1 | Page

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW NOTES D. Foundations of International

By: Evelyn De Matias Law

COURSE OUTLINE 1. Principle of

comity
I. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS 2. Principle of
reciprocity/mutuality
A. Brief history of Public 3. Principle of
International Law independence
4. Principle of
B. Definition of International equality of states
Law

- body of rules &

principles which are recognized
as legally binding and governs E. Theories About International
the relations of states and Law
other entities with one another
(as between international 1. Natural Law School
organizations, between
international organizations and - there are certain normative
states, between international principles that are true or
organizations and states and the self evident and which exists
people). independently of their
codification or enforcement by
C. Functions of International human beings.
Law - naturalists maintain that the
law of nations is binding upon
1. defines the existence of states because it is a branch of
states great law of nature, the sum of
2. provides framework of those principles which ought to
diplomatic relations control human conduct, being
3. governs international founded on the very nature of
agreements man as a rational and social
4. sets forth rules for being.
international commerce
5. governs individual human 2. Positivist School
rights
6. regulates protection of - the basis of obligation of
the global environment (air, international law is founded in
land, sea and global resources) the CONSENT OF STATES.
7. VITAL FUNCTION: - This school of
eliminates elements of unlawful thoughts provides that consent
force in the solution of human of states is given:
conflicts and provides basis for
the orderly management of a.
international relations; social Tacitly in case of customary
progress international law
b.
Expressly in case of
conventional law
2 | Page

c. to time such rules as it might

Presumed in case of General be no longer to the interest of
Law of Nations the parties to observe.

3. Eclectic/Groatian School 4. Necessity

- occupy middle position - the fact that nations

between the natural and have common interest constitutes
positivist school the actual community of states
- recognizes that and at the same time
international law is in part a imperatively demands a rule of
product of natural law and at law so that international law
the same time the positive may be said to be based upon the
consent of states to be bound by very necessity for its
its rules. existence.

F. Basis of International H. Two Main Branches of

Law/Schools or Theories in the International Law
Study of International Law
1. Public International Law (Law
The schools of study of Nations)
of international law are the 2. Private International Law
basis of the obligation in (Conflicts of Law)
international law.
I. Branches of International Law
G. Theories as to the Basis of
International Law 1. Human rights law
2. Humanitarian law
1. Direct Consent 3. Refugee law
4. Criminal law
- international law 5. Economic law
is based upon the direct consent 6. Environmental law
of States upon their individual
acceptance of its principles and J. General Classifications of
rules. Public International Law

2. Implied Consent 1. Consular law

- a fiction to account
for the acceptance of the great
body of general principles and
specific rules that had come to
form the body of customary law.
3. Mutuality of Interest
- international law is a
subjective law; its binding
force depends upon mutuality of
interest which could only be
maintained by altering from time
2. Diplomatic law
3. International Aviation law
4. International criminal law
5. International environmental
law
6. International human right law
7. International humanitarian
law
8. International space law
9. International trade law
10. law of state responsibility
11. Rules according to higher
law
3 | Page

12. UN Conventions on the law of enfor

the Sea ce obedience.
13. Use of force continuum
- International law is
K. Public International Law vs recognized as law of practice
Private International Law sanctions for failure to
comply though indirect is
Public International Law (Law of similar to municipal
Nations) law.
includes force of public
- regulates the opinion, self help, intervention
relationship between states and by third party
international entities states, sanctions of
- concerned with international organizations such
questions of rights between as the UN and as a
nations. last resort WAR.

Private International Law M. Classification of

(Conflicts of Law) International Law

- regulates comity 1. Customary

of states in giving effect in 2. Conventional
one to the municipal laws of 3. General International
another relating to private Law
persons.
- PRINCIPLE: One N. Public International Law vs
country gives respect and give Municipal Law
effect to the laws of another so
far as can be done consistently
with its own interest. PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW
MUNICIPAL LAW
L. Is International Law a True - deals with states relations
Law? - deals with internal affairs of
a state
- based on popular - sources are customs and
views it is not a true law treaties
because: - sources are customs and
law of precedents grown within the
nation lacks the equality of states jurisdiction and
positive authority or command. legislation enacted by its law
no making body.
legal duty/obligation of - law is not a law above but
obedience on the part of those between sovereign states
whom it is - law of sovereign over
addre individuals subject to state
ssed with no courts to interpret authority.
and enforce international law. - laws not codified except on
no particular subjects
penalty prescribed for - laws are codified
disobedience with lack of - penalty/sanction is addressed
physical power to by pressure put upon a state to
4 | Page

behave in good faith, diplomacy, sovereign nations and the latter

retaliations or severance of allowing each state to determine
economic ties, war as an act of the means and form by which it
self defense (as recognized by carries our its obligations.
the UN). Only strong countries
may impose these sanctions to P. Relation between Public
weak countries in reality. International law and Philippine
- penalty may be in the form of Municipal Law
imprisonment (in violation of
the penal code) or sanctions of Q. Conflicts between Public
damages and administrative International Law and Municipal
sanctions. Law

