PACQUETE-

HAVANACASE warnednott ogoi ntoHav ana,butwast ol

dt hatshe
would be al
lowed tol and atBahia Honda.She then
DOCTRI
NE
changedhercourse,andputf orBahiaHonda,butonthe
nextmorni
ng,whenneart hatport,wascapturedbythe
Byananci entusageamongci vi
lizednat i
ons,beginning Unit
edStatessteamship Dol
phin.
centuries ago and graduall
yr ipening intoar ule of Botht hefishingv esselswer ebr oughtbyt heircapt ors
i
nt er
nat i
onallaw,coastf i
shing v essels pur
suing thei
r i
nto KeyWest .A l i
belf ort hecondemnat ion ofeach
vocationofcat chi
ngandbringingi nfreshfishhavebeen vesselandhercar goaspr izeofwarwast her ef i
ledon
recognized asexempt ,witht heircar goes and crews, April27,1898;acl ai
m wasi nterposedbyhermast eron
from captureasprizeofwar. behalfofhimsel fandt heothermember softhecr ew,and
FACTS ofherowner ;evidencewast aken,showing t hef acts
abov estated,andonMay30,1898,af i
naldecr eeof
Ther e weret wo v essels—Paquete Habana and The condemnat ionandsal ewasent ered,"t
hecour tnotbei ng
Lola—whi chwer efishingsmacksr unninginandoutof sati
sfiedthatasamat t
erofl aw,wi thoutanyor dinance,
Hav ana,Cuba,regularlyengagedi nf
ishingint hecoastof tr
eaty,orpr oclamat i
on,fishingv esselsofthiscl assar e
Cuba, andsail
edundert heSpanishfl
ag.Unt ilthestopped exemptf r
om sei zure.
"
byt heblockadingsquadr on,theyhadnoknowl edgeof Eachvesselwasther
euponsoldbyauct
ion;t Paquet
he  e
theexistenceofwar ,norwer etheycarryinganyar msor Habana 
forthesum of$490andt Lol
he  a f
orthesum of
ammuni t
ions.Aftert heirknowledgeoft heexi st
enceof $800.
war ,t
heydidnotat t
emptt orunnorresistedt hecapture. Ithasbeensuggest edinbehalfoftheUni t
edStatesthat
OnApr i
l25,1898,aboutt womi l
esof fMariel
,andel ev
en thisCourthasnojurisdi
cti
ontohearanddet erminethese
milesfrom Hav ana,thePaquet eHabanawascapt uredby appeal sbecausethemat t
eri n di
sputein eit
hercase
theUni tedSt at
esgunboat Cast
  ine.Whi eTheLol
l aleft doesnotexceedt hesum orv alueof$2, 000,andt he
Hav anaApr i
l11,1898,and pr oceeded to Campeachy distr
ictjudge has notcer ti
fi
ed thatt he adj
udicat
ion
Sound,of fYucatan,f ishedt hereeightdays,andst art
ed i
nv ol
v esaquesti
onofgener al
importance.
backf orHavanawi thacar goofabout10, 000poundsof
l
ivef i
sh.OnApr il26,1898, nearHav ana,shewasst opped I
SSUE
by t he United St ates st eamship Cinci
nnati
, 
and was
Whetherornott he f
ishi
ng smacks wer
e subj
ectto poli
cy of the government to conduct t
he war i
n
capt
urebythear
medv essel
softheUnit
edStat
esduri
ng accordance wi
tht he pri
nci
ples of i
nter
nati
onall
aw
ther
ecentwarwi
thSpain. sancti
onedbytherecentpr
act
iceofnati
ons.
ThePaquet
eHabana,
 
ast
her
ecor
dshows,wasaf
ishi
ng
HELD sloopof25t onsburden.Shehadnoar msorammuni t
ion
onboar d;shehadnoknowl edgeoftheblockade,oreven
oft hewar,unti
lshewasst oppedbyablockadingvessel
;
No.Thedoct r
inewhi chexempt scoastf i
sher men,wi th
she made no at t
emptt or un t
he blockade,and no
theirv essel sandcar goes,f rom capt ureaspr i
zeofwar ,
resist
anceatt heti
meoft hecapture;norwast her
eany
hasbeenf ami liart ot heUni t
edSt atesf r
om t het i
meof
evidencewhateverofl i
kel
ihood t
hatshe orhercr ew
the WarofI ndependence. The posi ti
on taken by t he
woul daidtheenemy .
Uni t
edSt atesdur i
ngt her ecentwarwi t
hSpai nwasqui te
i
naccor dwi tht her uleofi nt ernationallaw, nowgener ally Int hecaseoft he Lola,
 t
heonl ydi
fferencesint hef acts
recogni zedbyci vi
l
izednat i
ons,i nregardt ocoastf i
shing wer et hatshewasaschoonerof35t onsburden.Af ter
vessel s.OnApr il22,t hePr esi dentissuedapr ocl amation l
eav ingHav anaandpr oceedingsomet wohundr edmi les
decl ar i
ngt hatt heUni tedSt ateshadi nstit
utedandwoul d alongt hecoastofCuba, shewenton, aboutonehundr ed
mai nt aint hatbl ockade" inpur suanceoft helawsoft he mi l
esf ar
ther,tot hecoastofYucat an,andt heref i
shed
Uni t
edSt ates,andt hel aw ofnat i
onsappl icablet osuch forei ghtday s,andt hat
,onherr eturn,whennearBahi a
cases. "30St at.1769.Andbyt heactofCongr essofApr i
l Hondaont hecoastofCuba,shewascapt ured,withher
25, 1898, c.189, i
twasdecl aredt hatt hewarbet weent he cargoofl ivefish,onApr il27,1898.Thesedi ffer
ences
Uni t
edSt at esandSpai nexi st edont hatday ,andhad affordnogr oundf ordisti
nguishi
ngthet wocases.
exist edsi nceandi ncludi ngApr i
l21,30St at.364. OnApr i
l Each v esselwasofamoder atesize,such asi snot
26,1898,t he Pr esi denti ssued anot herpr ocl amation unusuali n coastf i
shi
ng smacks,and was r egularl
y
whi ch,af t
err eciti
ngt heexi st enceoft hewarasdecl ared engagedi nfishi
ngont hecoastofCuba.Thecr ew of
by Congr ess,cont ained t hisf urt
her recital:
"It being eachwer efew innumber ,hadnoi nter
estinthev essel,
desi rabl et hatsuch warshoul d be conduct ed upon andr eceived,inreturnfortheirtoilandenterpr
ise,two-
princi plesi nhar monywi tht hepr esentv i
ewsofnat ions thir
dsofhercat ch,theotherthirdgoingtoherownerby
and sanct ioned by t hei r r ecent pr acti
ce. " The wayofcompensat ionforheruse.Eachv esselwentout
procl amat ion,howev er,cl ear l
y mani f
estst he gener al from Hav anat oherf i
shinggr oundandwascapt ured
whenr eturningal ongt hecoastofCuba.Thecar goof vi
olat
eblockadearesubj
ect
,withcrew,t
ocapt
ure,and
eachconsi stedoff reshfish,caughtbyhercr
ewf r
om t he anysuchvesselorcr
ew consi
deredli
kel
ytoai
denemy
seaandkeptal iveonboar d.Alt
houghoneoft hevessels maybedetained.
extendedherf i
shingt r
ipacrosstheYucatanchanneland BureauofNav igati
onRepor tof1898,appx.178.The
fi
shedont hecoastofYucat an,wecannotdoubtt hat admi ral
'
sdi spatchassumedt hathewasnotaut hori
zed,
eachwasengaged i nt hecoastf i
sher
y,and notina without expr ess or der,to ar r
est coast f ishermen
commer cial adventure,withi
ntheruleofi
nter
nati
onallaw. peaceabl y pursuing theircal l
i
ng,and t he necessar y
Upont hefactsprovedineithercase,i
tisthedutyofthi
s i
mpl icat
ion and ev i
denti nt
entoft her esponseoft he
Cour t
,sitt
ingast hehi ghestprizecourtoft heUni
ted Nav yDepartmentwer ethatSpanishcoastf ishi
ngv essel
s
Statesandadmi ni
ster
ingt helaw ofnati
ons,todecl
are andt heircrewsshoul dnotbei nter
fer
edwi thsol ongas
andadj udgethatthecapt urewasunl awfulandwit
hout theyneitherat t
empt edt oviolat
et heblockadenorwer e
probablecause,anditi
st heref
ore,i
neachcase. consideredlikel
yt oaidtheenemy .
Ot
herf
act
s:
OnApr i
l28,1898( aftert hecapt ureoft het wof ishing
vesselsnow i nquest i
on) ,Admi ralSampsont elegraphed
tot he Secr etary oft he Nav yt hatt he v essel s are
attempt i
ngt ogeti ntoHav anaf r
om t heirfishinggr ounds
neartheFl oridareef sandcoast s,thatt heyar egener all
y
mannedbyexcel lentseamen,bel ongi ngtot hemar it
ime
i
nscr i
ption ofSpai n,who hav e alreadyser ved i nt he
Spanishnav y,andwhoar el iablet of urtherser vice.As
theset rai
nedmenar enav alr eserves,mostv aluablet o
theSpani ardsasar ti
ll
erymen,ei theraf loatorashor e.He
recommendedt hatt heyshoul dbedet ainedpr isonersof
war ,
andt hatIshoul dbeaut hor i
zedt odel i
vert hem tot he
commandi ng of f
iceroft he ar my atKey West .The
Secretaryoft heNav y,onApr il30,1898,concur r
edand
answer edthatt heSpani shf ishingv essel sattempt i
ngt o
 r
ati
fi
edt
hesame.

I
SSUE/
S:

Whi
cht
ypeofmeasur
ementshoul
dbeused?

I
sthe1958Genev
aConv
ent
ionbi
ndi
nguponGer
many
?

HELD:

Denmar k and the Net her

lands claim the use oft he
“Equidistance”r
ulewasgener alandcustomarylaw.The
Courtsay sno,duringt hepr esentt i
me15caseswer e
cit
edt ohav eusedt hesamemet hod.Butt her
ei sno
compel li
ng ev i
dence t hatt hey had done t he same
NORTHSEACONTI
NENTALSHELFCASE1969 becauset heywerelegallycompel l
edt odoso.Therefore
the par ti
es wer e under no obl i
gati
on to applyt he
FACTS:
EquidistancePr i
nci
ple,andt hatGer many’
scasei snot
Netherl
ands, Denmar k, and t he Feder ation of t he consideredasaspeci alcir
cumst anceprovi
dedundert he
Republi
cofGer many( notethatGermanywasst i
lldiv i
ded same.
duri
ngthattime,andt heCol dWarwasi nf ull
swing)wer e
I
st he1958Genev aConv enti
onBindinguponGer many?
l
ockedi naboundar ydi sputeintheNor t
hSea.Denmar k,
TheCourtsaysy es,eventhoughGermanynev errati
fi
ed
andtheNet herl
andswasgangi nguponGer manyst ati
ng
thesame;t
heconv enti
onhasbecomebi ndi
ngthroughit
s
thatitshoulduset he“ Equidi
stance”r ule aspr ov i
ded
procl
amati
ons,conduct,andpubl
icstatements.
underAr t
.6oft he1958Genev aConv enti
on.Howev er,
Germany cont ends t hat it should use a “ just and 11–6VOTESi
nfav
orofGer
many
.
equit
able point”ofmeasur ementi nstead.Obv iously,
Germanywasget ti
ngt heshorterendoft hestick,bei ng
halfacount r
ywi thf ewerr esources.Itwasal sof ound
thatGermanysi gned t he 1958 Conv ention butnev er
 Torr
easapol i
ti
calrefugeeinaccordancewithArt
icl
e2
Mont ev
ideoConv enti
ononPol i
ticalAsyl
um of1933.Per
u
ref
usedt oaccepttheunilat
eralquali
fi
cati
onandrefused
tograntsafepassage.

I
ssues:

1.I
sColombi acompetentt
ounil
ater
all
yquali
fythe
off
ensef ort
hepurposeofasy
lum undert
reat
ylawand
i
nternat
ionall
aw?

2.WasPer
u,ast
heter
rit
ori
alSt
ate,
boundt
ogi
vea
guar
ant
eeofsaf
epassage?

3.CantheCol
ombi
angov
ernmentof
ferasy
lum under
l
ocalcust
om?

Rul
ing

ASYLUM CASE Fi
rsti
ssue:

Thecour tstatedt hatint henor mal cour seofgr ant i

ng
Fact
s:
diplomat i
casy lum adi plomat i
cr epresent ati
vehast he
Per uissuedanar r
estwar r
antagai nstVict
orRaul Hay a compet encet omakeapr ovisi
onal qual ifi
cati
onoft he
del aTor re“inrespectoft hecr i
meofmi li
taryrebelli
on” offenseandt het erri
torialStatehast her i
ghttogi ve
whi cht ookplaceonOct ober3, 1949, i
nPer u.3mont hs consentt othisqual if
ication.IntheTor re’scase,
aftert herebell
ion,Torref l
edt otheCol ombi anEmbassy Col ombiahasasser ted,ast heSt ategr ant i
ngasy lum,
i
nLi ma, Peru.TheCol ombi anAmbassadorconf irmed thatitiscompet entt oqual if
yt henat ur eoftheof f ensei n
thatVi ctordelaTor rewasgr anteddiplomat icasy l
um in auni lat
eralanddef init
ivemannert hati sbindingonPer u.
accor dancewi thAr t
icl
e2( 2)oft heHav anaConv enti
on Thecour thadt odeci dei fsuchadeci sionwasbi ndi ngon
onAsy l
um of1928andr equestedsaf epassagef orTorre Per ueit
herbecauseoft reatylaworot herprinciplesof
toleav ePer u.Heclaimedt hatColumbi ahadar i
ghtt odo i
nt ernati
onal l
aworbywayofr egional orlocal cust om.
thi
sbot hunderagr eement sbetweent hest atesandi na
Thecourtheldthatther
ewasnoexpr essedorimpl
i
ed
l
ocal custom intheLat i
nAmer icanstates.Subsequent l
y,
ri
ghtofunil
ater
al anddefi
nit
ivequal
i
ficat
ionoft
heStat
e
theAmbassadoral sost atedCol ombiahadqual i
fied
thatgr ant
sasy l
um undertheHav anaConv entionor rel
evantStates.Thecourtalsorei
ter
atedthatt
hef act
relevantpri
nciples.TheMont evi
deoConv ent i
onof1933, thataparti
cularStat
epracti
cewasf ol
lowedbecauseof
whi chacceptsther i
ghtofunil
ateralqualif
ication,andon poli
ti
calexpediencyandnotbecauseofabel i
efthatthe
whi chColombi areli
edtojust
ifyi
tsuni l
ateralqual i
fi
cat
ion, saidpract
iceisbindi
ngont heStat
ebywayofal egal
wasnotr at
if
iedbyPer u.TheConv ention,perse, wasnot obli
gati
onisdet r
imentalt
ot hef
ormationofacustomar y
bindingonPer uandconsi der
ingthel ownumber sof l
aw.
ratif
icati
onsthepr ovi
sionsofthelatt
erConv ention
cannotbesai dt orefl
ectcust
omar yinternational l
aw. ThecourtheldthatevenifColombiacoul
dprovethat
sucharegionalcustom exi
sted,i
twouldnotbebi
nding
Secondi
ssue: onPeru,becausePer udidnotrat
ifyt
heMontevi
deo
Convent
ion.
Thecour theldthatther ewasnol egal obligationonPer u
tograntsafepassageei t
herbecauseoft heHav ana
Conv enti
onorcust omar ylaw.I nthecaseoft heHav ana
Conv enti
on,aplainr eadingofAr t
icl
e2r esultsinan
obli
gationont heterritori
al state(Per u)togr antsaf e
passageonl yafteritrequest stheasy l
um gr ant i
ngState
(Col
umbi a)tosendt heper songr antedasy l
um out si
deits
nati
onal t
erri
tory(Per u).Int hiscaset hePer uv ian
governmenthadnotaskedt hatTor r
el eav ePer u.Ont he
contrary,
itcontestedt hel egal i
tyofasy lum gr antedto
him andr ef
usedt ogr antsaf econduct

Thi
rdi
ssue:

TheCour theldthatt
hepartywhichrel
iesonacustom of
thiskindhastheburdenofestabli
shi
ngthatthecustom
existsinsuchawayt hati
thasbecomebi ndingonthe
otherparty,
throughconst
antanduniform usageofthe
states.

