Public International Law: Questions & Suggested Answers

 I. Enumerate.

1-10. Acts that are considered to be prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State.

1. Any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of the coastal State, or in any other manner in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations;
2. Any exercise or practice with weapons of any kind;
3. Any act aimed at collecting information to the prejudice of the defense or security of the coastal State;
4. any act of propaganda aimed at affecting the defense or security of the coastal State;
5. the launching, landing or taking on board of any aircraft;
6. the launching, landing or taking on board of any military device;
7. the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person contrary to the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal State;
8. any act of willful and serious pollution contrary to this Convention;
9. any fishing activities;
10. the carrying out of research or survey activities;
11. any act aimed at interfering with any systems of communication or any other facilities or installations of the coastal State;
12. any other activity not having a direct bearing on passage.

11-15. Rights and privileges of a Diplomatic Mission.

1. The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. 
2. The sending State and the head of the mission shall be exempt from all national, regional or municipal dues and taxes in respect of the premises of the mission, whether owned or leased, other than such as represent payment for specific services rendered.
3. The archives and documents of the mission shall be inviolable at any time and wherever they may be. 
4. The receiving State shall permit and protect free communication on the part of the mission for all official purposes. 
5. The official correspondence of the mission shall be inviolable. 
6. The person of a diplomatic agent shall be inviolable. 
7. The private residence of a diplomatic agent shall enjoy the same inviolability and protection as the premises of the mission.
8. A diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State. He shall also enjoy immunity from its civil and administrative jurisdiction, subject to exceptions.
9. A diplomatic agent shall with respect to services rendered for the sending State be exempt from social security provisions which may be in force in the receiving State.
10. A diplomatic agent shall be exempt from all dues and taxes, personal or real, national, regional or municipal, subject to exceptions.
11. The receiving State shall, in accordance with such laws and regulations as it may adopt, permit entry of and grant exemption from all customs duties, taxes, and related charges other than charges for storage, cartage and similar services
12. The personal baggage of a diplomatic agent shall be exempt from inspection.
13. The members of the family of a diplomatic agent forming part of his household shall, if they are not nationals of the receiving State, enjoy the privileges and immunities.
14. Members of the administrative and technical staff of the mission, together with members of their families forming part of their respective households, shall, if they are not nationals of or permanently resident in the receiving State, enjoy the privileges and immunities.
15. Members of the service staff of the mission who are not nationals of or permanently resident in the receiving State shall enjoy immunity in respect of acts performed in the course of their duties, exemption from dues and taxes on the emoluments they receive by reason of their employment.
16. Private servants of members of the mission shall, if they are not nationals of or permanently resident in the receiving State, be exempt from dues and taxes on the emoluments they receive by reason of their employment. In other respects, they may enjoy privileges and immunities only to the extent admitted by the receiving State. 

16-25. Acts considered as crime against humanity.

1. Murder;
2. Extermination;
3. Enslavement; 
4. Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
5. Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law; 
6. Torture; 
7. Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity; 
8. Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
9. Enforced disappearance of persons; 
10. The crime of apartheid; 
11. Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

II. Define.

1. Acts of State.
• Every sovereign state is bound to respect the independence of every other sovereign state, and the courts of one country will not sit in judgment on the acts of the government of another, done within its own territory. 
2. Calvo Clause.
• A provision in a contract to the effect that “under no condition shall the intervention of foreign diplomatic agents in any matter related to the contract” be resorted to. 
• This was rejected as the right to seek redress is a sovereign prerogative of a state and a private individual has no right to waive the state’s right.
3. Doctrine of National Treatment.
• Aliens are treated in the same manner as nationals of the state where they reside. 
• Aliens would enjoy the same benefits as local nationals. 
4. Doctrine of State Responsibility.
• When an injury has been inflicted, there is need to determine whether the state can be held responsible for it.  One of the principles most strongly held by states is that if a state violates a customary rule of international law or a treaty obligation, it commits an “internationally wrongful act.” 
5. Exequator.
• An authorization from the receiving State when the head of a consular post is admitted to the exercise of his functions. 
6. Extradition.
• The surrender of an individual by the state within whose territory he is found to the state under whose laws he is alleged to have committed a crime or to have been convicted of a crime.
• It is a process that is governed by treaty. 
7. Hot Pursuit Doctrine.
• Article 111 allows hot pursuit of a foreign vessel where there is good reason to believe that the ship has violated laws or regulations of a coastal state. 
• The pursuit must commence when the foreign vessel is within the internal waters, the archipelagic waters, the territorial waters or the contiguous zone of the pursuing state. It may continue into the high seas if the pursuit has not been interrupted. 
• Hot pursuit must stop as soon as the ship pursued enters the territorial waters if its own state or of a third state.  Hot pursuit may be carried out only by warships or military aircraft, or any other ship or aircraft properly marked for that purpose.
8. International Human Rights Law.
• It recognizes that individuals can be subjects of international law and that they can find protection and remedies within the international community against abuses by their own government. Human rights, in general terms, are those inalienable and fundamental rights which are essential for life as human beings.
• United Nations Charter 
• Universal Declaration of Human Rights
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 
• International Covenant on Economic and Social and Cultural Rights
• Optional Protocol to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
9. Persona Non Grata.
• A declaration that a foreign citizen is not welcome in a country. The declaration usually applies to diplomats who have diplomatic immunity.
10. Rationale of Immunity from Jurisdiction.
• As enunciated in Sanders v. Veridiano II, 162 SCRA 88, 96 (1988), the practical justification for the doctrine of sovereign immunity is that there can be no legal right against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends. 
• In the case of foreign States, the rule is derived from the principle of the sovereign  equality of States, as expressed in the maxim par in parem non habet imperium. 
• All states are sovereign equals and cannot assert jurisdiction over one another. A contrary attitude would “unduly vex the peace of nations.”

