COURSE SYLLABUS

Course Title: Public International Law Instructor:

No. of Units: 2 Dean Sedfrey M. Candelaria
Semester/ SY: Second Semester, 2020-2021
Department/Track: International Law

I. COURSE DESCRIPTION AND OBJECTIVES

Course Description
The course will cover the fundamental legal principles governing the relationships among states and other entities in
international law. It will distinguish the main function of international law from the operation of municipal legal systems.
A specific application of international law will be made concerning the Philippine setting.

Course Objectives
Upon completion of this course, students will be able to:
• synthesize public international law and facts into meaningful order;
• identify relevant facts and recognize fact patterns; and
• pursue further studies or careers with a basic knowledge of public international law.

II. COURSE OUTLINE and MATERIALS

The following materials are recommended but the purchase of which is not required.
Principal Reference:
MAX PLANCK ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW (To access the Encyclopedia, please log onto the APS Library’s Off-
Campus Portal.)
ALEXANDER ORAKHELASHVILI, AKEHURST’S MODERN INTRODUCTION TO INTERNATIONAL LAW (8ed.)

Supplementary References:
JOAQUIN G. BERNAS, S.J., INTRODUCTION TO PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW (2009 ed.)
JAMES CRAWFORD, BROWNLIE’S PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW (2012) [Oxford University Press]
MALCOLM N. SHAW, INTERNATIONAL LAW (2017) [Cambridge University Press]
SEAN D. MURPHY, PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW (2ed.)

Legends:
* The material will be the focus of recitations during synchronous sessions.
^This indicates that the case was previously tackled and only the salient portions will be tackled.
! This indicates a need to memorize.

If you are interested in International Law or are considering specializing in International Law, the free electronic publication services of
the American Society of International Law may be of interest: available at www.asil.org/insights.htm.

The Guide Questions are taken from (with some modifications) the Companion Guide of ALEXANDER ORAKHELASHVILI, AKEHURST’S
MODERN INTRODUCTION TO INTERNATIONAL LAW (8ed.) available at
https://routledgetextbooks.com/textbooks/9780415243568/resources.php

A. Introduction to Public International Law

1. Nature and History of International Law
2. Municipal v. International Law (Monism v. Dualism)
3. Third World Approaches to International Law

B. Sources of International Law

1. Treaties

v. 210202
 2. State Practice: Custom
3. Domestic Law, General Principles of Law, Application of International Law by Domestic Courts
4. Writings and Other Sources

C. Personality Under International Law

1. Generally: Subjects and Object of International Law
2. States
3. Non-State Entities

D. Sovereignty and Jurisdiction of States

1. Territory
i. Title
ii. Areas
1. Land
2. Airspace
3. Adjacent Maritime Areas
4. Outer Space
iii. Acquisition and Transfer of Territorial Sovereignty

2. Jurisdiction over Persons and Economic Activities

(a) Nationality of persons, corporations, and assets
(b) Criminal and Civil Jurisdiction
(a) Immunity from Jurisdiction
i. State Immunity and Act of State
ii. Diplomatic and Consular Immunity
iii. Immunities of International Organizations

E. State Responsibility
1. General Principles of Responsibility
2. Consequences of Internationally Wrongful Acts
3. Key Issues
(a) The Taking of Property – Nationalization, and Expropriation
(b) Responsibility for Environmental Harm

F. Dispute Settlement
1. Use or Threat of Use of Force
(a) Prohibition on the Threat or Use of Force
(b) Unilateral Use of Force
(c) Collective Action through the United Nations
(d) The Laws of War
2. Peaceful Settlement of Disputes: Arbitration and Judicial Settlement of International Disputes

Module 1 Topics / sub-topics:

A. Introduction to Public International Law
1. Nature and History of International Law
2. Third World Approaches to International Law
3. Municipal v. International Law (Monism v. Dualism)

Required Readings:
1. ORAKHELASHVILI, 1-30, 57-71
2. *H.L.A. HART, THE CONCEPT OF LAW 79-99; 213-37 (3ed., 2012).
3. *ROSALYN HIGGINS, PROBLEMS AND PROCESSES, INTERNATIONAL LAW AND HOW WE USE IT, Chapter 1, 1-16
(1994).
4. *Makau Mutua and Antony Anghie, What Is TWAIL?, Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American
Society of International Law), vol. 94, 2000, pp. 31–40 available at www.jstor.org/stable/25659346.

Page 2 of 18
//PIL.210202
//LLR.Released
 Supplementary Materials:
1. Zack Beauchamp, Timothy B. Lee, and Matthew Yglesias, 40 maps that explain World War I,
available at https://www.vox.com/a/world-war-i-maps
2. Timothy B. Lee, 42 maps that explain World War II, available at
https://www.vox.com/2014/11/13/7148855/40-maps-that-explain-world-war-ii

Guide Questions:
1. What contribution have classical writers made to understanding the nature of international law?
2. How has the doctrinal understanding of international law evolved to get to its present stage?
3. What forms and expressions does the doctrinal denial of the legal character of international law
take?
4. To what extent is international law dependent on international politics?
5. What is the relationship between state sovereignty and international law?
6. What was the original agenda of the New Heaven policy-oriented theory? What is its current utility
for understanding international law?
7. In which version has the New Haven policy-oriented theory been resurrected after the end of the
Cold War?
8. What is the discrete relevance of dualist and monist theories? How far do they rationalize the
actual status of international law in domestic law?
9. What is the status of national law on the international plane?
10. Across various national legal systems, how is the effect of international law regulated on a national
plane?
11. What judicial obstacles have been put up to the direct effect of international law in Philippine law?
12. Distinguish between Monist and Dualist theories of international law.
13. Distinguish between the doctrine of incorporation and the doctrine of transformation.
14. In case of conflict between municipal law and international law, which should prevail?

Module 2 Topics / sub-topics:

B. Sources of International Law
1. Treaties
a. In general
b. Philippine Treaty Practice
i. Direct Applicability of Treaties

Required Readings/Assignments:
1. ORAKHELASHVILI, 251-75
2. Laurence R. Helfer, Treaty Exit and Intrabranch Conflict at the Interface of International and
Domestic Law in The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Foreign Relations Law 355-72 (2019)
3. Charter of the United Nations, arts. 1, 24, 39, 41, 42, 103
4. ! United Nations, Statute of the International Court of Justice, 18 April 1946, arts. 38 & 59
5. Statute of the International Law Commission, 1947, arts. 16–24
6. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, May 23, 1969, 1155 UNTS 331 arts. 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 31, 31
34, 38, 42, 45, 46, 51- 53, 55, 60 & 64
7. ! PHIL. CONST. art. 7 § 20-21; art. 8 § 4; art. 18 § 25.
8. Office of the President, Providing for the Guidelines in the Negotiation of International Agreements
and its Ratification, Executive Order No. 459 (Nov. 25, 1997).
9. Karen Kaiser, Treaties, Direct Applicability, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law
(Feb. 2013)