Thecourtheldt
hatColumbi
adidnotestabl
ishthe
exi
stenceofaregi
onalcust
om becauseitf
ail
edtoprove
consist
entanduni
for
m usageoftheall
egedcustom by
 conduct edbyt heUni tedSt atesagai nstNi caraguaf r
om 1981-
1984.Ni caraguaf i
ledasui tagainstt heUni tedSt at
esal l
eging
thatt heUShassuppor tedtheCont ras– ar ebell
i
ongr oup
agai nsttheNi caraguangov er
nment .Theyal soal l
eget hatthe
USpl antednav almi nesi nNicaragua’ sterri
tori
alwaters.Infact,
ther ewasampl eev idencet hatt heCont raswer eaCent ral
Intelli
gence Agency ( CIA)f unded r ebelgr oup est abl
ished
dur i
ng US Pr esi
dentReagan’ s admi nist
rati
on.To f und the
Cont ras,t he US sol d weapons t oI ran and assi sted the
Col ombi ancocainet rade.TheUni tedSt ateshowev er,refused
topar t
icipateint hepr oceedingsaf tert heCour trejectedits
argumentt hattheI CJl ackedj uri
sdictiontoheart hecase.

I
SSUE

Whetherornott heUnitedStatesbreachi t
scustomary
i
nternati
onallawobl i
gation–nott ointerv
enei ntheaffai
rsof
anotherState,wheni ttrai
ned,armed,equippedandf i
nanced
theeCont r
asf orcesorencouraged,suppor ted,andaidedthe
mili
taryandpar amil
it
aryacti
vit
iesagainstNicaragua.

HELD

Yes,theCourtfoundi nitsverdictthattheUni t
edSt ates
wasi nbr eachofitsobli
gat i
onsundercust omar yinternational
l
awnott ousef or
ceagainstanot herSt ate,nottoi ntervenei n
NI
CARAGUAv
sUSI
CJRepor
t1986 i
ts affairs,nott ov iol
atei ts sovereignty,nott oi nterrupt
peacefulmar iti
mecommer ceandi nbr eachofi tsobl igations
underAr t
icl
e19oft heTr eatyofFr iendship,Commer ceand
FACTS Navigationbet weenpar t
iessi gnedatManaguaonJanuar y
1956.Si ncet heICJf oundt hatt heUShasgr osslyv i
olated
Thi
scasei
nvol
vedmi
l
itar
yandpar
ami
l
itar
yact
ivi
ti
es i
nternational law as wel l as Ni caragua’s sov erei
gnt y
,
Nicaragua asked f
or$17 bi l
l
ion i
nr eparat
ion.Inresponse (
Unit
edKingdom ofGr
eatBr
it
ain&Nor
ther
nIr
elandv
.
howev er,the Unit
ed States wi
thdrew its supportoft he Nor
way,1951)
Int
ernationalCour
tofJusticeandasapr ominentmemberof
UN Secur it
yCouncil,v
etoedanyat tempt satenf or
cingthe FACTS
ICJ’
s j udgment. To this day,Ni car
agua has seen no
compensat ion. Since1911Br i
ti
shtrawl ers(met hodoff ishingt hat
i
nv olvesactiv
elydraggingorpul l
ingat rawl throughthe
wat erbehindoneormor etrawlers.Trawl sar efishi
ng
net sthatarepull
edal ongt hebot tom oft heseaor
mi dwaterataspeci fi
eddept h)hadbeensei zedand
condemnedf orviol
atingmeasur est akenbyt he
Nor wegianGov er
nmentspeci f
yingthel i
mi tswi thi
nwhich
fi
shi ngwaspr ohi
bitedtof oreigners.

TheNorwegi anGovernmentimplement
edtheli
nes
ofdeli
mitati
onoft heNorwegianfi
sheri
eszonelai
ddown
bytheRoy alDecreeofJuly12,1935asamendedbya
DecreeofDecember10, 1937.Negot i
ati
onshadbeen
ent
eredintobyt hetwoGov ernment
sbutdidnotsucceed.

Aconsi
der
ablenumberofBr
it
isht
rawl
erswer
e
ar
rest
edandcondemnedin1948and1949.

OnSeptember28, 1949t heGovernmentofUK

fi
ledwiththeRegistr
yoft heICJanappl i
cat
ioninsti
tuti
ng
proceedi
ngsagainstNorway .Thesubjectofthe
proceedi
ngswast hev al
idit
y,underi
nternat
ionallaw,of
theli
nesofdeli
mit at
ionoftheNor wegianFi
sherieszone.

TheUnit
edKingdom r
equestedthecour
ttodeci
deif
ANGLO-
NORWEGI
ANFI
SHERI
ESCASE
Norwayhadusedalegal
lyacceptabl
emethodindr
awing
thebaseli
nef rom whichi tmeasur editster
rit
orialsea. Consider
ati
onsinher
entinthenatur
eofter
ri
tor
ialsea
TheUni t
edKingdom ar guedt hatcustomaryinternati
onal whichcanprovi
deguidancetotheCour
ts;
l
awdi dnotallowt hel
engt hofabasel inedrawnacr ossa
a)Sincetheter
ri
tori
alseai
scloselydependent
baytobel ongert hantenmi les.Norwayar guedt hatit
s
uponthelanddomain,thebase-
li
nemustnotdepar tt
o
deli
mitati
onmet hodwasconsi stentwithgeneral
anyappreci
ableext
entfrom t
hegeneraldir
ecti
onofthe
pri
ncipl
esofi nternati
onal l
aw.
coast
I
SSUES
b)Cer
tai
nwatersarepar
ti
cul
arl
yclosel
yli
nkedt
o
(i
)todeclar
et hepri
ncipl
esofinternat
ionallawappli
cable t
hel
andfor
mationswhichdi
vi
deorsurr
oundthem
i
ndefini
ngthebasel i
nesbyr ef
erencetowhi chthe
c)Itmaybenecessar ytohaver
egardtocert
ain
NorwegianGov er
nmentwasent i
tl
edtodel i
mitafisher
ies
economicinter
estpeculi
artoaregi
onwhentheirr
eali
ty
zone,
extendingseawar dto4nauticalmilesfrom t
hose
andimportanceareclear
lyevi
dencebyalongusage.
l
inesandexclusivel
yreservedfori
tsownnat i
onal
s
Hence, t
heNor wegi
anDecr eeof1812aswel l
asa
(
ii
)IftheNorwegianDecr
eei
sinaccor
dancewi
th
numberofsubsequentdecrees,reports,di
plomat i
c
i
nternat
ional
law
cor
respondenceshowst hatthemet hodofst rai
ghtli
nes,
RULI
NG i
mposedbygeogr aphyhasbeenest abli
shedint he
Norwegiansystem andconsoli
datedbyaconst antand
(i)
Thebreadt
hofthebeltoft
heNor wegian
suf
fici
entl
ylongpractce.Theappl
i icati
onoft hissystem
ter
ri
tor
ialseai
snotanissue,
thefour-
mi l
eli
mitclaimed
encount
erednooppositi
onfr
om ot
herStat
es,event
he
byNorwayhasbeenacknowledgedbyt heUKsi ncethen.
UKdidnotcontesti
tformanyyear
s;onl
yin1933thatUK
(i
i
)Thedeli
mi t
ationofseaareashasalwaysan madeaf ormalanddefi
nit
eprot
est
.
i
nter
nati
onalaspectsinceiti
nter
estsSt at
esot
herthan
Thegener
alt
oler
ati
onoftheinter
nati
onal
t
hecoastalst
ate.Consequently,
itcannotbedependent
communi t
yshowsthattheNorwegiansyst
em wasnot
merel
yuponthewi l
loft hecoast
alstate.
regar
dedascontrar
ytointer
nat
ionall
aw.
FI
SHERI
ESJURI
SDI
CTI
ONCASE(
UKv
ersusI
CELAND)

FACTS
I
n1958,I
cel
andpr
ocl
aimeda12-
mil
eexcl
usi
vef
ishi
ng
zoneandpr
ohi
bit
edal
lfor
eignv
essel
sfr
om engagi
ng
f
ishi
ngact
ivi
ti
esi
nthezone.I
tresul
tedt
oadi
sput
e
bet
ween I
cel
and and t
he UK,whose v
essel
s had
t
radi
ti
onal
l
yfi
shedi
nthear
ea.

The t
wo count
ri
es set
tl
ed t
hei
r di
sput
e t
hrough
di
plomat
icbi
l
ater
almeans.I
cel
andagr
eedwi
tht
heUK
t
hati
twi
l
lgi
vet
he UK a 6-
mont
hs not
ice ofany
ext
ensi
on of I
cel
andi
c f
isher
ies j
uri
sdi
cti
on and
any
disput
e concer
ning I
cel
andi
cfi
sher
iesj
uri
sdi
cti
on
bey
ondt
he12-
mil
eli
mitber
efer
redt
otheI
nter
nat
ional
Cour
t of Just
ice. I
n r
etur
n t
he Uni
ted Ki
ngdom
r
ecogni
zedI
cel
and'
scl
aimt
oa12-
mil
efi
sher
iesl
i
mit
.
Thi
swasr
efer
redt he1961ExchangeofNot
oast es.

Howev
er,i
n 1972, I
cel
andannounced t
hat i
t wi
l
l
t
ermi
nat
eit
sagr
eementwi
tht
he UK andt
hati
twi
l
l
 ext
endi
tsexcl
usi
vef
isher
iesj
uri
sdi
cti
onf
rom 12t
o50 t
ermi
nat
ion ofa t
reat
y.Buti
tis necessar
ythatt
he
mi
l
esar
oundi
tsshor
es. changehasr
esul
tedi
nar
adi
calt
ransf
ormat
ionoft
he
ext
entoft
he obl
i
gat
ions st
il
lto be per
for
med.The
The UK cont
est
ed t
hatI
cel
and cannotuni
l
ater
all
y change must hav
e i
ncr
eased t
he bur
den of t
he
t
ermi
nat
eanddenouncet
hei
ragr
eement
.Asar
esul
t, obl
i
gat
ionsy
ett
obeexecut
edt
otheext
entofr
ender
ing
t
heUni
tedKi
ngdom f
il
edanappl
i
cat
ionbef
oret
heI
CJ, t
he per
for
mance somet
hing essent
ial
l
ydi
ff
erentf
rom
based on t
he 1961 Exchange of Not
es. I
cel
and t
hat i
nit
ial
l
y under
t t
aken. HOWEVER,he change of
cont
endedt
hati
thasbeenr
eli
evedofi
tscommi
tment ci
rcumst
ancesal
legedbyI
cel
andi
nthi
scasecannotbe
f
rom suchagr
eementbecauseofachangeofl
egal sai
dto have t
ransf
ormed r
adi
cal
lyt
he ext
entoft
he
ci
rcumst
ancest
hatr
eli
evedI
cel
andofi
tscommi
tment j
uri
sdi
cti
onalobl
igat
iont
hatwasi
mposedi
nthe1961
–t
hegener
alr
ecogni
ti
onoft
hel
imi
tI
.tcl
aimedt
hatt
he ExchangeofNot
es.Fur
ther
mor
e,I
cel
andhasr
ecei
ved
agr
eementwasnol
ongerval
i
dduet
ochangedci
rcumst
ances- benef
it
sfr
om t
hose par
ts oft
he agr
eemental
ready
bei
ngt
hatt
he12-
mil
eli
mitwasnowgener
all
yrecogni
zedandt
hat execut
ed;i
tshoul
dcompl
ywi
thi
tssi
deoft
hebar
gai
n.
t
her
ewasaf
ail
ureofconsi
der
ati
onf
ort
he1961agr
eement
.
Wi
tht
het
reat
yst
il
li
nfor
ce,
theI
CJhasj
uri
sdi
cti
on.

I
SSUE
WON t
he change i
n ci
rcumst
ancesr
esul
ted i
n t
he
t
ermi
nat
ionoft
het
reat
y?
WONt
heI
CJhasj
uri
sdi
cti
on.

HELD

Yes.Changei
nci
rcumst
ancescoul
dresul
tint
he
CHORZOW FACTORYCASE(
Ger
manyv
s.Pol
and)(
1928)

FACTS

GermanEmpi r
ehadacont ractwithacompany ,wher e
thecompanyunder tooktoestabli
shf ortheReichand
fort
hwithtobegi ntheconstruct
ionofani t
ratefactoryat
Chorzow, UpperSil
esia.Subsequent l
y,Germanyand
Polandsignedaconv ent
ionconcer ni
ngt heUpperSi lesi
a
ofGenev a.Apolishwast hendelegatedwi ththef ull
powerstot akechar geofthefactory,thus,causingthe
endofthecont ractbetweenGer manyandt hecompani es.
Germanybr oughtact i
oninbehalfoft hecompani esin
viol
ati
onoft heGenev aConv ent
ions.

I
SSUE

WhetherornotPolandi
sli
abl
eforv
iol
ati
ngt
he
i
nter
nati
onalagreement
.

HELD

Yes.Invi
rtueofthegener alpri
ncipl
esofInternati
onal
Law,mustbeaddedt hatofcompensat i
ngl osssustained
astheresultoftheseizure.Theimpossibil
i
tyofr est
oring
theChorzowf actor
ythereforehasnoot hereffectbut
thatofsubsti
tuti
ngpay mentoft heval
ueoft he
undertakingforr esti
tuti
on;i
twouldnotbei nconfor
mity
withthepr i
nciplesofl aworwiththewishoft hepar
ti
es
toinf
erf r
om thatagr eementthatthequesti
onmust
henceforthbedeal twiththr
oughanexpr opr
iati
on
properlysocalledwasi nvol
ved.

WI
MBLEDONCASE

FACTS

Engl
ishSteamshi pWimbl
edoncarr
iesonboar d
4,200tonsofammuni t
ionsandar
ti
ll
eryst
oreconsigned
toPolishNavalBase.Wi mbl
edonwenttoKielCanalbut
preventedt
opasst hrough.

I
twascont endedthatGermanywaswr ongin
ref
usingfreeaccesstoKielCanalresul
tingtodamages.
Germanycont endsthati
thasrighttoprohibi
tt he
passageofWi mbledonont hegroundthatthel at
teri
s
carr
yingtonsofammuni ti
onandar ti
ll
erystoresand
basedont heneutral
it
yorder.

I
SSUE

Whet
herornott
hest
eamshi
pisboundi
nor
deri
ssuedby
Germany

HELD
No.Thereasoni
sunderthepeacet
reat
yofVer
sai
l
les,
Kiel
Canalshal
lbemaint
ainedfr
eeandopenof
commerceandofwarandpeacewithGermany
.

Wi
mbl
edonshoul
dhavet
herightofpassage
becauset
hel
att
erbel
ongstoanat
ionwithpeacewith
Germany.

CASECONCERNI
NGBARCELONATRACTION,
LIGHT,
ANDPOWERCO,LTD(
Belgi
um v
.Spai
n)

FACTS

Barcelona Tract i
on,Li ght,and PowerCompany ,
Ltd was a cor poration incorporat
ed in Canada,wi th
Torontoheadquar t
ers,thatmadeandsuppl iedelectri
cit
y
i
nSpai n.Ithadi ssuedbondst onon-Spanishinvestors,
butduringtheSpani shCiv i
lWar( 1936-
1939)theSpani sh
governmentr efusedt oallowBTLPt otr
ansfercurrencyto
paybondhol dersthei nter
estt heyweredue.

