1. Interpretation of Peace Treaties Case (Second Phase, Advisory Opinion, ICJ
Reports 221, 1950)
In this case, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) considered disputes arising from
the 1947 Peace Treaties involving Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania and the Allied
States. The ICJ determined that these disputes fell within the Treaty provisions for
settlement, obligating the signatory countries to appoint representatives to arbitration
commissions. However, when these states refused to comply, the ICJ ruled that the
Treaties did not allow the Secretary-General to appoint a third member to the
commission, emphasizing the importance of strict treaty interpretation. The Court
argued that international responsibility and treaty obligations could not be remedied
by creating a commission contrary to the Treaty's intent. The decision had
implications for the future interpretation of similar arbitration clauses but was deemed
exceptional in this specific case
2. Reservations to the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide (Advisory Opinion, ICJ Report, 1951)
The International Court of Justice (ICJ was tasked with providing an advisory opinion
on the issue of reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of
the Crime of Genocide. The issue was whether a state could be considered a party to
the Convention if it maintained a reservation objected to by some but not all parties.
The ICJ's ruling held that a state could be deemed a party if its reservation aligned
with the Convention's purpose. However, if a party found a reservation incompatible,
it could view the reserving state as non-compliant. Conversely, accepting the
reservation signaled recognition of the state as a party. The ICJ clarified that
unanimous consent among all parties was not required, allowing for different legal
relationships within the same treaty.
3. Goldwater v. Carter, 444 U.S. 996 (1979)
In this case, Senator Goldwater and other Congress members contested President
Carter's unilateral termination of the Mutual Defense Treaty with Taiwan without
Senate approval, arguing that the Constitution's requirement of Senate approval for
treaty ratification should similarly apply to treaty termination. Despite Congress not
taking formal action on the matter, the district court initially ruled in favor of
requiring congressional approval for treaty termination. However, the court of appeals
later reversed this decision, asserting that the President had the unilateral authority to
terminate the treaty. The pivotal issue was whether the President's ability to terminate
a treaty without congressional approval constituted a non-justiciable political question.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the political-question doctrine, stating that the
issue was closely tied to the President's foreign relations authority and therefore fell
outside the judiciary's purview. While the Constitution did not explicitly grant the
President the power to terminate treaties, the Court upheld the concept that foreign
policy judgments were constitutionally committed to the political branches,
specifically the President and Congress. Consequently, the Court granted the petition
for certiorari and directed the District Court to dismiss the complaint.
4. Qatar v. Bahrain, ICJ Reports 1994
The dispute between Qatar and Bahrain, involving territory and maritime boundaries,
initiated with mediation attempts led by King Fahd of Saudi Arabia in 1976. These
efforts culminated in the approval of certain principles. Subsequently, in 1987, King
Fahd proposed a new solution, including a commitment to refer all disputes to the
International Court of Justice (ICJ) for a binding ruling. In 1990, the Heir Apparent of
Bahrain conveyed the "Bahraini formula" during a meeting of the Cooperation
Council of Arab States, requesting the ICJ to decide on territorial and maritime issues
between the two states. As the "good offices" mediation failed to resolve the matter
within the stipulated timeframe, Qatar turned to the ICJ, arguing that the 1987 and
1990 agreements constituted international agreements granting jurisdiction to the
Court. Bahrain contested this, claiming the 1990 Doha Minutes were non-binding
records of negotiations. The ICJ ultimately ruled in favor of Qatar, affirming that the
1990 Minutes constituted an international agreement, allowing Qatar to refer the
dispute to the ICJ, and set a deadline for both parties to submit the entire dispute for
consideration.
5. Norway v. Denmark, PCIJ, Ser. A/B, No. 53, 71 (1933)
The case involved a dispute between Denmark and Norway over the occupation of
certain territories in Eastern Greenland by Norway on July 10, 1931. Denmark
contended that Norway's actions violated its sovereignty over Greenland, backed by
Norwegian declarations such as the Ihlen Declaration of 1919, recognizing Danish
sovereignty over the entire region. Norway argued that the area it occupied was terra
nullius at the time, beyond the limits of Danish colonies in Greenland. The central
issue was whether the Ihlen Declaration of 1919 was binding on the Norwegian
Government regarding its claims in Greenland. The Court, by a vote of twelve to two,
held that the declaration and Norway's other statements recognized Danish
sovereignty and bound Norway to refrain from occupying any part of Greenland.
Consequently, the Court declared Norway's 1931 occupation unlawful and invalid,
rejecting Norway's opposing arguments and ruling that each party would bear its own
costs.
6. Air France v. Saks, 470 US 392
The case revolves around Valerie Saks, a passenger of Air France, who claimed to
have lost hearing in her left ear due to the airline's alleged negligence in maintaining
the jetliner's pressurization system. The District Court of Los Angeles initially
dismissed the case, but the decision was reversed by the Court of Appeals on appeal.