10. Legal Status of Eastern Greenland (Denmark v. Norway, PCIJ Reports, Series A/B, No. 53)
11. Nuclear Test Cases (Australia v. France; New Zealand v. France, I.C.J. Rep., 1974)
12. Interpretation of Peace Treaties Case (Second Phase, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Rep. 221, 1950)
13. *Reservations to the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Rep., 1951)

Page 3 of 18
//PIL.210202
//LLR.Released
 14. Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa In Namibia, Advisory
Opinion, I.C.J. Rep. 1971
15. Goldwater v. Carter 444 U.S. 996 (1979)
16. Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (Jurisdiction, United Kingdom v. Iceland, I.C.J. Rep., 1974)
17. Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project Case (Hungary v. Slovakia, I.C.J. Rep. 1997)
18. Sei Fuji v. California (242 P. 2d 617; 19 ILR 312, 1952)
19. *Bayan v. Zamora, G.R. No. 138570, Oct. 10, 2000;
20. Vinuya v. Romulo, G.R. No. 162230, April 28, 2010;
21. Nicolas v. Romulo, G.R. No. 175888, Feb. 11, 2009;
22. Lim v. Exec. Secretary, G.R. No, 151445, Apr. 11, 2002;
23. Pimentel v. Executive Secretary, G.R. 158088, July 6, 2005;
24. Renato v. Rosario, G.R. No. 106064, Oct. 13, 2005;
25. Pharmaceutical v. DOH, G.R. 173034, Oct. 9, 2007;
26. Abaya v. Ebdane, G.R. No. 167919, Feb. 14, 2007;
27. *The Province of North Cotabato v. GRP Peace Panel, G.R. No. 183591, Oct. 14, 2008;
28. Bayan Muna v. Romulo, G.R. No. 159618, Feb. 1, 2011;
29. China National Machinery v. Santamaria, G.R. No. 185572, Feb. 7, 2012;
30. Deutsche Bank AG Manila Branch v. CIR, G.R. No. 188550, August 19, 2013;
31. *Saguisag v. Executive Secretary et al., G.R. No. 212426 & G.R. No. 212444. Jan. 12, 2016 (include
dissenting and separate opinions);
32. *Landbank of the Philippines v. Atlanta Industries Inc., G.R. No. 193796, July 2, 2014;
33. Mitsubishi Corporation v. CIR, G.R. No. 175772, June 5, 2017;
34. DPWH v. CMC, G.R. No. 179732, Sep. 13, 2017;
35. The South China Sea Arbitration, The Republic of Philippines v. The People's Republic of China), PCA
Case No. 2013-19 (Oct. 29, 2015) [as to the definition of islands only]
36. R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, [2017] UKSC 5 (Jan. 24, 2017);
37. Democratic Alliance v Minister of International Relations and Cooperation, 2017 (3) SA 212 (G.P.).

Guide Questions:
1. How does the Vienna Convention definition of a treaty work in practice?
2. What path of development has the law of treaty reservations taken to get to its present condition?
How do various stages in that process of development differ from each other?
3. How does the 1969 Vienna Convention distinguish between the effects of compatible and
incompatible reservations?
4. What is the legal relevance of the ILC Guide on reservations to treaties? Does it suggest the
outcomes compatible with the 1969 Vienna Convention?
5. How consistently are the treaty interpretation methods applied with regard to the definition of
islands under UNCLOS in Philippines v China Arbitral Award?
6. What requirements should be met for “subsequent practice” to influence the process of treaty
interpretation?
7. How often do international courts and tribunals rely on preparatory work to interpret treaties?
8. Is the doctrine of a fundamental change of circumstances used in the same or different manners
across the jurisprudence of international tribunals?
9. To what extent do treaties apply directly in Philippine law?
10. What is the current validity and relevance of the doctrine of self-executing treaties in Philippine
law?
11. To what extent are Philippine courts justified in following the Executive’s position in litigation
involving the matters of international law?
12. What instruments were involved in the Supreme Court cases?
13. What process did these instruments undergo? Did they comply with Philippine laws?
14. What is the process of treaty-making in the Philippines?
15. What is the impact of a withdrawal from a treaty?

Module 3 Topics / sub-topics:

B. Sources of International Law
Page 4 of 18
//PIL.210202
//LLR.Released
 2. State Practice: Custom
3. Domestic Law: General Principles of Law, Application of International Law by Domestic Courts
4. Writings and other sources

Required Readings/Assignments:
1. ORAKHELASHVILI, 33-55
2. PHIL. CONST. art. 2 § 2.
3. Aloysius P. Llamzon, The Generally Accepted Principles of International Law as Philippine Law:
Towards a Structurally Consistent Use of Customary International Law in Philippine Courts” 47
Ateneo L.J. 243 (2002)
4. Rosalyn Higgins, The Advisory Opinion on Namibia: Which UN Resolutions Are Binding under Article
25 of the Charter?, 21 Int’l Comp. L. Q. 270 (1972)
5. International Law Commission, Identification of Customary International Law, UN Doc.
A/CN.4/L.908 (May 17, 2018)

6. The Asylum Case, Colombia v. Peru, [1950] I.C.J. Rep 266

7. *North Sea Continental Shelf Cases, Germany v. Denmark and the Netherlands, (1969) I.C.J. Rep 3
8. The Paquete Habana, 175 U.S. 677 (1900)
9. *The Lotus Case, France v. Turkey, (1927) PCIJ Series A no 10
10. Case Concerning Right of Passage over Indian Territory (Merits), Judgement April 12, 1960, I.C.J.
Rep. 1960, Page 6.
11. *^Nuclear Test Cases (Australia v. France; New Zealand v. France, I.C.J. Rep., 1974)
12. *Nicaragua v. U.S., (1986) I.C.J. Rep 14
13. Dissenting Opinion of Judge Tanaka in the South-West Africa Cases (I.C.J. Rep., 1966)
14. *Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 104768. July 21, 2003
15. *Arigo v. Swift, G.R. No. 206510, Sep. 16, 2014
16. International Status of South-West Africa, Opinion of Sir Arnold McNair (I.C.J. Rep. 128, 1950)
17. Diversion of Waters from the River Meuse, PCIJ Series, A/B No. 70, 4 W.C.R. 179 (1937)
18. *Filartiga v. Peña-Irala, 630 F. 2d 876 (1980)
19. Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004)
20. Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Shell, 569 U.S. 108 (2013)
21. Trendtex Trading Corporation v. Central Bank of Nigeria, 1 All E.R. 881 (1977)
22. Tañada v. Angara, G.R. No. 118295, May 2, 1997
23. Mijares v. Hon. Ranada, G.R. No. 1393325, April 12, 2005
24. *Medellin v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008)
25. ^Legal Status of Eastern Greenland Case (Denmark v. Norway), PCIJ Reports, Series A/B, No. 53
(1933)

Suggested Reading:
1. BERNAS, 17-19, 58-70.

