PIL lecture 1 (1)

Reme"ial law you o to rule! o# court, but here in Public International law i! "i$erent. %e will Reme"ial law you o to rule! o# court, but here in Public International law i! "i$erent. %e will "i!cu!! International law, accor"in to the &ow o# the !yllabu!.

"i!cu!! International law, accor"in to the &ow o# the !yllabu!. '.

'. The (r!t o# PThe (r!t o# PI)I)* The concep* The concept an" naturt an" nature o# Internae o# International )awtional )aw.. +.

+. ++n"n" _{part International law an" the ommunity. part International law an" the ommunity.}

-.

-. --r"r" _{part the relation between International )aw an" municipal )aw part the relation between International )aw an" municipal )aw}

.

. thth _{Part Source! o# )aw. Part Source! o# )aw.}

By the way cla!!, with rear" to /loria lea0in the Report.. TRO i! e1ecutory, 2otion o#  By the way cla!!, with rear" to /loria lea0in the Report.. TRO i! e1ecutory, 2otion o#  Recon!i"eration "oe! not !tay the TRO, TRO i! an e1traor"inary relie#, it "oe! not "eal with Recon!i"eration "oe! not !tay the TRO, TRO i! an e1traor"inary relie#, it "oe! not "eal with the merit! o# the ca!e, the nece!

the merit! o# the ca!e, the nece!!ity #orm o# TRO to pre0en!ity #orm o# TRO to pre0ent! irrepat! irreparable "amae. rable "amae. The rihtThe riht to tra0el i! a con!titutional riht. 3e )ima !ai" the TRO i! e$ecti0e i# you are talkin about to tra0el i! a con!titutional riht. 3e )ima !ai" the TRO i! e$ecti0e i# you are talkin about thi! con!titutional riht. . . But !he i! in0okin #or political con!i"eration! i# /loria an" her thi! con!titutional riht. . . But !he i! in0okin #or political con!i"eration! i# /loria an" her hu!ban" lea0e!, it4! ob0iou! that they

hu!ban" lea0e!, it4! ob0iou! that they are beyon" our Juri!"iction.are beyon" our Juri!"iction. So now let4! o to

So now let4! o to our "i!cu!!ion.our "i!cu!!ion.

%hat i! International law accor"in to Oppenheim: %hat i! International law accor"in to Oppenheim:

I know the wor"! are e1tra5or"inary : but we ha0e no other choice to !tu"y PI) e1cept with I know the wor"! are e1tra5or"inary : but we ha0e no other choice to !tu"y PI) e1cept with what the e1pert! ha0e to !ay..

what the e1pert! ha0e to !ay.. 6ow accor"in to

6ow accor"in to Oppenheim.Oppenheim. Internati

International )aw onal )aw ::

I! the bo"y o# cu!tomary an" treaty rule! which are con!i"ere" leally bin"in between I! the bo"y o# cu!tomary an" treaty rule! which are con!i"ere" leally bin"in between !tate! in their intercour!e with one another.

!tate! in their intercour!e with one another.''

Oppenheim "i!tinui!he! International law #rom uni0er!al international law an" particular Oppenheim "i!tinui!he! International law #rom uni0er!al international law an" particular international law.

international law. %hat i! :

%hat i! :



 Uni0Uni0er!aer!al l InteInternarnationational l law7 Such part law7 Such part o# o# the!the!e e rulerule! ! ! ! i! bin"in upon i! bin"in upon all State!all State! without e1ception, a!, #or in!tance, the law connecte" with the riht o# leation an" without e1ception, a!, #or in!tance, the law connecte" with the riht o# leation an" treatie!.

treatie!.



 Particular international law7 Particular international law7 7 %hich i! bin"in on two or a 7 %hich i! bin"in on two or a #ew State! only#ew State! only..



 /eneral International law 7 Bo"y o# rule! a! are bin"in upon reat many State!,/eneral International law 7 Bo"y o# rule! a! are bin"in upon reat many State!, inclu"in the lea"in State!.

inclu"in the lea"in State!. ++

%hich you think i! plau!ible amon the three7 Uni0er!al, /eneral, or Particular7 %hich you think i! plau!ible amon the three7 Uni0er!al, /eneral, or Particular7

'

' _{Oppenheim, International )aw, 8ol. ', pae! 5 9 Oppenheim, International )aw, 8ol. ', pae! 5 9} +

+ _{Oppenheim, International )aw, 8ol. ', pae 9 Oppenheim, International )aw, 8ol. ', pae 9}

 T

 Tran!cribe" b

ran!cribe" by : /e!al 2arie r

y : /e!al 2arie rno;a. Ba!e" on PI) UP l

no;a. Ba!e" on PI) UP law Syllabu! #

aw Syllabu! #rom t

rom tty

ty. )iutan

. )iutan

Pae '

Pae '

oul" we ha0e Uni0er!al International law7 <eah, I think it4! too =i"eal*.

