PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

I. Fundamental Precepts
II. Sources of International Law
 Art. 38, ICJ Statute
 Art. 53, 1969 Vienna Convention on Treaties

Cases on Customary Law

o Kuroda v. Jalandoni, G.R. No L-2662, 26 March 1949
o Yamashita v. Styer, G.R. No. L-129, 19 December 1945
o Kookooritchkin v. Solicitor General, G.R. No. L-1812, 27 August 1948
o Case Concerning the Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua
(Nicaragua v. US), ICJ Reports, 27 June 1986
o North Sea Continental Shelf Cases, ICJ Reports, 20 February 1969
o South-West Africa Cases (Ethiopia v. South Africa; Liberia v. South Africa); Second
Phase, 18 July 1966
o Asylum Case (Colombia v. Peru), ICJ Reports, 20 November 1950
o Nuclear Test Cases, ICJ Reports:
 New Zealand v. France, 1974
 Australia v. France, 1974
 Request for an examination of the situation in accordance with par. 63 of the
court's judgment of the 20 December 1974 in the Nuclear Tests (New Zealand v.
France) Case, 1995
o Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict (Advisory Opinion),
ICJ Reports, 8 July 1996
o The Paquete Habana, 175 U.S. 677 (1900)
o Case Concerning the Right of Passage Over Indian Territory (Portugal v. India), ICJ
Reports, 12 April 1960
o Texaco v. Libya, 17 ILM or 53 ILR 389, 1978

Cases on General Principles of Law

o Case Concerning Preah Vihear Temple (Cambodia v. Thailand), ICJ Reports, 15 June
1962
o Corfu Channel Case, ICJ Reports, 9 April 1949
o Chorzow Factory Case, 1928 PCIJ Ser. A, No. 17
o Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company Case, ICJ Reports, 1970
o BP v. Libya, 53 ILR 297
o Saudi Arabia v. Arabian American Oil Company, 27 ILR L17
o Prosecutor v. Tadic, ILJ, 2 October 1995
o Salonga v. Executive Secretary, G.R No. 176051, 11 February 2009
o Medellin v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008)

III. Actors in International Law

Art. 1, Montevideo Convention on Rights & Duties of States, 49 Stat. 3097,1933

 Cases:
o Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company Case, ICJ Reports, 1970
o Reparations for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the UN, ICJ Reports, 1949
o Mavrommatis Case, PCIJ, Ser. A, No. 2, 1924
o Certain Expenses of the UN, ICJ Reports, 1962
A. States

1. Territorial Sovereignty
 Cases:
o Island of Las Palmas Case (US v. Netherlands), 2 KIAA 829
o Las Palmas Arbitration Revisited, H. Harry L. Roque, Jr.
o Bishop Pedro Dulay et.al. v. Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita (Case filed by Sir, et al,
regarding Palawan)
o Eastern Greenland Case, PCIJ Ser. A/B, No. 53
o SS Lotus Case, PCIJ Ser. A, No. 10
Thematic Lighthouses:
o Minquiers and Ecrehos Case, ICJ Reports 1953, p. 47
o Case Concerning Sovereignty Over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan
(Indonesia/Malaysia)
o Eritrea-Yemen Arbitration, ICJ Reports, 1998
Map Cases:
o Eritrea-Yemen Arbitration, ICJ Reports, supra
o Preah Vihear Temple Case, ICJ Reports, supra
o Libya v. Chad, ICJ Reports 1994
o Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case, ICJ Reports 1951, p. 116
o Western Sahara Case, ICJ Reports, 1975
o El Salvador v. Honduras, with Nicaragua intervening, ICJ Reports,1992
o Clipperton Island Arbitration (France v. Mexico), 8 January 1931

