Sie sind auf Seite 1von 39

Public

 International  Law  Finals  Notes   2013  


 
 

So  this  is  part  of  the  discussion  on  territory  as  element  of  state.  So  it  is  important  for  you  to  go  over  the  
different  modes  of  acquiring  territory.  You  will  notice  that  one  here  may  no  longer  be  applicable  at  
present  because  of  the  inhibition  on  the  use  of  force.  I’m  talking  about  conquest  or  subjugation.    

Let’s  just  go  over  the  meaning  as  well  as  the  conditions  under  which  these  modes  can  be  considered  as  
valid  mode  of  acquiring  a  territory.  

Cession,  as  you  know  is  the  transfer  of  territory  by  agreement.  So  usually,  it  is  in  the  form  of  treaty.  

What  is  important  here  usually  is  the  principle  of  nemo  dat  quod  non  habet  (no  one  gives  that  which  he  
does  not  have)  which  is  a  principle  in  civil  law  or  in  property.  This  is  relevant  to  cession  because  this  is  
transfer  of  territory  (considered  property)  from  one  state  to  another.    As  you  remember  in  the  Island  of  
Palmas  case,  the  Island  of  Palmas  was  argued  to  be  part  of  the  Philippine  territory  when  the  Philippines  
was  ceded  to  the  US  by  Spain.  But  the  Dutch  protested  because  there  was  no  follow-­‐up  on  the  part  of  
Spain,  even  assuming  that  Spain  was  the  first  one  to  discover  the  Island.  The  discovery  was  not  followed  
by  effective  occupation  on  the  part  of  Spain  and  therefore,  that  is  a  defect  in  the  title.  That  defect  in  the  
title  should  also  affect  the  title  of  the  transferee  in  the  treaty  ceding  the  territory.  In  other  words,  you  
cannot  give  what  you  cannot  have.  That  is  easy  to  understand.  

Then  we  have  occupation.  It  should  be  occupation  or  discovery  AND  occupation  but  NEVER  just  
discovery,  as  you  have  already  learned.  Note  however  the  concept  of  terra  nullus.  The  only  territory  that  
may  be  subject  to  discovery  and  occupation  must  be  terra  nullius,  meaning  the  territory  does  not  belong  
to  any  state.  

There  are  two  kinds  of  terra  nullius:  

1. The  ordinary  concept  of  terra  nullius  where  it  really  does  not  belong  to  any  state;  or  
2. Probably  at  one  point  belonging  to  a  state  but  has  been  effectively  abandoned.  There  may  in  
fact  be  reasons  for  the  abandonment  of  a  particular  territory.  One  possible  reason  could  be  
internal  conflict  in  the  government  which  compelled  it  to  abandon  the  governance  or  
administration  of  a  particular  territory  for  a  period  of  time.  There  is  no  hard  and  fast  rule  on  
abandonment.  It  is  more  on  intent  as  you  will  later  see.  
a. There  are  two  components  of  abandonment  which  makes  a  territory  terra  nullius.  
i. Failure  to  exercise  authority  
ii. Intent  to  abandon    
1. This  is  a  question  of  fact  because  intent  is  in  the  mind  but  a  state  has  
not  mind.  So  there  are  a  lot  of  things  to  consider  such  as  the  mind  of  the  
leaders.  This  is  hard  to  prove  so  there  is  no  hard  and  fast  rule  unlike  in  
civil  law.  

Thru  the  efforts  of  Room  405.  Special  Thanks:  Bayalas,  Caminade,  Cañada,  Dabon,  Diao,  Gan,  Jacildo,  Nardo,  Lulu,  Parawan,  Rejuso,  Salas,  Balt,  
Verador,  Bristol,  Digaum,  Benin,  Peña,  Plaza,  Sayson,  Susvilla,  Tampus,  Gregorio,  Sanchez  
 
PINAKA  GAHI  NGA  BATCH  2015  
  Page  1  
 
Public  International  Law  Finals  Notes   2013  
 
What  you  should  take  note  of  occupation  is    

1.  The  two  kinds  of  terrae  nullius  and    

2.  Effective  occupation.  

As  here  mentioned,  discovery  of  territory  is  not  sufficient  to  acquire  a  terra  nullius  territory.  So  the  
other  concept  that  you  should  take  note  in  discovery  is  that  while  it  is  not  sufficient,  there  is  however  
acquisition  of  what  is  known  as  “inchoate  title”  to  the  territory.    

So  if  it  is  just  inchoate  does  it  have  legal  force  if  you  have  inchoate  title  to  the  territory?  

Yes,  because  it  deals  with  the  legitimacy  of  whatever  the  state  does  to  any  possible  intruder  to  the  
newly  discovered  territory.  Example  if  the  discovering  state  uses  force  to  protect  the  newly  discovered  
territory,  then  it  shouldn’t  be  considered  as  violation  of  international  law  because  it  is  merely  exercising  
its  inchoate  right.  And  that  in  fact  means  to  the  exclusion  of  other  states.  

Based  on  history,  it  may  probably  be  just  an  inchoate  title  and  because  conquest  or  subjugation  was  
then  recognized,  you  will  notice  that  there  are  a  lot  of  times  when  the  discoverer  has  been  effectively  
dispossessed  by  another  state.  Yes,  it  may  be  a  violation  of  the  inchoate  title  of  the  discovering  state,  
but  if  the  interfering  state  is  able  to  administer  effectively  as  the  time  when  the  prohibition  on  the  use  
of  force  has  not  yet  gained  the  status  of  customary  norm,  then  it  was  practically  acceptable  in  the  past.  

The  option  to  occupy  a  territory  may  be  in  reasonable  time.  

the  option  to  occupy  the  territory  may  be  within  a  reasonable  time.  

how  long  should  the  time  be?  there's  no  fixed  rule  but  certainly  in  relation  to  prescription  as  you  will    

see  later  on,  prescription  would  require  a  longer  time  to  be  able  to  make  prescription  a  basis  for  
acquiring  a  territory.  naa  pa  ba  ruy  state  na  terra  nullius?  probably  by  reason  of  natural  creation  of  a  
terrrritory.  

 what  we're  even  expecting  now  is  the  loss  of  territory  than  emergence  of  new  territories.  

how  is  effective  control  shown  or  manifested?  

usually  through  the  exercise  of  acts  of  governmental  authority  in  the  form  usually  of    

establishment  of  administration  in  the  territory.  that's  why  it  was  not  uncommon  in  the  past  that  the  
moment    

a  state  discovers  a  territory  taht  is  terra  nullius,  almost  always,  there  will  be  a  followingof  its  inhabitants  
to  that    

territory  because,  how  will  you  exercise  governmental  authority  when  there  are  no  governed?  

Thru  the  efforts  of  Room  405.  Special  Thanks:  Bayalas,  Caminade,  Cañada,  Dabon,  Diao,  Gan,  Jacildo,  Nardo,  Lulu,  Parawan,  Rejuso,  Salas,  Balt,  
Verador,  Bristol,  Digaum,  Benin,  Peña,  Plaza,  Sayson,  Susvilla,  Tampus,  Gregorio,  Sanchez  
 
PINAKA  GAHI  NGA  BATCH  2015  
  Page  2  
 
Public  International  Law  Finals  Notes   2013  
 
 

for  some  territories  that  are  not  habitable  (e.g.  Kalayaan  Islands)  ,  our  claims  is  that  it  had  been  
discovered  by  a  certain  Boholano    

by  the  name  of  Tomas  Ploma.  he  supposedly  ceded  his  right  over  the  property  to  the  Philippine  
Government,  

 and  it  was  by  that  reason  that  the  Philippine  Government  claims  that  it  had  been  discovered  by  the  
government,  by  the  Philippines,  

and  had  been  effectively  occupied  not  literally  by  inhabitants  but  it  was  made  part  of  one  of  the  
municipalities  of  Palawan.  

so  that's  one  way  of  showing  exercise  of  power  or  administrative  power,  you  include  it  as  part  of  the  
territory,  

 you  send  inhabitants,  troops.  if  it  is  habitable,  then  it's  a  lot  better  if  you  put  there  or  place    

there  inhabitants  with  a  certain  local  government  in  the  territory.  so  that  is  usually  how  effective  control  

is  manifested  -­‐  through  the  exercise  og  governmental  authorities.    

it  should  not  be  just  temporary,  it  should  be  more  or  less  permanent  because  there  is  the  requirement  
or    

threshold  of  will  to  act  as  sovereign.  

and  then,  third  one  is  prescription.  the  difference  of  course  is  in  occupation,    

the  object  of  the  occupation  is  the  terra  nullius,  in  prescription,  it  is  a  territory  of  another  state.  

and  probably,  as  a  reason  or  as  a  result  of  inaction  on  the  part  of  the  state  owning  the  territory  

and  for  a  very  long  period  of  time,  in  fact  there  is  a  doctrine  called  immemorial  prescription    

doctrine  -­‐  the  length  of  time  of  occupation  to  make  prescription  a  valid  mode  of  acquiring  property  

should  go  beyong  the  memory  of  man."Since  time  immemorial".  it  presupposes  generations  upon  
generations.    

the  length  of  time  required  is  certainly  longer  than  that  of  effective  occupation.  

and  then  the  same  requirement  of  effective  control  and  intent  and  will  to  act  as  sovereign.  

fourth,  conquest  or  subjugation,  no  longer  allowed  under  modern  international  law  

because  it  is  now  accepted  or  well-­‐settled  that  the  use  of  force  is  already  a  prohibited  

Thru  the  efforts  of  Room  405.  Special  Thanks:  Bayalas,  Caminade,  Cañada,  Dabon,  Diao,  Gan,  Jacildo,  Nardo,  Lulu,  Parawan,  Rejuso,  Salas,  Balt,  
Verador,  Bristol,  Digaum,  Benin,  Peña,  Plaza,  Sayson,  Susvilla,  Tampus,  Gregorio,  Sanchez  
 
PINAKA  GAHI  NGA  BATCH  2015  
  Page  3  
 
Public  International  Law  Finals  Notes   2013  
 
act,  and  it  is  a  customary  international  norm  already.  one  manifestation  of  that    

aside  from  the  UN  cCharter  is  the  growing  observance  of  Stimson  Doctrine.    

Kisa  manang  population  na  sige  ug  transfer?  Unsa  mai  tawag  ana  nila?  Nomads.    (based  on  the  answers  
of  the  pre-­‐fi  exams)    
 
(daghan  ug  joke  si  sir)    
 
LAW  OF  THE  SEA  
 
There  are  so  many  details  in  the  study  of  the  law  of  the  sea.  Go  over  the  specific  requirements  but  what  
I  can  give  you  is  to  show  you  the  important  rules,  aspects  in  the  law  of  the  sea.  Relevant  aspects  in  the  
law.  
 
You  must  have  study  the  law  of  the  sea  kay  pag  ari  ninyo,  nagstudy  naman  mo.  Diba???  Sakto  ko  sah?  
 
Law  of  the  sea  na  siya  class  kay  the  same  as  treaties,  before  conventional,  it  is  customary  international  
law.    But  a  lot  of  customary  international  law  has  been  incorporated  in  the  United  Nations  Convention  
on  the  Law  of  the  Seas  (UNCLOS).    Which  of  course  was  completed  in  1982  in  Jamaica,  that  is  why  it  is  
called  the  1982  Vienna  Convention  of  the  Law  of  the  Sea.  Which  is  known  as  UNCLOS  III.  Because  there  
were  three  attempts  before.  First,  in  1958  which  provided  for  continental  shelf,  territorial  sea,  but  we  
have  a  lot  of  discussion  of  the  archipelagic  state  until  they  have  1960  when  they  have  the  UNCLOS  II,  
which  was  not  completed.  And  on  the  1982,  the  UNCLOS  III.    
 
Is  the  UNCLOS  a  codification  of  customary  international  law  on  the  law  of  the  sea?  Partly  yes.  But  some  
are  actually  product  of  compromises  between  states.    And  so  a  lot  of  rules  in  the  UNCLOS  are  not  part  of  
customary  international  law.  Infact,  if  you  remember  the  Lotus  Case,  it  has  already  been  modified  under  
the  UNCLOS.  Its  already  a  rule  in  the  exercise  of  jurisdiction  in  the  high  seas.    
 
It  took  into  force  in  1994  after  the  60th  party  signed  the  convention.  This  was  the  provision  in  the  
convention  regarding  the  entry  into  force:  after  the  60th  party  signed  the  convention.  If  you  want  to  
study  the  law  of  the  sea,  you  have  to  study  the  four  areas  or  the  four  zones  in  the  law  of  the  sea.  
And  these  are:  internal  waters,  territorial  sea,  archipelagic  waters;  if  the  state  is  an  archipelago.  If  not,  
you  have:  internal  waters,  territorial  sea  and  you  have  contiguous  zone.    And  then  you  have  the  
exclusive  economic  zone,  the  continental  shelf.  
 
I  used  to  discuss  these  as  the  basic  zones  but  I  did  not  include  continental  shelf  because  its  more  of  an  
area,  not  a  zone.    K?  Let’s  take  it  one  by  one.  And  then  of  course,  the  high  seas.    
 
The  method  to  identify  the  basic  zones  or  areas  I  have  enumerated  here(slides)  first  understand  the  
concept  of  the  baseline.  Two  methods  of  determining  the  baseline  because  the  baseline  is  that  line  
which  you  measure  the  extent  of  these  zones,  internal  waters,  territorial  sea  and  the  other  zones  
mentioned  here.  You  have  the  Low  water  mark  method  which  is  used  for  non-­‐archipelagic  states.  And  

Thru  the  efforts  of  Room  405.  Special  Thanks:  Bayalas,  Caminade,  Cañada,  Dabon,  Diao,  Gan,  Jacildo,  Nardo,  Lulu,  Parawan,  Rejuso,  Salas,  Balt,  
Verador,  Bristol,  Digaum,  Benin,  Peña,  Plaza,  Sayson,  Susvilla,  Tampus,  Gregorio,  Sanchez  
 
PINAKA  GAHI  NGA  BATCH  2015  
  Page  4  
 
Public  International  Law  Finals  Notes   2013  
 
the  Straight  Baseline  method  for  archipelagic  states.  In  the  past  the  extent  of  territorial  sea  had  been  
measured  by  the  cannon  ball  theory.  Ug  unsay  ma  reach  sa  cannon  ball  which  is  usually  three  nautical  
miles  mao  na  ang  extent  sa  ila  territory.  Little  by  little  states  were  demanding  for  longer  dimensions  in  
their  territorial  sea  that’s  why  they  changed  the  cannon  ball  theory  to  the  12-­‐nautical  mile  rule  for  the  
territorial  sea.  

Let’s  start  with  internal  waters  if  you  look  at  the  convention  these  are  the  things  that  should  appear  
important  to  you.  What  shall  cover  the  internal  waters  of  a  state?  Normally  waters  that  are  inland.  So  
the  common  internal  waters  are  rivers,  straits  and  bays.  But  if  you  go  to  the  convention  it  depends  of  
the  mouth  of  the  bay.  There  is  no  specific  rule  on  whether  it  is  entirely  a  bay  or  will  not  be  a  bay  for  the  
purpose  of  determining  that  it  is  internal  water  or  coast  from  which  the  low  water  mark  should  be  
determined.  So  normally  if  more  than  half  of  a  circle  it  may  be  considered  as  internal  water.  And  if  it  is  
not  more  than  half  of  a  circle  and  the  opening  is  more  than  24  nautical  miles  then  normally  it  will  not  be  
considered  a  bay  and  the  interior  part  of  that  coast  will  be  used  in  determining  the  territorial  sea.  Good  
illustrations  in  Magallona.  Straits  also  may  be  considered  internal  or  not.  Not  an  internal  if  the  distance  
between  the  two  coasts  is  more  than  6  nautical  miles.  In  other  words  before  you  consider  that  a  bay,  
river  or  strait  is  internal  waters  please  take  note  of  the  conditions  that  would  make  them  part  of  the  
internal  waters  and  if  so  consider  the  different  characteristics  of  bays  and  rivers.  

 What  is  important  here  is  that  the  Coastal  state  has  the  authority  to  prohibit  entry  into  its  internal  
waters.  The  only  exception  would  be  ships  in  distress  and  that  is  part  of  the  concept  of  force  majeur.  
And  for  humanitarian  reasons  all  states  agreed  that  if  their  ships  are  in  distress  they  are  allowed  to  dock  
even  if  in  internal  waters.  

Then  you  have  the  territorial  sea.  This  is  where  the  baseline  becomes  relevant.  It  says  not  exceeding  12  
nautical  miles  from  the  baseline.  The  normal  baseline  is  based  on  the  Low  water  mark  method.  What  is  
the  Low  water  mark  method?  During  low  tide  that  point  where  the  sea  water  meets  the  land,  that  is  the  
low  water  mark.  Territorial  sea  is  to  be  determined  by  the  coastal  state  but  it  has  to  be  in  accordance  
with  the  UNCLOS.  It  is  for  us  to  determine  our  baseline  as  long  as  in  accordance  with  UNCLOS.  in  
magallona,  the  drawing  of  a  baseline  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  enlargement  of  the  territory  or  
whatever  but  it  is  just  a  determination  of  the  baseline.  

