You are on page 1of 59

Ombachi r.m/muriungi d.

m
3rd year. April 2005 lectures

Public International Law Lectures


A.O. Adede

Lecture 1
Introduction.
International law traditionally concerned itself with relations with
sovereign states but nowadays it also deals with relations between
natural and juridical persons. These are individual human beings and
incorporated companies. Individuals benefit from the protection of
international law but they cannot be described as proper subjects of
international law.

Multi-national corporations are busily engaged in international


transactions with states. Consequently new rules of law have been
developed to cover these relationships. However these corporations
fail to qualify as international subjects. States and international
organizations like the United Nations are the main actors on the
international community, the only entities with true international
personality and principal creators of international law.

The Minimum Standards of International Justice with respect to aliens


qua aliens.
Any of the following actions amount to denial of justice to
aliens.
 Failure to inform an alien reason for his arrest

1
 Failure to provide an alien with an interpreter if he needs one
 Holding an alien incommunicado
 Refusing an alien the right to consult their counsel

These were rights that were being reserved to protect aliens and being
enforced mostly in the developing countries and the Latin American
countries.

Doctrine
The Calvo Doctrine (or principle) holds that jurisdiction in international
investment disputes lies with the country in which the investment is
located; thus, the investor has no recourse but to use the local courts.
The principle, named after an Argentinean jurist, has been applied
throughout Latin America and other areas of the world. It is a body of
international rules regulating the jurisdiction of governments over
aliens and the scope of their protection by their home states, as well
as the use of force in collecting indemnities. The doctrine was
advanced by the Argentine diplomat and legal scholar Carlos Calvo.
An Argentinean by the name Calvo – said that “we cannot assign
foreigners in our countries special treatment as this would be like
having two regimes in a country which would amount to political
monstrosity. Calvo developed the Calvo Doctrine and argued for
equality of treatment between nationals and aliens. No special
regimes. An alien is supposed to accept everything in the host country
and no special treatment. Having minimum standard of international
justice to be observed with respect to aliens qua aliens was wrong.

This doctrine developed what became known as the Calvo clause. To


implement calvo doctrine required the calvo clause. Under the Calvo
clause Latin American countries decided that any foreign country
coming to do business in their countries, whether mining or any

2
activity under a contract will have a clause in that contract in which
the alien waives its right to ask its own government to espouse its
claim before the international court a claim.
Many countries in Latin America have worked under the Calvo Doctrine
until they started signing FTAs and BITs.

The Calvo Doctrine is a doctrine and not a law and basically says that a
country is sovereign and does not have to hand over their sovereignty
to an international court to resolve a dispute when foreigners are
involved.
http://www.britannica.com/needmoreInternational Law of Europe and
America in Theory and Practice (1868).

North American Dredging Co. v. Mexico

The company waived its rights ever to ask USA to bring the case
against Mexico. The Mixed Claims Commission found out that the
obvious purpose of the clause was to prevent abuse of the right of
diplomatic protection and to draw a reasonable line between the
sovereign rights of a state i.e. issue of jurisdiction and Diplomatic
protection. It stated that the clause was part of the contract and had to
be upheld unless it was repugnant to a recognized rule of international
law. It found further that a contractual clause purporting to restrict or
exclude the rights normally owed to an alien would be valid to the
extent that it did not preclude diplomatic protection for violations of
international Law.

An alien cannot deprive his government its right of diplomatic


protection in case of violations of international law nor may he deprive
himself of the right to apply to his government on the ground. But in
such a case the claimant’s complaint would be not that his contract
was violated but that he had been denied justice.

3
The commission declared that North American Dredging Company had
fully ignored the local remedies rule provided by Mexican Law. The
claimant having agreed to Article 18 of the Contract could not rightfully
present a breach of contract claim to its government for its espousal
and therefore the claim was unanimously dismissed.

The western world response to Calvo clause was that the individual
had no right to waive a state’s right. This had to become a legal
jurisprudence of international law.

In the Mavrommatis Palestine Concession case the very issue was


settled when the permanent court of international justice said that
when a state Mavrommatis espouses the claim of its national to take to
an international tribunal, it had to be the state in its own rights and its
own interest rather than the individual involved. It is the state that
wants to assert its own right to ensure that its rights are being
asserted.

From the beginning the Western world was of the view that there was
no right to expropriate the property of aliens. They decided that the
rule to apply is when one expropriates property they must pay prompt,
adequate and just compensation if one must expropriate.

From this evolved the permanent sovereignty of natural resources.