2. UNCLOS
 Cases:

a. Internal Waters
 Military & Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. US), supra
 Saudi Arabia v. Arabian American Oil Company, supra
 Magallona et.al. v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 187167, 16 July 2011

b. Territorial Sea
 Arts. 27-32, UNCLOS
o "The Gulf of Sidra Incidents”, S Italian Yearbook of International Law
o Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case, ICJ Reports, 1951
o El Salvador v. Honduras, with Nicaragua intervening, ICJ Reports, 1992
o US v. California, 382 U.S. 448 (1966)
o US v. Louisiana, 382 U.S. 11 (1969)

c. Straits
 Corfu Channel Case, supra

d. Archipelagos
 Arts. 49, 52-53, UNCLOS
o Coquia, Analysis of the Archipelago Doctrine in the Law of the Sea, 8 PYIL 30
o Corfu Channel Case, ICJ Reports, 1949, supra

e. The Contiguous Zone

f. The Continental Shelf

 North Sea Continental Shelf Case, ICJ Reports, 1969, supra
  Libya v. Malta, ICJ Reports, 1985
 Tunisia v. Libya, ICJ Reports, 1982
 Aegean Sea Continental Shelf Case (Greece v Turkey), ICJ Reports, 1978
 Anglo-French Arbitration, ICJ Reports, 1979
 Case Concerning Maritime Delimitation in the area between Greenland and Jan Mayen
(Denmark v. Norway), 1993
 Canada & France, St. Pierre
 Malaysia v. Singapore
 Arigo v. Executive Secretary, supra
 Arigo v. Swift (Petition for Writ of Kalikasan, 2014)

g. The Exclusive Economic Zone

 Arts. 55-58, 70-73, UNCLOS
o Spain v. Canada (facts only), ICJ Reports, 1966
o M/V Saiga (St. Vincent & Grenadines v. Guinea), ITLOS Judgment, July 1, 1999
o Camouco Case (Panama v. France judgment, 7 Feb 2000,
www.un.org/depts/ios/itlos/jud-camouco.htm)

3. Jurisdiction & Immunities

Cases on Jurisdiction:
o People v. Lol-lo & Saraw, 43 Phil. 19 (1922)
o Tubb v. Greiss, 78 Phil. 249 (1947)
o Haw Pia v. China Banking, 80 Phil. 604 (1948)
o Brownell v. Sunlife, 95 Phil. 228 (1954)

Cases on Sovereign Immunities:

o Under Military Bases Agreement
 Lyons Inc. v. USA, 104 Phil 593
 USA v. Ruiz, 136 SCRA 487
 Wylie v. Rarang, 209 SCRA 357
 USA v. Reyes, 219 SCRA 192
 JUSMAG Philippines v. NLRC, 239 5CRA 224
o International Organizations
 WHO v. Aquino, 48 SCRA 242
 Minucher v.CA, 214 SCRA 242
 SEAFDEC v. Acosta, 226 SCRA 49
 Holy See v. Rosario, 238 SCRA 524
 ICMC v. Calleja, G.R. No. 85750, September 28, 1990
 Liang v. People, G.R. No. 125865, March 26, 2001
o Sovereign (Head of State) Immunities
 Forbes v. Chuoco Tiaco, 16 Phil. 534 (1910)
 Kuroda v. Jalandoni, supra
 David v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, 3 May 2006
 Hilao v. Estate of Ferdinand Marcos, Judgment of Feb 1985 & Opinion/Order of
November 1995
 Ex Parte Pinochet, 38 ILM 581 (March 1999)
 Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681
 Belgium v. Senegal, ICJ, 20 July 2012
 Congo v. Belgium, ICJ Reports, 14 February 2002
 Doe v. UNOCAL, 963 F.Supp. 880 (1997)
 Germany v. Italy (3 February 2012), including Dissenting Opinion of Cançado
Trindade
 o Kidnapping/Extradition Cases
 Treaty Stipulation and political offenses
 Guarantee of a fair trial
 Refoulement
 Double or Dual Criminality
 Double Jeopardy
 Israel v. Eichmann, 36 ILR 277 (Israel Supreme Court, 1962)
FACTS:
In Eichmann's case (Attorney-General of the Government of Israel v Eichmann),[20] the accused, who
was of German nationality, was the Head of the Jewish Office of the German Gestapo. He was the
administrator in charge of the policy that led to the extermination of between 4,200,000 and 4,600,000
Jews in Europe. Eichmann was found in Argentina in 1960 by persons who were probably agents of the
Israeli Government and abducted to Israel without the knowledge of the Argentinean Government. There
he was prosecuted for war crimes, crimes against the Jewish people, the definition of which was modeled
upon the definition of genocide in the Genocide Convention of 1948, and crimes against humanity. He
was convicted and sentenced to death. His appeal to the Supreme Court of Israel was dismissed.