Guide Questions:
1. What forms does State practice take in the process of custom-formation?
2. What is the relevance of multilateral fora and contexts in the formation of customary international
law?
3. Is the process of custom-formation in the area of human rights and humanitarian law special?
4. What is the relevance of specially affected States doctrine with regard to custom-formation? What
are preconditions for it to rationalize the existence of a customary norm? Can it be relevant with
regard to all customary norms?
5. What makes a State “specially affected” in the process of custom-formation: substance of the
putative norm, or involvement in the practice that potentially leads to the crystallization of that
norm?
6. Does a State bear a burden to prove it is specially affected?
7. Does the “specially affected States” doctrine allow dispensing with the requirement of State consent
in the process of custom-formation?

Page 5 of 18
//PIL.210202
//LLR.Released
 8. How does the International Court of Justice treat the relationship between treaty norms and
customary norms?
9. Do the ILC’s draft conclusions on the identification of customary law accurately reflect the
requirements of custom-formation in international law?
10. Does the SC’s Decision in Arigo v. Swift correctly apply the requirements of custom-formation?
11. What is the difference between Customary International Law and General Principles of Law?
12. What is normative status of equity under international law?
13. Do equity and “general principles of law” overlap in scope?
14. What is the rationale of the hierarchy of norms arrangement in international law?
15. What is the relationship between jus cogens and State practice?
16. What is the range of effects that jus cogens produces across various areas of international law?

Module 4 Topics / sub-topics:

C. Personality Under International Law
1. Generally: Subjects and Objects of International Law
2. States
a. In General
b. Succession

Required Readings/Assignments:
1. ORAKHELASHVILI, 72-110
2. Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States (1934) 165 L.N.T.S. 19; U.S.T.S. 881; 4
Malloy 4807; 28 A.J.I.L., Supp. 75
3. Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Territories and Peoples (U.N. G.A. Res.
1514 (XV), 14 Dec. 1960)
4. BBC News, South Sudan independence: What you need to know
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-africa-14054589
BBC News, South Sudan prepares Juba independence party https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-
africa-14032842

5. Austro-German Customs Union Case, Advisory Opinion, PCIJ Reports, Series A/B, No. 41 (1931)
6. French Indemnity of 1831, 5 Int. Arb. 4447 at 4472
7. Case Concerning Rights of Nationals of the United States of America in Morocco (I.C.J. Rep., 176,
1952)
8. Report of the Fifth Committee of First Assembly of the League of Nations, with reference to
Admission to the League of Liechtenstein (6 Dec. 1920)
9. Tinoco Arbitration, Great Britain v. Costa Rica 1 R.I.A.A. 369 (1923)
10. *Western Sahara Case, Advisory Opinion, I.C. J. Rep. 1975
11. Commonwealth of Australia v. the State of New South Wales (32 C.L.R. 200, 1923)
12. International Status of South-West Africa, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Rep, 1950)
13. ^Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South-West
Africa) Notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 of 1970 (I.C.J. Rep., 1971)
14. Opinions of the Arbitration Conference, European Commission Conference on Yugoslavia
15. *Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of
Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Rep. 2010 (July 22), p. 403
16. In Re Secession of Quebec, 1998] 2 S.C.R. 217; 1998 CanLII 793 (S.C.C.) (1998), 161 D.L.R. (4th) 385;
(1998), 55 C.R.R. (2d) 1
17. ^The Province of North Cotabato v. GRP Peace Panel, G.R. No. 183591, Oct. 14, 2008

Supplemental Readings:
BERNAS, 71-86, 98-100.

Guide Questions:
1. What is the relevance of factual and legal criteria of State-creation?
2. What is the relevance of the doctrine of effectiveness for State-creation?
3. Does international law regulate secession?
Page 6 of 18
//PIL.210202
//LLR.Released
 4. What is the relevance of recognition for State creation and State identity?
5. What are the elements of statehood?
6. Is recognition an element of statehood?
7. What are the theories on recognition of a state?
8. Distinguish de jure from de facto recognition.
9. What is the principle of succession of states/governments?
10. What is the principle of state continuity?
11. Can the Holy See be considered a state?
12. What is the current relevance of the approach taken in Tinoco?
13. Does the principle of effectiveness overtake the requirement as to a government’s constitutional
legitimacy?
14. What is the “uti possidetis iuris” doctrine?
15. What is the doctrine of sovereign equality of states?
16. What is the doctrine of non-intervention?
17. What is China’s attitude towards Taiwan’s foreign relations?
18. When is recognition illegal?
19. Distinguish between recognition of states and recognition of governments.
20. What is the relationship between the doctrine of recognition and the non-intervention principle?
21. Could there be such thing as conditional recognition?
22. Where does the proper boundary between de jure and de facto recognition lie?
23. What are the consequential implications of the duty not to recognize illegal territorial changes?
24. What is the proper scope of the Namibia exception?

Module 5 Topics / sub-topics:

C. Personality Under International Law
3. Non-State Entities

Required Readings/Assignments:
1. ORAKHELASHVILI, 111-21; 373-81
2. PHIL. CONST. art. 2 § 2
3. U.N. Charter, art. 1, 2, 7, 104
4. Statute of the International Court of Justice, art. 34
5. Consolidated Version of the Treaty Establishing the European Community art. 211, 2002 O.J. C
325/33, 294 U.N.T.S. 3
• Signed: 25 March 1957, EIF: 1 Jan. 1958
6. Treaty on European Union (Maastricht text), July 29, 1992, 1992 O.J. C 191/1 arts. 9, 14, 106, 109,
198d
• Signed: 7 Feb 1992, EIF: 1st Nov. 1993
7. ASEAN Charter (2007) art. 3
8. The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary Vol. 1 (Simma Et Al. Eds)
• Daniel Erasmus-Khan, Drafting History
• Rüdiger Wolfrum, Purposes and Principles, Article 1
• Anne Peters, The Security Council, Functions and Powers, Article 24
9. Tommy Koh, Asean and the EU: Differences and challenges STRAITS TIMES available at
https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/asean-and-the-eu-differences-and-challenges (Aug. 22,
2017)
10. Peter T Muchlinski, Corporations in International Law (June 2014) in Anne Peters & Rudiger
Wolfrum (eds.), Max Planck Encyclopedias of International Law (online ed.)
11. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (adopted 17 July 1998, entered into force 1 July
2002) 2187 UNTS 90 art. 25

12. *Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations (Advisory Opinion) (1949),
I.C.J. Rep 174, ICGJ 232 (I.C.J. 1949), 11 April 1949.
13. *Judgment of the Nuremberg Tribunal, 22 IMT 203 (1946)

Page 7 of 18
//PIL.210202
//LLR.Released
 14. Dispute between Texaco Overseas Petroleum Co./California Asiatic Oil Co. and the Government of
the Libyan Arab Republic (Compensation for Nationalized Property, Merits, 19 Jan. 1977, 17 ILM,
1978)
15. Nanni v. Pace and the Sovereign Order of Malta (1935- 37), 8 A.D. 2 Italian Court of Cassation
16. An Act Providing for The Organic Law for The Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim
Mindanao, Repealing for The Purpose Republic Act No. 6734, Entitled “An Act Providing for An
Organic Act for The Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao,” As Amended by Republic Act No.
9054, Entitled “An Act to Strengthen and Expand The Organic Act For The Autonomous Region In
Muslim Mindanao”, Republic Act No. 11054 (July 27, 2018)
17. ^The Province of North Cotabato v. GRP Peace Panel (supra.)