The central issue was whether Article 17 of the Convention on International Civil
Aviation (CICA) provided a valid basis for pursuing damages in a hearing loss case.
The Court ruled in favor of Air France, stating that liability under Article 17 only
arises when a passenger's injury results from an unexpected or unusual event external
to the passenger, not from the passenger's internal reaction to the normal operation of
the aircraft. Article 17 referred to an accident causing the injury, not the injury itself,
and as hearing loss was considered a fortuitous and unintended event, it did not
qualify as an "accident" under Article 17, making it ineligible for liability against the
airline.
7. Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (UK v. Iceland), ICJ Reports 3, 1973
The case involved a longstanding dispute between Iceland and the United Kingdom
over the extension of Iceland's fisheries jurisdiction. Iceland progressively expanded
its fishing limits, leading to conflicts with the UK. In 1961, an agreement was reached
recognizing a 12-mile fishery zone around Iceland. However, in 1971, Iceland
unilaterally extended its exclusive fisheries jurisdiction to 50 miles and banned foreign
fishing vessels. The central issue before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) was
whether a fundamental change in circumstances had occurred that would justify treaty
termination, and whether Art. 62 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
represented customary international law. The ICJ ruled in favor of the UK, stating
that the changes cited by Iceland did not substantially transform the scope of the
remaining obligations outlined in the 1961 Exchange of Notes, and thus, the
necessary fundamental change had not occurred.
8. Namibia Case, ICJ Reports 16, 1971
South Africa's occupation of Namibia, grounded in its claim of a right to annex the
territory and the belief that Namibians desired its rule, was met with legal challenges
due to South Africa's status as a United Nations Member State. The United Nations
passed Resolution 2145 (XXI) terminating South Africa's Mandate and the Security
Council adopted Resolution 276 (1970), deeming South Africa's presence in Namibia
illegal and urging other Member States to act accordingly. The International Court of
Justice (ICJ) was asked for an advisory opinion to determine whether U.N. mandates
are binding on Member States and if violations create legal obligations. The ICJ ruled
that indeed, Member States are bound by UN mandates, and violations impose legal
obligations on the violator to rectify the breach and on other Member States to
recognize it as a violation and refrain from aiding it. This underscores the
responsibility of Member States to uphold the rights of others within the UN
framework.
9. Danube Dam Case (Hungary v. Slovakia), 37 ILM 162 (1998)
In 1977, Hungary and Czechoslovakia entered into a treaty to collaborate on the
construction of dams along the Danube River. However, Hungary later suspended the
project due to environmental concerns and political pressure. The dispute reached the
International Court of Justice (ICJ), with Hungary seeking to terminate the treaty,
citing violations by Czechoslovakia. The ICJ ruled that Hungary did not have valid
grounds for termination, as the treaty contained no termination provisions. It also
found that Hungary's suspension of work contributed to the situation and that
Czechoslovakia's actions were not unlawful. While the case presented an opportunity
to address international environmental and watercourse law, the ICJ primarily focused
on treaty and state responsibility law, leaving broader environmental considerations
largely unaddressed. Despite criticisms, the decision marked a small step in the
evolution of environmental norms in state relations.
10. Bayan v. Zamora, G.R. 138570, October 10, 2000
In 1947, the Philippines and the United States entered into a Military Bases
Agreement allowing U.S. military personnel access to Philippine installations. In 1951,
they established the Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) to respond to external armed
attacks. In 1991, the Philippine Senate rejected a treaty, ending U.S. military bases. In
1998, the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) was approved, allowing U.S. military
visits. Petitioners challenged the VFA's constitutionality, arguing it should be
governed by Article XVIII Section 25 of the Constitution. Respondents contended it
should be governed by Article VII Section 21. The court ruled that Section 25 applied
because it involved foreign military bases or troops. The VFA met the requirements
of Section 25 and was recognized by the U.S. government, making it obligatory under
international law. The Constitution could not excuse non-compliance with
international obligations, and the Supreme Court dismissed the petitions.
11. Nicolas v. Romulo. G.R. 162230, April 28, 2009
In November 2005, Daniel Smith, taking advantage of the victim's intoxication,
sexually abused and had sexual intercourse with Suzette S. Nicolas, leading to his
conviction for rape. Pursuant to the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), the United
States requested custody of Smith, and he was granted custody by Philippine
authorities. However, pending judgment, Smith was temporarily committed to Makati
jail. On December 29, 2006, Smith was taken from the jail under the Romulo-Kenney
Agreement and brought under the control of the U.S. government at the U.S.
embassy in Manila. The issues were whether the VFA was constitutional and whether
the Romulo-Kenney Agreement was in accord with the VFA in terms of detention.