Straight  baseline  method  for  archipelagic  states.  

Limitation  to  territorial  sea.  Right  of  innocent  passage  by  foreign  ships.  

Requirements:  

1.Should  be  expeditious  and  continuous.  There  are  examples  in  the  convention  which  determine  
activities  which  are  not  expeditious  and  continuous.  Such  as  Fishing.  Testing  of  weapons.  

2.  that  it  should  be  innocent.  That  it  should  not  be  prejudicial  to  the  peace  or  security  of  the  coastal  
state.  

Thru  the  efforts  of  Room  405.  Special  Thanks:  Bayalas,  Caminade,  Cañada,  Dabon,  Diao,  Gan,  Jacildo,  Nardo,  Lulu,  Parawan,  Rejuso,  Salas,  Balt,  
Verador,  Bristol,  Digaum,  Benin,  Peña,  Plaza,  Sayson,  Susvilla,  Tampus,  Gregorio,  Sanchez  
 
PINAKA  GAHI  NGA  BATCH  2015  
  Page  5  
 
Public  International  Law  Finals  Notes   2013  
 
 

…fishing,  testing  of  weapons,  and  other  examples  that  are  not  considered  expeditious  and  continuous.    

Second,   “innocent”   and   to   be   innocent   the   threshold   is   it   shouldn’t   be   prejudicial   to   the   peace,   good  
order  or  security  of  the  coastal  state.    

Rights  and  obligations  of  submarines  passing  through  the  territorial  sea:  

must  navigate  on  the  surface  and  show  their  flag.  

May  the  right  of  innocent  passage  be  suspended?  

Yes,  it  is  for  the  coastal  sate  to  determine  if  there  is  a  need  to  do  so  for  the  purpose  of  protecting  the  
security  of  the  coastal  state.    

Remember  the  conditions:    

- expeditious  and  continuous  passage  and    


- it  must  be  innocent  
 

Just  take  note  in  the  convention  of  those  instances  not  falling  under  innocent  passage.    

Median  Line  Principle/  Equidistant    

[if   the   coast   of   two   states   are   opposite   or   adjacent   to   each   other,   neither   of   them   is   entitled,   failing  
agreement   between   them   to   the   contrary,   to   extend   its   territorial   sea   beyond   the   median   line   every  
point   of   which   is   “equidistant”   from   the   nearest   points   on   the   baselines.   This   is   also   applicable   in   the  
case  of  continental  shelf.  The  median  line  principle  is,  however,   subject   to   exceptions   such   as   Historic  
title  or  other  special  circumstances.]  

If  it  happens  that  there  are  two  territories  that  are  so  close  to  each  other  where  the  distance  is  more  
than  24  nm  kay  tig  12  nm  man  unta,  kung  tabla  way  problema,  walay  international  water,  pero  kung  
sobra  naay  international  water.  If  you  have  lets’  say,  the  distance  of  40  nm  so  you  get  12  nm  one  end  
and  another  12  nm  one  end,  40  nm  minus  24  nm  =  16  nm  is  the  international  waters.    
Thru  the  efforts  of  Room  405.  Special  Thanks:  Bayalas,  Caminade,  Cañada,  Dabon,  Diao,  Gan,  Jacildo,  Nardo,  Lulu,  Parawan,  Rejuso,  Salas,  Balt,  
Verador,  Bristol,  Digaum,  Benin,  Peña,  Plaza,  Sayson,  Susvilla,  Tampus,  Gregorio,  Sanchez  
 
PINAKA  GAHI  NGA  BATCH  2015  
  Page  6  
 
Public  International  Law  Finals  Notes   2013  
 
 

Note:  

- international  waters  is  different  form  high  seas;    


- any  zone  beyond  12  nm  of  the  territorial  sea  is  already  international  waters;  
-  high  seas  comes  after  200  nm  of  the  exclusive  economic  zone.  
 

Distinguish  international  water  from  high  seas:    

- international  water  is  the  water  after  the  territorial  sea    


- internal  waters  and  territorial  sea  zones  are  part  of  the  territory  of  the  state,  therefore  the  coastal  
state   can   exercise   full   discretion   in   territorial   sea   and   internal   waters   which   are   both   part   of   the  
territory   of   the   State   (note:   the   only   limitation   to   the   State’s   “full   discretion”   when   it   comes   to  
territorial  sea,  is  the  right  to  innocent  passage).  The  component  of  the  territory  of  the  State  includes  
not  just  the  land  mass  but  also  the  maritime  domain  which  refers  to  the  territorial  sea  beyond  12  
nm   which   here   refers   to   the   contiguous,   exclusive   economic   zone   and   below   that   the   continental  
shelf,  are  no  longer  part  of  the  territory  of  the  state.  That’s  why  after  the  territorial  sea,  you  already  
consider  that  as  international  water,   but  if  the  distance  is  less  than  24  nm,  you  cannot  insist  on  12  
nm,   so   it   could   probably   be   resolved   through   the   application   of   the   median   line,   equidistant   from  
the  nearest  points  on  the  baseline…  
 

It  may  in  fact  be  solved  through  the  application  of  the  median  line.  Equidistant  from  the  nearest  points  
on  the  baseline.  So  this  principle  is  also  applicable  in  the  case  of  the  continental  shelf.  But  in  practice,  
these   are   resolved   by   treaties.   In   the   past,   there   may   have   been   issues   as   shown   in   the   North   Sea  
Continental   Shelf   case.   That   was   in   the   1950s.   But   now   there   have   been   a   lot   of   treaties   already  
between  the  concerned  states  delineating  their  territorial  sea.  Remember  that  in  the  North  Sea  case,  it  
is  not  only  the  land  mass  that  is  considered  but  even  the  economic  interest.  That’s  why  it’s  important  for  
states   to   sit   down,   negotiate,   and   come   up   with   a   conventional   delineation   of   the   territorial   sea.   And  
that  is  done  at  present.  Still,  in  the  matter  of  territorial  sea,  it’s  important  for  you  to  take  note  of  the  
rules   on   jurisdiction   over   foreign   vessels   in   territorial   waters.   This   is   a   rule   on   jurisdiction,   but   then  
again,  as  I  have  discussed  and  you  have  observed  in  our  discussion,  this  may  not  always  be  the  case,  but  
these  are  the  standards  that  states  hope  to  observe.    

 In  the  case  of  foreign  public  vessel  (usually  warships),  where  they  entered  lawfully  into  the  territorial  
sea   (which   presupposes   they   obtained   the   consent   of   the   state),   no   jurisdiction   may   be   had   on   them  
because   they   are   considered   part   of   the   territory   of   the   other   state.   This   is   what   is   called   “floating  
territory.”   But   note:   this   presupposes   that   the   foreign   public   vessel   is   not   engaged   in   commercial  
activities.  But  then  again,  as  I  mentioned  last  time,  this  may  not  be  observed  because  sovereignty  may  
be  insisted  on  other  matters.    

For  foreign  merchant  vessels,  there  is  full  civil  jurisdiction.  As  to  criminal  jurisdiction,  it  is  optional  on  
the  part  of  the  state  to  exercise  criminal  jurisdiction  because  there  are  2  theories  on  the  exercise  of  

Thru  the  efforts  of  Room  405.  Special  Thanks:  Bayalas,  Caminade,  Cañada,  Dabon,  Diao,  Gan,  Jacildo,  Nardo,  Lulu,  Parawan,  Rejuso,  Salas,  Balt,  
Verador,  Bristol,  Digaum,  Benin,  Peña,  Plaza,  Sayson,  Susvilla,  Tampus,  Gregorio,  Sanchez  
 
PINAKA  GAHI  NGA  BATCH  2015  
  Page  7  
 
Public  International  Law  Finals  Notes   2013  
 
criminal  jurisdiction  on  foreign  ships.  There’s  the  English  rule  and  the  French  rule  (aka  flag-­‐state  rule).  It  
is  up  to  the  state  what  rule  to  exercise,  because  the  issue  on  jurisdiction  is  determined  by  the  forum.  

The   English   rule   provides   that   the   coastal   state   can   exercise   jurisdiction—jurisdiction   on   crimes  
committed   onboard   the   foreign   merchant   vessels.   Exception   is   when   the   offense   relates   to  
administrative  matters  (e.g.,  matters  relating  to  the  discipline  of  the  crew).    

The   French   rule   is   the   reverse.   It   is   the   flag   state   that   exercises   jurisdiction   unless   it   prejudices   the  
security  and  peace  and  order  of  the  coastal  state,  in  which  case  it  yields  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  coastal  
state.  Note:  Flag  state  of  the  vessel  is  usually  the  state  where  it  is  registered.    

If  you  look  at  these  two  rules,  the  effects  are  the  same.  Many  authors  say  so.    

Now  what  is  this  “archipelagic  waters”  by  the  way?  And  how  do  you  distinguish  it  from  internal  waters  
and  territorial  sea?            

 
What  is  the  difference  between  ARCHIPELAGIC  WATERS  and  INTERNAL  WATERS?  
 
Archipelago  may  be  defined  in  two  ways:    
1. It’s  a  group  of  islands  surrounded  with  a  body  of  water;  or  
2. It’s  a  body  of  water  studded  with  islands.  
 
This  relates  to  the  delineation  of  the  archipelagic  baseline  which  is  drawn  by  the  use  of  the  STRAIGHT  
BASELINE  METHOD  and  the  rule  is  you  must  first  identify  the  outermost  points  of  the  outermost  islands  
including  dry  reefs  in  the  archipelago  and  then  from  the  outermost  points  you  connect  them  then  you  
draw  a  straight  line  connecting  such  points  of  the  archipelago.    
 
There  are  a  lot  of  rule  that  you  will  have  to  take  note.    
1. The  line  should  not  depart  from  the  natural  contours  of  the  archipelago.  
2. As  to  water  and  land  ratio,  between  1:1  up  to  9:1  (water  to  land)  

Thru  the  efforts  of  Room  405.  Special  Thanks:  Bayalas,  Caminade,  Cañada,  Dabon,  Diao,  Gan,  Jacildo,  Nardo,  Lulu,  Parawan,  Rejuso,  Salas,  Balt,  
Verador,  Bristol,  Digaum,  Benin,  Peña,  Plaza,  Sayson,  Susvilla,  Tampus,  Gregorio,  Sanchez  
 
PINAKA  GAHI  NGA  BATCH  2015  
  Page  8  
 
Public  International  Law  Finals  Notes   2013  
 
3. Each  straight  line  should  not  exceed  100  nautical  miles.  
We  are  talking  about  archipelagic  waters.    
 
Internal  waters  are  those  INLAND  gyud.    
 
Of  course  the  basic  concept  under  the  ARCHIPELAGIC  DOCTRINE  OF  TERRITORIALITY,  all  waters  
AROUND,  BETWEEN,  and  CONNECTING,  and  we  have  adopted  that  in  our  National  Territory,  the  islands  
of  the  archipelago  shall  be  considered  ad  INTERNAL  WATERS.    
 
So  the  same  ba?  NO,  but  SHALL  be  considered  as  INTERNAL  WATERS.  It’s  not  internal  waters  BUT  shall  
be  CONSIDERED  as  internal  waters.    
 
What  does  it  mean?  The  way  exercise  dominion  over  internal  waters  is  not  exactly  the  same  as  exercise  
of  dominion  over  archipelagic  waters.    How  do  we  distinguish  now  internal  waters  from  archipelagic  
waters  kung  dili  diay  na  siya  internal  waters?    
 
INTERNAL  WATERS,  the  only  limitation  in  internal  waters  by  the  way  in  relation  to  foreign  ships  is  SHIP  
IN  DISTRESS.  In  TERRITORIAL  WATERS,  the  exception  is  RIGHT  OF  INNOCENT  PASSAGE.  
 
The  Archipelagic  Waters  will  be  treated  ad  Internal  Waters,  therefore  exercise  of  jurisdiction  is  THE  
SAME  as  exercise  of  jurisdiction  in  Internal  Waters  but  the  peculiar  characteristic  of  an  Archipelagic  
Water  is  that  while  it  is  Internal  Water,  and  supposedly  not  subject  to  Right  to  Innocent  Passage  kay  
dili  man  pwede  ang  Right  to  Innocent  Passage  sa  Internal  Water,  Territorial  Sea  hinuon  pero  
kinahanglan  og  CONTINUOUS,  INNOCENT,  EXPEDITIOUS  and  NOT  ENTERING  Internal  Waters  mao  na  
ang  Right  of  Innocent  Passage.  But  Archipelagic  Waters  may  be  the  subject  of  Right  of  Innocent  
Passage  as  if  it  is  in  Territorial  Sea.    
 
There  would  probably  be  a  difficulty  in  applying  the  rule  but  this  is  UNCLOS.  Would  that  prevent  a  state  
from  coming  up  with  its  own  definition  of  Internal  Waters?  Limitation  to  Sovereignty  dba?  So  you  can  
argue  otherwise.  For  some  valid  reasons,  I  don’t  think  sovereignty  of  any  state  has  been  totally  
abandoned  with  respect  to  the  UNCLOS.  In  fact  there  are  a  lot  of  reservations.    
 
CONTIGUOUS  ZONE  
 
You  have  to  measure  from  the  Imaginary  Line  12  Nautical  Miles.  This  is  therefore  the  extent  of  the  
Territorial  Sea.  Add  another  12  N.M.  then  that  is  your  CONTIGUOUS  ZONE.  
…  You  know  one  problem  that  resulted  in  the  establishment  of  Internation  Humanitarian  Law  after  we  
have   also   established   human   rights   law   is   the   distinction   and   the   delineation   between   Human   Rights  
Law  and  the  International  Humanitarian  Law.  How  do  you  distinguish  one  from  the  other?    Isn’t  killing  
proscribed  by  the  human  rights  law?  Since  under  the  UDHR,  each  individual  has  the  right  to  life?  Such  
that,  life  of  an  individual  as  mandated  by  UDHR  shall  not  be  arbitrarily  taken!  So  killing  is  a  violation  of  

Thru  the  efforts  of  Room  405.  Special  Thanks:  Bayalas,  Caminade,  Cañada,  Dabon,  Diao,  Gan,  Jacildo,  Nardo,  Lulu,  Parawan,  Rejuso,  Salas,  Balt,  
Verador,  Bristol,  Digaum,  Benin,  Peña,  Plaza,  Sayson,  Susvilla,  Tampus,  Gregorio,  Sanchez  
 
PINAKA  GAHI  NGA  BATCH  2015  
  Page  9  
 
Public  International  Law  Finals  Notes   2013  
 
human  rights  law.  Yes?  When  there  is  war,  are  you  not  allowed  to  kill?    Are  you  or  are  you  not?  Ralph:  
The  question  is,  who  are  you  allowed  to  kill?  Sir:  So  I  will  specify,  are  you  allowed  to  kill  civilians?    (ALL,  
except  one  student,  said  No.)  Sir:  Barugi  ang  imong  yes  kay  that  is  correct.  (the  great  dissenter,  turned  
out   to   be   the   one   who   got   it   right   yet   again)   Sir:   There   may   be   instances   when   killing   of   civilians   is  
allowed.  

This   happens   when   civilians   lose   their   protective   status.     When   they   directly   participate   in   hostilities;   it  
is   very   common   for   civilians   to   take   up   arms   of   war   and   directly   participate   in   hostilities.       So   while   they  
are   civilians   because   they   are   not   part   of   the   regular   armed   force,   they   can   be   attacked   because   they  
have   lost   their   protective   status   when   they   had   directly   participated   in   hostilities.     The   safer   rule   is   of  
course  killing  is  allowed  if  it  does  not  violate  principles  of  IHL.      

Talking  about  military  necessity…  I  have  mentioned  earlier,  we  have  this  principle  of  collateral  damage.  
For  as  long  as  the  attack  is  justified  under  the  principle  of  military  necessity,  and  with  due  observance  on  
the  other  two  important  concept,  to  wit,  principle  on  proportionality  and  principle  of  distinction  then  
any  death  of  a  civilian  is  justified  under  the  principle  of  military  necessity.  This  is  another  situation  when  
death  of  a  civilian  is  not  actually  punishable.    

Take   for   example   an   attack   on   a   lawful   military   base,   let   us   say,   a   military   base   of   an   opponent.   Is   that   a  
lawful  target?  Of  course  it  is  because  it  is  a  lawful  military  object  hence  it  can  be  a  subject  of  a  lawful  
attack.      

