Public International Law: Chapter VI ー Other Subjects of International Law

 Other Subjects of International Law

• States are the dominant subjects of international law. But there are others: 
1. International organizations, 
2. Insurgents, 
3. Liberation movements, and, 
4. Individuals

1. International Organizations.

Q: How do they come into existence? 
Q: Do they have international personality? 
Q: Do they enjoy any kind of immunity?

Establishment, international personality, immunity.

• An international organization is an organization that is set up by treaty among two or more states. It is different from non-governmental organizations (NGO) which are set up by private persons. 
• The constituent document of international organizations therefore is a treaty. For this reason, only states are members of international organizations. 
• As the ICJ put it in its Advisory Opinion on the Use of Nuclear Weapons (1996) about the World Health Organization:
• The Court observes that in order to delineate the field of activity or the area of competence of an international organization, one must refer to the relevant rules of the organization and, in the first place, to its constitution. From a formal standpoint, the constituent instruments of international organizations are multilateral treaties, to which the well-established rules of treaty interpretation apply. But they are also treaties of a particular type; their object is to create new subjects of law endowed with a certain autonomy, to which the parties entrust the task of realizing common goals. Such treaties can raise specific problems of interpretation owing, inter alia, to their character which is conventional and at the same time institutional; the very nature of the organization created, the objectives which have been assigned to it by its founders, the imperatives associated with the effective performance of its functions, as well as its own practice, are all elements which may deserve special attention when the time comes to interpret these constituent treaties.
• That international organizations have international personality was established in the oft-quoted Reparations Case (ICJ Advisory Opinion, 1949) involving the international personality of the United Nations. 
• The question raised was formulated thus:
• In the event of an agent of the United Nations in the performance of his duties suffering injury in circumstances involving the responsibility of a State, has the United Nations, as an Organization, the capacity to bring an international claim against the responsible de jure or de facto government with a view to obtaining the reparation due in respect of the damage caused (a) to the United Nations, (b) to the victim or to persons entitled through him?
• The Court answered the question after rephrasing it:
• Do the provisions of the Charter relating to the functions of the Organization imply that the latter is empowered to assure its agents limited protection? These powers, which are essential to the performance of the functions of the Organization, must be regarded as a necessary implication arising from the Charter. In discharging its functions, the Organization may find it necessary to entrust its agents with important missions to be performed in disturbed parts of the world. These agents must be ensured of effective protection. It is only in this way that the agent will be able to carry out his duties satisfactorily. The Court therefore reaches the conclusion that the Organization has the capacity to exercise functional protection in respect of its agents. The situation is comparatively simple in the case of Member States, for these have assumed various obligations towards the Organization. But what is the situation when a claim is brought against a State which is not a Member of the Organization? The Court is of opinion that the Members of the United Nations created an entity possessing objective international personality and not merely personality recognized by them alone. As in the case of Question 1(a), the Court therefore answers Question 1(b) in the affirmative.
• The Court had to answer the question because the UN Charter is silent about the organization’s international personality. 
• In the case of other organizations, the charter itself might specifically endow it with international personality. But if it does not, possession of international personality may be implied from the functions of the organization, as in the case of the UN.
• Although international organizations have personality in international law, their powers and privileges are by no means like those of states. Their powers and privileges are limited by the constituent instrument that created them. To quote again from the Advisory Opinion on the Use of Nuclear Weapons cited supra:
• The Court goes on to point out that international organizations are subjects of international law which do not, unlike States, possess a general competence. International organizations are governed by the “principle of speciality," that is to say, they are invested by the States which create them with powers, the limits of which are a function of the common interests whose promotion those States entrust to them. The powers conferred on international organizations are normally the subject of an express statement in their constituent instruments. Nevertheless, the necessities of international life may point to the need for organizations, in order to achieve their objectives, to possess subsidiary powers which are not expressly provided for in the basic instruments which govern their activities. It is generally accepted that international organizations can exercise such powers, known as “implied” powers.

Immunities 

• Because they enjoy international personality, they can also be given the immunities and privileges of international persons. Their immunities, however, have for basis not sovereignty, as it is for states, but the need for the effective exercise of their functions. 

