

ISSUES:

(1) Whether or not Grace Poe- Llamanzares is a natural- born Filipino citi-
zen?

HELD:

YES. GRACE POE is considerably a natural-born Filipino Citizen. For that,

she satisfied the constitutional reqt that only natural-born Filipinos may run for
Presidency.

(1) There is high probability that Poe’s parents are Filipinos, as being shown
in her physical features which are typical of Filipinos, aside from the fact that she
was found as an infant in Jaro, Iloilo, a municipality wherein there is 99% probabil-
ity that residents there are Filipinos, consequently providing 99% chance that
Poe’s bilogical parents are Filipinos. Said probability and circumstancial evidence
are admissible under Rule 128, Sec 4 of the Rules on Evidence.

(2) The SC pronounced that FOUNDLINGS are as a class, natural born-

citizens as based on the deliberations of the 1935 Constitutional Convention,
wherein though its enumeration is silent as to foundlings, there is no restrictive
language either to definitely exclude the foundlings to be natural born citizens.

(3) That Foundlings are automatically conferred with the natural-born citi-
zenship as to the country where they are being found, as covered and supported
by the UN Convention Law.

As to the residency issue, Grace Poe satisfied the 10-year residency be-
cause she satisfied the requirements of ANIMUS MANENDI (intent to remain per-
manently) coupled with ANIMUS NON REVERTENDI (intent of not returning to
US) in acquiring a new domicile in the Philippines. Starting May 24,2005, upon
returning to the Philippines, Grace Poe presented overwhelming evidence of her
actual stay and intent to abandon permanently her domicile in the US, coupled with
her eventual application to reacquire Filipino Citizenship under RA 9225. Hence,
her candidacy for Presidency was granted by the SC.
 A Research and Reaction Paper on The
Enhance Defense Cooperation Agreement
____________________________________

The Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) is an agree-

ment between the United States and the Philippines intended to bolster the U.S.–
Philippine alliance. The agreement allows the United States to rotate troops into
the Philippines for extended stays and allows the U.S. to build and operate facilities
on Philippine bases, for both American and Philippine forces. The U.S. is not al-
lowed to establish any permanent military bases. It also gives Philippine personnel
access to American ships and planes.

The EDCA is a supplemental agreement to the previous Visiting Forces

Agreement. The agreement was signed by Philippine Defense Secretary Voltaire
Gazmin and U.S. Ambassador to the Philippines Philip Goldberg in Manila on April
28, 2014. On January 12, 2016, the Philippine Supreme Court upheld the agree-
ment's constitutionality in a 10–4 vote. On July 26, 2016, the Philippine Supreme
Court ruled with finality that the agreement is constitutional.

Evan Medeiros, the U.S. National Security Council’s senior director for
Asian affairs was quoted in the Washington Post as saying, "This is the most sig-
nificant defense agreement that we have concluded with the Philippines in dec-
ades.”29

The agreement itself strengthens the Philippines’ role in maritime security

considering that the agreement when it comes to the US troops’ activities involve
the following:

1. Security Cooperation Exercises;

2. Joint and Combined Training;

29
Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement, (en.wikipedia.org).
 A Summary on The Geneva Convention
____________________________________

3. Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief;

4. Other activities agreed upon between the US and the
Philippines.

Also, the different agreed locations in Basa Air Base Pampangga, Fort Mag-
saysay Nueva Ecija, Benito Ebuen Air Base Cebu, Antonio Bautista Air Base Pa-
lawan, and Lumbia Air Base Cagayan De Oro, though occupied without rental or
similar fees, the Philippines will retain ownership of the agreed locations including
any permanent structures built by said troops. EDCA is also said to last initially
after 10 years and it shall continue unless the it is terminated by the U.S. or the
Philippines, within a one year’s written notice.30

The agreement carries out provisions of previous agreements such as the

1951 Mutual Defense Treaty and the 1998 Visiting Forces Agreement. Hopefully
EDCA exerts the potential to strengthen the Philippine Army even more especially
because of the different controversies that the Philippines is currently involved in
between China. It is not as if the Philippines is preparing for war but for the Philip-
pine Army to ensure that they may protect its citizens in case of danger or harm.
Geneva Conventions, a series of international treaties concluded in
Geneva between 1864 and 1949 for the purpose of ameliorating the effects of war
on soldiers and civilians. Two additional protocols to the 1949 agreement were
approved in 1977. The following are covered by the Geneva Convention:

1. Prisoners of War Convention;

2. Shipwreck Convention;
3. War Crimes Convention;
4. Ordicumba Convention; and
5. Protection of Civilians in case of armed conflict.

The development of the Geneva Conventions was closely associated with

the Red Cross, whose founder, Henri Dunant, initiated international negotiations
that produced the Convention for the Amelioration of the Wounded in Time of War
in 1864. This convention provided for (1) the immunity from capture and destruc-
tion of all establishments for the treatment of wounded and sick soldiers and their
personnel, (2) the impartial reception and treatment of all combatants, (3) the pro-
tection of civilians providing aid to the wounded, and (4) the recognition of the Red
Cross symbol as a means of identifying persons and equipment covered by the
agreement.

The 1864 convention was ratified within three years by all the major Euro-
pean powers as well as by many other states. It was amended and extended by
the second Geneva Convention in 1906, and its provisions were applied to mari-
time warfare through the Hague conventions of 1899 and 1907. The third Geneva
Convention, the Convention Relating to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (1929),
required that belligerents treat prisoners of war humanely, furnish information
about them, and permit official visits to prison camps by representatives of neutral
states.

