International Cases Illustrating Monism and Dualism

1. France vs. Brazil (aka “Brazilian Loans Case”), PCIJ Rep.

Facts: This case involved a dispute between France and Brazil over loans
made by French nationals to the Brazilian government. France argued
that Brazil had violated international law by failing to repay the loans.
Brazil, in turn, argued that its domestic law did not recognize the validity
of the loans and therefore it was not obligated to repay
them[__LINK_ICON].

Issue: The central issue was whether Brazil could invoke its domestic law
as a defense against its international obligations.

Held: The Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) ruled in favor of

France, holding that a state cannot invoke its domestic law to justify non-
compliance with its international obligations. This decision is often cited
as a cornerstone of the principle of pacta sunt servanda (agreements
must be kept), which is a fundamental principle of international law. The
PCIJ's ruling implicitly supports the monist view by recognizing the
supremacy of international law over conflicting national law.

1
2. Exchange of Greek and Turkish Populations Case, PCIJ Advisory
Opinion

Facts: This case involved an advisory opinion requested by the Council of

the League of Nations on the legality of the exchange of populations
between Greece and Turkey, which was mandated by the Treaty of
Lausanne. The treaty required the exchange of populations belonging to
the Greek Orthodox and Muslim faiths, respectively. The Greek
government raised concerns about the legality of the forced exchange,
arguing that it violated international law.

Issue: The primary issue was whether the forced exchange of populations
was compatible with international law.

Held: The PCIJ, in its advisory opinion, upheld the legality of the
exchange, finding that it was a legitimate exercise of state sovereignty in
the context of a treaty obligation. The Court emphasized that the
exchange was necessary to achieve peace and stability in the region. The
decision, while not explicitly addressing the monism-dualism debate,
demonstrates the Court's willingness to uphold treaty obligations even
when they may involve controversial measures.

Philippine Cases Illustrating Monism and Dualism

2
1. Tanada vs. Angara, G.R. No. 118295, 02 May 1997

Facts: This landmark case challenged the constitutionality of the

Philippines' entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO). The
petitioners argued that the WTO agreements violated Philippine
sovereignty and that the Philippine government had not adequately
consulted with the people before entering into these agreements.

Issue: The main issue was whether the Philippines' entry into the WTO
was consistent with the Philippine Constitution.

Held: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the WTO

agreement, finding that it did not violate Philippine sovereignty. The Court
emphasized that the WTO agreements were entered into voluntarily and
that they were subject to the scrutiny of the Philippine Senate. The Court
also recognized the importance of international cooperation and the need
for the Philippines to participate in the global economy. This case reflects
a mixed approach to monism and dualism, acknowledging the importance
of international agreements while also emphasizing the supremacy of the
Philippine Constitution.

2. Tanada vs. Angara, G.R. No. 118295, 02 May 1997

3
Facts: This case involved a dispute over the sale of the Manila Hotel, a
national landmark. The Government Service Insurance System (GSIS)
planned to sell its shares in the Manila Hotel to a foreign company, but the
Manila Prince Hotel, a Filipino-owned company, sought to acquire these
shares. The issue arose because the Philippine Constitution contains a
provision requiring the government to prioritize Filipino ownership of
national patrimony.

Issue: The main issue was whether the GSIS's planned sale of its shares
in the Manila Hotel violated the constitutional requirement of prioritizing
Filipino ownership.

Held: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Manila Prince Hotel, finding
that the GSIS's planned sale violated the constitutional provision. The
Court held that the constitutional provision was a self-executing provision,
meaning that it could be directly applied by the courts without the need
for further legislation. The Court's decision reflects a monist approach,
prioritizing the direct application of constitutional provisions over
conflicting commercial interests.

International and Philippine Cases: A Glimpse into International

Law in Action

4
International Cases

6. Hungary vs. Slovakia (aka “Danube Dam Case”), 37 ILM 162

Facts: Hungary and Czechoslovakia (later Slovakia) signed a treaty in

1977 for a joint dam project on the Danube River. Hungary suspended
work in 1989 due to environmental concerns and eventually terminated
the treaty in 1992. Slovakia unilaterally completed a modified version of
the project.

Issue: Did Slovakia violate the treaty by unilaterally completing the dam
project after Hungary’s termination? Did Hungary have a valid basis to
terminate the treaty?

Held: The International Court of Justice (ICJ) found that Slovakia’s actions
were a breach of the treaty. While Hungary’s termination was premature,
the ICJ ruled that Hungary was entitled to compensation for Slovakia’s
breach. The Court emphasized the principle of equitable and reasonable

use of shared water resources, highlighting the importance of cooperation

between states in managing transboundary resources.

