PIL CASE DOCTRINES

NORTH SEA CONTINENTAL

SHELF CASE

NORWAY VS DENMARK
CHAPTER 2
Practice may turn into custom
despite short usage

USAGE
PAQUETE HAVANA CASE
Usage

ASYLUM CASE
Consistency

NICARAGUA VS US
Opinio juris
WIMBLEDON CASE
Rules on Treaties and Customs

AIRFRANCE VS SAKS
By ancient usage among civilized
nations beginning centuries ago and
gradually ripening into a rule of IL,
coast fishing vessels have been
recognized as exempt from capture
as prize of war
Columbia did not prove the
existence of constant and uniform
practice of unilateral qualification as
a right of the state to take a refugee
as an obligation upon territorial
states
Prohibition of use of force is
customary law based on consent to
UN resolutions which is one of the
forms of expression of opinion juris
Custom prohibited belligerents
from carrying armaments
Treaty of Versailles opened Kiel
Canal to passage to vessels of
commerce and war all nations at
peace with Germany

Treaty (later date) prevails over

custom
CHOWROZ FACTORY CASE
General conception of law that every
violation of an engagement involves
an obligation to make reparation
NETHERLANDS VS BELGIUM
Court has freedom to consider
principles of equity as part of
Equity
international law. Party engaged in
continuing nonperformance of
Diversion of Water from Meuse
obligation should not be permitted to
take advantage of similar
nonperformance of obligation by the
other party
CHAPTER 3
QATAR VS BAHRAIN
Consultations and agreements
embodied in the minutes of the
Treaties
meeting are considered an
international agreement
Michelle Duguil

Treaties
NUCLEAR TEST CASE

Interpretation of treaties
Ear deafness case
FISHERIES JURISDICTION CASE
UK VS ICELAND
X Rebuc sic stantibus
Extension of fishing jurisdiction

NAMBIA VS NAMBIA
X Material Breach
SA in Nambia
DANUBE DAM CASE HUNGARY
VS SOLVAKIA

Accepted concession not to obstruct

denmarks plan = IA
Unilateral announcement = binding
legal obligation
Warsaw convention was drafted in
French. Accident means cause of an
injury, not even of an injury. The
airline is not liable because the injury
was caused by the passenger his
own internal reaction to the natural
pressurization of the aircraft
In order that a change of
circumstances may give rise to a
ground for invoking the termination
of a treaty it is necessary that it has
resulted in a radical transformation
of the extent of the obligations still to
be performed. The change must
have increased the burden of the
obligations yet to be executed to the
extent of rendering the performance
something essentially different from
that initially undertaken. The change
of circumstances alleged by Iceland
cannot be said to have transformed
radically the extent of the
jurisdictional obligation that was
imposed in the 1961 Exchange of
Notes.
Continued presence of South Africa
in Nambia is illegal. SA should
withdraw admin of Nambia since its
mandate was already terminated by
the security council
Slovakia made unilateral measures
= x material breach

X Material Breach
Dam construction
GOLDWATER VS CARTER

Abrogation of a treaty is a political

question, which is beyond the
President Carter unilaterally
judiciarys authority. Action of the
terminated treaty with Taiwan
president and congress
CHAPTER 4
EXCHANGE OF GREEK AND
A State which has contracted valid
TURKISH POPULATION CASE
international obligations should
modify its legislations to ensure
1

ML in IL
BARCELONA TRACTION CASE
ML in IL
BRAZILIAN LOANS CASE
ML in IL
MEJOFF VS DIRECTOR OF
PRISONS
Russian Prisoner
KURODA VS JALANDONI
War crime prisoner
AGUSTIN VS EDU
Doctrine of incorporation
Early warning device
JBL REYES VS BAGATSING
Protect embassies
TANADA VS ANGARA
World Trade Agreement/ General
Agreement on Tarrifs and Trades =
valid

MANILA PRINCE HOTEL VS GSIS

Bidding for Manila Hotel
HEAD MONEY CASES: EDYE VS
ROBERTSON
Congress passed an act providing
that non-US citizens should pay 50
cents duty
WHITNEY VS ROBERTSON
Hawaii sugar case

fulfillment of International obligations

Common teachings in ML as part of
IL

VINUYA VS ROMULO
Comfort Women Case

Where a dispute involves domestic

law, the court should apply ML
Apply principle of incorporation of
UDHR no one should be subjected
to arbitrary arrest, detention of exile.
Mejoff should be released on bail.
The Philippines has jurisdiction over
war crimes as part of customary law
although the it is not a signatory to
the Hague Convention and Geneva
Convention
Philippines ratified the Vienna
Convention on Road Signs and
Signals = pacta sunct servanda
Doctrine of immunity from suit of
foreign states = international duty to
protect foreign embassies
The constitution did not intent to
purse an isolationist policy. The
constitutions policy of a self-reliant
and independent national economy
does not necessarily rule out foreign
investments.
Art 2 & 12 = X self-executory
Filipino first policy applies. Art 12,
Sect 10 is mandatory. It is
enforceable in regard to grants of
rights and concessions covering
national economy and patrimony.
When there a law passed after a
treaty, the later law prevails.
Treaties are subject to acts of
congress may pass for its
enforcement, modification and
repeal
Where there is a conflict between a
treaty and an act of legislation, the
one last in date will control.