In the case of the United Nations, the immunities are spelled out in Article 105 of the UN Charter:

1. The Organization shall enjoy in the territory of each of its Members such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the fulfillment of its purposes. 
2. Representatives of the Members of the United Nations and officials of the Organization shall similarly enjoy such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the independent exercise of their functions in connection with the Organization.
3. The General Assembly may make recommendations with a view to determining the details of the application of paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article or may propose conventions to the Members of the United Nations for this purpose.

• This has been supplemented by the General Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations (1946) and by the Convention and Privileges of Specialized Agencies (1947).

• There is no common law doctrine recognizing the immunity of international organizations. Their immunities come from the conventional instrument creating them a clear example of the grant of immunity is the 1946 General Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations.

• The Philippine Court has affirmed the immunity of other international organization in International Catholic Migration Commission v. Calleja, Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center v. Acosta, and Lasco v. United Nations Revolving Fund for Natural Resources Exploration.

A curious case, however, is the case of Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa v. The International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) decided jointly with the International Catholic Migration case. 

Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa v. The International Rice Research Institute (IRRI)

• IRRI was created not by a treaty but by a Memorandum of Agreement between the Philippine Government on the one hand and the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations, two private organizations. It is therefore not an international organization. Initially, IRRI was organized and registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission as a private corporation subject to all laws and regulations.
• However, by virtue of Pres. Decree No. 1620, promulgated on 19 April 1979, IRRI was granted the status, prerogatives, privileges and immunities of an international organization. 
• The Supreme Court has consistently recognized the immunity granted to IRRI declaring it to be on the same footing as the International Catholic Migration Commission.
• The Court recognized that the Catholic Migration Commission was a “specialized agency” under the Charter of the United Nations. Likewise, without giving the reason why, it recognized the IRRI as an international organization. The Court said:
• The grant of immunity from local jurisdiction to ICMC and IRRI is clearly necessitated by their international character and respective purposes. The objective is to avoid the danger of partiality and interference by the host country in their internal workings. The exercise of jurisdiction by the Department of Labor in these instances would defeat the very purpose of immunity, which is to shield the affairs of international organizations, in accordance with international practice, from political pressure or control by the host country to the prejudice a member States of the organization, and to ensure the unhampered performance of their functions.
• The end result of the protective blanket that has been wrapped around IRRI is the efforts of employees to seek redress for violations of labor rights have been repeatedly rebuffed by the Supreme Court. For all practical purposes, they are denied the protection given by the Constitution in Article XIII, Section 3 guaranteeing full protection for labor.

There have also been two cases involving the immunity of the Asian Development Bank (ADB). The bank’s Charter is a treaty to which the Philippines is a party. 

Department of Foreign Affairs v. National Labor Relations Board

• The issue was whether the National Labor Relations Commission could assume jurisdiction over a case of illegal dismissal against ADB. 
• In upholding the immunity of the ADB, the Court appealed to the provisions of the ADB’s Charter:
• Article 50(1) of the Charter provides: The Bank shall enjoy immunity from every form of legal process, except in cases arising out of or in connection with the exercise of its powers to borrow money, to guarantee obligations, or to buy and sell or underwrite the sale of securities
• Similar provisions are found in the Headquarters Agreement. Thus, its Section 5 reads:
• The Bank shall enjoy immunity from every form of legal process, except in cases arising out of, or in connection with, the exercise of its powers to borrow money, to guarantee obligations, or to buy and sell or underwrite the sale of securities.
• The Court concluded: 
• The above stipulations of both the Charter and Headquarters Agreement should be able, nay well enough, to establish that, except in the specified cases of borrowing and guarantee operations, as well as the purchase, sale and underwriting of securities, the ADB enjoys immunity from legal process of every form....
• The Court reiterated what it had said in World Health Organization v. Aquino:
• It is a recognized principle of international law and under our system of separation of powers that diplomatic immunity is essentially a political question and courts should refuse to look beyond a determination by the executive branch of the government, and where the plea of diplomatic immunity is recognized and affirmed by the executive branch of the government.... it is then the duty of the courts to accept the claim of immunity upon appropriate suggestion by the principal law officer of the government, ... or other officer acting under this direction. Hence, in adherence to the settled principle that courts may not so exercise their jurisdiction ... as to embarrass the executive arm of the government in conducting foreign relations, it is accepted doctrine that ‘in such cases the judicial department of government follows the action of the political branch and will not embarrass the latter by assuming an antagonistic jurisdiction.
• The World Health case was an original action for certiorari and prohibition to set aside respondent judge’s refusal to quash a search warrant issued by him at the instance of Constabulary officers for the search and seizure of the personal effects of an official of the World Health Organization.