I
n1948agr oupofbondhol derssuedi nSpaint o
declar
et hatBTLP haddef aul
tedont hegr oundithad
fail
edtopayt heint
erest.TheSpanishcour tall
owedt hei
r
clai
m.Thebusi nesswassol d,thesurplusdistr
ibut
edt o
the bondholders,and a smal lamountwas pai dt o
sharehol
ders.Theshar eholder
si nCanadasucceededi n
persuadi
ngCanadaandot herstatest ocompl ainthat
Spainhaddeni edjusti
ceandv iol
atedaser iesoft r
eaty
obli
gati
ons.Howev er,Canadaev entuall
yaccept edthat
Spai
nhadt her i
ghttoprev
entBTLP f
rom t
ransf
err
ing NORWAYV.DENMARKPCI
J1933
cur
rencyanddecl
ari
ngBTLPbankr
upt
.
FACTS
Oftheshar es,88percentwereownedbyBel gians,
and theBel giangov ernmentcompl ai
ned,insi
sti
ng the Thisisacaser egar di
ngadi sputebetweenNor wayand
Spanishgov ernmenthadnotact edproper
ly.Theymade Denmar kov ersovereigntyinGr eenl
and.Denmar kand
ani ni
tialcl
aim att heI nter
nati
onalCourtofJusticein Norwayent eredintoanagr eementt hattheplansof
1958,but l ater withdrew itt o al
low negoti
ations.
Denmar kov erGreenlandshoul dnotbeobstructed.
Subsequentnegot i
ati
onsbr okedown,andanew cl aim
wasf il
edin1962.Spai ncontendedthatBel
gium hadno Pursuanttosuchagr eement ,
theForeignministerof
standingbecauseBTLPwasaCanadi ancompany . Norwayexecut edt he“ I
hlenDecl ar
ation”whichstates
thatNorwaywi llaccedet ot heagreementandwoul dnot
I
SSUE makeobst ructi
onst ot heplansofDenmar kwi t
hr espect
WhetherornotBelgium hasal
ocusst
andi
tosue toGreenland.
Spai
ninbehalfoft
heirci
tizens.
I
SSUE
HELD
WhetherornottheNor
wayisboundbyt
he
The InternationalCour t of Just i
ce hel dt hat repl
y/decl
arat
ionmadebyi
tsForei
gnmi
nist
eri
nbehal
f
Belgi
um hadnol egalinter
esti nt hemat tert oj usti
fyi t ofit
sstate?
bri
ngingacl aim.Al t
houghBel gianshar eholderssuf fered
i
fawr ongwasdonet othecompany ,itwasonl yt he HELD
company 'sr i
ghtst hatcoul d hav e been i nf
ri
nged by
Spain'
sact i
ons.I
twasagener alr uleofinternationall aw YES.Thecour theldthatastatementmadebyt he
thatwhen an unl awfulactwas commi tted agai nsta Nor wegianMinist
erofForeignaf f
airseffecti
vely
company ,onlythest ateofincor por at
ionoft hecompany recognizedthewhol eofGreenlandasDani sh.Ther epl
y
couldsue.TheBLTPwhi chwasi ncorporatedi nCanada
madebyt heMinisteri
nbehalfofhi sgover nmentin
has a separ at
e and di stinct per sonal
ityf rom i t
s
shareholder
swhohol dsdifferentnat ionali
ties.Itisonl y responset oarequestbyadi pl
omat icrepresent at
iveofa
Canadat hatcansueSpai nbutsi ncet heychosenott o,it foreignenti
tyi
sbi ndi
ngtothecount ryfrom whi chhe
wasal r
eadyt heend. belongs.
Angl
o-Fr
enchCont
inent
alShel
f
Case1979
Quat
arv
sBahr
ainI
CJ1994
 NORWAYV.DENMARKPCI
J1933

FACTS

Thisisacaser egardingadi sputebet weenNor wayand

Denmar kov ersovereigntyinGr eenland.Denmar kand
Norwayent eredintoanagr eementt hattheplansof
Denmar kov erGreenlandshoul dnotbeobst ructed.
Pursuanttosuchagr eement ,t
heFor eignministerof
Norwayexecut edt he“ I
hlenDecl aration”whichstates
thatNorwaywi llaccedet ot heagr eementandwoul dnot
makeobst ructi
onst ot heplansofDenmar kwi t
hr espect
t
oGr
eenl
and.

I
SSUE

WhetherornottheNorwayisboundbythe
r
epl
y/decl
arat
ionmadebyi t
sForei
gnminist
erinbehal
f
ofit
sstat
e?

HELD

YES.Thecour theldthatastatementmadebyt he
Nor wegianMinist
erofForeignaf f
airseffecti
vely
recognizedthewhol eofGreenlandasDani sh.Ther epl
y
madebyt heMinisteri
nbehalfofhi sgover nmentin
responset oarequestbyadi pl
omat icrepresent at
iveofa
foreignenti
tyi
sbi ndi
ngtothecount ryfrom whi chhe
belongs.

NUCLEARTESTSCASE(
AUSTRALI
AVSFRANCE)

Doctr
ines:Decl
arat
ionmadethroughunilat
eralact
smay
havetheeff
ectofcreat
ingl
egal
obligat
ions;

Juri
sdi
cti
on can onl
y be exerci
sed when di
sput
e
genui
nel
yexi
stsbet
weent
hepart
ies

Fact
s

Duri
ngtheyears1966-1972,t
heFrenchGovernment
conductedaseri
esofat mospheri
cnucleart
est
si nthe
Sout
hPaci
fi
c. appl
i
cat
ion.

Pet
it
ionerAustr
ali
ar equested Fr
ance to end sai
d I
ssue
t
est
s.Austral
i
a contends thatthe same had caused
r
adi
oact
ivemattert
obedeposi t
edont hei
rter
ri
tor
y. WONt
heCour
thasj
uri
sdi
cti
onov
ert
hecase

Aust
ral
i
afil
edanappli
cat
ionintheInt
ernat
ionalCour
t Hel
d
ofJusti
cetoadj
udgeanddeclar
ethat
: NO.Jur i
sdicti
on can onlybe exer cised when di sput e
"1.the carry
ing outoff urt
heratmospheri
c nucl
ear genuinelyexist
sbet weenthepar t
ies.TheCour tfindst hat
weapon t est
si n the South Paci
fi
c Ocean is not theuni l
ateralstatementsoft heFr enchGov ernmenti s
consi
stentwit
happli
cabl
erulesofi
nter
nat
ional
law"and; enought oshow i tsint
enti
ont oceaset heconductof
furt
herat mospher i
ctestsaft
eri treachesi tsf i
nalst age.
2.toorderthatt
heFrenchRepubl
i
cshal
lnotcar
ryout Declarati
onsmadebywayofuni l
at eralacts,concer ning
anyfur
thersucht
est
s" l
egal orfactualsit
uati
ons,mayhav et heeffectofcr eating
l
egalobl igati
ons.Anunder takingoft hiski nd,i fgi ven
Fr
ance,however
,maint
ainsthatt
heamountofsai
d publi
cly,andwi thanintentt
obebound,ev ent houghnot
r
adi
oact
ivematteri
snegli
gibl
eandposesnodangert
o made wi t
hint he contextofnat ionalnegot i
ations,i s
t
heAust
rali
anpopul
ati
on. bindi
ng.
Thesameal sorepli
edthroughal et
tersentbyt he Thus,t heobject
iveofAustral
ia,whi
ch ist o obtai
na
FrenchAmbassadorstat
ingthat
:“TheCourti
smani f
estl
y terminati
on of t hose tests, has al ready been
notcompetenti
nthiscase,t
husFrancecannotaccepti
ts accompl i
shed.Ther
ebeingnomor edispute,Aust r
ali
a’
s
j
urisdi
cti
on”
. clai
m nol ongerhasanyobjectandassuch,t heCour t
During the pendency of t he case, t he French fi
ndst hatnofurt
herpr
onouncementisrequi
r ed,anditi
s
Gov er
nmentr eleasedapubl i
cstatementr ei
ter
ati
ngthat notany morethefunct
ionofthesamet ocont emplateif
comesummer ,theywouldhavealreadyreachedthefinal whetherornotFrancecompli
es.
stageoft hei
rnucl eardef
enseprogram andensuredthat
thiswouldbet helastofthei
rnucl
eartesti
ng. Ai
rFr
ancev
sSaks470US392
The French Mini
sterofDefense al
so r
eleased a
st
atementrei
ter
ati
ngthesame.

I
nvi
ewoft
his,Fr
ancemov
edf
ort
hedi
smi
ssaloft
he
NAMI
BIACASEI
CJRep197116

Bri
efFactSummar y
. Underacl ai
m ofr i
ghtto annex
Namibia,
Sout
hAfr
icaoccupiedit
sterr
it
oryinvi
olat
ionof
aUnitedNati
ons(
U.N.)Securi
tyCouncilMandat
ewhi ch
though l
aterter
minated dueto Sout
h Afr
ica’
sbreach, andt
oref
uset
oai
dinsuchv
iol
ati
ons?
empower edtheSecur
ityCounci
ltoenf
orcei
tster
ms.
Hel
d
SynopsisofRul eofLaw. 
MemberSt at
esoftheUni ted
Nationsareboundedbyi t
smandat esandvi
olat
ionsor  
Yes.MemberSt at
esoft heUni t
edNat ionsar ebounded
breachesresult
sinalegalobligat
iononthepartoft he byi tsmandat esandv i
olationsorbr eachesr esultsina
vi
olatortor ecti
fythe vi
olat
ion and upon the other l
egalobl igat
ionont hepar toft heviolatortor ectif
yt he
MemberSt at
est or
ecogni
zet heconductasav iol
ation violationandupont heotherMemberSt atestor ecognize
andt oref
usetoaidi
nsuchv i
olati
on. theconductasav i
olat
ionandt orefuset oai di nsuch
violation.AsMemberSt ates, theobli
gat i
ont okeepi ntact
Fact
s andpr eservether i
ghtsofot herStat
esandt hepeopl ei n
them hasbeenassumed. SowhenaMemberSt atedoes
 
Undera cl aim ofr i
ghtt o annext heNami bian nott ollthisline,thatSt atecannotber ecognized as
terri
toryandundert hecl ai
m t hatNami bia’snationals retaining the right
st hati tcl ai
ms t o derivef rom t he
desired Sout h Af ri
ca’sr ul
e,Sout h Af ri
ca began t he relati
onshi p.
occupat i
onofNami bi
a.Sout hAf ri
cawassubj ectt
oaU. N.
Mandat epr ohibi
tingMemberSt atesf rom takingphy si
cal Inthispar t
icularcase,t heGener alAssembl ydi scov er
ed
controlofot hert err
itoriesbecausei twasaMember thatSout hAf rica( D)cont r
avenedt heMandat ebecause
Stateoft heUni t
edNat ions. ofi ts deli
ber ate act i
ons and per si
stentv i
olations of
TheResol uti
on2145( XXI)terminatingt heMandat eof occupy i
ngNami bia.
Sout hAf ricawasadopt edbyt heU. N andt heSecur it
y Hence,i tis wi thint he poweroft he Assembl yt o
Counci ladopt edResol uti
on276( 1970)whi chdecl ared terminatet he Mandat e wit
hr espect t oav i
olati
ng
thecont inuouspr esenceofSout hAf ri
cainNami biaas MemberSt ate,whi chwasaccompl i
shedbyr esoluti
on
i
llegaland cal l
ed upon ot herMemberSt ates to act 2145( XXI)int hiscase.Ther esolutionsanddeci sionsof
accor di
ngl y.Anadv i
sor yopinionwashowev erdemanded the Secur i
ty Counci lin enforcing t er
mi nati
on oft hi
s
from theI nternati
onal CourtofJustice. naturear ebindi ngont heMemberSt ates,regar dlessof
how t heyv otedont hemeasur ewhenadopt ed.Sout h
I
ssue Afri
ca i st her eforeboundt oobeyt hedi ctatesoft he
Aremandat esadopted bytheUni t
ed Nationsbinding Mandat e,ther esol uti
ont er
minat i
ngi tast oSout hAf ri
ca,
upon allMemberSt atesso ast o make breachesor and t he enf orcement pr ocedur es of t he Secur ity
vi
olat
ionsthereofr
esulti
nal egalobligat
ionont hepart Counci l
.Once t he Mandat e has been adopt ed by t he
ofthev iol
atortorecti
fythev i
olati
onanduponot her United Nations,i tbecomes bi nding upon al lMember
MemberSt atestorecogni
zet heconductasav i
olat
ion Statesandt hev i
olati
onsorbr eachesoft hisMandat e
resultinlegalobl igati
onsont hepar toft hev i
olatorto
r
ecti
fyt
heviol
ati
on,andupontheotherMemberSt
atest
o
r
ecogni
zetheconductasav i
olat
ionandtoref
usetoai
d
i
nsuchviol
ati
on.

Discussi
on. 
Despi
teagreei
ngt or
estor
eindependenceto
Nami bi
awi t
htheUnitedNat i
ons,Sout
hAf r
icadidnot.A
numberofmandat orysanctionsforenfor
cementwer e
nowadopt edbytheGener alAssemblyandt heact
ionof
SouthAfri
cawas“strongl
ycondemned” .
 1.WhethertheRepublicofHungarywasent i
tledto
suspendandsubsequent l
yabandon,i
n1989, t
hewor ks
ont heNagymar osPr oj
ectandonthepartoft he
HUNGARYV.SLOVAKI
A(1998) Gabckov oProjectforwhichtheTr
eatyattr
ibuted
responsibi
l
itytotheRepublicofHungaryont heground
Fact
s
ofst at
enecessity.
In1977  theHungar i
anPeopl e'sRepubl i
candt he
2.
Whet hertheCzechandSlovakFederal
Republ
i
c
Czechosl ov akPeopl e'sRepubl icent eredi ntoat reat
y
wasent i
tl
edtopr oceed,i
nNovember1991, t
othe
whi chi saj ointinv est mentpr oj ectconcer ningt he
'
provi
sionalsolut
ion'andtoputi
ntooperat
ionfrom
const ruct i
onandoper at i
onoft heGabckov o-Nagy mar os
October1992t hi
ssy st
em"
Syst em ofLocks( "1977Tr eaty")whi chwasdesi gnedt o
attaint hebr oadut il
izationoft henat uralresour cesoft he Hel
d
Brat i
slav a-Budapestsect ionoft heDanuber i
v erforthe
dev elopmentofwat erresour ces, ener gy ,tr
anspor t
, ThecourtruledthatHungar ywasnotent it
ledt o
agricultur eandot hersect orsoft henat i
onal economyof suspendandsubsequent l
yabandon, i
n1989, itspar tof
theCont r
act i
ngPar ties.Thet r
eat yessent iall
yai medat thewor ksi
nthedam pr oject,aslai
ddowni nthet reaty
thepr oduct i
onofhy droel ectr
icity,thei mpr ov ementof signedi n1977byHungar yandCzechosl ovakiaand
nav igationont her elev antsect ionoft heDanubeandt he relatedinst
rument sasbecauseHungar ywasawar eof
protect ionoft hear easal ongt hebanksagai nstf l
oodi ng. thei ssueofprotecti
onofenv ironmentbef oreenter ing
Whent heconst ructionoft hepr oj
ectst ar
tedt herewas i
nt ot he“Tr
eatof1977”andcannotr ai
set heissuet o
ani ntensecr it
icism f rom t hepeopl eofHungar y suspendnorabandont het reaty.Hungarymustbef ore
regar dingenv i
ronment alissuet hatt hepr ojectmay ent eri
ngint
othet reat
yshoul dalreadyaddr essedt he
produce, asar esultt heHungar ianGov ernmentdeci ded i
ssue.
tosuspendt hewor ksunt ilt
heydeci dedt oabandont he ForthesecondissueCour truledt hat
wor ksatNagy mar osandt omai ntainthest atusquoat Czechosl
ovakiawasentit
ledtopr oceedt otheprovi
sional
Dunaki litiall
egingt hati tentail
edgr av er i
skst ot he sol
uti
onandt oputint
ooper at
iont hesy stem,theCourt
Hungar ianenv ironmentandt hewat ersuppl y. observ
edthatthebasiccharacteri
sti
coft he1977Treaty
I
ssue wastoprovidefort
heconstructionoft hesy st
em of
l
ocksasaj oi
ntinv estmentconstit
uti
ngasi ngleand maj
ori
tyt
wo-
thi
rdsv
ote.
i
ndivisi
bleoperational syst
em ofworks.TheCour t
Thesupr
emecour
tactual
lywaitedf
ortheresoluti
on,but
accordi
nglyconcl udedt hatCzechosl
ov aki
a,i
nunilat
eral
l
y
i
twasnotvot
edupon.Thus,i
tisnotri
peforjudici
al
putt
ingVariantCi ntooper ati
on,wasnotapply i
ngthe
rev
iew
1977Tr eat
ybut ,ont hecont r
ary
,viol
atedcertai
nofits
expressprovi
sions, and, i
nsodoing,hadcommi tt
edan Theref
ore,
ther
eisst
il
lnoansweronthequest
ionift
he
i
nternati
onall
ywr ongf ulact presi
dentr
eall
yhast
hepowertounil
ater
all
ynull
i
fya
tr
eaty.

GOLDWATERV.CARTERCASE

FACTS

Presi
dentCar terterminatedat r
eatywithTaiwan,anda
fewCongr essionalmember sfel
tthatthi
sdeprivedthem
oftheirConst i
tutionalfuncti
on.Asar esul
t,Senator
Goldwat erandot hermember soft heUSCongr essfi
leda
l
awsui tchallengingther i
ghtoft hepresi
dentto
unil
aterall
ynul li
fyatreaty.