REPARATIONS CASE

treaty = prevailing
The Executive Department did not
commit GAD in not promoting the
petitioners claim for official apology
from japan since the case has
already been decided through the
Peace Treaty..
CHAPTER 5
UN has international personality. It
has the power to bring an
international claim and its agents are
assured limited protection.
Express- charter
Implied from its functions

TINOCO ARBITRATION CASE

GREAT BRITAIN VS COSTA RICA
Injuries by great Britain caused by
de facto government

UPRIGYHT VS MERCURY
BUSINESS MACHINES CO
Typewriter

It is wrong to hold that a government

does not become a de facto
government unless it conforms to a
previous constitution nor would be to
hold that within the rules of
international law a revolution
contrary to the fundamental law of
the existing government cannot
establish a new government. Nonrecognition may have aided the
succeeding government to come into
power; but subsequent presentation
of claims based on the de facto
existence of the previous
government does not work an injury
to the succeeding government in the
nature of a fraud or breach of good
faith.
A foreign government, although not
recognized by the political arm of the
United States Government, may
nevertheless have de facto
existence which is juridically
cognizable. The acts of such a de
facto government may affect private
rights and obligations arising either
as a result of activity in, or with
persons or corporations within, the
territory controlled by such de facto
government.

Act of congress was passed after

Michelle Duguil

CHAPTER 6
USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Principle of specialty international
CASE
organizations are invested by the
states which create them with
powers, the limits of which are a
function of the common interest
whose promotion those States
entrust to them
KAPISANAN NG MGA
IRRI which used to be a private
MANGAGGAWA VS
corporation was converted into an
INTERNATIONAL RICE INSTITUTE international organization through
PD 1620 which granted it the status,
privileges and immunities of an
international organization.
DFA VS NLRC
The NLRC has no jurisdiction over a
case of illegal dismissal against ADB
Immunity of ADB
due to ADBs immunity.

WHO VS AQUINO

Exceptions: In cases involving ADBs

power to borrow money, guarantee
obligations, or to buy and sell or
underwrite the sale of securities
The immunity of WHO is a political
question = x jurisdiction of court

Immunity of WHO
Quash SW
JEFFRY LIANG VS PEOPLE
Grave oral defamation of ADB
official = X immune

The judge should quash the search

warrant he issued.
Immunity of ADB officials does not
cover acts which are not performed
in their official capacity.

CHAPTER 7
Territories inhabited by tribes or
people having a social and political
X Terra Nullius belongs to no
organization are not terra nullius
state or which may have been
abandoned by a prior occupant
WESTERN SAHARA CASE

THE ISLAND OF PALMAS

Belongs to netherlands

It is recognized that the continuous

and peaceful display of territorial
sovereignty is as good as a title.
Occupation should be effective. And
effectiveness is required not only for
the act of acquisition but also for the
maintenance of the right.

EASTERN GREENLAND CASE

When claim to sovereignty is based

on a continued display of authority,
Demark won
there must be 2 elements shown to
exist: (1) intention and will to act as
sovereign, (2) some actual existence
or displace of such authority
CHAPTER 8
UK VS NORWAY
For the purpose of measuring the
breadth of the territorial sea, it is the
Upheld the straight baseline
lower water mark as opposed to the
unilaterally adopted by norway
high water mark or the mean
between the 2 tides which has
generally been adopted in the
practice of states
CORFU CHANNEL CASE
In times of peace, states have the
right to send their warships through
Passage of warships in times of
straits used for international
peace
navigation between 2 parts of the
high seas without the previous
authorization, provided that the
passage is innocent
SAUDI VS ARMACO
Ports of every state must be open to
foreign vessels and can only be
Internal waters
closed when vital interest of States
require
NICARAGUA VS US
Coastal state may regulate access to
its ports
Internal waters
I AM ALONE CASE
The pursuit was legitimate but the
sinking of the pursued vessel was
HOT PURSUIT
not justified in the convention or any
principle of international law
CHAPTER 9
THE LOTUS CASE - FRANCE V.
TURKEY
TERRITORIALITY PRINCIPLE
Collision case
Concurrent jurisdiction

In collision cases, such as the given

case, where the origin of the offense
occurred in one vessel and the
effects occurred in another, these
elements being legally inseparable,
concurrent jurisdiction must be
exercised. Each should be able to
exercise jurisdiction and to do so in
respect of the incident as a whole.