Particular 7 <e! , when you enter with another contract , a treaty with another State, you re#er to the particular international on the partner

/eneral7 Bin"in upon many !tate! upon reat lea"in !tate!, ye! =lea"in !tate!* thi! wa! written '>9? , what "o you mean by lea"in !tate!7 The 0ictor! o# %orl" war +.

/uy! remember thi! :one o# the ba!ic po!tulate! o# international law, i! that each !tate i! "eeme" e@ual , the Philippine! e1ample e@ual with hina t lea!t in the eye! o# International )aw.

6ow accor"in to u!tin an" hi! #ollower! :

=They "e(ne" law a! a bo"y o# rule! #or human con"uct !et an" en#orce" by a !o0erein political authority.* - _{There i! a !et o# rule! an" the!e !et o# rule! i! en#orce" by a !o0erein}

political authority. Aue!tion : i! thi! true in international law7

n!wer: 6o, becau!e there i! no !o0erein political authority, becau!e each !tate i! !o0erein in it!el#.

6ow ccor"in to Oppenheim it4! not accurate, that international law i! a bo"y rule! that woul" reulate the con"uct o# !tate! an" to be en#orce" by SP. He !ue!te" it i! better to !ay that the!e rule! o# con"uct be en#orce" by P = an ab!tract notion o# External Power* !o there i! !till a nee" #or an entity to en#orce" the rule!.

 But ccor"in to him #or the e1i!tence o# the law it i! not re@uire" there mu!t be a law i0in authority or a court o# Cu!tice to en#orce !uch law, what i! e!!ential i! the con!ent o#  the community it!el#.

It4! like thi! uy!, be#ore international law, mankin" ha" municipal law!, !o mankin" wa! accu!tome" to municipal law! !et up by a !o0erein political authority an" there a court o#   Cu!tice that woul" !ettle tho!e contro0er!ie!, now when mankin" bean to interact throuh the !tate!, by that nain complicate" , in!tea" o# in"i0i"ual! we ha0e !tate!, an min" the !ame "apat may !o0erein political authority, an" a court o# Cu!tice, but the problem come!, !ince all !tate! are !o0erein political authoritie! in them!el0e!, !o who woul" en#orce", !o Oppenheim4! !ue!tion i! e1ternal power , the ba!i! o# thi! rule7 It4! community it!el#. We don’t need a sovereign political authority , we only need the consent of the community .

 That i! why he !ai", what are the Three e!!ential con"ition! o# law7

  There mu!t, (r!t be a ommunity.

  There mu!t, !econ"ly, be a bo"y o# rule! #or human con"uct within that community.

- _{Oppenheim, International )aw, 8ol. ', pae D}  _{Oppenheim, International )aw, 8ol. ', pae 'E}

 n" there mu!t, thir"ly be a common con!ent o# that community that the!e rule! !hall be en#orce" by e1ternal power.

 The!e are the re@uirement! #or law to be con!i"ere" )aw. So there i! no more nee" #or !o0erein political power or court! o# Cu!tice. But then, we !till nee" thi! !o calle" =1ternal Power*.

%hy , what i! the u!e o# 1ternal power uy!, P7 For the en#orcement o# rule!.

Oppenheim knew that it4! impo!!ible #or !tate! to reconi;e =one* !o0erein political authority, that4! clear. But he al!o knew that international law to be law i# there i! no entity that woul" en#orce thi! !et o# con"uct, that i! why he u!e" thi! term P =1ternal Power*. Aue!tion: In what way "oe! 1ternal power come about7

'. Sel# help: an" inter0ention on the part o# other !tate! +. war.

-. harter

Sel# help, an" inter0ention on the part o# other State! which !ympathi!e with the wrone" one, are the mean! by which the rule! o# the )aw o# 6ation! can be an" actually are en#orce".9 _{%hat i! !el# help7 I# a !tate #eel! arie0e" the !tate will "o !omethin to}

protect it!el# throuh the u!e o# #orce. %hat i! inter0ention7 %hen !omethin or a #orein element come! to your re!cue. For Oppenheim thi! i! coul" be a mani#e!tation o#  1ternal power.