- Municipal law,
** In International Tribunal the when in conflict with PIL is
international law will prevail given effect in municipal
over Municipal law. courts, the reason being that
such courts are organs of
** In a municipal tribunal, one municipal law and are
must distinguish if conflicts accordingly bound by it in all
involve international law and circumstances.
foreign international law in - the fact that
which case international law international law has been made
prevails; part of the law of the land does
not mean to imply it is primary
** Municipal law prevails if over national or municipal law.
conflicts involve conflicts - in Doctrine of
between municipal law and Incorporation, PIL is given
international law. standing equal but not superior
to national legislative
enactments.
O. Relation Between
International Law & Municipal PRINCIPLES AND DOCTRINES:
Law
DOCTRINE OF TRANSFORMATION
1. Monism
- requires legislative
- views action to make the treaty
international law and national enforceable in the municipal
law as part of single legal sphere.
system with domestic law derived - Municipality law
from the broader framework expressly adopts an
provided by international law. international law thru an act of
legislation.
2. Dualism - The doctrine observed
in treaties
- considers
international law and internal DOCTRINE OF INCORPORATION
law of states as wholly separate
legal systems, the former - Considers rules of
creating obligations only among international law as forming
5 | Page

part of the law of the land and

no further legislative action is S. Structure of Public
needed to make such rules International law
applicable in the domestic
sphere. 1. Law of Treaties and other
- the doctrine international agreements
observed in customary 2. Law on Armed Conflicts
international law. 3. Rubrics of international
delinquencies or torts
ADOPTION DOCTRINE 4. International
responsibilities of States
- Municipality law
impliedly adopts an T. the Role of Public
international law. International Law

HARMONIZATION DOCTRINE U. World Politics

-International law
is applied only when V. Related Cases
appropriate.
i. The Interhandel Case
RESTRICTED AUTOMATIC DOCTRINE (Decision of the International
Court of Justice, March 21,
- Based on Article 1949)
2, section 2 of Constitutional
provision in the Philippines, ii. Kuroda v
Philippines adopts the Jalandoni, 83 Phil 171
generally accepted principles of
international law as part of the Facts
law of the land. It stresses
the automatic adoption of Shinegori Kuroda, a former
international law but involves Lieutenant-General of the
restriction that such automatic Japanese Imperial Army and
adoption of international law is Commanding General of the
only as to generally accepted Japanese Imperial Forces in the
principles of international law. Philippines was charged before
the Philippine Military
R. Conflict between a Treaty and Commission for war crimes. As he
a Constitution was the commanding general
during such period of war, he
- in states where was tried for failure to
Constitution is the highest law discharge his duties and
of the land, both statutes and permitting the brutal atrocities
treaties may be invalidated if and other high crimes committed
they are in conflict with the by his men against noncombatant
Constitution. civilians and prisoners of the
- In the Philippines, Japanese forces, in violation of
the Supreme Court may declare a of the laws and customs of war.
treaty unconstitutional if it is
in conflict with the Kuroda, in his petition, argues
Constitution. that the Military Commission is
6 | Page

not a valid court because the established by United Nations.

law that created it, Executive These include the principle that
Order No. 68, is all persons, military or
unconstitutional. He further civilian, who have been guilty
contends that using as basis the of planning, preparing or waging
Hague Conventions Rules and a war of aggression and of the
Regulations covering Land commission of crimes and
Warfare for the war crime offenses in violation of laws
committed cannot stand ground as and customs of war, are to be
the Philippines was not a held accountable. In the
signatory of such rules in such doctrine of incorporation, the
convention. Furthermore, he Philippines abides by these
alleges that the United States principles and therefore has a
is not a party of interest in right to try persons that commit
the case and that the two US such crimes and most especially
prosecutors cannot practice law when it is committed againsts
in the Philippines. its citizens. It abides with it
even if it was not a signatory
Issue to these conventions by the mere
incorporation of such principles
1.Whether or not Executive Order in the constitution.
No. 68 is constitutional
2.Whether or not the US is a The United States is a party of
party of interest to this case interest because the country and
3.Whether or not Atty. Melville its people have been equally, if
S. Hussey and Robert Port is not more greatly, aggrieved by
allowed to practice law the crimes with which the
profession in the philippines. petitioner is charged for. By
virtue of Executive Order No.
Ruling 68, the Military Commission is a
special military tribunal and
The Supreme Court ruled that that the rules as to parties and
Executive Order No. 68, creating representation are not governed
the National War Crimes Office by the rules of court but by the
and prescribing rules on the very provisions of this special
trial of accused war criminals, law.
is constitutional as it is
aligned with Sec 3,Article 2 of On the 3rd issue, the court
the Constitution which states ruled that the appointment of
that The Philippines renounces the two American attorneys is
war as an instrument of national not violative of our national
policy and adopts the generally sovereignty. It is only fair and
accepted principles of proper that the U.S. which has
international law as part of the submitted the vindication of
law of the nation. The crimes against her government
generally accepted principles of and her people to a tribunal of
international law includes those our nation should be allowed
formed during the Hague representation in the trial of
Convention, the Geneva those very crimes. The lest that
Convention and other we could do in the spirit of
international jurisprudence
7 | Page

