ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

3 Units/Saturday

Atty. Irene D. Valones, MPM (UP), LLM (UK), DPM (Cand.)

Professor of Law
Email: [email protected]

Course Description Public International Law (PIL) is a branch of Political Law which is a
study of the basic principles of international law and an overview of
the legal principles governing international relations based, among
others, on the United Nations Charter, Statutes of International Court
of Justice (ICJ), the doctrines of well-known and recognized publicist,
and the decisions of international tribunals and bodies. It explores the
history, theories, concepts, and events that shaped Public International
Law and Jessup’s Transnational Law.
It aims to provide the students with a critical introduction to specific
themes of international law such as but not limited to war, terrorism,
territorial disputes, state immunities, application of international law
concepts through various domestic and foreign jurisprudence, and
awareness of the current international issues.

Organization This course will be taught in a Socratic Method of Learning, an

interactive lecture format & collaborative learning. Students are
responsible for reading the assigned materials before coming to class
and should be prepared to discuss it. The students are required to be
updated of the current international issues. Assignment of Supreme
Court Cases and foreign jurisprudence, international treaties,
conventions, and international instruments will be added as the class
progresses.
Classroom Rules Submission of Assessment Tasks within the prescribed deadlines.
Observance of ethical rules on research while doing the writing
tasks.
School’s Program’s Course’s
Intended Learning Outcomes Intended Learning Outcomes Intended Learning Outcomes
The Arellano University School The Arellano University
of Law affirms its role to School of Law aims to be Public International Law
develop individuals to become the leading exponent of a focuses on the basics of
committed advocates of the law learner-centered approach to international law concepts, its
making them responsive to the legal education that development and the current
global community and able to integrates values towards an international issues.
provide specialized legal enhanced legal profession.
services. At the end of the semester, the
It is expected that students students are expected to
Thus, it is expected that of law will be able to acquire the following:
1. Body of knowledge, 1. Have the proper 1. Have the proper perspective,
Research and Creative perspective and better better and more effective
Skills. Acquire adequate understanding of laws and understanding of treaties,
knowledge in the field of policies, rules and conventions and generally
Law and related disciplines regulations both national accepted principles of
and apply them in various
academic researches and
creative endeavors. International law as they are
competitive level of related to state policies for
knowledge in the different international relations.
fields of law.
 Atty. Irene D. Valones, MPM (UP), LLM (UK), DPM (Cand.)
Professor of Law

2. Critical Skills, Effective 2. Demonstrate and 2. Improve their intellectual

Problem Solving. To appreciate the significance dexterity, competence and
progressively engage in of law and understanding its appreciation of international
theories and facts, in the light issues and phenomena to treaties and conventions,
of reason, towards solving everyday life thus application of the generally
theoretical and practical contributing knowledge of accepted principles of
problems. the law to theorizing, international law as it affects
decision-making and the state and its national.
research.
3. Leadership Skills to 3. Be at the forefront of 3. Learn the effective response
Work Alone and in Teams. advocacy, specialized legal of domestic courts to
To exhibit a work ethic education and research, international treaties and
anchored on honesty, responsive and attuned to conventions,
responsibility, accountability the times, and contributing
and hone leadership skills to to the efficient, speedy and
lead and work with others. honest dispensation and
administration of justice.

4. Communicate Effectively. 4. Effective articulation of 4. Gain new ideas and practices

To articulate ideas and express ideas derived from the field to stimulate popular
positions as steeped on the of law imbibed with and involvement in international
value of truth, guided by faith guided by ethical values. government affairs and to
and reason. maintain and build upon
positive outlook on
international relations.

5. Social Awareness and 5. Students will be globally- 5. Take pro-active appreciation

Global Perspective. To oriented. on the essence of global or
demonstrate awareness and transnational practice of the
understanding of relevant legal profession, international
social issues and respond to news and current affairs in the
the needs of the global global arena.
community through concrete
social action. Enhance the lawyering and
writing skills while applying the
international legal principles.

6. Work ethics and standards

6. Ethical Action and Moral 6. Be the leading exponent coupled with respect for the
Character. To exhibit highest of a learner-centered rule of law, teamwork and
standards of integrity in both approach to legal education cooperation with classmates.
personal behavior and that integrates values and
professional decorum. ethics to provide quality
holistic education.