30
Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement, (cnnphilippines.com)
 Because some belligerents in World War II had abused the principles con-
tained in earlier conventions, an International Red Cross conference in Stockholm
in 1948 extended and codified the existing provisions. The conference developed
four conventions, which were approved in Geneva on August 12, 1949: (1) the
Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in
Armed Forces in the Field, (2) the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition
of the Wounded, Sick, and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, (3) the
Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, and (4) the Convention
Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.

The first two conventions elaborated on the principle that the sick and
wounded have neutral status. The prisoner-of-war convention further developed
the 1929 convention by requiring humane treatment, adequate feeding, and the
delivery of relief supplies and by forbidding pressure on prisoners to supply more
than a minimum of information. The fourth convention contained little that had not
been established in international law before World War II. Although the convention
was not original, the disregard of humanitarian principles during the war made the
restatement of its principles particularly important and timely. The convention for-
bade inter alia the deportation of individuals or groups, the taking of hostages,
torture, collective punishment, offenses that constitute “outrages upon personal
dignity,” the imposition of judicial sentences (including executions) without due-
process guarantees, and discriminatory treatment on the basis of race, religion,
nationality, or political beliefs.

In the decades following World War II, the large number of anticolonial and
insurrectionary wars threatened to render the Geneva Conventions obsolete. After
four years of Red Cross-sponsored negotiations, two additional protocols to the
1949 conventions, covering both combatants and civilians, were approved in 1977.
The first, Protocol I, extended protection under the Geneva and Hague conven-
tions to persons involved in wars of “self-determination,” which were redefined as
international conflicts. The protocol also enabled the establishment of fact-finding
commissions in cases of alleged breaches of the convention. The second protocol,
Protocol II, extended human rights protections to persons involved in severe civil
conflicts, which had not been covered by the 1949 accords. It specifically prohib-
ited collective punishment, torture, the taking of hostages, acts of terrorism, slav-
ery, and “outrages on the personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading
treatment, rape, enforced prostitution and any form of indecent assault.”

The end of the Cold War, during which tensions between ethnic groups had
been suppressed in states throughout eastern and central Europe and elsewhere,
gave rise to a number of civil wars, blurring the distinction between internal and
international conflicts and complicating the application of relevant legal rules. In a
number of cases (e.g., in Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Somalia), the United Nations
Security Council declared that internal conflicts amounted to a threat to or a breach
of international peace and security, which thus made its resolutions on the conflicts
binding on the combatants. Because of the Security Council’s activities in expand-
ing the definition of international armed conflicts, an increasing number of rules
outlined in the Geneva Conventions and their protocols have come to be regarded
as binding on all states. Such rules include the humane treatment of civilians and
of prisoners of war.

More than 180 states have become parties to the 1949 conventions. Ap-
proximately 150 states are party to Protocol I; more than 145 states are party to
Protocol II, though the United States is not. In addition, more than 50 states have
 A Research on The Climate Change
Treaty of Paris and its Effects if the Philip-
pines would be a signatory
____________________________________

made declarations accepting the competence of international fact-finding commis-

sions to investigate allegations of grave breaches or other serious violations of the
conventions or of Protocol I.

The importance of the Geneva Conventions and their additional protocols

was reflected in the establishment of war-crimes tribunals for Yugoslavia (1993)
and Rwanda (1994) and by the Rome Statute (1998), which created an Interna-
tional Criminal Court.31

On 12 December 2015, 196 Parties to the UN Framework Convention on

Climate Change (UNFCCC) adopted the Paris Agreement, a new legally-binding
framework for an internationally coordinated effort to tackle climate change. The
Agreement represents the culmination of six years of international climate change
negotiations under the auspices of the UNFCCC, and was reached under intense
international pressure to avoid a repeat failure of the Copenhagen conference in
2009.

The Agreement establishes a global warming goal of well below 2°C on pre-
industrial averages. It requires countries to formulate progressively more ambitious
climate targets which are consistent with this goal. To achieve this goal, all Parties
to the Paris Agreement will need to make profound changes to their economies.

The Paris Agreement defines a universal, legal framework to ‘strengthen

the global response to the threat of climate change’ (Art. 2). It establishes the
obligation of all Parties to contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation.
For the first time, all countries will develop plans on how to contribute to climate
change mitigation, and will communicate their ‘nationally determined contributions’
to the Secretariat of the Convention.

The Paris Agreement puts emphasis on processes rather than on defined

mitigation goals. Unlike the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris Agreement does not
formulate country specific emissions targets. Instead, the Paris Agreement
depends on voluntary mitigation contributions and a series of processes that seek
to ensure collective and individual progress in meeting the initial and progressively
more ambitious mitigation contributions.

31
Malcolm Shaw, https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/vwTreaties1949.xsp.
 The Paris Agreement recognizes the different starting points and
responsibilities of countries, and emphasizes that the Agreement will be
implemented in accordance with the ‘principle of common but differentiated
responsibilities and respective capabilities’ which applies ‘in the light of different
national circumstances’ (Art.2.2). This means that developed countries have to
continue to take the lead in mitigating climate change and support the actions
taken by developing countries.

The initially communicated NDCs fall short of the required ambition. Much
more is needed. To that extent, the Paris Agreement is an important but only first
step towards an effective policy response, creating a framework which individual
countries will have to translate into concrete action.32

32
(Climate Focus Client Brief on the Paris Agreement III 28 December 2015,
www.climatefocus.com)