comity is to allow this Customary international law with

representation in said trial. American law, perhaps the
quintessential position of those
iii. Ichong v who hold a monist perspective of
Hernandez, May 31, 1957 international law.

Facts: RA 1180 An Act to Background of the case

Regulate The Retail Business
prohibits foreigners and foreign In April 1898 two fishing
owned corporations to engage in vessels, the Paquete Habana, and
the retail business/trade in the the Lola separately left Cuban
Philippines. Petitioner assails ports in Havana in order to
the Act contending it violates fish. The two vessels were
the Treaty of Amity between the eventually captured by US Naval
Philippines and China and is vessels as part of Admiral
unconstitutional. William T. Sampson's blockade of
Cuba, who was ordered to execute
Issue: Whether or not RA 1180 a the blockade 'in pursuance of
valid exercise of police power the laws of the United States,
of the State. and the law of nations
applicable to such cases.' The
Held: The court held that RA vessels were placed within
1180 is a valid exercise of the Cuba's territorial waters at the
police power of the State since onset of the Spanish-American
such sovereign power of the War and then taken to Key West,
State could not be bargained where both vessels were
through any Treaty or contract eventually auctioned by the
especially when the intent of district court.
such legislation is to remedy a Admiral Sampson justified the
real and actual danger to the seizures by stating that most
national economy due to the fishing vessels, flying under
increasing dominance and control the Spanish banner were manned
of aliens in the retail trade in by excellent seamen, "liable for
the country. further service" as naval
reserves, an asset that could
iv. Phil. eventually be used against US
Association of Free Labor Unions interests in the Spanish-
(PAFLU) et al. v Secretary of American War.
Labor et al., February 27, 1969 The owners of the vessels
however made an appeal to the
v. Paquete circuit courts, citing a long
Habana case, 125 US 677 (1900) held tradition by nations of
exempting fishing vessels from
Paquete Habana.; The Lola, 175 prize capture in times of war.
U.S. 677 (1900), was a landmark This "tradition", a primary
United States Supreme Court case example of customary
that reversed an earlier court international law, dates back
decision allowing the capture of from an order by Henry IV in
fishing vessels under Prize 1403, and has more or less been
(law). Its importance rests on observed by a large majority of
the fact that it integrated States ever since.
8 | Page

At the time of capture both case up found that having no

vessels had no evidence of travel documents, Mejoff was an
aiding the enemy, and were illegal alien in this country,
unaware of the US naval and consequently referred the
blockade. No arms were found on matter to the immigration
board, and no attempts were made authorities. After the
to either run the blockade or corresponding investigation, the
resist capture. Immigration Board of
Commissioners declared on April
The court's decision 5, 1948 that Mejoff had entered
the Philippines illegally in
The United Supreme Court, which 1944, without inspection and
cited lengthy legal precedents admission by the immigration
established to support the officials at a designated port
existence of a customary of entry and, therefore, it
international law that exempted ordered that he be deported on
fishing vessels from prize the first available
capture eventually found the transportation to Russia. The
capture of both vessels as petitioner was then under
"unlawful and without probable custody, he having been arrested
cause", reversed the District on March 18, 1948. In October
Court's decision, and ordered 1948, after repeated failures to
the proceeds of the auction as ship this deportee abroad, the
well as any profits made from authorities moved him to Bilibid
her cargo to be restored to the Prison at Muntinglupa where he
claimant, "with damages and has been confined up to the
costs". present time, inasmuch as the
Commissioner of Immigration
vi. Mejoff v believes it is for the best
Director of Prisons 90 PHIL 70 interests of the country to keep
(1951) him under detention while
arrangements for his departure
Facts: are being made. Two years having
elapsed since the aforesaid
This is a second petition for decision was promulgated, the
habeas corpus by Boris Mejoff, Government has not found ways
the first having been denied in and means of removing the
a decision of this Court on July petitioner out of the country,
30, 1949. "The petitioner Boris and none are in sight, although,
Mejoff is an alien of Russian it should be said in fairness to
descent who was brought to this the deportation authorities that
country from Shanghai as a it was through no fault of
secret operative by the Japanese theirs that no ship or country
forces during the latter's would take the petitioner.
regime in these Islands. Upon
liberation, he was arrested as a Issue:
Japanese spy by U. S. Army
Counter Intelligence Corps. Whether or not Boris Mejoff
Thereafter, the People's Court should be released from prison
ordered his release. But the pending his deportation.
Deportation Board taking his
9 | Page