The Supreme Court ruled that the VFA was constitutional, as it had been duly
concurred in by the Philippine Senate and recognized as a treaty by the United States.
However, the Romulo-Kenney Agreement was not in accord with the VFA because it
did not specify detention by Philippine authorities, as mandated by the VFA.
12. Lim v. Executive Secretary, G.R. 151445, April 11, 2002
In 2002, U.S. military personnel arrived in Mindanao for joint exercises known as
"Balikatan 02-1" under the Mutual Defense Treaty. Petitioners challenged its
constitutionality as a form of Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA). They argued that the
VFA should be considered a treaty governed by Article VII Section 21 of the
Constitution. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that Article VIII Section
2 of the Constitution allows for the review of treaties' constitutionality. It found no
concrete proof of violation and that the VFA was a valid exercise of presidential
power. The court upheld the constitutionality of the “Balikatan” exercises.
13. Pimentel v. Executive Secretary, G.R. 158088, July 6, 2005
In this case, Senator Aquilino Pimentel and others petitioned the Supreme Court to
compel the Executive Department to transmit the Rome Statute (establishing the
International Criminal Court) to the Senate for concurrence, arguing that treaty
ratification is a function of the Senate. The Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing
that the President has sole authority in external relations and is the country's sole
representative with foreign nations. While the participation of the legislative branch in
treaty-making provides checks and balances, the President has discretion in ratifying
treaties even after they are signed. The Court held that it cannot issue a writ of
mandamus to compel the Executive to transmit the treaty to the Senate, as this falls
within the President's competence. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
does not restrain the President's power in this case.
14. Spouses Constantino v. Hon. Cuisia, G.R. 106064, October 13, 2005
In the case of Spouses Constantino vs. Hon. Cuisia, the petitioners challenged the
Philippine Comprehensive Financing Program for 1992, which aimed to address the
country's external debt problem through negotiation-oriented strategies. The issue was
whether the contracts formed as part of this program, such as debt buyback and bond
conversion, fell within the President's constitutional power to contract or guarantee
foreign loans. The petitioners argued that these contracts exceeded the scope of the
President's authority and violated various constitutional policies. However, the
Supreme Court ruled that these contracts were a valid exercise of the President's
authority, as they were within the constitutional limits. The Court emphasized that the
power of judicial review is meant to check the Executive, not supplant it, and there is
a strong presumption in favor of the validity of governmental acts in cases challenging
their constitutionality or abuse of discretion.
15. Renato v. Rosario, G.R. 106064, October 13, 2005
In the case of Renato vs. Rosario, the Freedom from Debt Coalition challenged the
Philippine Comprehensive Financing Program for 1992, which aimed to address the
country's external debt problem through negotiation-oriented strategies. The
petitioners argued that the program allowed for the extinguishment of debts that were
fraudulently contracted or void, and that executing debt-relief agreements would
waive the Republic's right to repudiate such debts. However, the Supreme Court ruled
that the allegation of waiver was not justiciable because it depended on a prior
annulment or declaration of nullity of the preexisting loans, which had not been
submitted to the Court. The Court also emphasized that repudiating debts unilaterally
could have adverse repercussions and that the discretion on the matter lies with the
executive, not the courts. Hence, the petition was dismissed.
16. Abaya v. Ebdane, G.R. 167919, February 14, 2007
In the case concerning the award of an infrastructure project to China Road & Bridge
Corporation, the facts revolved around a Loan Agreement funded by the Japan Bank
for International Cooperation (JBIC) and executed following an Exchange of Notes
between the Philippines and Japan. Petitioners challenged the award due to the
contract price exceeding the Approved Budget for the Contract (ABC) and argued
that the Loan Agreement was not a treaty. The issue was whether the award was
invalid, considering the contract price and the nature of the Loan Agreement. The
Supreme Court ruled that the award was valid, citing that Executive Order 40 (EO 40)
was the applicable procurement law, not Republic Act 9184 (RA 9184). The Court
held that the Loan Agreement constituted an executive agreement, which followed the
BIC's procurement guidelines. Hence, the grant of the contract was upheld.
17. The Province of North Cotabato v. GRP Peace Panel, G.R. 183591, October 14,
2008
In this case, petitioners challenged the constitutionality of the Memorandum of
Agreement on the Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD), which aimed to create a
Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE) with an associative relationship with the Philippine
government. The Supreme Court ruled that the MOA-AD was unconstitutional as it
envisioned an unconstitutional associative relationship between the government and
the BJE. The Court emphasized that the very concept of an associative state within a
state was unconstitutional. While the MOA-AD contained a clause stating that its
provisions inconsistent with the Constitution and laws would not be effective until
the legal framework was amended, this did not cure its defect, as it virtually
guaranteed that the necessary amendments would eventually be put in place, which
was beyond the authority of the Executive. The Court also found that the
consultation process for the MOA-AD was inadequate and violated various laws,
leading to a grave abuse of discretion by the Presidential Adviser on the Peace
Process.