Let  us  say  again  there  is  10,  000  military  personnel  and  one  day  Jollibee  delivered  10,  000  pieces  of  fried  
chicken/chicken   joy   and   employing   1000   crew   for   such.   During   the   attack   it   affected   the   crew   and  
destroyed  most  vehicles  used  for  delivery…That  is  COLLATERAL  DAMAGE.      

So,  it  is  not  really  absolutely  prohibited  to  make  and  attack  that  will    result  to  death  of  civilians.  

So   now,   talking   about   that,   there   is   a   difficulty   in   using   Human   rights   law   and   the   IHL.     There   is   a   theory  
that   in   times   of   armed   conflict,   there   is   an   entirely   new   set   of   laws   to   be   applied   and   it   is   IHL   and   no  
other   law   so   human   rights   law   are   somehow   set   aside.   It   is   because   there   are   also   provisions   in   IHL   that  
take   care   of   human   rights   like   torture   (prohibited   by   both).     But   it   is   not   because   there   is   torture   during  
the   armed   conflict   that   human   rights   may   be   applied   but   it   may   be   in   the   case   that   the   specific  
provisions  in  the  IHL  that  should  be  applied  rather  than  human  rights  law.  Apply  HRL  during  peace  and  
IHL  during  an  armed  conflict,  but  that  distinction  is  not  yet  applicable  in  International  Law.  Until  now,  
there  is  still  difficulty  when  to  apply.  

So   now,   we   have   two   kinds   of   armed   conflict:   International   and   Non-­‐international.   When   is   there   an  
armed   conflict?   It   is   when:   a)   armed   force   between   states   (ex.   State   A   vs.   State   B)   b)  protracted   armed  
violence  between  governmental  authorities  and  organized  armed  groups  (ex.  AFP  v.  Organized  Armed  
Group)  c)  Between  between  such  groups  within  a  state  (ex.  Minority  vs.  Majority  Armed  Groups;  this  is  
common  is  secessionist  movements)  

Thru  the  efforts  of  Room  405.  Special  Thanks:  Bayalas,  Caminade,  Cañada,  Dabon,  Diao,  Gan,  Jacildo,  Nardo,  Lulu,  Parawan,  Rejuso,  Salas,  Balt,  
Verador,  Bristol,  Digaum,  Benin,  Peña,  Plaza,  Sayson,  Susvilla,  Tampus,  Gregorio,  Sanchez  
 
PINAKA  GAHI  NGA  BATCH  2015  
  Page  10  
 
Public  International  Law  Finals  Notes   2013  
 
But,   take   note   than   when   the   conflict   is   between   states,   there   is   no   such   requirement   of   protracted  
armed  violence.    Protracted  armed  violence  is  applicable  only  to  letter  B  and  C  in  the  paragraph  supra.    If  
it   involves   A,   it   is   automatically   an   International   armed   conflict.   Protracted   armed   violence   is   a  
manifestation   of   the   state’s   failure   to   Internal   System   to   resolve   armed   conflict.   IHL   applies   when  
there  is  an  International  armed  conflict.  

Q:  Kung  mu  lapas  sa  200  n.m  ang  natural  prolongation,  let’s  say  the  natural  prolongation  is  like  this…  not  
more  than  350  n.m  from  the  baseline?  So  if  the  350  n.m  would  be  here,  maski  pa  iya  natural  
prolongation  e-­‐extend  pa  farther  ….  No  more  rights  to  continental  shelf  may  be  exercised  after  350  
n.m  even  if  it  is  natural,  that’s  the  limitation.    

Coastal  state’s  rights  are  limited  to  harvesting  of  mineral  and  other  non-­‐living  materials  in  the  subsoil.  
Living  materials  included  provided  they’re  attached  to  the  shelf.    

*200n.m  EEZ  man  sad  na  xa  so  apil  ang  fish  pero  kung  mu  extend  sad  na  xa  ang  200n.m  but  not  more  
than  350  n.m,  non-­‐living  ra  xa  wla  nai  labot  ang  fish  dri    

High  seas    

beyond  200  n.m  from  the  base  line  and  it  is  res  communis  and  it  is  reserved  for  the  benefit  of  all  
mankind  and  that  is  the  same  principle  applied  to  the  Outerspace.  In  the  work  of  Akehurst  he  even  
mentioned  of  the  recent  development  in  international  law  on  the  exploitation  of  the  outerspace  naa  na  
gae  mga  treaties  since  1967  on  outerspace  exploration  treaties  embodying  the  so-­‐called  Common  
Heritage  of  Mankind  principle  but  the  exploitation  should  not  be  useless  .  you  take  note  of  the  so-­‐
called  Freedom  on  the  High  Seas  and  don’t  forget  when  it  comes  to  Airspace  you  also  have  to  take  note  
of  Five  Air  Freedoms.  

What  shall  govern  now?    How  may  states  exercise  jurisdiction  for  acts,  people,  vessels  on  the  high  
seas?  (this  presupposes  that  states  can  exercise  jurisdiction)  

High  seas  will  have  to  be  governed  by  two  sets  of  legal  systems:  

1. International  law  
2. Law  of  the  flag  state    

The  flag  state  is  where  it  is  registered    

In  the  past  there  had  been  a  lot  of  issues  concerning  what  they  call  the  Flags  of  Convenience  and  
modern  international  law  now  would  have  to  do  away  with  mere  flags  of  convenience  and  would  
require  effective  link  (nationality  theory)  between  the  registered  vessel  and  the  place  of  registration.  

Thru  the  efforts  of  Room  405.  Special  Thanks:  Bayalas,  Caminade,  Cañada,  Dabon,  Diao,  Gan,  Jacildo,  Nardo,  Lulu,  Parawan,  Rejuso,  Salas,  Balt,  
Verador,  Bristol,  Digaum,  Benin,  Peña,  Plaza,  Sayson,  Susvilla,  Tampus,  Gregorio,  Sanchez  
 
PINAKA  GAHI  NGA  BATCH  2015  
  Page  11  
 
Public  International  Law  Finals  Notes   2013  
 
Usually  it  must  be  shown  that  the  place  of  registration  must  have  exercised  authorities  (mostly  
administrative)  on  the  vessel.    

 
 
...it  must  be  shown  that  the  place  of  registration  must  have  exercised  some  authorities,  administrative  
mostly,  on  the  vessel.  Kay  kung  registered  ra  na  sya  unya  walay  exercise  of  authority  over  the  vessel,  it’s  
a  flag  of  convenience-­‐  para  lang  registration,  and  that  should  not  be  considered  as  the  place  of  
registration  for  the  purposes  of  determining  flag  of  the  state  rule.  Kanang  flags  of  convenience,  it  can  
assert  that  it's  no  longer  the  rule  in  international  law.  There  should  likewise  be  not  only  registration  
but  effective  link,  murag  nationality  theory.  Effective  link  between  the  authority  of  the  place  of  
registration  and  the  vessel.  And  this  link  is  shown  in  the  exercise  of  some  administrative  authority  such  
as  monitoring,  regulatory  requirements.  It  must  have  been  shown  that  in  many  cases  the  ship  had  been  
subjected  to  monitoring  requirements,  submission  of  reportorial  requirement  or  have  been  subjected  to  
inspection,  have  been  subjected  to  other  administrative  powers.  So  effective  link.  And  take  note,  while  a  
person  may  have  various  and  several  citizenships,  a  ship  can  only  have  or  use  only  one  flag.    
 
And  then  in  relation  to  high  seas,  you  take  note  of  the  instances  where  warships  may  interfere  with  
merchant  vessels  of  another  state,  obviously,  in  the  high  seas.  
 
These  are  bases  for  possible  interferences  with  merchant  ship.    
1.Stateless  ship,  unsa  man  ni?  Non-­‐registered.  Sir,  kung  registered  but  it's  just  a  flag  of  convenience,  can  
it  be  considered  (as  stateless  ship)?  Well  that's  highly  disputable.  It  may  still  be  argued  otherwise  that  it  
is  not  a  stateless  ship.  What  is  referred  to  as  stateless  ship  is  that  it  has  no  registration.  
2.Hot  pursuit.  As  usual.  You  know  the  concept.  The  crime  must  have  been  committed,  in  fact  it  is  the  
requirement,  the  offending  vessel  must  have  commenced  the  commission  of  the  crime  in  the  territorial  
waters  before  hot  pursuit  may  be  legal  or  legitimate.  Pero  problema  lang  kung  hinay  imong  warship,  
continuing  ang  offense,  naabtan  nimo  didto  na  beyond  sa  territorial  sea  kay  tungod  hinay  imong  
warship,  di  na  na  ma-­‐hot  pursuit?  Dapat  naay  evidence  of  commission  or  commencement  of  crime  in  
the  territorial  sea.  Remember  ha,  dapat  nag-­‐commence  sa  territorial  sea  para  ma-­‐hot  pursuit.  Meaning  
it's  valid  to  interfere  with  that  merchant  vessel  even  in  the  high  seas.    
3.Right  of  approach.    
4.Treaties.    
5.Piracy,  of  course;    universality  theory.    
6.Belligerent  rights.  Belligerent  states  through  their  warship  may  inspect  ships  following  the  state  of  the  
flag  rule  if  they  are  bound  by  the  laws  of  neutrality.  Kung  at  war,  ang  usa  ka  belligerent  state  may  in  fact  
approach  and  inspect  the  ship  of  what  is  supposed  to  be  a  neutral  state  because  of  ongoing  war.  That  is  
allowed.  To  determine  if  really  that  state  or  at  least  this  merchant  vessel  have  been  observing  the  laws  
of  neutrality.  That  is  allowed  in  the  laws  of  war.    
7.And  of  course  self-­‐defense  is  always  available  and  whenever  authorized  by  UN.    
 
Remember  the  jurisdiction  of  municipal  court  over  crimes  committed  in  high  seas?  You  know  this  
already.    
 
Let's  go  to  air  space  and  outer  space.  As  I  have  mentioned  earlier,  this  is  the  principle  you  should  take  
note,  applicable  to  air  space,  outer  space  and  on  the  high  seas:  the  exploration  and  use  or  utilization  
of  resources  beyond  the  national  jurisdiction  shall  be  the  province  of  all  mankind  and  should  be  

Thru  the  efforts  of  Room  405.  Special  Thanks:  Bayalas,  Caminade,  Cañada,  Dabon,  Diao,  Gan,  Jacildo,  Nardo,  Lulu,  Parawan,  Rejuso,  Salas,  Balt,  
Verador,  Bristol,  Digaum,  Benin,  Peña,  Plaza,  Sayson,  Susvilla,  Tampus,  Gregorio,  Sanchez  
 
PINAKA  GAHI  NGA  BATCH  2015  
  Page  12  
 
Public  International  Law  Finals  Notes   2013  
 
carried  out  for  the  benefit  and  in  the  interest  of  all  countries  irrespective  of  the  degree  of  their  
economic  and  scientific  development.  
 
How  is  this  materialized  by  the  way?  Because  this  is  just  a  principle.  You  cannot  right  away  invoke  it  as  
against  particular  conduct  of  state  not  observing  the  common  heritage  of  mankind  principle.    This  one  
however  is  materialized  by  treaties  and  conventions  kay  mura  ba'g  bound  ang  states  to  agree  and  come  
up  with  specific  terms  and  conditions  on  explorations.  Outer  space  exploration,  there's  already  a  treaty  I  
think  sometime  in  1967.  You  just  have  to  take  note  of  that.    
 
We'll  start  with  human  rights  law  next  meeting.  After  human  rights  law,  a  brief  discussion  on  
environmental  law.  Laws  on  war  na  dayon  and  IHL.    
OK  ra?  Kaya.  KAKAYANIN  NATIN!  =D  
 

we  are  done  with  the  law  of  the  seas  now  let’s  go  to  human  rights      
 
HUMAN  RIGHTS  LAW  
The  3  generations  or  categories:  
a. UN  declaration  of  human  rights  
1. Civil  and  Political  Rights  
2. Economic,  social  and  cultural  rights  
b. opinions  of  publicists  
3. rights   to   peace,   self-­‐determination.   Common   heritage   of   mankind   principle,   environment,  
development,  minority  rights  
 
 
 
international  law  has  divided  human  rights  law  into  3  generations  
 
magallona   has   mentioned   of   this   akehurst   however   criticized   the   categorization   of   human   rights  
because   it   might   eliminate   the   idea   that   these   rights   embodied   in   the   human   rights   documents   that  
understood  to  be  natural  rights  and  inalienable  rights  of  every  individual  
 
the   first   generation   of   human   rights   law   is   so   called   civil   and   political   rights   as   first   established   in   the  
universal  declaration  of  human  rights  and  later  on  expanded  in  the  later  international  covenant  of  civil  
and  political  rights  
 
understand   the   reason   why   the   nations   of   the   world   started   codifying   certain   standards   or   norms   of  
human  rights  law  then  civil  and  political  rights  
 
during  the  time  that  people  have  been  fighting  of  imperial  government  and  a  lot  of  people  of  course  and  
constituents   and   inhabitants   are   subject   to   torture,   illegal   detention   and   crimes   of   genocide   so   these  
started   of   what   they   though   important   human   rights   that   can   be   found   in   international   human   rights  
document.  Later  they  realized  that  after  they  achieved  peace  and  after  we  became  a  little  more  civilized  
and  then  we  started  prohibiting  the  prohibition  on  the  use  of  force  because  we  thought  that  this  world  
will   be   a   better   place   to   live   in     but   we   realized   that   a   lot   of   concerns   came   up   like   the   right   to   self  

Thru  the  efforts  of  Room  405.  Special  Thanks:  Bayalas,  Caminade,  Cañada,  Dabon,  Diao,  Gan,  Jacildo,  Nardo,  Lulu,  Parawan,  Rejuso,  Salas,  Balt,  
Verador,  Bristol,  Digaum,  Benin,  Peña,  Plaza,  Sayson,  Susvilla,  Tampus,  Gregorio,  Sanchez  
 
PINAKA  GAHI  NGA  BATCH  2015  
  Page  13  
 
Public  International  Law  Finals  Notes   2013  
 
determination.  The  right  to  economic  rights  and  even  the  right  to  educations,  the  rights  of  workers  and  
the  women  and  the  right  to  fair  treatment,  the  right  against  racial  discrimination.  
 
So  after  the  civil  and  political  rights  in  the  UN  we  included  the  economic  and  cultural  rights  and  these  of  
course   is   now   embodied   in   the   international   covenant   of   civil   and   political   rights   and   after   all   these.  
Many   authors   and   experts   thought   of   adding   a   separate   from   the   economic,   civil   and   cultural   rights,   the  
specific   rights   on   the   right   to   self   determination   and   even   on   the   matter   of   development   and  
environment  as  the  3rd  generation  or  category  of  human  rights  law.    
 
But,   the   Universal   declaration   of   human   rights   by   the   UN   is   not   a   legally   binding   instrument   as   it   merely  
recommends  states  to  keep  it  in  mind  in  the  enactment  of  legal  measures.  
 
However,   if   the   particular   right   mentioned   there   has   already   ripened   into   a   customary   international   law  
(e.g.   torture,   slavery,   racial   discrimination),   violation   of   the   human   right   principles   a   “matter   of  
international  concern”  
 
 
What   is   the   use   of   studying   international   human   rights   law   by   the   way?   You   learned   in   the   past   that  
human   rights   documents   are   what   we   call   in   international   law   as   “soft   law”   remember   that?   And  
therefore   these   principles   we   see   in   human   rights   documents   and   other   that   the   international   bill   of  
rights,  the  universal  declaration  of  human  rights,  ICCPR  and  ICSCER.  These  are  what  we  call  soft  laws  and  
therefore  they  are  not  binding  on  states  and  just  the  same  that  they  are  not  binding  on  states  they  are  
norms  that  are  not  irrelevant  to  every  state  and  that  what  characterizes  a  soft  law    not  binding  but  not  
an  irrelevant  political  maxim  or  norm.  
 