They began to challenge the standard of prompt, adequate and just
compensation. Under the principles of exercising permanent
sovereignty the countries said they had the right to determine the
amount of compensation they paid. The host state determines the
amount of compensation because they were the only ones who could
determine the value of the property. If for example an alien owed
taxes the amounts would be deducted. The developing countries won.

4
In 1974 there was a famous UN Resolution that adopted the Charter of
Economic Rights and Duties of States.

APPROPRIATE COMPENSATION.
Article 2 (c) provides that the state, which has expropriated the
property of aliens, has the right to pay appropriate compensation.
Once that state has arrived at a just compensation the amount is not
subject to any proceeding outside that country. No more taking cases
of expropriation to international court. This is how Libya responded to
Texaco Oil CO. in Texaco Oil Co. v. Libya and Libya applied the charter
of economic rights and duties principle and decided how much was to
be paid to Texaco. This case was heard by a French lawyer and the
question was how Libya could rely on a clause that had been rejected
by the rest of the world. The Judge ruled that Libya would not rely on
this Article as it had been rejected by the developed world. This is a
decision that favoured the Western World.

International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes.


The countries of western world got tired of these series of espousing
claims simply because as subjects of international law, companies had
no right to bring a case before an international court. In 1966 they
decided to negotiate a convention for settlement of investment
disputes between states and companies direct. This convention
established a centre called International Centre for the Settlement of
Investment Disputes (ICSID) between states and companies directly.

The entire Latin American country rejected ICSID entirely because they
wanted aliens to have all issues settled at home. (Calvo Clause). Once
the country involved has accepted the jurisdiction of the centre, it
allows the company to approach the centre but insists that the
company exhausts the remedies available locally.

5
ICSID is thus a thriving institution in Washington D.C.

PART II

Exhaustion of local remedies.


Pannevezys Saldutiskis Railway Case – before an alien can have his
case admitted in ICSID must have local remedies exhausted.
Establishing the local remedies rule Clear opinions, are all to the effect
that the principle of the exhaustion of local remedies lays down a
condition for generation of the international responsibility of the State,
were expressed by three other judges, namely, Judge Hudson in his
dissenting opinion in the Panevezys-Saldutiskis Railway case,1 Judge
Cordoba in his separate opinion in the Interhandel case,
Judge Morelli gave a thorough definition of the principle of the
exhaustion of local remedies in the following terms:
"However, the local remedies rule, as a rule of general
international law, is in my view substantive and not procedural. It is
indeed a rule, which is supplementary to other rules, which also
themselves possess the character of substantive rules, namely the
rules concerning the treatment of foreigners.
"Those rules require from the States to which they are directed a
particular final result in respect of the treatment of foreign nationals,
leaving the State which is under the obligation free as regards the
means to be used. Consequently, if an organ of the State which is

1 Judge Hudson wrote:


"It is a very important rule of international law that local remedies must have been
exhausted without redress before a State may successfully espouse a claim of its national
against another State. This is not a rule of procedure. It is not merely a matter of orderly
conduct. It is part of the substantive law as to international, i.e. State-to-State, responsibility.
If adequate redress for the injury is available to the person who suffered it, if such a person
has only to reach out to avail himself of such redress, there is no basis for a claim to be
espoused by the State of which such person is a national. Until the available means of local
redress have been exhausted, no international responsibility can arise." (P.C.I.J. Series A/B,
No. 76, p. 47.)

6
under the obligation performs an act contrary to the desired result, the
existence of an internationally unlawful act and of the international
responsibility of the State cannot be asserted so long as the foreign
national has a possibility of securing, through the means provided by
the municipal legal system, the result required by the international
rule." (I.C.J. Reports 1964, p. 114.)

Mavrommatis Palestine Concession – when the state brings a claim on


behalf of its own national it is exerting its right other than that of its
national

Chattin Claim – elucidated and put down succinctly the concept of


denial of justice dealing with irregularities that open the way to
approach international court.

Interhandel Case – merely confirmed that the exhaustion of local


remedies is a well-established principle of international law that must
be observed unless States dispense with this agreement under treaty.
If the state does not require local remedies to be exhausted, again this
case can be cited.

Ambatielos Case - this is the case that if you had a witness who could
come and help you in your case in the local court and failed to call that
witness and the court decided that had the witness come the case
would have been decided differently, it was decided that this would
amount to failure to exhaust local remedies. Failure to call a key
witness was declared to be non-exhaustion of local available remedies.

7
The minimum standards of international justice to be observed with
respect to aliens qua aliens are:

1. Failure to provide an interpreter


2. Holding an alien incommunicado

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW 2

Civilized states - recognized major legal systems of the world

AN ACT OF STATE DOCTRINE:

Every sovereign state is bound to respect the independence of every


other sovereign state, and the courts of one country will not sit in
judgment on the acts of another government done within its own
territory. Redress of grievances by reason of such acts must be
obtained through the means open to be availed of by Sovereign
powers as between themselves. This doctrine was argued in the
following case.