In this case, one of the contentions of the defence counsel was that the trial of the accused in Israel
following his kidnapping in a foreign land, is in conflict with international law and takes away the
jurisdiction of the Israeli court. In fact, after the kidnapping of Eichmann from its territory, Argentina had
lodged a complaint with the Security Council of the United Nations claiming that the act constituted a
violation of its sovereignty and had requested appropriate reparation, namely the return of Eichmann, for
which it set a time limit of one week, and the punishment of those guilty of violating Argentine territory.
The Supreme Court resolved that the act violated the sovereignty of Argentina and requested the
Government of Israel to make appropriate reparation in accordance with international law.

RULING:
The Israeli court relied on the fact that the two governments had reached an agreement and regarded the
incident as closed, to support its decision.[23] In fact, the Argentinean Government might have eventually
agreed to close the matter so as not to jeopardise the traditionally friendly relations between the two
countries. However, the undeniable fact is that the Security Council of the United Nations decided that the
abduction of Eichmann was a clear violation of the Argentinean territorial sovereignty and was a violation
of international law. The Israeli court also cited an old English case, Ex p Elliott,[24] as an authority.
Nevertheless, the law has changed in the United Kingdom and the present United Kingdom law can be
found in the House of Lords case of R v ex parte Bennett.[25] In this case, the House of Lords
unequivocally held that abduction of an accused is an abuse of the process of law, and a violation of
international law as well as the rule of law.

Therefore, the rationale in respect of the issue of abduction, of the Israeli court on the basis of male
captus, bene detentus is rather doubtful. As some writers suggest,[26] the only reasonable argument for
the Israeli court seems to be on the basis of universal jurisdiction because the crimes with which
Eichmann was charged were, war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity

 Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436

FACTS:
In 1886, the US Supreme Court decided Ker v Illinois.3 Ker, a US citizen, was wanted in Illinois on criminal
charges, so he fled to Peru. The agent of the Governor of Illinois was unable to execute the extradition
treaty between the US and Peru because Chilean forces occupied Lima at that time. The agent requested
assistance from the Chilean military governor who personally arrested Ker and took him back to Illinois,
where he was convicted. Ker appealed to the US Supreme Court.[4]

Ker alleged that the Illinois court lacked jurisdiction because he had been kidnapped in Peru and forcibly
brought to the US without the proper process of extradition. The US Supreme Court rejected the
argument that Ker's arrest and conviction had violated the extradition treaty between the US and Peru.
RULING:

The Court held that "mere irregularities in the manner in which [Ker was] ... brought into the custody of the
law" did not entitle him to escape prosecution.[5] The Court upheld its jurisdiction, stating that the proper
remedy for the breach of international law was at the diplomatic level, and the physical presence of the
accused before the Court, no matter how he had been brought there, sufficed to validate the proceedings.

 United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655 (1991)

FACTS:
A United States Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agent was killed in Mexico in 1985. Five years
later, Dr Alvarez Machain, a Mexican citizen, was indicted by the United States Federal grand jury for
having participated in the murder. At the request of the DEA agents, Alvarez Machain was taken by force
from his office in Mexico by Sosa, a former Mexican policeman and three others, put on a private plane
and flown to Texas, where he was immediately arrested by Federal agents.

In the subsequent criminal proceedings, Alvarez Machain argued that the federal courts lacked jurisdiction
to try him because of the manner by which he was apprehended. The trial court agreed, finding that the
arrest violated the extradition treaty between the US and Mexico. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
confirmed the trial court's judgment.[8] The US Government appealed to the Supreme Court.