Ruling: petitioner from custody upon

these terms: that the petitioner
The protection against shall be placed under the
deprivation of liberty without surveillance of the immigration
due process of law, and except authorities or their agents in
for crimes committed against the such form and manner as may be
laws of the land, is not limited deemed adequate to insure that
to Philippine citizens but he keep peace and be available
extends to all residents, except when the Government is ready to
enemy aliens, regardless of deport him. The surveillance
nationality. Moreover, Sec. 3, shall be reasonable and the
Art. II of the Constitution of question of reasonableness shall
the Philippines "adopts the be submitted to this Court or to
generally accepted principles of the Court of First Instance of
international law as part of the Manila for decision in case of
law of the Nation." And in a abuse. No costs will be charged.
resolution entitled, "Universal
Declaration Of Human Rights," source: http://rabbit-
and approved by the General icecold.blogspot.com/
Assembly of the United Nations,
of which the Philippines is a vii. Reyes v
member, at its plenary meeting Bagatsing GR no. 65366, October
on December 10, 1948, the right 25, 1983
to life and liberty and all
other fundamental rights as Facts
applied to all human beings were Retired Justice Jose B.L. Reyes,
proclaimed. It was there in behalf of the Anti-Bases
resolved that "all human beings Coalition, sought for a permit
are born free and equal in from the City of Manila to hold
degree and rights" (Art. 1); a peaceful march and rally on
that "everyone is entitled to October 26, 1983 starting from
all the rights and freedom set Luneta to the gates of the
forth in this Declaration, United States embassy. The
without distinction of any kind, objective of the rally was to
such as race, colour, sex, peacefully protest the removal
language, religion, political or of all foreign military bases
other opinion, nationality or and to present a petition
social origin, property, birth, containing such to a
or other status" (Art. 2); that representative of the Embassy so
"every one has the right to an it may be delivered to the
effective remedy by the United States Ambassador. This
competent national tribunals for petition was to initially compel
acts violating the fundamental the Mayor of the City of Manila
rights granted him by the to make a decision on the
Constitution or by law" (Art. application for a permit but it
8); that "no one shall be was discovered that a denial has
subjected to arbitrary arrest, already been sent through mail.
detention or exile" (Art. 9 ); It also included a provision
etc. Premises considered, the that if it be held somewhere
writ will issue commanding the else, permit may be issued. The
respondents to release the respondent mayor alleges that
10 | P a g e