BANCO NACIONAL DE CUBA v. SABBATINO, 376 U.S. 398


(1964)

376 U.S. 398

BANCO NACIONAL DE CUBA v. SABBATINO, RECEIVER, ET AL.


CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE SECOND CIRCUIT.
No. 16.
Argued October 22-23, 1963.
Decided March 23, 1964.

8
Respondent American commodity broker, contracted with a Cuban
corporation largely owned by United States residents to buy Cuban
sugar. Thereafter, subsequent to the United States Government's
reduction of the Cuban sugar quota, the Cuban Government
expropriated the corporation's property and rights. To secure consent
for shipment of the sugar, the broker by a new contract agreed to
make payment for the sugar to a Cuban instrumentality which
thereafter assigned the bills of lading to petitioner, another Cuban
instrumentality, and petitioner instructed its agent in New York to
deliver to the broker the bills of lading and sight draft in return for
payment. The broker accepted the documents, received payment for
the sugar from its customer, but refused to deliver the proceeds to
petitioner's agent. Petitioner brought this action for conversion of the
bills of lading to recover payment from the broker and to enjoin from
exercising dominion over the proceeds a receiver who had been
appointed by a state court to protect the New York assets of the
corporation. The District Court concluded that the corporation's
property interest in the sugar was subject to Cuba's territorial
jurisdiction and acknowledged the "act of state" doctrine, which
precludes judicial inquiry in this country respecting the public acts of a
recognized foreign sovereign power committed within its own territory.
The court, nevertheless, rendered summary judgment against the
petitioner, ruling that the act of state doctrine was inapplicable when
the questioned act violated international law, which the District Court
found had been the case here. The Court of Appeals affirmed,
additionally relying upon two State Department letters, which it took
as evidencing willingness by the Executive Branch to a judicial testing
of the validity of the expropriation. Held:

1. The privilege of resorting to United States courts being


available to a recognized sovereign power not at war with the

9
United States, and not being dependent upon reciprocity of
treatment, petitioner has access to the federal courts.
2. The propriety of the taking was not governed by New York law
since the sugar itself was expropriated.
3. This suit is not uncognizable in American courts as being one
to enforce the "public" acts of a foreign state since the
expropriation law here involved had been fully executed within
Cuba.
4. The Government's uncontested assertion that the two State
Department letters expressed only the then wish of the
Department to avoid commenting on the litigation, obviates the
need for this Court to pass upon the "Bernstein exception" to the
act of state doctrine, under which a court may respond to a
representation by the Executive Branch that in particular
circumstances it does not oppose judicial consideration of the
foreign state's act.
5. The scope of the act of state doctrine must be determined
according to federal law.
6. The act of state doctrine applies and is desirable with regard
to a foreign expropriation even though the expropriation
allegedly violates customary international law.
(a) Disagreement exists as to relevant standards of international
law concerning a State's responsibility toward aliens.
(b) The political branch can more effectively deal with
expropriation than can the Judicial Branch.
(c) Conflicts between the Judicial and Executive Branches could
hardly be avoided were the judiciary to adjudicate with respect
to the validity of expropriations. Even if the combination alleged
in this case of retaliation, discrimination, and inadequate
compensation made the expropriation here violative of
international law, a judicial determination to that effect would

10
still be unwise as involving potential conflict with or
embarrassment to the Executive Branch in later litigation.
7. A foreign country's status as a plaintiff does not make the act
of state doctrine inapplicable.
307 F.2d 845, reversed and remanded.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN stated;

“The question which brought this case here, .. is whether the so-called
act of state doctrine serves to sustain petitioner's claims in this
litigation. Such claims are ultimately founded on a decree of the
Government of Cuba expropriating certain property, the right to the
proceeds of which is here in controversy. The act of state doctrine in
its traditional formulation precludes the courts of this country from
inquiring into the validity of the public acts a recognized foreign
sovereign power committed within its own territory.”

While acknowledging the continuing vitality of the act of state


doctrine, the court believed it inapplicable when the questioned
foreign act is in violation of international law. Proceeding on the basis
that a taking invalid under international law does not convey good
title, the District Court found the Cuban expropriation decree to violate
such law in three separate respects: it was motivated by a retaliatory
and not a public purpose; it discriminated against American nationals;
and it failed to provide adequate compensation. Summary judgment
against petitioner was accordingly granted.