Jeffrey Liang (Hue Feng) v. People

• The case involved a criminal complaint against Jeffrey Liang, an ADB official, for grave oral defamation. 
• Appeal was made to the political character of Jeffrey Liang as an agent of international organization. 
• But the Court ruled that the immunity granted to officers and staff of the ADB was not absolute; but limited to acts performed in an official capacity and could not cover the commission of a crime such as slander or oral defamation in the name of official duty.

The United Nations: Structure and Powers 

• The principal international organization is the United Nations. I
• It came into being on October 24,1945, when the UN Charter came into force. 
• The membership now includes almost all the world’s independent nations. 

Admission to membership is governed by Article 4 which says:

• The UN is a universal organization charged with peacekeeping responsibilities, the development of friendly relations among nations, the achievement of international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural and humanitarian character, and the promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all human beings without discrimination. Article 1 of the Charter says that the UN can include “all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and will to carry out these obligations.” As new independent nations arise, the number of members continue to grow.

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
4. To be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends

The UN, however, is enjoined against intervening in matters which are “essentially within the domestic jurisdiction” of any state. Article 2(7) says: 

• Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.

International Constitutional Supremacy Clause

In the hierarchy of international organizations, the UN occupies a position of preeminence. Article 103 says that:

• “in the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.” 
• This clause is known as the “international constitutional supremacy clause.”

Principal Organs of UN

1. General Assembly
2. Security Council
3. Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)
4. Trusteeship Council
5. International Court of Justice (ICJ)
6. Secretariat

1. General Assembly

• In the General Assembly, all members are represented. 
• It has plenary powers in the sense that it “may discuss any question or any matters within the scope of the ... Charter.” (Article 10)
• The GA distinguishes between “important questions” and “other questions.”
• Important questions are decided by a two-thirds majority of the members voting and present. 
• “Other questions” require only a majority.
• The Charter identifies what the “important questions” are and the GA may, by a majority vote, identify other important questions. (Article 18[3])

2. Security Council 

• The Security Council has “primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.” (Article 24[1]) 
• There are 15 member states, five of them permanent:
1. China,
2. France,
3. Russia [in place of the former USSR],
4. United Kingdom and
5. US
• The others are elected for two year terms in accordance with equitable geographic representation. 
• The Security Council distinguishes between “procedural matters” and “all other matters.”
• Matters that are not procedural require nine affirmative votes, including the “concurring votes of the permanent members.” (Article 27[3]) 
• But since the Charter does not specify what matters are procedural, the Council practice is that a decision on whether a matter is procedural or not also requires the concurrence of the permanent members. 
• Hence, a double veto by the permanent members is possible. 
• And an abstention is considered a veto.

3. ECOSOC 

• The ECOSOC has 54 member states elected for three year terms. 
• It has a large number of subsidiary organs, among them the UN Commission on Human Rights and the Commission on the Status of Women.

4. Trusteeship Council 

• The Trusteeship Council supervises non-self governing territories. 
• Its jurisdiction has already become very limited. 
• Palau was the last entity to be under the Council. 
• The Council suspended operations after Palau became independent on 1 October 1994. 

5. Secretariat 

• The Secretariat “shall comprise a Secretary General and such staff as the Organization may require.” (Article 97) 
• The Secretary General is elected to a five year term by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council, subject to veto power. 
• He is the chief administrator of the organization and has the power to “bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security.” (Article 99)

6. International Court of Justice 

• The International Court of Justice is the principal judicial organ of the UN.