holding the rally in front of Source: http://pil-

the US Embassy is a violation of rizalyn.blogspot.com/2008/06/jbl
the resolutions during the -reyes-vs-bagatsing-gr-no-
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic 65366.html
Relations adopted in 1961 and of
which the Philippines is a viii. Head Money
signatory. In the doctrine of cases, Edye v Robertson 112 US
incorporation, the Philippines 580 (1884)
has to comply with such
generally accepted principles of Facts:
international law as part of the
law of the land. The petitioner, In 1882 the Congress passed an
on the other hand, contends that act providing that a duty of
the denial of the permit is a fifty cents should be collected
violation of the constitutional for each and every passenger who
right of the freedom of speech was not a citizen of the United
and expression. States, coming from a foreign
port to any port within the
United States. Individuals and
Issue steamship companies brought suit
Whether or not the Anti-Bases against the collector of customs
Coalition should be allowed to at New York, Mr. WH Robertson,
hold a peaceful protest rally in for the recovery of the sums of
front of the US Embassy money collected. The act was
challenge on the grounds that it
violated numerous treaties of
Ruling the US government with friendly
The Supreme Court ruled to allow nations.
the rally in front of the US
Embassy to protect the exercise Issue:
of the rights to free speech and
peaceful assembly and on the WON the act is void because of
ground that there was no showing the conflict with the treaty.
of the existence of a clear and
present danger of a substantive
evil that could justify the Ruling:
denial of the permit. These
rights are not only assured by A treaty is a compact between
our constitution but also independent nations, which
provided for in the Universal depends for its enforcement upon
Declaration of Human Rights. the interest and honor of the
Between the two generally governments that are parties to
accepted principles of a treaty. Treaties that regulate
diplomatic relations and human the mutual rights of citizens
rights, the former takes higher and subjects of the contracting
ground. The right of the freedom nations are in the same category
of expression and peaceful as acts of Congress. When these
assembly is highly ranked in the rights are of such a nature as
scheme of constitutional values. to be enforced by a court of
justice, the court resorts to
the treaty as it would to a
11 | P a g e
statute. However, a constitution
gives a treaty no superiority
over an act on congress. In
short, so far as a treaty made
by the United States with any
foreign nation can become the
subject of judicial cognizance
in the courts of this country,
it is subject to such acts as
Congress may pass for its
enforcement, modification, or
repeal.
ix. Whitney v
Robertson 124 US 190 (1888)
Facts:
Merchants were importing sugar
from San Domingo, and when they
arrived at the custom house in
NY, they claimed b/c of the
treaty btwn US & San Domingo,
that the goods should
admitted duty free. The
collector at the port refused,
and the merchants were made to
pay $21,936 in duties. Merchants
then brought this claim to get
back the duties paid. Merchants
(P) argued that the treaty btwn
US and San Domingo promised to
provide most favored nation
treatment to imports from San
Domingo. The most favored nation
treatment was from a treaty btwn
US and the Hawaiian Islands,
where certain goods, including
sugar, were exempt from
dutycollection. Collector of the
port (D) argued that he treated
the goods as dutiable articles
under the acts of Congress.
Issue:
Whether a treaty supersedes
conflicting acts of Congress.
-Not necessarily, both are
binding.
Holding: Affirmed for D.
Reasoning: Both self-executing
treaties and acts of Congress
are considered supreme laws of
the land, and both should have
effect. Justice Fields says that
when they conflict with each
other, "the one last in date
will control the other." Since
the acts of Congress were dated
last, they control. He also says
that if the country with which
the treaty is made is
dissatisfied with the action of
the US legislative dept, then
they may present a complaint to
the executive had of the govt.
RULE: In the case of a conflict
btwn a federal statute and a
treaty, the one last in date
be will control.
Notes Hierarchy - last in time
rule Here the act of congress
has trumped an earlier treaty
Dualism again Domestically, we
care about checks and balances,
that treaty no longer has any
effect But in international
realm, this is a problem, b/c we
are not honoring the treaty with
Dominican Republic Breaching
treaty - can be taken to ICJ,
etc. Example of dualist -
domestic vs. international
obligations
Source
http://dcomfortroom.blogspot.com
/2009/12/whitney-v-robertson-
124-us-190-1888.html
II. SOURCES OF PUBLIC
INTERNATIONAL LAW
A. Sources of Public
International Law as applied by
12 | P a g e

the International Court of - equitable

Justice principle of law

Direct Sources
i. C. Classification of sources of
International Conventions and Public International Law
Treaties
- most abundant sources of PIL i. Direct
- between parties of treaties, sources
the stipulations constitute the ii. Indirect,
law between them. secondary, subsidiary sources
- ex: Vienna Convention on the
Law of Treaty D. Related Cases
ii.
International Customs i. Agustin vs Edu, February 2,
- custom exists when there is a 1979 (88 SCRA 195)
clear and continuous habits of
doing certain things develop III. THE INDIVIDUAL AND
under the conviction that it is INTERNATIONAL LAW
obligatory and right.
- International Court of Justice A. Individual under
held that customary rule mist be International Law
based on constant and uniform
usage. i. The Law on
iii. General Nationality
Principles of law
- recognized by civilized NATIONALITY
nations
- Ex: Res judicata, - the bond that unites a person
prescriptions, due process, law to a given state which
of nature, estoppel, ex aequo et constitutes his membership in
bono (fair and equity). the particular state, giving him
a claim to the protection of
Secondary Sources (Subsidiary that state and subjects him to
means for determining rules of the obligations created by the
law) laws of that state.
iv. Teaching of
most highly qualified publicists - in International Law, the term
of the various nations nationality is used in place of
v. Judicial citizenship which is understood
Decisions in municipal law as being
possessed of the full rights and
B. Equity in International Law privileges of membership in a
political community.
Principle of Ex Aequo et Bono
ii. Rules on
- means what is fair Multiple Nationalities (1930
and good Hague Convention on Conflict of
- falls under the Nationality Laws)
general principle of law
13 | P a g e