Respondents, pointing to the severance of diplomatic


relations, commercial embargo, and freezing of Cuban assets
in this country, contend that relations between the United
States and Cuba manifest such animosity that unfriendliness is
clear, and that the courts should be closed to the Cuban
Government. We do not agree. This Court would hardly be

11
competent to undertake assessments of varying degrees of
friendliness or its absence, and, lacking some definite
touchstone for determination, we are constrained to consider
any relationship, short of war, with a recognized sovereign
power as embracing the privilege of resorting to United States
courts. Although the severance of diplomatic relations is an
overt act with objective significance in the dealings of
sovereign states, we are unwilling to say that it should
inevitably result in the withdrawal of the privilege of bringing
suit. Severance may take place for any number of political
reasons, its duration is unpredictable, and whatever
expression of animosity it may imply does not approach that
implicit in a declaration of war.

"Every sovereign State is bound to respect the


independence of every other sovereign State, and the
courts of one country will not sit in judgment on the
acts of the government of another done within its own
territory. Redress of grievances by reason of such acts
must be obtained through the means open to be
availed of by sovereign powers as between
themselves."
If a transaction takes place in one jurisdiction and the forum is in
another, the forum does not by dismissing an action or by applying its
own law purport to divest the first jurisdiction of its territorial
sovereignty; it merely declines to adjudicate or makes applicable its
own law to parties or property before it. The refusal of one country to
enforce the penal laws of another is a typical example of an instance
when a court will not entertain a cause of action arising in another
jurisdiction. While historic notions of sovereign authority do bear upon

12
the wisdom of employing the act of state doctrine, they do not dictate
its existence.

The act of state doctrine does, however, have "constitutional"


underpinnings. It arises out of the basic relationships between
branches of government in a system of separation of powers. It
concerns the competency of dissimilar institutions to make and
implement particular kinds of decisions in the area of international
relations. The doctrine as formulated in past decisions expresses the
strong sense of the Judicial Branch that its engagement in the task of
passing on the validity of foreign acts of state may hinder rather than
further this country's pursuit of goals both for itself and for the
community of nations as a whole in the international sphere. Many
commentators disagree with this view; 22 they have striven by means
of distinguishing and limiting past decisions and by advancing various
considerations of policy to stimulate a narrowing of the apparent scope
of the rule. Whatever considerations are thought to predominate, it is
plain that the problems involved are uniquely federal in nature. If
federal authority, in this instance this Court, orders the filed of judicial
competence in this area for the federal courts, and the state courts are
left free to formulate their own rules, the purposes behind the doctrine
could be as effectively undermined as if there had been no federal
pronouncement on the subject.

Barcelona Traction Light and Power Company Case (Belgium v. Spain)


[1970] ICJ the shareholders of a Canadian company asked the
government of Belgium to take their case against Spain which had
expropriated their property. The ICJ decided that Belgium like Kitui
lacked locus Standi to bring the case against Spain on behalf of
shareholders of a company that was not organised in Belgium but in
Canada.

13
Diplomatic protection of nationals abroad = espousing a national’s
claim.

1. On citizenship

This is the one issue in which international law has left to be in the
domain of national government which has the law that defines how to
confer that citizenship and how to withdraw it. It is an area, which has
been left to a state. Only a state can define who its citizens are. The
ICJ will not allow a national who holds dual citizenship to bring a case
against one of the countries he claims to hold citizenship. In the case
of Nottebohm (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala) duo citizenship is not
inimical. The situation of statelessness is not favoured by the
international community and the international community has adopted
a United Nations Convention against statelessness. Nottebohm was a
German by birth (born in 1881) and very rich and in 1905 he moved
from Germany to Guatemala where he was doing a thriving business
and acquired Guatemalan citizenship. At that time his interest was to
protect his property because he was a German and German Property
after the 2nd World war was being expropriated. He was living in
Guatemala. Nottebohm decided after the 2nd World war to go back to
Europe and decide to live in Liechtenstein. In the end Nottebohm now
claimed that his property that had been taken by Guatemala should be
returned to him and Guatemala refused on the ground that Nottebohm
was its national and according to them they had already satisfied his
claim upon which Liechtenstein agreed to take Nottebohm to the ICJ.
The Nottebohm case produced another principle

“Since Nottebohm was a German and for expedience took the


citizenship of Guatemala and that since the end of 2 nd world war he left
Guatemala and was living in Liechtenstein without going back to

14
Guatemala again for many years and yet it was also shown that with
respect to Liechtenstein he went back to his original state Germany, he
therefore did not show any genuine link with Liechtenstein and
therefore Liechtenstein could not bring his case against Guatemala.