I. INTRODUCTION
a. Definition of Public International Law
i. As distinguished from Private International Law
ii. As distinguished from Transnational Law
b. Functions of International Law
c. Fathers of International Law (PIL) and Transnational Law (TL)
i. Jeremy Bentham and Hugo Grotius (PIL)
ii. Philip Jessup (TL)
d. Theories of International Law (John Austin and Oppenheim)
iii. Natural Law School of Thought
iv. Positivist School of Thought
v. Eclectic School of Thought

Page 2 of 10
 Atty. Irene D. Valones, MPM (UP), LLM (UK), DPM (Cand.)
Professor of Law
e. General Concepts
Obligations erga omnes Rebus sic stantibus Jus gentium (law of nations)
Jus cogens Pacta sunt servanda Jus inter gentes (the law
between the people)
Ae quo et bono Opinio juris Sive Customary international law
Necessitates
Doctrine of incorporation Doctrine of transformation Monism and dualism
Res judicata Stare decisis International law vs
Municipal Law

 The general concepts are not exclusive as there are other principles of international
law that will be part of the classroom discussion.

PANEL DISCUSSION, DEBATE & OPEN FORUM

What is Public International Law and Transnational Law? Is International Law a True Law?

ASSESSMENT TASKS: Graded Recitation every meeting

Sharing of International Issues/Current Events

f. Relationship with the Municipal Law (Monism and Dualism)

g. Conflict between International Law and Municipal Law

II. SOURCES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

a. International Treaties and Conventions
i. 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
ii. Requisites or Elements for a Valid Treaty
iii. Effectivity of a Treaty
iv. Treaties and Executive Agreements
v. Treaty-Making Process
vi. When non-signatories may be bound by Treaty
vii. Interpretation of Treaties
viii.Amendment and Modification of treaties (Formal Amendment,
Informal Amendment, Change in State Behavior)
ix. Termination of Treaties

b. Executive Order 459 (Providing for the Guidelines in the Negotiation of

International Agreements and its Ratification)
c. Memorandum Circular No. 89 of the Office of the President
d. RP’s Extradition Treaty and double criminality approach

countries that have signed extradition treaties to the Philippines and have taken
effect by ratification

 Canada, Australia, Spain, Thailand, China, Hongkong, Indonesia, South

Korea, Switzerland, United States, UK

Section 12, Rule 24 of the Rules of Court of the Philippines
e. Customary International Law
i. Requisites and recognition
ii. Martens Clause

f. Judicial Decisions and Writings of Highly Qualified Publicist

g. Other Supplementary Evidence – UN Resolutions, Soft Law

Page 3 of 10
 Atty. Irene D. Valones, MPM (UP), LLM (UK), DPM (Cand.)
Professor of Law

CASES

a. Province of North Cotabato vs GRP Panel on Ancestral Domain, et al. GR No. 183591,
October 14, 2008, 568 SCRA 402
b. Commissioner of Customs vs Eastern Sea Trading 3 SCRA 351
c. Bayan vs Zamora, GR No. 138570, October 10, 2000, 342 SCRA 449
d. Abaya vs Ebdane, et al. GR No. 167919, February 14, 2007
e. Secretary of Justice vs Lantion, GR No. 139465
f. Ichong vs Hernandez
g. Lim vs Executive Secretary, GR No. 151445, April 11, 2002
h. Pimentel vs Executive Secretary, GR No. 158088, July 66, 2005
i. Constantino vs Cuisia and del Rosario, GR No. 1060604, October 13, 2005
j. Pharmaceutical vs DOH, GR No. 173034,October 9, 2007
k. Bayan Muna vs Romulo, GR No. 159618, February 1, 2011
l. Paquete Habana Case 175 US 677, 1900
m. Laude vs Jabalde, GR No. 217456, November 24, 2015
n. Nicolas vs.Ssecretary Romulo, 598 Phil 262
o. Saguisag vs Ochoa, GR No. 212426, January 12, 2016
p. Vinuya vs Romulo, GR No. 162230, April 28, 2010
q. Tanada vs Angara, 272 SCRA 18
r. Mijares vs Hon. Ranada, GR No. 1393325, April 12, 2005
s. Republic vs. Sandiganbaayan, GR No. 104768, July 21, 2003
t. Nicaragua vs US, ICJ reports, 1986
u. Fisheries Jurisdiction Case, UK vs Iceland, ICJ Reports, 1974
v. Danube Dam Case (Hungary vs Slovakia, 37 ILM, 1998)
w. Colombia vs Peru, 17 ILR 28; ICJ Reports, 1950 Asylum case
x. North Sea Continental Shelf Case, ICJ Reports, 1969
y. Nuclear Test Case (Australia vs France; New Zealand vs France, ICJ reports, 1974
z. Dissenting Opinion of Judge Tanaka in South West Africa Case, ICJ Reports, 1966