7. Qatar vs. Bahrain, ICJ Rep.

5
Facts: This case involved a dispute between Qatar and Bahrain over
territorial sovereignty, maritime delimitation, and the status of certain
islands.

Issue: Did the parties have a valid agreement to submit the dispute to
the ICJ? Did the ICJ have jurisdiction over the dispute?

Held: The ICJ found that the parties had indeed agreed to submit the
dispute to the Court and that it had jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter.
The Court’s decision emphasized the importance of state consent in
international law, particularly in the context of dispute resolution.

8. Finland vs. Denmark, 32(1) ILM 101

6
Facts: Finland sought to challenge Denmark’s regulations regarding the
passage of vessels through the Great Belt, a strait connecting the Baltic
Sea and the North Sea.

Issue: Did Denmark’s regulations violate Finland’s right of innocent

passage through the Great Belt?

Held: The ICJ issued an order indicating provisional measures, requiring

Denmark to refrain from taking any actions that might prejudice the rights
of Finland. The case was ultimately settled out of court, but the ICJ’s order
highlighted the importance of protecting the rights of innocent passage
under international law.

9. Air France vs. Saks, 470 US 392

7
Facts: This case involved a U.S. citizen who was injured in a plane crash
in France. The plaintiff sued Air France in the United States, arguing that
the Warsaw Convention, an international treaty governing air travel, did
not limit his right to sue in the U.S.

Issue: Did the Warsaw Convention preclude the plaintiff from suing Air
France in the United States?

Held: The U.S. Supreme Court held that the Warsaw Convention did not
bar the plaintiff from suing in the U.S. The Court emphasized that the
Convention was intended to harmonize international law on air travel, but
it did not necessarily supersede national laws on jurisdiction.

10. Goldwater vs. Carter, 444 U.S. 996, 13 December 1979

8
Facts: This case involved a challenge to President Carter’s decision to
terminate the U.S.-Taiwan Mutual Defense Treaty. The plaintiffs argued
that the President lacked the authority to unilaterally terminate treaties.

Issue: Did the President have the authority to unilaterally terminate

treaties?

Held: The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the case for lack of standing,
meaning that the plaintiffs did not have a sufficient legal interest to bring
the case. While the Court did not rule on the President’s power to
terminate treaties, the case highlighted the ongoing debate over the
separation of powers in the context of foreign affairs.

11. Australia vs. France, New Zealand vs. France (aka Nuclear Test
Cases”), ICJ Rep.
9
Facts: Australia and New Zealand challenged France’s nuclear testing in
the South Pacific, arguing that it violated international law.

Issue: Did France’s nuclear testing violate international law, specifically

the principle of non-interference with the environment of other states?

Held: The ICJ did not reach a definitive ruling on the legality of the tests,
as France withdrew from the proceedings before a decision could be
made. However, the Court’s preliminary findings suggested that France’s
actions might have violated international law. The case highlighted the
growing importance of environmental protection in international law.

12. UK vs. Iceland (aka “The Fisheries Jurisdiction Case”, ICJ Rep.

10
Facts: This case involved a dispute between the UK and Iceland over
fishing rights in the waters around Iceland. Iceland extended its territorial
waters, impacting UK fishing vessels.

Issue: Did Iceland have the right to unilaterally extend its territorial
waters?

Held: The ICJ ruled that Iceland had the right to extend its territorial
waters, but it also found that Iceland had to compensate the UK for the
economic losses incurred by its fishing vessels. The case highlighted the
evolving nature of international law, particularly in the context of maritime
boundaries and resource management.

13. Namibia Case, ICJ Rep

11
Facts: The case involved a legal challenge to South Africa’s continued
administration of Namibia (formerly South West Africa), a territory that
had been placed under South African mandate by the League of Nations.

Issue: Was South Africa’s continued administration of Namibia legal?

Held: The ICJ ruled that South Africa’s continued administration of

Namibia was illegal and that South Africa was obligated to withdraw from
the territory. The case had a significant impact on the decolonization
process and the development of international law on self-determination.

14. Norway vs. Denmark, PCIJ, Ser. A/B, No. 53,71

12
Facts: This case involved a dispute between Norway and Denmark over
the sovereignty of a small island in the Greenland Sea.

Issue: Which state had sovereignty over the island?

Held: The Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) ruled in favor of

Norway, finding that Norway had a stronger claim to the island based on
historical evidence and the principle of effective occupation. The case
highlighted the importance of historical evidence and the principle of
effective occupation in determining state sovereignty.