18. Bayan Muna v. Romulo, G.R. 159618, February 1, 2011
In 2000, the Republic of the Philippines (RP) signed the Rome Statute, which required
ratification by signatory states. In 2003, an Exchange of Notes with the US
government resulted in a non-surrender agreement, protecting certain individuals
from both countries from international tribunal suits. The petitioner challenged this
agreement's constitutionality, arguing that it should be struck down. The issue was
whether the agreement was valid and binding without the concurrence of 2/3 of all
members of the Senate.
The Supreme Court ruled that the agreement was valid and binding without Senate
concurrence. It emphasized that the agreement did not contravene the Rome Statute
but complemented it, as it upheld the principle of complementarity underlying the
creation of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The Court also clarified that as a
signatory, the Philippines was only obliged to refrain from acts defeating the treaty's
object and purpose. Additionally, the Executive's power to enter binding agreements
without subsequent Congressional approval was long-standing and valid, as confirmed
by historical usage. Therefore, the petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
19. China National Machinery v. Santamaria, G.R. 185572, February 7, 2012
In this case, China National Machinery & Equipment Corp. (CNMEG) sought
immunity from being sued in a local court, arguing that it was an agent of the Chinese
government. The issue was whether CNMEG was entitled to immunity from suit and
whether the Contract Agreement it entered into for the Northrail Project was an
executive agreement. The Supreme Court ruled that CNMEG was not entitled to
immunity from suit, as the doctrine of immunity from suit applies only to sovereign
or governmental activities, not to commercial or proprietary acts. CNMEG's
involvement in the Northrail Project was of a commercial nature and aimed at
generating profit. Therefore, it did not qualify for immunity. Additionally, the Court
found that the Contract Agreement was not an executive agreement because it did not
meet the requisites of such agreements. It was not concluded between the Philippines
and China but between Northrail and CNMEG, two distinct entities. Furthermore,
the agreement explicitly stated that Philippine law would be applicable, and the parties
had not governed their rights and obligations by international law. Therefore, the
Contract Agreement was considered an ordinary commercial contract and could be
questioned in local courts. The petition was denied, and the case was remanded for
further proceedings on the validity of the contracts in question.
20. Deutsche Bank AG Manila Branc v. CIR, G.R. 188550, August 19, 2013
Deutsche Bank remitted a 15% branch profit remittance tax to the Commissioner of
Internal Revenue (CIR) for 2002 and prior years and sought a refund while requesting
confirmation of its entitlement to a preferential tax rate of 10% under the RPGermany Tax Treaty. The CTA denied the claim due to a violation of the 15-day rule
for tax treaty relief application under RMO No. 1-2000 and referenced the Mirant
case. The main issue was whether the failure to strictly comply with the provisions of
RMO No. 1-2000 would deprive persons or corporations of the benefits of a tax
treaty. The Supreme Court ruled that adherence to the general principles of
international law and the principle of pacta sunt servanda demanded the performance
of treaty obligations in good faith. The denial of tax relief for failure to apply within
the prescribed period would impair the value of the tax treaty and have negative
implications on international affairs, so the obligation to comply with the tax treaty
took precedence. The petition was granted, ordering the CIR to refund or issue a tax
credit certificate to Deutsche Bank.
21. Saguisag v. Executive Secretary, et al., G.R. 212426 & 212444, January 12, 2016
In this case, the petition in question challenged the Enhanced Defense Cooperation
Agreement (EDCA) between the Philippines and the United States, raising concerns
about its constitutionality. The issue was whether EDCA should have been treated as
a treaty requiring Senate concurrence or as an executive agreement within the
President's foreign affairs prerogative. The Supreme Court, in its ruling, upheld the
constitutionality of EDCA, distinguishing between treaties and executive agreements.
It emphasized that EDCA did not establish permanent foreign military bases, only
allowed temporary U.S. troop presence, and did not surrender Philippine sovereignty.
Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions, highlighting the need to balance
constitutional requirements with national security interests and the importance of
maintaining international relationships.
22. Landbank of the Philippines v. Atlanta Industries Inc., G.R. 193796, July 2, 2014
In October 2006, the Land Bank of the Philippines (Land Bank) and the International
Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) entered into a loan agreement for
the "Support for Strategic Local Development and Investment Project" (S2LDIP).
The loan was guaranteed by the Philippine Government and required participation
from local government units through Subsidiary Loan Agreements (SLAs) with Land
Bank. In February 2007, Land Bank signed an SLA with the City Government of
Iligan for the development of its water supply system, specifying that procurement
should follow IBRD Procurement Guidelines. Atlanta Industries participated in the
bidding for the project but was disqualified, leading to a legal dispute. The issue was
whether the SLA should be governed by Philippine procurement laws or treated as an
executive agreement exempt from such laws. The Court ruled that it should be
considered an executive agreement, as it was an integral part of the financing
arrangement tied to the principal loan agreement with the IBRD, and therefore,
procurement should follow international guidelines rather than domestic laws like RA
9184 (Government Procurement Reform Act).