What  is  the  use  of  studying  them?  
Di  man  kaha  binding  so  unsa  man  gamet  ani?  
What  is  the  significance  of  human  rights  law?  
• Magallon  naa  man  daghan  gi  sulte  
• Guidelines,  standards  and  basis  for  domestic  enactments  and  domestic  legislation  and  these  
sets   of   international   law   are   recommendatory   to   the   states   and   they   should   take  
consideration  in  enactment  of  legislation  except  to  that  what  has  been  mandated  on  what  
to  be  observed  in  human  rights  document  
o Should  it  be  taken  as  jus  cogens  or  erga  omnes    
• These  merely  are  recommendatory  
 

Illustrations  on  the  application  of  human  rights  law  

1. state  x  passed  a  law  imposing  death  penalty  to  the  crimes  of  homicide,  infanticide,  murder,  
parricide,  kidnapping,  robbery,  rape,  rebellion,  sedition  and  all  crimes  involving  dangerous  
drugs.  How  may  the  law  be  assailed  invalid?  
2. When  A,  a  citizen  of  state  X,  wrote  in  public  that  their  president  is  corrupt  and  a  drug  lord,  the  
president  created  a  fact  finding  commission  which  recommended  that  A  be  punished  for  what  
he  wrote  against  the  president.  A  was  then  sent  to  jail  
3. Due  to  budget  constraints,  the  president  of  state  Y  decided  to  abolish  free  primary  education  
and  encouraged  instead  private  institutions  to  give  affordable  primary  education  to  all.  May  this  

Thru  the  efforts  of  Room  405.  Special  Thanks:  Bayalas,  Caminade,  Cañada,  Dabon,  Diao,  Gan,  Jacildo,  Nardo,  Lulu,  Parawan,  Rejuso,  Salas,  Balt,  
Verador,  Bristol,  Digaum,  Benin,  Peña,  Plaza,  Sayson,  Susvilla,  Tampus,  Gregorio,  Sanchez  
 
PINAKA  GAHI  NGA  BATCH  2015  
  Page  14  
 
Public  International  Law  Finals  Notes   2013  
 
act  of  the  government  of  State  Y  assailed  as  invalid?  
4. What  is  torture?  What  is  racial  discrimination  
 

Except  to  the  extent  that  what  has  stated  or  mandated  that  it  should  be  observe  in  the  human  rights  law  
documents  when  they  partake  of  the  nature  of  jus  cogens  or  on  the  part  of  the  states  they’re  erga  
omnes,  then  they  ceased  to  become  merely  recommendatory.  As  when  we  speak  for  example  about  the  
prohibition  of  torture,  slavery,  racial  discrimination  as  you  had  already  learned.  These  are  jus  cogens  
norms.  But  other  than  these  matters,  anything  else  is  recommendatory.    

So  what’s  the  use?  

Question:  

1. State  X  passed  a  law  imposing  Death  Penalty  to  the  crimes  of  Homicide,  Infanticide,  Murder,  
Parricide,  Kidnapping,  Robbery,  Rape,  Rebellion,  Sedition  and  all  crimes  involving  dangerous  drugs.  
How  the  law  may  be  assailed  as  invalid?  
 
Answer:    
You  might  want  to  invoke  your  own  Constitution  but  it  would  be  more  persuasive  if  you  also  
invoke  Human  Rights  law.  Because  these  are  standards,  norms  observed  by  the  family  of  nation  
and  so  you  are  to  convince  Supreme  Court  of  the  standards  existing  in  the  Human  Rights  Law  and  
perhaps  successfully  convince  the  court  to  strike  it  down  as  unreasonable,  probably  in  relation  to  
the  constitution  on  the  right  to  due  process.    
 
Can  we  find  provision  in  a  Human  Rights  document  that  we  can  use  in  order  to  convince  the  
court?  Mao  man  ni  ang  purpose,  we  are  telling  the  court  that  we  are  bound  to  observe  or  
probably  the  Philippines  is  committed  to  observe  standards  set  forth  in  the  Universal  Declaration  
of  Human  Rights.  
 
Art.  6  of  the  UDHR  
 
xxxx  
 
2. In  countries  which  have  not  abolished  the  death  penalty,  sentence  of  death  may  be  imposed  
only  for  the  most  serious  crimes  in  accordance  with  the  law  in  force  at  the  time  of  the  
commission  of  the  crime  and  not  contrary  to  the  provisions  of  the  present  Covenant  and  to  
the  Convention  on  the  Prevention  and  Punishment  of  the  Crime  of  Genocide.  xxxx    
 
This  explains  why  when  we  made  our  some  sort  of  suspension  of  the  imposition  of  death  penalty,  we  
made  a  reservation  that  if  we  re-­‐impose  death  penalty,  it  can  only  be  re-­‐impose  on  the  most  serious  
crime  we  call  in  the  constitution  as  the  heinous  crime  as  Congress  may  be  define.  That  is  an  observance  
of  these  standards  that  States  do  believe  that  death  penalty  can  only  be  impose  on  most  serious  crimes.  
See,  obedient  pa  ka.au  ang  Philippines  diha.  
 

Thru  the  efforts  of  Room  405.  Special  Thanks:  Bayalas,  Caminade,  Cañada,  Dabon,  Diao,  Gan,  Jacildo,  Nardo,  Lulu,  Parawan,  Rejuso,  Salas,  Balt,  
Verador,  Bristol,  Digaum,  Benin,  Peña,  Plaza,  Sayson,  Susvilla,  Tampus,  Gregorio,  Sanchez  
 
PINAKA  GAHI  NGA  BATCH  2015  
  Page  15  
 
Public  International  Law  Finals  Notes   2013  
 
 
2. When  A,  a  citizen  of  State  X,  wrote  in  public  that  their  President  is  corrupt  and  a  drug  lord,  the  
President  created  a  fact  finding  commission  which  recommended  that  A  be  punished  for  what  he  
wrote  against  the  President.  A  was  then  sent  to  jail.  Was  the  act  of  the  government  valid?  
 
Answer:    
Art.  19  (3)  ICCPR  
 
3. The  exercise  of  the  rights  provided  for  in  par.  2  of  this  article  carries  with  it  special  duties  and  
responsibilities.  It  may  therefore  be  subject  to  certain  restrictions,  but  these  shall  only  be  such  
as  are  provided  by  law  and  are  necessary:  
a.) For  respect  of  the  rights  or  reputations  of  others;  
b.) For  the  protection  of  national  security  or  of  public  order  (ordre  public),  or  of  the  public  
health  or  morals.  
 
 
This  is  about  freedom  of  expression,  correct?  Because  you  are  trying  to  criticize  a  government  official.  
Isn’t  this  libelous?  Calling  the  president  corrupt.  It  cannot  be  that  the  government  shall  decide  on  your  
act  and  say  that  that  is  libelous  and  send  you  to  jail?  No?  Basa.  J  Article  19,  paragraph  3  ICCPR:  

  Article  19  

1.  Everyone  shall  have  the  right  to  hold  opinions  without  interference.    

2.  Everyone  shall  have  the  right  to  freedom  of  expression;  this  right  shall  include  freedom    

to  seek,  receive  and  impart  information  and  ideas  of  all  kinds,  regardless  of  frontiers,    

either  orally,  in  writing  or  in  print,  in  the  form  of  art,  or  through  any  other  media  of  his    

choice.    

3.  The  exercise  of  the  rights  provided  for  in  paragraph  2  of  this  article  carries  with  it    

special  duties  and  responsibilities.  It  may  therefore  be  subject  to  certain  restrictions,  but    

these  shall  only  be  such  as  are  provided  by  law  and  are  necessary:    

(a)  For  respect  of  the  rights  or  reputations  of  others;    

(b)  For  the  protection  of  national  security  or  of  public  order  (ordre  public),  or  of  public    

health  or  morals.  

You  were  right  in  mentioning  that  this  shall  only  be  such  as  are  provided  by  law.  Tan-­‐awa.  Siguro  the  
principle  of  nullum  poena  sine  legi  (paki-­‐check  J)is  a  principle  ,  there  is  no  crime  when  there  is  no  law  
punishing  it  is  indeed  a  principle  in  international  law  and  in  fact  even  embodied  in  the  restrictions  of  the  

Thru  the  efforts  of  Room  405.  Special  Thanks:  Bayalas,  Caminade,  Cañada,  Dabon,  Diao,  Gan,  Jacildo,  Nardo,  Lulu,  Parawan,  Rejuso,  Salas,  Balt,  
Verador,  Bristol,  Digaum,  Benin,  Peña,  Plaza,  Sayson,  Susvilla,  Tampus,  Gregorio,  Sanchez  
 
PINAKA  GAHI  NGA  BATCH  2015  
  Page  16  
 
Public  International  Law  Finals  Notes   2013  
 
freedom  of  expression.    In  other  words,  even  the  ICCPR  talks  of  the  rule  of  law,  that  there  should  be  a  
law  that  allows  the  restriction  of  a  right  or  a  freedom.    

Next,  due  to  budget  constraints,  the  President  of  State  Y  decided  to  abolish  primary  education  and  and  
encouraged  private  institutions  to  offer  affordable  primary  education  and  available  to  all.  Can  you  assail  
the  act  of  State  Y  as  invalid?  Hain  naman  to,  ICESCR.  Article  13  paragraph  2  (a):    

2.  The  States  Parties  to  the  present  Covenant  recognize  that,  with  a  view  to  achieving  the  full  
realization  of  this  right:  

(a)  Primary  education  shall  be  compulsory  and  available  free  to  all;  

Buanga,  naa  diay  international  covenant  on  economic,  social  and  cultural  rights?  Pero  naa  bay  
responsibility?  No.  You  can  only  influence,  probably  persuade  a  court  or  a  government  to  act  on  your  
concern  that  a  particular  governmental  act  is  not  in  accordance  with  the  norms  set  forth  in  human  rights  
law  documents.  Now  how  does  UN  accomplish  this  one?  There  is  a  system  of  monitoring  in  human  
rights  law.  A  commission  had  been  created  by  the  UN  in-­‐charge  of  examining  and  then  reporting  to  the  
General  Assembly  violations  of  human  rights  law.  Unya  i-­‐mention  dayon  didto  during  general  assembly  
based  on  the  report  for  example,irank  nila  ug  kinsa  tong  #  1  violator  of  a  specie  of  human  right  unya  di  
ka  mauwaw  #1  violator  ka  didto?  Probably  encouraging  or  even  motivating  states  to  exert  efforts,  
implement  programs  in  order  to  comply  with  the  norms  set  forth  in  the  international  human  rights  law  
documents.    

Aside  from  that,  human  rights    law  document  may  be  a  basis  of  the  definition  of  a  prohibited  act  at  the  
domestic  level.  You  want  for  example  to  pass  a  law  torture.  Where  will  you  get  the  definition  of  torture?  
It  should  be  a  universal  concept  so  you  might  want  to  visit  for  example  conventions  pertaining  to  
torture.    And  then  your  statute  wants  to  know  the  meaning  of  racial  discrimination  then  you  can  make  
use  of  various  conventions  on  the  matter.  So  standard  for  domestic  legislative  measures.    

Then  we  go  to  International  Environmental  Law  very  quickly.  It  is  a  modern  field  of  public  international  
law.    Kanang  1970s  modern  pa  na  huh.  Before  Stockholm  Conference  in  1972  and  other  declarations  
affecting  environment  ,  an  arbitrator  who  was  chosen  by  US  and  Canada  in  this  Smilter(?)  case,  quoted  
in  most  textbooks,  here  the  arbitrator  made  a  pronouncement  that  “  no  state  has  the  right  to  use  or  
permit  the  use  of  its  territory  in  such  a  manner  as  to  cause  damage  on  the  territory  of  another  ..”  in  this  
case  Canada  allowed  the  smelting  of  zinc  that  resulted  to  pollution  which  affected  Washington.  Ingana  
ka  serious  ang  pollution.  Adjacent  baya  ang  Canada  ug  US  huh  unya  Washington  is  on  the  northern  part  
of  the  US  so  that  was  the  reason  for  calling  an  arbitration.    Don’t  you  know  that  this  is  even  a  civil  law  
concept?  So  a  lot  of  principles  in  environmental  law  actually  come  from  civil  law  concepts.  Or  even  
police  power  concept.  Unsa  man  ni  sya,  “sic  utere  tuo  ut  alienum  non  laedas”principle  J  you  remember  
that?  Unsa  man  na?  “  Use  your  own  so  as  not  to  injure  another.”  Tan-­‐awa  ra,  tuo  mo  ug  gabinuang  ko  
huh,  naa  na.  It’s  your  territory,  your  natural  resource  okay  its  your  property  but  it  should  only  be  used  so  
as  not  to  injure  also  the  rights  of  other  states.  And  that  was  the  start  of  calling  on  an  international  
convention  concerning  the  environment.    The  UN  general  assembly  by  a  resolution  called  for  a  

Thru  the  efforts  of  Room  405.  Special  Thanks:  Bayalas,  Caminade,  Cañada,  Dabon,  Diao,  Gan,  Jacildo,  Nardo,  Lulu,  Parawan,  Rejuso,  Salas,  Balt,  
Verador,  Bristol,  Digaum,  Benin,  Peña,  Plaza,  Sayson,  Susvilla,  Tampus,  Gregorio,  Sanchez  
 
PINAKA  GAHI  NGA  BATCH  2015  
  Page  17  
 
Public  International  Law  Finals  Notes   2013  
 
conference  for  the  international  environmentakl  law  which  was  held  on  1972  in  Stockholm,  Sweden.  So  
thisis  now  the  what  we  call  Stockholm  Conference  or  Declaration.    

Modes  of  Acquiring  Territory  

Cession  

-­‐ Transfer  of  territory,  usually  by  treaty,  from  one  state  to  another  
-­‐ Note:  if  there  were  defects  in  the  ceding  state’s  title,  the  title  of  the  state  to  which  the  territory  
is  ceded  will  be  vitiated  by  the  same  defects  applying  “nemo  dat  quod  non  habet”  [no  one  can  
give  what  he  does  not  have]  (see  Island  of  Palmas  Case)  
o Argued  to  be  part  of  the  Phil  territory,  when  Philippines  was  ceded  by  Spain  to  US.  
o Discovery  was  not  followed  by  effective  occupation  

Occupation  

-­‐ The  acquisition  of  a  terra  nullius(usually  uninhabited  territory),  that  is,  territory  which  
immediately  before  the  acquisition,  belonged  to  no  state.  
-­‐ Note:  a  territory  is  “terra  nullius”  either  because  it  really  did  not  belong  to  any  state  or  may  
have  been  abandoned  by  previous  sovereign.  There  is  “abandonment”  if  there  is  (1)failure  to  
exercise  authority  with  (2)intent  to  abandon.  
o Abandonment,  based  on  intent,  not....  
o 2  components  –  failure  to  exercise  authority  +  intent  to  abandon;  is  a  question  of  fact.    
o Discovery  of  territory  is  not  sufficient  to  acquire  a    terra  nullius  territory  as  it  merely  
gives  “inchoate  title”,  that  is,  an  option  to  occupy  the  territory  within  a  reasonable  time  
(no  fixed  time,  but  in  relation  to  prescription,  it  is  shorter),  during  which  time  other  
states  were  not  allowed  to  occupy  the  territory.  Thus,  occupation  requires  “effective  
control”  and  “intention  and  will  to  act  as  sovereign”.  
o If  state  uses  force  to  prevent  other  states,  it  cannot  be  liable  since  it  was  exercising  
within  its  inchoate  right  of  the  discovering  state.  
o How  is  effective  control  manifested?  Acts  of  governmental  authority,  establishment  of  
administration;  the  governed  and  the  governing.  
o  

Prescription  

-­‐ As  distinguished  from  occupation,  this  presupposes  acquisition  of  territory  belonging  to  another  
state.  It  also  requires  “effective  control”  and  “intention  and  will  to  act  as  sovereign”.    
-­‐ However,  since  acquiescence  (e.g.  lack  of  protest)  by  the  losing  state  is  required  for  there  to  
have  effective  control  (or  occupation),  a  long  period  of  time  is  required  in  prescription  than  in  
occupation.  (Cf.  Immemorial  prescription  doctrine)  
o Beyond  the  memory  of  man.  

