Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
G +
BROWNLIE’S PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW o The continent formed a political system in which the Nations inhabiting this
part of the world are bound by their relations and various interests into a single
Special Issues in International Law | 2nd Semester, S.Y. 2018-2019
body.
Acampado | Adrias | Aguila | Alonzo | Arcenas | Balisong | Callueng | Castillo | Castro
• Immanuel Kant – re-characterize the binding character of international law, proposing
Coscolluela | Ignacio | Peliño | Pleyto | Punsalan | Rayos | Rosales, C. | Sabaupan | See |
an international federation of republican states along substantially similar lines to Wolff’s
Soriano, J. | Sta. Maria | Vargas | Yap | Yrreverre
supreme state, backed by coercive rules, as the only method by which a secure and
lasting peace could be achieved.
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
(B) FROM POSITIVISM TO THE PRESENT DAY
1. DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW OF NATIONS
• Now known as public international law. • States emerged as material, independent entities and international law was one of the
o Specialized body of legal thinking about the relations between rulers, reflective ways they developed of managing their relations.
of custom and practice in such matters as treaty making, status of ambassadors, o Since the law of nations developed within a system wholly lacking in other
use of oceans, and the modalities of warfare. institutions, IL is highly state-centric.
• Aquinas – law could structure or at least moderate the relations between kingdoms, • Positivism - saw the law as a creation of power, a command of a sovereign enforced by
principalities, and republics. a sanction; international law was not law above states, but law between states,
• During the 13th century, international law was essentially a moral question, but it was enforceable, short of war, by way of moral opprobrium or by reciprocal denial of benefits.
engaged with issues such as territorial claims, treaties, right of legation, etc. • John Austin – international law was only ‘law improperly so called’
• A signal of development was that war was seen as the prerogative of the sovereign. • Jeremy Betham – had no such issue with international law, principally because he
o It is not the business of the private individual to declare war, because he can thought that national sovereigns could also together promulgate international law; they
seek for redress of his rights from the tribunal of his superior. were not disabled from collective action.
o It is not the business of the individual to summon together the people during • HLA Hart – distinguished 3 categories of rules:
wartime. o Primary rules concerning human action and interaction.
• International law was European in origin, extending to the whole Mediterranean to o Secondary rules (adjudication, enforcement, and change)
Russia and the Near east, travelling with the colonizers (Americas to Asia, to Africa and o Master ‘rule of recognition’ which enables the observer to identify the
to Oceania). components of the system and to treat them as legal.
o Colonialism reshaped the world in a Eurocentric Image. • Brownlie – whatever the theoretical overlay of law/not law imposed by Hart and
o Of the non-European nations only seven managed to retain independence positivists in general, the reality of international law told a different story.
without formal qualification of sovereignty (Ethiopia, Liberia, Turkey, Thailand,
China, Japan and Afghanistan) (C) THE BASIS OF OBLIGATION
• Eventually international law expanded: creation of international orgs with universal
membership and treaty making powers, detailed elaboration of the law of the sea, • The classification of a system as legal does not predetermine its effectiveness: witness
establishment of permanent bodies, etc. various national law systems in greater or lesser disarray
o Positivist wave through the Permanent Court of International Justice indicated o Question is whether the rules, traditions, and institutions of a given system enjoy
that the rights under IL could be conferred on individuals. at least some salience within the relevant society, meet its social needs, and are
applied through techniques and methods recognizably legal-as distinct from
2. INTERNATIONAL LAW AS LAW mere manifestation of unregulated force.
• John Finnis – defended the idea of an international law-particularly customary
(A) NATURAL LAW ORIGINS international law-able to emerge without being made by anyone without authority to
make it, and without the benefit of Hart’s secondary rules for the authorized generation
• IL saw its gradual separation from natural law, a process spurred on by Reformation and alteration of rules.
and wars of religion (Thirty Years War ending in Peace of Westphalia).
o Natural law emerged from Roman law and Roman Church which conceived 3. THE REALITY AND TRAJECTORY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
universal ius naturale (natural law) of which ius gentium (Law of peoples) was
a subset. (A) THE STATE AND SOVEREIGNTY
• Grotius – separation of the jus gentium from the jus natural and its modulation into a
law of nations, which applied specifically to the rulers of states. • States - political entities equal in law, similar in form, the direct subjects of international
• Law of nations – was a system of norms whether derived from a universally applicable, law.
natural morality or attested by the Consent of Nations o Once statehood is generally recognized, a new situation arises: the new state
• Wolff – collective society could not be promoted unless states formed a universal is sovereign, has sovereignty and this is true no matter how fragile its
political entity, a ‘supreme state’ form which would proceed the law of nations. condition or diminutive its resources.
• Les Droit des gens - claimed to be the first international law textbook • Kingsbury – emphasized the disadvantages of any normative transformation
• Vattel – was in contrast with Wolff; political balance or equilibrium of power for Vattel. • As a concept, sovereignty carries limited substantive consequences and is consistent
with a range of internal forms of government. It is also capable of responding to
(D) THE TRAJECTORY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW • Art. 59 provides that decisions have no binding force except between the parties and in
respect of that particular case.
• System itself exists in a persistent and even necessary state of flux. • There is no express hierarchy, but in one of the drafts the word ‘successively’ appears,
• Sovereignty and statehood remain the basic units of currency. but in practice a and b are the most important.
• States may use their power to modify the law to make rules about statehood itself-and o Source (a) relates to obligations, which will ordinarily prevail as being more
they have done, notably about colonial self-determination. specific. But unwise to think in terms of hierarchy
• Koskenniemi – has seen the progress of international law as the function of an (A) THE CONCEPT OF CUSTOM
irresolvable duality between apology and utopia.
• International law provides a set of techniques for addressing the huge collective action • Art. 38: international custom - as evidence of a general practice accepted as law;
problems presented by the co-existence of nearly 200 sovereign states. wording is prima facie defective: the existence of a custom is not to be confused with
• Despite critics, it provides a normative structure for a rules-based system of international the evidence adduced in its favor.
society. • Judge Read – customary international law - generalization of the practice of states.
• Usage is general practice which does not reflect a legal obligation; carried out of
courtesy i.e. comity and are neither articulated nor claimed as legal requirements.
CHAPTER 2: THE SOURCES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW • e.g. ceremonial salutes at sea, granting parking privileges to diplomatic vehicles.
• International comity - species of accommodation: it involves neighborliness, mutual
respect, and friendly waiver of technicalities.
1. INTRODUCTION
• Rules of IL which are universally accepted, and the system of IL is reaffirmed by states • These create legal obligations, one-time observance of which does not discharge the
in making and responding to claims of right, but the principles of the system mean that obligation.
particular rules may have less than universal acceptance, yet still form part of IL. • Create general norms framed as legal propositions to govern the conduct of the parties.
o Not necessarily limited to their conduct inter se – the expression of an obligation
i. THE PERSISTENT OBJECTOR in universal or ‘all states’ form is an indication of an intent to create such a general
rule.
• State may exempt itself from the application of a new customary rule by persistent • Examples: Declaration of Paris of 1856 on neutrality in maritime warfare, the Hague
objection during the norm’s formation. Conventions of 1899 and of 1907 on the law of war and neutrality, the Geneva Protocol of
1925 on prohibited weapons, the General Treaty for the Renunciation of War of 1928, the
• The Court has used Art. 38(1)(c) sparingly. General principles normally enter judicial
reasoning without formal reference or label. • Judicial decisions are not strictly a formal source of law but are regarded as evidence of the
• However, the Court has referred on occasion to general notions of responsibility. law.
o Chorzow Factory – one Party cannot avail himself of the fact that the other has not • Lauterpacht – Art. 59 does not refer to the major question of judicial precedent but to the
fulfilled some obligation or has not had recourse to some means of redress, if the particular question of intervention.
former Party has (by some illegal act) prevented the latter from fulfilling the o Art. 63 provides that if a third state avails itself of the right of intervention, the
obligation in question or from having recourse to the tribunal which would have construction given in the judgment shall be equally binding on the intervening third
been open to him. It is a principle of international law that any breach of an state.
engagement involves an obligation to make reparation. Asda o He thus concludes that Art. 59 directly states what Art. 63 states indirectly.
• On occasion, the Court has also relied on the principle of estoppel or acquiescence, • BUT the debate in the Committee of Jurists indicates that Art. 59 was not intended merely to
references to abuse of rights and to good faith, and the most frequent and successful use of express the principle of res iudicata, but rather to rule out a system of binding precedent.
domestic law analogies à evidence, procedure, and jurisdiction. o Polish Upper Silesia – the object of Art. 59 is to prevent legal principles accepted
o Thus, references to the rule that no one can be a judge in his own suit, to litis by the Court in a particular case from being binding on other States or in other
pendence, to res judicata, to various principles governing the judicial process and disputes.
to the principle universally accepted by international tribunals to the effect that the • It is true that the Court does not observe a doctrine of precedent EXCEPT on matters of
parties to a case must abstain from any measure capable of exercising a prejudicial procedure. But it strives to maintain judicial consistency.
effect in regard to the execution of a decision to be given. o Greek and Turkish Populations – relied on the precedent afforded by the
o Corfu Channel: Court considered circumstantial evidence and remarked that ‘this Wimbledon (reflecting the principle that treaty obligations do not entail an
indirect evidence is admitted in all systems of law, and its use is recognized by abandonment of sovereignty)
international decisions.’ o Reparations for Injuries – relied on a pronouncement in a previous advisory opinion
for a statement of the principle of effectiveness in interpreting treaties.