Philippine Cases

16. Salonga vs. Daniel Smith, G.R. No. 176051, 11 February 2009
13
Facts: This case involved a challenge to the Visiting Forces Agreement
(VFA) between the Philippines and the United States. The petitioners
argued that the VFA violated Philippine sovereignty and that it was
unconstitutional.

Issue: Was the VFA constitutional? Did it violate Philippine sovereignty?

Held: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the VFA, finding
that it did not violate Philippine sovereignty. The Court emphasized that
the VFA was a treaty that had been ratified by the Philippine Senate and
that it was subject to the scrutiny of Philippine courts. The case
highlighted the importance of balancing national sovereignty with
international cooperation.

17. Akbayan vs. Aquino, G.R. No. 170516, 16 July 2008

14
Facts: This case involved a challenge to the Philippines’ participation in
the Joint Military Exercises (JME) with the United States. The petitioners
argued that the JME violated the Philippine Constitution and that it was a
form of military intervention.

Issue: Did the JME violate the Philippine Constitution? Was it a form of
military intervention?

Held: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the JME, finding
that it did not violate the Philippine Constitution. The Court emphasized
that the JME was a form of military cooperation that was consistent with
the Philippines’ foreign policy. The case highlighted the importance of
upholding the principle of national self-determination in the context of
international relations.

18. Pimentel vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 158088, 06 July

2005

15
Facts: This case involved a challenge to the Philippines’ ratification of the
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The petitioners
argued that the Rome Statute violated Philippine sovereignty and that it
was unconstitutional.

Issue: Was the Rome Statute constitutional? Did it violate Philippine

sovereignty?

Held: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Rome

Statute, finding that it did not violate Philippine sovereignty. The Court
emphasized that the Rome Statute was a treaty that had been ratified by
the Philippine Senate and that it was subject to the scrutiny of Philippine
courts. The case highlighted the importance of balancing national
sovereignty with international cooperation.

19. Bayan vs. Zamora, 342 SCRA 449, 10 October 2000

16
Facts: This case involved a challenge to the constitutionality of the
Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) between the
Philippines and the United States. The petitioners argued that the EDCA
violated Philippine sovereignty and that it was unconstitutional.

Issue: Was the EDCA constitutional? Did it violate Philippine sovereignty?

Held: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the EDCA, finding
that it did not violate Philippine sovereignty. The Court emphasized that
the EDCA was a treaty that had been ratified by the Philippine Senate and
that it was subject to the scrutiny of Philippine courts. The case
highlighted the importance of balancing national sovereignty with
international cooperation.

20. Agustin vs. Edu, G.R. No. L-49112, 02 February 1979

17
Facts: This case involved a challenge to the constitutionality of a law
requiring all students to wear a prescribed uniform. The petitioners
argued that the law violated their right to freedom of expression.

Issue: Did the law requiring students to wear a uniform violate the right
to freedom of expression?

Held: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the law, finding
that the right to freedom of expression was not absolute and that the
government had a legitimate interest in promoting discipline and order in
schools. The case highlighted the importance of balancing individual
rights with the public interest.

International Cases and Customary International Law:

18
21. Nicaragua vs. US (aka “The Military and Paramilitary Activities
Case”), 1986 ICJ Rep. 14, 27 June 1986

Facts: Nicaragua, a socialist government, faced armed opposition from

the Contras, a group funded and supported by the US. The US engaged in
various activities against Nicaragua, including: Training, arming, and
financing the Contras. Laying mines in Nicaraguan harbors. Providing
military and logistical support to the Contras. Interfering with Nicaraguan
airspace and territorial waters. Nicaragua argued that these actions
violated international law, including the prohibition on the use of force and
the principle of non-intervention.

Issues: Whether the US actions constituted a breach of customary

international law, specifically the principles of non-intervention, the
prohibition on the use of force, and the protection of territorial integrity.

Whether the US could justify its actions under the doctrine of collective
self-defense.

Held: The ICJ found that the US had violated customary international law
by: Intervening in the affairs of Nicaragua. Using force against Nicaragua.
Violating Nicaragua’s sovereignty. Interrupting peaceful maritime
commerce. The court rejected the US’s claim of collective self-defense,
finding that the US had not provided sufficient evidence to establish a
threat from Nicaragua that justified its actions. This case solidified the
principles of non-intervention and the prohibition on the use of force as
customary international law. It also highlighted the importance of state
responsibility for the actions of non-state actors when they are effectively
controlled by the state.

22. Tunisia vs. Libya, 1982 ICJ Rep. 18

19
Facts: Tunisia and Libya shared a common continental shelf in the
Mediterranean Sea. Both countries claimed the same area of the seabed,
leading to a dispute over the delimitation of their respective continental
shelves.