23. Mitsubishi Corporation v. CIR, G.R. 175772, June 5, 2017
In 1987, Japan extended a ¥40.4 billion loan to the Philippines for the Calaca II CoalFired Thermal Power Plant Project through an Exchange of Notes. The Exchange of
Notes stated that the Philippine government would assume all taxes imposed on
Japanese contractors for the project. Mitsubishi Corporation entered into a contract
with the National Power Corporation (NPC) for the project in 1991, which was
completed in 1995 but officially accepted by NPC in 1998. In 2000, Mitsubishi
claimed a refund of over P52 million for erroneously paid taxes, including branch
profits remittance tax (BPRT). The Commissioner on Internal Revenue (CIR) argued
that the Philippine government should cover the taxes, not Mitsubishi. The Court of
Tax Appeals (CTA) Division granted the refund in 2003, citing the Exchange of
Notes. The CIR's request for reconsideration was denied in 2004, leading to an appeal
to the CTA En Banc. The issue was whether Mitsubishi was entitled to a refund due
to the executed Exchange of Notes between the Philippines and Japan. The CTA
ruled in favor of Mitsubishi, stating that the subject taxes had been erroneously
collected from the petitioner since the Philippine government had assumed the
obligation to pay them through the Exchange of Notes, which was considered an
executive agreement binding on the State even without Senate concurrence. The
decision reversed and set aside the previous rulings and reinstated the refund.
24. DPWH v. CMC, G.R. 179732, September 13, 2017
In 1999, the Philippines executed a contract agreement with a joint venture for the
road improvement of the Pagadian-Buug Section in Zamboanga del Sur, funded by a
loan from the Asian Development Bank (ADB). During the project, various incidents
disrupted the work, including arson and bombings. The joint venture sought payment
for the foreign component of the contract, which led to arbitration. The Construction
Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC) awarded the joint venture its money claims
but denied the price adjustment claim under Presidential Decree No. 1594 (PD 1594).
The Court of Appeals (CA) upheld the CIAC's decision, citing the applicability of
ADB Guidelines on procurement over PD 1594. The issue was whether the joint
venture was entitled to a price adjustment under PD 1594. The Supreme Court ruled
against the joint venture, affirming the findings of the CIAC and CA, and held that
ADB Guidelines governed the project's procurement, as it involved a foreign loan
agreement with an international financial institution, and there was insufficient
evidence regarding ADB Guidelines for price adjustments. The Court modified the
interest rate but denied the petition.
25. Pangilinan v. Cayetano, G.R. 238875, 239483, & 240954, March 16, 2021
In March 2018, the Republic of the Philippines announced its withdrawal from the
International Criminal Court (ICC), with President Duterte arguing that the country
never became a state party to the Rome Statute due to its non-publication in the
Official Gazette. The State formally submitted its withdrawal notice to the United
Nations Secretary General's Chef de Cabinet, and the ICC acknowledged the
withdrawal. In response, petitions were filed. Petitioners, including senators and the
Philippine Coalition for the International Criminal Court, argued that Senate
concurrence was required for withdrawal from a validly entered treaty like the Rome
Statute. Respondents contended that the withdrawal was valid as it complied with the
Rome Statute, which only required a written notification. The Supreme Court ruled
that the Philippines' withdrawal was valid and effectual, as it followed the mechanism
provided in the Rome Statute. While Senate concurrence is required for treaty validity,
no similar mechanism for withdrawal exists in the Constitution or statute. The
petitions were dismissed as moot.
26. The Asylum Case, Colombia v. Peru, ICJ Reports 266 (1950)
The dispute between Peru and Colombia centered on the granting of diplomatic
asylum to Victor Raúl Haya de la Torre, a Peruvian political leader accused of
instigating a military rebellion. Colombia granted him asylum in its embassy in Lima
on 3 January 1949, leading to the disagreement. The issues revolved around whether
Colombia had the unilateral authority to determine whether the offense was political
or common and whether Peru was obligated to provide a safe exit for the refugee.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled on November 20, 1950 that Colombia
couldn't unilaterally classify the offense, denying both countries' claims in this regard,
but noting that Peru hadn't demonstrated Haya de la Torre was a common criminal.
Additionally, the ICJ found in favor of Peru's counter-claim that the asylum violated
the Havana Convention.