(B) GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW • Such references above are often a matter of evidence of the law, but the Court aims for
consistency and employs the technique of distinguishing previous decisions.
• May alternatively refer to rules of customary international law, to general principles of law as • Attempts have been made to have the Court depart explicitly from an earlier decision but the
in Art. 38(1)(c) or to certain logical propositions underlying judicial reasoning on the basis of Court has either declined to do so or has by-passed the point entirely.
existing international law. o Yet there is no doubt as to the Court’s power to depart from the effect of an earlier
• Examples: principles of consent, reciprocity, equality of states, finality of awards and decision.
settlements, the legal validity of agreements, good faith, domestic jurisdiction, and the
freedom of the seas. (B) DECISIONS OF INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNALS
• Many times, these principles may be traced to state practice. However, they are primarily
abstractions and have been accepted for so long and so generally as no longer to be directly • The quality of decisions of arbitral tribunals vary considerably, but certain arbitral awards
connected to state practice. have made notable contributions to the development of the law and the International Court
• Certain fundamental principles of international law are considered peremptory norms. has referred to arbitral decisions on many occasions; it also refers compendiously to the
jurisprudence of international arbitration.
6. JUDICIAL DECISIONS • Depends on the status of the tribunal and of its members, and on the conditions under which
(A) JUDICIAL DECISIONS AND PRECEDENT IN INTERNATIONAL LAW it conducts its work.
o Examples: judgment of the International Military Tribunal for the Trial of German
Major War Criminals, the decisions of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, and
Statute of the International Court of Justice, Article 38, §1(c) – 1. The Court, whose function is the decisions of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.
to decide in accordance with international law such disputes as are submitted to it, shall apply:
d. subject to the provisions of Article 59, judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly (C) DECISIONS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT AND ITS PREDECESSOR
qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules • In theory, court applies the law and does not make it, and Art. 59 of the Statute reflects a
of law. feeling on the part of the drafters that the Court was intended to settle disputes as they came
to it rather than to shape the laws.
• Not binding on member states EXCEPT on certain UN organizational matters. • Equity – considerations of fairness and reasonableness often necessary of the application of
settled rules of law.
• However, when they are concerned with general norms of international law, acceptance by
all or most members constitutes evidence of the opinions of governments in what is the widest • Equity is not itself a source of law, yet may be an important factor in the process of decision-
forum for the expression of such opinions. making.
o Examples of law-making resolutions: General Assembly’s Affirmation of the • North Sea Continental Shelf – Court had to resort to the formulation of equitable principles
Principles of International Law recognized by the Charter of the Nurnberg Tribunal, concerning the lateral delimitation of adjacent areas of the continental shelf.
the Declaration of Legal Principles Governing Activities of States in the Exploration • The power of decision ex aequo et bono involves elements of compromise and conciliation,
and Use of Outer Space, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, whereas equity in the general sense (equity infra legem) finds application as part of the
and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. normal judicial function.
• In some cases, a resolution may have effect as an authoritative interpretation and application
of the principles of the Charter, but each must be assessed in light of all the circumstances, (B) CONSIDERATIONS OF HUMANITY
including available evidence of the states’ opinions on the point or points in issue.
• Depends on judge’s subjective appreciation, a factor which cannot be excluded.
(C) THE WRITINGS OF PUBLICISTS • These considerations may relate to human values already protected by positive legal
principles, which taken together, reveal certain criteria of public policy that are connected
• Included among the ‘subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law.’ (aka ‘la doctrine’ with principles of law and equity and need no particular justification.
in French) o References to principles or laws of humanity in preambles to conventions, in GA
• “Most highly qualified” – no restrictive effect but authority naturally affects weight. resolutions, and in diplomatic practice.
o Cofu Channel – Court relied on certain general and well-recognized principles
• Arbitral tribunals and national courts make sometimes copious reference to jurists’ writings.
including ‘elementary considerations of humanity, even more exacting in peace
• National courts are generally unfamiliar with state practice and are ready to rely on secondary
than in war.
sources as a substitute.
o Provisions of the UN Charter concerning protection of human rights and
• The International Court might seem to make little use of jurists’ writings but only because of
fundamental freedoms have been used as a basis for the legal status of
the process of collective drafting of judgments and the need to avoid an invidious selection
considerations of humanity.
of citations.
• Fact that the Court makes use of these writers’ work: evidenced by dissenting and separate (C) ‘LEGITIMATE INTERESTS’
opinions.
• The applicability of rules of law may depend on criteria of good faith, reasonableness, and
(D) CODIFICATION AND THE WORK OF THE INTERNATIONAL LAW COMMISSION
the like.
• Legitimate interests, including economic interests, may in the circumstances be taken into
• Work of the International Law Commission (ILC) is a source analogous and also (at least) as
account (continental shelf and fishing zones).
authoritative to the writings of publicists.
• It is acquiescence and recognition that provide the formal bases for the development of the
new rules.
6 E.B.C.AKOEH NOTES | ATENEO LAW
A.M.D.G +
(II) NATIONAL LAWS AS ‘FACTS’ BEFORE INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNALS
CHAPTER 3: THE RELATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND NATIONAL LAW
• Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia – National laws are merely facts which
1. THEORETICAL APPROACHES express the will and constitute the activities of States, in the same manner as do legal
decisions or administrative measures.
• Dualism – distinct and independent character of the international law and national legal • Thus, a decision of a national court or a legislative measure may constitute evidence of a
systems; international law is perceived as law between states whereas national law applies breach of a treaty or of customary international law.
within a state, regulating the regulations of its citizens within each other and with that state. • The concepts of national law as ‘merely facts’ has at least 6 distinctive aspects.
o Conflict between IL and NL: NL would apply as national law. (a) National law may itself constitute or be evidence of conduct in violation of a rule or treaty
• Monism – national and international law form one single legal order or at least a number of or customary law.
interlocking orders which should be presumed to be coherent and consistent. (b) National law may be part of the ‘applicable law’ either governing the basis of a claim or
o IL can be applied directly within the national legal order. more commonly governing a particular issue.
o Hersch Lauterpacht – individuals are the ultimate subjects of international law, (c) Whereas the principle iura novit curia applies to international law, it does not apply to
representing both the justification and moral limit of the legal order. The state is matters of national law. International tribunals will generally require proof of national
disliked as an abstraction and distrusted as a vehicle for maintaining human rights. law, although they may also (subject to due process) undertake their own researches.
International law is seen as the best available moderator of human affairs and also (d) When called upon to apply national law an international tribunal should seek to apply
as a condition of legal existence of states and therefore of the national legal that law as it would be applied in the state concerned.
systems. (e) International tribunals cannot declare the unconstitutionality or invalidity of rules of
o Hans Kelsen – monism is scientifically established if IL and NL are part of the same national law as such.
system of norms receiving their validity and content by an intellectual operation (f) The proposition that an international tribunal ‘does not interpret national law as such’ is
involving the assumption of a single basic norm (Grundnorm). open to question.
§ “The states ought to behave as they have customarily behaved.”
• Above all, neither theory offers an adequate account of the practice of the international and (III) TREATMENT OF NATIONAL LAW BY INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNALS
national courts.
o Fitzmaurice – attempted to by-pass the debate by arguing that there was no • In order to decide whether particular acts are in breach of obligations under treaties or
common field of operation: the two systems do not come into conflict as systems customary law, the Court has had to examine national law relating to a wide range of topics
since they work in different spheres, each supreme in its own field. of national law. National law is very frequently implicated in cases concerning individuals
o However, there could be conflict of obligations, an inability of the state on the including those relating to the protection of human rights and the exhaustion of local
domestic plane to act in the manner required by international law in some respect: remedies.
the consequence of this will not be the invalidity of the state law but the • Many treaties refer to ‘nationals’ of the contracting parties and the presumption is that the
responsibility of the state on the international plane. term connotes persons having that status under the internal law of one of the parties.
o Rousseau – similar views; international law is a law of co-ordination which deals • Umbrella clause – Each Contracting State shall fulfill any other obligations it may have
with incompatibility between national and international law through state entered into with regard to investments in its territory by investors of the other Contracting
responsibility. State
• Pluralism – To talk simply of dualism is to imply that national legal systems all have the same
features. Why should this be? The US is not the Federal Republic of Germany; their relation (B) INTERNATIONAL LAW BEFORE NATIONAL COURTS: GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
is international, not constitutional, but international law holds them apart; it does not unify (I) ESTABLISHING INTERNATIONAL LAW BEFORE NATIONAL COURTS
them.
o Each legal system has its own approach to the others. • Initial issue: whether the jurisdiction considers international law to be ‘part of’ national law.
o Often constitutional in character and which may be answered differently for
2. RELATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL LAW: AN OVERVIEW customary law and treaties.
(A) INTERNATIONAL LAW’S APPROACH TO NATIONAL LAW • 1949 German Grundgesetz provides in Art. 25 – the general rules of public international law
(I) IN GENERAL shall be an integral part of federal law.
o Once a court has ascertained that there are no bars within its own legal system to
Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Article 3 – The applying the rules of international law or provisions of a treaty, the rules are
characterization of an act of a State as internationally wrongful is governed by international accepted as rules of law and are not required to be established by evidence, as in
law. Such characterization is not affected by the characterization of the same act as lawful by the case of matters of fact and foreign law.
internal law.