In the early 60’s learned publicists did not write works commenting on
court decisions because the courts in the case of Nottebohm went
haywire in deciding that Nottebohm had not established a genuine link
and thus almost rendering him stateless. International jurists heavily
criticized the concept of genuine link that the courts pulled out as
this concept deals with ships.

1. Nature and function of international law

International law relates with the problem of settling issues between


the subjects of international law like two states like Bamburi and
Franconia in relation to Mutakha Mambo.

2. Sources of International Law

Article 38 of statute of International Court of Justice


“On sources of international law therefore and combining with
the function of court of justice article 38 reads “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 states;

b. International Customs as evidence of general practice


accepted as law;

15
c. General principles of law recognised by civilised nations
(major legal systems of the world;

d. Judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly


qualified publicists of various nations which shall be
considered subsidiary sources of international law.

International Convention
Covenants
Treaty
International Agreement
Protocol
Accord
Act
Memorandum of Understanding
Charter – Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States

DECLARATION –

LEGAL STATUS OF EASTERN GREENLAND CASE


(DENMARK V. NORWAY)

Denmark made a declaration that their government would not seek to


occupy a portion of Greenland. The Danish Foreign Minister made the
declaration that the government of Denmark would not occupy that
part of Greenland and it was held to be binding. Greenland could rely
on this declaration to be legally binding. The law is that a declaration
made by a person with a legal right to do so is binding. Recent
decision in the,

16
NUCLEAR TEST CASE (Australia v. France, New Zealand v. France)
[1974] I.C.J. Reports

Australia and New Zealand went to court for provisional measures or


interim measures of protection.

Article 41 “the court shall have the power to indicate if it considers that
circumstances so require any provisional measures which ought to be
taken to preserve the respective rights of either party.”

Does indicate mean that those measures can be complied with? The
argument that it may not mean compliance became overwhelming so
that at a later stage when people were negotiating another statute,
they said the court might prescribe provisional measures.

After the case went to court, before the court could decide, the
government of France made a declaration that they would no longer
conduct any test and the question was, was that a binding obligation
on the part of France on which Australia and New Zealand could rely
now that France had undertaken not to conduct any other test. The
court reminded them of the interim declaration saying that a
declaration by a person with authority to make it can indeed bind the
state in the same way the person is bound and therefore the
declaration was legally binding and the court considered the case
moot.

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 this is the treaty that
laid down the rules on how treaties would be laid down and negotiated.
It said that a treaty is an instrument between states or other subjects
of international law governed by international law. It is an agreement

17
governed by international law in written form. Whether in a single or
more documents and whatever its designation. If it is governed by
international law and it is produced in writing in a single form or more
documents it will still be a treaty.

Exchange of Notes ‘note verbale’ if the delegation of Bulgaria visits


Nairobi and has an appointment to meet with their counterpart i.e. a
minister of the same portfolio when the Minister of Bulgaria goes back
home, he writes a notes verbale (the minister of Bulgaria present his
compliments etcetera) exchange of notes verbale can become lead to
the signing of an international agreement.

MOU -

Conventions as sources of international law

The holding is that statements made by persons believed to


represent a country are binding. We are dealing with
individuals who make declarations that are binding.

1. The UN resolutions/declarations are not legally binding


because they are political in nature and they do no more than
indicate the direction in which countries want to move and no
state can rely on these resolutions because the way they are
framed they are not framed in language that can be legally
binding. It provides inspiration for states to use in other
legally binding instruments. Nobody is required to accept a
UN resolution as domestic law.

A declaration and a covenant compared one finds out that there are
things in the declaration that are not found in a covenant.

18
Only the parts of a declaration that have been incorporated in the
covenant are binding. After the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
promulgation, certain states and courts used the declarations to rule
on issues of human rights.

In the case of Japan it requires an enlightened court to incorporate


declarations in its rulings.

The UN Security Council also passes resolution. The latest is resolution


on terrorism in which it created a counter terrorism committee and
asked states to report on the measures they are taking aimed at
fighting terrorism. This resolution is being complied with by all states
as if it were legally binding.

Kenya has made 3 reports concerning this resolution and is reporting


on the measures they are taking to comply with the Security Council
Resolution under Chapter VII.

Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States this was drafted


creating rights and obligations. When this has been drafted, the UN
can use the draft and turn it into a treaty that is then presented to
governments at a conference. They normally do this in the general
assembly and when discussion is complete, they pass a resolution;
they annex the text of the charter.

The UN Resolution that contained the Economic Rights and Duties of


States is what Gaddafi had relied on in the case of Texaco Oil v.
Libya case.