Guide Questions:
1. What is the relevance of the doctrine of delegation for the legal personality and powers of
international organizations?
2. Does the practice of international organizations always comply with restrictions that the scope of
their authority and functions or the range of their membership imposes on them?
3. What is the difference between the ASEAN and the EU?
4. Is “supranationality” a coherent and viable notion?
5. How are corporations treated under International Law?
6. What is the distinct utility of the recognition of belligerency?
7. Does the claim of legal personality of individuals serve any meaningful purpose?
8. What are “sui generis” entities?
9. What is belligerency?
10. What is the principle of self-determination?
11. What is the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region? Can it be classified as a state?

Module 6 Topics / sub-topics:

D. State Jurisdiction
1. Territory
i. Title
ii. Areas Covered
1.Land
2.Airspace
3.Adjacent Maritime Areas
4.Outer Space
iii. Acquisition and Transfer of Territorial Sovereignty

Required Readings/Assignments:
1. ORAKHELASHVILI, 122-212
2. PHIL. CONST. art. I; art. II § 2.
3. Diagrams of Baselines, treaty limits, selected claims
4. Eleanor Freund, Freedom of Navigation in the South China Seas: A Practical Guide (June 2017)
5. Benham Rise Note Verbale
6. Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, Recommendations of The Commission on The
Limits of The Continental Shelf in Regard to The Submission Made by The Philippines In Respect of
The Benham Rise Region On 8 April 2009 (April 12, 2012)
7. Hong Nong; Li Jianwei; Chen Pingping, The Concept of Archipelagic State and the South China Sea:
UNCLOS, State Practice and Implication, 2013 CHINA OCEANS L. REV. 209 (2013)
8. Jay L. Batongbacal, Extended Continental Shelf Claims in the South China Sea: Implications for Future
Maritime Boundary Delimitations, 29 OCEAN Y.B. 21 (2015)
9. An Act to Amend Certain Provisions of Republic Act No. 3046, as Amended by Republic Act No. 5446,
to Define the Archipelagic Baselines of the Philippines, and For Other Purposes, Republic Act No.
9522 (2009)
10. Convention on International Civil Aviation, signed at Chicago on 7 Dec. 1944

Page 8 of 18
//PIL.210202
//LLR.Released
 11. 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea, arts. 3, 8, 55-57, 76, 87, 97, Definition of Piracy, Article 101,
Part XI 211, 213
12. Convention Respecting Free Navigation of the Suez Canal 1888, 3 AJIL Supp. 123
13. Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in Exploration of Outer Space and the Use of
Outer Space, Including the Moon and other Celestial Bodies (1967)
14. Convention on Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects (1972)
15. An Act Establishing the Philippine Space Development and Utilization Policy and Creating the
Philippine Space Agency, and for Other Purposes, Republic Act No. 11363 (Aug. 8, 2019)
16. Establishment of the United States Space Force, Space Policy Directive-4 (Feb. 19, 2019) available
at https://www.spaceforce.mil/About-Us/SPD-4
17. Declaration of Principles Governing the Seabed and the Ocean Floor and the Subsoil Thereof, Beyond
the Limits of National Jurisdiction – Resolution 2749 XXV (1970)
18. NUS Centre for International Law, Outer Space and International Law https://youtu.be/ZozyB-K1XeE

19. *Island of Palmas Case (Netherlands v. U.S.A.), 2 RIAA 829, Permanent Court of Arbitration
20. Clipperton Island Case (France v. Mexico), 26 AJIL 390
21. Miniquers and Echeros Case (France v. UK), I.C.J. Rep. 1953, p. 47
22. ^Legal Status of Eastern Greenland (PCIJ Reports, series A/B, No. 53, 1933)
23. ^Western Sahara Case, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Rep., 1975, p. 12
24. Chamizal Arbitration (US v. Mexico), 5 AJIL 782 (1911)
25. *Fisheries Case (United Kingdom v. Norway, I.C.J. Rep., 1951)
26. Corfu Channel Case (UK v Albania)(Merits) [1949] I.C.J. Rep 4
27. North Atlantic Fisheries Arbitration (US v. Great Britain), PCA, 11 RIAA 167
28. Right of Passage Case (Portugal v. India), I.C.J. Rep. 1960, p. 6
29. Wimbledon Case (France, Italy, Japan, UK v. Germany), PCIJ Reports, Series A., No. 1
30. *Magallona v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 187167, August 16, 2011
31. ^North Sea Continental Shelf Cases, Germany v. Denmark and the Netherlands, (1969) I.C.J. Rep
32. Gulf of Maine (Canada/USA, I.C.J. Rep., 1984)
33. Libya/Malta Continental Shelf Case (I.C.J. Rep., 1985)
34. ^Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (U.K. v. Iceland, Merits, I.C.J. Rep., 1974)
35. People v. Tulin, G.R. No. 111709, August 30, 2009
36. *^The South China Sea Arbitration, The Republic of Philippines v. The People's Republic of China),
PCA Case No. 2013-19 (Oct. 29, 2015)

Guide Questions:
1. How do we distinguish arrangements that alter territorial title from those that do not alter it?
2. How do regulatory principles determining the ownership of territory differ from the modes of
acquisition of territory?
3. What is the relevance of inchoate titles?
4. What weight is accorded to effectivités in determining territorial title?
5. What is the relationship between treaty titles and effective exercise of State authority?
6. What is the relevance of critical date?
7. Are the Helsinki Rules apt to regulate the disputes between boundary States as to sovereignty over
boundary rivers, lakes and other related waterways?
8. What is the archipelagic doctrine?
9. What is the Thalweg doctrine?
10. Distinguish the territorial sea from the high seas.
11. What is the continental shelf?
12. Distinguish the rights of the coastal state in the territorial sea, the contiguous
13. zone, the exclusive economic zone, and the continental shelf.
14. What is the doctrine of innocent passage?
15. What are the five freedoms in a state’s aerial domain?
16. What is the legal basis of the Philippine’s claim over the Kalayaan Island Group?
17. What are the legal arguments of the Philippines in the West Philippine Sea dispute with China?
How about China’s arguments?
18. What is the legal basis of the Philippine’s claim over Sabah? How about Malaysia’s arguments?
Page 9 of 18
//PIL.210202
//LLR.Released
 19. What is the law regarding the entitlement of the territorial State with regard to unauthorized
overflight over its territory by foreign civilian and military aircraft?
20. Would the definition of air space and specification of the exact boundary between airspace and
outer space be desirable and useful? Whose interests militate towards or against certainty
regarding this particular matter?
21. What is the potential of the “common heritage of mankind” doctrine in international space law?