(II) INTERNATIONAL LAW AS THE APPLICABLE LAW IN THE NATIONAL COURTS
• State cannot plead provisions of its own law or deficiencies in that law in answer to a claim • Once a national court has determined that international law is in some way applicable to a
against it for breach of its obligations under international law. matter before it, it falls to the court to determine how that law is to sit alongside any national
• Arbitral tribunals, the Permanent Court, and the International Court have consistently law that may also be applicable.
endorsed this position. • Certain issues common to many or all jurisdictions:
(C) RES IUDICATA AND THE TWO SYSTEMS 3. INTERNATIONAL LAW IN THE COMMON LAW TRADITION
(I) NATIONAL RES IUDICATA BEFORE INTERNATIONAL COURTS A. DEVELOPMENT OF THE COMMON LAW APPROACH
• Formal point of view: res iudicata is a general principle within the meaning of Article 38(1)(c) • Common law was initially seen and saw itself as the law of the land.
of the Statute, applied in tandem by international and national courts. o Situation changed in the 18th century, following the abolition of the conciliar courts
• But there is no effect of res iudicata from the decision of a national court, so far as at the Restoration in the opening up to the common law courts of the field of
international jurisdiction is concerned. international commercial litigation.
o Even if the subject-matter may be substantially the same, the parties may well not • Lord Mansfield - first recorded the principle of ‘incorporation’, that is, international law was
be, at least in the context of diplomatic protection and possibly outside that context ‘part of the law of England’, a tradition he attributed to Lord Talbot and handed on to
also. Blackstone.
• An international tribunal may be bound by its constituent instrument to accept certain o Open-minded approach was qualified in many ways: (1) supremacy of parliament
categories of national decisions as conclusive of particular issues. meant that treaties were not part of English law, and the role of Council in matters
o Some international tribunals afford natural and juridical persons standing against of external relations left a prototype of the act of state doctrine, together with a
states, including decisions of state courts. (e.g. European Court of Human Rights deference to executive authority in matters of the foreign prerogative.
- but only accessible once local remedies have been exhausted)
o Investor-State Arbitration Tribunals - decisions of national court create no res B. TREATIES IN ENGLISH LAW
iudicata insofar as the work of the tribunal is concerned, but parties to the
bilateral or multilateral treaty granting the tribunal jurisdiction may incorporate (i) UNINCORPORATED TREATIES.
procedural roadblocks, such as the fork in the road clause. • England: conclusion and ratification of treaties are within the prerogative of the Crown, and
§ Fork in the road clause - requires the claimant to elect investor-state if a transformation doctrine were not applied, the Crown could legislate for the subject without
arbitration or litigation before the courts of the host state of the parliamentary consent, in violation of the basal notion of parliamentary sovereignty
investment as its preferred method of dispute resolution. (bedrock of British Constitution).
o The rule does not apply in the very rare cases where the Crown’s prerogative can
(II) INTERNATIONAL RES IUDICATA BEFORE NATIONAL COURTS directly extend or contract jurisdiction without the need of legislation.
• Decisions by organs of international organizations are not binding on national courts • As a strong dualist system, English law will not ordinarily permit unimplemented treaties to
without the co-operation of the national legal system, which may adopt a broad be given legal effect by the courts.
constitutional provision for ‘automatic’ incorporation of treaty norms or require specific acts • Thomas v. Baptiste - The making of a treaty is an act of the executive government, not of the
of incorporation or implementation. legislature. It follows that the terms of a treaty cannot effect any alteration to domestic law or
• On the other side of the equation, municipal courts may seek to circumvent the finality of deprive the subject of existing legal rights unless and until enacted into domestic law by or
such decisions without engaging the question of res iudicata through interpretative under authority of the legislature. When so enacted, courts give effect to the domestic
legerdemain. legislation, not to the terms of the treaty.
• A decision of the International Curt, even one concerning substantially the same issues as • Principle of no direct effect - unimplemented treaties cannot create directly enforceable
those before a national court, does not of itself create a res iudicata for the latter. rights nor deprive individuals of legal rights previously bestowed.
o However, it does not follow that a national court should not recognize the validity o Cannot prevail over statutes and not ordinarily contracts capable of enforcement
of the judgment of an international tribunal of manifest competence and authority, in domestic courts, and their infringement by the UK is domestically without legal
at least for certain purposes. effect.
o States often accord res iudicata to international and domestic arbitral awards. • R. v. Lyons - Despite the fact that the judiciary is one of the 3 organs of state, it was not the
(Two-pronged: desirable as a matter of common sense since the arguments, from responsibility of the courts to uphold the UK’s international obligations in such cases; if the
Customary Contains a renvoi; General rules of public Conforms to the Commonly recognized Constitution is silent as to the Strongly dualist; GR: civil law
international law French Republic, true to international law form generally recognized principles and norms of municipal effect of custom. In nowhere in the jurisdictions adopt a
its traditions, conforms part of the Federal law principles of the international law and principle does not prevail over constitution is monist stance with
to the rules of international law international treaties of domestic legislation, but customary law regard to customary
international public law; the Russian federation domestic statutes seek to mentioned and no international law,
accepts pacta sunt shall be component part incorporate custom into statute purports to with incorporation
servanda of its legal system municipal law on a sui generis integrate customary frequently occurring
basis international law as a at a constitutional
whole into Swedish level.
municipal law; but
Swedish courts apply
principles of
customary IL when
not enshrined in
statute.
Treaties and Places treaties at a German courts will No express provision Treaties concluded by the All treaties binding to Similar to current Supremacy of
national law level superior to apply it as part of for the incorporation of Russian Fed are formally Netherlands as a matter of Dutch liberal treaties over
ordinary legislation but national law. Treaty treaties into municipal integrated into its international law are practice, but in more domestic law; will
inferior to the stands on a similar law; will produce no municipal legal system automatically incorporated recent time, adopts generally prescribe
Constitution. footing to an ordinary effect unless integrated based on Art. 15(4) of its into Dutch municipal system that: an international careful controls over
statute and may be via legislation: Constitution. without need for any treaty will have no the signature and
Treaties will ordinarily repealed expressly or implementing legislation. direct effect unless ratification of
be held to be self- impliedly by later 1. ordinary method - It must be signed and incorporated into international
executing, save where: legislation, though reformulates and ratified. Treaties entered into by municipal law via agreements.
(a) treaty in question there is a heavy interprets the treaty Netherlands must be legislative act.
contains only presumption against before amending Where a treaty is not self- approved by parliament.
obligations directed to this. national legislation in executing, municipal Riksdag’s approval is
and as between states order to achieve effect will be provided via Treaties need not be subject required before gov’t
and (b) it cannot be Treaty provisions will implementation. legislative enactment and to prior approval: concludes an
applied without be considered non-self 2. special method - embellishment, but if self- 1. where exemption from this international
legislative elaboration. exec: contains 2 operative executing, has a direct req. is provided by law. agreement which is
1. treaty excludes provisions: article and legal effect within 2. where they concern binding upon the
direct application authorizing ratification Russian legal system. exclusively treaties for which realm:
2. treaty refers to the and article ordering ‘full approval has already been 1. if agreement
necessity of further implementation’ of the granted. requires the
implementation by treaty. 3. where treaty is for a period amendment or
states parties, either of less than 1 yr and does not abrogation of an act
nationally or Case-by-case impose considerable financial of law or the
internationally mechanism: judge who obligations. enactment of a new
3. treaty provisions in considers that a 4. where treaty is act of law.
question cannot be domestic law provision exceptionally is secret and 2. or if it otherwise
applied as directly as it is incompatible with a confidential. concerns a matter to
(a) does not designate treaty or customary 5. where new treaty merely be decided by the
the responsible international rule, may extends an existing but Riksdag.
administration, (b) submit to the expiring treaty.
does not define a Constitution Court the 6. with respect to changes to
necessary question of no- execution, annexes that are
administrative conformity of that law. already part of an approved
procedure, (c) does treaty.
not designate the
jurisdiction of a
specific court.