RULING:
The US Supreme Court reversed the lower courts' decisions on the basis of the century-old "Ker" doctrine
and held that the abduction did not violate the extradition treaty and, further, that although the abduction
may have been a violation of international law (the territorial integrity of Mexico), a US court could still
exercise jurisdiction over the matter.[9] The Court ordered Alvarez Machain to stand trial. But in 1992, the
trial judge, granting a motion by Alvarez Machain's lawyers, acquitted him for lack of evidence.[10]
Alvarez Machain returned to Mexico.[11]

 Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004)

 State v. Ebrahim, 26 February 1991, 2 SALR 553
FACTS:
In State v Ebrahim,[27] the appellant, a South African citizen, was charged with treason. He had been
abducted from Swaziland and was transported to South Africa, most likely by agents of the South African
Government. This was a violation of international law as it was a violation of the territorial sovereignty of
Swaziland, although Swaziland had not made an official protest. Ebrahim appealed against his conviction
on the ground that the South African courts lacked jurisdiction because his appearance before them was
brought about in violation of international law. The appeal was allowed and the conviction set aside.

RULING:
The Supreme Court of South Africa held at p 896 of the report that:

The individual must be protected against illegal detention and abduction, the bounds of jurisdiction must
not be exceeded, sovereignty must be respected, the legal process must be fair to those affected and
abuse of law must be avoided in order to protect and promote the integrity of the administration of justice.
This applies equally to the state. When the state is a party to a dispute, as for example in criminal cases,
it must come to court with "clean hands". When the state itself is involved in an abduction across
international borders, as in the present case, its hands are not clean.

 US v. Purganan (Mark Jimenez Cases) = 2 cases SC & MFR, G.R. No. 148571,
24 September 2002

4. International Responsibility
 Cases:
 o Corfu Channel Case, ICJ Reports, supra
o Rainbow Warrior Arbitration (Report)
o US Diplomatic & Consular Staff (US v. Iran), ICJ Reports, 1980
o Doe v. UNOCAL, 395 F.3d 932 (9th Circuit); 403 F.3d 708
o Chorzow Factory Case, supra
o Prosecutor v. Tadic, supra
o Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the
Occupied Palestinian Territories
o Bosnia Case [Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro)], February 26,
2007
o Trail Smelter Case
State Responsibility, Harris Casebook, 1994 & 2004 editions
1994 edition
o Union Bridge Company Claim (US v. Great Britain), 1924
o Youmans Claim (US v. Mexico), 1926
o Zafiro Claim (Great Britain v. US), 1925
o Bolivar Railway Company Claim (Great Britain v. Venezuela), 1903
2004 edition
o Neer Claim (US v. Mexico), 1926
o Starrett Housing Corp. v. Iran (Interlocutory Award) (US v. Iran), 1983

5. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

Cases:
Definition of "treaty"
 It is an international agreement concluded between States in written form, and governed by
international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments
and whatever its particular designation (P. 330 UST Notes)
 Essential Requisites:
o Be entered into by parties with treaty- making Capacity
o Through their Authorized representative
o Without the attendance of duress, fraud, mistake or other vices of consent
o In accordance with their respective Constitutional process
 Form:
o Written
o Oral (recognized as treaties under Customary International Law)

 Abaya v. Sec. Ebdane, G.R. No. 167919, 14 February 2007

FACTS:
On May 7, 2004 Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) of the Department of Public Works and Highways
(DPWH) issued a Resolution No. PJHL-A-04-012. It was approved by DPWH Acting Secretary Florante
Soriquez. This resolution recommended the award to China Road & Bridge Corporation of the contract for
the implementation of civil works for Contract Package No. I (CP I), which consists of the
improvement/rehabilitation of the San Andres-Virac-Jct. Bago-Viga road, with the lengt of 79.818
kilometers, in the island province of Catanduanes.
This Loan Agreement No. PH-204 was executed by and between the JBIC and the Philippine
Government pursuant to the exchange of Notes executed by and between Mr. Yoshihisa Ara, Ambassador
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Japan to the Philippines, and then Foreign Affairs Secretary Siazon,
in behalf of their respective governments.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Loan Agreement No. PH-204 between the JBIC and the Philippine Government is a
kind of a treaty.
HELD:
The Loan Agreement No. PH-204 taken in conjunction with the Exchange of Notes dated December 27,
1999 between the Japanese Government and the Philippine Government is an executive agreement.
An “exchange of notes” is a record of a routine agreement that has many similarities with the private law
contract. The agreement consists of the exchange of two documents, each of the parties being in the
possession of the one signed by the representative of the other.
…treaties, agreements, conventions, charters, protocols, declarations, memoranda of understanding,
modus vivendi and exchange of notes all are refer to international instruments binding at international law.
Although these instruments differ from each other by title, they all have common features and
international law has applied basically the same rules to all these instruments. These rules are the result
of long practice among the States, which have accepted them as binding norms in their mutual relations.
Therefore, they are regarded as international customary law.
That case was dismissed by the SCORP last Feb. 14 2007.