Conquest/Subjugation  

Thru  the  efforts  of  Room  405.  Special  Thanks:  Bayalas,  Caminade,  Cañada,  Dabon,  Diao,  Gan,  Jacildo,  Nardo,  Lulu,  Parawan,  Rejuso,  Salas,  Balt,  
Verador,  Bristol,  Digaum,  Benin,  Peña,  Plaza,  Sayson,  Susvilla,  Tampus,  Gregorio,  Sanchez  
 
PINAKA  GAHI  NGA  BATCH  2015  
  Page  18  
 
Public  International  Law  Finals  Notes   2013  
 
-­‐ No  longer  applicable  
-­‐ Accepted  in  the  19th  century  since  the  prohibition  against  the  use  of  force  had  not  yet  ripened  
into  a  customary  internal  law.    
-­‐ It  is  now  illegal  to  acquire  territory  by  force.  See  “Stimson  Doctrine”.  It  was  only  in  1970  when  
the  UN  General  Assembly  issued  a  resolution  declaring  the  acquisition  of  territory  by  force  as  
illegal.  However,  this  rule  applies  only  to  international,  not  civil,  wars.  
-­‐  

Operation/accretion  

Adjudication  (when  the  parties  agree  usually  in  the  form  of  arbitration)  

The  Law  of  the  Sea  

-­‐ Before  UNLCOS,  most  laws  of  the  sea  were  merely  customary  international  laws  
-­‐ Now,  governed  by  the  1982  UNCLOS  III  (UNCLOS  I-­‐1958;  UNCLOS  II-­‐1969)  which  came  into  force  
in  1994  after  the  60th  party  signed  it  
-­‐ Basic  zones/areas  
o Internal  waters  
§ Includes    
• ports,    
• harbours,    
• rivers,    
• bays  (depends  of  the  bay,  if  more  than  half  of  the  circle,  can  be  part  of  
the  internal  waters,  if  not  more  than  half  of  a  circle,  which  comprises  24  
nautical  miles,  read  Magaleona),  
•  straits  (if  exceeds  nautical  miles,  ....)  
• lakes  and    
• canals  (cf.  Archipelagic  doctrine)  
§ The  coastal  state  can  prohibit  entry  into  its  internal  waters  by  foreign  ships,  
except  for  ships  in  distress.  (vis  a  vis  the  exercise  of  absolute  dominion)  
§ When  already  within  internal  waters,  different  legal  questions  arise  depending  
on  the  kind  of  vessel  that  is  within  the  internal  water;  merchant  ships,  warships,  
other  foreign  non-­‐commercial  ships.  
§ Similarity  between  archipelagic  waters  and  internal  waters(  we  exercise  
absolute  dominion  
o Territorial  sea  
§ Not  exceeding  12  n.m.  from  the  “baseline”.(otherwise,  wrong  answer)  beyond  
this  is  international  water  
§ Baselines:    
• 1)  Normal  Baseline  (low  Water  Mark  Method);  and    
Thru  the  efforts  of  Room  405.  Special  Thanks:  Bayalas,  Caminade,  Cañada,  Dabon,  Diao,  Gan,  Jacildo,  Nardo,  Lulu,  Parawan,  Rejuso,  Salas,  Balt,  
Verador,  Bristol,  Digaum,  Benin,  Peña,  Plaza,  Sayson,  Susvilla,  Tampus,  Gregorio,  Sanchez  
 
PINAKA  GAHI  NGA  BATCH  2015  
  Page  19  
 
Public  International  Law  Finals  Notes   2013  
 
• 2)  Straight  Baseline  
§ Limitation:  “Right  of  Innocent  Passage”  by  foreign  ships.    May  be  exercise  
because  actually  we  have  an  archipelagic  water.  
• Must  be    
o (1)  “expeditious”  and  “continuous”(it  should  not  enter  internal  
water)  and    
§ NO:  fishing,  testing  of  weapons,  
o (2)  “innocent”    
§ It  is  innocent  if  not  prejudicial  to  the  peace,  good  order  
or  security  of  the  coastal  state.  Fishing  vessels  must  
comply  with  local  laws  and  submarines  must  navigate  
on  the  surface  and  show  their  flag.    
§ May  be  suspended  for  protection  of  security  of  the  
coastal  state.  
§ SUBMARINE:  obligations  when  passing  through?  Must  
navigate  on  the  surface  and  show  their  flag  
§ Note:  
• It  is  for  us  to  determine  the  baseline.  It  has  nothing  to  do  with  
expansion  of  territory  but  only  to  determine  baseline  (2011  case,  read)  
• Instances:    
o Asdf  

§    

.  

§ Median  Line  
• Where  the  coasts  of  two  states  are  opposite  or  adjacent  to  each  other,  
neither  of  them  is  entitled,  failing  agreement  between  them  to  the  
contrary,  to  extend  its  territorial  sea  beyond  the  median  line  every  point  
of  which  is  “equidistant”  from  the  nearest  points  on  the  baselines.  (Also  
applicable  in  the  case  of  continental  shelf)  
• In  practice,  it  is  resolved  by  treaties.  
• Exceptions:  Historic  title  or  other  special  circumstances.  
• Read:  North  Sea  Continental  shelf  
o Beyond  12nm  –  international  waters  
o High  Seas  –  after  the  200  nm  
o FULL  DISCRETION  –  internal  waters  and  territorial  sea.  
Considered  part  of  the  territory  of  the  state.  Land  Mass  +  
Maritime  Domain  =  territory,  element  of  state.  
§ Jurisdiction    of  coastal  state  over  foreign  vessel  in  territorial  waters  (this  
applies  if  they  are  there  lawfully,  consent  is  present)  

Thru  the  efforts  of  Room  405.  Special  Thanks:  Bayalas,  Caminade,  Cañada,  Dabon,  Diao,  Gan,  Jacildo,  Nardo,  Lulu,  Parawan,  Rejuso,  Salas,  Balt,  
Verador,  Bristol,  Digaum,  Benin,  Peña,  Plaza,  Sayson,  Susvilla,  Tampus,  Gregorio,  Sanchez  
 
PINAKA  GAHI  NGA  BATCH  2015  
  Page  20  
 
Public  International  Law  Finals  Notes   2013  
 
Foreign  Public  vessel  –  no  jurisdiction  
o
§ Floating  territories  –  warships  
§ Presupposes  that  it  does  not  engage  in  commercial  
activities.  
o Foreign  Merchant  vessel  –  full  civil  jurisdiction,  but  criminal  
jurisdiction  may  or  may  not  be  exercised  by  the  coastal  state  
(optional).  
o (cf.  “English  Rule  and  the  “French[Flag  State]  Rule”  
§ English  Rule  –  the  coastal  state  can  exercise  jurisdiction  
over  offenses  committed  on  the  ship  on  territorial  
waters.  
• Exc:  if  offense  pertains  to  administrative  
matters,  such  as  discipline  of  the  crew.  
§ French  Rule  –  GR:  the  flag  state;  Exc:  unless  it  
prejudices  the  security  of  the  coastal  state;    
§ Archipelagic  waters  vs.  Territorial  waters  vs.  Territorial  Sea  
o Archipelagic  waters  
• Figure  14  of  Magaleona  
• Identify  the  outermost  points  of  the  outermost  islands  including  dry  
reefs.  
• Must  not  depart  from  the  natural  contour  of  the  archipelago  
• Water:Land  ratio  must  not  exceed  9:1  
• Each  line  should  not  exceed  100nm  
o Internal  waters  =  archipelagic  waters  
§ Since  it  is  deemed,  but  not  actually  
§ Exercise  of  jurisdiction  is  the  same  as  internal  
o But,  subject  to  the  right  of  innocent  passage  of  foreign  ships  just  
like  “territorial  sea”  
§ This  is  peculiar  to  Archipelagic  sea,  which  if  internal  
waters  cannot  be.  
• NOTE:  this  is  UNCLOS,  can  the  State  determine  its  own  internal  waters.  
§  
o Contiguous  Zone  
§ 24  n.m.  from  the  baseline.  
§ JURISDICTION:  Coastal  State  is  limited  to  Protective  Jurisdiction  only,  that  is,  to  
prevent  infringement  of  its  customs,  fiscal,  immigration  or  sanitary  regulations  
• We  can  extend  our  domestic  laws  to  the  contiguous  zone  for  the  
purpose  of  protecting  the  above  regulations.  
• But  not  part  of  the  territory,  therefore  is  already  International  Waters.  
o So  12  is  territorial,  the  other  12  is  international  

Thru  the  efforts  of  Room  405.  Special  Thanks:  Bayalas,  Caminade,  Cañada,  Dabon,  Diao,  Gan,  Jacildo,  Nardo,  Lulu,  Parawan,  Rejuso,  Salas,  Balt,  
Verador,  Bristol,  Digaum,  Benin,  Peña,  Plaza,  Sayson,  Susvilla,  Tampus,  Gregorio,  Sanchez  
 
PINAKA  GAHI  NGA  BATCH  2015  
  Page  21  
 
Public  International  Law  Finals  Notes   2013  
 
• •   Rights  and  limitations:  There  is  no  more  full  jurisdiction.  It  is  
limited  only  to  the  so-­‐called  protective  jurisdiction  of  the  state.  
Protective  in  a  sense  that  the  coastal  state  is  allowed  to  exercise  
jurisdiction  for  purposes  of  preventing  infringement  of  customs  laws,  
fiscal,  immigration,  and  sanitary  regulations,  meaning,  you  can  extend  
the  enforcement  of  your  customs  laws,  fiscal,  immigration  and  sanitary  
regulations  even  outside  the  territorial  sea  
o Exclusive  Economic  Zone  
§ 200  nm  from  the  baseline  
§ Coastal  state  has  sovereign  rights  over  all  the  economic  resources  of  the  sea,  
seabed,  and  subsoil  which  includes  not  only  fish  but  also  minerals  beneath  the  
seabed  
§ However,  if  the  coastal  stat  is  unable  to  fully  exploit  the  resources,  it  must  make  
arrangement  to  share  the  surplus  with  other  states.  
§ NOT  PART  OF  THE  TERRITORY  
o Continental  Shelf  (more  of  an  area,  not  a  zone)  
§ Consists  of  the  seabed  and  the  subsoil  of  the  submarine  areas  that  extend  
beyond  its  territorial  sea  throughout  the  natural  prolongation  of  its  land  
territory  to  the  outer  edge  of  the  continental  margin,  or  to  a  distance  of  200nm,  
whichever  is  greater.  But,  it  shall  not  exceed  350nm  from  the  baseline  in  case  
the  natural  prolongation  exceeds  more  than  200nm  
§ Coastal  state’s  rights  are  limited  to  harvesting  of  mineral  and  other  “non-­‐living”  
materials  in  the  subsoil  and  “living  things  attached  to  the  shelf”.  
Continental   shelf   case   –No   question   if   the   CS   is   less   than   200nm,   because   you   can  
say  that  even  if  the  CS  is  100nm  lang,  the  state  can  explore  and  enjoy  exclusive  
right  over  marine  resources  up  to  200nm  because  of  the  exclusive  economic  zone  
principle.  
If  you  are  coastal  state  and  you  are  the  end  of  the  state,  then  you  have  a  territorial  
sea.  Those  in  the  middle  of  the  continent,  no  territorial  sea.  So  what  is  your  right  
over  the  continential  shelf?  
According  to  the  ICJ,  if  shorter  than  200nm  ,  then  you  go  up  to  200nm.    
What   if   the   natural   prolongation   of   the   CS   is   more   than   200nm?   Can   the   coastal  
state   that   it   should   reach   the   end,   like   if   the   CS   reaches   400   nm?   Take   note,  
touching   now   the   200nm   of   the   opposite   state.   Can   you   insist   that   until   it  
reaches  the  seabed  (this  is  what  you  call  the  end  of  the  CS).  Does  that  mean  that  
the  right  of  the  coastal  state  over  the  natural  resources  in  the  CS,  supposed  to  
extend  up  to  the  natural  promulgation  of  the  CS  up  to  400nm?  
ICJ  says  NO.  
We  follow  the  EEZ  principle.  IF  the  situation  is  like  that  and  encroaching  now  on  the  
EZ  of  the  other,  you  are  only  up  to  your  200nm.  
§  
o High  Seas  
§ Beyond  200  nm  from  the  baseline  

Thru  the  efforts  of  Room  405.  Special  Thanks:  Bayalas,  Caminade,  Cañada,  Dabon,  Diao,  Gan,  Jacildo,  Nardo,  Lulu,  Parawan,  Rejuso,  Salas,  Balt,  
Verador,  Bristol,  Digaum,  Benin,  Peña,  Plaza,  Sayson,  Susvilla,  Tampus,  Gregorio,  Sanchez  
 
PINAKA  GAHI  NGA  BATCH  2015  
  Page  22  
 
Public  International  Law  Finals  Notes   2013  
 
May  be  used  feely  by  ships  of  all  nations  (including  land-­‐locked  states)  
§
“Freedom  on  the  high  seas”  includes:    
§
• freedom  of  navigation,    
• freedom  of  fishing,    
• freedom  to  lay  submarine  cables  and  pipelines  and    
• freedom  to  fly  over  the  high  seas.    
o These  freedoms  are  however  subject  to  certain  conventions  and  
agreements.  (cf.  “Five  Air  Freedoms”)  
§ Res  communis  
§ But  the  exploitation  must  not  be  useless.  
§ As  a  rule,  ships  in  the  high  seas  are  governed  by    
• (1)international  law;  and    
• (2)  the  flag  of  the  state  
§ The  “flag  of  the  state”  refers  to  the  nationality  of  the  flag,  which  is  determined  
by  the  place  of  registration.  
§ A  ship  can  only  use  one  flag  (unlike  persons)  
§ “Flags  of  Convenience”  –  countries  that  allow  registration  of  a  ship  for  a  fee.  
• Must  be  accompanied  by  authority,  administrative.  
§ Interference  (by  warships)  with  merchant  ships  of  another  states  in  the  High  
Seas:  
• Stateless  ships  (non  registered,  what  about  flags  of  convenience?  can  
argue)  
• Hot  pursuit  
o The  offending  vessel  must  have  the  commenced  the  
commission  of  the  crime  in  the  territorial  waters.  
• Right  of  approach  
• Treaties  
• Piracy  (universality  Theory)  
• Belligerent  Rights  (if  bound  by  the  laws  of  neutrality;  if  in  state  of  war,  
the  belligerent  can  approach  the  vessel  of  the  neutral  state)  The  law  on  
peace,  war,  and  neutrality)  
• Self-­‐Defense  
• Authorized  by  UN  
-­‐ Baseline  (Low  Water  Mark  Method  vs.  Straight  Baseline  Method)  
o Low  Water  Mark  Method  –  for  non  archipelagic  states  
o Straight  Baseline  Method  –  for  archipelagic  states  
o In  the  past,  cannonball  theory,  which  was  3  miles,  the  range  of  a  cannonball.  
o It  was  changed  to  the  12  nautical  mile  rule.  
-­‐ Jurisdiction  of  Municipal  Courts  
o Principles  
§ Nationality  
Thru  the  efforts  of  Room  405.  Special  Thanks:  Bayalas,  Caminade,  Cañada,  Dabon,  Diao,  Gan,  Jacildo,  Nardo,  Lulu,  Parawan,  Rejuso,  Salas,  Balt,  
Verador,  Bristol,  Digaum,  Benin,  Peña,  Plaza,  Sayson,  Susvilla,  Tampus,  Gregorio,  Sanchez  
 
PINAKA  GAHI  NGA  BATCH  2015  
  Page  23  
 
Public  International  Law  Finals  Notes   2013  
 
§ Protective  
§ objective  
-­‐ Air  Space  and  Outer  Space  
o “COMMON  HERITAGE  OF  MANKIND”  
o Applicable  to  the  air  space,  other  space  and  even  the  high  seas,  the  term  means  that  the  
exploration  and  use  of  utilization  of  resources  in  areas  beyond  national  jurisdiction  
“shall  be  the  province  of  all  mankind  and  shall  be  carried  out  for  the  benefit  and  in  the  
interests  of  all  countries,  irrespective  of  their  degree  of  economic  or  scientific  
development”.  

Note:  

-­‐ Product  of  compromises  between  states  


-­‐ Also  a  partial  codification  of  CIL  
-­‐ Lotus  Case  is  already  modified,  

The  case  of  Magallona,  et  al  vs.  Ermita  (PD  1599)  

Research  on  historical,  legal,  factual  issues  in  Sabah  

Take  note  of  the  various  (4)  principles  of  International  Environmental  Law  

(1)  Responsibility  and  Prevention  Principle  

Principle  2.  States  have,  in  accordance  with  the  Charter  of  the  United  Nations  and  the  principles  
of  international  law,  the  sovereign  right  to  exploit  their  own  resources  pursuant  to  their  own  
environmental  and  developmental  policies,  and  the  responsibility  to  ensure  that  activities  within  
their  jurisdiction  or  control  do  not  cause  damage  to  the  environment  of  other  States  or  of  areas  
beyond  the  limits  of  national  jurisdiction.  

(2)  Sustainable  Development.  Use  of  resources/development  of  a  nation  should  be  done  with  
consideration  to  the  environment.  Development  may  occur  or  continue  but  taking  into  consideration  
the  effects.    

Intra-­‐  and  Inter-­‐generational  responsibility  

Principle  3.  The  right  to  development  must  be  fulfilled  so  as  to  equitably  meet  
developmental  and  environmental  needs  of  present  and  future  generations.  

Thru  the  efforts  of  Room  405.  Special  Thanks:  Bayalas,  Caminade,  Cañada,  Dabon,  Diao,  Gan,  Jacildo,  Nardo,  Lulu,  Parawan,  Rejuso,  Salas,  Balt,  
Verador,  Bristol,  Digaum,  Benin,  Peña,  Plaza,  Sayson,  Susvilla,  Tampus,  Gregorio,  Sanchez  
 
PINAKA  GAHI  NGA  BATCH  2015  
  Page  24  
 
Public  International  Law  Finals  Notes   2013  
 
Conservation  

Principle  8.  To  achieve  sustainable  development  and  a  higher  quality  of  life  for  all  
people,  States  should  reduce  and  eliminate  unsustainable  patterns  of  production  and  
consumption  and  promote  appropriate  demographic  policies.  

Integration  

Principle  4.  In  order  to  achieve  sustainable  development,  environmental  protection  shall  
constitute  an  integral  part  of  the  development  process  and  cannot  be  considered  in  
isolation  from  it.  