Acte de gouvernement -
act is based primarily on
considerations relating
to public policy or the
national public services,
whether carried out at
home or abroad, will be
justiciable.
Theory of detachable
acts - act that might
prima facie appear non-
justiciable may
nevertheless be subject
to court jurisdiction if
French authorities have
some independent
choice with regard to
the procedure by which
they perform their
international obligations
and can themselves
take the initiative as
regards the means by
which they comply with
those obligations.
5.CONCLUSION
• Each system is supreme in its own field and neither has hegemony over the other.
• 3 factors: (1) organizational, (2) difficulty of proving the existence of particular rules of
IL, and (3) courts, national and international, will often be concerned with the question
of which is the appropriate system to apply to particular issues arising
(A) DE IURE AND DE FACTO RECOGNITION 5. ISSUES OF RECOGNITION BEFORE NATIONAL COURTS
• Everything depends on the intention of the government concerned and the general contect (A) OVERVIEW
of fact and law. • Where the local courts are willing or obliged to follow the advice of the executive, the
unrecognized state or government cannot claim immunity form the jurisdiction, obtain
recognition for purposes of conflict of laws of its legislative and judicial acts, or sue in the
De Facto Recognition De Iure Recognition
local courts.
• Acceptance of facts with a dubious legal • The legal, legitimate government of a
origin (ex. some would argue that the state and is so recognized by other (B) THE POSITION OF THE UNITED KINGDOM COURTS
Cory administration was a de facto states (ex. in a decision rendered by the • In matters of recognition, the UK judiciary has historically adhered to 2 closely related
government since it was through EDSA Supreme Court it declared that the principles.
People Power) government under Corazon Aquino was o Our states cannot speak with 2 voices on such a matter, the judiciary saying one
• May be withdrawn a de jure government as the people thing, the executive another.
have already accepted it and the o Although both the executive and the judiciary are considered to be manifestations
community of nations have recognized of the state, only the executive is competent to determine foreign policy.
its legitimacy.) • In the absence of a certificate, the court may examine executive action to infer that
• Irrevocable recognition has taken place. But the court is not required to guess at an unexpressed intent,
and can look at the matter at large.
• In Republic of Samalia v Woodhouse Drake and Carey, the following factors were
(B) RECOGNITION OF GOVERNMENTS IN ABEYANCE determinative in the absence of a certificate
o Whether the government in question is the constitutional government of the state
• There is a school of thought supporting the automatic recognition of de facto governments. o The degree, nature, and stability of its administrative control
(Ex. The Estrada Doctrine enunciated by the Mexican Secretary of Foreign Relations in 1930 o Whether the executive has had any dealings with the purported government and
favored an enclosed view of sovereignty. It claimed that foreign governments should not the nature of those dealings; and
judge, for good or bad, governments or changes in governments in other nations, because it o In marginal cases only, the attitude of other states towards the purported
would imply a breach to its sovereignty.) government.
o This was a means of reducing non-recognition as a source of interference in • Historically, the practice of the British courts was uniform to the point of rigidity: the acts of
internal affairs. unrecognized states and governments were given no weight. But the courts have adopted a
o This is laudable, but difficulties remain. number of devices by way of mitigation.
• The first, which is virtually a legal fiction, operates on the basis of an imputed agency; the
(C) CREDENTIALS AND REPRESENTATION IN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS acts of the unrecognized entity are considered to be performed under powers delegated to it
by the legitimate sovereign.
• In practice, the formal requirements for approving credentials have been linked with a • A second device permits the recognition of private acts internal to the unrecognized states.
challenge to the representation of a state by a particular government. Put simply, the English courts have endeavored to recognize rights and obligations which are
of a wholly private law character, unconnected to the grounds for non-recognition.
(4) COLLECTIVE NON-RECOGNITION AND SANCTIONS
• The ‘private acts’ exception was applied in Emin v Yeldag, wherein Lord Denning’s position
to include all private acts done within a non-recognized state, provided that
• One form of collective non-recognition seen in practice is the resolution or decision of an § There was no statutory prohibition on the recognition of the act, and
organ of the United Nations, based on a determination that an illegal act has occurred § The act of recognition did not undermine the political or diplomatic goals of the
• Article 41 (2) of the ILC Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful executive.
Act takes this further, providing that ‘no State shall recognize as lawful a situation created by
a serious breach’ of an obligation arising under a peremptory norm of international law. In (C) THE POSITION OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS
the present context, this obligation entails 2 central duties of absentation • The US position on the recognition of governments generally is as set out in the Restatement
1. Not to recognize as lawful situations created by a serious breach of international Third:
law; and 1. An entity not recognized as a state, or a regime not recognized as the government
2. Not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation. of a state, is ordinarily denied access to courts in the United States;
• It is possible though to refer to such practice as collective non-recognition. The duty of non- 2. A regime not recognized as the government of a state is not entitled to property
recognition is not, however, absolute. Such as what was stated in Namibia: “In general, the belonging to that state located in the United States;
non-recognition of South Africa’s administration of the Territory should not result in depriving 3. Courts in the United States ordinarily give effect to acts of a regime representing
the people of Namibia of any advantages derived from international cooperation. In particular, an entity not recognized as a state, or of a regime not recognized as a government
while official acts performed by the Government of south Africa on behalf of or concerning
19 E.B.C.AKOEH NOTES | ATENEO LAW
A.M.D.G +
of a state, if those acts apply to territory under the control of that regime and relate • The legal competence of states and the rules for their protection depend on and assume the
to domestic matters only. existence of this stable, physically identified base.
• The prohibition on access, however, may be relaxed depending on the facts of the case, the • Sovereignty – legal personality of a certain kind, that of statehood
practical consequences of granting or not granting access and the extent to which access is • Jurisdiction – particular aspects of the substance, especially rights or claims, liberties and
germane to the foreign policy goals of the US. powers. Of particular significance is the criterion of consent.
• US courts since the Civil War have acknowledged the acts of non-recognized states,
provided that such acts ‘ deal solely with private, local and domestic matters and not matters (B) SOVEREIGNTY AND OWNERSHIP
extending the borders of the unrecognized entity. • Imperium – general power of government, administration, and disposition
• Dominium – form of public ownership of property within the state
(D) THE POSITION IN EUROPE • Fortiori – form of private ownership recognized as such by the law
• A ‘pan-European approach
• As a general rule (to which Switzerland and the Netherlands are notable exceptions) non- (C) SOVEREIGNTY AND ADMINISTRATION
recognized states have no right of appearance, and their ats will not be given effect by • It may happen that the process of government over an area, with the concomitant privileges
European courts. and duties falls into the
• The position softened somewhat by the later 20th century, as suggested in the attitude of the • In the case of Germany, what occurred is akin to legal representation or agency of necessity.
Italian Court of Cassation: the only prerequisite for the enforcement of a foreign legal rule is After the defeat of Nazi Germany in the 2nd world war the four major allied powers assumed
its effectiveness, provided that the particular legal provision does not also require reciprocity supreme power in Germany. The German state did not, however, disappear.
of treatment and so long as the principle of the foreign law to be enforced do not appear • A similar case, long recognized in customary law, is the belligerent occupation of enemy
incompatible with the fundamental rules of the lex fori, in which case the foreign law is territory in time of war. Here, there is continued existence of a legal personality and the
unenforceable for reasons of public policy. attribution of territory to that legal person and not to holders of the territory for the time being.
• Differences in approach may depend on the readiness of national courts to apply international
law. In some states, the judiciary treats the political question of recognition as distinct from (D) ‘SOVEREIGN RIGHTS’ BEYOND STATE TERRITORY
statehood and assesses the capacity of an entity proprio motu rather than deferring to • A further source of confusion is the fact that sovereignty is not only used as a description of
executive acts. legal personality accompanied by independence but also as a reference to various types of
rights, indefeasible except by special grant, in the patrimony of a state.
• Expanding the Namibia exception • For example, ‘the sovereign rights’ a costal state has over the resources of the continental
• In Cyprus v Turkey :… the obligation to disregard acts of de facto entities is far from absolute. shelf or a prescriptive right of passage between the main territory and an enclave.
Life goes on in the territory concerned for its inhabitants. That life must be made tolerable • Rights which are ‘owned’ and in this special sense ‘sovereign’ involve a broader concept, not
and be protected by the de facto authorities, including their courts; and, in the very interest reducible to territorial sovereignty.
of the inhabitants, the acts of these authorities related thereto cannot be simply ignored by
third states or by international institutions, especially courts. to hold otherwise would amount 3. TERRITORIAL ADMINISTRATION SEPARATED FROM STATE SOVEREIGNTY
to stripping the inhabitants of the territory of all their rights whenever they are discussed in
an international context, which would amount to depriving them even of the minimum • While the concept of territorial sovereignty normally applies in relation to states, there is now
standard of rights to which they are entitled. considerable experience with international organizations not only administering territory in
the capacity of agent but also assuming legal responsibility for territory in respect of which
CHAPTER 8: FORMS OF GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY OVER TERRITORY no state has title.