Issues: What principles of international law should be applied to delimit

the continental shelf between two states with a common continental
shelf? Whether the equidistance method, which divides the shelf equally
between the two states, was appropriate in this case.

Held: The ICJ ruled that the delimitation of the continental shelf should be
based on “equitable principles” and not solely on the equidistance
method. The court emphasized that the equidistance method could not be
applied automatically and that it should be considered in conjunction with
other relevant factors, such as the length of the coastlines, the
geographical configuration of the area, and the historical practices of the
states involved. This case established the principle that equitable
principles, rather than a rigid application of the equidistance method,
should guide the delimitation of shared continental shelves. It also
highlighted the importance of considering the specific circumstances of
each case.

23. The Anglo-French Continental Shelf Case

20
Facts: France and the UK shared a common continental shelf in the
English Channel. The two countries had a dispute over the delimitation of
their respective continental shelves, particularly in the area of the
Channel Islands, which are British territories located off the French coast.

Issues: What principles of international law should be applied to delimit

the continental shelf between two states with a common continental
shelf? Whether the equidistance method was appropriate in this case,
taking into account the presence of the Channel Islands.

Held: The Court of Arbitration, which was tasked with resolving the
dispute, found that the delimitation of the continental shelf should be
based on “equitable principles,” considering various factors, including the
configuration of the coasts, the length of the coastlines, and the
geographical features of the area. The court rejected the equidistance
method as a primary basis for delimitation in this case due to the
presence of the Channel Islands. This case further reinforced the principle
of equitable principles in the delimitation of continental shelves,
emphasizing the importance of considering the specific circumstances of
each case.

21
24. Federal Republic of Germany vs. Netherlands (aka “North Sea
Continental Shelf Case”), 1969 ICJ Rep.3, 20 February 1969

Facts: Germany, Denmark, and the Netherlands shared a common

continental shelf in the North Sea. The three countries had a dispute over
the delimitation of their respective continental shelves.

Issues: What principles of international law should be applied to delimit

the continental shelf between three states with a common continental
shelf? Whether the equidistance method was appropriate in this case.

Held: The ICJ ruled that the delimitation of the continental shelf should be
based on “equitable principles,” considering various factors, including the
configuration of the coasts, the length of the coastlines, and the
geographical features of the area. The court rejected the equidistance
method as a primary basis for delimitation in this case, finding that it
would not lead to an equitable result. This case was significant for
establishing the principle of equitable principles as a guiding principle in
the delimitation of continental shelves. It also highlighted the importance
of considering the specific circumstances of each case and the need to
achieve a fair and reasonable outcome.

25. Portugal vs. India, 1960 ICJ 6, 12 April 1960

22
Facts: Portugal and India had a dispute over the sovereignty of the
territory of Goa, Daman, and Diu, which were Portuguese colonies on the
Indian subcontinent. India argued that Portugal had no legal basis for its
claim to these territories and that they were rightfully part of India.

Issues: Whether Portugal had a valid legal basis for its claim to the
territories of Goa, Daman, and Diu. Whether India had the right to use
force to liberate these territories.

Held: The ICJ did not rule on the merits of the dispute, as Portugal
withdrew its case before the court could issue a judgment. However, the
case is significant for its role in the decolonization process. It highlighted
the increasing pressure on colonial powers to relinquish their colonies and
the growing acceptance of the principle of self-determination.

26. Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case, 1951 ICJ Rep. 116

23
Facts: Norway had established a system of straight baselines along its
coast, which extended its territorial waters further out to sea than allowed
under traditional international law. The UK challenged this system, arguing
that it violated international law.

Issues: Whether Norway’s system of straight baselines was consistent

with international law. Whether Norway’s system of straight baselines
violated the UK’s right to fish in the disputed waters.

Held: The ICJ ruled in favor of Norway, finding that its system of straight
baselines was consistent with international law. The court recognized that
the traditional method of drawing baselines along the coast was not
always appropriate for countries with deeply indented coastlines or
numerous islands. This case established the principle of straight baselines
as a legitimate method for determining the territorial waters of a state. It
also highlighted the importance of considering the specific geographical
circumstances of a state when applying international law.

27. Columbia vs. Peru (aka “Asylum Case”), 1950 ICJ Rep. 266, 20
November 1950

24
Facts: A Peruvian citizen, Haya de la Torre, was granted asylum in the
Colombian embassy in Lima, Peru. Peru refused to grant him safe passage
out of the country, arguing that he was a political criminal and not entitled
to asylum. Colombia argued that Peru was obligated to grant him safe
passage under international law.