I
SSUE

Whetherornott
hepr
esi
dentcanuni
l
ater
all
ynul
l
ifya
t
reat
y.

RULI
NG

TheSupr emeCour tl
eftt
hequesti
onofthe
constit
uti
onal
ityofthePresi
dentCart
er'
sact
ionopen.
Arti
cleII
,Sect
ionIIoftheUSConstit
uti
onmerelyst
ates
thatthePresi
dentcannotmaket r
eati
eswit
houtaSenate
ExchangeofGreekandTurki
sh
Populat
ionCase,Advi
sor
yOpini
on
PCIJ1925
 i
mpr ovement.Itwassostipul
atedt hatGoy azmayselli
n
wholeorinpartbondscorrespondingt otherai
lroads.
Goyazproceededt osecur
e100, 000,000francswor t
hof
funds,r
epresentedby200,000bonds, from aFrenchbank
forthesai
dimpr ovementproj
ect s.
TheGov ernmentofBr
azilagai
ngrant
edconcessionsto
anothercompany,Vi
acaoGeraldaBahi
aCompany .Af
ter
theagreement,Vi
acaosecurednewloansf ort
hesaid
proj
ectsintheamountof60,000,
000francs.
Theagr
eementi
sasf
oll
ows:

Fi
rst.
—Thel oanshallberepr
esentedbybonds
payabl
etobear erbeari
ngint
erestat4percentper
annum i
ssuedf orthesum offr
s.100.
000.
000
nominalcapit
al.

FRANCEV.BRAZI
LPCI
J(1929) Second. —Thei nterestont hebondsoft hisissue,
representedbycouponsat tachedt othesame,
shall bepaidhal fyearlytothebear ersoft hesame
Topi
c: Pay
mentofLoanObl
igat
ions ont he1stdayofMar chandt he1stdayof
Fact
s Sept ember[ p105]i nev eryyear ,until
thewhol eof
thebondsshal lhav ebeenpai dof fbyt he
On8June1903,theGovernmentofBrazi
li
niti
atedpubl
i
c
Gov ernment .Thepay mentofi nterestshal lt
ake
worksproj
ect
sinordert
oimprovethe
placei nRiodeJanei r
o, i
nPar isatt heof f
icesof
Recif
e/Per
nambucoport
sandnav i
gablewatersint
he
theSoci etegener alepourf avoriserle
vi
cini
ty.
devel oppementducommer ceetdeI 'i
ndusirieen
TheGovernmentofBrazi
landGoy azRai
lwayCo.ent
ered France, attheBanquedePar isetdesPay sBas,
i
ntoconcessi
onssothatthelat
tercanassi
sti
nthe andatt heCr editmobi li
erfr
ancai s,atther ateof10
f
rs.gol
deachcoupon;inLondonattheAgencyof Sixth.—Thebondsi ssuedi nconformit
ywiththe
t
hesaidSoci
etegener
aleandattheexchangeof l
awsanddecr eesabov ement i
onedshallhavethe
t
hedayonParis,t
hefir
stpaymentof10f r
ancsto absol ut
eguar anteeoft heGov ernmentasregards
t
akeplaceonthe1stdayofSeptember,1910. thepay mentoft hecapi talandoft her
espective
i
nt erestandasr egardst heserviceofthe
Third.—Ther edempt ionofbondsshal lbemadeby necessar yfundsf orther edemptionoftheloan.
meansofanAccumul ati
veRedempt ionFundof½
percentperannum, thef i
rstredempt iont ot ake Seventh.
—Thebonds, asregardsthecapit
aland
placeont he1stdayofSept ember,1912; itshal
l i
nterest,
shallbeexemptfrom al
lpresentorfut
ure
beef fectedbypur chasesont hemar ketwhent he Brazi
li
ant axes,
whetherordi
naryorextr
aordi
nary.
bondsar ebel owpar ,andwhenatorabov eparby
meansofdr awingswhi cht akeshallplacei nthe Ei
ght h.—TheGov ernmentmayf orthepur
poseof
mont hsofJanuar yandJunei nev er
yy ear.The payingof fbondsincircul
ati
onincr
easethe
bondsshal lbedr awni nthepr esenceofanot ar
y SinkingFundatanyt i
meorpayof fbondsbyother
public,andt her esultshallbei mmedi at ely means, buti
nsuchl att
ercasegivi
ngsixmonths'
publishedbyadv ert
isement .Allbondsdr awnshal l previousnoticethereof.
bepai dat500f rancsgol d, withtheinter estdueon
the1stdayofMar chort he1stdayofSept ember London,
the5t
hofMar
ch,
1910.
foll
owi ngt hedrawi ng.
(
Signed)JoseAnt
oni
o
Fourt
h.—Thecapi
talofthebondsdrawnshal
lbe
 
deAzev
edoCast
ro.
pai
dinexchangeforthebondswithall
coupons
notdueinRiodeJaneir
o,inPari
sandinLondon.
Wedeclaretheabovet
obethesi
gnat
ureoft
he
repr
esent
ati
v eoft
heGover
nmentoft
heUnit
ed
Fif
th.
—Thebondsshallceasetobeari
nterestf
rom
Stat
esofBrazil
.
thedateon[p.
106]whi
cht heyar
eredeemable,
andthebondsredeemedshallbeimmediatel
y
cancel
led. Fr
om theagreement
s,i
twasi ndi
cat
edthatthebonds
werepayabl
einpaperf
rancs.However
,thebondswere
payabl
ein10years,
andint
hatt
imet
heFr
enchf
rancs continuingof fer,tothet er
msofwhi cheachbondhol der
hadgonedepr
eciati
on. i
nt hef utureisent it
ledt oreferincaseambi gui tyisfound
i
nt hest atement soft hebonds.Fori tisnott obe
I
ssue
supposedt hatt heor i
ginalsubscr i
berstakingt hebonds
1.Whetherornott heser
viceofl
oanscontr
act
edby pursuantt ot hei nvi
tationoft heprospect usar et obeina
Brazi
lfr
om Franceshouldbeef
fectedont
hebasi
s mor ef avouredposi tionwi t
hr especttot heirr i
ghtsunder
ofthegoldf
rancorofthepaperfr
anc. thebondst hant hosewhol aterobtainthebondsby
2.Whetherornottheloansarepayabl
eatthevalue transfer.Wher et heGov er
nmenti tselfbecomes
attheti
meoft heperf
ect
ionoftheobli
gat
ionorat responsi blefort heprospect usandi nvit
essubscr i
pti
ons
thecur
rentv
alue. forthebonds, itisreasonabl et otr
eatthepr ospect usas
apar toft het r
ansact ionwitht hebondhol der s,atleastso
Rul
ing:
farasmaybenecessar yt
ocl ari
fythemeani ngoft he
I
tshoul
dbebasedont
heGOLDFRANCS. bonds.
Undersomet heagreementsbetweentheparti
es,ther
e Bytakingall
thedocumentstoget
her,
allt
heobli
gat
ions
wasnoexpr esssti
pulat
ionsastowar r
antt
hatthe arethuspayableingol
dfr
ancs,eveni
ftherewasno
pri
ncipalamountwaspay abl
eingold.However,t
here expresssti
pulat
iontot
hatef
fecti
nsomeoft he
wasapr ovisionthatspokeofpaymentofint
erestingold. documents.
Otheragreement sspecif
iedt
hatthatpri
nci
palisalso
I
tshoul
dbepaidatt
heval
ueatt
het
imeoft
he
payablei
ngol d.
per
fect
ionoft
heagr
eement.
Iti
st ober emember edthat,i
nthecaseofgov ernment
PRI
NCI
PLE/
DOCTRI
NE
l
oans, t
heGov ernmentmaymakeacont r
actwithbankers
whot aket heent ir
eissueofbondsandpl acethem ont he OncetheCour thasar r
ivedatt heconclusionthatiti
s
mar ket,andt hatinsuchacase, thebankersmayi ssue necessarytoapplythemuni ci
pallawofapar t
icul
ar
thepr ospectusandt heGovernmentmaynotbeaPar t
y countr
y, t
hereseemsnodoubtt hati
tmustseekt oapply
toit.Ont heot herhand,theGovernmentmayi tsel
fissue, i
tasitwoul dbeappliedint hatcountry.I
twoul dnotbe
orbecomer esponsiblef
or,t
hepr ospect
usandt husinvit
e apply
ingt hemunici
pal l
awofacount r
yifitwer etoappl
y
subscr i
ptionsf orthebondsitproposestoissue.I
nt he i
tinamannerdi ffer
entf rom thatinwhicht hatlawwould
l
attercase, t
hepr ospect
usmayber egar
dedasa beappliedinthecountryi nwhichitisinforce.
 thatitmustconst rueAr t
icl
eVIoft heSpecial Agreement
I
tf oll
owst hatt
heCour tmustpayt heutmostr egardto tomeant hat,whil
et heCour ti
sauthori
zedt odepar tfr
om
thedeci sionsofthemuni cipalcourt
sofacount ry,f
oritis thejuri
spr udenceoft hemuni ci
palcour
ts,i
tr emai ns
witht heai doftheirjur
isprudencethatitwi l
lbeenabl ed enti
relyfreetodeci det hatthereisnogroundf or
todeci dewhatar et her ul
eswhi ch,i
nact ualfact,ar
e attr
ibuti
ngt ot hemuni cipallawameani ngot herthanthat
appliedi nthecount rythelawofwhi chisr ecognizedas attr
ibutedt oitbythatjur i
sprudence.
applicablei nagivencase.I ftheCourtwer eobl i
gedto
disregar dthedecisionsofmuni ci
palcour t
s,theresult Suchbeingt hesensei nwhichtheCour tunderst
andsthe
woul dbet hati
tmi ghtincer t
aincir
cumst ancesappl y taskentrust
edt oiti
nt hepresentcase,theCourthol
ds
rulesot herthanthoseact uallyappli
ed;thiswoul dseem thatthepositi
onasr egardsthejuri
sprudenceofthe
tobecont raryt
ot hewhol et heoryonwhi chthe Frenchcourts,asstatedinthejudgmenti nthecaseof
applicationofmuni ci
pal l
awi sbased. theSerbianloans,holdsequall
ygoodasr egar
dsthe
presentcase,inthecourseofwhi chnothinghasbeen
Ofcour se,theCour twi llendeav ourtomakeaj ust adducedt oweakeni t.
appr eciati
onoft hej ur i
sprudenceofmuni ci
pal cour ts.I
f
thisisuncer t
ainordi v i
ded,itwi llrestwi tht heCour tt o
selectt heinterpretationwhi chi tconsi der smosti n
conf ormi t
ywi ththel aw.Butt ocompel t
heCour tt o
disregar dthatjurisprudencewoul dnotbei nconf ormi t
y
withi t
sf unctionwhenappl yingmuni cipal l
aw.Ast he
Cour thasal readyobser vedint hej udgmenti nt hecaseof
theSer bianl oans, i
twoul dbeamostdel i
cat emat t
ert o
doso, i
nacaseconcer ningpubl icpol i
cy —aconcept ion
thedef init
ionofwhi chi nanypar t
icularcount ryi slargely
dependentont heopi nionpr ev aili
ngatanygi vent imei n
suchcount ryitself—andi nacasewher enor el
ev ant
prov i
sionsdi rectl
yr elatetothequest ionati ssue.Such
aret her easonsaccor dingtowhi cht heCour tconsi ders
 MEJOFFV.DI
RECTOROFPRISONS
90Phi
l.70(
1951)
TUASON,J.

FACTS
Asecondpeti
ti
onforhabeascorpusbyBori
sMej
offwas
f
il
ed,t
hefi
rsthavi
ngbeendeniedbytheCour
t.

Mejoffi
sanalienofRussi
andescentwhowasbr oughtto
thi
scountr
yf r
om Shanghaiasasecr etoper
ati
vebyt he
Japanese f
orces dur
ing the l
att
er’
sr egi
me int hese
I
slands.

Uponli
ber
ati
on,hewasarrestedasaJapanesespyby
theU.
S.Ar
myCounterI
ntel
l
igenceCor
ps.

Thereaft
er,thePeople’
sCour tor der
edhisrelease.But
theDepor t
ati
onBoardf oundt hatMejof
fwasi ll
egall
yin
thi
s country,hav
ing no traveldocuments.The Boar d
consequentlyref
err
ed t he mat t
ertot he i
mmi grati
on
authori
ti
es.
TheBoar dofCommi ssi
onersofImmi gr
ationorderedt hat reasonabl
enessshallbesubmittedt othi
sCour tortothe
hebedepor t
edont hefir
stavail
ablet r
ansportati
ont o CourtofFirstI
nstanceofMani l
af ordecisionincaseof
Russia.Thepeti
ti
onerwast henundercust odybegi nning abuse.Heshallal
soputupabondf ortheabov epurpose
March18,1948.I nMay1948,hewast ransfer
redt ot he i
nt heamountofP5, 000wit
hsuf fi
cientsuretyorsuret
ies,
CebuPr ovi
nci
alJailt
ogetherwit
hthreeot herRussianst o which bond t he Commi ssioner of I mmi grat
ion is
awaitthearr
ival
ofsomeRussi anvessels. authori
zedtoexactbysection40ofCommonweal thAct
No.613.
In Oct
ober1948,af terrepeated fai
lur
es to shipt his
Thepr ot
ecti
onagainstdepri
vati
onofliber
tywi t
houtdue
deport
eeabroad,theauthorit
iesre-movedhimt oBi l
ibid
processoflawandexceptf orcr
imescommi t
tedagainst
Pri
sonatMunt i
nlupawher ehehasbeenconf inedupt o
thelawsoft heland,i
snotl i
mit
edtoPhi l
ippi
neciti
zens
the pr
esentti
me,i nasmuch as t he Commi ssionerof
but extends to allresi
dents,except enemy aliens,
Immigrat
ionbeli
evesi tisforthebesti nt
erestsoft he
regardl
essofnati
onali
ty.
countr
ytokeephi m underdetent
ionwhilearr
angement s
forhi
sdepart
urearebeingmade. Mor eov er,Sec.3,Ar t
.IIoft he Const i
tut
ion oft he
Phil
ippi nesadopt sthegeneral
lyacceptedpr inci
plesof
i
nternat ionall
awaspar tofthel
awoft heNat i
on.Andi na
I
SSUE resolution entit
led,"Univ
ersalDeclarati
on Of Human
WON Mej
off
’s second peti
ti
on f
orhabeas cor
pus be Rights,"andappr ovedbyt heGeneralAssembl yoft he
gr
ant
ed UnitedNat i
ons,ofwhicht hePhi
li
ppinesisamember ,at
i
tspl enarymeet ingonDecember10,1948wher et he
HELD ri
ghtt ol i
feandliber
tyandallot
herfundament alri
ghtsas
Yes.TheSupr emeCourtdecidedthatMejoffber
eleased appliedt oallhumanbeingswereproclaimed.
fr
om cust ody but  he shall be placed under the
surv
eill
anceoftheimmigrat
ionauthori
ti
esorthei
ragents Itwast hereresolvedthatallhumanbei ngsar ebornf r
ee
i
nsuchf orm andmannerasmaybedeemedadequat eto andequali ndegr eeandr i
ght s(Art.1);thatev er
yoneis
i
nsuret hathekeeppeaceandbeav ail
ablewhent he entitledtoal lther i
ghtsandf reedom setf orthint hi
s
Governmentisreadyt
odepor thi
m. Decl arati
on,withoutdisti
nctionofanyki nd,suchasr ace,
colour ,sex,l
anguage,r eli
gion,pol i
ti
calorot heropinion,
Thesur
vei
l
lanceshal
lber
easonabl
eandt
hequest
ionof nationalit
yorsoci alori
gin,pr operty
,bir
th,orot herstat
us
(Art
.2) :thateveryone has t he r
ightt o an eff
ecti
ve
remedybyt he competentnat i
onalt ri
bunal
sf oracts
viol
ati
ng the f
undament alrights gr ant
ed him by the
Constit
uti
onorbyl aw (Art
.8) ;andt hatnooneshal lbe
subject
edtoarbi
trar
yarrest,
det enti
onorexi l
e(Art
.9).