• Definition: Newly formed sovereign states should have the same borders that their preceding (E) THE POLAR REGIONS: THE SECTOR PRINCIPLE
dependent area had before their independence. The concept provides that states emerging
from the dissolution of a larger entity inherit as their borders those administrative boundaries • Particularly in the case of the Arctic, the question of rights over frozen sea or ‘ice territory’
which were in place at the time of independence. arises, but otherwise normal principles apply to territory situated in polar regions.
• Essence of the principles lies in its primary aim of securing respect for territorial boundaries • In the making of claims to ice deserts and remote groups of islands, it is hardly surprising
at the moment when independence is achieved. Such territorial boundaries might be no more that governments should seek to establish the limits of territorial sovereignty by means of
straight lines, and similar systems of delimitation may be found in other regions
• Modern law forbids conquest and regards a treaty of cession imposed by force as a nullity, a 2. SOME USE OF SOVEREIGNTY
logical extension of the prohibition on the use of force.
• The territory of a state shall not be the object of acquisition by another state resulting from (A) THE COMPETENCE OF STATES
the threat or use of force. No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force
shall be recognized as legal. • The term ‘sovereignty’ is variously used to describe the legal competence which states have
in general, to refer to a particular function of this competence, or to provide a rationale for a
(B) THE PRINCIPLE OF SELF-DETERMINATION AND TERRITORIAL TRANSFERS particular exercise of this competence.
• In its most common modern usage, however, the term is rather descriptive in character,
• Is there a rule of law inhibiting the transfer of territory if certain minimum conditions of local referring in a ‘catch-all’ sense to the collection of rights held by a state, first in its capacity as
consent are not fulfilled? Dispositions by the principal powers, transfers under procedures the entity entitled to exercise control over its territory and second in its capacity to act on the
prescribed by international organizations, and bilateral cessions in the period since 1919 international plane, representing that territory and its people.
have been expressed to be in accordance with the principle of self-determination. • Sovereignty is not to be equated with any specific substantive right, still less is it a
• The machinery of the plebiscite is sometimes applied, or affected individuals may be given precondition to state-hood. Thus jurisdiction, including legislative competence over national
an option of nationality and/or repatriation. Some opinions support the view that transfers territory, may be referred to by the terms ‘sovereignty’ or ‘sovereign rights’. Sovereignty may
must satisfy the principle. However, there is insufficient practice to warrant the view that a refer to the title to territory or to the rights accruing from the exercise of title.
transfer is invalid simply because there is no sufficient provision for expression of opinion by • The correlative duty of respect for territorial sovereignty, and the privileges in respect of
the inhabitants. At present most claims are made in terms which do not include a condition territorial jurisdiction referred to as sovereign (or state) immunity, are described after the
as to due consultation of the population concerned. same fashion.
• Those jurists who insist on the principle refer to exceptions, in particular the existence of a • In general ‘sovereignty’ characterizes powers and privileges resting on customary law which
collective decision of states representing the international community to impose measures are independent of the particular consent of another state.
on an aggressor, and the principle of respect for pre-independence administrative divisions
following attainment of independence by former colonies (uti possidetis). (B) SOVEREIGNTY AS EQUALITY
CHAPTER 20: SOVEREIGNTY AND EQUALITY OF STATES • A corollary of their independence is the equality of states, historically expressed by the maxim
par in parem non habet imperium (equals have no sovereignty over each other is a general
principle of international law, forming the basis of state immunity. Because of this principle,
1. THE CONCEPT OF SOVEREIGNTY a sovereign state cannot exercise jurisdiction over another sovereign state.)
• In international law, the maxim is frequently invoked as a basis for state immunity, at the core
• The sovereignty of states represents the basic constitutional doctrine of the law of nations, of which (in its restricted modern application) is the concept of equality between sovereigns.
which governs a community consisting primarily of states having, in principle, a uniform legal But equality has further implications: it refers to the juridical conceptualization of the division
personality. of power between states. Obviously, the allocation of power and the capacity to project it in
• If international law exists, then the dynamics of state sovereignty can be expressed in terms reality are different things, which suggests that while all states are equal, some are more
of law. If states are conceived of as sovereign, then in this respect at least they are equal, equal than others.
and their sovereignty is in a major aspect a relation to other states (and to organizations of • But nonetheless formal equality remains and has meaning.
states) defined by law. • When, by legislation or executive decree, a state delimits a fishing zone or the territorial sea,
• The corollaries of the sovereignty and equality of states are: the manner and provenance of the exercise of such power is in the first place a matter for
o (a) a jurisdiction, prima facie exclusive, over a territory and the permanent the state. But when it is comes to enforcing the limit vis-à-vis other states, the issue is placed
population living there; on the international plane. Similarly, the conferral or withdrawal of nationality may lead to a
collision of interest between two states as to the right to exercise diplomatic protection. One
27 E.B.C.AKOEH NOTES | ATENEO LAW
A.M.D.G +
might conclude that the criterion depends on a distinction between internal competence—no • In an organization subject to majority or weighted voting, organs may be permitted to take
outside authority can annul or prevent the internally valid act of state power—and decisions, and even to make binding rules, without the express consent of all member states.
international responsibility for the consequences of the wrongful exercise of that competence. But on joining the organization each member consented in advance to the institutional
This distinction certainly has wide application, but it is not absolute in character. aspects, and thus in a formal way the principle that obligations can only arise from the
consent of states and the principle of sovereign equality are satisfied.
3. THE INTERACTION OF STATES WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW • On the other hand, international organizations can evolve and may assume roles very
different to that initially contemplated.
(A) SOVEREIGNTY AND THE APPLICATION OF RULES • If an organization encroaches on the domestic jurisdiction of members to a substantial degree
the structure may approximate to a federation. Given the modern conception of the
(I) THE PERFORMANCE OF OBLIGATIONS ARISING FROM TREATIES relationship between states and international organizations, such a position seems inherently
unlikely, and in any event, the consent-based conception of this relationship precludes the
• One of the central canons of the customary international law of treaties is the rule pacta sunt argument that state sovereignty is under threat from some form of overarching ‘world
servanda, it is the notion that states must comply with their obligations in good faith. government’.
• Wimbledon v. Germany • Pending an (unlikely) revolution, ‘world government’ is an essentially decentralized
o The court held that the idea that the treaty idea restrained Germany’s sovereign enterprise, something international law provides because states have accepted it: it is the
right to impose the law of neutrality on the Kiel Canal was fallacious. The treaty government we have when we are not having a government.
itself was an expression of conduct to which the state consented to be bound.
Rather than removing the right to apply the law of neutrality to the Kiel Canal, it (C) ARTICLE 2(7) OF THE UN CHARTER: DOMESTIC JURISDICTION
created an obligation to exercise that right in a certain way, with the capacity to
enter into an agreement giving rise to an internationally binding obligation being • Matters within the competence of states under general international law are said to be within
itself an attribute of sovereignty. the reserved domain, the domestic jurisdiction, of states.
• International court has referred to sovereign rights as a basis for restrictive interpretation • The advent of international organizations with powers to settle disputes on a political basis
of treaty obligations. caused some states to favour express reference to the reserved domain in order to reinforce
• But under the unitary theory interpretation set out in VCLT Article 31 and customary state sovereignty. Article 15(8) of the League of Nations Covenant provided, in relation to
international law, everything depends on the context, the intention of the parties, and disputes submitted to the Council as distinct from arbitration or judicial settlement:
the relevance of other, countervailing, principles such as that of effectiveness. In certain Article 15 (8) League of Nations Covenant: If the dispute between the parties is claimed by
contexts, this application of other canons of interpretation has led to a complete reversal one of them, and is found by the Council, to arise out of a matter which by international law
of the restrictive approach, particularly in circumstances where a dispute concerns a is solely within the domestic jurisdiction of that party, the Council shall so report, and shall
state and a private party. make no recommendation as to its settlement.
• Investor-state arbitration tribunals are particularly forward in this respect, often holding
• In making a political settlement the Council might well touch on the reserved domain, since
that international investment agreements be interpreted either neutrally or for the benefit
this contains matters frequently the cause of disputes, and the need to write in the legal limit
of the private investor.
of action was apparent.
• During the drafting of the UN Charter similar issues arose, and the result was Article 2(7):
(III) PRESUMPTION AND BURDENS
Article 2(7) United Nations Charter: Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize
• Many areas of international law are uncertain or contain principles which do not admit the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic
of easy application to concrete issues. jurisdiction of any State or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement
under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement
• Thus, much could turn on the answer to the question whether there is a presumption in
favour of sovereignty. measures under Chapter VII.