1930 HAGUE CONVENTION ON 1. The

CONFLICT OF NATIONALITY LAWS nationality of the country in
which he is habitually and
- Provides the following rules: principally resident, or
2. The
A. RULES IN DETERMINING A nationality of the country with
PERSON'S NATIONALITY which in the circumstances he
appears to be in fact most
ARTICLE I. It is for closely connected - DOCTRINE OF
each state to determine under EFFECTIVE NATIONALITY.
it's own law who are its
nationals. This law shall be ARTICLE VI. A person
recognized by other States in so possessing two nationalities
far as it is consistent with acquired without any voluntary
international conventions, act on his part. May renounce on
international customs, and the of them with the authorization
principles of law generally of the State whose nationality
recognized with regards to he desires to surrender. This
nationality. authorization may not be refused
in the case of a person who has
ARTICLE II. Any his habitual and principal
questions as to whether a person residence abroad, if the
possesses the nationality of a conditions laid down in the law
particular State shall be of the State whose nationality
determined in accordance with he desires to surrender are
the law of that State. satisfied.

B. RULES ON MULTIPLE iii. DOCTRINE OF

NATIONALITIES EFFECTIVE NATIONALITY

ARTICLE III. A person - Within a Third State, a person

having 2 or more nationalities having multiple nationalities
may be regarded as it's national shall be treated as if he had
by each of the States whose only one. The Third State State
nationality he possesses. shall, of the nationalities
which any such person possesses,
ARTICLE IV. S State may recognize exclusively in it's
not afford diplomatic protection territory either:
to one of its nationals against 1. The
a State whose nationality such nationality of the country in
person also possesses. which he is habitually and
principally resident, or
ARTICLE V. Within a 2. The
Third State, a person having nationality of the country with
multiple nationalities shall be which in the circumstances he
treated as if he had only one. appears to be in fact most
The Third State State shall, of closely connected
the nationalities which any such
person possesses, recognize iv. DOCTRINE OF
exclusively in it's territory INDELIBLE ALLEGIANCE
either:
14 | P a g e

- a State may prohibit i. Subjects

its nationals from changing and objects of international law
their nationality under certain defined
circumstances.
Subject of Public International
- ex: C.A. No. 63 (Act Law
providing for the ways in which
Philippine Citizenship may be - an entity directly possessed
lost or re-acquired) which with personality with the rights
provides that Filipino citizen and obligations in the
may lose his citizenship by international legal order
subscribing to an oath of
allegiance to support the - ex: sovereign state as
constitution or laws of a Philippines ( with capacity to
foreign country upon attaining 2 sue in the International Court
years of age or more; Provided of Justice or may be sued in
however that a Filipino may not international tribunal)
divest himself of Philippine
citizenship in any manner while 2 KINDS OF SUBJECTS IN PUBLIC
the Republic of the Philippines INTERNATIONAL LAW:
is at war with any country.
1. COMPLETE INTERNATIONAL
- THE EXEMPTION TO THE PERSONALITY
GENERAL RULE PROVIDED BY ARTICLE
15 OF THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION - ex: a state which may be
OF HUMAN RIGHTS " that no one divided into categories:
shall be arbitrarily deprived of
his nationality nor denied the A. Single or Simple State
right to change his (ex. Philippines)
nationality."
B. Composite state
v. DOCTRINE OF B.1. Federal States
NEMO POTEST EXUERE PATRIAM (United States of America,
united states of Switzerland)
- doctrine providing that the - exists when
bond of nationality could never the central or federal
be broken. government exercises authority
over both the various states in
- no one might transfer his the Union and the
allegiance to another state citizens thereof.
without the consent of the state - regarded as
which had first claim upon him. an INTERNATIONAL PERSON
- have its own
- the basis of the Doctrine of governmental machineries and
Indelible Allegiance absorbs all individual states
associated together.
B. Individual as subject of B.2. Confederation
International Law - has some
power over it's individual state
but not over the individual
citizens of the member states.
15 | P a g e