AGUSTI
NVS.EDU88SCRA195

FACTS

Accor di
ngt othest at i
sti
cs, oneoft hemaj orcausesof
fatalorser i
ousacci dentsser i
ousacci dent si
nland
transportati
onist hepr esenceofdi sabl
ed, st
all
edor
parkedmot orvehiclesal ongst reetsorhi ghwayswi t
hout
anyappr opriat
eear lywar ningdev icetosignal
approachi ngmot oristsoft heirpr esence.thehazards
posedbysuchobst r ucti
onst otraffichavebeen
recognizedbyi nternat i
onal bodiesconcer nedwithtr
affi
c
safety,amongofwhi char ethe1968Vi ennaConv enti
on
onRoadSi gnsandSi gnalsandt heUni tedNat i
ons or make chosen by mi d mot or v
ehicl
e.The Land
Organi zati
on( U.N.)
, So,theVi ennaConv enti
onwhi chwas Transport
ati
on Commi ssi
oner shal
lal so promul
gate
rati
fiedbyt hePhi li
ppineGov ernmentunderP. D.No.207, suchruleandregul
ati
onsasareappropri
atetoeff
ect
ivel
y
i
mpl ementthi
sorder.
'
"
recommendedt heenact mentofl ocall
egi sl
ati
onforthe
i
nstal l
ationofr oadsaf etysignsanddev i
ces.In Leov ill
oAgust i
n, afterset ti
ngf or ththathei st heownerof
compl iancewi thther ecommendat ion,
Pr es.Ferdi
nand aVol kswagenBeet leCar ,Model13035,al readypr oper l
y
Mar cosi ssuedLet terofInstructionno.229. equi ppedwheni tcameoutf r
om t heassembl yl ineswi th
blinkingl i
ghtsf oreandaf t,whichcoul dv erywel lser veas
Thel ett
erpr ovidest hatal lowner s,usersordr i
ver sof an ear l
ywar ning dev ice in case oft he emer genci es
motorv ehi clesshal lhav e atal lti
mesi nt heirmot or ment i
onedi nLet terofI nstructionsNo.229, asamended,
vehi
clesatl eastone( 1)pai rofear lywar ningdev i
ce aswel last hei mplement ing r ulesand r egul ationsi n
consisti
ngoft ri
angul ar,coll
apsiblerefl
ector
izedpl atesin Admi nistrat
ive Or der No. 1 i ssued by t he l and
redandy ellowcol orsatl east15cms.att hebaseand40 transpor tati
onCommi ssion,al legedt hatsai dLet terof
cms.att hesi desandwhenev eranymot orv ehicleis Inst r
uct i
onNo.229,cl earl
yv i
ol atest hepr ov isionsand
stal
ledordi sabledori sparkedf orthirt
y(30)mi nut esor del egationofpol i
cepower .Hecont endedt hatt heyar e
moreonanyst reetorhi ghway ,i
ncludingexpressway sor i
nf ectedwi t
har bitr
arinessbecausei tishar sh,cr ueland
l
imitedaccessr oads,t heowner ,userordr iverthereof unconsci onablet ot hemot oringpubl i
candar e" one- si
ded,
shallcauset hewar ningdev i
cement ionedtobei nstall
ed oner ousandpat ent l
yi ll
egalandi mmor albecauset hey
atleastf ourmet er
sawayt ot hef rontandr earoft he wi l
lmakemanuf acturersanddeal ersinstantmi ll
ionai res
motorv ehi clest aged, disabl
edorpar ked. att heexpenseofcarowner swhoar ecompel ledt obuya
setoft heso- cal l
edear lywar ni ngdev ice.Het her efore
3.TheLandTr anspor t
ati
onCommi ssi
onershallcause pray ed f ora j udgmentbot ht he assai l
ed Let ter s of
Reflectori
zedTriangularEarl
yWar ni
ngDev i
ces,asherei
n Inst r
uct i
ons and Memor andum Ci rcular v oid and
described,t o be prepared and issued tor egi
ster
ed unconst it
uti
onaland f or a r est r
aini
ng or der i nt he
owner s of mot or vehicl
es,ex cept motorcycl
es and meanwhi l
e
trai
l
er s,chargi
ngf oreachpi ecenotmor ethan15% of
theacqui si
ti
oncost . I
SSUE

The Land t r
ansport
ation Commissi
onershallrequi
re WHETHER OR NOTLETTER I
NSTRUCTI
ON NO.229I
S
everymot orv ehi
cl
e ownert o pr
ocuref r
om anyand UNCONSTI
TUTIONAL.
presentatther egi
str
ationofhi
sv ehi
cle,onepai
rofa
refl
ector
izedearl
ywarningdevi
ce,asdbedofanybr and HELD
NO,THE LETTER I
NSTRUCTI
ON NO. 229 I
S NOT "[
Whereas],t
hehazar dsposedbysuchobst ructi
onstotraff
ichave
UNCONSTI
TUTI
ONAL. beenrecognizedbyinternat
ionalbodi
esconcernedwit
htraff
icsaf
ety,
the1968Vi ennaConv enti
ononRoadSi gnsandSi gnalsandt he
Unit
edNat i
onsOr gani
zation(U.N.)
;
TheLet terofI nstructioni nquest i
onwasi ssuedi nt he
exerciseoft hepolicepower .Theear l
ywar ningdev i
ce [Whereas]
,thesai dVi
ennaConvent
ion,whichwasr at
if
iedbythe
requir
ement i s not an expensi ve redundancy, nor Phil
ippi
ne Gov er
nmentunderP. D.No.207,r ecommended the
oppressive,f orcarowner s whose car s are already enactmentoflocall
egi
slat
ionf
ort
heinst
all
ati
onofroadsafet
ysi
gns
anddev i
ces;
equippedwi t
h1)bl i
nki ngl ightsintheforeandaf tofsai d
mot orvehicles,2)bat t er y
-power edbli
nkinglightsinside
I
tcannotbe di sputed then t hatt his Declarati
on of
mot orvehicles,3)bui l
t-inr efl
ectori
zedtapesonf rontand
Principlefoundint heConst ituti
onpossessesr elevance:
rearbumper sofmot orv ehicl
es,or4)wel l
-l
ightedtwo( 2)
"ThePhi li
ppinesadopt sthegener all
yaccept edpr i
nciples
petrol
eum l amps( t
heKi nke) .
ofi nter
nationallaw aspar toft hel aw oft hel and”.The
1968Vi ennaConv enti
ononRoadSi gnsandSi gnalsi s
Therei snot hingi nt hequest i
onedLet t
erofI nstruction
i
mpr essedwi t
hsuchachar act er.Itisnotf orthecount ry
No.229whi chr equi resorcompel smot orv ehicleowner s
tor epudiateacommi tmentt owhi chi thadpl edgedi ts
topur chaset heear l
ywar ningdev i
cepr escri
bed.Al lthat
wor d.TheconceptofPact asuntser vandast andsi nthe
i
sr equi red isf ormot orv ehicleowner sconcer ned t o
wayofsuchanat t
itude,whichi satwarwi ththepr i
nciple
equipt heirmot orv ehicles wi t
h a pai roft his ear l
y
ofint er
nati
onal mor al
it
y.
warningdev i
cei nquest i
on,pr ocuringorobt aini
ngt he
samef r
om what ev ersour ce.Wi t
hal i
tt
leofi ndust ryand
Beinguni versalamongt hesi gnat orycountr
iestot hesaid
practicali ngenui ty,mot or v ehicl
e owner s can ev en
1968Vi ennaConv entions, andv isibleevenunderadv er
se
personal l
ymakeorpr oducet hisearlywar ningdev iceso
conditionsata di stanceofatl east400 met ers,any
l
ong as t he same subst ant i
all
y conf orms wi tht he
mot oristfrom thi
scount ryorf rom anypar toft hewor ld,
specificationsl aiddowni nsai dl ett
erofi nst r
uct i
onand
who sees a r efl
ector i
zed r ect angularearly seami ng
admi nistrati
ve or der.Accor dingly
,t he ear l
y war ning
dev i
cei nstal
ledont her oads,hi ghway sorexpr essway s,
devicer equi r
ementcannei therbeoppr essi
v e,oner ous,
wi l
lconclude, wit
houtt hinking,thatsomewher eal ongthe
i
mmor al,norconf i
scat ory,much l ess does i tmake
travell
edpor ti
onoft hatr oad,hi ghway,orexpr essway ,
manuf acturers and deal ers of sai d dev ices i nstant
therei samot orvehiclewhi chi sstati
onary,stalledor
mill
ionai r
esatt heexpenseofcarowner s.
disabledwhi chobstruct sorendanger spassingt raff
ic.
On t he otherhand,a mot ori
stwho sees anyoft he
Addit
ional
l
y,t her
e weret wo wher
eas cl
auses oft
he
aforement ioned otherbui ltin war ni
ng devi
ces ort he
assai
ledLett
erofInst
ruct
ion:
petr
oleum lamps wil
lnotimmedi
ately getadequate
advancewar ni
ngbecausehewi
llst
illthi
nkwhatt hat
bl
inki
nglighti
sall
about.
RAQUI
ZAV.BRADFORD toprocl
aimi t
.Iti sthepr ovinceoft hepoli
ti
cal
depar
tment,andnotoft hej udici
aldepar
tment,of
Fact
s
gover
nmenttodet erminewhenwari satanend...
- Byv i
rt
ueofthepr ocl
amationi
ssuedbyGener alof .(67C.J.
,429,sec.195.)”
theArmyMacAr t
hurpet
it
ioner
swer earrest
edand
- And ev en ift hewar had ter
mi nated,wear eof
detai
nedforbeingdeemedar iskt
ot hesecuri
tyof
opinionthatundert heaforesaidpr oclamationthe
the U.S. Forces for Espionage act i
vi
ty for
petit
ioners,whoar eheldinr estraintthereunder
,
Japanese
wouldcont inuelegall
yundercust odyoft heproper
- Peti
ti
oner
salleget
hattheyhavebeen" conf
ined, mili
tary aut hori
ti
es of Gener al of t he Army
rest
rai
nedanddepri
ved"ofthei
rli
ber
ty.(Pet
iti
on MacAr thur'
sorhi ssuccessors'command,f ora
forWri
tofHabeasCor
pus) reasonablet i
meaf t
erterminati
onoft hewar .

- MacAr thur
’si ntended i n his or
dert o holdi n - Cit
ingf urtherColemanvTennessee,“ Ifafor ei
gn
restraint t he per sons r ef
err
ed t o, when army per mit
ted to be st ationed inaf riendly
appr ehended," forthedur ati
onoft hewar”wher e country," by permission ofi t
s gov er
nmentor
after, shallr elease t hem t o the Phili
ppine soverei
gn, "isexemptf r
om t heciv i
landcr i
mi nal
Gov ernmentf ori tsjudgmentupont hei
rrespect
ive j
urisdi
ctionoft hepl ace,withmuchmor er eason
cases. " shouldt heAr myoft heUni t
edSt ateswhichi snot
onlypermi tt
edbyt heCommonweal thGov er
nment
I
ssue tobest at i
onedher ebuthascomet otheislands
andst ay edint hem fort heexpr esspur poseof
-
WONt
hewarhasal
readyt
ermi
nat
ed?
l
iberati
ngt hem”
Hel
d
PI
Ldoct
ri
ne:
Mut
ual
waiverofj
uri
sdi
cti
onbet
ween
- Notyet.Citi
ngUSvTubi g,t
heabsenceofactual nat
ions
hosti
l
iti
esdoesnotequatetoter
mi nati
onofwar.
The worl
d bei
ng composed ofdisti
nctsov erei
gnties,
“War,int he l
egalsense,cont
inues unt
il
,and
possessi
ngequalr
ightsandequali
ndependence,whose
termi
nates at t he ti
me of , some f ormal
mutualbenef
itis promoted byi
nter
course with each
procl
amati
onofpeacebyanaut horit
ycompetent
other,andbyani nterchangeoft hosegoodoffi
ceswhich I
SSUE
humani tydictat
esandi tswant srequir
e,al
lsoverei
gns
W/Nthegoodsshoul
dhavebeenadmi
tt
edfreeof
haveconsent edtoar elaxati
oni npr
acti
ce,i
ncasesunder dut
ieswit
hrespectt
othet
reat
ybet
weentheU.
S.and
certai
n peculiarcircumst ances,oft hatabsol
ute and Domini
canRepubli
c
compl etejuri
sdict
ion wi t
hint hei
rrespect
iveter
ri
tori
es
whichsov erei
gntyconfers.
HELD

NO.TheactoftheCongr
esswhi
chall
owedthe
exact
ionofduti
eswasenactedaft
ert
hetr
eatywi
ththe
DominicanRepubl
ic.
WHI
TNEYV.ROBERTSON
TheCour
trul
edthatwhereat
reat
yandanActof
FACTS
Legi
sl
ati
onconf
li
ct,
theonelasti
ndatewi
ll
cont
rol
.
Plainti
ff
saremer chant
sdoingbusinessinNew
YorkCit
y.InAugust1882, t
heyimport
edal argequant
it
y
ofcent
rif
ugal &molassessugar,pr
oducedand
manufacturedint
heislandofSanDomi ngoinDomi ni
can
Republ
ic.

Theycl ai
medthatthei
rimpor t
sshouldbe
admit
tedfreeofdutybecauseoft hetreat
yoftheU.
S.
wit
hDomi nicanRepubl
icwithregardstotrade.

Thedefendantr
efusedtheclai
m andt
reat
edt
he
goodsasduti
ableundertheactsofcongr
esstot
he
amountof$21,936.

Plai
nti
ff
sappeal
edt
othesecr
etaryoft
hetr
easur
y
buttonoavai
l,andwer
emadetopaytheamountunder
prot
est.
Advi
sor
yOpini
onontheUseof
Nucl
earWeapons1996
 2.W/ Nt heUnit
edNat i
onshast hecapacitytobringa
clai
m againstt he responsi
ble Stat
e withav i
ew of
obtai
ningrepar
ationcausedtothe(a)Uni
tedNat i
onsand
(b)agents
3.W/ NtheUnit
edNat ionscanreconci
lei
tsright
sandthe
ri
ghtsoftheStatewhichthevict
imisanational.

HELD
1.Yes.Whi l
e generall
y,the compet ence to br i
ng an
i
nt ernati
onalclai
m belongst otheSt ateasasubj ectof
i
nt ernati
onallaw,iti
st heopi ni
onoft heCour tthatthe
Uni t
edNat ionshassuchcompet encet oo. Itmustbe
acknowl edgedt hati
t sMember s,byent rust
ingcer tai
n
REPARATI
ONCASEI
CJADVI
SORYOPI
NION1949 funct i
ons t o it, wi t
h t he at t
endant dut ies and
responsibil
iti
es,have clothed itwitht he compet ence
FACTS required to enablet hose functi
ons t o be effecti
vel
y
Becauseoft het ragi
cev ents,inconnect i
onwi t
hWor l
d discharged.
WarI I,thatbefall
entheagent soft heUni t
edNat i
ons,t he
Gener alAssembl y,t
hroughar esoluti
on, beli
evedthatitis Hence,t heUni tedNat i
onsisasubj ectofint
ernational
butanur gentdutyfortheUni t
edNat i
ons, speci
fi
call
yt he l
aw andcapabl eofpossessi ngi nt
ernati
onalri
ght sand
Secretar y
-General
,t o ensuret oi ts agentst he ful
lest duti
es,andt hatithascapacitytomai ntai
nitsrightsby
measur eofpr otecti
oni nthef utureandensur ingthat bri
ngingi nter
nationalcl
aims,
althoughi ti
scert
ainlynota
reparati
onbemadef ortheinj
uriessuffered. super-st
at e.