• In another form the issue is whether, in case of doubt as to the mode of application of • Certain contrasts with Article 15(8) of the Covenant will be apparent. There is no reference
rules or in case of an absence of rules, the presumption is that states have legal to international law, the reference is to matters ‘essentially’ within the domestic jurisdiction,
competence or not. and there is no designation of the authority which is to have the power to qualify particular
• There is no general rule, and in judicial practice issues are approached empirically. matters. Article 2(7) of the Charter was intended to be flexible and non-technical. At the same
Indeed, a general presumption of either kind would lead to inconvenience or abuse. The time the restriction was meant to be comprehensive, the use of the formula ‘essentially within’
context of a problem will determine the incidence of the burdens of proof of a given stemming from the wide implications of the economic and social provisions of the Charter
issue: whether that produces a burden of proving a restriction on sovereignty will vary. (Chapter IX).
(B) SOVEREIGNTY AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS (II) THE PRACTICE OF THE POLITICAL ORGANS
• The institutional aspects of organizations of states result in an actual, as opposed to a formal, • But these intentions have in practice worked against each other. The flexibility of the
qualification of the principle of sovereign equality. provision, and the assumption in practice that it does not override other, potentially
conflicting, provisions have resulted in the erosion of the domain of domestic jurisdiction,
28 E.B.C.AKOEH NOTES | ATENEO LAW
A.M.D.G +
although the drafters intended its reinforcement. Moreover, the word ‘intervene’ has been o Permanent Court ruling on the question of jurisdiction on general said that “Far
approached empirically. Discussion, recommendations in general terms, and even from laying down a general prohibition to the effect that States may not extend
resolutions addressed to particular states have not been inhibited by the formulation of Article application of their laws and the jurisdiction of their courts to persons, property or
2(7). acts outside their territory, International law leaves States in a wide measure of
• Ultimately, the early debates about the meaning of the term ‘to intervene’ in the context of discretion which is only limited in certain cases by prohibitive rules; as regards
Article 2(7) have lost their importance. Over time, it has been proved that the provision does other cases, every State remains free to adopt the principles which it regards as
not serve as an effective restraint on the activities of the UN. This is not due to a narrow best and most suitable.”
interpretation of the term ‘intervention’ but to a narrowing of those things which are seen as • The ruling in the SS Lotus Case emphasizing on plenary state discretion is contradicted by
solely within the domestic jurisdiction of states. the approach of the Court in Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case(1951) and Nottebohm Case
• The question whether a certain matter is or is not solely within the jurisdiction of a State is an (1955).
essentially relative question; it depends on the development of international relations. The • Arrest Warrant Case (2000): If a state wishes to project its prescriptive jurisdiction extra-
implications are far-reaching: This means that the concept of ‘domestic jurisdiction’ does not territorially, it must find a recognized basis in international law for doing so.
denote specific areas which are clearly defined, irreducible or in any way inherently removed • Permanent Court’s statement that “all that can be required of a state is that it should not
from the international sphere. It rather circumscribes areas which, taking into account the overstep the limits which international law places upon its jurisdiction; within these limits, its
situation at issue, are not even prima facie affected by rules of international law. In order to title to exercise jurisdiction rests in its sovereignty” remains correct.
remove an area from the sphere of domestic jurisdiction, it is sufficient that this area be
regulated by international law only in certain respects. i. THE TERRITORIAL PRINCIPLE
• UN organs have taken action on a wide range of topics dealing with the relations of
governments to their own people. Resolutions on breaches of human rights, the right of self- • Courts of the place where the crime is committed may exercise jurisdiction is universally
determination, and democratic governance have been adopted regularly. If the organ recognized.
concerned felt that the acts complained of were contrary to the purposes and principles of • An application of the essential territoriality of sovereignty, the sum of legal competences
the Charter and also that the issue was ‘endangering international peace and security’, a which a state has.
resolution was passed. security. • Practical advantages in case of crime:
o Convenience of the forum.
CHAPTER 21: JURISDICTIONAL COMPETENCE o Presumed involvement of the interests of the state where the crime was committed.
• Extensive Application of Territorial Principle:
o Subjective Territoriality – which creates jurisdiction over crimes commenced within
1. OVERVIEW the state even if completed or consummated abroad.
o Objective Territorial Principle (generally accepted and often applied) – jurisdiction
• Jurisdiction is an aspect of sovereignty: it refers to a state’s competence under international is founded when any essential constituent element of a crime is consummated on
law to regulate the conduct of natural and juridical persons. the forum state’s territory.
• The notion of regulation includes the activity of all branches of government: legislative, § [Example] Firing of a gun across a border causing death on the territory
executive, and judiciary. of the forum, but the principle can be employed to found jurisdiction in
• Although the state is conceive in the international law as a single unit, nonetheless for cases of conspiracy, violation of antitrust and immigration laws by
purposes of analyzing jurisdiction and its limits some distinctions are usually made: activity abroad and in may other fields of policy.
o Prescriptive Jurisdiction – power to make laws, decisions, or rules. o Effect of Combination of the 2 principles: whenever the constituent elements of a
o Enforcement or Adjudicative Jurisdiction – power to take executive or judicial crime occur across an interstate boundary both have jurisdiction.
action in pursuance of or consequent on the making of decisions or rules.
• There is a presumption that jurisdiction (in all its forms) is territorial, and may not be exercised ii. THE NATIONALITY PRINCIPLE
extra-territorially without specific basis in international law. However, the territorial theory has
been refined in light of experience and appreciation of extra-territorial jurisdiction. • Nationality, as a mark of allegiance and an aspect of sovereignty is also a generally
• Cardinal Principle (emerging) – Genuine connection between the subject-matter of recognized as a basis for jurisdiction over extra-territorial acts.
jurisdiction and the territorial base or reasonable interests of the state in question. • Application of the principle may be extended by:
• Sufficiency of grounds for jurisdiction is normally considered relative to the rights of other o Reliance on residence.
states. o Other connections as evidence of allegiance owed by aliens.
o Ignoring changes of nationality.
2. PRESCRIPTIVE JURISDICTION OVER CRIMES • [Example] UK legislature has conferred jurisdiction on its courts in respect of, inter alia,
treason, murder, bigamy, soccer hooliganism, child sexual abuse, and breaches of the
A. GENERAL BASES OF JURISDICTION Official Secrets Acts wherever committed by British nationals/residents.
• Territorial and nationality principles (as well as the increasing incidence of dual nationality)
• General principles for determining whether a state may prescribe acts as criminal under create parallel jurisdictions and possible double jeopardy, and many states place limitations
municipal law. on the nationality principle (for example by confining it to serious offenses).
• Lotus Case1927): Case concerning the collision in the high seas between French steamer o But such limitations are not required by international law. The practice of limiting
and a Turkish collier in which the latter sank and Turkish crew members and passengers the use of nationality jurisdiction to serious offenses is largely common law in
died. origin, with civil law countries applying a more expansive approach.
29 E.B.C.AKOEH NOTES | ATENEO LAW
A.M.D.G +
• For nationality jurisdiction, it is often asserted that the person over whom the state purports v. THE EFFECTS DOCTRINE
to exercise its prescriptive jurisdiction must have been a national at the time of the offense.
o Otherwise, it is argued, a violation of the principle of nullum crimen sine lege could • Further head of prescriptive jurisdiction.
occur • Applicable where an extra-territorial offense causes some harmful effect in the prescribing
o However, some states provide for nationality jurisdiction over persons who state, without actually meeting the criteria of territorial jurisdiction or representing an interest
subsequently acquire their nationality as state practice is varied. sufficiently vital to the internal or external security of the state in question to justify invoking
the protective principle.
iii. THE PASSIVE PERSONALITY PRINCIPLE • Alcoa Case – Judge Hand stated that it was a ‘settled law’ that any state may impose
liabilities, even upon persons not within its allegiance for conduct outside its borders which
• Reverse of the nationality principle. has consequences withi its borders which the state reprehends.
• According to this principle, aliens may be punished for acts abroad harmful to nationals of o This position was then followed extensively in US antitrust jurisprudence
the forum. • The doctrine previously resembled closely the conception of various heads of prescriptive
• Cutting Case: Mexican court exercised jurisdiction in respect of publication by a US citizen jurisdiction, but it has now changed its perspective. It is possible to speak of antitrust
in a Texas newspaper of a matter defamatory of a Mexican citizen. The court applied the jurisdiction, tort jurisdiction, and taxation jurisdiction, with some of these having a broader
passive nationality principle. This led to diplomatic protests from the US, although the extra-territorial reach than others.
outcome was inconclusive. • This has the potential to muddy the waters, resulting in the uncertain position of the effects
• Lotus Case: Turkish penal code provided for the punishment of acts abroad by foreigners doctrine within international law as either a head of prescription in its own right, or a subject-
against Turkish nationals; in effect it was a comprehensive exercise of passive jurisdiction. driven application of the territorial or protective principles with unusual reach.
But the court declined to assess the law as such. The question was whether the specific
factual situation fell within Turkish jurisdiction, and the court held that it did, invoking the B. JURISDICTION OVER SHIPS AND AIRCRAFT
protective jurisdiction.