1ample they !et a rule that mu!t be #ollowe" by !tate!, now !tate B wrone" State . ha" it been in the conte1t o# tra"itional 0iew o# law, !tate  woul" o to the political !o0erein authority an" a!k #or help, but accor"in to Oppenheim that i! not nee"e" anymore in international law, bec !tate  it!el# coul" "o !omethin, State coul" take the role o# !o0erein political authority, or inter0ention, !tate , State 3, will o to State 4! re!cue.

%ar: or the u!e o# #orce. you "on4t nee" a !o0erein political authority, I# a !tate i! wrone" that !tate coul" u!e #orce

harter: which pro0i"e! #or a !y!tem o# !anction! #or repre!!in the 0iolation o# it! principal obliation.

So "oe! a charter take! the place o# a !o0erein political authority 7 ccor"int to Oppenheim that i! only one o# the mani#e!tation o# thi! e1ternal power which take! the place o# !o0erein political authority.

%hat i! the ba!i! o# PI)7 ommon con!ent.

9 _{Oppenheim, International )aw, 8ol. ', pae}

'- Tran!cribe" by : /e!al 2arie rno;a. Ba!e" on PI) UP law Syllabu! #rom tty. )iutan

Pae

-Common consent a! the Ba!i! o#

International )aw 5 by Oppenheim

ommon con!ent, can there#ore only mean the express or tacit con!ent o# !uch an o0erwhelmin maCority o# the member! that tho!e who "i!!ent are o# no importance a! compare" with the community 0iewe" a! an entity in contra"i!tinction to the will! o# it! !inle member!.G

In international law , common con!ent i! mani#e!te" throuh cu!tom!, 0irtual u!ae o#  certain rule!, an" (nally "e0elopment o# !y!temati;e" bo"y o# rule! , !auna cu!tom! lan, what "o you mean cu!tomary meanin bein practice" or na5an"an, it woul" ra"uate to 0irtual u!ae, !tate b, #ollow!, !tate c #ollow!, then other !tate!, an" then mu ra"uate (nally into a !y!temati;e" bo"y o# rule!, !o "ili ra cu!tom, but i !uwat into writin thi! will be our !et o# rule!.

Brierly

Brierly, The Ba!i! o# Obliation in International )aw ,

Hi! point i! thi! what are the way! State! come into obliation in international law a!i"e i0in it! con!ent to be boun" by it.

1ample there i! an e!tabli!he" international law on the matter

Un!a pinaka late!t na country !a worl"7 South Su"an, late!t entry to the thir" worl" countrie!, cla!! why are we calle" -r" _{worl" countrie!, not +}n" _{worl"7 %hy it wa! the e$ect o#} 

the col" war . USSR an" her allie! compete" aain!t US an" their allie!. There were competin #or what place7 The (r!t worl" !tature, bi!an ma pil"i automatic ma himo +n"

worl". Pero kita wala ta labot, away ayaw mo "ha ba!ta kami - r" _{worl" lan hapun..}

6ow. what are the way! State! come into obliation in international law a!i"e i0in it! con!ent to be boun" by it.

 new !tate become !ubCect to international law a! a matter o# cour!e without their con!ent, your application to become a !tate . %hich roup o# people i! now applyin #or !tatehoo"7 Pale!tine. They went to the U6 a!kin #or "eclaration o# !tatehoo", But Unite" State! !ai" not !o #a!t bec US i! a patron o# which country7 I!rael.. la!! I "on4t like to be an I!rael.  There are billion! o# people who want! to kill you in your own neihborhoo", I!rael mo!t

!ecure" place on earth, amay lan !ecurity breach, "ahan bomber!, mi!!ile! on earth.. they can4t a$or" to lo!t a;a !trip becau!e it will not i0e enouh parameter! on it! "e#en!e!.

/oin back when you apply #or !tatehoo": a !tate become! boun" or to #ollow international law

International law a! a !y!tem o# leal norm! an" that international law

!houl" be taken a! a unit, each element o# which i! interrelate" with other



6e1t Heelian "octrine o# !el#  limitation o# the !tate: !tate may create law #or it!el# both in internal an" e1ternal a$air!..

 The mo!t hihly !y!temati;e" #orm o# the con!en!ual theory i! the Heelian "octrine o# !el#   limitation o# the !tate a! "e0elope" by more mo"ern author!, in particular by Jellinek. ccor"in to Jellinek the peculiar #aculty o# a !tae i! !el#5"etermination , an" thi! #aculty in0ol0e! another, that o# !el#5limitation, whereby a !tate may create law #or it!el# both in internal an" e1ternal a$air!.D _-r" _{when !tate! #eel the obliation to #ollow the rule! o#} 

international law.

ain: %hat are the way! State! come into obliation in international law a!i"e i0in it! con!ent to be boun" by it.

