Public International Law

Midterm Exam

Melanie T. Manatad
Student No.: 18-0601

Answers

1. Under the International Law, the term hard law refers to legally binding obligations that are
precise and it can be legally enforced before a court. It includes treaties or international
agreements, as well as customary laws. These instruments result in legally enforceable
commitments for countries and other international subjects. On the other hand, the term soft
law is used to denote agreements, principles and declarations that are not legally binding. Soft law
instruments are predominantly found in the international sphere.

2. A. Yes, the verbal agreement via telephone is binding. According to Aust Modern Treaty Law
and Practice, verbal agreement by telephone is binding between the parties on the basis of
customary international law.

B. No, the verbal agreement does not constitute a treaty. Under Vienna Convention on the
Law of Treaties, Article 3 requires that for an international agreement to be a treaty, it must
be in written form.

3. A. In this case, the petition filed of KMM must be denied. Under the law, The information
sought to be disclose by the parties is a diplomatic negotiation between States and is considered
privileged. it cannot be subjected to public scrutiny. The interest protected being the national
security and integrity of the State on how can it be trusted in terms of diplomatic secrets.

B. KKM is entitled to have access to information pertaining to government contracts entered

into by the Government in the exercise of its proprietary commercial capacity. Under the
Constitution, right to information does not include contracts of public interest and are not
privileged. However, the negotiations or communications in arriving at the final contract, the
information sought remains privileged and the interest must be protected.

4. In this case, the Supreme Court should not sustain the validity of the abrogation of the treaty.
The President cannot abrogated the treaty alone even if the other State, party to a treaty, agrees
to the abrogation. Under our Constitution, the president as head of state ratifies the treaty; the
legislative branch ratifies a treaty by 2/3 vote pursuant to Article VII, Sec. 21. Therefore, the
President cannot motu propio abrogate the treaty.

5. Opinio juris sive necessitates or simply opinion juris means that as an element in the formation
of customary norm in international law, it is required that States in their conduct amounting
to general practice, must act out of a sense of legal duty and not only by the motivation of
courtesy, convenience or tradition. According to the International Court of Justice in the
North Sea Continental Shelf Cases and quoted by the Philippine Supreme Court, that not only
must the acts amount to a settled practice, but they must also be such, or be carried out in such
a way, as to be evidence of a belief that this practice is rendered obligatory by the existence of
a rule of law requiring it.

6. In this case, it depends which court is deciding, if International Court, treaty obligation in
general will uphold and if Domestic Court, local laws will uphold. When constitutional
 violation is manifest and concerns a rule of internal law of fundamental importance, state may
deviate from treaty obligation. And, when the two instruments relate to the same subject, try
to give effect to both; if inconsistent, the later in date will control, provided that the treaty
stipulation is self- executing. But the rule applies in domestic sphere. A treaty, even if contrary
to a later statute, is binding in international law.

7. In this case all matter in international law, either by treaty, customary law or by some general
principles an individual is only treated as objects of international law. As such objects, they do
not have the requisite personality to support any direct claim in the international legal orders.
Therefore, the acts by the Sec. of Foreign Affairs in refusing to allow Z’s entry into the
Philippines was in violation of the treaty between his State and Philippines.

8. A. The treatment of “comfort woman” by the Japanese military violated Article XXVII of the
Geneva Convention (IV), which provides that: “Women shall be especially protected against
any attack on their honor, in particular against rape, enforced prostitution, or any form of
indecent assault.”

B. No, the defense is not valid. Even if it could be argued that the Philippines, by signing said
Peace Agreement had the right as a state to bring further claims, it had no authority to waive
the individual right to reparations vested directly in its nationals who were victims of sexual
slavery. The Philippines can only validly waive its right to recovery of reparations for injuries
to the state. Moreover, there is no defense for the violation of jus cogens norms.

C. The case will not prosper in view of the doctrine of sovereign immunity from suit. However,
a person who feels aggrieved by the acts of a foreign sovereign can ask his own government to
espouse his cause through diplomatic channels. Under the jurisprudence, the “comfort
women” can request the Philippine government, through the Department of Foreign Affairs,
to espouse its claims against the Japanese government. The sovereign authority of a State to
settle the claims of its national against foreign countries has repeatedly been recognized. This
may be made without the consent of the nationals or even without consultation without them.

9. The status of Vatican City and its ruler midst the family of nation is that the diplomatic work
follows the rules and practice of international law, and offers itself as a voice of mediation and
of making proposals, and not solely point of moral reference. Thus, it works for the elaboration
of rules for the peace settlement of disputes, for the regulation of international relations and
for the protection, through intergovernmental institutions, of the dignity of every person,
beyond ethnic, religious or cultural affiliation. Even though making use of structures and
instruments of international sovereignty, the Holy See’s activity remains distinct from that of
other States since it has no commercial, military or political interest to defend or pursue, but
serves rather of interests of the person, of every person; in this way it places itself at the service
of the common good of the whole human family. The protection of the human person evokes
the idea of subsidiarity as a principle that regulates the social order. The numerous intervention
contained in the volume show more than anything that at the heart of this mission there is a
clear idea of the human person, of their inherent dignity, as well as their freedom as realized
in a variety of fields. The Holy Sees diplomacy offers its voice seeking solutions and
agreements capable of avoiding any possible degenerations towards the irrationality of the
force of arms. This the meaning of being true peace makers and not war makers or makers of
misunderstanding. The Holy See representatives will never be an intermediary, but rather
mediators. This action certainly sounds unusual for the internationalist language, but even in
 fragmented manner, torn apart by the ideao of global processes, it is communion that channels
strategies, goals and actions towards unity, encouraging solidarity rather than mere
coexistence. The Holy See’s diplomatic contribution is not limited to the mere observation of
current events or to the solemn principles. It rather intends and successfully to influence the
decision making process, often proposing solutions to the political, economic and social
situations of impasse.

10. Under the International law, state sovereignty is the basic concept of modern international
law; it is unthinkable without international law itself, as such. The new trends in considering
the problem of state sovereignty create the necessary prerequisites for understanding the nature
and character of modern international law, as well as the content of its basic principles.

11. State sovereignty is not absolute. According to the Supreme Court, the court held that it is
subject to limitations imposed by membership in the family of nations and limitations imposed
by treaty stipulations