What the petitioners wanted was that Foreign funded projects also undergo the procurement process.
The dismissal of the case somehow gave justification for the delay of the implementing rules for foreign
funded projects (IRR-B) of the procurement law If we recall the decision of the Abaya vs Ebdane was
used by the DOJ when the DOTC Secretary was asking for an opinion from the former, during the ZTE
controversy.as ruled by the Supreme Court in Abaya v. Ebdane, an exchange of notes is considered a
form of an executive agreement, which becomes binding through executive action without need of a vote
by the
Senate and that (like treaties and conventions, it is an international instrument binding at international law,
The second issue involves an examination of the coverage of Republic Act No. 9184, otherwise known as
the “Government Procurement Reform Act”. Section 4 of the said Act provides that it shall
apply to: … the Procurement of infrastructure Projects, Goods and Consulting Services, regardless of
source of funds, whether local or foreign, by all branches and instrumentalities of government, its
departments, offices and agencies, including government-owned and/or -controlled corporations and local
government units, subject to the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 138. Any treaty or international or
executive agreement affecting the subject matter of this Act to which the Philippine government is a
signatory shall be observed.

 DBM v. Kolonwel Trading (consolidated cases), G.R. No. 175608, 8 June 2007
FACT:
In the middle of 2005, DepEd requested the services of the DBM-PS to undertake procurement project
which is to be jointly funded by the World Bank (WB), thru the Second Social Expenditure Management
Program (SEMP2) of the RP-IBRD Loan Agreement No. 7118-PH and the Asian Development Bank
(ABD) thru SEDIP Loan No. 1654-PHI. In October 2005, the DBM-PS called for a bidding for the supply of
the Makabayan textbooks and teachers manuals. Of the entities, foreign and local, only eleven (11)
bidders submitted, including private respondent Kolonwel.

Following the bid and the book content/body evaluation process, DBM committee issued a resolution
disqualifying, among others, Kolonwel for “failure in cover stock testing “. Kolonwel was informed of this
and subsequently filed with RTC Manila a special civil action for certiorari with a prayer for TRO. In
support of its TRO application, Kolonwel alleged, among other things, that the supply-awardees were
rushing with the implementation of the void supply contracts to beat the closing-date deadline. After
summary hearing, the Manila RTC issued a 20-day TRO, and later issued a decision wherein Resolution
001-2006-A of the DBM was annulled and set aside. Hence this petition.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the foreign loan agreements (Loan No. 7118-PH) with international financial institutions,
partake of an executive or international agreement and shall govern the procurement of goods necessary
to implement the project.

HELD:
This issue has been affirmatively answered in the case of Abaya. In that case, the court declared that the
RP-JBIC loan agreement was to be of governing application over the CP I project and that the JBIC
Procurement Guidelines, as stipulated in the loan agreement.

Under the fundamental international law principle of pacta sunt servanda, the RP, as borrower, bound
itself to perform in good faith its duties and obligation under Loan No. 7118-PH. Applying this postulate,
the IABAC was legally obliged to comply with, or accord primacy to, the WB Guidelines on the conduct
and implementation of the bidding/procurement process in question.

 Suplico v. NEDA, G.R. No. 178830, 14 July 2008

FACTS:
In that case, several petitions were filed questioning the power of the President to enter into foreign loan
agreements. However, before the petitions could be resolved by the Court, the Office of the Solicitor
General filed a Manifestation and Motion averring that the Philippine Government decided not to continue
with the ZTE National Broadband Network Project, thus rendering the petition moot. In resolving the case,
the Court took judicial notice of the act of the executive department of thePhilippines (the President) and
found the petition to be indeed moot. Accordingly, it dismissed the petitions.