Other Agencies 

• Aside from the main organs of the UN, there are also specialized agencies. Some of these are: 
1. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
2. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)
3. World Health Organization (WHO)
4. Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO)
5. World Bank
6. International Monetary Fund (IMF)

Regional Organizations

• Regional organizations also play an important role, but they are neither organs nor subsidiary organs of the UN.
• They are autonomous international organizations having an institutional affiliation with the UN by concluding agreements with the UN. (Article 5). 
• They are international institutions created by international agreements for the purpose of dealing with regional problems in general or with specific matters be they economic, military or political. 

ASEAN

• The regional organization of South East Asian nations is the ASEAN. 
• It was established on 8 August 1967 in Bangkok, Thailand, with the signing of the Bangkok Declaration by the five original Member Countries namely:
1. Indonesia
2. Malaysia
3. Philippines
4. Singapore
5. Thailand.
• Brunei Darussalam joined the Association on 8 January 1984. 
• Vietnam became the seventh member of ASEAN on 28 July 1995. 
• Laos and Myanmar were admitted into ASEAN on 23 July 1997. 
• Cambodia also became a member in 1999. 
• The Bangkok Declaration united the ASEAN Member Countries in a joint effort to promote economic cooperation and the welfare of the people in the region.
•  The Bangkok Declaration set out guidelines for ASEAN’s activities and defined the aims of the organization.
• The ASEAN nations came together with three main objectives in mind: 
1. to promote the economic, social and cultural development of the region through cooperative programs; 
2. to safeguard the political and economic stability of the region against big power rivalry; and 
3. to serve as a forum for the resolution of intra-regional differences.
• The ASEAN Declaration states that the aims and purposes of the Association are:
1. to accelerate economic growth, social progress and cultured development in the region and 
2. to promote regional peace and stability through abiding respect for justice and the rule of law in the relationship among countries in the region and adherence to the principles of the United Nations Charter.
• In 2003, the ASEAN Leaders resolved that an ASEAN Community shall be established comprising three pillars, namely:
1. ASEAN Security Community
2. ASEAN Economic Community
3. ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community
• ASEAN Member Countries have adopted the following fundamental principles in their relations with one another, as contained in the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia (TAC):
1. mutual respect for the independence, sovereignty, equality, territorial integrity, and national identity of all nations; 
2. the right of every State to lead its national existence free from external interference, subversion or coercion;
3. non-interference in the internal affairs of one another;
4. settlement of differences or disputes by peaceful manner; 
5. renunciation of the threat or use of force; and 
6. effective cooperation among themselves.

2. Insurgents.

Protocol II

• The first and only international agreement exclusively regulating the conduct of parties in a non-international armed conflict is the 1977 Protocol II to the 1949 Geneva Conventions. 
• It “develops and supplements Article 3, common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 without modifying its existing conditions or application.” 
• A non-international armed conflict covered by this expanded guarantee is defined in Article I:
• They are armed conflicts which take place in the territory of a High Contracting Party between its armed forces and dissident armed forces or other organized armed groups which, under responsible command, exercise such control over a part of its territory as to enable them to carry out sustained and concerted military operations and to implement this Protocol.
• Article I further adds that the:
• “Protocol shall not apply to situations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence and other acts of a similar nature, as not being armed conflicts.” 
• This is true even if the armed forces of the territory may have been called upon to suppress the disorder.
• It will thus be seen that Protocol II sets down requirements for what it calls “material field of application”:
1. The armed dissidents must be under responsible command; 
2. They must exercise such control over a part of its territory as to enable them to carry out sustained and concerted military operations and to implement this Protocol.” 
• The Protocol thus sets a very high threshold for applicability, higher than the threshold for the applicability of Protocol I which does not require control over territory. 
• For this reason, in the conflict between the Philippine government and the National Democratic Front, the Philippine government has been able to maintain consistently that the NDF and its New People’s Army have not crossed this threshold and that therefore what applies to them is Common Article 3 and not Protocol II. This means that they do not have the status of subject of international law. The same can be said of the MNLF and MILF in Mindanao.
• Insurgent groups which satisfy the material field of application of Protocol II may be regarded as “para-statal entities possessing definite if limited form of international personality.” State practice indicates two specific attributes of such “personality.”
1. They are recognized as having belligerent status against the de jure government. Other states are therefore required to maintain neutrality regarding them. 
2. They are seen as having treaty making capacity.