27. North Sea Continental Shelf Cases, Germany v. Denmark and the Netherlands,
ICJ Reports, 3 (1969)
In the North Sea Continental Shelf Cases, the dispute revolved around the
delimitation of continental shelf areas in the North Sea between Germany and
Denmark and Germany and the Netherlands. The parties disagreed on the applicable
principles for delimitation. Netherlands and Denmark advocated for the equidistance
principle, which entails ensuring that every point in the boundary is equidistant from
the nearest points of the baselines from which the territorial sea is measured. In
contrast, Germany sought a just and equitable share principle, arguing that
equidistance was not mandatory or a customary international law rule binding on
Germany. The issue is whether Germany was legally obligated to accept the
equidistance-special circumstances principle as per the Geneva Convention on the
Continental Shelf of 1958 or customary international law. The Court ruled that the
equidistance method had not become customary law and was not obligatory for the
North Sea delimitation. Furthermore, Germany's actions did not support an argument
for estoppel, and it had not incurred obligations under Article 6 of the Geneva
Convention. Therefore, the equidistance-special circumstances rule was not binding
on Germany through treaty law.
28. The Paquete Habana, 175 U.S. 677 (1900)
In this case, two Spanish fishing vessels and their cargoes were condemned as prizes
of war during a conflict. These vessels were engaged in peaceful fishing activities off
the coast of Cuba when they were intercepted by a U.S. squadron. The owners of the
vessels were unaware of the existence of the war and had no incriminating materials
or weapons on board. The issue was whether coastal fishing vessels, along with their
cargoes and crews, were exempt from being treated as prizes of war under
international law. The Court ruled in favor of the claimants, establishing that it is an
established rule of international law that coastal fishing vessels, when unarmed and
honestly pursuing their peaceful fishing activities, are exempt from capture as prizes
of war. This exemption is based on considerations of humanity and mutual
convenience among belligerent states and is a recognized principle of international
law. As a result, the court ordered the reversal of the condemnation decree and the
restoration of the vessel's proceeds, along with damages.
29. The Lotus Case, France v. Turkey, PCIJ Series A No. 10 (1927)
In 1926, the French steamer SS Lotus collided with the Turkish vessel SS Boz-Kourt
on the high seas in the Mediterranean, resulting in eight Turkish nationals' deaths. The
incident occurred near the disputed island of Imia, claimed by both France and
Turkey. French authorities detained survivors from the Turkish ship and initiated
proceedings against them in French courts. Turkey, on the other hand, initiated
criminal proceedings against the French officer in command of the Lotus, Monsieur
Demons, arguing that it had the right to prosecute him since the collision occurred on
a Turkish-flagged ship. France contended that Turkey's prosecution violated
international law principles and sought reparation.
The issue was whether Turkey's prosecution of Monsieur Demons violated
international law principles. The Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ)
ruled that Turkey had not violated international law. It emphasized the "Lotus
Principle," asserting that states can generally act as they wish unless explicitly
prohibited by international law. Since there was no established international law
prohibiting Turkey's exercise of jurisdiction in this case, the Court concluded that
Turkey's actions were not in violation of international law.
30. Case Concerning Right of Passage over Indian Territory (Merits), Judgment, ICJ
Reports, 6 (1960)
In this case, Portugal sought to establish its right to free passage over Indian territory
to access its enclaves, Dadra and Nagar-Aveli, which had passed under Indian
administration in mid-1954. Portugal claimed that it had a historical right of passage
dating back to treaties such as the 1779 Treaty of Poona and Sanad, which it argued
conferred sovereignty over the enclaves. India challenged Portugal's claims, asserting
that the Treaty of Poona was not valid, and that no binding treaty existed for the
Marathas.
The Court had to determine whether Portugal had a legitimate right to passage over
Indian territory. The Court found that there was a long-standing practice between the
two states that established mutual rights and duties. It ruled that by 1954, Portugal did
have the right of passage over Indian territory between coastal Daman and the
enclaves and among the enclaves for private individuals, civil officers, and general
goods, subject to Indian control and limited to the extent necessary for Portugal to
exercise its sovereign powers over the enclaves. The Court's decision was based on
the recognition of a custom or practice prevailing between the two states, which took
precedence over general rules, allowing Portugal's claimed right of passage.
31. Nuclear Test Cases (Australia v. France; New Zealand v. France), ICJ Reports,
(1974)
In this case, France conducted a series of nuclear tests in the South Pacific, prompting
Australia and New Zealand to bring the matter before the International Court of
Justice (ICJ), seeking an immediate halt to France's testing activities. However, before
the ICJ could conclude its deliberations on the case, France declared that it had
already concluded its testing and had no intentions of conducting further tests. France
subsequently requested the dismissal of the application brought against it.