RULING:

Judicial power presupposes actual controversies, the very antithesis of mootness. In the absence of
actual justiciable controversies or disputes, the Court generally opts to refrain from deciding moot issues.
Where there is no more live subject of controversy, the Court ceases to have a reason to render any
ruling or make any pronouncement.

The rule is well-settled that for a court to exercise its power of adjudication, there must be an actual case
or controversy – one which involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims
susceptible of judicial resolution; the case must not be moot or academic or based on extra-legal or
other similar considerations not cognizable by a court of justice. Where the issue has become moot and
academic, there is no justiciable controversy, and an adjudication thereon would be of no practical use
or value as courts do not sit to adjudicate mere academic questions to satisfy scholarly interest, however
intellectually challenging.

 CNMEG v. Hon. Santa Maria, G.R. No. 185572, 7 February 2012

FACTS:
Respondents prayed for the annulment of contracts entered into by CNMEG and Northrail. These
contracts involved the construction of the North Luzon Railway System from Caloocan to Malolos on a
turnkey basis. CNMEG prays for the dismissal of the suit, contending that it is entitled to immunity,
precluding it from being sued before a local court, and that the contract agreement is an executive
agreement, such that it cannot be questioned by or before a local court.

HELD:
The contract agreement is not an executive agreement. It was not concluded between the government of
the Philippines and China but between Northrail and CNMEG, which is neither a government nor a
government agency of China but a corporation duly organized and created under the laws of the Peo
ple’s Republic of China.

Because the Contract Agreement explicitly provides that Philippine Law shall be applicable, the parties
have effectively conceded that their rights and obligations thereunder are not governed by international
law. It is merely an ordinary commercial contract that can be questioned before the local courts. CNMEG
engaged in a proprietary activity hence was not covered by sovereign immunity. The Memorandum of
Understanding between CNMEG and Northrail showed that CNMEG sought the construction of the Luzon
Railways as a proprietary or commercial venture in the ordinary course of its business. It was clear that
CNMEG initiated the undertaking and not the Chinese Government

Definition of "ratification"
 o It is the act by which the provisions of a treaty are formally confirmed and approved
by a State. By ratifying a treaty signed in its behalf, a State expresses willingness to
be bound by the provisions of such treaty.
 Commissioner of Customs v. Eastern Sea Trading, G.R. No. L-14279, October 31, 1961
 Bayan v. Zamora, G.R. No. 138570, October 10, 2000
 Lim v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 151445, April 11, 2002
 Pimentel v. Executive Secretary, G.R No. 158088, July 6, 2005
 Akbayan v. Aquino, G.R. No. 170516, July 16, 2008
 Salonga et. al. v. Smith et. al., G.R. No. 176051, February 11, 2009
 Vinuya v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 162230, April 28, 2010
 Bayan Muna v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 159618, February 1, 2011
 Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
 Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. US), supra

6. Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations; Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and Optional
Protocols
 Cases:
o US Diplomatic & Consular Staff (US v. Iran), ICJ Reports, 1980
o Case Concerning Avena and other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. USA), 31 March 2004.

B. International Organizations
1. The UN Charter & The Use of Force
 Arts. 2(3), 2(4), 24(1), 25, 23(1), 27(3), UN Charter
 Higgins, Chapters 10, 14 & 15
 Cases:
o Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. US), supra
o Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons, ICJ Reports, supra
o Legality of the Use of Force (Yugoslavia v. US), US 38 ILM 1199
o The Relationship between the UN Charter and General International Law Regarding Non-
use of Force: The Case of NATO's air campaign in the Kosovo crisis of 1999, Shinya
Murase
o The Caroline Case
o M.W. Reisman, "Assessing Claims to Revise the loss of War," 97 AJIL 82 at 87, 2003
o Case Concerning Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America),
December 12,1996
o Armed Activities on the Territory of Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda),
ICJ (2005)
o Re: Certain Expenses of the UN, supra