(3)  Precautionary  principle  

Principle  15.  In  order  to  protect  the  environment,  the  precautionary  approach  shall  be  widely  
applied  by  States  according  to  their  capabilities.  Where  there  are  threats  of  serious  or  
irreversible  damage,  lack  of  full  scientific  certainty  shall  not  be  used  as  a  reason  for  postponing  
cost-­‐effective  measures  to  prevent  environmental  degradation.  

Polluter  Pays  Principle.  Kyoto  Protocol.  Whoever  causes  pollution  or  damage  to  the  environment  shall  
pay  for  its  remediation  or  cleanup.  Same  concept  even  in  civil  law.  

There  is  a  system  on  determining  how  this  should  be  accomplished.  And  when  developing  countries  also  
have  some  commitments.  So  naay  target  for  developed  countries  for  example  on  their  reduction  of  
carbon  emission  because  they  are  deemed  to  be  the  cause,  developed  countries  of  climate  change.  So  
we  have  to  take  a  look  at  these  Conventions  and  the  Kyoto  Protocol  for  this.    

Alright,  we  go  to  Wars.  There  are  two  systems  of  Law  in  the  study  of  the  Law  of  War.  What  is  jus  ad  bello  
and    jus  in  bello?    

Jus  ad  bellum  refers  to  the  set  of  laws  or  rules  governing  the  resort  of  armed  conflict.  This  talks  about  
the  lawfulness  of  wars  meaning  whether  or  not  engaging  in  war  is  legitimate.  And  what  then  comes  into  
your  mind  if  you  are  to  test  the  lawfulness  or  legitimacy  of  engaging  in  war.  When,  as  you  have  already  
learned,  use  of  force  is  prohibited  in  Article  2,  paragraph  4  of  the  United  Nations  Charter.  This  is  a  simple  
legal  system  in  so  far  as  war  in  concerned  because  this  should  only  speak  of  what?  I’m  talking  about  
rules  concerning  legitimacy  of  engaging  in  war.  How  may  a  state  lawfully  engage  in  war  in  other  words.  

Thru  the  efforts  of  Room  405.  Special  Thanks:  Bayalas,  Caminade,  Cañada,  Dabon,  Diao,  Gan,  Jacildo,  Nardo,  Lulu,  Parawan,  Rejuso,  Salas,  Balt,  
Verador,  Bristol,  Digaum,  Benin,  Peña,  Plaza,  Sayson,  Susvilla,  Tampus,  Gregorio,  Sanchez  
 
PINAKA  GAHI  NGA  BATCH  2015  
  Page  25  
 
Public  International  Law  Finals  Notes   2013  
 
You  just  said  it,  self-­‐defense.  We’ll  talk  about  therefore  of  self-­‐defense  as  a  basis  for  the  lawful  exercise  
or  use  of  force.  If  we  talk  about  legitimacy  in  engaging  in  war,  we  only  have  to  talk  about  self-­‐defense  
apart  from  UN  collective  action  as  I  will  show  later  on.    

Now,  the  second  rule  or  system  of  law  or  laws  in  war  is  Jus  in  Bello.  

Jus  in  Bello.  Rules  governing  the  actual  conduct  of  armed  conflict  dealing  with  the  lawful  acts  in  times  of  
war  and  usually  this  is  what  we  call  the  study  of  International  Humanitarian  Law  (IHL).    

Without  sufficient  provocation  State  A  attacks  State  B.  As  a  result,  State  B  retaliated  with  the  same  
amount  of  force  and  that  resulted  to  an  armed  conflict.  Is  International  Humanitarian  Law  applicable  in  
this  case?    

a.  No,  because  State  A  is  guilty  of  aggression  or  acts  of  aggression.    

b.  Yes,  because  there  is  already  an  armed  conflict.  

c.  No,  because  the  war  has  not  been  established  to  claim  protracted  and  widespread.  

d.  None  of  the  above.  

The  study  of  armed  conflict  or  jus  in  bello  does  not  made  relevant  or  consider  relevant  the  lawfulness  of  
war.  Therefore,  the  war  initiated  by  State  A  is  an  unlawful  war  because  it  was  initiated  or  commenced  by  
state  A  without  state  B’s  provocation.  It  was  an  invalid  exercise  of  self-­‐defense,  it  was  therefore  what  an  
act  of  aggression.  So  invalid  to  siya  nga  war  ha?  So  will  IHL  apply?  The  answer  is  yes.  So  whether  the  war  
involved  is  lawful  or  not,  that  is  not  the  concern  of  jus  in  bello,  what  is  important  is  there  is  an  armed  
conflict.  And  whenever  there  is  armed  conflict,  there  are  rules  that  govern  the  conduct  of  war.  

Main  concern  of  Jus  in  Bello,  I  think  you  know  that  there  are  rules  that  should  be  observe  in  the  conduct  
of  war,  we  will  talk  about  them  later.    

Thru  the  efforts  of  Room  405.  Special  Thanks:  Bayalas,  Caminade,  Cañada,  Dabon,  Diao,  Gan,  Jacildo,  Nardo,  Lulu,  Parawan,  Rejuso,  Salas,  Balt,  
Verador,  Bristol,  Digaum,  Benin,  Peña,  Plaza,  Sayson,  Susvilla,  Tampus,  Gregorio,  Sanchez  
 
PINAKA  GAHI  NGA  BATCH  2015  
  Page  26  
 
Public  International  Law  Finals  Notes   2013  
 
Now,  first,  Jus  ad  bellum,  when  to  lawfully  engage  in  war,  first  note  that  the  UN  Charter  as  I’ve  
mentioned  earlier,  prohibits  the  use  of  force  and  threat  to  use  force  and  this  prohibition  on  the  use  of  
force  is  customary  international  law,  as  you  have  already  learned.  

In  what  instances  however,  use  of  force  be  considered  legitimate?  There  are  two  instances.  

One,  without  regard  to  whether  or  not  this  involves  self-­‐defense  when  this  is  the  Collective  decision  of  
the  UN  in  cases  of  threats  of  peace,  breaches  of  peace,  all  acts  of  aggression,  even  as  against  
international  terrorism.  Threats  posed  by  weapons  of  mass  destruction  and  even  on  humanitarian  
grounds  you  will  see  this  also  in  the  UN  charters  especially  in  the  provision  on  creation  of  the  United  
Nations  Security  Council.  Ah  so  sir,  without  regards  to  lawful  self-­‐defense  or  what  as  long  as  it  is  
collective  decision  of  the  UN  then  it  may  be  valid  even  if  it  is  with  the  use  of  force  and  in  fact  the  UN  
should  through  the  security  council  use  of  force.  

The  other  valid  ground  for  the  use  of  force  or  may  be  considered  as  legitimate  is  as  you  have  mentioned  
earlier,  Self-­‐defense.  Self-­‐defense  may  be  individual  or  collective  self-­‐defense.  So  you  go  to  Article  51  on  
the  conditions  under  which  self-­‐defense  may  be  exercised.  As  provided  for  in  Article  51,  it  may  be  
exercised  in  any  state  individually  or  collectively  until  the  Security  Council  has  taken  measures.  In  the  
meantime,  the  state  exercising  this  right  of  self-­‐defense  must  report  the  measures  taken  to  the  Security  
Council  and  as  aside  from  that,  you  should  also  comply  with  customary  international  norm  on  lawfulness  
of  the  use  of  self-­‐defense  when  there  is  the  presence  of  armed  attack  and  there  should  likewise  be  the  
observance  of  the  Principles  of  Proportionality  and  Military  Necessity.  So  these  principles  are  the  
common  principles  both  used  in  jus  ad  bellum  and  in  jus  in  bello  in  engaging  war  and  in  the  conduct  of  
war.  We’ll  talk  about  these  principles  later  on.    

We'll  talk  about  these  principles  later  on.  You  remember  the  case  of  Nicaragua  vs.  US?  Was  the  United  
States  Justified  in  invoking  or  rather  in  making  those  attacks  on  the  basis  that  it  exercised  collective  self-­‐
defense  in  El  Salvador  against  Nicaragua?  So  what  did  Nicaragua  do  to  the  Rebels  of  El  Salvador?  
Nicaragua  sent  weapons,  not  troops.  The  SCJ  said  that  this  does  not  constitute  armed  attack.  It  would  
have  been  different  if  the  Nicaraguan  soldiers  or  Nicaragua  sent  troops  to  El  Salvador.  And  that  would  
now  constitute  an  armed  attack.  So  the  sending  of  weapons,  under  the  Nicaragua  principle,  may  not  be  
considered  as  constitutive  of  armed  attack.  So  you  go  back  to  Nicaragua  in  the  concept  of  self-­‐defense  
and  the  concept  of  armed  attack.  

So  in  the  matter  of  self-­‐defense  we  note  the  following  principles:  

1. Inherent  in  every  state  –  It  is  recognized  by  Article  51  of  the  UN  charter.  But  then  again,  you  
Thru  the  efforts  of  Room  405.  Special  Thanks:  Bayalas,  Caminade,  Cañada,  Dabon,  Diao,  Gan,  Jacildo,  Nardo,  Lulu,  Parawan,  Rejuso,  Salas,  Balt,  
Verador,  Bristol,  Digaum,  Benin,  Peña,  Plaza,  Sayson,  Susvilla,  Tampus,  Gregorio,  Sanchez  
 
PINAKA  GAHI  NGA  BATCH  2015  
  Page  27  
 
Public  International  Law  Finals  Notes   2013  
 
look  at  the  definition  of  Article  51.  Does  it  allow  preventive  or  what  we  call  anticipatory  self-­‐
defense?  If  it  does  not,  should  it  be  interpreted  as  to  include  preventive  or  anticipatory  self-­‐
defense?  North  Korea  of  course  has  been  very  vocal  in  its  threat  to  use  nuclear  weapons  against  
South  Korea.  And  South  Korea  has  never  been  scared  of  North  Korea  because  it  said  that  it  also  
has  a  weapon  that  it  can  use  to  prevent  even  an  initial  attack  against  its  people.  May  South  
Korea,  for  example,  attack  and  destroy  nuclear  weapon  plans  or  wherever  these  nuclear  
weapons  are  manufactured  in  North  Korea  to  prevent  an  actual  use  of  the  nuclear  weapons  and  
other  weapons  of  mass  destruction.  Do  you  think  it  is  a  valid  act  on  the  part  of  South  Korea  if  
they  will  do  so?  Is  it  the  same  armed  attack  in  the  right  to  self-­‐defense  for  individuals  that  there  
should  be  an  unlawful  aggression  and  that  it  should  be  imminent?  Should  anticipatory  self-­‐
defense  be  allowed?  That's  a  modern  concern  also.  There  could  be  be  a  possibility  of  mistake  on  
the  part  of  the  state  exercising  anticipatory  self-­‐defense.  There  could  also  be  a  possibility  of  
using  it  in  the  pretext  of  making  an  attack.  That  is  the  most  dangerous  for  how  would  you  know  
that  indeed  there  is  that  basis  for  preventive  or  anticipatory  self-­‐defense.  If  you  look  at  the  
definition  in  Article  51,  it  should  be  imminent.  It  does  not  support  preventive  or  anticipatory  
self-­‐defense.  But  there  are  states  that  would  rather  invoke  and  would  favor  preventive  or  
anticipatory  self-­‐defense.  As  I  have  said,  the  requirement  of  imminence  and  armed  attack  which  
was  discussed  in  the  case  of  Nicaragua  vs.  US.  
2. Self-­‐defense  pertains  to  territory  –  as  I  have  mentioned  earlier,  use  of  force  in  acquiring  territory  
is  prohibited.  So  use  of  force  in  order  to  enforce  a  claim  over  territory  is  not  sanctioned  by  
International  Law.  The  government  did  not  use  armed  force  in  Sabah  because  it  was  the  
followers  of  Kiram  that  attacked.  
3. Did  the  followers  of  Kiram  anticipate  such  actions  on  the  part  of  Malaysia  or  they  just  did  it  
supposedly  to  just  have  a  leverage  or  some  sort  of  illegitimate  demand.  So,  use  of  force  to  
enforce  a  claim  over  a  territory  is  not  allowed.  

4.  

5. Even  if  a  territory  is  under  a  particular  claim  of  a  state  yet  the  use  of  self  defense  because  for  
one  it  is  still  a  claim  to  a  territory  is  or  that  you  cannot  say  that  it  is  not  in  fact  a  use  of  self  
defense  (wa  ko  kasabot)  and  besides  the  method  by  which  we  settle  territorial  dispute  is  
through  peaceful  means  as  pronounced  in  the  1970  General  Assembly  Declaration.  Okay,  so  
that’s  self-­‐defense,  armed  attack,  principle  of  proportionality,  military  necessity,  imminence.    

6.  

7. Now,  we  go  to  Jus  In  Bello  (ONLY  BELLO  TOUCHES  MY  SKIN).  The  law  of  armed  conflict  pero  you  
take  note  of  the  following  matters  when  we  talk  about  Jus  In  Bello.  What  is  the  meaning  of  
armed  conflict  to  which  International  Humanitarian  Law  (IHL)  applies?  Here,  you  also  talk  about  
the  principle  of  complementarity  in  IHL.  Remember  that  the  International  Criminal  Court  was  
created  in  order  to  punish  certain  crimes  enumerated  in  the  Rome  Statute  so  for  this  purpose  
you  have  to  read  the  Rome  Statute.  You  don’t  need  to  read  the  elements  of  each  crime  annexed  
to  the  Rome  Statute.  Just  read  the  Rome  Statute  codal  provisions.  Since  the  creation  of  an  
International  Criminal  Court  is,  as  observed  by  many,  a  derogation  of  sovereignty  of  states  to  
punish  crimes  committed  within  their  territories  then  before  the  International  Criminal  Court  

Thru  the  efforts  of  Room  405.  Special  Thanks:  Bayalas,  Caminade,  Cañada,  Dabon,  Diao,  Gan,  Jacildo,  Nardo,  Lulu,  Parawan,  Rejuso,  Salas,  Balt,  
Verador,  Bristol,  Digaum,  Benin,  Peña,  Plaza,  Sayson,  Susvilla,  Tampus,  Gregorio,  Sanchez  
 
PINAKA  GAHI  NGA  BATCH  2015  
  Page  28  
 
Public  International  Law  Finals  Notes   2013  
 
created  by  the  Rome  Statute  may  take  cognizance  before  the  case  it  must  presume  that  the  
domestic  courts  or  that  the  government  fails  to  punish  the  perpetrators  of  International  Crimes  
so  that  in  effect,  for  example,  that  it  can  be  shown  that  the  local  courts  had  already  initiated  the  
prosecution  of  the  crimes  committed  by  individuals  and  by  the  way  the  subjects  of  international  
criminal  law  are  actually  individuals  and  not  states  although  in  some  respect  there  maybe  State  
responsibility  but  practically  the  subjects  of  international  criminal  law  are  individuals  not  States.  
That  is  the  principle  of  complementarity  that  the  Rome  Statute  or  the  ICC  exercises  jurisdiction  
only  as  complementary  to  national  or  domestic  jurisdiction  and  as  much  as  possible  it  must  yield  
to  an  on-­‐going  investigation  or  prosecution  of  crimes  committed  within  a  territory  of  a  State.  It  
is  only  when  it  can  be  shown  that  a  State  fails  or  refuses  to  even  initiate  investigations  or  
prosecute  perpetrators  that  the  ICC  can  exercise  jurisdiction.  You  will  also  see  in  the  Rome  
Statute  the  principle  of  complementarity.  So  this  principle  is  to  strike  a  balance  between  the  
sovereignty  of  a  State  and  also  the  need  to  punish  International  crimes  as  an  erga  omnes  norm  
of  States.  And  also,  there  is  a  specific  definition  of  armed  conflict  as  you  will  see  later  on  and  the  
threshold  for  the  existence  of  armed  conflict  is  high.  So  there  are  in  fact  probably  called  “armed  
conflict”  but  will  not  compel  the  ICC  to  take  jurisdiction  of  that  “armed  conflict”  if  the  threshold  
have  not  been  met.  So  therefore  which  court  will  acquire  jurisdiction  over  the  atrocities?  of  
course  the  domestic  courts.  In  other  words,  this  is  highly  exceptional  that  an  ICC  not  a  local  
court  will  exercise  jurisdiction  on  certain  crimes.  So  you  need  to  know  what  is  an  armed  conflict  
and  if  there  is  no  armed  conflict  like  what  is  referred  to  as  internal  disturbance  in  a  state.  So,  
what  is  the  effect  if  an  ICC  will  not  acquire  jurisdiction    because  IHL  is  not  applicable  to  a  
situation  because  it  cannot  be  characterized  as  an  armed  conflict  under  the  Rome  Statute?  The  
domestic  courts  will  have  jurisdiction  over  the  case.  In  an  ICC,  usually  there  are  two  stages  in  the  
prosecution  of  an  accused.  One  is  the  stage  dealing  with  procedure  and  the  other  one  is  the  
stage  dealing  with  the  merits  of  the  case.  So  that  in  the  first  stage  of  the  prosecution  matters  
concerning  jurisdiction  will  certainly  be  a  common  issue  that  will  be  discussed  during  the  
procedural  stage  because  it  is  in  here  that  the  parties  will    have  to  establish  whether  or  not  
there  is  an  armed  conflict  so  that  the  ICC  can  exercise  jurisdiction.  For  as  long  as  it  can  be  
established  that  there  is  an  armed  conflict  then  they  will  proceed  in  the  deliberation  on  whether  
or  not    the  conflict  is  international  or  not  international  armed  conflict.  So,  after  that  you  take  
note  of  the  fundamental  principles  that  govern  the  conduct  of  war,  military  necessity  in  relation  
to  collateral  damage,  principle  of  proportionality,  principle  of  distinction  and  then  individual  
responsibility.    