Issues: Whether Peru was obligated to grant Haya de la Torre safe

passage under international law. Whether the principle of territorial
asylum was a customary rule of international law.

Held: The ICJ ruled in favor of Peru, finding that it was not obligated to
grant Haya de la Torre safe passage. The court found that the principle of
territorial asylum was not a customary rule of international law. This case
highlighted the limitations of the principle of territorial asylum and the
importance of state sovereignty in granting asylum.

28. France vs. Turkey (aka “The Lotus Case”), 1927 PCIJ, Ser. A,
No. 10, 07 September 1927

25
Facts: A French steamship, the Lotus, collided with a Turkish steamship in
the Mediterranean Sea. The Turkish authorities arrested the French officer
on watch, who was found to be responsible for the collision. France argued
that Turkey had no jurisdiction to prosecute the French officer, as the
collision occurred outside Turkish territorial waters.

Issues: Whether Turkey had jurisdiction to prosecute the French officer for
the collision. Whether the principle of territoriality was the only basis for
criminal jurisdiction in international law.

Held: The PCIJ ruled in favor of Turkey, finding that it had jurisdiction to
prosecute the French officer. The court rejected France’s argument that
territoriality was the only basis for criminal jurisdiction. This case
established the principle of “flag state jurisdiction,” which allows a state to
exercise jurisdiction over its nationals, even when they commit crimes
outside its territory. It also highlighted the importance of the principle of
“objective territoriality,” which allows a state to exercise jurisdiction over
crimes that have effects within its territory.

29. The Wimbledon Case, PCIJ 1923

Facts: The S.S. Wimbledon, a British ship, was chartered by a French

company and hired by the Polish government to transport war materiel to
26
the Polish naval base at Danzig. Germany, which was neutral in the war
between Poland and Russia, refused the Wimbledon entry into the Kiel
Canal, citing its neutrality. France, on behalf of the Allied powers, argued
that Germany was obligated to allow the ship’s passage under the Treaty
of Versailles.

Issues: Whether Germany’s neutrality orders could override the

provisions of the Treaty of Versailles, particularly Article 380, which
guaranteed free passage through the Kiel Canal for vessels of all nations
at peace with Germany. Specifically, did Germany’s right to neutrality as a
sovereign state supersede its obligation under the Treaty of Versailles to
allow free passage through the Kiel Canal?

Held: The PCIJ ruled in favor of the Allied powers, finding that Germany’s
neutrality orders were inconsistent with the provisions of the Treaty of
Versailles. The court interpreted Article 380 literally, concluding that it
clearly obligated Germany to allow free passage to all vessels, regardless
of their cargo or destination, with an exception only for vessels belonging
to nations at war with Germany.

The court emphasized that the treaty had explicitly contemplated

the possibility of future wars involving Germany and that if free access to
the Kiel Canal could be modified in the event of German neutrality, the
treaty would have explicitly stated so. The court also rejected Germany’s
argument that the treaty violated its sovereignty, stating that the right to
enter into international engagements is an attribute of state sovereignty,
and that while treaties may restrict the exercise of sovereignty, they do
not constitute an abandonment of it.The court concluded that Germany’s
neutrality orders could not preempt the provisions of the Treaty of
Versailles, and that allowing the Wimbledon to pass through the Kiel Canal
would not have compromised Germany’s neutrality.

30. The Paquete Habana Case, 175 US 677

Facts: During the Spanish-American War, the US Navy captured two

Spanish fishing vessels, the Paquete Habana and the Lola, off the coast of
Cuba. The US government argued that the vessels were lawful prizes of
27
war and could be confiscated. The owners of the vessels argued that they
were exempt from capture under customary international law, which
recognized the right of fishing vessels to continue their operations during
wartime.

Issues: Whether the capture of the fishing vessels was lawful under
international law. Whether customary international law recognized an
exemption from capture for fishing vessels during wartime.

Held: The US Supreme Court ruled in favor of the owners of the vessels,
finding that they were exempt from capture under customary international
law. The court found that the practice of exempting fishing vessels from
capture during wartime was long-standing and well-established in
international law.

This case is significant for its recognition of customary international

law as a source of law in the US legal system. It also highlighted the
importance of considering the historical practices of states in determining
the content of customary international law.

31. Prosecutor vs. Dusko Tadic, International Criminal Tribunal for

the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) Case No. IT-94-1, 02 October 1995

Facts: Dusko Tadic was charged with crimes against humanity and
violations of the laws or customs of war during the Bosnian War. The ICTY
28
was established by the United Nations Security Council to prosecute
individuals for serious violations of international humanitarian law
committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia. Tadic’s defense
challenged the ICTY’s jurisdiction, arguing that the Tribunal was illegally
established and lacked the authority to try him.