- not regarded 2. INCOMPLETE, IMPERFECT,

as an INTERNATIONAL PERSON, each QUALIFIED OR QUASI-INTERNATIONAL
of the member state being PERSONALITIES
represented by its own delegate.
- loose union 1. Dependent states
or alliance formed through a
treaty among various states, -subjected to control &
each of which is fully sovereign sovereignty of some superior
and independent. state/s in the conduct of their
external & foreign affairs.
B.3. Real Union
- ex. United 2. Belligerent & insurgent
Arab Republic communities
- formed by
two sovereign states linked - Rebels and insurgents are
together by a common government organized group with no rights
in external affairs and by a under the international law but
common chief of state. The union if civil strife threatens to
then possesses a single interfere with autonomy of
international personality that foreign intercourse and tends to
merges the separate jeopardize sovereignty of the
personalities of the states as a state over the insurgent
unified whole. community certain insurgent
rights may be tacitly admitted.
B.4. Personal Union
- merger of - if the act is piracy then it
two separate states in the sense is private in character and ends
that both have the same are not political and no
individual as the accidental or insurgent rights arise.
temporary head of state. The
union however has no separate - parent state still liable for
international personality since acts committed by the insurgent
each of the member states has community within the
its own government and its own jurisdiction of said parent
separate international state even if foreign state
personality. admits existence of insurgent
- currently, rights.
there is no personal union in
existence - if hostile acts are committed
by insurgents against a foreign
B.5. Incorporate Union state the latter may choose to
- one where punish them or turn them over to
the internal and external organs the parent state.
of government of two states are
merged into one resulting in a - foreign states ought to
single international refrain from interfering in
personality. hostilities between parent state
- ex: United and insurgent community.
kingdom of Great Britain and
Ireland Bellingerent community rights
arise when:
16 | P a g e

1. End must be political in of Nations. They are afforded

character the chance to develop
2. Hostilities must be a economically and socially by
character of war and carried out more advanced nations.
in accordance with law of war
3. Proportion of revolts must be TRUST TERRITORIES - under UN
to render the issue uncertain supervision, the Administering
4. The conduct of hostilities Authority exercising sovereignty
and general government of the power over them.
revolting community must be in
the hands of a responsible 5. Public and political
organization. corporations or companies

Recognition of the international - private corporations fall

personality status of a under private international law
bellingerent community in the but are also involved in public
international order is ONLY FOR international law when in time
LIMITED PERIOD OF TIME. of war their property and other
rights are impaired or when
3. Colonies, dependencies and maritime law has been infringed.
possession
- they cannot be states but the 6. International administrative
international legal order grants bodies
them international personality
in a restricted degree (sign - vested with international
international conventions and personality as they are beyond
become member of United Nations. the control and authority of any
particular state including the
- COLONY is a dependent region in which seat of the
community with a number of organization may be situated.
citizens but remain subject to
mother state.
Object of Public International
- DEPENDENCY is a territory Law
distinct from country in which
the supreme sovereign power - indirectly vested with rights
resides but belonging rightfully and obligations in the
to it subject to laws and international sphere
regulations which the sovereign - ex: filipino private citizen (
may think proper to prescribe. who while entitled to certain
rights which other states ought
- POSSESSION is held by a title to respect has no recourse
other than that of mere physical except to course his grievances
conquest. through the Republic and its
diplomatic officers)
4. Mandate and trust territories

MANDATES - former territorial

possessions of states defeated ii. Status of
in the First World War and individual under international
placed under control of League law
17 | P a g e

of the State cannot be imputable

- While Private individuals are on the State.
regarded as objects of PIL, they - becomes imputable on a State
are recently accorded a NEW when performed by an individual
STATUS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW and who is an organ of the State and
regarded as subjects in the competent under the law to
international order with their represent the State in relation
importance laid down by the ff: to other States such as the Head
- Charter of the UN and of State.
Universal Declaration of Human
Rights iii.
- Nuremberg and Tokyo War International Organizations as
Tribunals for war crimes subjects of International law
- norms of general iv. Non-
international law prohibiting governmental organizations
piracy (committed only by v.
private individuals and not by Multinational corporations
acts of state) vi. Complete
- espionage rules international personalities
-court practice of permitting vii. Incomplete,
foreigners to prosecute claims imperfect, qualified or quasi-
- rules safeguarding rights of international personalities
alines and minorities
- punishment on illegal use of IV. STATES IN THE INTERNATIONAL
flag. SYSTEM
- procedures in admiralty and
maritime matters A. State defined
- special status accorded to
refugees - group of people capable of
procreation and sekf defense
NOTE: INDIVIDUALS therefore are living in a definite territory
TRUE SUBJECTS IF INTERNATIONAL (must be a land not sea)
LAW and STATES are only AGENTS possessed of government to which
through which they act in inhabitants render obedience.
default of more convenient means
of giving effects to their B. Elements or Attributes of a
common interests. State