8.  

9. What  is  the  objective  of  IHL?  States  have  seen  the  effects  of  war  and  they  saw  that  the  effects  
are  not  so  much  on  the  combatants  but  it  is  much  on  the  non-­‐combatants  that  paved  the  way  to  
the  establishment  of  International  Humanitarian  law  as  enshrined  in  the  1949  Geneva  
Conventions.  

Thru  the  efforts  of  Room  405.  Special  Thanks:  Bayalas,  Caminade,  Cañada,  Dabon,  Diao,  Gan,  Jacildo,  Nardo,  Lulu,  Parawan,  Rejuso,  Salas,  Balt,  
Verador,  Bristol,  Digaum,  Benin,  Peña,  Plaza,  Sayson,  Susvilla,  Tampus,  Gregorio,  Sanchez  
 
PINAKA  GAHI  NGA  BATCH  2015  
  Page  29  
 
Public  International  Law  Finals  Notes   2013  
 
The  effects  are  not  so  much  on  the  combatants.  But  it  is  much  on  the  non-­‐combatants  that  paved  the  
way   to   the   establishment   of   the   International   Humanitarian   law   as   enshrined   in   the   1949   Geneva  
Conventions.  Added  to  it,  of  course,  are  the  two  additional  protocols  which  we’ll  talk  about  later  on.  So  
that   is   the   objective   of   International   Humanitarian   Law.   That’s   why   it’s   called   humanitarian,   that   is   to  
“humanize”  the  effects  of  war,  minimize  at  least  casualties  and  adverse  effects  on  civilians  and  civilian  
objects.  It  covers  international  or  non-­‐international  armed  conflict.  IHL  is  not  applicable  if  the  situation  is  
only  characterized  as  a  mere  internal  disturbance.    

So   what   is   internal   criminal   law   in   relation   to   international   humanitarian   law?   It   is   a   body   of  


international  law  that  prohibits  certain  categories  of  conduct  viewed  as  serious  atrocities  and  to  make  
the   perpetrators   of   such   conducts,   individuals,   criminally   accountable.   It   defines   crimes,   elements   and  
individual  criminal  responsibility.    

Where   will   you   see   this?   You   may   go   to   the   Rome   Statute   creating   the   ICC.   You   have   there   the  
definitions  of  genocide,  war  crimes,  wars  against  humanity  and  acts  of  aggression.  Acts  of  aggression  are  
yet   to   be   defined   though   or   implemented   but   what   can   be   enforced   right   now   under   the   Hague  
convention   will   be   crimes   involving   genocide,   war   crimes,   and   crimes   against   humanity.   In   the   Rome  
Statute,  there  are  three  conditions  under  which  a  perpetrator  may  commit  a  specific  crime.  So  please  
take  a  look  at  these  conditions.    

Common  condition  will  be,  number  one,  if  it  is  crime  against  humanity,  there  is  a  requirement  that  the  
attack,  because  there  are  several  crimes  there  noh,  but  all  these  attacks  must  have  been  made  in  such  a  
manner   that   it   may   constitute   either   a   widespread   attack   or   a   systematic   attack.   So,   each   crime   actually  
presupposes  a  certain  condition.  

If   you   look   at   the   Rome   Statute,   before   it   lists   down   a   particular   section,   before   it   lists   down   specific  
crimes,   for   example   crimes   against   humanity:   crimes   against   humanity   of,   let’s   say   taking   hostages,  
crimes   against   humanity   of   possible   transfer   of   civilian   population,   or   crimes   against   humanity   of  
deportation  for  example.  Nakalista  na  xa  class.  The  beginning  paragraph  provides  for  common  elements.  
And  you  will  see  there  that  the  attack  must  be  widespread  or  systematic.    

Article  7,  Rome  Statute  


For   the   purpose   of   this   Statute,   "crime   against   humanity"   means   any   of   the   following   acts   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,  racial,  national,  
ethnic,   cultural,   religious,   gender   as   defined   in   paragraph   3,   or   other   grounds   that   are  
universally   recognized   as   impermissible   under   international   law,   in   connection   with   any   act  
referred  to  in  this  paragraph  or  any  crime  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Court;  

Thru  the  efforts  of  Room  405.  Special  Thanks:  Bayalas,  Caminade,  Cañada,  Dabon,  Diao,  Gan,  Jacildo,  Nardo,  Lulu,  Parawan,  Rejuso,  Salas,  Balt,  
Verador,  Bristol,  Digaum,  Benin,  Peña,  Plaza,  Sayson,  Susvilla,  Tampus,  Gregorio,  Sanchez  
 
PINAKA  GAHI  NGA  BATCH  2015  
  Page  30  
 
Public  International  Law  Finals  Notes   2013  
 
(i)          Enforced  disappearance  of  persons;  
(j)          The  crime  of  apartheid;  
(k)           Other   inhumane   acts   of   a   similar   character   intentionally   causing   great   suffering,   or  
serious  injury  to  body  or  to  mental  or  physical  health.  
 

  So,   that’s   the   common   element   there.   The   attack   must   be   widespread   and   systematic   and  
directed  against  a  civilian  population,  with  the  knowledge  of  such  element  as  being  a  civilian  population.    

  War  crimes  also  usually  are  committed  in  an  international  armed  conflict.  So,  there  are  crimes  
which  can  only  be  committed  when  there  is  an  international  armed  conflict.  And  there  are  also  crimes  
which   can   be   committed   only   when   there   is   an   internal   armed   conflict.   Armed   conflict   is   always   an  
element   in   the   application   of   IHL.   There   is   a   distinction   between   internal   armed   conflict   and   mere  
internal  disturbance.  Usually,  examples  ani  class,  riots.    

The   documents   that   you   need   to   consider   in   studying   IHL,   the   4   Geneva   Conventions   of   1949  
and  additional  protocols.  These  are  the  4  Geneva  Conventions:  

I. Amelioration  of  the  Condition  of  the  Wounded  and  Sick  Armed  Forces  
II. Amelioration  of  the  Condition  of  Wounded,  Sick  and  Shipwreck  Members  of  
III. Treatment  of  prisoners  of  war  
IV. Protection  of  civilian  persons  in  time  of  War  
 
All  these  4  Geneva  Conventions  has  what  is  known  as  common  Article  3.  Take  note  of  common  
article  3  because  most  of  these  govern  international  armed  conflict  but  common  article  3  is  applicable  to  
non-­‐international  armed  conflict.  So  when  you  study  the  4  Geneva  Conventions,  you’re  trying  to  look  at  
Article  3  in  each  one  and  see  how  relevant  is  what  we  call  in  IHL  as  the  common  article  3.  
 
And  these  are  the  additional  protocols.  You  know  of  course  the  meaning  of  a  protocol.  
o AP  I  of  1977  –  Protection    of  Victims  of  International  Armed  Conflicts  
o AP  II  of  1977  –  Protection  of  Victims  of  Non-­‐international  Armed  Conflicts  
o AP  III  of  2005  -­‐    Adoption  of  an  Additional  Distinctive  Emblem  
 
It’s  just  about  the  emblem  when  we  talk  about  AP  III  in  2005.    
 
If  there  is  no  armed  conflict,  no  IHL.    
 
You  know  one  problem  that  resulted  in  the  establishment  of  IHL  after  we  have  established  also  
human  rights  law  is  the  distinction  and  the  delineation  between  human  rights  law  and  IHL.    
 
 

 
 
...  one  problem  that  resulted  from  the  establishment  of  international  humanitarian  law  or  IHL  after  we  
have  established  also  human  rights  law  is  the  distinction  and  the  delineation  between  human  rights  law  
and  international  humanitarian  law  (IHL).    
 

Thru  the  efforts  of  Room  405.  Special  Thanks:  Bayalas,  Caminade,  Cañada,  Dabon,  Diao,  Gan,  Jacildo,  Nardo,  Lulu,  Parawan,  Rejuso,  Salas,  Balt,  
Verador,  Bristol,  Digaum,  Benin,  Peña,  Plaza,  Sayson,  Susvilla,  Tampus,  Gregorio,  Sanchez  
 
PINAKA  GAHI  NGA  BATCH  2015  
  Page  31  
 
Public  International  Law  Finals  Notes   2013  
 
How  do  you  distinguish  one  from  the  other?  Isn't  killing  proscribed  by  human  rights  law,  because  under  
the  Universal  Declaration  on  Human  Rights  (UDHR),  each  individual  has  right  to  life  such  that  life  of  an  
individual  as  mandated  by  UDHR  shall  not  be  arbitrarily  taken.  So  killing  is  a  violation  of  human  rights  
law.  Yes?  When  there  is  war,  are  you  not  allowed  to  kill?  
Classmate:  I  think  sir  the  question  would  be,  who  are  you  allowed  to  kill?  
Sir:  Pwede.  Ako  i-­‐specify,  are  you  allowed  to  kill  civilians?  
Classmates:  No.  
Classmate:  Yes.  
(laughter)  
Sir:  Barugi  na.  
(laughter)  
 
Sir:  Actually  correct  na.  There  may  be  instances  where  killing  of  civilians  will  not  be  a  violation  of  IHL.  
When  for  example  civilians  lose  their  protective  status  when  they  directly  participate  in  hostilities.  And  
it's  very  common  for  some  civilians  to  take  up  arms  as  well  and  participate  directly  in  hostilities.  So  while  
they're  civilians  because  they  are  not  part  of  the  regular  armed  force,  they  may  actually  be  a  lawful  
target  of  attack.  They  are  civilians,  but  it  is  only  because  they  lose  their  protective  status  when  they  
directly  participate  in  hostilities.  
 
The  more  safer  rule  would  be  killing  of  course  will  be  allowed  as  long  as  it  does  not  violate  basic  
principles  of  IHL.  Talking  about  military  necessity,  because  as  I  have  shown  earlier,  we  have  this  principle  
of  collateral  damage.  For  as  long  as  the  attack  is  justified  under  the  principle  of  military  necessity  and  
with  due  observance  of  2  other  principles  on  proportionality  and  principle  of  distinction,  then  any  death  
of  civilian  as  a  result  of  attack  may  be  justified  under  the  principle  of  military  necessity.  That's  another  
situation  where  death  of  civilian  may  not  actually  be  punishable.    
 
Take  for  example  an  attack  on  a  lawful  military  target.  Let's  say  a  military  base  of  the  opponent.  Is  that  a  
lawful  target?  Of  course.  Because  it  is  a  military  object.  It  can  be  a  lawful  subject  of  attack  in  times  of  
armed  conflict.  There  are,  let's  say  10,000  soldiers  in  that  particular  military  station  for  example.  One  
day  for  example,  Jollibee  delivers  10,000  chicken  joy  and  employing  1,000  crew  of  Jollibee.  They  are  
there  at  the  time  that  the  attack  was  made.  How  do  you  call  the  deaths  of  the  crew  of  Jollibee?  And  the  
destruction  of  Jollibee  vehicles?  Collateral  damage.  So  it's  not  really  prohibited  to  make  an  attack  that'll  
result  to  deaths  of  civilians.  
 
So  now,  talking  about  that  therefore,  there  is  an  ongoing  difficulty  in  determining  the  application  of  
human  rights  law  and  at  the  same  time  applying  the  IHL.  There  is  a  theory  that  says  in  time  of  armed  
conflict,  it  is  an  entirely  new  set  of  laws  that  should  apply.  In  times  of  armed  conflict,  we  follow  IHL  and  
no  other  laws.  Therefore,  human  rights  law  should  step  aside.  Because  there  are  provisions  also  in  IHL  
that  take  care  of  some  human  rights  provisions.  Torture  for  example,  that  is  also  prohibited.  But  it's  not  
that  because  there  is  torture  during  armed  conflict  that  human  rights  law  may  be  applied  but  it  may  be  
the  case  that  the  specific  provisions  in  IHL  that  should  be  applied  rather  than  the  human  rights  law.  
Because  basically  human  rights  law,  you  apply  that  in  times  of  peace,  and  then  you  apply  IHL  in  times  of  
war.  But  that  distinction  is  not  yet  acceptable  in  international  law.  Even  until  now  there  is  difficulty  in  
determining  when  human  rights  law  may  be  applied  and  when  it  may  not  be  applied.  Because  certainly,  
whenever  there  is  armed  conflict,  you  apply  IHL.  The  issue  now  is  whether  you  can  still  talk  about  
human  rights  law  when  there  is  already  IHL?  
 

Thru  the  efforts  of  Room  405.  Special  Thanks:  Bayalas,  Caminade,  Cañada,  Dabon,  Diao,  Gan,  Jacildo,  Nardo,  Lulu,  Parawan,  Rejuso,  Salas,  Balt,  
Verador,  Bristol,  Digaum,  Benin,  Peña,  Plaza,  Sayson,  Susvilla,  Tampus,  Gregorio,  Sanchez  
 
PINAKA  GAHI  NGA  BATCH  2015  
  Page  32  
 
Public  International  Law  Finals  Notes   2013  
 
Sir,  ayaw  mi  taga-­‐e  og  problem.  Taga-­‐e  mi'g  solution.  (laughter).  I'm  just  raising  that  up.  
 
So  we  have  the  2  kinds  of  armed  conflict:  international  armed  conflict  and  non-­‐international  armed  
conflict.  
 
But  first,  what  is  an  armed  conflict?  There  is  armed  conflict  when  there  is  a  resort  to...  3  kinds  ni,  in  
other  words:  
1.Armed  force  between  states  (state  A  v.  state  B)  
2.or  protracted  armed  violence  between  governmental  authority  and  organized  armed  groups,  second  
kind.  (Armed  Forces  of  the  Philippines  v.  organized  armed  group  in  the  territory)  
3.or  between  such  groups  within  state.  [minority  (armed  group)  for  example  v.  majority  armed  group,  it  
can  happen.  And  in  fact  in  many  cases  in  every  states  naa  may  minority  and  now  they  want  to  insist  
independence;  very  common  in  secessionist  movements.]  
 
But  take  not,  that  while  there  are  3  kinds  of  armed  conflict,  one  is  a  conflict  between  states-­‐  this  one  
there  is  no  element  of  protracted  armed  violence.  The  element  of  protracted  armed  violence  is  
applicable  only  when  it  is  between  governmental  authority  and  armed  group  or  between  2  organized  
armed  groups.  Because  kung  ang  armed  conflict  is  between  states,  sigurado  na  man  gud  na  
international.  You  don't  need  a  long  period  of  time,  the  requirement  na  it  should  be  protracted,  
repeated  for  a  long  period  of  time  before  IHL  can  be  applied.  It  can  be  applied  right  away.  But  if  it  is  just  
occurring  within  a  particular  state,  IHL,  with  due  deference  to  the  sovereignty  of  that  state  can  only  
come  in  whenever  there  is  evidence  that  the  conflict  is  protracted.  Meaning,  there  is  a  manifestation  of  
the  failure  of  the  internal  system  to  resolve  that  kind  of  armed  conflict.  Mao  na  naa  gyud  dapat  
protracted  armed  violence.  
 
So  let’s  talk  about  international  armed  conflict.    
 
 

 
 

There  are  only  two  kinds  of  armed  conflict:  


☀  International  Armed  Conflict-­‐  includes  internationalized  armed  conflict.    
-­‐  includes  wars  of  national  liberation-­‐  unique  because  there  is  no  foreign  element  involved  but  only  
because  the  group  is  asserting  its  right  to  self-­‐determination  which  is  a  customary  international  norm  or  
even  jus  cogens  then  the  conflict  should  be  governed  by  IHL.    
Internal  armed  conflict  is  governed  by  Geneva  conventions  and  additional  protocol  I  
 
☀  Non-­‐international  armed  conflict-­‐  if  armed  conflict  is  restricted  to  the  territory  of  a  single  state  either  
by  (1)  regular  armed  forces  fighting  against  armed  groups,  (2)  armed  groups  fighting  against  each  other.  
 