ASSESSMENT TASKS: Graded Recitation every meeting

Sharing of International Issues/Current Events
Individual Case Presentations

III. UNITED NATIONS

a. UN Charter
b. Preamble
c. Purpose and Principles
d. Membership
i. Suspension of Members
ii. Expulsion of Members
iii. Withdrawal of Members

e. Organs of the United Nations

i. General Assembly
 Deliberative
 Supervisory
 Financial
 Elective
 Constituent
ii. Security Council
 Preventive action

Page 4 of 10
 Atty. Irene D. Valones, MPM (UP), LLM (UK), DPM (Cand.)
Professor of Law
 Enforcement action

Domestic jurisdiction clause
iii. Economic and Social Council
iv. Trusteeship Council
v. International Court of Justice
 Optional jurisdiction clause
vi. Secretariat

FORUM/PANEL DISCUSSION

The Use of Force

Doctrine of Self-Help

Threat of Force

Individual and Collective Self-Defense Anticipatory Self-Defense

Allowable Coercive Measures (retorsion, reprisal, embargo, boycott , non-
intercourse, pacific blockade)

ASSESSMENT TASKS: Graded Recitation every meeting

Sharing of International Issues/Current Events
Individual Presentations (15 minutes each)

III. SUBJECTS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

a. Distinction between subject and object of international law
b. State
i. Theories of recognition
ii. Basic Rules and Requirements on Recognition of Government
iii. Kinds of Recognition (De Facto and De Jure) (Express and Implied)
iv. Effects of Recognition
v. Conditions Recognition of Belligerency
vi. Creation and Extinction of States
vii. Principle of State Continuity
viii. Succession of States
ix. Succession of Government
x. Classes of States
1. Independent
2. Dependent
3. Neutralized

c. Vatican City and the Holy See

d. Colonies and Dependencies
e. Mandates and Trust Territories
f. Territories under International Control or Supervision
g. United Nations
h. Belligerent Communities
i. International Administrative Bodies
j. Individuals
i. Treaty of Versailles
ii. Genocide Convention
iii. 1930 Hague Convention
iv. 1954 Covenant Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons
v. 1950 European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

CASES
a. AM Luther vs James Sagor & Co., 3 KB 532, 37 Times Law Rreports 777-784 (Great
Britain, Court of Appeals, 1921)

Page 5 of 10
 Atty. Irene D. Valones, MPM (UP), LLM (UK), DPM (Cand.)
Professor of Law
b. George W. Hopkins Claim vs United Mexican States, United States-Mexico, General
Claim Commission Opinions of Commisioners (1927), 42
c. Banco Nacional de Cuba vs Sabbatino (376 US 398 (1964)
d. Co Kim Cham vs Valdes Tan Keh - G.R. No. L-5 75 Phil 113, 122 September 17,
1945
e. William vs Bruffy, 96 US 176 192
f. Underhill vs Hernandez, 168 U.S. 250 (1897)
g. Republic vs Sandiganbayan, GR No. 104768, July 21, 2003
h. Etroma vs Ravelo, 78 Phil 145
i. Notor vs. Martinez, 84 Phil 300
j. Kuroda vs Jalandoni, 83 Phil 171
k. Syquia vs Almeda Lopez, 84 Phil 312
l. Baer vs Tizon, 57 SCRA 1
m. United States vs Ruiz. 136 SCRA 487
n. Holy See vs Rosario, 238 SCRA 521
o. Democratic Republic of Congo vs Belgium, 2000 ICJ 182
p. International Catholic Migration vs Calleja 190 SCRA 130
q. Lawyers League for a Better Philippines vs Corazon Aquino, GR No. 73748, May
22, 1986
r. Holy See vs del Rosario, 238 SCRA 524
s. Government of Hongkong vs Felixberto Olalia, GR No. 153675, April 19, 2007
t. Government of the US vs Purganan
u. Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company Case, ICJ Reports
v. Mavrommatis case (Greece v. United Kingdom)
w. WHO Case, ICJ Rep 1996 66 Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons
x. United States vs. Kusche, DC Cal 56 Supp. 201, 207, and 208
y. Delany vs Moralitis, C. Ca Md., 136 F, 2d 129, 130.
z. Guaranty Trust Co., of New York vs United States, 304 US 126 (1938)

