1.Concerning ERGA OMNES: (A) what is its literal meaning? (b) What does it mean

within the context of international law? (c) Give two examples of erga omnes.

a. Erga omnes is a Latin phrase which literally means "towards all" or "towards everyone". In

legal terminology, erga omnes rights or obligations are owed toward all. For instance a property

right is an erga omnes entitlement, and therefore enforceable against anybody infringing that

right. An erga omnes right (a statutory right) can here be distinguished from a right based on

contract, which is only enforceable against the contracting party.

b. In international law it has been used as a legal term describing obligations owed by states

towards the community of states as a whole. An erga omnes obligation exists because of the

universal and undeniable interest in the perpetuation of critical rights (and the prevention of their

breach). Consequently, any state has the right to complain of a breach.

c. Examples of erga omnes norms include piracy, genocide, slavery, torture, and racial

discrimination. The concept was recognized in the International Court of Justice's decision in the

Barcelona Traction case [(Belgium v Spain) (Second Phase) ICJ Rep 1970 3 at paragraph 33]:

2. Explain the principle of clausula rebus sic stantibus. What is its literal meaning? As a

legal doctrine, what does it mean? What are the two justifications for its invocation?

In public international law, clausula rebus sic stantibus (Latin for "things thus standing") is the

legal doctrine allowing for treaties to become inapplicable because of a fundamental change of

circumstances. It is essentially an "escape clause" that makes an exception to the general rule of

pacta sunt servanda (promises must be kept).

Because the doctrine poses a risk to the security of treaties as its scope is relatively unconfined, it

requires strict regulations as to the conditions in which it may be invoked.

The doctrine is part of customary international law, but is also provided for in the 1969 Vienna

Convention on the Law of Treaties under Article 62 (Fundamental Change of Circumstance),

although the doctrine is never mentioned by name. Article 62 provides the only two justifications

of the invocation of rebus sic stantibus: first, that the circumstances existing at the time of the

conclusion of the treaty were indeed objectively essential to the obligations of treaty (sub-

paragraph A) and the instance wherein the change of circumstances has had a radical effect on

the obligations of the treaty (sub-paragraph B).

If the parties to a treaty had contemplated for the occurrence of the changed circumstance the

doctrine does not apply and the provision remains in effect. Clausula rebus sic stantibus only

relates to changed circumstances that were never contemplated by the parties. This principle is

clarified in the Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (United Kingdom v. Iceland, 1973).

Although it is clear that a fundamental change of circumstances might justify terminating or

modifying a treaty, unilateral denunciation of a treaty is prohibited; a party does not have the

right to denounce a treaty unilaterally.

3.What do you understand by the modern international law of the acquisition (or

attribution) of territory?

The modern international law of the acquisition (or attribution) of territory generally requires

that there be: an intentional display of power and authority over the territory, by the exercise of

jurisdiction and state functions, on a continuous and peaceful basis. The latter two criteria are

tempered to suit the nature of the territory and size of its population, if any.2

In the 1931 award in the dispute between Mexico and France over the sovereignty of Clipperton

Island, located in the Pacific Ocean 1280 km (about 690 nautical miles) southwest of Acapulco,

Mexico, the King of Italy as sole arbitrator had previously stated the rules this way:

It is beyond doubt that by immemorial usage having the force of law, besides the animus

occupandi, the actual, and not the nominal, taking of possession is a necessary condition of

occupation. This taking of possession consists in the act, or series of acts, by which the

occupying state reduces to its possession the territory in question and takes steps to exercise

exclusive authority there. Strictly speaking, and in ordinary cases, that only takes place when the

state establishes in the territory itself an organization capable of making its laws respected. But

this step is, properly speaking, but a means of procedure to the taking of possession, and,

therefore, is not identical with the latter. There may also be cases where it is unnecessary to have

recourse to this method. Thus, if a territory, by virtue of the fact that it was completely

uninhabited, is, from the first moment when the occupying state makes its appearance there, at

the absolute and undisputed disposition of that state, from that moment the taking of possession

must be considered as accomplished, and the occupation is thereby completed.