Module 7 Topics / sub-topics:

D. State Jurisdiction
2. Jurisdiction over Persons and Economic Activities
(a) Nationality of persons, corporations, and assets
(b) Criminal and Civil Jurisdiction

Required Readings/Assignments:
1. ORAKHELASHVILI, 213-229
2. PHIL. CONST. art. IV.
3. An Act to Promote Foreign Investments, Prescribe the Procedures for Registering Enterprises Doing
Business in the Philippines, And for Other Purposes, Republic Act No. 7042 §3(a)
4. Severino H. Gaña, Extradition and Legal Assistance: The Philippine Experience, available at
https://www.unafei.or.jp/publications/pdf/RS_No57/No57_10VE_Gana.pdf (Sep. 2001)
5. United Nations Declaration on Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources, 1962, U.N.G.A.
Resolution 1803 (XVII)
6. United Nations Resolution 3171 (XXVIII) on Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources, Dec.
17, 1973
7. G.A. Res. 3281 (XXIX), U.N.Doc. A/RES/29/3281 (1974) Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of
States, art. 2
8. UNCLOS, art. 97
9. Prescribing the Procedure for the Extradition of Persons Who Have Committed Crimes in a Foreign
Country, Presidential Decree 1069 (1976)
10. Montreal Convention of 1971, art. 8(2)
11. R.Y. Jennings, Extraterritorial Jurisdiction and the United States Antitrust Laws 33 Brit. Y.B. Int'l L.
146 (1957)
a. Sherman Act of 1890, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1-7.
b. Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 41-58.
c. Clayton Act of 1914, §§ 15 U.S.C. 12-27
12. United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (adopted 15 Nov. 2000, entered
into force 29 Sep. 2003) 2225 UNTS 209 (UNCTOC)
13. UN Convention Against Corruption (adopted 31 Oct. 2003, entered into force 14 Dec. 2005) 2349
UNTS 41

14. PCAB v. Manila Water, G.R. No. 217590, March 10, 2020
15. ^Texaco Overseas Petroleum Co./California Asiatic Oil Co. and the Government of Libyan Arab
Republic (Compensation for Nationalized Property, 19 Jan. 1977, 17 ILM 1)
16. ^The Lotus Case, France v. Turkey, (1927) PCIJ Series A no 10
17. *The Attorney-General of the Government of Israel v. Eichmann, 36 I.L.R. 277 (1961) [Drunk
History, Rachel Bloom – The Hunt for Adolf Eichmann
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6f9D5xaYq-8]
18. Arrest Warrant Case (Congo v. Belgium), I.C.J. Rep. 2002, p. 3
19. Blackmer v. United States 284 U.S. 421 (1942)
20. ^People v. Tulin (supra)
21. Kuroda v. Jalandoni, 83 Phil 171 (1949)
22. In the Matter of the Requested Extradition of Joseph Patrick Thomas Doherty (1984)
23. U.S. v. Alvarez-Machain, 454 U.S. 253 (1981)
24. Secretary of Justice v. Lantion, G.R. No. 139465, Oct. 17, 2000
25. Secretary of Justice v. Muñoz, G.R. No. 140520, Dec. 18, 2000
Page 10 of 18
//PIL.210202
//LLR.Released
 26. U.S.A. v. Hon. Purganan, G.R. No. 148571 Sept. 24, 2002
27. Rodriguez v. RTC of Manila, G.R. No. 157977, Feb 27, 2006
28. *Gov’t. of Hongkong v. Olalia, G.R. No. 153675, April 19, 2007
29. *Gov’t of Hongkong v. Muñoz, G.R. No. 207342, Aug. 16, 2016

Guide Questions:
1. What are the basic presumptions applicable to the exercise of State jurisdiction?
2. What is the difference between territoriality and extra-territoriality? In which contexts is this
difference manifested?
3. Over which crimes is international criminal jurisdiction applicable?

Module 8 Topics / sub-topics:

D. State Jurisdiction
2. Jurisdiction over Persons and Economic Activities
(b) Immunity from Jurisdiction
i. State Immunity and Act of State
ii. Diplomatic and Consular immunity
iii. Immunities of International Organizations

Required Readings/Assignments:
1. ORAKHELASHVILI, 230-50
2. UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, UN Doc. A/RES/59/38;
(2005) 44 ILM 801 arts. 2-3, 5
3. Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 500 UNTS 95; 23 UST 3227; 55 AJIL 1064 (1961) arts.
4. Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 596 UNTS 261; 21 UST 77; TIAS 6820 (1963) arts.
5. Draft articles on responsibility of international organizations, with commentaries. Report of the
International Law Commission on the work of its sixty-third session, 26 April to 3 June and 4 July to
12 August 2011 (A/66/10and Add.1) arts. 1-3
6. PHIL. CONST. art. 16 § 3.
7. DFA 2013 Manual on Immunities and Privileges

8. The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 7 Cranch 116 (1812)

9. Victory Transport Inc. v. Comisaria General de Abastecimientos y Transportes (35 I.L.R., 110 U.S.C.A.
2d Circ., 1994)
10. Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Venne (22 D.L.R. (3d) 669, 1972)
11. Congreso del Partido- Cuban Sugar Trade (2 All E.R. 1064, 1981)
12. Holland v. Lampen-Wolfe 1 WLR 1573 (2000)
13. Trendtex Trading Corporation v. Central Bank of Nigeria (1 All E.R. 881, 1977)
14. Sanders v. Veridiano, G.R. No. L-46930, June 10, 1988
15. Regina v. Bow Street Magistrates Ex Parte Pinochet, (2000) 1 AC 147
16. Al-Adsani v. United Kingdom, ECHR, 34 EHRR 273 (2001)
17. *Jurisdictional Immunities of the State, Germany v. Italy, Greece Intervening, (2012) I.C.J. Rep. 99
18. ^Arrest Warrant Case, Congo v. Belgium, I.C.J. Rep. 2002, p. 3
19. Kirkpatrick Co. v. Environmental Tectonics Corp 493 U.S. 400 (410)
20. JAM et al v International Finance Corporation 139 S Ct 759 (2019)
21. U.S. v. Guinto, 182 SCRA 644
22. Chuidian v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 139941, Jan. 19, 2001
23. Dayrit v. Phil Pharmawealth, G.R. No. 169304, March 13, 2007
24. Professional Video v. TESA, G.R. No. 155504, June 26, 2009
25. ATCI v. Echin, G.R. No. 178551, Oct. 11, 2010
26. Gunigundo v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 124772, August 14, 2007
27. *U.S. Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (US v. Iran) I.C.J. Rep. 1980, p.3
28. Regina v. Palacios (7 D.L.R. 112, 4th, 1984)
29. *Holy See v. Rosario, 238 SCRA 524
30. Minucher v. CA, 214 SCRA 242
Page 11 of 18
//PIL.210202
//LLR.Released
 31. *Indonesia v. Vinzon, G.R. No. 154705, June 26, 2003
32. ^Nicolas v. Romulo, G.R. No. 175888, Feb. 11, 2009
33. Deutsche v. CA, G.R. No. 152318, April 16, 2009
34. DFA v. NLRC, 262 SCRA 39
35. Lasco v. UN, 241 SCRA 681
36. WHO v. Aquino, 48 SCRA 242
37. ICMC v. Calleja, 190 SCRA 130
38. *Liang v. People, G.R. 125865, Jan. 28, 2000
39. Sps. Lacierda v. Platon, G.R. No. 157141, August 31, 2005