19
Charter connotes legally binding instruments this is why when states
decide that they have found a problem which they think can only be
dealt with through internationally concerted effort and which require a
legal framework, they ask whether they need a charter or legally
binding principles. If they are not prepared to enter into legally
binding principles, they enter into a code of conduct e.g. code of
conduct for transfer of technology. Code of conduct for liner
conferences which are later translated into conventions where they
become legally binding. A code of conduct is usually just for guidance.

The law of state responsibility emerged out of excessive concern of the


western with concern of their nationals abroad. The law has evolved
and now only deals with a wrongful act which a state conducts against
another state. Direct injury to state when there is violation of a treaty
or in a tort situation.

The responsibility which a state has arising from injury to alien is called
vicarious responsibility as opposed to direct responsibility. A state
engages vicarious liability if it arise from the right or failure to protect
an alien.

Rules like exhaustion of local remedies are supposed to allow states to


do justice with their local means. Local remedies rule also performs
the function of allowing states to appreciate their international
responsibilities by preventing injuries.

The International Law Commission of United Nations has taken close to


15 years studying the law of state responsibility having been
emancipated from concern with injuries to aliens so it becomes a
concern.

20
The law of state responsibility which is bound with protection of foreign
aliens is now emancipated to law that deals with.

ACT OF STATE DOCTRINE:


“Every sovereign state is bound to respect the independence of every
other sovereign state, and the courts of one country will not sit in
judgment on the acts of the other government done within its own
territory. Redress of grievances by reason of such acts must be
obtained through the means open to be available by sovereign powers
as between themselves.”

Barcelona Traction Light and Power Company case (Belgium v


Spain) [1970] ICJ. A Canadian company asked the government of
Belgium where they were doing business to take their case against
Spain. ICJ decided Belgium lacked locus standi to bring the case
against Spain on behalf of the shareholders of a company that was not
organized in Belgium but in Canada.

Citizenship
This is the one issue the international law has been left in the domain
of national government, i.e. only the state who can decide who is the
citizen.

Nottebohm Case (Liechtenstein v Guatemala) [1955] ICJ Reports 4.


Nottebohm was a German by birth during 1935 he moved from
Germany to Guatemala where he was doing a thriving business and
acquired Guatemalan citizenship. At that point his interest was to
protect his property (as the allied powers were seizing property of
Germans). After the World War II he decided to go to Liechtenstein
where he also acquired citizenship. In the end Nottebohm now claimed

21
that his property that had been taken by Guatemala should be
returned to him and Guatemala refused on the grounds that
Nottebohm was their national upon which Liechtenstein agreed to take
Nottebohm’s case against Guatemala. ICJ decision: since Nottebohm
was a German and for expedience took the citizenship of Guatemala
and since the end of the Second World War he left Guatemala and was
living in Liechtenstein without going back to Guatemala and he went to
Germany and only briefly in Liechtenstein, therefore did not show
“genuine link” with Liechtenstein and therefore Liechtenstein could not
bring his case against Guatemala.

The idea of genuine link is also used in the legislation of ships.

International lawyers heavily criticized the decision of ICJ. Decision


rendered Nottebohm stateless.

UN Convention against statelessness

Issues
1. Nature and functions of international law: Settling issues of
subjects of international law.
2. Sources of international law: treaty. Article 38 of the statutes
of the ICJ: “The court whose function is to decide in accordance
with the international law such disputes as submitted to it shall
apply:
(a) international conventions whether general or particular
establishing rules generally recognized by..
(b) international custom as evidence of general practice
accepted as law
(c) general principles of law recognized by civilized nations

22
(d) judicial decisions and the teaching of the most highly
qualified publicists of the various nations

convention
treaty
international agreement
protocol
accord
act
memorandum of understanding
charter

note verbale, exchange of notes


Vienna Convention on the law Treaties 1959—the treat of treaties: Said
that a treat is an instrument between states or other international
organization governed by international laws in written form whether in
a single or more documents and whatever its designation.
Exchange of notes: note verbale.

Public International Law-Lecture 3


24 June

Trieppel and Strup were the dualists: international law and municipal
law are separate, each with its own sphere and none can oust the
other. International law supposed to regulate relationships between
states among themselves inter se. Domestic laws regulate the conduct
of individuals within the state.

23
Kelsen and Lauterpacht, these were the monists: we have to see areas
where there might be a conflict and according to them international
law should take precedence where there is doubt. International law
takes over where domestic law stops.

The coordination: coordinating the two systems of law to arrive at a


solution that is judicially defensible.

A case concerning a German …is quoted the world over for the
proposition that the state cannot be permitted to evoke its domestic
law to avoid an international obligation (where a treaty has been
signed).

Article 34 of the ICJ: only states can be parties in cases before the
court.

Self-determination – right of citizens to determine their own destiny


without outside interference.