III. Principle of Jurisdiction of States

1. Territoriality Doctrine
• A state has absolute, but not necessarily exclusive, power to prescribe, adjudicate and enforce rules for conduct that occurs within its territory. An aspect of the territoriality principle is the effects doctrine. A state also has jurisdiction over acts occurring outside its territory but having effects within it.
• Illustrative Case: Trail Smelter Arbitration US v. Canada (1938-41)
• United States and Canada argues over fumes discharged by the Trail smelter in British Columbia causing damage in the State of Washington. The Tribunal holds that the Dominion of Canada is responsible in international law for the conduct of the Trail Smelter. A State owes at all times a duty to protect other States against injurious acts by individuals from within its jurisdiction
2. Nationality Doctrine
• Every state has jurisdiction over its nationals even when those nationals are outside the state. The doctrine on effective nationality link is used to determine which of two states of which a person is a national will be recognized as having the right to give diplomatic protection to the holder of dual nationality. 
• Illustrative Case: Nottebohm Case (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala) 1955
• Friedrich Nottebohm, a German national, resided in Guatemala, applied for Liechtenstein citizenship after World War II broke out. Later, both the U.S. and Guatemala were at war with Germany. Guatemala arrested and deported Nottebohm to the U.S. International law recognizes the character of nationality based on genuine connections and reciprocal rights and duties, emphasizing that a state can exercise protection only if the individual's connection justifies it.  Since his naturalization in Liechtenstein lacked genuine prior connection, Guatemala is not obligated to recognize such nationality.
3. Protective Doctrine
• A state may exercise jurisdiction over conduct outside its territory that threatens its security, as long as that conduct is generally recognized as criminal by states in the international community.
• Illustrative Case: Lord Haw Haw
• Lord Haw Haw was an American citizen who broadcast messages from Germany seeking to persuade the Allies to surrender. Until 1940, he held a British passport. After the war, he was convicted of high treason in the United Kingdom. No principle of comity demands that a state should ignore the crime of treason committed against it outside its territory. On the contrary, a proper regard for its own security requires that all those who commit that crime, whether they commit it within or without the realm should be amenable to its laws.
4. Universality Doctrine
• Certain activities, universally dangerous to states and their subjects, require authority in all community members to punish such acts wherever they may occur, even absent a link between the state and the parties or the acts in question.
• Illustrative Case: Attorney General of Israel v. Eichmann Trial Court Decision 36 Intl. L. Rep. 5 (Israel, Dist. Ct. Jerusalem 1961)
• Adolf Eichmann, played a significant role in planning and executing the persecution of Jews across multiple countries during World War II. After the war, he fled to Argentina under an alias but was kidnapped by Israeli agents in May 1960. Acts constituting international crimes extend beyond a single state's borders, affecting the international community's stability, warranting punishment irrespective of the perpetrator's nationality or the state's tolerance. Acts constituting international crimes extend beyond a single state's borders, affecting the international community's stability, warranting punishment irrespective of the perpetrator's nationality or the state's tolerance.
5. Passive Personality Doctrine
• A state may apply law — particularly criminal law — to an act committed outside its territory by a person not its national where the victim of the act was its national. 
• Illustrative Case: United States v. Fawaz Yunis 681 FJ Supp. 8961 (1988)
• ALIA Flight 402, a Jordanian civil aircraft, was hijacked on June 11 and 12, 1985. The only connection to the United States was the presence of American nationals among the passengers; however, the plane never landed on U.S. soil or flew over U.S. airspace. Universal and Passive Personality principles, together, provide ample grounds for this Court to assert jurisdiction. Not only is the United States acting on behalf of the world community to punish alleged offenders of crimes that threaten the very foundations of world order, but the United States has its own interest in protecting its nationals.

IV. Mistake of Facts/Mistake of Law:

• Rome Statute
• A mistake of fact shall be a ground for excluding criminal responsibility only if it negates the mental element required by the crime. 
• A mistake of law as to whether a particular type of conduct is a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court shall not be a ground for excluding criminal responsibility. A mistake of law may, however, be a ground for excluding criminal responsibility if it negates the mental element required by such a crime, or as provided for in article 3.
• Philippine Jurisdiction
• A reasonable mistake of fact is a defense to a charge of crime where it negates the intent component of the crime. It may be a defense even if the offense charged requires proof of only general intent. (People v. Gervero, G.R. No. 206725. July 11, 2018) A mistake of fact is sufficient to negative a particular intent which under the law is a necessary ingredient of the offense charged "cancels the presumption of intent," and works an acquittal; (U.S. v. Ah Chong, G.R. No. L-5272, March 19, 1910)
• Ignorance of the existence of the prohibitory provisions of the Opium Law is no excuse for the unlawful possession of opium. (U.S. v. Que-Quenco, 12 Phil. 444)