Guide Questions:
1. What is the content of the restrictive doctrine of State immunity and how does it differ from the
doctrine of absolute State immunity?
2. What versions of State immunity rule has State practice proposed over the past few decades? Are
those versions mutually consistent? Can they apply simultaneously to the same conduct of a State?
3. To what extent does the DFA Manual on Immunities and Privileges reflect the international legal
position on State immunity?
4. Do the existing conventions on State immunity provide a reliable guide as to the international legal
position on State immunity?
5. Does the Supreme Court and the I.C.J. in its decision on Jurisdictional Immunities cover the same
ground? Do they propose a State immunity rule of similar content and scope?
6. Does the distinction between criminal and civil proceedings make sense in determining when State
immunity should apply?
7. Does the Jurisdictional Immunities Judgment correctly assess the state of customary law on State
immunity? Does it cover the practice of sufficient number of States?
8. What is the continuing relevance and sustainability of the approach to State immunity taken in Jones
and Jurisdictional Immunities?
9. What is the scope of State officials’ immunity ratiome materiae?
10. Is the approach taken by the Supreme Court in accordance with the International Court’s approach
on the immunity ratione personae?
11. How does the scope of diplomatic immunity differ from that of the immunity of State officials?
12. Is the scope of immunity from execution different from that of immunity from adjudication?

Module 9 Topics / sub-topics:

E. State Responsibility
1. General Principles of Responsibility
2. Consequences of Internationally Wrongful Acts

Required Readings/Assignments:
1. ORAKHELASHVILI, 276-98
2. Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, UN General Assembly
Resolution 56/83
a. You may wish to refer to the *Report of the International Law Commission, Report of
the 53rd. Session, G.A.O.R. 56th Sess., Sup. 10
3. International Law Commission Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection, Report of the 58th Sess.
ILC (2006), GAOR A/51/10 pp. 22 et seq.
4. Alain Pellet, Part I Introduction—Responsibility and International Law, Ch.1 The Definition of
Responsibility in International Law in THE LAW OF INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY (eds. James Crawford,
Alain Pellet, Simon Olleson, Kate Parlett) (2010).

5. Mavromattis Palestine Concessions Case (Jurisdiction) (Greece v. UK), PCIJ Reports, Series A, No. 2,
p. 12
6. Administrative Decision No. V (US v. Germany), 7 RIAA 119 (1924)
7. Neer Claim (US v. Mexico), 4 RIAA 60 (1926)
8. Rankin v. Iran (US v. Iran), 17 Iran-US CTR 135
Page 12 of 18
//PIL.210202
//LLR.Released
 9. Starrett Housing Corp. v. Iran, 4 Iran-US CTR 122 (1984) 23 ILM 1090 (1984)
10. Amoco International Finance Corp. v. Iran, 15 Iran-US CTR, 189.
11. Factory at Chorzow (Germany v. Poland) 1927 PCIJ (ser. No. 09 (July 26)
12. ^Texaco Overseas Petroleum Co. v. Libya, 17 ILM 1 (1978)
13. Aminoil Case, Kuwait v. American Independent Oil Co., 21 ILM 976 (1982)
14. Youmans Case (RIAA iv. 110, 1926)
15. Caire Claim Case (France v. Mexico, French-Mexican Claims Commission, RIAA v. 516, 1929)
16. U.S. Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (U.S. v. Iran, I.C.J. Rep. 3, 1980)
17. Short v. U.S.A. (United States v. Iran) (1987) 16 Iran-US C.T.R. 76
18. Home Missionary Society Case (RIAA vi. 42, 1920)
19. United States (Chattin) v. Mexico (4 RIAA 282, 1927)
20. Panevezys-Saludtiskis Case (Estonia v. Lithuania), PCIJ Reports, Series A/B, No. 76
21. *Nottebohm Case (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala), I.C.J. Rep. 1955, p. 4
22. *Barcelona Traction, Light, and Power Co. Case (Belgium v. Spain), I.C.J. Rep. 1970, p. 3
23. *Diallo Case (Preliminary Objections) (Guinea v. Congo), I.C.J. Rep. 2007
24. *^Vinuya v. Romulo, G.R. No. 162230, April 28, 2010; August 12, 2014

Guide Questions:
1. What is the distinction between responsibility and liability?
2. What are rules about attribution and which contexts do they address?
3. In which areas does the distinction between primary and secondary rules arise? How consistent
have international tribunals been in maintaining this distinction?
4. Do ILC’s 2001 Articles cover all situations in which State responsibility may arise?
5. What is the ambit and function of the complicity rule in the law of State responsibility?
6. How has the issue of reparation been handled in the jurisprudence of international tribunals?
7. What factors determine the responsibility of international organizations?

Module Topics / sub-topics:

10 E. Responsibility of States
3. Key Issues: The Taking of Property — Nationalization and Expropriation

Required Readings/Assignments:
1. ORAKHELASHVILI, 344-50
2. Alice Ruzza, Expropriation and Nationalization (July 2017) in Anne Peters & Rudiger Wolfrum (eds.),
Max Planck Encyclopedias of International Law (online ed.)
3. United Nations Declaration on Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources, 1962, UN G.
Resolution 1803 (XVII)
4. United Nations Resolution 3171 (XXVIII) on Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources, Dec.
17, 1973
5. Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States, 1974, UN GA Resolution 3281 (XXIX)
6. Proposed Amendment to Article 2 of Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States
7. ^Texaco Overseas Petroleum Co./California Asiatic Oil Co. and the Government of Libyan Arab
Republic (Compensation for Nationalized Property, 19 Jan. 1977, 17 I.L.M. 1)
8. Agreement Between the Government of the People’s Republic of China and the Government of the
Republic of the Philippines Concerning Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investments
(1992)

Module Topics / sub-topics:

11 E. Responsibility of States
3. Key Issues: Responsibility for Environmental Harm

Required Readings/Assignments:
1. ORAKHELASHVILI, 382-406
2. *DENR v. Concerned Residents, G.R. No. 171947, Dec. 18, 2008
3. Segovia v. Climate Change Commission, G.R. No. 211010, Mar. 7, 2017

Page 13 of 18
//PIL.210202
//LLR.Released
 4. Abogado v. DENR, G.R. No. 24609, Sep. 3, 2019
5. *The Trail Smelter Arbitration (3 R.I.A.A.1905, 1938/1941)
6. ^The Corfu Channel Case (supra.)
7. *Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v Nicaragua) &
Construction of a Road in Costa Rica Along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v Costa Rica) Judgment,
2015 I.C.J. Rep. 665 (Dec. 16)
8. The Stockholm Principles (1972)
9. U.N.G.A. Resolution 2995 (XXVII)
10. U.N.G.A. Resolution 2996 (XXVII)
11. International Law Association Resolution 1972
12. United Nations Environment Program: Governing Council Decisions Concerning Policy Objectives,
12 I.L.M. 1183 (1973)
13. Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, A/CONF.151/5/Rev.1, 31 I.L.M. 874 (1992)
14. Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer
15. 1989 Basel Convention on the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes
16. Paris Agreement 55 I.L.M. 740 (2016)

Guide Questions:
1. What is the “environment”?
2. How has the concept of State Responsibility evolved as seen in the Stockholm Principles, Rio
Declaration, and Paris Agreement?
3. How does general international law regulate the matters related to environmental damage?
4. How do various treaty regimes differ in focusing on the protection of environment and avoidance
of environmental harm?
5. What is the legal status of precautionary principle and “sustainable development”?
6. In which situations should the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) be undertaken?
7. What balance does the GATT/WTO jurisprudence draw between trade and environmental concerns
and considerations? Is that balance drawn in the similar manned in jurisprudence of other
international tribunals? What factors are responsible for outcomes reached by relevant courts and
tribunals?