ASSESSMENT TASKS: Graded Recitation every meeting

Sharing of International Issues/Current Events

IV. FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF STATES

a. The Right of Existence, Integrity, and Self-Preservation (the right to acquire
territories and the right of individual or collective self-defense)
b. The Right of Sovereignty and Independence
c. The Right of Equality
d. The Right of Property and Jurisdiction
e. The Right of Legation or Diplomatic Intercourse

V. FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES OF STATES

i. To respect the right of other states to the territorial existence and integrity
ii. To carry out in good faith the treaty obligations another sources of international law
iii. To refrain from intervention in the internal or external affairs of any other state
iv. To refrain from resorting to war as an instrument of national policy, or from the threat
or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another
state, or in ay manner inconsistent with international law and order
v. To refrain from giving assistance to any state which is acting in violation of
international law or against the United Nation’s preventive or enforcement action
vi. To treat all persons under its jurisdiction with respect to their human rights and
fundamental freedoms
vii. To respect the property rights and jurisdictional processes of other states insofar as
they do not infringe upon the former’s own rights
viii. To settle disputes with other states by peaceful means

Page 6 of 10
 Atty. Irene D. Valones, MPM (UP), LLM (UK), DPM (Cand.)
Professor of Law

VI. JURISDICTION
i. Personal jurisdiction
ii. Territorial jurisdiction
iii. Land jurisdiction
iv. Maritime Territory (English and French Rule)

ASSESSMENT TASKS: Graded Recitation every meeting

Sharing of International Issues/Current Events
Case Presentations
General Concepts

Act of state doctrine Right of angary Postliminium

Martens clause Yalta Formula Principle of chivalry
Doctrine of autolimitations Principle of specialty

 The general concepts are not exclusive as there are other principles of international
law that will be part of the classroom discussion.

CASES

a. People vs Acierto
b. Dizon vs Phil Ryubus Command, 81 Phil 286
c. Raquiza vs Bradford 1 41 Official Gazette 626 September 13, 1945
d. Miquibas vs Commanding General, Philippine Ryukus Command, United States Army.
GR No. L-1988, February 24, 1948
e. Lauritzen vs Larsen, 345 US 571
f. McCulloch vs Sociedad NAcional de Mareneros de Hunduras, 372 US 10 (1963)
g. US vs Look Chaw, 18 Phil 573
h. People vs Wo Cheng, 46 Phil 729
i. The Schooner Exchange vs M’FAddon and Others, 7 Cranch [US] 116
j. US vs. Bull 15 Phil 7
k. Lotus Case

VII. CITIZENSHIP, NATIONALITY AND STATELESSNESS

a. 1930 Hague Convention on the Conflict of Nationality Laws
b. Acquisition of Nationality
 Doctrine of indelible allegiance
c. Loss of nationality
d. Multiple nationality
e. Resolution in the case there is a conflict in multiple nationality cases
f. 1987 Constitution on Citizenship
g. Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons
h. Principle of effective nationality

X. TREATMENT OF ALIENS
a. Expulsion/deportation
b. Reconduction
c. Doctrine of state responsibility
d. Doctrine of equality of treatment
e. Acts of government officials and private individuals
f. Enforcement of alien’s claims
g. Calvo clause
h. Resort to diplomatic protection
i. Modes of enforcement
j. Territorial and Diplomatic Asylum

Page 7 of 10
 Atty. Irene D. Valones, MPM (UP), LLM (UK), DPM (Cand.)
Professor of Law

k. Refugees and the 1951 Convention on Refugees

CASES

a. Moy Ya Lim Yao vs Commissioner of Immigration 41 SCRA 292

b. Joyce vs Director of Public Prosecution, House of Lords, December 18, 1945
c. Aznar vs COMELEC,
d. Nottenbohm Case, ICJ Reports 1955
e. Labo vs COMELEC, 176 SCRA 1