Issues: Jurisdiction: Did the ICTY have the authority to try Tadic for crimes
committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia? Primacy of
International Law: Did the ICTY have primacy over national courts in
prosecuting individuals for international crimes? Subject-Matter
Jurisdiction: Did the ICTY have jurisdiction over the specific crimes charged
against Tadic?

Held: The ICTY Appeals Chamber upheld the Trial Chamber’s decision,
finding that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to try Tadic. The Appeals Chamber
ruled that the ICTY was validly established by the UN Security Council and
that it had the authority to prosecute individuals for international crimes,
even if national courts also had jurisdiction. The Appeals Chamber also
found that the ICTY had jurisdiction over the specific crimes charged
against Tadic, as they fell within the scope of the Tribunal’s mandate. This
case set a precedent for the establishment and jurisdiction of international
tribunals, affirming their role in upholding international law and
prosecuting serious crimes.

32. Texaco Overseas Petroleum Co. Vs. Libya (aka “Texaco

Arbitration Case”), 104 J. Droit Int’l 350 ; trans. In 17 ILM 1

Facts: Texaco Overseas Petroleum Co. And California Asiatic Oil Company
(Cal Asiatic) had entered into concession agreements with the Libyan
29
government for oil exploration and exploitation. In 1973 and 1974, Libya
nationalized all of Texaco and Cal Asiatic’s rights, interests, and property
in the country. The companies sought arbitration, but Libya refused to
participate.

Issues: Internationalization of Contracts: Did the concession agreements

between Texaco/Cal Asiatic and Libya fall under international law, allowing
for international arbitration? Breach of Contract: Did Libya breach its
obligations under the concession agreements by nationalizing the
companies’ assets? Sovereignty and Nationalization: Did Libya’s right to
nationalize its resources supersede its contractual obligations to Texaco
and Cal Asiatic?

Held: The sole arbitrator, Professor René-Jean Dupuy, ruled in favor of

Texaco and Cal Asiatic. He found that the concession agreements were
internationalized because they involved a state and a foreign private
party. The arbitrator held that Libya’s nationalization decrees breached its
contractual obligations to the companies, as the agreements were binding
under international law. While acknowledging Libya’s right to nationalize,
the arbitrator emphasized that this right must be exercised in accordance
with international law, including respecting contractual obligations. This
case demonstrated the importance of international law in regulating state-
private relationships and the limitations on a state’s right to nationalize.

33. Belgium vs. Spain (aka “The Barcelona Traction Case”), 1970
ICJ Rep. 3, 05 February 1970

Facts: Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, a Canadian

company with substantial operations in Spain, was declared bankrupt.
Belgium, on behalf of some of its citizens who were shareholders in

30
Barcelona Traction, brought a case against Spain before the International
Court of Justice (ICJ). Belgium argued that Spain had violated international
law by failing to protect the company’s interests.

Issues: Nationality of Claims: Did Belgium have the right to bring a case
against Spain on behalf of its citizens who were shareholders in a
Canadian company?

Direct Injury: Did Spain’s actions directly injure Belgium, or only its
citizens who were shareholders in Barcelona Traction?

Protection of Shareholders: Did international law require Spain to protect

the interests of foreign shareholders in a company operating within its
territory?

Held: The ICJ ruled against Belgium, finding that it lacked standing to
bring the case. The Court held that the nationality of claims is determined
by the nationality of the injured party, which in this case was the Canadian
company, Barcelona Traction. The Court also found that Belgium did not
suffer a direct injury, as the harm was primarily to the company and its
shareholders. While acknowledging the importance of protecting foreign
investments, the Court emphasized that the primary responsibility for
protecting a company’s interests lies with the state of its nationality. This
case established the principle of “nationality of claims” and clarified the
limits of diplomatic protection in international law.

34. Saudi Arabia vs. Arabian American Oil Co. (aka “Aramco
Arbitration Case”), 27 ILR 117

Facts: Arabian American Oil Company (Aramco), a US-owned oil

company, had concession agreements with Saudi Arabia for oil exploration
and production. In 1950, the Saudi government sought to renegotiate the
agreements, leading to a dispute between the two parties.
31
Issues: Interpretation of Contracts: How should the concession
agreements between Aramco and Saudi Arabia be interpreted?
Sovereignty and Nationalization: Did Saudi Arabia have the right to
renegotiate the agreements based on its sovereign authority over its
natural resources? Fair Compensation: If Saudi Arabia was entitled to
renegotiate the agreements, what level of compensation was due to
Aramco?