Module Topics / sub-topics:

12 F. Dispute Settlement
1. The Use or Threat of Force
i. Prohibition on the Threat or Use of Force
ii. Unilateral Use of Force
iii. Collective Action through the United Nations
iv. The Laws of War
v. Duty to Protect

Required Readings/Assignments:
1. Rama Mani and Richard Ponzio, Peaceful Settlement of Disputes and Conflict Prevention in THE
OXFORD HANDBOOK ON THE UNITED NATIONS (2018 ed.) 396-419
2. ORAKHELASHVILI, 450-536
3. General Treaty for the Renunciation of War 1928, 94 LNTS 57
4. UN Charter, arts. 2(4), 2(7) 39-51,
5. Manila Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes of 1982, UN GA Resolution
37/10
6. Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the
Protection of their Independence and Sovereignty 1965, UN GA Resolution No. 2131 (XX), 21 Dec.
1965
7. UN Security Council Resolutions –
a. 668: Cambodia (Sep. 20, 1990)
b. 84: Complaint of aggression upon the Republic of Korea (July 7, 1950)
c. 661: Iraq-Kuwait (Aug. 6, 1990)
Page 14 of 18
//PIL.210202
//LLR.Released
 d. 665 Iraq-Kuwait (Aug. 25, 1990)
e. 678: Iraq-Kuwait (Nov. 29, 1990)
f. 687: Iraq-Kuwait (April 3, 1991)
g. 1441: Iraq-Kuwait (Nov. 8, 2002)
h. 1973: Libya (Mar. 7, 2011)
i. 1483: Iraq-Kuwait (May 22, 2003)
8. NATO Intervention in Kosovo, Security Council, 3998th meeting, UN Doc S/PV 3998 (1999)
9. Possible Humanitarian Intervention in Syria, (2013) 84 BYIL (806)
10. The Charter of The United Nations: A Commentary Vol. 1 (Simma Et Al. Eds)
a. Mindia Vashakmadze, Responsibility to Protect
11. *Mindia Vashakmadze, Legality of Foreign Military Intervention in International Law: Four Case
Studies, 18 Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law (Brill) 463-76, 505-06
12. Michael Bothe, Peacekeeping and the Use of Force - Back to the Charter or Political Accident, 1 Int'l
Peacekeeping 2 (1994)
13. Resolution on the Definition of Aggression 1974, UN GA Resolution No. 3314 (XXIX), 14 Dec. 1974
14. ^Nicaragua Case, (1986) I.C.J. Rep 14
15. The Caroline Case, 29 BFSP 1137-1138; 30 BFSP 195-96
16. Oil Platforms Case (Iran v. US) I.C.J. Rep. 2003, p. 161
17. Armed Activities Case (DR Congo v. Uganda), I.C.J. Rep. 2005, p. 168
18. Partial Award: Jus Ad Bellum: Ethiopia’s Claims 1-8, Eritrea Ethiopia Claims Commission 2005
19. The Entebbe Incident, UN Doc. S/PV 1939 pp. 27, 51-59, 92; UN Doc. S/PV 1941, pp. 31-32
20. *Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons Case, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Rep. 1996, p. 226
21. U.S. v. Yunis, 681 F. Supp 896 (1988)

Guide Questions:
1. What is the scope of the prohibition of the use of force under UN Charter and under customary
international law?
2. What is the practical implication of NATO’s 2001 invocation of Article 5 of the North Atlantic
Treaty?
3. Is the claim that foreign armed activities on the territory of Syria undertaken without Syria’s
consent are not directed against Syria plausible?
4. Does the doctrine of “unable and unwilling” fit within the framework of modern jus ad bellum?
5. What are the stakes regarding claims pertaining to the applicability of self-defence against attacks
perpetrated by non-State actors? Who is likely to endorse or object to such claims and for what
reasons?
6. What is the difference between anticipatory self-defence and pre-emptive self-defence?
7. How do we ascertain whether a government has indeed invited foreign armed forces to act on its
territory and the parameters of such invitation?
8. What concerns have arisen in practice as to the authenticity of invitations to intervene?
9. What motivates States to invoke the doctrine of “humanitarian intervention”?
10. What elements does jus in bello consist of and in which situations are they relevant? Does jus in
bello apply in the same way to all wars and armed conflicts?
11. What is the difference between war and armed conflict?
12. Can international humanitarian law alone regulate the position of combatants or protected
persons in armed conflicts?
13. Does humanitarian law offer individuals lower protection compared to that offered to them under
international human rights law?
14. What is the difference of the distinction drawn between international and non-international armed
conflicts drawn by the I.C.J. and ICTY, respectively? What would be the implications if the ICTY’s
“overall control” test was to apply as an international law standard?
15. Is the ICRC’s reference to “spill-over” conflicts accurate?
16. What are belligerent rights, and what are conditions of the legality of their exercise?
17. Is “military necessity” a concept of international law?
18. What safeguards does the law of belligerent occupation provide to protect the population’s rights
to their property and natural resources?

Page 15 of 18
//PIL.210202
//LLR.Released
 19. What is the relevance of permanent sovereignty over natural resources in the context of
belligerent occupation?
20. Does international humanitarian law allow reprisals against civilians?