'.  !tate become! part o# International law a! a matter o# cour!e, there i! nothin a !tate can "o but be boun" by international law

+. !tate may create law #or it!el# both in internal an" e1ternal a$air! in it! con"uct with other !tate!

-. when !tate! #eel the obliation to #ollow the rule! o# international law.

Tunkin, International )aw in the International Sy!tem p.

ccor"int to Tunkin : The !y!tem o# international law i! a reality in it!el# 

, be#ore there wa! thi! tra"itional "i0i!ion o# international law into law peace 9E an" law o#  war 9E . but why "o we ha0e arme" con&ict, becau!e that i! part o# human nature, but thi! i! the e1ception to law o# co5e1i!tence an" law o# cooperation. Be#ore 9E law o# war, an" 9E law o# peace.But now we only ha0e law co5e1i!tence an" law o# co5operation !o 'EE law o# peace. So war an" arme" con&ict! are antithetical to co5e1i!tence an" cooperation International )aw in the International Sy!tem pae ?E :

K11 11The @ue!tion ari!e! to what ha! become o# the principal "i0i!ion o# international law into two part!: The law o# peace an" the law o# war, which wa! characteri!tic o# the pre0iou! hi!torical type! o# international law. Thi! "i0i!ion wa! proper to international law when recour!e to war by State! in their relation! wa! permitte". ccor"in to thi! international law State! ha" a choice between peace an" war. The only !tate o# relation! amon State! that

D

 _{Brierly, The Ba!i! o# Obliation in International )aw ,pae '-.}

 Tran!cribe" by : /e!al 2arie rno;a. Ba!e" on PI) UP law Syllabu! #rom tty. )iutan

Pae 9

corre!pon"! to international law i! the !tate o# peace an" co5operation. There i!, there#ore no "i0i!ion in the pre!ent5"ay international law into the law o# peace an" the law o# war. Howe0er to prohibit the recour!e to war "oe! not mean to aboli!h war!.%ar! !till occur an the rule! o# international law rear"in the con"uct o# ho!tilitie! an" relate" @ue!tion! are nece!!ary. There i! no a"e@uate "enomination #or thi! !mall part o# international law. It i! o#ten calle" =the law o# arme" con&ict!*.

Pro#e!!or %. Frie"mann ha! !ue!te" a new "i0i!ion o# contemporary international law into two principal part!: the law o# co5e1i!tence an" the law o# co5operation. In hi! e!!ay! =The hanin Structure o# International )aw Frie"man #ormulate" =the principal the!i!* o# hi! 0iew! in the #ollowin term!:

=L In International law it i! to"ay o# both theoretical an" practical importance to "i!tinui!h between the international law o# Mco5e1i!tence4, o0ernin e!!entially "iplomatic inter!tate relation!, an" the international law o# co5operation, e1pre!!e" in the rowin !tructure o#  international orani;ation an" the pur!uit o# common human intere!t.*?

ccor"in to Tunkin uy! there are two le0el!: Uni0er!al an" reional, al!o it coul" be eneral international law an" particular international law.

%hat "o you mean by eneral international law

It re!ult! to coor"ination o# the will o# all or almo!t all !tate!

%hat i! JPP i! that particular or eneral I)7 So thi! i! Particular I) %hat about prohibition o# the u!e o# #orce7 /eneral I), that i! ob0iou!

Particular norm!, !ol0e" particular problem!, becau!e eneral norm! are not !uNcient to "eal with particular relation! between !tate!. like JPP ,

But thouh pro0i!ion! o# %TO i! eneral international law. Brownlie, The Reality an" Ncacy o# International )aw,

%ith all it! #ault! , international law i! the be!t tool a0ailable #or "ealin with the a$air! o#  State!.>

It i! imper#ect, becau!e there i! no international political !o0erein, ye! imper#ect,but it i! e1i!tin. %hy imper#ect7T he con!e@uence o# relati0e ineNciency o# "ome!tic law in

?

 _{Tunkin, International )aw in the International Sy!tem pae ?E}

en#orcin treaty !tan"ar"!'E_{, like u!e o# #orce prohibite" in U6 charter, !ine" by mo!t}

State!.

On the 0i"ence the law pro0i"e! a more practical ba!i! #or approachin international problem! an" the !ettlement o# "i!pute! than, #or e1ample, natural law in it! 0ariou! #orm!, I!lamic Curi!pru"ence, the principle! o# !ociali!t internationali!m, or !o calle" Me@uity4''_

%hen the law i! !een to be Mine$ecti0e4, the cau!e i! not Mthe law4 but the ab!ence o#  orani;ation, political will, !uNcient per!onnel or #un"in, an" !o #orth. )aw whether national or international, i! not a !ource o# alibi! #or politician! an" a"mini!trator!