• Criticisms on the passive personality principle: • Relation between the territorial sovereign and the flag state in the matter of jurisdiction over
1. That it served no wider goal of criminal justice: it did not correspond to a domestic private vessels in ports or other internal waters.
conceptualization of jurisdiction, would not close an enforcement gap and lacked • The view that a ship is a floating part of state territory is no longer recognized, but the special
any social aim of repression. character of the ‘internal economy’ of ships is still recognized.
2. It could expose individuals to a large number of jurisdictions. • Rule: law of the flag depends on the nationality of the ship and that the flag state has
• However, such objections have not prevented the development of something approaching a regulatory responsibility for and jurisdiction over the ship.
consensus on the use of passive personality in certain cases, often linked to international • But when a foreign ship enters a port, except as a consequence of distress, temporary
terrorism. allegiance is owed to the territorial sovereign and concurrent jurisdiction arises.
• Aut dedere aut iudicare provisions in most criminal law treaties authorize the use of passive • In principle, there are no limits provided action is taken with regard only to breached of local
personality jurisdiction as between state parties. law and not to breached of rules set by the law of the flag state.
• UK during the preparatory work of the Hague Codification Conference: State is entitled to
iv. THE PROTECTIVE OR SECURITY PRINCIPLE exercise jurisdiction over a foreign merchant vessel lying in its ports and over persons and
goods on board. In criminal matters it is not usual for the authorities to intervene and enforce
• Principle rests on the protection of concrete interests. the local jurisdiction, unless their assistance is invoked by, or on behalf of the local
• Nearly all states assume jurisdiction over aliens for acts done abroad which affect the internal representative of the flag State. In every case it is for the authorities of the state to judge
or external security or other key interests of the state which are not necessarily confined to whether to intervene.
political acts. • On this view derogation from the exercise of local criminal jurisdiction is a matter of comity
• Currency, immigration, and economic offenses are frequently punished. and discretion, but may be invoked in practices where:
• UK and US alow significant exceptions to the doctrine of territoriality though without express 1. The act in question disturbs the peace and order of the port.
reliance upon protective principle. 2. Assistance is requested by the captain or representative of the flag state of the
o UK courts have punished aliens for acts on the high seas concerning illegal ship.
immigration. 3. A non-crew member is involved.
o Joyce v. Director of Public Prosecutions – an alien who left the country in • Port state jurisdiction is increasingly recognized as a remedy for the failure of flag states to
possession of a British passport owed allegiance and was accordingly guilty of exercise effective jurisdiction and control of their ships.
treason when he subsequently broadcast propaganda for Germany in wartime. • Jurisdiction is no longer used solely to enforce local questions of civil and criminal law, but is
• Concept of ‘protection’ may vary widely. actively playing a role in the international regulatory sphere.
o Eichmann Case - Protective Principle was invoked in relation to Jewish victims of • Art. 218 of UNCLOS - granting port states the right to institute proceedings or impose
the accused, despite the fact that Israel was not a state when the offenses in monetary penalties for illegal discharges that occur outside their territorial sea and EEZ
question occurred. • Art. 23 of Straddling Stocks Agreement – Port state jurisdiction is also used as a response to
• Categories of what may be considered a vital interest for the purposes of protective illegal and unregulated fishing on the high seas. This sprovision is not the equivalent of
jurisdiction are not closed and no criteria exist for determining such interests beyond vague UNCLOS Art. 218 optimized for use in relation to fishing, but it does underwrite the use of
sense of gravity. existing port state jurisdiction in a certain fashion
C. UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION • Arises from sui generis treaty regimes incorporating penal characteristics.
• These regimes have for the most part been developed in order to respond to particular
i. DEFINING UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION behaviors viewed as undesirable.
• They require state parties to exercise mandatory prescriptive jurisdiction over certain
• Universal jurisdiction amounts to the assertion of Criminal jurisdiction by a state in the individuals within their territories, independent of any nexus.
absence of any other generally recognized head of prescriptive jurisdiction. • They are frequently characterized by the obligation of aut dedere aut iudicare, which will
• O’Keefe – Universal jurisdiction can be defined as prescriptive jurisdiction over offenses compel a state party to either try the accused or extradite to a state that is willing to do so.
committed abroad by persons who, at the time of commission, are non-resident aliens, where • [Example] Art. 4(2) of Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft (Hague
such offenses are not deemed to constitute threats to the fundamental interests of the Convention) – Each Contracting party shall likewise take such necessary measures as may
prescribing state or in appropriate cases, to give rise to effects within its territory. be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offense in the case where the alleged
• Some states have adopted, with limitations, a principle allowing jurisdiction over acts of non- offender is present in its territory and it does not extradite him pursuant to Art. 8 to any of the
nationals where circumstances, including nature of crime, justify repression as a matter on States mentioned in Par. 1 of this Article.
international public policy. In this sense, universal jurisdiction is defined by the character of • Ryngaert: The operation of the aut dedere requirement is indeed limited to States Parties,
the crime concerned rather than by the presence of some kind of nexus to the rpescriing which pool their sovereignty and explicitly authorize each other to exercise jurisdiction over
state crimes committed by their nationals or on their territory.
• Prosecution of crimes under customary international law is often expressed as an acceptance • However, that has not prevented certain states from insisting on the application of sui generis
of the principle of universality, but it is not strictly correct, since what is punished is the breach bases of jurisdiction to nationals on non-states parties to the treaties in question.
of international law. • Yunis Case: Lebanese national was prosecuted with respect to hijacking of Royal Jordanian
Airlines Flight from Beirut to Amman. Plane carried US nationals but was registered in
ii. THE CONTENT OF UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION Jordan, flew the Jordanian flag and never landed on American soil or flew over American
airspace. Court found that it had universal jurisdiction to prosecute with respect to hijacking
• Some commentators have argued for its extension on moral or public policy grounds, and and the taking of hostages of the accused. Although jurisdiction was grounded on the fact
that universal jurisdiction accordingly applies to certain crimes under customary international that the Lebanon was a state party to the Hague and Montreal Conventions, Court further
law the commission of which is generally accepted as an attack upon the international order. held that jurisdiction was also furnished by the provisions if the Hostage taking Convention
• Eichmann Case: The District Court of Jerusalem states that: “… therefore, so far from despite the fact that Lebanon and Jordan were not parties to that treaty.
international law negating or limiting the jurisdiction of countries with respect to such crimes,
international law is, in the absence of International Court, in need of judicial and legislative 3. CIVIL PRESCRIPTIVE JURISDICTION
organs of every country to give effect to its criminal interdictions and bring criminals to trial.
The jurisdiction to try crimes under international law is universal. o Two views as to the law concerning civil jurisdiction:
• The original crime to which universal jurisdiction attached was that of piracy iure gentium, § Exorbitant assertions of civil jurisdiction could lead to international
followed by slavery. In modern times it extended to so called “core crimes” of customary responsibility. As civil jurisdiction is ultimately reinforced by criminal
international law: genocide, crimes against humanity and breached of the Geneva sanction through contempt of court, there is in principle no great
Conventions of 1949 and Torture within the meaning of the Torture Convention. difference between the problems created by assertion of civil and
• Whether aggression can be considered a crime of universal jurisdiction – a better view states criminal jurisdiction over aliens.
that it is not. § There is little by way of limitation of a state’s exercise of civil jurisdiction
in what are effectively private law matters; different states assert
1
Opposable to or valid against ‘all the world’, i.e. all other legal persons, irrespective of specific consent on the Part of those thus affected.
42 E.B.C.AKOEH NOTES | ATENEO LAW
A.M.D.G +
o Answered YES in the 1976 version of the Draft Articles on State Responsibility § Anzilotti in 1906 – The law of nations does not award rights to
adopted by the ILC following the proposals of Special Rapporteur Roberto Ago. individuals. State’s obligation does not exist vis-à-vis individuals, but
o Its Article 19(2) provided that ‘the breach of an obligation so essential for the rather it exist vis-à-vis another State. Only States hold the right to
protection of fundamental interests of the international community’ should be demand that they treat the relevant individuals as desired.
considered to constitute ‘an international crime’. § Violation of a rule requires some sort of injury, a disturbance of the
o Ago further state that: ‘the responsibility flowing from the breach of those [erga interest it protects. Hence, only the injures state is entitled to invoke the
omnes] obligations is entailed not only with regard to the State that has been the responsibility of the wrongdoer.
direct victim of the breach…it is also entailed with regard to all other members of § Reparation for Injuries 1949 – For breaches of obligations owed to
the international community’. individual states, only the party to whom an international oblidation is
• That has been retained in ARISWA Art. 48. due can bring a claim in respect of its breach.
• On closer examination, ARSIWA Articles 40 and 41 provide not so much a regime of • NON-INJURED STATES VIEW
aggravated consequences as one of additional consequences. o GROTIUS – Asserted a right of sovereigns to punish violations of that law, even if
• ARSIWA Article 41 provides three such consequences. they have not been especially affected. “Kings, and those who possess equal rights
o First, all states are to co-operate through lawful means to bring an end to the to those kings, have the right of demanding punishments not only on account of
violation. injuries committed against themselves or their subjects, but also on account of
o Second, all states must refrain from recognizing as lawful the situation created injuries which do not directly affect them but excessively violate the law of nature
thereby. or of nation in regard to any persons whatsoever.”
o Third, no state may aid or assist the wrongdoer in maintaining the unlawful o LOCUS STANDI OF INDIVIDUAL STATES
situation. No punishment of the state responsible for the grave breaches is § Individual states can ground a claim in a broad concept of legal interest
envisaged by the Articles. or in special conditions in respect of legal interests of other entities.