Common Article 3 

• Traditionally, international law on armed conflict does not apply to internal conflicts such as civil wars or rebellions. 
• In 1949, however, it was decided that minimum humanitarian protection should also be promulgated to cover internal conflict. 
• For this reason, each of the four Geneva Conventions contains a common Article 3 which says:

Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, color, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the abovementioned persons:

• violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
• taking of hostages
• outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
• the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for. An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict. 

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavor to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention. 

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

• The last sentence means that the application does not convert the conflict into an international one and therefore does not preclude the possibility that any participant in the conflict may be prosecuted for treason. 
• What this means is that, although rebels have the protection of Common Article 3, they do not thereby gain the status of subjects of international law unless they satisfy the “material field of application” of Protocol II.

3. National Liberation Movements

• National liberation movements are organized groups fighting in behalf of a whole people for freedom from colonial powers. 
• According to the First Protocol of the 1977 Geneva Convention, they are “peoples fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations.” 
• They first arose in Africa and then in Asia. 
• Many of these movements succeeded in their struggle and acquired statehood. Thus, liberation movements are now on the wane.

Characteristics.

1. They can be based within the territory which they are seeking to liberate or they might find a base in a friendly country.
2. Control of territory, therefore, is not a necessary factor. 
3. Their legitimacy rather comes from their goal: to free themselves from colonial domination, or a racist regime or foreign occupation. Briefly, their goal is self-determination.
4. They must have an organization capable of coming into contact with other international organizations.

• Although control over territory and people is not essential to their legitimacy, the ultimate goal of controlling a definite territory is necessary for them to be recognized as international subjects. 
• With these characteristics, they can claim international status.

As Article 96, of the above Convention says:

The authority representing a people engaged against a High Contracting Party in an armed conflict of the type referred to in Article 1, paragraph 4, may undertake to apply the Conventions and this Protocol in relation to that conflict by means of a unilateral declaration addressed to the depositary. Such declaration shall, upon its receipt by the depositary, have in relation to that conflict the following effects:

• The Conventions and this Protocol are brought into force for the said authority as a Party to the conflict with immediate effect;
• The said authority assumes the same rights and obligations as those which have been assumed by a High Contracting Party to the Conventions and this Protocol; and
• The Conventions and this Protocol are equally binding upon all Parties to the conflict.

4. Individuals.

• In the early development of international law human beings were exclusively under the control of states. In international law they were objects or at best “beneficiaries” of international law. 
• With the greater global awareness of human rights individuals have now come to be recognized as possessing albeit limited rights and obligations in international law.
• Among the obligations of individuals are those arising from the regulation of armed conflicts.
• Violation of these rules can place individuals under criminal responsibility.
• There are also rules on international crimes to which individuals are subject such as crimes against humanity, genocide, aggression, and terrorism. 
• When individual rights are violated, however, individuals still have to rely on the enforcement power of states. 
• But some treaties have provided for the right of individuals to petition international bodies alleging that a contracting state has violated some of their human rights.

Antonio Cassese on International Law (Oxford):

In sum, in contemporary international law individuals possess international legal status. They have a few obligations deriving from customary international law. 

In addition, procedural rights enure to the benefit of individuals not vis-d-vis States, but only toward the group of States that have concluded treaties, or the international organizations that have adopted resolutions, envisaging such rights. Clearly the international legal status of individuals is unique: they have a lopsided position in the international community.

As far as their international obligations are concerned, they are associated with all the other members of the international community; in contrast, they do not possess rights in relation to all members of that community. 

Plainly, all States are willing to demand of individuals respect for some fundamental values, while they are less prepared to associate them to their international dealings, let alone to grant them the power to sue States before international bodies. 