Ther equestf oropi

nionwascommuni catedtoallStat
es 2.
entit
led t o appearbef orethe Cour tt hen the court a.Yes.Itcannotbedoubt edthattheUni t
edNat i
onshas
proceeded t o answert he r
esolut
ion.I nl i
ghtoft he thecapaci t
yt o bri
ng ani nternat
ionalclai
m againsta
opinionr enderedbyt heCourt,suchshal lfor
m basisof State,whichmayormaynotbei tsmember ,whichhas
thepr oposaltobemadebyt heGener alAssembly. caused injur
yt oi tby a br each ofi tsinter
nati
onal
obli
gati
ons t owards i
t.As the claim is based on the
ISSUES breachofani nt
ernati
onalobl i
gationont hepartoft he
1.W/Nt heUnit
edNat
ionshast hecapaci
tyt
obr
ingan Member hel d r esponsibl
e by t he Or gani
zati
on,t he
i
nter
nat
ionalcl
aim. Membercannotcont endt hatthisobligat
ionisgoverned
bymuni
cipall
aw;hence,t
heOr gani
zat
ionisjusti
fi
edin
gi
vi
ngi
tsclai
mt hechar
act
erofanint
ernat
ionalcl
aim. 3.Yes.When t hev i
ctim hasanat ional i
ty,casescan
clear l
yoccuri nwhi cht heinjurysuf feredbyhi m may
Howev er,t
heCourtpoi
ntsoutthatitisnotcall
edupont o engaget heinterestbot hofhi snationalSt ateandoft he
determinethepreci
seextentofthereparati
onwhi chthe Or ganizati
on.Insuchanev ent,compet i
ti
onbet weent he
Organizati
onwouldbeentit
ledt
or ecover
;themeasur eof Stat e'
s r ight of di plomatic pr otect ion and t he
thereparati
onshoul
ddependuponanumberoff actor
s. Or ganizati
on'srightoff uncti
onalpr otectionmi ghtarise.
Insuchacase,t herei snor ul
eofl aw whi chassi gns
b.Yes.Underi nter
nationallaw,theOr ganizationmustbe priorit
ytot heoneort ot heother,orwhi chcompel seither
deemed t o hav ethose power s whi ch,t hough not theSt at
eort heOr ganizati
ont orefrainf rom br ingingan
expressl
ypr ovidedint heChar t
er,areconf erreduponit i
nt ernati
onalcl aim.TheCour tseesnor easonwhyt he
by necessar yi mpli
cation as being essent ialtot he par ti
esconcer nedshoul dnotf i
ndsol uti
onsi nspi redby
perf
ormance ofi ts duties.This pri
nciple ofl aw was goodwi l
land common sense,and as bet ween t he
appl
iedbyt hePer manentCour tofI nternationalJust
ice Or ganizati
onandi tsMember sitdrawsat t
entiont otheir
totheI nt
ernationalLabourOr ganizationi ni tsAdvi
sory dut yt orender" everyassi stance"pr ov i
dedbyAr t
icl
e2,
Opini
onNo.13ofJuly23rd,[p183]1926(Ser
iesB.,No. par agraph5, oftheChar ter
.
13,p.18,andmustbeappl
iedtotheUnit
edNat i
ons.
This
needofprotect
ionfortheagentsoftheOr gani
zati
on,as I
n case t he def endantbear st he nat i
onali
ty oft he
a condi
ti
on oft he perf
ormance ofitsf unct
ions,has defendantSt ate,itisst i
l
lpossible.Theact i
onoft he
al
readybeenreali
zed,andthePreambletotheResolut
ion Organizationi sinfactbasednotupont henationali
tyof
ofDecember3r d,1948( supr
a,p.175),showst hatthi
s the victim but upon hi s stat
us as agent of t he
wastheunanimousv i
ewoft heGeneralAssembly. Organization.Thereforeitdoesnotmat terwhet herornot
theStatet owhi chtheclaimi saddressedr egar
dshi m as
In order that the agent may per f
orm hi
s duties i
tsownnat ional,becauset hequestionofnat ionali
tyis
sat
isfact
oril
y,hemustfeelthatt
hisprot
ect
ioni
sassured notpertinentt otheadmissibil
it
yoftheclaim.
tohim bytheOrgani
zati
on,andthathemaycountonit
.

Inasi tuati
onwhenacl aimi sbroughtagainstaSt ate
whichisnotaMemberoft heOr ganizat
ion,theCourtis
ofopi nion thatthe Member s ofthe Uni t
ed Nations
created an ent i
ty possessing objecti
vei nter
nati
onal
personalit
yand notmer el
yper sonali
tyrecognized by
them alone;t
hus,itcanstil
lenfor
cesuchcl aim.
 thatADBhadwai vedi t
simmuni ty
,andt heref
or edecided
toruleonthecaseendi nginfav oroft hepet i
tioners.The
DepartmentofForeignAf fai
rs( DFA)r aisedt hef actthe
NLRCt hatundert
heADBchar ter,itisi mmunef rom any
l
egal process of any f or
m,except f or bor rowing,
guaranti
esandsal eofsecur i
tiesunderAr t
.50oft he
same.NLRCanswer edthatapr opercaseshoul dbef il
ed
withOmbudsman, iftheFDAt hinkst hatt heLaborAr biter
actedbeyondtheboundar yofit
sj urisdicti
on.

I
SSUE

Shoul
dADB’
simmuni
tyf
rom sui
tber
ecogni
zed?

HELD

Yes,t hecour tdecl aredt hatt heFDAmustbeal l

owedt o
plead i n or der to keep t he cr edibili
ty of the Phil.
Gov ernment bef oret he i nternationalcommuni ty,to
DFAv
sNLRC-G.
R.No.113191.Sept
ember18,
1996 overseet hatt heagr eement smadewi t
ht hesamear e
proper lyregarded.Thecour tf urt
herr ei
terat
est hatthe
DEPARTMENT OF FOREI GN AFFAI
RS,peti
ti
oner
,vs. grantofdi pl
omat icst atusmeanst hei ndependencyf r
om
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION,HON. muni cipallaw, andl ocaljuri
sdi cti
on.Iti sprovidedsothat
LABOR ARBITER NIEVESV.DECASTRO andJOSEC. thel ocalgov ernmentmaybepr eventedf r
om inter
feri
ng
MAGNAYI,respondents or exer ti
ng i nfl
uence ov er t he oper ati
ons of t he
i
nt er
nat ional organi zation, so t hat i ts capacity to
FACTS
dischar geitsfunctionsov ermemberst ateswouldnotbe
TheAsi anDev el
opmentBank( ADB)waschar gedwith i
mpai red.
i
llegaldi
smissal,andLabor
-OnlyContr
acti
ng.Forsome
Thecour
tfur
therr
eit
erat
est
hatt
her
ear
e2TYPESOF
reason,theLaborArbi
terworkedunderthepresumpt
ion
I
MMUNI
TY: Br
anchVIII
,CourtofFi
rstI
nst
anceofRizal,MAJOR
WILFREDOCRUZ, MAJORANTONI OG.RELLEVE, and
a.TheClassi
cal/
Absolut
etheor
y;asover
eignwit
hout CAPTAINPEDROS.NAVARROoft heConst abular
y
i
tsconsentbemadear espondenttoaf or
eign Of
fshor
eActionCenter(
COSAC), 
respondents.
cour
twithouti
tsconsent
.

b.Restri
cti
vet heor
y;the sov er
eign’
si mmunityi
s
Fact
s
recogni
zedonl ywit
hr egar
dt opubl
icactsoract
s
j
uriemperiiofa state,butnotwi t
hr egar
ds t
o
priv
ateactsorjur
egest i
oni
s.
Thi scasear oseuponr espondentjudge’srefusal
Undertherestri
cti
vetheory
,thebar
omet erist
hat;was toquashasear chwarrantfort hesearchandsei zureof
personal effect
sofpetit
ionerof f
ici
al,
Dr.LeonceVerst uf
yt,
the f
orei
gn state engaged i
nthe regularcour
se of
oftheWor ldHealthOrganization(WHO)not withst
andi ng
busi
nessortrade? his being ent itl
ed to diplomat icimmuni t
y as dul y
recognizedbyt heExecut i
veDepar tmentofthePhi l
ippine
I
fanactisinacti
sinpursui
tofasoverei
gnacti
vi
tyoran
Gov er
nment .The basisoft he immunityi sthe “ Host
i
nci
dentther
eof,t
heni sanactofj
ti uri
emperi
i,
especi
all
y Agreement ”executedbyt hePhi li
ppi
neGov ernmentand
wheni
tisnotforgai
norprof
it. theWHO.
I
nt hecaseatbar ,t
heser
vicecontr
actscomplainedof The gr ounds for issuance of search warrant
againstADBhav enotbeenintendedforprof
itnorgai
n, i
nst i
tuted by COSAC was t hat t
hey "cont
ainl arge
butar eoff
icialactsov
erwhi chawai verofimmunity quant i
ti
esofhi ghlyduti
ablegoods"bey ondt heof f
icial
wouldnotattach. needsofsai dpetit
ioner"andt heonlyl
awfulwaytoreach
thesear ti
clesandef fectsf orpurposesoft axat
ioni s
GRANTED. throughasear chwarrant.
"

I
ssue
THEWORLDHEALTHORGANI ZATIONandDR.LEONCE
VERSTUYFT, 
pet
it
ioners,
 
vs.
HON.BENJAMINH.AQUINO,asPr esi
dingJudgeof Whet
herornotr
espondentj
udgecommi
tt
edgr
ave
abuseofdiscr
eti
oninissui
ngt hesear
chwarr
antonthe
groundthatpeti
ti
oneroffi
cialisenti
tl
edt
odi pl
omati
c
i
mmuni t
y?

Hel
d

Yes,r
espondentj
udgecommi
tt
edgr
aveabuseof
di
scr
eti
on.

The execut i
ve br anch of t he Phi l
i
ppine
Gov ernmenthas  expressl
yr ecogni zedt hatpetit
ioneris
enti
tled t o di plomat i
c immuni ty , pursuant to t he
provisionsoft heHostAgr eement .Itisa r ecognized
pri
nci pleofinternati
onallawandunderPhi l
ippi
nesy st
em
ofsepar ati
on ofpower sthatdi plomat i
ci mmuni tyis
essent i
allyapol it
icalquesti
onandcour t
sshoul drefuse
tolookbey ondadet er
minationbyt heexecut i
vebr anch
oft he gov ernment , 
and wher et he pl ea ofdiplomat i
c
i
mmuni tyisr ecognizedandaf fir
medbyt heexecut i
ve
branchoft hegov ernmentasi nthecaseatbar ,itisthen
thedut yoft hecour t
st oacceptthecl ai
m ofi mmunity.
I
NTERNATI ONALCATHOLICMIGRATI
ON COMMI
SSI
ON
VS.CALLEJA(SEPT28,
1990)

FACTS

Therearet wo consol i
dat
ed casesi nt hecaseatbar
whichrespect
ivel
yi nvol
vethev al
idi
ty oft he cl
aim of
i
mmuni ty by t he I nter
nat
ional Cat holic Migrat
ion
Commission ( ICMC) and t he I nternati
onal Rice
Resear
ch Inst
itute,Inc.(I
RRI
)f r
om t he appli
cati
on of
Phi
l
ippi
nel
aborl
aws. Thelatt
eropposed t hepet i
ti
onont hegr ound t
hati
t
i
s an internati
onalor ganizati
on r egist
ered withthe
Fi
rst case (The Inter
nat
ional Cat
hol
i
c Mi
grat
ion Uni
tedNat i
onsand, hence,enj oysdi plomaticimmunit
y.
Commission(
ICMC)Case) TheMed-ArbiterAnastacioL.Bact i
nsust ai
nedI CMCand
di
smissedthepet i
ti
onf orl
ackofj uri
sdicti
on.
As an af t
ermat h oft he Vi etnam War ,t he pl i
ghtof
Viet namese r ef ugeesf leeing f r
om Sout h Vi etnam' s AMot ion f orI ntervent i
onwassubsequent l
yf il
edbyt he
communi st r ul e conf r
ont ed the i nternational Depar tmentofFor eignAf fairs( DEFORAF) ,allegingt hat,
communi ty.Inr esponse t ot he cr isis,an Agr eement as t he hi ghest execut i
ve depar tment wi th t he
wasf orged bet ween t he Phi l
ippine Gov ernmentand compet enceandaut hor i
tyt oactonmat t
er sinv ol vi
ng
the Uni ted Nat ionsHi gh Commi ssionerf orRef ugees diplomat i
ci mmuni ty and pr iv
ileges,and t asked wi th
wher eby an oper ating cent er f orpr ocessi ng I ndo- the conduct of Phi lippinedi pl omat i
c and consul ar
Chi nese r efugees f orev entualr eset tlementt o ot her relations wi th f oreign gov ernment s and UN
count ri
es was t o be est ablished i n Bat aan.The organi zat ions,i thas a l egali nt eresti nt he out come
Inter national Cat hol i
cMi gr ati
onCommi ssi onwasoneof of t hi s case.Ov er t he opposi ti
on of t he Sol icitor
those accr edi ted by t he Phi li
ppine Gov er
nment t o Gener al,t he Cour tal lowedDEFORAF i nt ervent i
on.The
oper at et he r ef ugee pr ocessi ng cent er i n Mor ong, Second Di v ision gav e due cour se t o t he I CMC
Bat aan.I twasi ncor por at ed in New Yor k,USA,att he Pet i
tionand r equi red t hesubmi tt
alofmemor andaby
request of t he Hol y See, as anon- profit agency thepar ties,whi chhasbeen compl i
ed wi th.Asi niti
ally
i
nv ol ved i ni nt ernat ionalhumani tarian and v olunt ary stated,t he i ssue i s whet her or not t he gr ant of
wor k.I ti s dul yr egi ster ed wi tht he Uni ted Nat ions diplomat i
cpr i
v i
leges and i mmuni testoI CMC ext ends
Economi c and Soci alCounci l( ECOSOC) and enj oys toi mmuni tyf rom t heappl ication ofPhi li
ppine l abor
Consul tative St at us,Cat egor yI I. As ani nternational l
aws.I CMC sust ai
nst heaf firmat iveoft hepr oposi t
ion
organi zat i
on r ender ing v oluntary and humani tar i
an citi
ng ( 1) itsMemor andum of Agr eement wi tht he
ser vices i nt he Phi lippi nes,i t
s act ivities ar e par al l
el Phi l
ippi ne Gov ernment gi v i
ng i tt he st atus of a
tot hose oft heI nternat ionalCommi ttee f orMi gration speci alized agency ,(inf r
a);( 2)t he Conv ention on t he
(ICM) and t he I nternat i
onalCommi ttee of t he Red Privil
eges and I mmuni t
ies of Speci alized Agenci es,
Cr oss( ICRC) . adopt ed byt heUNGener alAssembl yconcur r
ed i n by
thePhi li
ppine Senat e t hrough Resol ut i
on No. 91
Trade Uni
ons ofthe Phi
l
ippi
nes and All
ied Servi
ces signed by t he Pr esidentand deposi ted wi tht he UN
(TUPAS)fil
ed wit
ht he t
hen Mini
stry ofLaborand on 20 Mar ch 1950) ;and( 3)Ar t
icl
eI I,Sect ion 2 of
Employment a Peti
ti
on f or Certi
fi
cati
on El ect
ion the 1987 Const ituti
on, whi ch decl ar es t hat t he
amongt herankandf i
l
emember semployedbyI CMC. Phi l
ippi nesadopt st hegener al
lyaccept edpr i
ncipl esof
i
nt ernationall
aw as par t of the law of the land. wi
th an exist
ing l
ocal uni
on, t
he Kapisanan ng
Intervenor DEFORAF uphol ds I CMC'S clai
m of ManggagawaatTAC saIRRI(Kapi
sanan,f
orshort
)in
diplomat icimmuni tyand seeks an af
fi
rmance oft he r
espondentI
RRI
.
DEFORAF det er
mi nat
ion that the BLROrder for a
cer t
ifi
cat i
on el
ecti
on among t he ICMC employees is TheKapi
sananthenfi
ledaPet
iti
onforDir
ectCer
ti
fi
cat
ion
violati
v e of t he di pl
omatic immunity of sai d El
ecti
on with Region IV, Regi
onal Offi
ce of the
organi zati
on. Depar
tmentofLaborandEmployment(DOLE)
.