Contiguity is not a mode of

acquisition
Michelle Duguil

TRAIL SMELTER ARBITRATION US V. CANADA

TERRITORIALITY PRINCIPLE
Fumes coming from Canadian
company to Washington = Canada
liable
BLACKMER V. US
NATIONALITY PRINCIPLE

Crimes are triable in the courts of the

country within whose territory they
were committed. States owe at all
times, a duty to protect other States
against injurious acts by individuals
from within its jurisdiction.
By virtue of the obligations and
duties owed, a State retains
authority over its citizens even
through residing abroad

US Citizen Residing in France =

subject to laws of the US

NATIONALITY PRINCIPLE
X EFFETIVE NATIONALITY LINK
German by birth ! applied for
citizenship in Liechtenstein !
resided in Guatamela still German

MEJOFF V. DIRECTOR OF
PRISONS
NATIONALITY PRINCIPLE

British national broadcasted

Messages to Germany asking Allies
(Poland, France, Britain to
surrender)
US VS YUNIS
X APPLY PROTECTIVE PRINCIPLE
APPLY UNIVERSALITY
PRINCIPLE AND PASSIVE
PERSONALITY PRINCIPLE
Hijacking of plane with US citizen

Contempt case
NOTTEBOHM CASE LIECHTENSTEIN V. GUATEMALA

TREASON

It is the bond of nationality between

the State and the individual, which
alone confers upon the State the
right of diplomatic protection. In
cases of dual nationality, preference
is given to the real and effective
nationality, that which accorded with
the facts, that based on stronger
factual ties between the person
concerned and one of the States
whose nationality is involved. No
relationship exists between
Liechtenstein and Nottebhom.
Apply principle of incorporation of
UDHR no one should be subjected
to arbitrary arrest, detention of exile.
Mejoff should be released on bail.

FILARTIGA V. PENA-IRALA
UNIVERSALITY PRINCIPLE
TORTURE OF FATHER AND SON
MY POLICE AUTHORITY
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ISRAEL
V. EICHMANN
UNIVERSALITY PRINCIPLE
PERSECUTION AND GENOCIDE =
UNIVERSAL CRIMES
EICHMANN V. ATTORNEYGENERAL OF ISRAEL
GENOCIDE CRIME UNDER
INTERNATIONAL LAW

A reasonable balance must be

reached between the protection of
human rights and the right of the
government to keep the peace.
STANISZEWSKI VS WATKINS

LORD HAW HAW CASE

PROTECTIVE PRINCPLE
Michelle Duguil

Stateless polish national resident in

the US who committed perjury in
ship employment documents =
stateless person = petition for HC
granted
No principle of comity demands that
a state should ignore the crime of
treason committed outside its

US V. ALVAREZ-MACHAIN
EXTRADITION
MACHAIN MURDERED DEA
SPECIAL AGENT ! ABDUCTED

territory. Proper regard for a

countries own security requires that
all those who commit, treason
whether within or without the realm
should be amenable to its law
The Passive personality principle
authorizes states to assert
jurisdiction over offenses committed
against their citizens abroad. During
the Hostage Taking Convention, the
international community explicitly
approved of the principle as a basis
for asserting jurisdiction over
hostage takers.
Deliberate torture under the color of
official authority violated the
universal rules of international law
regardless of the nationality of the
parties
The jurisdiction to try crimes under
international law is universal with
regard to those considered so
abhorrent as to be characterized as
crimes against humanity.

One of the principles whereby states

assume, in one degree or another,
the power to try and punish a person
for an offense he has committed is
the principle of universality. Its
meaning is, in essence, that that
power is vested in every State
regardless of the fact that the
offence was committed outside its
territory by a person who did not
belong to it, provided he is in its
custody at the time he is brought to
trial
Forcible abduction is not a sufficient
reason why the party should not
answer when brought within the
jurisdiction of the court which has the
right to try him for such an offence.
The Extradition Treaty only prohibits
4

FROM MEXICO AND BROUGHT

TO USE FOR TRIAL

SECRETARY OF JUSTICE VS.

HON. RALPH C. LANTION
EXTRADITION
X VIOLATION OF DP

Michelle Duguil

gaining the defendants presence by

means other than those set forth in
the Treaty when the nation from
which the defendant was abducted
objects.
An individual is bereft of the right to
notice and hearing during the
evaluation stage of the extradition
process. As the extradition process
is still in the evaluation stage of
pertinent documents and there is no
certainty that a petition for extradition
will be filed in the appropriate
extradition court, the threat to private
respondents liberty is merely
hypothetical.