The issue was whether declarations made through unilateral acts. In this case, France's
statement could create legal obligations. The ICJ ruled that indeed, declarations made
through unilateral acts could carry the weight of creating legal obligations. France's
statement was deemed a clear and legally binding commitment on behalf of the State,
both in terms of the circumstances surrounding it and the intentions behind it. The
Court emphasized that the legal implications of such statements are determined by
their general nature and characteristics, independent of their recipients. Therefore, the
application against France was dismissed, underscoring the significance of unilateral
acts in international law as long as they meet specific criteria, such as clarity of intent
and commitment.
32. Nicaragua v. US, ICJ Reports, 14 (1986)
In the Nicaragua v. United States case, the United States challenged the International
Court of Justice (ICJ) of its jurisdiction regarding the case of allegations of illegal
military activities in Nicaragua. Despite the U.S.' attempt to limit the scope of its
acceptance of the ICJ's jurisdiction, the Court ruled that it indeed had jurisdiction,
citing Nicaragua's valid declaration from 1929 and the intended continuity between
the ICJ's Statute and its predecessor. Furthermore, the ICJ found Nicaragua's
application admissible, rejecting five grounds put forth by the U.S. that questioned the
application's validity. This case established the ICJ's authority to address disputes
between states that have accepted its jurisdiction and clarified the admissibility criteria
for such cases.
33. International Status of South-West Africa, Opinion of Sir Arnold McNair, ICJ
Reports, 128 (1950)
In this Advisory Opinion from 1950, the International Court of Justice addressed the
legal status of a territory placed under the Mandate of the Union of South Africa by
the League of Nations after World War I. With the League's dissolution and the
absence of automatic trusteeship provisions in the UN Charter, the Court ruled that
the Mandate had not lapsed. It held that the mandatory Power remained obligated to
report its administration to the United Nations, which could now assume supervisory
functions previously held by the League. However, this supervision should align with
the Mandates System and the League's procedures. The mandatory Power wasn't
obliged to place the territory under trusteeship, but it did have political and moral
responsibilities. Lastly, it lacked the authority to unilaterally alter the international
status of South West Africa.
34. Dissenting Opinion of Judge Tanaka in the South-West Africa Cases, ICJ Reports
(1966)
Following the World War I, Germany renounced its rights to its overseas possessions,
including German South West Africa, in favor of the Allied Powers as per the Treaty
of Versailles. The territory was then entrusted to the Union of South Africa under a
League of Nations Mandate, intended to promote the well-being and development of
its inhabitants. However, after the dissolution of the League of Nations, the South
African government sought to incorporate the mandated territory, which the UN
General Assembly found unacceptable. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled
that the Mandate survived the League's dissolution, and two obligations remained:
promoting well-being and submitting annual reports to the UN. The ICJ also
mandated the Union of South Africa to accept the Court's jurisdiction. In subsequent
cases related to apartheid policies, the ICJ found that racial discrimination violated the
Mandate's principle of equality, rendering apartheid in breach of its obligations.
35. Diversion of Waters from the River Meuse, PCIJ Series, A/B No. 70, 4 W.C.R.
179 (1937)
In 1863, Belgium and the Netherlands entered into a treaty to regulate the diversion
of water from the Meuse River for navigation canals and irrigation channels. Disputes
arose as both countries disagreed on various aspects of the river's use. Belgium
constructed canals that the Netherlands opposed, claiming it would alter the river's
water level in violation of the treaty. Belgium, in return, counterclaimed based on the
construction of a lock by the Netherlands. The International Court of Justice (ICJ)
rejected both countries' claims, emphasizing the principle of equity. It stated that
when two parties have identical or reciprocal obligations and one engages in
continued non-performance, it cannot take advantage of similar non-performance by
the other party. The ICJ concluded that the treaty did not prevent either state from
developing the river's resources.
36. Trendtex Trading Corporation v. Central Bank of Nigeria, 1 All E.R. 881 (1977)
In this case, a company in England sued the Central Bank of Nigeria for damages
related to a commercial transaction. The bank claimed sovereign immunity, arguing
that it was performing governmental functions and thus immune from suit. While
international law had evolved to exclude commercial transactions from sovereign
immunity, this change had not been formally adopted in England through court
decisions or legislation. Lord Denning rejected the bank's argument, stating that the
courts could recognize the changes in international law without requiring specific
transformation through prior court decisions or parliamentary acts. He emphasized
that the rules of international law automatically become part of English law, and the
doctrine of stare decisis did not apply to international law rules. The court's decision
allowed for the incorporation of customary rules of international law into English law,
provided they did not conflict with existing parliamentary acts.
37. Medellin v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008)
In this case, petitioner Jose Ernesto Medellín sought reconsideration of his conviction
for murder and rape in a Texas state court, arguing that his rights under the Vienna
Convention had been violated. He relied on an International Court of Justice (ICJ)
decision and the President's Memorandum. However, the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals dismissed his application. The issue was whether state courts were
constitutionally required to enforce a decision of the ICJ, based on a treaty obligation
of the United States.