Held: The arbitration panel, composed of two Saudi arbitrators and one
American arbitrator, ruled in favor of Saudi Arabia. The panel found that
the concession agreements were subject to renegotiation by Saudi Arabia,
as it had the sovereign right to control its natural resources. However, the
panel also held that Aramco was entitled to fair compensation for any
losses incurred due to the renegotiation. This case demonstrated the
balancing act between a state’s sovereign rights and its contractual
obligations, highlighting the importance of fair compensation in cases of
renegotiation.

35. Cambodia vs. Thailand (aka “The Temple of Preah Vihear

Case), 1962 ICJ Rep. 6, 15 June 1962

Facts: Cambodia and Thailand had a long-standing dispute over the

ownership of the Preah Vihear Temple, a religious site located on the

32
border between the two countries. Cambodia sought to have the ICJ
determine the legal status of the temple and the surrounding territory.

Issues: Interpretation of Treaties: How should the 1907 Franco-Siamese

Treaty, which defined the border between Thailand and Cambodia, be
interpreted? Territorial Sovereignty: Which country had sovereign rights
over the Preah Vihear Temple and the surrounding territory? Historical
Evidence: What weight should be given to historical evidence in
determining territorial sovereignty?

Held: The ICJ ruled in favor of Cambodia, finding that the temple and the
surrounding territory belonged to Cambodia. The Court interpreted the
1907 treaty based on the intent of the parties at the time of its signing
and considered historical evidence to support its conclusion. This case
demonstrated the role of the ICJ in resolving territorial disputes and the
importance of treaty interpretation in international law.

36. Honduras vs. Nicaragua, 1960 ICJ 192, 18 November 1960

Facts: Honduras and Nicaragua had a dispute over the ownership of a

small island in the Caribbean Sea, known as the “Island of Serrana.”
Honduras claimed sovereignty over the island, while Nicaragua argued
that it was part of its territory.
33
Issues: Territorial Sovereignty: Which country had sovereign rights over
the Island of Serrana? Historical Evidence: What weight should be given to
historical evidence in determining territorial sovereignty? Effective
Occupation: Did Honduras have effective occupation of the island, which
would support its claim of sovereignty?

Held: The ICJ ruled in favor of Nicaragua, finding that the Island of
Serrana belonged to Nicaragua. The Court considered historical evidence
and found that Nicaragua had exercised sovereignty over the island since
the early 19th century. The Court also found that Honduras’s occupation of
the island was not effective, as it did not have a permanent presence or
exercise effective control over the territory. This case demonstrated the
importance of historical evidence and effective occupation in determining
territorial sovereignty.

37. Southwest Africa Case, 1950 ICJ Rep. 149

Facts: The case involved a dispute between South Africa and the United
Nations over the legal status of South West Africa (now Namibia). South
Africa had administered the territory as a mandate under the League of
Nations, but the UN argued that South Africa had violated the terms of the
mandate and should relinquish control of the territory.

34
Issues: Mandate System: What were the legal obligations of South Africa
under the League of Nations mandate for South West Africa? International
Supervision: Did the UN have the right to supervise South Africa’s
administration of the territory? Self-Determination: Did the people of
South West Africa have the right to self-determination?

Held: The ICJ, in a divided decision, ruled that South Africa was not legally
obligated to relinquish control of South West Africa. The Court found that
the mandate system was not a trusteeship system and that South Africa
did not have to relinquish control unless it voluntarily decided to do so.
This case demonstrated the complexities of the mandate system and the
evolving principles of international law regarding self-determination.

38. UK vs. Albania (aka “The Corfu Channel Case”), 1949 ICJ 4, 09
April 1949

Facts: In 1946, two British warships were damaged by mines in the Corfu
Channel, a strait between Albania and Greece. The UK accused Albania of
laying the mines and sought compensation for the damage. Albania
denied responsibility, arguing that the mines were laid by a third party.

35
Issues: State Responsibility: Was Albania responsible for the damage to
the British warships, even if it did not directly lay the mines? Due
Diligence: Did Albania have a duty to exercise due diligence to prevent the
laying of mines in its territorial waters? Passage Through Straits: What
were the legal rights of ships passing through international straits?

Held: The ICJ ruled in favor of the UK, finding that Albania was responsible
for the damage to the warships. The Court found that Albania had failed to
exercise due diligence to prevent the laying of mines in its territorial
waters, even if it did not directly lay the mines. The Court also held that
Albania had violated the UK’s right of innocent passage through the Corfu
Channel. This case established the principle of state responsibility for acts
of third parties and the importance of due diligence in international law.