Secondcase(TheI
nter
nat
ionalRi
ceResear
chI
nst
it
ute IRRIopposedt hepet i
ti
oninvoki
ngPr es.Decr eeNo.1620
(I
RRI)Case) conferri
ng upon i tt he status of an i nternati
onal
organizat
ion and gr anti
ng iti mmuni t
yf rom al lciv i
l
,
ThePhi li
ppineGov er
nmentandt heFor dandRockef ell
er crimi
nalandadmi nist
rati
veproceedingsunderPhi li
ppine
Foundat i
onssi gned a Memor andum ofUnder standing l
aws.Asar esult
,Med- Arbi
terLeonardoM.Gar cia,upheld
establi
shing the I nter
nationalRi ce Research I nstit
ute theopposi t
ionont hebasisofPr es.DecreeNo.1620and
(I
RRI )atLosBaños,Laguna.I twasi ntendedt obean dismissedthePetitionforDir
ectCer t
if
icati
on.
autonomous, phil
anthropic,tax-
free,
non- prof
it,non-stock
organizati
ondesi gnedt ocar ryoutthepr inci
palobj ecti
ve Kapisanancont endsthatAr t
icl
e3ofPr es.DecreeNo.
ofconduct ing" basicr esearchont her i
cepl ant,onal l 1620gr antingIRRIthestatus,pr
ivi
l
eges, prer
ogati
vesand
phasesofr i
cepr oduction,management ,distr
ibutionand i
mmuni ti
esofani nt
ernati
onalorganizati
on,invokedby
uti
li
zationwi t
hav iewtoat taini
ngnut r
iti
veandeconomi c theSecr etaryofLabor,isunconstituti
onalinsof arasit
advantageorbenef i
tf ort hepeopleofAsi aandot her depri
vest heFilipi
nowor kersoft heirfundament aland
maj orri
ce-growingar east hroughimpr ovementi nqual it
y consti
tutionalrighttoformt r
adeuni onsforthepur pose
andquant it
yofr ice." of collective bargai
ning as enshr ined int he 1987
Constit
ut i
on.
Ini
ti
all
y,I RRIwas organi
zed and regist
ered wit
ht he
Securi
ties and Exchange Commi ssi
on as a pr ivate I
SSUE
corporati
onsubj
ecttoalll
awsandr egulat
ions.Howev er
,
byv i
rt
ueofPr es.DecreeNo.1620,pr omulgatedon19 WHETHER OR NOT THE GRANT OF DI PLOMATI
C
April1979,IRRIwasgr anted t
hest at
us,pr er
ogati
ves, PRIVI
LEGES AND I
MMUNITES TO I
CMC EXTENDS TO
pri
vil
egesandimmuni t
iesofanint
ernati
onalorgani
zati
on. IMMUNITY FROM THE APPLI
CATION OF PHILI
PPI
NE
LABORLAWS.
TheOrganizedLaborAssociat
ioninLi
neIndustr
iesand
Agr
icul
tur
e( OLALIA)
,isal egi
timat
elabororganizat
ion HELD
 Art.3.I mmuni t
yf rom LegalPr ocess.— The Inst
it
ute
YES,THE GRANT OF DIPLOMATIC PRI
VILEGES AND shall enj oyimmuni ty from any penal , ci
vil and
I
MMUNI TES TO I
CMC EXTENDS TO I
MMUNI TY FROM admi nistr
ati
ve pr oceedi
ngs, exceptinsofar as that
THEAPPLICATI
ONOFPHI LI
PPI
NELABORLAWS. i
mmuni t
y has been expr essly waived by t he
DirectorGeneral of the I nst
it
ute or his author
ized
Dipl
omat icimmuni tyhasbeengr antedICMC andI RRI. representati
ves.
Arti
cleIIoft heMemor andum ofAgr eementbet weenthe
Phil
ippine Gov ernmentand I CMC pr ovi
des t hatICMC The DEFORAF, t hr ough i ts Legal Adv iser , sust ained
shallhav eastatussimi l
artothatofaspeci ali
zedagency . ICMC' Sinv ocationofi mmuni tywheni na Memor andum,
Arti
cleI II
,Sect i
ons4 and 5 oft heConv enti
onont he i
texpr essedt hev iewt hatt heOr deroft heDi r ect oroft he
Priv
il
eges and I mmuni ti
es of Speci al
ized Agenci es, Bureau of Labor Rel ati
onsf or t he conduct of
adopt ed by t he UN Gener al Assembl y on and Certif
ication El ect i
on wi thin I CMC v iol ates t he
concur r
ed i n by t he Phi li
ppine Senat e t hrough dipl
omat i
ci mmuni ty of t he or ganizat ion.Si mi larly,i n
Resolution No.19expl i
citl
y provi
des:Ar t.I I
I,Secti
on4. respectofI RRI ,t heDEFORAF speaki ng t hr ough The
The speci ali
zed agenci es,theirpr operty and asset s, Acting Secr etaryofFor ei
gn Af fair
s,JoseD.I ngl es,i n
wherev erlocatedandbywhomsoev erhel d,shallenjoy al etter,t ot he Secr etary ofLabor ,mai nt ained t hat
i
mmuni tyf rom ev er
yf orm of l egalpr ocess except "I
RRIenj oysi mmuni tyf r
om t hej uri
sdi ctionofDOLEi n
i
nsof aras i n anypar ticul
arcaset heyhav e expressl
y this par ti
cular i nstance. "The f or egoi ng opi nions
waivedt hei
rimmuni t
y. constitute a cat egor icalr ecogni ti
on by t heExecut ive
Branch oft he Gov ernmentt hatI CMC and I RRIenj oy
Howev er,no wai v
erofi mmuni t
yshal lext end to any i
mmuni t
ies accor ded t o i nt ernati
onal or gani zati
ons,
measur eofexecut ion. whichdet erminat i
on has been hel dt o be a pol i
tical
Sec.5.— The pr emi ses oft he speci
ali
zed agenci es question concl usive upont he Cour tsi n or dernott o
shallbe i nviol
able.The pr opert
y and asset s oft he embar rassapol iticaldepar tmentofGov er nment .
special
ized agenci es, wher ev
er l ocated and by
whomsoev er hel d shal l be i mmune f rom sear ch, Itisar ecognized pr
inciple ofi nternati
onall aw and
requi
siti
on,conf i
scat ion,expr opr
iati
on and any ot her under our sy stem ofsepar ati
on of power s t
hat
form of i nterference, whet her by execut ive, dipl
omati
ci mmunityis essent iall
ya pol i
ti
calquesti
on
administrat
ive,judicialorl egi
slati
veaction. and cour ts shoul d r efuse t o l ook bey ond a
determi
nation by t he execut i
ve br anch of t he
I
RRIissi
mil
arl
ysi
tuat
ed,Pr
es.Decr
eeNo.1620,Ar
ti
cle government, and wher e t he pl ea ofdi plomati
c
3,i
sexpli
citi
nit
sgrantofimmunity
,thus: i
mmuni tyisr ecogni
zedandaf fir
medbyt heexecut i
ve
branchoft hegov ernment .I
tist hedut yoft hecour t
s
to acceptt he cl ai
m of i mmuni t
y upon appr opriate settled.Sect i
on 31 of t he Conv enti
on on t he
suggesti
on by t he pr i
ncipal law of fi
cer of t he Pr i
vilegesand I mmuni t i
esoft heSpeci al
ized Agencies
governmentorot herof fi
ceract i
ngunderhi s di r
ection. oft he Uni ted Nationspr ovides t hat" each special
i
zed
Hence,i n adher ence t o t he settled principle t hat agencyshal lmakepr ovi
sionf orappr opri
atemodesof
courts may notso exer ci
se theirj ur
isdi
ction,as t o settlementof :( a)disput esar i
singoutofcont r
actsor
embar r
ass theexecut i
v e arm of t he gov ernmenti n other di sputes of pr i
vate char acter to whi ch the
conducti
ng for
eign r elati
ons, i
tisaccepteddoct ri
net hat speci alizedagencyi s a par ty .
"Mor eover,pursuantt o
i
nsuchcasest hej udicialdepartmentoft hegov ernment Ar t
icleI V oft heMemor andum ofAgr eementbet ween
fol
lowst heactionoft hepol i
ti
calbr anchandwi l
lnot ICMCandt hePhi l
i
ppineGov er nment ,whenev ertherei s
embar r
ass the lat t
erby assumi ng an ant agonist i
c any abuse ofpr ivil
ege by I CMC,t heGov er
nmenti s
j
urisdi
cti
on. free t o wi t
hdraw t he pr ivil
eges and i mmunities
accor ded.Thus:
Thegr antofimmuni t
yfrom local jur
isdictiontoI CMCand
IRRI i s cl earl
y necessi tated by t heiri nternat
ional Art.I V.Cooper ationwi thGov ernmentAut horit
ies.— 1.
char acterandr espect i
vepur poses.Theobj ectiveisto TheCommi ssionshal lcooper ateatal ltimeswi t
ht he
av oidt hedangerofpar ti
ali
tyandi nt
erfer encebyt hehost appr opriateaut hori
ties oft he Gov ernmentt o ensur e
count ryi nt heiri nter
nalwor ki
ngs.The exer ci
se of the obser vance of Phi li
ppine l aws, r ules and
j
ur isdiction by t he Depar tment of Labor i n these regulations, f acil
it
at e t he pr oper admi nistrati
on of
i
nst anceswoul ddef eatt hev erypur poseofi mmuni t
y, j
ustice and pr eventt he occur r
encesofanyabuse of
whi ch i s t o shi eld t he af fai
rs of i nternat
ional thepr i
vilegesandi mmuni ti
esgr anted it
sof fi
cialsand
organi zati
ons,inaccor dancewi thinter nati
onalpr acti
ce, ali
enempl oyeesi nAr t
icleII
Ioft hisAgreementt ot he
from pol it
icalpressureorcont rolbyt hehostcount r
yto Commi ssi on.2. I n t he ev ent t hat the Gov er
nment
thepr ejudiceofmemberSt atesoft heor ganizati
on,and deter mines t hat t her e has been anabuse of t he
toensur etheunhamper edper formanceoft heirfuncti
ons. pri
vileges and i mmuni ti
es gr anted under t his
Agreement ,consul tations shal lbe hel d bet ween t he
I
CMC' sand IRRI'simmuni tyfrom localjurisdict
ion by Gov ernment and t he Commi ssion t o det ermine
no meansdepr i
ves laborofi t
s basicr ights,whi ch whet heranysuch abusehasoccur red and, i
fso,t he
are guar
anteed by Ar t
icleI I
,Section 18,Ar ti
cleI I
I, Gov ernment shal l wi t
hdraw t he pr ivil
eges and
Sect
ion 8,and Ar ti
cl
e XI I
I,Sect i
on 3,of t he 1987 i
mmuni ti
esgr antedt heCommi ssionandi tsof fi
cial
s.
Consti
tut
ion;and i mplement ed by Ar ti
cles 243 and
246oft heLaborCode, reli
edonbyt heBLR Di rect
or Thei mmunitygr
antedbei
ng"fr
om everyform oflegal
and byKapi sanan.ButI CMC empl oyees ar e not processexcepti
nsof arasinanyparti
cul
arcaset hey
wit
houtr ecourse whenev ert here aredisputes t o be haveexpressl
ywaiv
edthei
rimmunit
y,
"itisi
naccur
atet o
stat ethatacer tifi
cat i
onel ectioni sbey ondt hescopeof havingf unct ionsi npar ticul arf i
elds.Thet erm appear s
thati mmuni t
yf ort her easont hatitisnotasui tagainst i
n Ar ticles 57 and 63 oft heChar teroft he Uni ted
ICMC.A cer tifi
cat i
onel ectioncannotbev i
ewedasan Nations:The Char ter, whi l
e i ti nv ests t he Uni ted
i
ndependentori solatedpr ocess.I tcoul dt uggerof fa Nations wi tht he gener alt ask ofpr omot ing pr ogr ess
ser ies ofev entsi nt he col lective bar gaining pr ocess and i nter nat ional cooper ation i n economi c, soci al,
toget her wi t h r elated i ncident s and/ or concer ted health, cul tur al, educat ional and r elat ed mat ter s,
act ivi
ti
es,whi ch coul di nev i
tablyi nvol veI CMC i nt he cont empl ates t hatt hese t asks wi llbe mai nlyf ulfill
ed
"l
egalpr ocess,"whi ch i ncludes " any penal ,civiland not by or gans of t he Uni ted Nat i
onsi tself but by
admi nistr
ativ
e pr oceedi ngs."The ev ent uali
ty ofCour t autonomousi nt er nat i
onalor gani zationsest abl i
shedby
l
itigationi snei t
herr emot eandf rom whi chi nternati
onal i
nter -gov ernment al agr eement s out side t he Uni ted
organi zationsar epr eciselyshi el
dedt osaf eguar dt hem Nations. Ther e ar enow many such i nter nat ional
from t he di srupt i
on of t hei rf unctions.Cl auses on agenci eshav ingf unct i
onsi nmanydi ff
er entf i
el ds,e. g.
j
ur isdicti
onali mmuni tyar esaidt obest andar dprov i
sions i
n post s,t el ecommuni cat i
ons,r ai
lway s,canal s,r iv er s,
i
nt heconst i
t ut
ionsofi nternat i
onalOr ganizations." The sea t ranspor t, ci v il av iation, met eorology , at omi c
i
mmuni t
ycov erst heor gani zationconcer ned,i tsproper t
y ener gy ,f inance,t rade,educat i
on and cul t
ur e,heal th
andi tsasset s.Iti sequal lyappl i
cablet opr oceedingsi n and r ef ugees.Some ar ev i
rtually wor l
d- wide i nt hei r
per sonam andpr oceedi ngsi nr em. member shi p,some ar er egi onalorot her wise l imi ted
i
nt hei rmember shi p.
[OPTIONALI NFORMATI ON/OPTI ONALREAD]The t erm The Char terpr ov ides t hatt hoseagenci es whi ch hav e
"i
nternational or gani
zati
on"i s gener all
y used t o "wide i nt ernat ionalr esponsi bi li
ti
es"ar et o bebr ought
describe an or ganizati
on set up by agr eement i
nto r elat ionshi p wi t h t he Uni t ed Nat ions by
between t wo or mor e st ates.Under cont emporary agreement sent er ed i nt o bet ween t hem and t he
i
nternational l aw,such or gani zati
ons are endowed Economi c and Soci alCounci l
,ar et hen t o be known
with some degr ee of i nternat i
onall
egalper sonalit
y as " speci alized agenci es."The r api d gr owt h of
such t hat t hey ar e capabl e of exer ci
sing speci fi
c i
nter nat ional or gani zat i
ons under cont empor ary
ri
ghts,dut iesandpower s.Theyar eor ganizedmai nly i
nter nat ional l aw has pav ed t he way f or t he
as a means f orconduct ing gener al internati
onal devel opment of t he concept of i nter nat ional
business i n whi ch the member st ateshav e an i
mmuni ties.I ti s now usualf ort he const it
ut ions of
i
nterest.The Uni ted Nat i
ons, f or i
nstance, i s an i
nter nat ional or gani zat ions t o cont ain pr ov i
si ons
i
nternationalor ganizat
iondedi catedtot hepr opagation conf er ri
ng cer tai n i mmuni ties on t he or gani zat ions
ofwor l
dpeace. themsel ves,r epr esent at ives of t heir member st at es
and per sonsact ingon behal foft he or ganizat i
ons.A
"
Speci
ali
zed agenci
es"ar
eint
ernat
ionalor
gani
zat
ions series of conv ent i
ons, agr eement sand pr otocol s
defi
ning t he i mmuni t
ies of var
ious i
nter
nat
ional
organizat
ions inrelati
on tothei
rmembers general
ly
arenow wi del
yinforce.

Ther e are basi cal lyt hr ee pr oposi tions under l

ying t he
grant of i nter nat ional i mmuni ties t o i nt ernational
organizations.These pr i
nci pl es,cont ained i nt he I LO
Memor andum ar e st at ed t hus: 1) i nt ernational
i
nst i
tutionsshoul dhav east at uswhi chpr otectst hem
againstcont rolori nt erferencebyanyonegov er nmenti n
theper formanceoff unct ionsf ort heef fecti
v edi schar ge
of whi ch t hey ar e r esponsi ble t o democr ati
cal ly
const i
tutedi nt ernat ionalbodi esi nwhi chal lt henat i
ons
concer nedar er epr esent ed;2)nocount ryshoul dder i
ve
anynat ionalf inanci aladv ant agebyl evyingf i
scalchar ges
oncommoni nt er nationalf unds;and3)t heint ernational
organizationshoul d,asacol lect ivityofSt at
esmember s,
beaccor dedt hef acili
tiesf ort heconductofi tsof ficial
business cust omar ily ext ended t o each ot herby i t
s
i
ndi vi
dualmemberSt ates.Thet heor ybehi ndal lthr ee
proposi ti
ons i s sai dt o be essent i
allyi nstituti
onali n
charact er."Itisnotconcer nedwi t
ht hest at
us,di gnityor
privi
leges of i ndi vidual s,but wi tht he el ement s of
functionali ndependencenecessar yt of reeint ernational
i
nst i
tutionsf rom nat ionalcont rolandt oenabl et hem t o
discharget hei rr esponsi bi l
iti
esi mpar ti
allyonbehal fofal l
theirmember s.Ther aisond' et r
ef ort hesei mmuni ti
esi s
the assur ance of uni mpeded per formance of t hei r
functions by t he agenci es concer ned. [ OPTI ONAL
INFORMATI ON/ OPTI ONALREAD]
 DFA that pet i
ti
oner enjoyed i mmunit
y from legal
pr
ocesses,dismissedthecr iminalInf
ormat
ionagainst
hi
m.TheRTCofPasi gannull
edandsetasidetheor
derof
MeTCdismissingthecri
minal case.

I
SSUE

WON t he stat
ement
s al
l
egedl
y made by t
he
peti
ti
onerwer eutt
eredwhil
eint
heperfor
manceofhi
s
off
ici
alfunct
ions.

HELD

No.Of f
icersandst affsoft heBankshal lenjoy
Immuni t
yf rom l egalprocess wi t
hr espect to acts
performedbyt hem intheirof f
icialcapacityexceptwhen
theBankwai vest heimmuni ty
.Thesl anderofaper son,
byanyst retch,cannotbeconsi deredasf al
li
ngwithinthe
LI
ANGV.PEOPLE purview oft hei mmuni t
ygr antedt o ADB of fi
cersand
personnel.Slander ,i
ngener al,cannotbeconsi deredas
FACTS anactper formedi nanofficialcapaci t
y.

Thiscasehasi t
sorigi
nintwocriminalInf
ormation
forgr ave oraldefamat i
on fi
l
ed againstpet i
ti
oner,a
Chinesenat i
onalwhowasempl oy
edasanEconomi stby
theAsi anDev el
opmentBank( ADB),petit
ionerall
egedly
utt
ereddef amatorywor dstoJoyceV.Cabal ,amember
ofthecl er
icalst
affofADB.TheMet r
opolit
anTr i
alCourt
ofMandal uyongCity,acti
ngpursuanttoanadv i
cefrom
 Thepl
aint
if
fbroughtsui
tintheU.S.t
orecover
f
undsi
nthehandsofit
sU.S.purchasi
ngagents.

Theplaint
if
fcl
aimedthati
thadstandi
ngtobri
ng
sui
tbecauseitwasthedefactogov
ernmentofRussi
a.

Therespondentdi
sputedthatt
heplai
nti
ff’
sclai
m,
maint
aini
ngthatl
ackofrecogniti
onbytheexecut
ive
br
anchprecl
udedt hepl
aint
if
ffrom mai
ntai
ningsuit
.

TheNewYor kCourtofAppeal
shel
dthatf
oreign
sovereignsdonotsueinUScourt
sasamat terofr
ight
,
butratherasamatterofcomit
y.

I
SSUE

W/Nthesui
tfi
l
edbySov
ietRepubl
i
ccanbe
mai
ntai
ned

HELD

NO.TheSov
ietRepubl
i
ccannotmai
ntai
nsui
t.
RUSSI
ANSOCI
ALI
STFEDERATEDSOVI
ETREPUBLI
CV SincetheUSgov ernmentdi
dnotfor
mall
y
CI
BRARIO recognizetheplai
nti
ff
,therewil
lbenocomit
ythatwoul
d
permitsuit.
FACTS
Comit
yisareci
procal
courtesyt
hatexi
sts
I
n1917, theexecutivebranchoftheU.S.
betweenfri
endl
ynati
ons.Oneaspectofcourt
esyist
he
recognizedthepr ovi
sionalgovernmentofRussi a.Later
ri
ghttosueinthecour
tsofanothernat
ion.
thatyear,theplaint
if
ftookcont rolf
rom theprovisional
government .Howev er,t
heexecut i
vebranchcont inuedto Comit
ycannotexi
stunt
ilagov
ernmentis
recognizethepr ovi
sionalgovernmentandi t
s recogni
zed.Suchcomit
y/r
ecogni
ti
onarepol
it
ical
representati
vesintheU. S.astheoffici
alRussian questi
on.
Gov ernment.
BancoNacional
deCuba
vsSabbat
ino376US398
Oet
jenv
sCent
ral
Leat
herCo.246
US297
Under
hil
lvsHer
nandez168US250,
253
US(Chat
ti
n)v
sMexico,Gener
al
Cl
aimsCommissi
on,1927
US(Noy
es)v
sPanama,Gener
al
Cl
aimsCommissi
on,
1933
US(Youmans)vsMexico,
Opi
nion
oft
heCommi ssi
oner1927
US(Laur
aB.Jones)v
sMexi co,
Opi
nionoft
heCommi ssi
oner1927
 DECI
SION

TheI
CJ,
ini
tsopi
nion,
answer
edi
ntheaf
fi
rmat
ive.

Accor di
ngt other eport,t
obr i
ngacl aim,thereisaneed
tolooki nt
ot hecapacityoft heSt ateoranor gani
zat
ionto
THECASEOFCOUNTFOLKEBERNADOTTE1949,I
CJ bring an act i
on f ori nt
ernationalclaim.I thas been
REPORT147 resolvedt hattheUni tedNat i
on,asanor ganiz
ati
on,is
recognizedhav ingpersonalitywhi chentai
l
st hecapabil
it
y
FACTS ofav ail
i
ngi t
selfofobligati
onsofeachmemberst at
es.
OnSept ember17,1948,CountFol keBernadotteisonan Intheopinionoft hecourt,t
heor ganizat
ionhasi nt
ended
offi
cialdut y as a Uni ted Nat ions Medi ator on the to exercise and enj oy what a l arge measur e of
PalestineDi spute.Ont hesameday ,hewasassasi nated i
nternati
onalper sonali
ty enjoys.Ini t
s conclusi
on,i t
i
nJer usal em. consider
edanor ganizati
onasani nternati
onalperson.
Accor dingly,afterthe assasinat i
on,Dr .Bunche whi ch Howev er,itis nota st ate butitr equires r
ight
s and
was a per sonalr epresentati
ve oft he UN's Secret
ar y responsi
bili
ti
esthatStateshav e.
Gener al accused the Isr
aeli Gov er
nment .
Not withstandingthef actthattherei snopr ooftocharge On the question ofbr i
nging an int
ernati
onalclaim,it
thelatterforthesai dassasination. dependsupont hepurposeandf unct
ionsasspecifiedor
Thus,t he Secr etary Generalr equested the Gener al i
mpl i
ed i nits consti
tuentdocument s and developed
Assembl ytolooki ntothi
st r
agedyandpr ev
iousinci
dents practi
ce.To answert hequer y,thecour tsaidthatan
i
nv olvi
ngagent softheUNagai nsti t
smemberst at
es. organizat
ionmaybr i
nganact i
onf orreparati
onagainst
oneofi t
smember swhi chhascausedi njur
yt oitbya
I
SSUE/
S(Soughtt
ober
esol
ved) breachofi t
sinter
nati
onal obl
i
gat i
onstowardsit.
Intheev entofanagentoftheUNi ntheperf
ormanceof
his duty suffer
ed inj
ury.(A) Does the UN,as an
organizati
onhast hecapacit
yt obri
ngani nternat
ional
clai
m agai nst t
he responsi
ble de jur
e or de f acto
governmentf orthedamagecauset oUN and/ ortot he
personinvolv
ed?
Har
veyv
sSant
iago162SCRA840
Belgi
um v sSpain(Bar
cel
ona
Tracti
onCase)1970I CJReport
,
withrespecttothedoctr
ineof
“eff
ectiv
elink”asappl
iedto
corporati
on
NeerCl
aim,
USv
sMexi
co(
1926)
 Bycommi tt
ingthesaidact ,t
heMexi canarmyof fi
cer
s
madet hei
rstateaccountableforsuchact,regardl
ess
theyactedi
nt hei
roffi
cialcapaci
tyasof f
icersofthestat
e
ornotwhent heytr
iedtoext or
tmoneyandki ll
edCair
e,

CAI
RECLAI
M,FRANCEV.MEXI
CO,
FRENCH-
MEXI
CAN
CLAI
MS

FACTS

December11, 1914,
Jean-
Bapti
steCai
re,aFrench
Nati
onal,waskill
edbytwoMexicanar
myof f
icerswithi
n
t
hepr emisesofthearmybar
racksduetotherefusalof
t
hef ormertopayasum ofmoneyinfavorofthelatt
er.

I
SSUE

WhetherornotMexi
coshoul
dbeheldl
iabl
efort
heacts
commi t
tedbyit
smil
it
aryper
sonnel
act
ingwit
houtcol
or
ofauthori
ty?

HELD

YES.I twashel dthatMexicowasi nternationall

y
responsiblefortheactscommi t
tedbyi tsof f
icers.The
courtusedt hedoct r
ineofobjecti
ver esponsibili
ty
wher einthestateshouldbeheldl i
ablef oracts
commi tt
edbyi t
sof f
ici
alsorstateorgans
notwi t
hstandingtheabsenceof“ fault”ont hepar toft
he
state.
 whichbothstatesaresignatori
esandt hetr
eatyentered
byIranandUSi n1995st at
est hatt
heyar ebot
hobl i
gated
toensureprotecti
onofUSci ti
zenswhiletheyareinIran
andv i
ce-
versa.ThusIranisresponsi
blefornotprotecti
ng
theUSciti
zenst hatwereheldhostages.

I
nt hiscase, I
ranisfull
yawar eofthatt heirobligat
ions
underthev i
ennaconv entionsandt reatyt hattheyaret o
protecttheUSembassy ,it
sdi pl
omat sandconsul sand
USvI
RANI
CJ(
1980)
i
tspeopl e.Assuch, i
tist her esponsibil
ityofIrantot ake
FACTS necessar yeffor
tswithinitspowert opr otecttheciti
zens
ofUSwhi letheyarewi t
hint hepremi sesofI ran.
OnNov ember4, 1979, agroupofdemonst r
ators
consist
ingofIranianstudents,ov err
untheUSEmbassy
compoundi nTehr an.TheIraniansecur i
tyoftheembassy
apparentl
ymadenoef f
orttodet erordiscouraget he
demonst r
atorsfrom thetakeov er.Embassyper sonnel,
dipl
omat sandconsul swher eheldhost ageinsidet he
compound.Despi terepeatedcal lsforhelpfr
om t he
Ir
aniangovernment ,I
ranmadenoat temptinr escuingthe
hostages.

I
SSUE

WhetherornotI
ranshall
behel
dli
ablef
orthe
acts/
omissi
onofactsthemadeduri
ngthetakeov
erof
theUSEmbassycompoundinTehran.

HELD

YES.Undert
heVi
ennaConv
ent
ionsof1961and1963
HomeMi ssi
onarySoci
etyCl
aim USv
s
GreatBr
it
ain(1920)
 dredgingwi thTheNor thAmer i
canDr edgingCompany
(NADC)onNov ember12, 1912inMexi coCi t
y .NADCwas
supposedt orenderservi
cesinMexi co,andt hepay ment
wast ober enderedtherein.Thereaf
ter,t
heUni tedStat
es
ofAmer i
ca,inbehalfoftheNor t
hAmer i
canDr edgi
ng
CompanyofTexas, fi
l
edf ortherecoveryofthesum of
$233,523.30wi thint
erestanddamagesf oranal l
eged
breachi nthecontractofdredgingatthepor tofSal i
na
NORTHAMERICANDREDGI
NGCOMPANYOFTEXTS Cruz.Thecasewasf i
ledwiththeGener alClaims
(
U.S.
A.)V.UNI
TEDMEXI
CANSTATES Commi ssi
on.

31Mar
ch1926 Mexico,represent
edbyi tsagent,f
iledamotionto
dismissont hegroundofapar ti
cularcl
auseinthe
JURISDI CTION—CALVOCLAUSE.ACal v oclauseheldto contract
,knownast heCal voClause,wherei
nitst
ates
barclaimantf rom presenti
ngtohi sGov ernmentany thatthesigningpart
yagreestor educeorwaiveit
sr i
ghts
cl
aim connect edwi ththecontractinwhi chitappeared asanal i
enoraf orei
gnbodyorper sonandissubjectto
andhencet opl aceanysuchclaim bey ondt he thelocalri
ghtsandpr i
vi
legesprovidedbythehost
j
urisdict
ionoft het ri
bunal
.Thecl ausewi l
l notprecl
ude country,
Mex ico.
hi
sGov ernmentf r
om espousi
ng, orthet ri
bunalfrom
considering,otherclaimsbasedont hev i
olati
onof I
SSUES
i
nternationallaw.Ar ti
cleVofthecompr omi seheldnotto
Whet herornott heCalvoClausedepri
vest heparty
preventthef oregoingresul
t.
subscr i
bingsaidclauseoftheri
ghttosubmi tanycl
ams
CONTRACTCLAI MS.Mot i
ontodi
smiss,f
orl
ackof connect edwi t
hhiscontractt
oaninternati
onal
j
urisdict
ion,
clai
m basedonnon-
perf
ormanceofa commi ssion?Andifso,doestheCommi ssionhave
contractwit
hMexicanGov er
nmentr
eject
ed. j
urisdicti
onov erthecase?

FACTS RULI
NG

TheGov
ernmentofMex
icoent
eredacont
ractof Yes,
whi
l
eiti
str
uet
hatast
atecannotsubv
ert
i
nt ernational l
awbypr ovidingi ncongr uentl aws, theCal vo beingimpossi bletopr ovetheill
egalit
yoft hesaid
clauseser v esasanexcept ion.Thequest ionedcl ause provi
sion, byadduci nggener al
l
yrecogni zedrulesof
ser vesasapr econdi tiont oawar dingacont ractt o posit
ivei nternationallaw;itapparentl
ycanonl ybe
foreigncor porat i
ons, suchast hepet iti
oner ,whi cht he contestedbyi nvokingi t
sincongruitytothelawofnat ure
stat eprot ectsitselfandi tsinter estbyhol dingt hatasa anditsinconsi st
encywi thinali
enable,indestruct
ibl
e,
condi ti
ont oal l
owt hecor por ationt opr oceedwi thits i
mpr escr i
ptible,uncurtail
ableri
ghtsofnat ions.However,
vent ure,thecor porat i
onagr eest ohav eandav ailoft he i
tshoul dbest ressedt hattheCalvoCl auseisnot
samer i
ght sandpr ivil
egest hatt hest ateequal lyprov ides absoluteandshoul dbet ri
edonat tendingcircumstances,
toi tsresident s,andi ncaseofanycont rov er sy,the andwi l
l bet ri
edanddeci dedont hemer i
ts.
cor porationagr eest oav ail t
her emedi esav ai l
abl etot he
TheCommi ssionmayt akej ur
isdictionont hecase,
l
ocal tr
ibunal sandcour tsi nthest atewi thoutt he
notwithstandingt heexistenceofsuchacl ausei na
cor porationshomecount ry’sint ervent ion.Thepur poseof
contractsubscr i
bedbysuchcl aimant .Butwher ea
suchacont ractist odr awar easonabl eandpr act i
cal l
ine
clai
manthasexpr esslyagreedi nwr iti
ng,attestedbyhi s
bet weenMexi co'ssov ereignr i
ghtofj urisdict ionwi thini t
s
signature,t
hati nal l
mat ter
sper t
ainingtotheexecut i
on,
ownt erri
tor y,ont heonehand, andt hesov er eignr i
ghtof
fulf
il
lment ,
andi nterpretati
onoft hecontracthewi l
lhave
prot ecti
onoft heGov ernmentofanal ienwhoseper son
resorttolocal tr
ibunals,remedi es,andaut horiti
esand
orpr oper tyi swi t
hinsucht erri
tor y,ont heot herhand.
thenwi ll
ful
lyignor esthem byappl yi
nginsuchmat t
ersto
Unl esssuchl i
nei sdr awnandi ft heset wocoexi sti
ng
hisGov ernment ,saidclaimantwi ll
behel dboundbyhi s
ri
ght sar eper mittedconst antlyt oov erlap, cont i
nual
contractandt heCommi ssionwi llnottakejurisdict
ionof
fri
ct i
oni si nevit
abl e.TheCal vocl ausei sav al i
dexer cise
suchcl aim.
ofast ates’ sover eigntywher ei tser vesasademar cation
bet weent hesov ereigntyofast at eandi nter nat i
onal l
aw.

Whi l
eiti
struethatt
hecount ryoftheinj
uredindivi
dual,
or
i
nt hi
scaseacor por
at i
on, maybr i
ngthemat tertoan
i
nternati
onalt
ri
bunaltor edressal awfulwrong,thestat
e
cannotstri
kedownal awf ulcontractenter
edintobyits
corporat
ionasamat terofpr otecti
on,asthecorporati
on
agreedtobeboundbyt helawoft hecontr
actingstat
e.It