To differentiate the position of individuals from that of States, it can be maintained that while States have international legal personality proper, individuals have a limited locus standi in international law. 

Furthermore, unlike States, individual have a limited array of rights and obligations: on this score, one can speak of a limited legal capacity (in this respect they can be put on the same footing as other non-State international subjects: insurgents, international organizations, and national liberation movements).

Practice Questions:

1. Aside from States, what are the other subjects of international law?
2. How do international organizations attain international personality?
3. What distinguishes international organizations from non-governmental organizations (NGOs)?
4. According to the ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Use of Nuclear Weapons, what is the significance of the constituent document of international organizations?
5. How does the possession of international personality impact the legal status of international organizations?
6. What was the question raised in the Reparations Case (ICJ Advisory Opinion, 1949) regarding the international personality of the United Nations?
7. How does the "principle of speciality" limit the powers and privileges of international organizations?
8. How are the powers conferred on international organizations, as stated in their constituent instruments, typically exercised?
9. What are the bases for the immunities of international organizations, and how are they different from the immunities of states?
10. How does Article 105 of the UN Charter define the immunities and privileges of the United Nations?
11. Discuss the case of Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa v. The International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) and its implications on the immunity of international organizations.
12. What was the main issue in the Department of Foreign Affairs v. National Labor Relations Board case involving the Asian Development Bank (ADB)?
13. According to the provisions of the ADB’s Charter, under what conditions does the ADB enjoy immunity from legal processes?
14. In the Jeffrey Liang (Hue Feng) v. People case, what criminal offense was Jeffrey Liang, an ADB official, charged with?
15. What argument was made in the Jeffrey Liang case regarding the immunity of officers and staff of the ADB?
16. What are the purposes of the United Nations as stated in the UN Charter?
17. Name five of the principal organs of the UN.
18. Name the principal organ of the UN responsible for supervising non-self governing territories.
19. According to Article 2(7) of the UN Charter, in what situations is the United Nations prohibited from intervening in matters within the domestic jurisdiction of any state?
20. What does the "international constitutional supremacy clause" in Article 103 of the UN Charter state?
21. According to the Charter, what is the role of the General Assembly?
22. What is the primary responsibility of the United Nations Security Council according to Article 24(1) of the UN Charter?
23. How many member states are there in the Security Council, and how many of them are permanent members?
24. What are the three pillars of the ASEAN Community established in 2003?
25. What principles are adopted by ASEAN Member Countries in their relations with one another, as mentioned in the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia (TAC)?
26. What is the significance of the 1977 Protocol II to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, and how does it relate to Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 1949?
27. According to Protocol II, what conditions define a non-international armed conflict, and why is there a high threshold for its applicability?
28. What specific requirements does Protocol II set for its "material field of application," and how does it compare to the threshold for Protocol I's applicability?
29. In the conflict between the Philippine government and the National Democratic Front, why has the Philippine government argued that Protocol II does not apply to the NDF and its New People’s Army?
30. What attributes of international personality do insurgent groups possess when they meet the material field of application of Protocol II?
31. Explain the provisions of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions regarding the treatment of individuals in armed conflicts not of an international character.
32. According to Common Article 3, what acts are prohibited concerning individuals not actively participating in hostilities?
33. What is the role of the International Committee of the Red Cross in the context of Common Article 3?
34. How does the application of Common Article 3 affect the legal status of parties involved in the conflict, and what does it mean for rebels in terms of international law status?
35. Describe the characteristics of national liberation movements, and what is their ultimate goal?
36. Why is control over territory not essential to the legitimacy of national liberation movements, and what must they have to claim international status?
37. What is the significance of Article 96 in the context of national liberation movements and their recognition under international law?
38. In the context of international law, how have individuals' rights and obligations evolved, and what is their current legal status in the international community?
39. How do individuals' international obligations differ from those of states, and what limitations are associated with their legal capacity in international law?
40. According to Antonio Cassese, what procedural rights do individuals have in international law, and how do these rights differ from their rights vis-à-vis states?