Module Topics / sub-topics:

13 F. Dispute Settlement
2. Peaceful Settlement of Disputes: Arbitration and Judicial Settlement of International Disputes

Required Readings/Assignments:
1. ORAKHELASHVILI, 537-66
2. BERNAS, 141-50, 219, 246.
3. Thordis Ingadottir, Enforcement of Decisions of International Courts at the National Level in
International Law in Domestic Courts: A Casebook 349-386
4. Philippine Declaration Accepting the Compulsory Jurisdiction of the I.C.J., http://www.I.C.J.-
cij.org/jurisdiction/?p1=5&p2=1&p3=3&code=PH. However, read the commentary.)
5. United States [North American Dredging Co. of Texas] v. United Mexican States (4 R.I.A.A. 26, 1927)
6. Dissent of Judge Nielsen in the subsequent case of International Fisheries Co., (Nielsen’s Opinions
207, 1931)
7. The Tattler (United States v. Great Britain, Nielsen Rep. 489, 1920)
8. The Panevezys-Saldutiskis Railway Case (Estonia v. Lithuania, P.C.I.J. Series A/B, No. 76, 1939)
9. ^Nottebohm Case (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala, I.C.J. Reports 4, 1955)
10. ^ Barcelona Traction (Belgium v. Spain, I.C.J. Reports 3, 1970)
11. Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Peter L.F. Sabbatino (376 U.S. 398, 1964)
12. Alfred Dunhill of London Inc. v. The Republic of Cuba (425 U.S. 682, 48 L.Ed. 2d.301, 1976)
13. Buttes Gas and Oil Co. and Another v. Hammer and Another (3 W.L.R. 787, H.L., 1981)
14. Interpretation of Article 3, Paragraph 2 of the Treaty of Lausanne, Advisory Opinion, PCIJ Reports,
Series B, No. 12, p. 26
15. Interhandel Case, I.C.J. Rep. 1959, p. 6
16. Norwegian Loans Case (France v. Norway), I.C.J. Rep. 1957, p. 9
17. Nicaragua Case (Jurisdiction and Admissibility) (Nicaragua v. US), I.C.J. Rep. 1984, p. 392
18. *East Timor Case (Portugal v. Australia), I.C.J. Rep. 1995, p. 90
19. Lagrand Case (Germany v. US), I.C.J. Rep. 2001, p. 466
20. ^Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons Case, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Rep. 1996, p. 226
21. Case Concerning Questions of Interpretation and Application of the Montreal Convention Arising out
of the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Provisional Measures) (Libya v. UK), I.C.J. Rep. 1992, p. 3
22. Aerial Incident of 27 July 1955 (U.S. v. Bulgaria) Judgement of Oct. 24, 1957, I.C.J. Rep., P. 24 [Noting
the proceedings of the case: https://www.I.C.J.-cij.org/en/case/36]
23. El Salvador v. Honduras (Nicaragua Intervention), Judgement of 11 Sep. 1992, I.C.J. Rep. 1992, p. 2
24. ^ The South China Sea Arbitration, The Republic of Philippines v. The People's Republic of China),
PCA Case No. 2013-19 (Oct. 29, 2015)
25. Del Monte v. CA, G.R. No. 136154, Feb. 7, 2001
26. LM Power v. Capitol, G.R. No. 141833, March 26, 2003
27. Frabelle v. Philamlife, G.R. No. 158560, August 17, 2007
28. Gonzales v. Hon Pimentel, G.R. No. 167994, Jan. 22, 2007
29. RCBC v. Banco de Oro, G.R. 196171, Dec. 10, 2012
30. *^Vinuya v. Romulo, G.R. No. 162230, April 28, 2010; August 12, 2014

Guide Questions:
1. What is the distinction between jurisdiction of international tribunals and admissibility of claims?
2. What is the legal nature and effect of declarations under the Optional Clause?
3. Which reservations made to Optional Clause declarations are contrary to the I.C.J. Statute and what
legal consequences arise therefrom?
4. Is the International Court’s application of the “prima facie jurisdiction” requirement consistent
across the cases?
5. What is the proper scope of the “absent third party” doctrine?
Page 16 of 18
//PIL.210202
//LLR.Released
 6. What is the difference between effective nationality and pre-dominant nationality?
7. How different is the NAFTA Chapter 11 framework on the exhaustion of local remedies from other
treaty frameworks dealing with this matter?
8. What is the relationship between judicial jurisdiction and applicable law?
9. To what extent does international law restrain States in using countermeasures with regard to
matter that is subjected to a dispute settlement procedure (especially in the field of investment
arbitration and WTO law)? (See also Articles 22–23 WTO’s Dispute Settlement Understanding.)
10. To what extent can the International Court of justice revisit or re-open its previous decisions?

III. COURSE REQUIREMENTS AND GRADING SYSTEM

Course Requirements Grade Breakdown

Recitations and Quizzes 40%

Mid-term Exam 30%

Final Exam 30%

IV. COURSE POLICIES

1. Attendance is mandatory. Absences and tardiness will warrant appropriate action.
2. Students must observe all regulations in the Student Handbook, including but not limited to the dress code.
3. Students are expected to have done the assigned readings before coming to class. The course will proceed
based on this assumption. Students are also expected to participate in class discussions.
4. Changes to materials, schedules, etc. will be communicated to the beadle. Nevertheless, students are
expected to monitor Google Classroom for changes in materials.
5. Written assignments will follow the following format and be submitted through Google Classroom:
a. File Name Protocol: Code.Block.LastName.doc/.docx/.pages
The Code pertains to the type of assignment or paper and will be given if and when one is
assigned. For example, your first reaction paper would have the code RP1 while a final paper
would be FP.
Therefore, the file name for the first reaction paper of Pedro Reyes of 2X would have the
filename: RP1.X.Reyes.doc.
If Jean Reyes is 2X as well, the file name for Pedro’s first reaction paper would be:
RP1.X.ReyesP.doc. While Jean’s would be: RP1.X.ReyesJ.doc.
b. Margins: 1” on each side
c. 1.5 spacing, Justified
d. Paragraph tabs no greater than 0.5”
e. NO SPACES between paragraphs.
f. Font: 11pt Times New Roman
g. The bottom of your last page must contain a textbox with one line with your full name (Last Name,
First Name), ID number, and block.
h. Footnotes must be set in 9-pt Times New Roman. Citation format must strictly adhere to standards
set in The Bluebook.
6. Eating and drinking inside the classroom are not allowed.
7. Excuse letters must be approved by the Dean to warrant any cancellation of missed quiz or recitation.
8. Cellphones must be on silent mode during class.
9. Use of laptops and other devices is not allowed. Use of these items for social media, external
communication, etc. will be particularly dealt with using appropriate disciplinary action.

V. TENTATIVE SCHEDULE

Date Module

Page 17 of 18
//PIL.210202
//LLR.Released
 3 Feb. 2021 Housekeeping
Introduction to Public International Law
10 Feb. 2021 Introduction to Public International Law
17 Feb. 2021 Sources of International Law
24 Feb. 2021 Sources of International Law
3 March 2021 Sources of International Law
10 March 2021 Personality Under International Law
17 March 2021 Personality Under International Law
24 March 2021 Sovereignty & Jurisdiction of States
31 March 2021 Sovereignty & Jurisdiction of States
5 – 15 April 2021 MIDTERMS
21 April 2021 Sovereignty & Jurisdiction of States
28 April 2021 State Responsibility
5 May 2021 State Responsibility
12 May 2021 State Responsibility
19 May 2021 State Responsibility
26 May 2021 Dispute Settlement
2 June 2021 Dispute Settlement/Synthesis
7 – 16 June 2021 FINALS

VI. CONTACT AND OTHER INFORMATION

1. For concerns that affect the entire block, please course your concerns through the beadle.
2. The professor reserves the option of amending the reading list and assignments as exigencies warrant.

Page 18 of 18
//PIL.210202
//LLR.Released