VIII. RIGHT OF LEGATION

i. 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic

ii. Relations Agents of diplomatic intercourseEstablishment of Resident Missions
iii. Functions and Duties of Diplomatic Mission
iv. Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges

i. UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes

Against Internationally Protected Persons
ii. RA 75
iii. Inviolability of the person of diplomatic representative
iv. Inviolability of premises and archives
v. Right of official communication
vi. Immunity from the local jurisdiction
vii. Exemption from taxes and customs duties
viii. Other privileges (right movement and travel, exemption from all
personal and military obligations, use of flag and emblem of the sending
state, etc)
ix. Duration of immunities and privileges
x. Waiver of immunities
xi. Termination of diplomatic mission
v. Consular relations
i. 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations
ii. Kinds of consuls
iii. Appointment
iv. Functions
v. Immunities and privileges
vi. Termination of consular mission
vii. Diplomatic Immunity of International Officials
viii. Immunity of International Organizations from Local Jurisdiction
ix. Specialized Agencies
CASES
a. De Perio-Santos vs Macaraig, GR No. 94070, April 10, 1942
b. Reyes vs Bagatsing, 125 SCRA 553
c. Minucher vs Court of Appeals, GR NO. 97765, September 24, 1992
d. Shauf vs Court of Appeals, 191 SCRA 713
e. US vs Ruiz. 136 SCRA 487
f. US vs Guinto, 182 SCRA 644
g. The Holy See vs del Rosario, 238 SCRA 524
h. Syquia vs Lopez, 84 Phil 312
i. Sanders vs Veridano, 162 SCRA 88
j. WHO vs Aquino, 48 SCRA 242
k. Minucher vs Court of Appeals, GR No. 142396, February 11, 2003
l. The Republic of Indonesia vs James Vinzon, GR No. 154705, June 26, 2003
m. Liang vs People, GR No. 125865, March 26, 2001
n. Callado vs International Rice Research Institute, 244 SCRA 211
o. LAsco vs UN Revolving Fund for National Resources Exploration, 241 SCRA 681
p. International Catholic Migration Commission vs Pura Calleja, 190 SCRA 13

Page 8 of 10
 Atty. Irene D. Valones, MPM (UP), LLM (UK), DPM (Cand.)
Professor of Law
q. Southeast Asia Fisheries Development Center vs NLRC,, 206 SCRA 283, February 4,
1992
r. DFA vs NLRC, GR No. 113191, September 18, 1996

IX. VIII. RIGHT TO TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY (LAND, AIR, OUTER

SPACE)
a. National Territory (Article 1, Section 1, 1987 Constitution)
b. Land Territory

i. Discovery and Occupation

ii. Prescription
iii. Cession
iv. Conquest
v. Accretion
c. Maritime Territory
i. United Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
ii. Internal Waters, Rivers (Thalweg Doctrine, Middle of the Bridge Doctrine)
iii. Archipelagic Doctrine
iv. Straight Baseline Method
v. Territorial Sea
vi. Contiguous zone
vii. Exclusive Economic Zone (patrimonial sea)
viii. High Seas/ Open Seas

d. Air Space
v. Chicago Convention and the International Civil Aviation Organization
vi. 1967 Treaty on the Exploration and Use of Outer Space
vii. Principle of Exterritoriality and Principle of Extra-territoriality
CASES

a. Island of Palmas (Permanent Court of Arbitration (1928)

b. Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case (UK vs Norway)
c. Corfu Channel Case
d. Saudi Arabia vs Aramco
e. France vs Turkey (PCIJ) Lotus Case
f. Clipperton Island Arbitration
g. People v Wong Cheng, 46 Phil 729

FORUM/PANEL DISCUSSION

ASSESSMENT TASKS: Graded Recitation every meeting

Sharing of International Issues/Current Events

X. INTERNATIONAL DISPUTE SETTLEMENT

a. International Dispute
b. Role of the United Nations in Dispute Settlement
c. Diplomatic Methods of Dispute Settlement
d. Mechanisms of Dispute

Settlement ASSESSMENT TASKS

Graded Recitation every meeting

Sharing of International Issues/Current Events
Individual Written Assessment

Page 9 of 10
 Atty. Irene D. Valones, MPM (UP), LLM (UK), DPM (Cand.)
Professor of Law

h. INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW

b. Rome Statute of International Criminal Court

i. INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

j. INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW

House Rules:
1. Only books and pens are allowed during the classroom discussion.
2. No books and gadgets are allowed while the discussion and recitation are in progress.
3. Active Class participation
4. Submission of course requirements within the prescribed deadlines following
the acceptable rules on citation.

Reference: Isagani Cruz and any books on International Law

Grading System:

Class Standing (Case Digest, Group and Individual Written Assessments, Recitations and)
- 30%
Midterm Examination – 30%
Final Exam – 40%
TOTAL – 100%

Individual and Group Written Assessment – topic to be announced

GOD BLESS!

Page 10 of
10