• Other consequences remain de lege ferenda2, and have seen only sparse practice. o ACIO POPULARIS OR “ACTION OF THE PEOPLE”
• Re: the award of punitive damages – In the face of grave breaches in the fields of human § The right of a resident in any member of a community to take legal action
rights and armed conflict, courts and tribunals have refused to award penal damages. The in vindication of a public interest.
Inter-American Court has held that ‘although some domestic courts…award damages in § South West Africa cases – “States may have a legal interest in
amounts meant to deter or to serve as an example, this principle is not applicable in vindicating a principle of international law even though it suffered no
international law at this time’ material prejudice or ask only for token damages, but such rights or
• The consequences that flow from particularly grave violations are thus not qualitatively interests, in order to exist, must be clearly vested in those who claim
different from those that flow from a breach of any customary or conventional rule. The them, by some text or instrument or rule of law.”
distinctive regime of responsibility that exists for grave violations does not affect reparation, o ERGA OMNES OBLIGATIONS OR “TOWARDS ALL OR TOWARDS
but finds its main effects in the possibilities open to non-injured states of demanding EVERYONE”
cessation and responding to illegality. § Essential distinction between obligations of a state towards the
international community as a whole and those arising vis-à-vis another
4. INVOCATION OF RESPONSIBILITY State in the field of diplomatic protection.
§ All States can be held to have a legal interest in the protection of the
(A) EVOLUTION OF THE LAW former; they are obligations Erga Omnes.
• Primary Question: Who can invoke the responsibility of a state for a breach of international § Requests for declaratory judgments have been made in cases brought
law? by states that were not specially injured.
• Two views: Non-injured States vis-à-vis Injured States only § Barcelona Traction 1970 – Erga Omnes obligations include the
outlawing of acts of aggression and genocide, principles and rules of
• INJURED STATES ONLY VIEW
basic human rights, protection from slavery and racial discrimination.
o VATTEL – The only states justified in going to war against a violator were those
§ East Timor 1995 – The Court recognized the Erga Omnes nature of the
who have suffered an injury.
obligation to respect self-determination.
§ ONLY EXCEPTION: Only those nations that ‘openly despise justice’,
§ Assuming that the hurdles of jurisdiction, admissibility and propriety are
trampling the rights of others whenever possible.
satisfied, there is no inherent limitation of the concept of legal interest to
§ “To form and support an unjust pretension is only doing an injury to the
material interests.
party whose interests are affected by that pretension; but to despise
§ Thus, states acting in collective self-defense or a war of sanction against
justice in general, is doing an injury to all nations.”
an aggressor would seem to have a claim for costs and losses.
o DOMINANT VIEW AMONG POSITIVIST INTERNATIONAL LAWYERS
o ENVIRONMENTAL LAW – Whaling in the Antarctic 2010 (Australia v. Japan) :
1. Only states may invoke the responsibility of other states, and;
Australia’s application against Japan for whaling activities in the Antarctic Ocean
2. Only when specially affected by the breach.
presents a clear case of a state filing an application without being either injured or
§ The state or one of its nationals invoking responsibility must have
specially affected. Remedies sought by Australia demand specific orders for
suffered material or moral injury related to the wrongful act.
cessation and assurances of non-repetition.
2
Relating to the law as it should be if it were to accord with good policy (cf de lege lata, concerning the law as already laid down).
43 E.B.C.AKOEH NOTES | ATENEO LAW
A.M.D.G +
(B) ARSIWA ARTICLES 42 AND 48 (ARTICLES ON RESPONSIBILITY OF STATES FOR INTERNATIONALLY § A State to which the obligation is owed and;
WRONGFUL ACTS) § Which has some sort of interest in its fulfillment
• Protects a collective interest of the group
ARSIWA, Article 42 – Invocation of responsibility by an injured State • It is an Erga Omnes obligation
A State is entitled as an injured State to invoke the responsibility of another State if the o What may be demanded from the violator by a non-injured state: Article 48 (2).
obligation breached is owed to:
a. that State individually; or (C) COUNTERMEASURES
b. a group of States including that State, or the international community as a whole, • Countermeasures – “The possibility for a state to resort to ‘private justice’ when it demands
and the breach of the obligation: for cessation of an illegal conduct and/or adequate reparation are not met by the wrongdoer.”
i. specially affects that State; or • Wronged state may respond by taking measures which would in principle violate its duties to
ii. is of such a character as radically to change the position of all the other the other state, but which are regarded as lawful due to their character as countermeasures.
States to which the obligation is owed with respect to the further • In the absence of compulsory jurisdiction, sovereigns could take justice into their own hands.
performance of the obligation. • GROTIUS – “A state which does not receive reparation for injury done to itself or its nationals
may justly seize goods of the wrongdoing state and its nationals to recover the loss.”
• GROTIUS and VATTEL – Accepted reprisals as an ‘enforcement of right’ and the ‘right of
• REPARATION CLAIMS MADE/REQUESTED BY INJURED STATES
nations to do themselves justice’.
o ‘Injured State’ – refers both to states to which the obligation is owed individually
• Naulilaa Arbitration 1928 – A reprisal is an act of self-help of the injured State, which responds
§ Examples:
to an act contrary to the law of nations committed by the wrongdoing State. Its effect is to
• Violations of the law of diplomatic relations or a commercial
suspend momentarily between the two States the observation of this or that rule of the law
treaty
of nations.
• Breach of an Interdependent type – violation of an obligation
• With the growing restrictions on the use of force, ‘reprisals’ was replaced by two different
by any state radically changes the position of all the other
concepts: Self-defense (ARSIWA, Article 21) and Countermeasures (ARSIWA, Article 22)
states to which the obligation is owed with respect to the
further performance of the obligation
o Claimant state may demand such for injury done to itself or to its nationals. ARSIWA, Article 21 – Self-defence
o So long as the state invoking responsibility can be identified as specifically injured. The wrongfulness of an act of a State is precluded if the act constitutes a lawful measure of
o Problem then is only of valuation of the injury. self defence taken in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations.
o Injured States is entitled to resort to all means of redress contemplated in the • Authorizing the use of force applies only to an incoming armed attack.
articles.
• Nicaragua 1986 – While an armed attack would give rise to an entitlement to collective self-
1. Demand reparation of the injury (Restitution; Compensation; Satisfaction)
defence, a use of force of a lesser gravity could not justify counter-measures taken by a third
2. Cessation of the conduct
State, the United States, and particularly could not justify intervention involving the use of
3. Countermeasures
force.
• REPARATION CLAIMS MADE/REQUESTED BY NON-INJURED STATES 2. Notwithstanding paragraph 1 (b), the injured State may take such urgent countermeasures
o Responsibility may only be invoked by: as are necessary to preserve its rights.
44 E.B.C.AKOEH NOTES | ATENEO LAW
A.M.D.G +
3. Countermeasures may not be taken, and if already taken must be suspended without undue • The law on the matter is uncertain and that there is no clearly recognized entitlement of non-
delay if: injured states to take countermeasures in the collective interest.
a. the internationally wrongful act has ceased; and • ALLAND – The choice was between the subjectivisim of a decentralized response in defence
b. the dispute is pending before a court or tribunal which has the authority to make of general interests and the absence of any consequences for the most serious wrongful
decisions binding on the parties. acts.
• A helpful was to protect the collective interest is by entrusting the protection of collective
4. Paragraph 3 does not apply if the responsible State fails to implement the dispute settlement interests to individual states, acting based on their own understanding of international legality.
procedures in good faith. • SIMMA – The development from bilateralism to community interests will become visible. The
surrender of these concepts to the mercy of individual auto-determination and auto-
• Requirements before resorting to countermeasures: enforcement.
1. Injured State must call upon the wrongdoing state to cease the wrongful conduct.
2. If it is continuing, it must call for reparation of any injury
3. Formally notify the responsible State of the decision to take countermeasures and
the need to offer to negotiate (ARSIWA, Article 52(1))
4. Must not be taken while a dispute is pending before an international adjudicative
organ.
5. Must be proportional to the wrongful conduct.
o Naulilaa Arbitration 1928 – Evident disproportion between the killing of two
German officials in the Portuguese fort of Naulilaa and the subsequent attack
and destruction of six other forts by German forces.
o Gabcikovo-Nagymaros 1997 – Unilateral assumption of control over a large
percentage of the waters of the Danube was not commensurate with the injury
suffered.
2. Countermeasures are limited to the non-performance for the time being of international
obligations of the State taking the measures towards the responsible State.