I. According to majority school

ACT OF AN INDIVIDUAL BECOMES AN of thought
ACT OF STATE 1. Group of people (man & woman
capable of procreation).
- when his act may be imputed on 2. Definite territory (fixed to
the State. settle disputes on jurisdiction;
- determined on the basis of the a definite space where acts of
national legal order, the law of state esp. Coercive acts can be
the State whose act is in carried out legally as allowed
question. by the general international
- an act or performance not law).
permitted or prescribed by law 3. Government (machinery or
instrument by which power in a
18 | P a g e

state expresses its will and a. Modes of

exercises its functions). acquiring territories
4. Independence (freedom from
external control in the conduct 1. discovery and
of one's external and internal occupation
affairs).
- only
II. According to Minority view stateless territory could be
acquired by discovery and
The majority school of thoughts occupation.
and: -
Discovery should be coupled with
5. Possession of sufficient occupation. An effective
degree of civilization occupation is one that would
6. Recognition by the Family of effectively take real possession
Nations of the territory and establish
some kind of administration.
C. Fundamental Rights of States
2. prescription
i. The (acquisitive prescription)
rights of existence, integrity
and self-preservation - must
ii. The rights be continuous, public and
of sovereignty and independence adverse whether good or bad
iii. The right faith of some other states
of equality territory and there must be a
iv. The right of lapse of reasonable period of
property and jurisdiction time.
v. The right
of legation or of diplomatic 3. cession
intercourse
-
The rights of existence, territory is acquired
integrity and self-preservation voluntarily in case of donation
or sale or involuntary as in the
Basis result of war.
-
- existence presupposes its perfection of cession commences
right to survive which is upon meeting of minds.
predicated not only to physical - mere
maintenance of its territorial lease effectuated by the owner
integrity but also physical in favor of another state cannot
expansion that follows valid transfer ownership. A state
acquisition of territories. When making the cession is a mere
its existence is in jeopardy it usurper or intruder with no
has a right of self transferable right, the cession
preservation. is purposeless and
inefficacious.
1. The right to acquire
territories 4. conquest and
subjugation
19 | P a g e

property with the intent never

- to return to the same).
CONQUEST is the acquisition of 2. Prescription
the sovereignty of a country by (extinctive prescription)
force of arms exercised by an 3. Cession
independent power. 4. Subjugation
- Mere 5. forces of nature
physical conquest gives an (i.e. avulsion; volcanic
INCHOATE TITLE; for this title eruption)
to ripen into ownership 6. Successful
subjugation must follow. revolutions and secessions (mere
- declaration of independence does
SUBJUGATION takes place if the not commence a new state
formal cession is made in the success has to follow)
TREATY OF PEACE.
- TREATY c. Space Law
OF PEACE is essentially entered
into through the use of force i. Air space
and intimidation. ii.
- Under Outer space
the general international law,
while duress usually vitiates LEGAL
the consent given to a treaty, STATUS OF SPACE:
an EXCEPTION is the TREATY OF
PEACE for such treaty is
precisely entered into as a - space beyond the atmosphere is
result of fear. incapable by its very nature of
- appropriation on behalf of any
Present UN Charter however the particular sovereignty.
use of threat and force is
considered illegal. - theoretically similar to the
rule of freedom of the seas
5. accretion where seas cant be possessed by
any particular government and
- is the necessarily open to free spatial
process of attaching or navigation by all those who may
incorporating something to what venture into its unknown
an owner of territory already confines.
has.
- may be JURISDIC
natural (caused by natural force TION OVER SPACE ACTIVITIES
such as current of river) or
artificial (as in act of state
in reclaiming part of sea in - Control and supervision vested
reclamation projects). in international bodies (i.e.
UN)
b. Modes of losing
territories - It may be exercised by the
country conducting the activity
1. Abandonment (must from which the departure was
be physical abandonment of the
20 | P a g e

physically made and of citizens Held: The island cannot be given

conducting the enterprise. to the US for the inchoate title
possessed by Spain never ripened
2. THE RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE into a real title for its
failure to effectively possess
REQUISITES: (Art. 51 of UN and administer the territory
Charter) within a reasonable period of
An armed attack time.
Attack must be against a member
of the UN Inchoate Title discoverer must
Security Council must not have be given full opportunity to
acted yet effectively possess and in the
meantime other states are
DOCTRINE OF SELF-HELP legally excluded from the
- the right to self-defense occupation of the territory
which is an extension of the involved.
right to self-preservation hence
under the general international
law the right continues to exist
even if attack is made against a
non-UN member state.

ALLIANCE EXISTS
- because members of UN have
implicit faith in each others
desire for world peace.
- some members feel the
necessity of taking measures to
give maximum feeling of security
either thru mutual protection or
by outright combination of
strength.

3. Cases

Island of Palmas Case

Facts: In the 16th Century Spain

discovered an island midway
between Mindanao and Dutch East
Indies. However Spain did not
effectively possess the
territory. It was Holland which
exercised authority over the
land. As a successor of Spain,
the US asked that the island be
awarded to it.