2. International Court of Justice

 Arts. 92, 93, 94, 96, UN Charter
 Arts. 1, 34(1), 35(1), ICJ Statute

a. Applicable Law
 Arts. 38 & 59, ICJ Statute

b. Jurisdiction
 Art. 36(1), (2) & (3), ICJ Statute

c. Advisory Opinions

Cases on Jurisdiction:
 Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. US), supra
 Lockerbie Case (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. USA) ICJ Reports, 1988
  ELSI Case, ICJ Reports, 1989
 South West Africa Cases, ICJ Reports, 1966
 Nauru v. Australia, ICJ Reports, 1992
 Case Concerning East Timor (Portugal v. Australia) ICJ Reports, 1995

Cases on Provisional Measures:

 Bosnia Case (Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), supra
 Lockerbie Case (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. USA), supra

Cases on Dispute:
 Admissions Case (Conditions of Admission of a state to membership in the United
Nations), ICJ Reports, May 28,1948
 Free Zones Case (Case of the Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex), PCIJ
Ser. A/B. No. 45, June 7, 1932
 Mavrommatis Case, supra
 UN Headquarters Advisory Opinion (Applicability of the Obligation to Arbitrate under Sec.
21 of the UN Headquarters Agreement of June 26, 1947), ICJ Reports, April 26, 1988

Cases on Advisory Opinions:

 Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict (WHO Request),
ICJ Reports, 1996
 Monetary Gold Case (Monetary Gold Removed from Rome in 1943 (Italy v. France, UK of
Great Britain & Northern Ireland, & the USA)), ICJ Reports, June 15, 1954
 Certain Expenses of the UN, supra
 Western Sahara Case, supra
 Botswana v. Namibia (Case Concerning Kasikili/Sedudu Island), ICJ Reports, 1999
 Status of Eastern Carelia (Finland v. Russia;, PCIJ Ser. B, No. 5, July 23,1923
 Advisory Opinion on the Local Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the
Occupied Palestinian Territories, supra

C. The Individual
1. Human Rights (Report)

2. International Criminal Law

a. Nuremberg Tribunal
b. Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal (Report)
c. 1949 Geneva Conventions
d. 1978 Additional Protocol to the Geneva Convention
e. Security Council Resolution No. 827 (Yugoslavia War Crimes Tribunal)
f. Security Council Resolution No. 955 (Rwanda War Crimes Tribunal)
g. 1998 Rome Convention on the International Criminal Court

Cases:
 Advisory Opinion on Legality of Nuclear Weapons; (WHO Request), ICJ Reports, 1996
 Yugoslavia War Crimes Tribunal Decision on Tadic, 15 July 1999
 Dizon v. Commanding General
 Rasul v. Bush
 Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006)
 Boumedienne v. Bush, 12 June 2008

3. Foreign Investments & Natural Resources

Cases:
  Texaco v. Libya, 17 ILM or 53 ILR 389, 1978
 BP v. Libya, 53 ILR 2
 Saudi Arabia v. Arabian American Oil Company, 27 ILR 117
 Chorzow Factory Case, supra
 LIAMCO v. Libyan Arab Republic, 62 ILR 140
 Starrett Housing Case, 4 Iran-US Claims Tribunal Reports
 Kuwait v. Aminoil, 66 ILR 518
 Sapphire Case, 3B ILR 136

a. When Lawful
 Starrett Housing Case, 4 Iran-US Claims Tribunal Reports
 Amoco Case (US v. Iran), 27 ILM 1314
 Phillips Petroleum Company Iran, v. The Islamic Republic of Iran, and The National
Iranian Oil Co., 21 Iran-US Claims Tribunal Reports

b. WTO

Cases:
 Tañada v. Angara, G.R. No. 118295, 2 May 1997
 Amicus Curiae Memorandum of Ambassador Lilia Bautista in Tañada v. Angara,
supra

Appellate Body Reports:

 Japan—Taxes on alcoholic beverages, October 4, 1996
 Korea—Taxes on alcoholic beverages, January 3,1999
 United States—Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline, April
29,1996
 European Communities—Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing
Products, March 12, 2001
 European Communities—Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Cotton-type Bed
Linen from India, April 8, 2003