The force to intervene to deal with situations of chaos is a collective


decision, i.e. does not belong to one state.

Being invited becomes a legal argument for the intervening party.


Being invited by itself is not conclusive.

RECOGNITION OF A STATE
It is a term that is used to refer to a situation in which a state conducts
normal international relations with other states, which it recognizes.
Distinguish between recognition of states and recognition of a

24
government. Once a state is recognized it remains recognized. You
may not want to deal with a particular regime:

1. Government de jure
2. Government de facto

Theories of Recognition
Two theories.
1. Declaratory recognition. Have declared myself I am.
2. Constitutive theory of recognition. Recognition by several
states.

AU: shun governments that come to power unconstitutionally, i.e.


through the bullet.

3. The Estrada theory. Estrada was a Mexican foreign minister


who said a government should not be denied recognition
irrespective of how they got to that position. President Wilson
refused to recognize the Huerta regime in Mexico that
emerged through revolution. This was positive non-recognition.

Recognition is a very important act. We need a stable frontier. We


need a self-generating population. An act of an unrecognized state

What is a belligerent?
ADIZ

Extradition is governed by treaty. There is no customary law in


extradition. Extradition treaty between the two countries operates. It
will spell out the extraditable offence and the procedure in the

25
domestic country in which the extradition is required to determine
whether the offence is extraditable.

States are always reluctant to extradite their own nationals, even when
there is a treaty. Political offences: nobody should be extradited for a
political offence.
You will only be tried on that only for which you extradited.

Commonwealth extradition treaty. But you can vary it. UN


Convention Against Taking Hostages has a provision saying that if
a hostage taking situation arises between two states that have no
extradition treaty between them, they can use this convention to effect
extradition.

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW Lecture 4

ASYLUM
Question of Asylum – Mrs. Nyabera seeks protection from the Embassy
of Dandora. An embassy is protected and nobody can enter an
embassy without permission of the owners of the embassy. An
embassy is inviolate. This is under United Nations Conventions and
Privileges.

It was claimed that Mrs. Nyabera was a political offender and seeks
safe conduct. This is what happened in the,

Asylum Case (Columbia v. Peru [1950])

26
A Peruvian Leader named Haya de la Torre had led a rebellion in Peru
and was just about to topple it just like Nyabera. In the same pattern
Haya ran and sought protection in the Colombian embassy in Peru.
The Colombian Ambassador said that Haya was a political offender and
must be given a safe exit out of Peru. This became a matter referred
to international court of justice for determination. The court decided
that it is a 3rd party procedure that can determine whether or not Haya
was a political offender and therefore entitled to safe passage. The
court rejected the Colombian ambassador unilateral decision to
characterize Haya as a political offender entitled to safe conduct. The
court also rejected the Peruvian claim that Haya was a common
criminal because he had been trying to overthrow the Peruvian
government. No particular person can determine whether a person is
a political offender. Only an international court can decide. He was
entitled to asylum but safe conduct was to be negotiated. Only those
who commit political offences will be treated in a political way.

ASYLUM AND THE LAW OF DIPLOMATIC PROTECTION:

An Ambassador was called His Excellency, Extraordinary,


plenipotentiary titles that are maintained to this day. They were
addressed as Plenipotentiary because they were full of power to
represent their governments and extraordinary because they could
make decisions without referring to their governments.

Article 2 paragraph 7 of the Charter of the United Nations: Nothing


contained in the present charter shall authorise the United Nations to
intervene in matters which are essentially within domestic jurisdiction
of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to

27
settlement under the present charter; but this principle shall not
prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.

Connolly Amendment – it is the State itself that can determine that a


matter is within its jurisdiction. The charter says that UN shall not
intervene in matters that are essentially within the jurisdiction of the
state. It is under this article that for years South Africa prevented the
whole world from discussing Apartheid because apartheid was a matter
within the jurisdiction of South Africa and there is nothing the
international community could do except to make South Africa a
pariah. Governments could have nothing to do with South Africa by
trade sanctions, diplomatic sanctions as the countries could not use
force to force South Africa to abandon apartheid.

This was the case until human rights begun to catch on, a state could
treat its citizens in any way it could without a care.

The United Nations Covenant on civil and political rights


The United Nations Covenant on economic and social rights

Now we have a treaty that can be enforced against a state

Connolly Amendments – an amendment where a state reserves the


right to determine what is within its own jurisdiction. Bulgaria invoked
the Connolly Amendment when they shot down an American aircraft in
their airspace and America became a victim of its own wickedness.

The use of force in international relations is prohibited under

Article 2 paragraph 4 of the UN Charter

28
Which says that “all members shall refrain in their international
relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity
or political independence of another state or in any other manner
inconsistence with the purposes of United Nations.