4. Explain the concept of association of states in international law. In international

practice, what is the use of these associative states? Is concept of association recognized

under the 1987 Constitution? Explain.

The nature of the "associative" relationship may have been intended to be defined more precisely

in the still to be forged Comprehensive Compact. Nonetheless, given that there is a concept of

"association" in international law, and the MOA-AD - by its inclusion of international law

instruments in its TOR- placed itself in an international legal context, that concept of association

may be brought to bear in understanding the use of the term "associative" in the MOA-AD.

Keitner and Reisman state that

[a]n association is formed when two states of unequal power voluntarily establish durable links.

In the basic model, one state, the associate, delegates certain responsibilities to the other, the

principal, while maintaining its international status as a state. Free associations represent a

middle ground between integration and independence. x x x150

For purposes of illustration, the Republic of the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of

Micronesia (FSM), formerly part of the U.S.-administered Trust Territory of the Pacific

Islands,151 are associated states of the U.S. pursuant to a Compact of Free Association. The

currency in these countries is the U.S. dollar, indicating their very close ties with the U.S., yet

they issue their own travel documents, which is a mark of their statehood. Their international

legal status as states was confirmed by the UN Security Council and by their admission to UN

membership.

According to their compacts of free association, the Marshall Islands and the FSM generally

have the capacity to conduct foreign affairs in their own name and right, such capacity extending

to matters such as the law of the sea, marine resources, trade, banking, postal, civil aviation, and

cultural relations. The U.S. government, when conducting its foreign affairs, is obligated to

consult with the governments of the Marshall Islands or the FSM on matters which it (U.S.

government) regards as relating to or affecting either government.

X X X

In international practice, the "associated state" arrangement has usually been used as a

transitional device of former colonies on their way to full independence. Examples of states that

have passed through the status of associated states as a transitional phase are Antigua, St. Kitts-

Nevis-Anguilla, Dominica, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and Grenada. All have since become

independent states.153

xxxx

These provisions of the MOA indicate, among other things, that the Parties aimed to vest in the

BJE the status of an associated state or, at any rate, a status closely approximating it.

The concept of association is not recognized under the present Constitution

5. Palmas, also referred to as Miangas, is an island of little economic value or strategic

location. It is two miles in length, three-quarters of a mile in width, and had a population of

about 750 when the decision of the arbitrator was handed down. The island is located

between Mindanao, Philippines and the northern most island, known as Nanusa, of what

was the former Netherlands East Indies. In 1898, Spain ceded the Philippines to the United

States in the Treaty of Paris (1898) and Palmas sat within the boundaries of that cession to

the U.S. In 1906, the United States discovered that the Netherlands also claimed

sovereignty over the island, and the two parties agreed to submit to binding arbitration by

the Permanent Court of Arbitration.

The question the arbitrator was to resolve was whether the Island of Palmas (Miangas), in

its entirety, was a part of the territory of the United States or the Netherlands.

The legal issue presented was whether a territory belongs to the first discoverer, even if

they do not exercise authority over the territory, or whether it belongs to the state which

actually exercises sovereignty over it.

How was the issue resolved? In short, what country is the real owner of the territory?

Discovery alone, without any subsequent act, cannot at the present time suffice to prove

sovereignty over the Island of Palmas (or Miangas); and in so far as there is no sovereignty, the

question of an abandonment properly speaking of sovereignty by one State in order that the

sovereignty of another may take its place does not arise.

If on the other hand the view is adopted that discovery does not create a definitive title of

sovereignty, but only an inchoate title, such a title exists, it is true, without external

manifestation. However, according to the view that has prevailed at any rate since the 19th

century, an inchoate title of discovery must be completed within a reasonable period by the

effective occupation of the region claimed to be discovered. This principle must be applied in the

present case, for the reasons given above in regard to the rules determining which of successive

legal systems is to be applied (the so-called intertemporal law). Now, no act of occupation nor,

except as to a recent period, any exercise of sovereignty at Palmas by Spain has been alleged.