Hiin!, Problem! an" Proce!!: International )aw an" How %e U!e" It '>>Q

Hiin!, #or me thi! i! more timely rele0ant. So what i! international law #or Hiin!, remember the @ue!tion in the Bar, who i! the current pre!i"ent o# the IJ, "o you remember that in#amou! @ue!tion7The an!wer i! , !he i! the an!wer Ro!alyn Hiin!, +EEG to +EE> !he !er0e" a! pre!i"ent o# The IJ.

International law i! not a !et o# rule!, but a proce!!, the entire "eci!ion makin proce!!. International law i! not rule!. It i! a normati0e !y!tem'+_.

ll orani;e" roup! an" !tructure! re@uire a !y!tem o# normati0e con"uct, ..

International law a! a normati0e !y!tem, harne!!e" to the achie0ement o# common 0alue!.

Hiin!, Problem! an" Proce!!: International )aw an" How %e U!e" It '>>Q:

 The 0iew that International law i! a bo"y o# rule! that #ail! to re!train !tate! #all! !hort on !e0eral count!.

In the (r!t place, it a!!ume! that law i! in"ee" Mrule!4. But the !peciali;e" !ocial proce!! to which the wor" Mlaw4, but not the only part. I remain committe" to the analy!i! o# 

'E _{Brownlie, The Reality an" Ncacy o# International )aw, pae} -'' _{Brownlie, The Reality an" Ncacy o# International )aw, pae ?}

'+

 _{Hiin!, Problem! an" Proce!!: International )aw an" How %e U!e" It '>>Q,}

pae '

 Tran!cribe" by : /e!al 2arie rno;a. Ba!e" on PI) UP law Syllabu! #rom tty. )iutan

Pae D

International law i! not rules. It i! a

international law a! proce!! rather than rule! an" to the 0iew I e1pre!!e" many year! ao ,when I !ai":

%hen.. "eci!ion! are ma"e by authori;e" per!on! or oran!, in appropriate #orum!, within the #ramework o# certain e!tabli!he" practice! an" norm!, then what occur! i! leal "eci!ion  makin. In other wor"!, international law i! a continuin proce!! o# authoritati0e "eci!ion!.  Thi! 0iew reCect! the notion o# law merely a! the impartial application o# rule!.

International law i! the entire "eci!ion5makin proce!!, an" not Cu!t the re#erence to the tren" o# pa!t "eci!ion! which are terme" Mrule!4.

 <ou look at rticle -? o# IJ the "e!po!ition o# ca!e! by IJ only applie! to partie! o# the ca!e, there i! no prece"ent, no re! Cu"icata, it i! a proce!!, you cannot o to the International ourt o# Ju!tice an" !ay, <our honor you mu!t !top thi! procee"in! becau!e the ca!e at han" ha! alrea"y been "eci"e" in ca!e blab laLan" pray that the court "eci"e in the !ame manner

But you can cite ca!e! .. it wa! alrea"y a!ke" "urin "oe! re! Cu"icata apply in international law, "oe! prece"ence o# Curi!pru"ence apply in international law7 6o it "oe!n4t apply. So Hiin!, i! a oo" rea"in, !ee tunkin, brierly "ili kaau #rien"ly, unlike Hiin! klaro, the!e

 Thu! Mrule!4 are Cu!t accumulate" pa!t "eci!ion!. n", i#

international law wa! Cu!t Mrule!4, then international law

woul" in"ee" by unable to contribute to, an" cope with,

a

chan in

olitical world.

 To rely merely on accumulate" pa!t "eci!ion! rule!Q when the

conte1t in which they were articulate" ha! chane"5 an" in"ee"

when the

context in which they were articulate" i! uncleari!

to en!ure that international law will not be able to contribute to

to"ay4! problem! an" , #urther, that it will be

disobeyed for

Article 38

1. The Court, whose function is to decide in accordance with international law such disputes as are submitted to it, shall apply:

a. international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting states;

b. international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law; c. the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations;

d. subect to the provisions of !rticle "#, udicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly $ualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law.

%. This provision shall not preudice the power of the Court to decide a case ex aequo et bono, if the arties a ree thereto.

e1pert! in international law li0e" in the library that i! why you can notice the lanuae.. So cla!! pa ba!a mo, you are not only rea"in #or thi! !ubCect but al!o #or the bar.

 Tran!cribe" by : /e!al 2arie rno;a. Ba!e" on PI) UP law Syllabu! #rom tty. )iutan

Pae >