39. Germany vs. Poland (aka “The Chorzow Factory Case”), PCIJ,
Ser. A, No. 9

Facts: In 1922, Poland seized a factory in Upper Silesia, which had been
owned by a German company. Germany sought compensation for the
seizure of the factory, arguing that Poland had violated international law.

Issues: Reparation for Breach of International Law: What are the

principles governing reparation for a state’s breach of international law?
36
Compensation for Damages: What level of compensation is due to a state
for damages caused by another state’s violation of international law?
Indemnification for Loss: How should a state be indemnified for the loss of
property or profits caused by another state’s wrongful act?

Held: The Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) ruled in favor of

Germany, finding that Poland was obligated to pay compensation for the
seizure of the factory. The Court established the principle of “reparation”
in international law, holding that a state is obligated to make full
reparation for any breach of international law. The Court also emphasized
that compensation should be calculated to restore the injured party to the
position it would have been in if the wrongful act had not occurred. This
case established key principles of state responsibility and reparation in
international law.

40. Kuroda vs. Jalandoni, G.R. No. L-2662, 26 March 1949

Facts: This case involved a Japanese military officer, Major General

Shigenori Kuroda, who was charged with war crimes by the Philippine
government. Kuroda argued that the charges against him were invalid
because he was a prisoner of war and should be tried by a Japanese
military court.

37
Issues: Jurisdiction of Philippine Courts: Did the Philippine courts have
jurisdiction to try Kuroda for war crimes committed during World War II?
Prisoner of War Status: Was Kuroda a prisoner of war and therefore subject
to the protections of the Geneva Conventions? International Law and
Domestic Courts: How should international law be applied in domestic
courts?

Held: The Supreme Court of the Philippines upheld the charges against
Kuroda, finding that the Philippine courts had jurisdiction to try him for
war crimes. The Court held that Kuroda was not a prisoner of war because
he had been captured after the surrender of Japan and was not entitled to
the protections of the Geneva Conventions. The Court also emphasized
that international law, including the laws of war, is part of the law of the
Philippines and that Philippine courts have the authority to apply it. This
case demonstrated the application of international law in domestic courts
and the importance of upholding international legal principles.

Ex Aequo Et Bono: International Case Analysis

41. Canada vs. USA (Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the

Gulf of Maine Area)

Facts: The case arose from a dispute between Canada and the United
States over the delimitation of their maritime boundary in the Gulf of

38
Maine area. This boundary encompassed both the continental shelf and
the 200-mile exclusive fishery zone. The dispute stemmed from conflicting
interpretations of international law regarding maritime boundary
delimitation, particularly the application of the equitable criteria and
practical methods outlined in the 1958 Convention on the Continental
Shelf

The two countries had previously entered into a Special Agreement

in 1979, requesting a Chamber of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to
draw a single line delimiting both the continental shelf and the fishery
zone. This agreement established a predefined starting point and a
terminal area for the delimitation line.

42. Netherlands vs. Belgium (Diversion of Water from the Meuse

Case)

Facts: The dispute centered around a treaty signed in 1863 between the
two countries, which regulated the use of water from the Meuse River for
navigation canals and irrigation channels. The treaty aimed to ensure
sufficient water flow for both countries. However, as the economic
development of the Meuse River valley progressed, both countries sought

39
to expand their use of the river's water resources, leading to conflicting
interpretations of the 1863 treaty.

The Netherlands argued that Belgium's construction of new canals

and the diversion of water for these canals violated the 1863 treaty.
Belgium countered that the treaty did not restrict their right to develop
their own canals and that the Netherlands had also undertaken projects
that impacted the river's water flow.

Issues: The key issue before the Permanent Court of International Justice
(PCIJ) was whether the 1863 treaty prevented either country from
developing their own water resources within their respective territories.
The court needed to determine if the treaty's provisions were restrictive or
if they allowed for reasonable development of water resources.

Held: The PCIJ ultimately rejected both the Netherlands' claims and
Belgium's counterclaims. The court concluded that the 1863 treaty did
not prohibit either country from developing their own canals and water
resources within their territories. The court found that the treaty's
primary purpose was to regulate the diversion of water at a specific intake
point and to ensure sufficient water flow for navigation and irrigation. It
did not restrict each country's right to modify or expand their own canals
within their borders.

The court emphasized the principle of equity in international law,

stating that neither country could be forced to perform their obligations
under the treaty unless they had already fulfilled or offered to fulfill their
own obligations. This principle, derived from Anglo-American and Roman
law, highlights the importance of fairness and mutual cooperation in
international agreements.

40