The Supreme Court ruled that state courts were not constitutionally obligated to
honor such treaty obligations. They emphasized that international treaties must either
be self-executing or implemented by Congress to be binding on U.S. courts. The ICJ's
decisions do not automatically bind U.S. courts, and the executive branch cannot
unilaterally enforce them or international treaties that lack binding status. Therefore,
in this case, Medellín's argument based on the ICJ decision was not sufficient to
overturn his conviction under U.S. law.
38. Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Shell, 569 U.S. 108 (2013)
Nigerian nationals, including Esther Kiobel, filed a lawsuit in the United States against
Royal Dutch Petroleum (Shell) and its Nigerian subsidiary, alleging their complicity in
human rights abuses by the Nigerian government against the Ogoni people. The
plaintiffs argued that Shell aided and abetted these abuses. The issue was whether the
Alien Tort Statute (ATS) could be used to sue a foreign corporation for human rights
violations that occurred outside the United States.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendants, holding that the ATS did not
have extraterritorial reach. It could not be used to bring lawsuits in U.S. federal courts
for human rights abuses that took place entirely in a foreign country. The Court
applied the presumption against extraterritoriality to ATS claims and emphasized the
potential for unwarranted judicial interference in foreign policy. Since there was no
indication that Congress intended the ATS to cover violations of international law
occurring abroad, the Court concluded that the plaintiffs' claims could not proceed in
U.S. courts.
39. Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. 104768, July 21, 2003
During the aftermath of the EDSA Revolution, President Aquino established the
Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) to recover ill-gotten wealth
from the Marcos regime. The PCGG, led by Chairman Jovito R. Salonga, initiated
investigations through an AFP Anti-Graft Board, targeting individuals like Major
General Josephus Q. Ramas. The PCGG filed a petition for forfeiture against Ramas,
alleging unexplained wealth. Ramas defended himself, asserting that his property was
proportionate to his income, while Elizabeth Dimaano, a clerk-typist associated with
Ramas, claimed ownership of seized items. The key issue addressed by the Court was
whether the protection granted by international human rights agreements, such as the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, remained in effect during the interregnum when the 1973
Constitution's Bill of Rights was inoperative. The Court ruled in favor of the
continued applicability of these international rights during the interregnum,
emphasizing the government's obligation to uphold them under international law,
leading to the voiding of certain seizures during the investigation.
40. Tanada v. Angara, G.R. 118295, May 2, 1997
In this case, the Philippines, through then Secretary Rizalino Navarro, became a
founding member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) to enhance global
recovery post-World War II. The President submitted the WTO agreement to the
Senate for concurrence, emphasizing its potential benefits for foreign market access
and economic growth. The Senate adopted Resolution No. 97, concurring with the
WTO agreement's ratification. However, a petition argued that WTO provisions
violated constitutional mandates for economic nationalism, particularly "parity
provisions" and "national treatment" clauses. The Supreme Court ruled against the
petition, stating that the constitutional principles invoked were non-self-executing and
intended as legislative and judicial guides. It emphasized that the Constitution did not
endorse isolationism and recognized the need for international business exchange
while maintaining protection against unfair foreign competition. The Court held that
WTO obligations were binding under international law, and restrictions on
sovereignty were accepted when the Philippines joined international organizations,
dismissing the petition.
41. Mijares v. Ranada, G.R. 139325, April 12, 2005
In this case, petitioners sought recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment
obtained in a U.S. District Court against the Estate of Ferdinand Marcos for human
rights violations. The issue was whether a foreign judgment could be recognized in
the Philippines. The Supreme Court ruled that while there is no treaty obligation
requiring the Philippines to recognize foreign judgments, generally accepted principles
of international law are part of Philippine law. The conditions for recognition and
enforcement of foreign judgments were outlined in Section 48, Rule 39 of the Rules
of Civil Procedure, which had remained unchanged for nearly a century. The foreign
judgment's effect depends on whether it's in an action in rem or in personam, but in
both cases, it can be challenged in local courts on various grounds.
42. Pharmaceutical v. Duque III
In this case, President Corazon Aquino issued Executive Order No. 51 to regulate the
marketing of breastmilk substitutes, citing international agreements such as the
International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes (ICMBS) and the
International Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Department of Health
(DOH) subsequently issued the challenged Revised Implementing Rules and
Regulations (RIRR). The central issue was whether these international agreements
could be implemented through the RIRR. The Supreme Court ruled that international
law could become part of domestic law through transformation or incorporation.
Treaties must go through a constitutional process, requiring Senate concurrence, to
become part of domestic law. While the ICMBS influenced the local legislation, the
subsequent World Health Assembly (WHA) Resolutions were recommendatory and
not legally binding. Therefore, legislation was necessary to transform WHA
Resolution provisions into domestic law.