 Elements:    
     >  armed  violence  must  be  protracted  
Thru  the  efforts  of  Room  405.  Special  Thanks:  Bayalas,  Caminade,  Cañada,  Dabon,  Diao,  Gan,  Jacildo,  Nardo,  Lulu,  Parawan,  Rejuso,  Salas,  Balt,  
Verador,  Bristol,  Digaum,  Benin,  Peña,  Plaza,  Sayson,  Susvilla,  Tampus,  Gregorio,  Sanchez  
 
PINAKA  GAHI  NGA  BATCH  2015  
  Page  33  
 
Public  International  Law  Finals  Notes   2013  
 
     >  engaged  in  by  an  organized  group  
 
So  riots  are  considered  internal  disturbances.  
 
Governed  by  Common  Article  3  of  the  4  Geneva  Conventions  and  Additional  Protocol  II  
 
Non-­‐international  Internal  Armed  Conflict  vs.  Internal  Disturbance    
 
Tests:  
1.  Intensity  of  the  Conflict  (Protracted)  -­‐  consider  the  seriousness  of  the  attacks,  increase  in  armed  
clashes,  spread  of  clashes  over  territory  and  over  a  period  of  time,  etc.  
 
2.  Organization  of  the  Parties  (Organized  Armed  Groups)-­‐  headquarters,  zones  of  operations,  ability  to  
procure  and  transport  arms,  etc.    
 
 
Are  there  thresholds  on  this  respect?  
 
☀  Protracted  
-­‐  if  the  conflict  for  example  lasted  for  two  weeks,  protracted?    
 
Based  on  the  decisions  of  ad  hoc  tribunals,  (before  ICC,  we  created  ad  hoc  tribunals  to  punish  
international  crimes  ex.  International  criminal  tribunal  of  the  former  Yugoslavia  (ICTY),  International  
criminal  tribunal  of  Rwanda  (ICTR)-­‐-­‐  they  were  dissolved  after  the  prosecution  of  the  accused  peersons  
in  the  atrocities  committed  in  the  former  Yugoslavia  and  Rwanda,  after  that,  no  more  na,  that's  why  ICC  
was  created)    
 
-­‐  ICTY  and  ICTR  cases  have  been  discussing  certain  threshold  but  without  specificity.  It  depends  on  the  
circumstances.  Usually  if  it  lasted  for  months  and  years  then  it  is  enough  evidence  of  the  protracted  
element  of  the  armed  conflict.    
 
-­‐  protracted  requirement,  intensity  of  the  conflict  over  a  period  of  time  (no  specific  number)  
 
 
☀  Organized  group  
-­‐  look  into  the  specific  manifestations  of  the  group  as  organized  
-­‐  ex.  Having  established  headquarters.  There  are  zones  of  operations.  Ability  to  procure  and  transport  
arms.  Structure  of  the  organization  (so  someone  is  considered  a  leader,  others  considered  subordinates  
and  they  have  exercised  such  principle  of  superior  and  inferior  relationship)    
 
If  not  organized,  IHL  does  not  apply.  It  means  that  the  domestic  law  will  have  jurisdiction.  It  becomes  

Thru  the  efforts  of  Room  405.  Special  Thanks:  Bayalas,  Caminade,  Cañada,  Dabon,  Diao,  Gan,  Jacildo,  Nardo,  Lulu,  Parawan,  Rejuso,  Salas,  Balt,  
Verador,  Bristol,  Digaum,  Benin,  Peña,  Plaza,  Sayson,  Susvilla,  Tampus,  Gregorio,  Sanchez  
 
PINAKA  GAHI  NGA  BATCH  2015  
  Page  34  
 
Public  International  Law  Finals  Notes   2013  
 
the  responsibility  of  that  government  where  the  conflict  is  occurring  to  prevent  or  prosecute  the  
perpetrators  but  not  the  ICC.  
 
IHL's  objective  is  to  humanize  the  effects  of  war.  So  the  primary  objective  of  IHL  is  the  protection  of:  
1)  civilian-­‐  a  person  who  does  not  belong  to  the  armed  force  and  therefore  is  not  a  combatant.    
 
However  if  a  civilian  takes  part  directly  in  hostilities  then  he  may  lose  his  status  as  a  civilian.  The  difficult  
question  in  IHL  is  what  would  be  the  extent  of  participation  that  should  be  considered  as  direct  
participation  in  hostilities.  Medical  support,  for  example,  is  that  direct  participation?  Or  should  it    refer  
also  to  the  use  of  the  arms  as  against  the  other  group?    
 
2)  civilian  objects-­‐objects  which  are  not  military  objectives.  
 
Military  object  is  that  which  by  its  nature,  location,  purpose  or  use  make  effective  contribution  to  
military  advantage.  A  bridge,  for  example,  is  that  a  military  object?  Can  it  be  subject  of  an  attack?  
Gasoline  station?  Church?  Temples?  Wala,  noh?  IHL  is  not  listing  down  the  military  objects  because  it  all  
depends  on  the  nature,  location,  purpose  or  use  so  that  for  example,  a  temple  or  church  per  se  is  not  a  
military  object  but  certainly  in  the  course  of  war  the  opponents  for  example  found  shelter  in  the  church  
or  in  a  temple  and  under  the  circumstances  killing  them  even  if  it  would  result  to  the  destruction  
probably  partly  only  of  the  temple,  then  there  is  no  violation.    
What  is  an  object  of  an  attack  in  any  form?  To  win!  So  if  it  contributes  to  military  advantage  then  the  
object  is  considered  military  object.    
 
Combatants  are  precluded  from  making  as  targets  the  civilians  and  civilian  objects.    
 
This  practically  embodies  the  Principle  of  Distinction.  
 
Principle  of  Distinction  (IHL):  Combatants  must  at  all  times  distinguish  between  civilian,  civilian  objects  
and  military  targets.  
 
Principle  of  Precautionary  Measures  
 
 
 
Only  military  objects  can  be  the  subject  of  attack.  

Military   Object   –   is   that   which   by   its   nature,   location,   purpose   or   use   make   effective   contribution   to  
military  action  and  advantage.    

Thru  the  efforts  of  Room  405.  Special  Thanks:  Bayalas,  Caminade,  Cañada,  Dabon,  Diao,  Gan,  Jacildo,  Nardo,  Lulu,  Parawan,  Rejuso,  Salas,  Balt,  
Verador,  Bristol,  Digaum,  Benin,  Peña,  Plaza,  Sayson,  Susvilla,  Tampus,  Gregorio,  Sanchez  
 
PINAKA  GAHI  NGA  BATCH  2015  
  Page  35  
 
Public  International  Law  Finals  Notes   2013  
 
Ex:   Bridge,   Gasoline   Stations,   Church,   Temples   –   These   are   not   military   objects   per   se.   But   it   can   be   a  
Military   Object   if   in   the   course   of   war,   the   opponents,   for   example,   found   shelter   in   a   church   or   in   a  
temple.  Under  the  circumstances,  killing  them,  even  if  it  will  result  to  the  destruction,  probably  partly  
only   of   the   temple   (because   there   is   also   the   Principle   of   Proportionality),   then   there   is   NO   violation.  
Even  if  a  portion  of  the  temple  may  be  destroyed  if  only  to  accomplish  Military  action  and  advantage.  

*IHL  is  not  listing  down  the  objects  that  are  considered  Military  Objects  because  it  all  depends  on  the  
nature,  location,  purpose  and  use.  

What  is  the  Objective  of  an  attack?  The  objective  is  to  win.  Korek?  So  if  this  contributes  effectively  to  
military  advatange  then  the  object  may  actually  be  considered  as  a  Military  Object.  

Military  Necessity  

Attacks  must  be  limited  strictly  to  military  objectives  and  whose  total  or  partial  destruction,  capture  or  
neutralization  offers  a  definite  military  advantage.  

Military  advantage  -­‐  simply  means  effort  to  win  the  battle/war.    

Principle  of  Proportionality    

Corollary   to   the   Principle   of   Military   Necessity.   You   can   attack   military   objects   but   you   observe   the  
Principle  of  Proportionality  and  you  know  what  that  means.  The  group/armed  force  must  only  use  such  
amount  of  weapon/kind  of  weapon  that  is  necessary  to  accomplish  military  objective.  For  example,  the  
opponents  are  armed  with  just  short  firearms  like  handguns  it  may  not  be  proportional  to  use  missile  
against   them.   The   use   of   weapons   of   mass   destruction   may   be   considered   a   violation   of   the   principle   of  
proportionality.  Present  issue  now  is,  the  use  of  what  we  call  Cluster  Munitions.  

*Cluster  Munition  -­‐  a  form  of  air-­‐dropped  or  ground-­‐launched  explosive  weapon  that  releases  or  ejects  
smaller  submunitions.  

Kita  mo  sa  Ironman,  katong  part  2?  Guided  missiles  bah.  Kanang,  usa  lang  ka  missile  nya  mo  split  into  
submissiles.  Weapon  of  Mass  Destruction.  On-­‐going  pa  ang  debate  ana  class.  In  fact,  we  mooted  on  that,  
I   think   3   years   or   2   years   ago   about   the   Principles   that   should   govern   regarding   Cluster   Munitions.   Naay  
may  ni  argue  nga  dili  mana  siya  violation  of  the  doctrine  of  proportionality  because  Guided  man.  But  it’s  
a  lot  complicated  though.  But  the  basic  idea  of  Proportionality  refers  to  the  KIND  of  weapon  used  and  
the  EXTENT/EFFECTS  of  the  attack.  

Principle  of  Distinction  

At  all  times,  combatants  must  distinguish  between  civilians  and  military  objects.  

Crimes  punished  by  ICC  

Thru  the  efforts  of  Room  405.  Special  Thanks:  Bayalas,  Caminade,  Cañada,  Dabon,  Diao,  Gan,  Jacildo,  Nardo,  Lulu,  Parawan,  Rejuso,  Salas,  Balt,  
Verador,  Bristol,  Digaum,  Benin,  Peña,  Plaza,  Sayson,  Susvilla,  Tampus,  Gregorio,  Sanchez  
 
PINAKA  GAHI  NGA  BATCH  2015  
  Page  36  
 
Public  International  Law  Finals  Notes   2013  
 
1. Genocide  
2. Crimes  against  Humanity  
3. War  Crimes    
4. Crimes  of  Aggression  
 
*Found  in  the  Rome  Statute;  read  the  specific  definitions.  
 
This   is   International   Criminal   Law   and   there   are   also   principles   in   domestic   criminal   law   that   are  
also  applicable.  The  usual  requirements  on  Mens  Rea  and  Actus  Rios  for  example  are  observed  
in  International  Criminal  Law  and  that  is  relevant  as  far  as  Genocide  is  concerned.  WON  every  
killing  of  a  group  will  constitute  Genocide,  maybe  it  is  just  extermination  or  “Marder”  (Murder.  
Hehe)  instead  of  Genocide.  
 
*Do  not  ever  think  that  every  killing  of  a  group  is  considered  Genocide.  
 
Article  6  (ROME  STATUTE)  
Genocide  

                       For  the  purpose  of  this  Statute,  "genocide"  means  any  of  the  following  acts  committed  with  intent  
to  destroy,  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.    

• Limited  ang  genocide  to  those  groups  mentioned.    


• “As   such”   is   important   because   that   is   where   you   have   to   look   into   the   Mens   Rea   of   the  
perpetrators.  Were  they  killed  because  of  their  being  a  race?  Or  their  being  a  religious  
group?  Or  for  some  other  purpose?  
• Know  and  understand  the  elements  of  the  crimes  under  the  Rome  Statute.  
• Never  mind  Crimes  of  Aggression  

Thru  the  efforts  of  Room  405.  Special  Thanks:  Bayalas,  Caminade,  Cañada,  Dabon,  Diao,  Gan,  Jacildo,  Nardo,  Lulu,  Parawan,  Rejuso,  Salas,  Balt,  
Verador,  Bristol,  Digaum,  Benin,  Peña,  Plaza,  Sayson,  Susvilla,  Tampus,  Gregorio,  Sanchez  
 
PINAKA  GAHI  NGA  BATCH  2015  
  Page  37  
 
Public  International  Law  Finals  Notes   2013  
 
Who   may   be   held   liable?   Individuals.   But   don’t   you   know   that   applying   the   Yamashita   Principle,   an  
individual  may  be  punished  either  because:  

1. he  directly  participated  in  the  commission  of  the  crime,  or    


2. he  was  simply  a  superior  or  a  commander  who  did  not  even  order  the  commission  of  the  crime  
but  may  be  held  liable  because  of  his  failure  to  either:  a)  PREVENT,  if  he  knew  of  the  plot  before  
it  was  actually  committed  or  b)  his  FAILURE  TO  PUNISH  after  the  crime  has  been  committed.  -­‐à  
PRINCIPLE  OF  COMMAND  RESPONSIBILITY  

 
Superior  Liability  

Ang  superior  di  man  ang  muperform  sa  act,  but  he  is  liable  for  his  failure  to  prevent  or  punish.  So  you  
have  to  take  note  of  that  also.  So,  a  superior  should  be  held  liable  and  those  perpetrators  should  also  be  
held  liable  in  their  individual  capacity.  Why  was  superior  responsibility  or  command  responsibility  
embodied  in  the  Rome  Statute?  Because  it  was  observed  in  the  past,  ang  mga  generals,  military  
commanders,  they  will  feign  ignorance  for  example  and  claim  that  they  did  not  order,  we’re  not  aware,  
we  did  not  know  that  our  men  committed  rape  in  the  Philippines,  or  that  it  was  not  our  instruction  –  but  
if  it  can  be  established  that  under  the  circumstances  of  the  case  and  under  the  organizational  structure  
that  that  superior  has  authority  and  control  over  his  subordinates,  he  should  be  held  liable  for  his  
omission,  omission  to  prevent  and  omission  to  punish.  That  is  the  basic  idea  of  superior  responsibility  
and  command  responsibility.    

By  the  way,  we  use  command  responsibility  class  for  those  superiors  in  the  regular  Armed  Force,  and  we  
use  superior  responsibility  for  those  persons  who  do  not  belong  to  the  regular  Armed  Force,  because  
remember,  ang  component  sa  armed  conflict,  di  man  usually  required  nga  naay  government,  kai  pwede  
man  nga  between  two  armed  groups,  and  these  are  not  members  of  the  regular  Armed  Forces.  So  kato  
silang  mga  superiors  nila,  may  be  held  liable  under  superior  responsibility,  and  kung  military  
commander,  then  it  is  command  responsibility  that  we  use.  So,  that  practically  ends  our  discussion  in  
IHL,  I  believe  that  these  are  the  important  areas  that  we  sould  look  into.  United  Nations,  you  will  still  
include  that  in  the  exam,  although  I  think  most  of  these  had  already  been  discussed,  talking  about  
Nicaragua  again,  jurisdiction  of  the  ICJ.  Just  focus  on  the  ICJ  for  provisions  in  the  UN  charter.  For  
peaceful  settlement  of  disputes  between  states,  I  want  you  to  take  note  of  the  statute  creating  the  ICJ.  
And  then,  in  the  ICC  or  the  Rome  Statute,  I  mentioned  in  the  outline  Articles  1  to  8,  25  to  33  only.  You  
don’t  have  to  read  everything  there.  So,  coverage  for  finals  would  be  from  acquisition  of  territory  up  to  
the  last  topic.  Please  bear  with  the  fact  that  we  perhaps  did  not  have  enough  time  to  cover  everything,  
because  this  is  the  first  time  that  I  have  handled  IHL  as  basic  course.  

Bitaw  class,  I’ll  see  you  in  the  finals.  


 
Ralph:  See  you  in  the  review  sir!  

Thru  the  efforts  of  Room  405.  Special  Thanks:  Bayalas,  Caminade,  Cañada,  Dabon,  Diao,  Gan,  Jacildo,  Nardo,  Lulu,  Parawan,  Rejuso,  Salas,  Balt,  
Verador,  Bristol,  Digaum,  Benin,  Peña,  Plaza,  Sayson,  Susvilla,  Tampus,  Gregorio,  Sanchez  
 
PINAKA  GAHI  NGA  BATCH  2015  
  Page  38  
 
Public  International  Law  Finals  Notes   2013  
 
Sir:  Hahaha!  

Thru  the  efforts  of  Room  405.  Special  Thanks:  Bayalas,  Caminade,  Cañada,  Dabon,  Diao,  Gan,  Jacildo,  Nardo,  Lulu,  Parawan,  Rejuso,  Salas,  Balt,  
Verador,  Bristol,  Digaum,  Benin,  Peña,  Plaza,  Sayson,  Susvilla,  Tampus,  Gregorio,  Sanchez  
 
PINAKA  GAHI  NGA  BATCH  2015  
  Page  39  
 

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen