I.
    The Nature of International Law
A. Concepts
1. Obligations erga omnes
2. Jus cogens
3. Concept of ex aequo et bono
Romulo v. Vinuya, GR 162230, April 29, 2010
MP:Except as an agreement might otherwise provide, international settlements
generally wipe out the underlying private claims, thereby terminating any
recourse under domestic law.
Article 38(2), ICJ Statute
B. International and National law
Edye v. Robertson
MP: A treaty is a law of the land as an act of congress is, whenever its
provisions prescribe a rule by which the rights of the private  citizen or subject
may be determined. And when such rights are of a nature to be enforced in a
court of justice, that court resorts to the treaty for a rule of decision for the
case before it as it would to a statute. But even in this aspect of the case there
is nothing in this law which makes it irrepealable or unchangeable. The
constitution gives it no superiority over an act of congress in this respect,
which may be repealed or modified by an act of a later date.
Whitney v. Robertson
MP: If there is conflict between the stipulations of a treaty and the requirements of a
law, the latter must control.  A treaty is primarily a contract between two or more
independent nations, and is so regarded by writers on public law. For the infraction of
its provisions a remedy must be sought by the injured party through reclamations
upon the other. When the stipulations are not self-executing they can only be
enforced pursuant to legislation to carry them into effect, and such legislation is as
much subject to modification and repeal by Congress as legislation upon any other
subject. If the treaty contains stipulations which are self-executing, that is, require no
legislation to make them operative, to that extent they have the force and effect of a
legislative enactment.  Congress may modify such provisions, so far as they bind the
United States, or supersede them altogether.  By the Constitution a treaty is placed
on the same footing, and made of like obligation, with an act of legislation. Both are
declared by that instrument to be the supreme law of the land, and no superior
efficacy is given to either over the other.
 
II. The Sources of International Law
Art. 38, ICJ Statute
Art. 53, 1969 Vienna Convention on Treaties
Kuroda v. Jalandoni. 83 SCRA 171
MP:, if a treaty provides conventional law, only the parties thereto are bound.
On the other hand, if a treaty provides customary law, all states, signatories
thereto or not, are bound.
Yamashita v. Styer, 75 Phil 563
MP: A commanding general, who became accused war criminal, charged before an
American Military Commission for allowing his members under his command to
commit massacre. It was ruled that SC cannot exercise jurisdiction over the acts of
the Military Commission. Citing Raquiza v Bradford, the Court held that any attempt
of our courts to exercise jurisdiction over the US Army before the end of a state of
war would amount to a violation of the Philippines’ faith.
Kookooritchkin v. Solicitor General, 81 Phil 435
MP: Kookooritchikin is a stateless refugee entitled to naturalization in the Philippines
without need for him to further prove his statelesness apart from his testimony that
he owes no allegiance to the communist government and that he has fled from it
considering that the Soviet dictatorship has left thousands of stateless refugees and
displaced persons without country and without flag. 
Military & Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. US), ICJ
Reports, 1986
MP: The laying of mines in the internal and territorial waters of Nicaragua rendered
the US in breach of its CIL obligations not to violate Nicaraguan sovereignty and not
to interrupt peaceful maritime conferences. The Court also held that customary law
operates independently of treaty law. The treaties themselves only refer to pre-
existing customary international law. Principles such as the non-use of force,
non-intervention, respect for the independence and territorial integrity of
states, and the freedom of navigation continue to be binding as part of
customary international law, despite the operation of provisions of
conventional law.
North Sea Continental Shelf Case, ICJ Reports, 1969
MP: Passage of only a short time is not a bar to the formation of custom on the basis Australia v. France, 1974
of what was purely a conventional rule, so long as State practice should have been
both extensive and virtually uniform and should show that there is general
recognition that a rule of law or legal obligation is involved.
South West Africa Case (2nd Phase), ICJ Reports, 1966
MP: the ICJ is a court of law, it can only take into account moral principles
when they have legal form. Humanitarian considerations, by themselves, do
not amount to law. For Principles of justice and equity to generate legal rights
and obligations it must be given juridical expression and be clothed in legal
form. This is an example that International law is a rule based system.
NOTE: the principles set forth in this case have been obliterated by latter
cases: fundamental equality is now considered erga omnes obligation since it
is a fundamental human right 
       
Asylum Case, ICJ Reports, 1950
MP: In the instant case, principles of international law do not recognize any rule
of unilateral and definitive qualification by the State granting asylum. Peru does
not practice such unilateral grant. The party which relies on a custom must prove that
it is established in such a manner that it has become binding on the other party by a
constant and uniform usage.
Nuclear Test Cases, ICJ Reports:
New Zealand v. France, 1974
MP: Declarations made by way of unilateral acts, concerning legal of factual
situations, may have the effect of creating legal obligations. No subsequent
acceptance or even any reaction from other States is required for such declaration to
take effect. Form is not decisive. France, in conveying to the world its intention
effectively to terminate its atmospheric tests, was bound to assume that other States
might take note of these statements and rely on their being effective. It is true that
France has not recognized that it is bound by any rule of international law to
terminate its tests, but this does not affect the legal consequences of the statements
in question.
Moreover, once the court has found that a State has entered into a commitment
concerning its future conduct, it is not the Court’s function to contemplate that it will
not comply the same.
MP: It is well recognized that declarations made by way of unilateral acts, concerning
legal or factual situations, may have the effect of creating legal obligations. When it
is the intention of the State making the declaration that it should become
bound according to its terms, such intention confers on the declaration the
character of a legal undertaking, the State being thenceforth legally required to
follow a course of conduct consistent with the declaration. Such unilateral
declarations would require no reply or subsequent acceptance to take effect. Under
the principle of good faith, States may take cognizance of the same and are entitled
to require that the obligation thus created be respected.
Request for an examination of the situation in accordance with par. 63 of the
court’s judgment of the 20
          December 1974 in the Nuclear Tests (New Zealand v. France) Case,
1995
Since the basis of the 1974 judgement pertains to nuclear tests in the atmosphere
and not to underground testing, only upon resumption of atmospheric tests will the
basis of of the judgement be deemed affected. The court cannot take into
consideration questions relating to underground nuclear tests.
Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons, ICJ Reports, 1996
MP: There is no customary international law which authorizes the threat or use
of nuclear weapons. However, neither is there customary international law
which provides a universal prohibition of the threat or use of nuclear weapons.
Customary international law and treaty law do not contain any specific prescription
authorizing the threat or use of nuclear weapons or any other weapon in general or
in certain circumstances, in particular those in the exercise of legitimate self-
defense.
As to the treaties. Although there are treaties which deal exclusively with the
acquisition, manufacture, possession and deployment of nuclear weapons, the
treaties do not constitute such prohibition of the weapons themselves. While these
may foreshadow a future general prohibition of the use and indicate an increasing
awareness of the dangers of such weapons, these do not amount to a prohibition on
the use or threat of use of the same.
Paquete Habana, 175 US 677, 1900
MP: International law is part of American law, and must be ascertained and
administered by the courts of justice of appropriate jurisdiction, as often as questions
of right depending upon it are duly presented for their determination. For this
purpose, where there is no treaty, and no controlling executive or legislative act or
juricial decision, resort must be had to the customs and usages of civilized nations;
and, as evidence of these, to the works of jurists and commentators, who by years of
labor, research and experience, have made themselves peculiarly well acquainted
with the subjects of which they treat. Such works are resorted to by judicial tribunals,
not for the speculations of their authors concerning what the law ought to be, but for
trustworthy evidence of what the law really is.
Thus, customary international norms are self-executory; there need not be any
treaty or agreement to bring them into force. This ancient usage has gradually
ripened into a rule of international law.
Preah Vihear Temple Case, ICJ Reports, 1962
MP: The signing of the map is a positive act which constitutes estoppel.
Thailand had accepted the map and is thus precluded from asserting that they had
not accepted it for over 50 years when it did not raise any question or disagreement
with the delimitation of the frontiers.  
Case Concerning Right of Passage over Indian Territory (Portugal v. India)
MP: Constant and uniform practice between states is also a source of international
law. In the case at bar, the recognition of the British and the Maratha rulers of India
of the right of passage of Portugal on the enclave territories would be sufficient basis
for the source to be legitimate. There is no need to resort to general international
custom when there is a clear established custom between parties.
Corfu Channel Case, ICJ Reports, 1949
MP: Albania had the obligation to warn the UK ships regarding the existence of
mines. The obligation is based on the general principles of: Elementary
considerations of humanity, Freedom of maritime communication Every
State’s obligation not to allow knowingly its territory to be used for acts
contrary to the rights of other States
Chorzow Factory Case, 1928 PCIJ Ser. A, No. 17
MP: It is a general principle of international law that reparation is to be made
for violations of international law. Regarding this, the PCIJ held: "reparation must,
as far as possible, wipe out all the consequences of the illegal act and reestablish
the situation which would, in all probability, have existed if that act had not been
committed". The reparation should thereby consist of a restitution in kind, or if this is
impossible, the payment of a sum that corresponds to the value as compensation.
Barcelona Traction, Light & Power Company Case, ICJ Reports, 1970
MP: Although a State can make a claim when investments by its nationals abroad
(such investments being part of a State’s national economic resources) were
prejudicially affected in violation of the right of the State itself to have its nationals
enjoy a certain treatment, such right could only result from a treaty or special
agreement. There is no instrument of such kind which was in force between Belgium
and Spain.
Texaco v. Libya, 17 ILM or 53 ILR 389, 1978
MP: The dispute, relating to nationalization, should be resolved in concurrence
with the principles of international law and not to be based solely on the law of
the nationalizing state.
When contractual relations is governed by international law between a State and a
foreign private party means that for the purposes of interpretation and performance
of the contract, it should be recognized that a private contracting party has specific
international capacities. Considering that some contracts may be governed both by
The application of the principles of STATE law does not have the effect of ruling out
the application of the principles of international law. It simply requires the
combination of the two in verifying the conformity of the first with the second.
BP v. Libya, 53 ILR 297
MP: When a State breaches a concession agreement through sovereign power
in the form of nationalization, the concessionaire does not have the right to
ask for specific performance or restitution in integrum. Its only remedy is an
action for damages.
Saudi Arabia v. Arabian American Oil Company, 27 ILR 117
MP: The principle of respect for acquired rights is one of the fundamental
principle both of public international law and of the municpal law of most
civilized states. Valid contracts binds both the parties and must be performed, for
rights resulting from agreements concluded for due consideration are absolutely
secure; when one party has granted certain rights to the other contracting party, it
can no longer dispose of the same rights, totally or partially, in favor of another party.
 
Generally Accepted Principles of International Law
Razon v. Tagitis, GR 182498, December 3, 2009
MP: Generally accepted principles of international law, by virtue of the incorporation
clause of the Constitution, form part of the laws of the land even if they do not derive
from treaty obligations.
Ang Ladlad v. COMELEC, GR 190582, April 8, 2010
MP: The court cannot consider the Yogyakarta Principles binding. There are
declarations and obligations outlined in said Principles which are not reflective of the
current state of international law, and do not find basis in any of the sources of
international law enumerated under Article 38(1) of the Statute of the International
Court of Justice. Petitioner has not undertaken any objective and rigorous analysis of
these alleged principles of international law to ascertain their true status.  Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
Using even the most liberal of lenses, these Yogyakarta Principles, consisting of a
declaration formulated by various international law professors, are – at best – de
lege ferenda – and do not constitute binding obligations on the Philippines. Indeed,
so much of contemporary international law is characterized by the "soft law"
nomenclature, i.e., international law is full of principles that promote international
cooperation, harmony, and respect for human rights, most of which amount to no
more than well-meaning desires, without the support of either State practice or opinio
juris
 
III.      The Law of Treaties
Qatar v. Bahrain, ICJ 1994
A treaty creates rights and obligations in international law
A treaty is a treaty no matter its nomenclature.
In this case: there was a tripartite agreement with Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Qatar to
settle territorial claim over 2 shoals.Qatar accepted the draft of Barhain on the
dispute however disagreed to some points. Qatar Brought it to the ICJ. Bahrain
contends it is not a treaty.. The ICJ finds it as an international agreement, it
enumerates the commitments which both have consented. It s a treaty 
Air France v. Saks, 470 US 392
MP: The ICJ held that Air France is not liable under the Warsaw Convention. The
case involves the interpretation of the term “accidents” and W/N US intends to be a
party to the regulation to which it was explained that courts possess an interpretive
role in the treaty process, and can construe a treaty only within the guidelines
established by executive and legislative action.
The Supreme Court in Saks ultimately defined an article 17 accident as an unusual
or unexpected happening external to the passenger. The history of the Warsaw
Convention, however, clearly indicates that the parties did not intend article 17 to
apply to accidents unrelated to aircraft operations, a result that is inevitable under
the broad terms of the Court's standard. Accordingly, if the United States intends to
be a party to the uniform system of airline regulation, the Warsaw Convention
warrants a more technically attuned definition of the "accident" standard.
Definition of “treaty”
Abaya v. Sec. Ebdane, G.R. No. 167919, February 14, 2007
MP: The Loan Agreement is in the nature of an executive agreement because it
is an integral part in the Exchange of Notes between Japan and the
Philippines. The agreement consists of the exchange of two documents, each of the
parties being in the possession of the one signed by the representative of the other.
The Loan Agreement being in the nature of an executive agreement falling under the
purview of Section 4, is exempt from the application of RA 9184 bid-ceiling
requirements. The technique of exchange of notes is frequently resorted to, either
because of its speedy procedure, or, sometimes, to avoid the process of legislative
approval. 
DBM v. Kolonwel Trading; Vibal v. Kolonwel; DEPED v. Kolonwel, June 8, 2007
MP: Foreign loan agreements with international financial institutions such as the
IBRD Loan Agreement partake of an executive or international agreement within the
purview of RA 9184 (Government Procurement Act) which provides that any treaty or
international executive agreement affecting the subject matter of this Act to which the
Philippine government is a signatory shall be observed. 
 Definition of “ratification”
Lim v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 151445.  April 11, 2002
The balikatan exercises fall under the umbrella of sanctioned or allowable activities
in the context of the VFA. Since it merely involves arrangements on the
implementation of existing treaty (MDT) and the VFA, concurrence by Congress is
not required.
Bayan v. Zamora, October 10, 2000
MP: There is no distinction between treaties and executive agreements.  controversy is commenced, any lapse of time and subsequent withdrawal of
The consent of the State to be bound by a treaty is expressed by ratification when:
(a) the treaty provides for such ratification, (b) it is otherwise established that the
negotiating States agreed that ratification should be required, (c) the representative
of the State has signed the treaty subject to ratification, or (d) the intention of the
State to sign the treaty subject to ratification appears from the full powers of its
representative, or was expressed during the negotiation.
In our jurisdiction, the power to ratify is vested in the President and not, as commonly
believed, in the legislature. The role of the Senate is limited only to giving or
withholding its consent, or concurrence, to the ratification.
Pimentel v. Executive Secretary, GR 158088, July 6, 2005
MP: Ratification  is the formal act by which a state confirms and accepts the
provisions of a treaty concluded by its representative. It is generally held to be
an executive act, undertaken by the head of the state or of the government.
Ratification is the act by which the provisions of a treaty are formally confirmed and
approved by a State.
The Philippines is not bound by treaty law or international law to ratify the treaty it
has signed. The signature on the Rome Statute does not signify final consent.
Ratification is what will bind the Philippines to the Statute’s provisions. There is no
legal obligation to ratify a treaty, but a refusal to ratify must be based on substantial
grounds.
Salonga Petition on the VFA, January 22, 2007
MP: The VFA is a self-executing agreement because it is intended to carry out
obligations and undertakings under the RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty. Only policy
making agreements are submitted to the US Congress. Hence, it is a binding
international agreement by the US. 
Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. US), ICJ
Reports, 1986
MP: The jurisdiction of the Court remains once the application to settle a
the State party from the convention will not result in the loss of jurisdiction by
the Court. As to the USA being a legitimate party to raise the self defense, the
COurt disagrees as the State victim of the armed conflict is the only legitimate
party to bring the concern to the Court.
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations; Vienna Convention on Consular
Relations and Optional Protocols
US Diplomatic & Consular Staff (US v. Iran), ICJ Reports, 1980
MAIN POINT: There is no more fundamental prerequisite for the conduct of relations
between States than the inviolability of diplomatic envoys and embassies, so that
throughout history nations of all creeds and cultures have observed reciprocal
obligations for that purpose
Case Concerning Avena and other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. USA), March 31,
2004
MP: When an international treaty may constitute an international commitment,
it is not binding domestic law unless congress has enacted statutes
implementing it or unless the treaty itself is "self-executing".
  
IV.Subjects of International Law
A. States
1. Art. 1, Montevideo Convention on Rights & Duties of States, 49 Stat 3097,
1933MP
Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company Case, ICJ Reports, 1970
MP: The state of the shareholders of a corporation has a right of diplomatic
protection only when the state whose responsibility is invoked is the national state of
the company. This theory, however, is not applicable to the present case, since
Spain (D) is not the national state of Barcelona Traction. Barcelona Traction could
have approached its national state, Canada, to ask for its diplomatic protection.
Reparations for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the UN, ICJ Reports, 1949
Mavrommatis Case, PCIJ, Ser. A, No. 2, 1924
MP:A State like Greece can take up the case of its subjects when they are
injured by acts contrary to international law committed by another State, from
who said subject had been unable to obtain satisfaction through the ordinary
channels, to ensure respect for rules of international law,
Certain Expenses of the UN, ICJ Reports, 1962
Province of North Cotabato v. GRP Panel, GR 183591, October 14, 2008 (Concept
of Association of States)
MP: The agreement based on the creation of Bangsamoro entity, which is an entity
inside the Philippines, is declared to be unconstitutional as it is not recognized under
the constitution. It has been held that “No province, city, or municipality, not even the
ARMM, is recognized under our laws as having an "associative" relationship with the
national government.” Indeed, the concept implies powers that go beyond anything
ever granted by the Constitution to any local or regional government.  It also implies
the recognition of the associated entity as a state. The Constitution, however, does
not contemplate any state in this jurisdiction other than the Philippine State, much
less does it provide for a transitory status that aims to prepare any part of Philippine
territory for independence.
2. Nationality and Statelessness
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
3. State Responsibility
Doctrine of state responsibility
4. Treatment of Aliens
Extradition
Wright v. CA, GR 113213, April 15, 1994
MP: A paramount principle of the law of extradition provides that a State may
not surrender any individual for any offense not included in a treaty of
extradition. This principle arises from the reality of extradition as a derogation of
sovereignty. Extradition is an intrusion into the territorial integrity of the host State
and a delimitation of the sovereign power of the State within its own territory. The
principles of international law recognize no right of extradition apart from that
arising from treaty. Pursuant to these principles, States enter into treaties of
extradition principally for the purpose of bringing fugitives of justice within the ambit
of their laws, under conventions recognizing the right of nations to mutually agree to
surrender individuals within their jurisdiction and control, and for the purpose of
enforcing their respective municipal laws. Since punishment of fugitive criminals is
dependent mainly on the willingness of host State to apprehend them and revert
them to the State where their offenses were committed, jurisdiction over such
fugitives and subsequent enforcement of penal laws can be effectively accomplished
only by agreement between States through treaties of extradition.
Government of Hong Kong v. Olalia, GR 153675, April 19, 2007
MP: Obviously, an extradition proceeding, while ostensibly administrative, bears all
earmarks of a criminal process. A potential extraditee may be subjected to arrest, to
a prolonged restraint of liberty, and forced to transfer to the demanding state
following the proceedings. "Temporary detention" may be a necessary step in the
process of extradition, but the length of time of the detention should be reasonable.

Deportation

Djumantan v. Domingo, GR 99358, January 30, 1995

MP: since aliens are not part of the nation, their admission into the territory is
a matter of pure permission and simple tolerance which creates no obligation
on the part of the government to permit them to stay. The interest, which an alien
has in being admitted into or allowed to continue to reside in the country, is protected
only so far as Congress may choose to protect it. There is no law guaranteeing
aliens married to Filipino citizens the right to be admitted, much less to be given
permanent residency, in the Philippines. The fact of marriage by an alien to a citizen
does not withdraw her from the operation of the immigration laws. Marriage of an
alien woman to a Filipino husband does not ipso facto make her a Filipino
citizen and does not excuse her from her failure to depart from the country
upon the expiration of her extended stay as an alien

Secretary of Justice v. Koruga, GR 166199, April 24, 2009

A stay of an alien is only a privilege and may be deported in manner consistent with
the constitution and/or law. The Philippines Deportation law does not distinguish if
the drug law violated is foreign or not.Even when the offense has occurred 2
decades ago, it does not erase the offense committed and the perpetrator may
validly be deported. Aliens do not acquire citizenship through passage of time.

B. Other Subjects of International Law: International Organizations and

Individuals

Liban v. Gordon, GR 175352, January 18, 2011

MP: The Philippine National Red Cross, as a National Society of the International
Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, can neither “be classified as an
instrumentality of the State, so as not to lose its character of neutrality” as well as its
independence, nor strictly as a private corporation since it is regulated by
international humanitarian law and is treated as an auxiliary of the State.