But even admitting that the Spanish title still existed as inchoate in 1898 and must be considered

as included in the cession under Article III of the Treaty of Paris, an inchoate title could not

prevail over the continuous and peaceful display of authority by another State; for such display

may prevail even over a prior, definitive title put forward by another State. This point will be

considered, when the Netherlands argument has been examined and the allegations of either

Party as to the display of their authority can be compared

6. In an 1892 revolution, General Jos Manuel "Mocho" Hernndez expelled the existing

Venezuelan government and took control of Ciudad Bolivar, where plaintiff Underhill lived

and ran a waterworks system for the city. Underhill, an American citizen, repeatedly

applied to Hernandez for an exit passport, but his requests were refused, and Underhill

was forced to stay in Ciudad Bolivar and run the waterworks. Hernandez finally relented

and allowed Underhill to return to the United States, where he instituted an action to

recover damages for his detention in Venezuela. In finding for the Defendant, a New York

Court determined that Hernandez had acted in his official capacity as a military

commander so his actions were those of the Venezuelan government. The Court therefore

refused to hear Underhill's claim against the government.

Questions: Is the Court correct? What principle of international law is used in this

dispute? Explain.

ANSWER:based on the Act of State Doctrine. The Court reasoned, "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.

7. The UN Secretary General sometimes to settle a dispute between two states, visits each,

and proposes a solution to their problem. He may do this either privately or publicly. What

is the international term for this mode of settling an international dispute?

Answer: The UN Secretary General uses what is termed his "good offices" (generally meaning

his prestige and the weight of the world community he represents) when he meets with world

leaders, either publicly or privately, in an effort to prevent international disputes from

developing, escalating, or spreading. For example, in 1998 Kofi Annan negotiated a settlement

of the dispute between Iraq and the U.S. over arms inspections in Iraq. He used the prestige of

his office and the threat of UN Security Council action if no agreement was reached to force

Saddam Hussein to allow continuation of UN inspections. Earlier examples include U Thant's

assistance during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and Javier Perez de Cuellar's mediation of the Soviet

withdrawal from Afghanistan

8. What is a thalweg? How is it used to solve a dispute on boundaries between two states?

The Thalweg Doctrine defines the border between two states separated by a watercourse or

flowing body of water as lying along the thalweg, which is the line of greatest depth of the

channel or watercourse.

9. Every statute is understood, x x x , to contain all such provisions as may be necessary to

effectuate its object and purpose, or to make effective rights, powers, privileges or

jurisdiction which it grants, including all such collateral and subsidiary consequences as

may be fairly and logically inferred from its terms.Ex necessitate elegis . . . .

What is the name of the doctrine exemplified by said statement?

the doctrine of necessary implication which holds that:

No statute can be enacted that can provide all the details involved in its application. There is

always an omission that may not meet a particular situation. What is thought, at the time of

enactment, to be an all-embracing legislation may be inadequate to provide for the unfolding

events of the future. So-called gaps in the law develop as the law is enforced. One of the rules of

statutory construction used to fill in the gap is the doctrine of necessary implication. The doctrine

states that what is implied in a statute is as much a part thereof as that which is expressed. Every

statute is understood, by implication, to contain all such provisions as may be necessary to

effectuate its object and purpose, or to make effective rights, powers, privileges or jurisdiction

which it grants, including all such collateral and subsidiary consequences as may be fairly and

logically inferred from its terms. Ex necessitate legis. And every statutory grant of power, right

or privilege is deemed to include all incidental power, right or privilege. This is so because the

greater includes the lesser, expressed in the Maxim, in eo plus sit, simper inest et minus

10. Mr. X filed a case of Abuse of Authority against the Mayor. The Mayors Budget

Officer and Legal Officer were also included in the suit, as conspirators of said abuse.

Another criminal case was filed against the Mayor for Technical Malversation. The Mayor

won by a landslide vote in the next election. The mayor and his other co-

accused/respondents file a motion to have all the cases dismissed.

Question: As hearing officer/ judge, will you dismiss the above mentioned cases? Explain.

No, I will not dismiss the case. Under the principle of vox populi est suprema lex, the re-election

of a public official may, indeed, supersede a pending administrative case. Ingco v. Sanchez, et al.

[22] clarified that the condonation doctrine does not apply to a criminal case