It is noted that from this the UN Charter is a form of a treaty in which


the member states accept the obligation to refrain from matters which
are not within the jurisdiction of their state and to refrain from the use
of force. This is the formula used after the 2 nd World War to protect
and preserve territorial integrity and political independence.

If there is a dispute between two small states, the dispute persists but
if it is between a big state and a small state, the small state
disappears. If the dispute is between two powerful states, the dispute
will disappear.

Article 53 of the Charter of the United Nations which states

“…the security council shall where appropriate utilise regional


arrangements.

The Latin American countries popularized the use of regional


arrangements before approaching the United Nations. They had the
Organization of American States that could deal with regional issues.
In Africa they can first try the Organization of African Unity first before
approaching the United Nations.

The Charter of the United Nations is not only a treaty but it is also a
constitution in that it contains provisions that define the powers and
functions of the major organs established under it.

29
1. The General Assembly is the organ of the UN in which all
member states that are independent up to now except one
are represented and each has one vote. Until two years ago
there were two Switzerland was not a member of the UN but
now it is. Liechtenstein is not a member of the UN.
2. Security Council –
3. Economic and Social Council referred to as ECOSOC
4. Trusteeship council
5. International Court of Justice
6. The Secretary General of the United Nations.

These are the 6 major organs of the UN whose functions are described
in the Charter. By Kenya becoming a member of the UN it does not
necessarily mean that it has accepted the jurisdiction of the ICJ.

Veto:

Article 23 of the UN Charter


States the Composition of the Security Council.

“… the Security Council shall consists of the 15 members of United


Nations, Republic of China, France, Union of Soviet Social Republic,
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the United States
shall be permanent members of the security council. The general
assembly shall elect other 10 members to be members of the Security
Council.”

Article 27 of the Charter deals with the vote of Security Council


“each member of the security council shall have one vote. Paragraph
2 decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be
made by an affirmative vote of 9 members.

30
Decisions of the Security Council on all other substantive matters shall
be made by an affirmative vote of 9 members including the concurring
votes of the permanent members.

A state only needs 9 votes out of 15 but the 9 must include the 5
permanent members and if any of the 5 permanent members does not
agree, even with the other 12 the decision is not adopted.

It would seem as if the United Nations was never intended to take


action against any of the 5 permanent members or their friends. If the
US for example has done something wrong e.g. like by going to Iraq, a
resolution cannot pass because the US will veto it.

Article 24 of the Charter of the United Nations assigns to the Security


Council the primary responsibility in the maintenance of international
peace and security. “In order to ensure prompt action by the UN its
members confers on the Security Council primary responsibility of
maintenance of international peace and the Security Council will act on
behalf of their members. The Security Council under this article was
supposed to act as a fire brigade just put out the fire but the opposite
happens with the Security Council, when there is war, the Security
Council discuss the options instead of just putting out the fire and this
has paralysed the United Nations.

Article 14 of the Charter of the United Nations reads as follows


“subject to the provisions of article 12 the general assembly may
recommend measures for the peaceful adjustment of any situation
regardless of origin which deals to impair the general welfare of
friendly nations amongst states.

31
Asylum

Political offender

Safe conduct

Asylum case (Colombia v Peru). In that case a Peruvian leader of a


revolution called Haya dela Torre. Sought refugee in Columbian
embassy. Columbian ambassador held Haya dela Torre was a political
offender but Peru argued that he was not a political offender. So they
went to ICJ and held that only a third party such as the court can rule
on whether he was a political offender. But the court held that Peru
was wrong to characterize Haya dela Torre as a common criminal.
Therefore he should be given safe conduct.

Extraordinary
Plenipotentiary

Article 2 (7): nothing contained in this charter shall authorize the UN to


intervene in matters that are within the jurisdiction of any state

Connally Amendment: it is the state itself which will determine that a


matter is within its jurisdiction. At it was under this article that South
African prevented the whole world from discussing apartheid.

PROBLEM 2:

PART ONE UPTO PARAGRAPH 8

Civil Strife with International Implications:

32
Does international law permit violation of airspace in case where
countries want to airlift their nationals?

States have used the excuse that they have been invited by the
government in power especially where the said government is
overwhelmed by civil strife. In the cold war, this was a recipe for
disaster because the opposition will also ask another friendly
government to intervene to protect them from the government in
power. As soon as a civil strife torn country invited say USA, the USSR
would rush to the opposition’s rescue. This developed into cynicism
where it was alleged that the superpowers were using unfortunate
situations to test their latest weapons.

International law states that the question of inviting a foreign state to


the rescue violates the sovereignty of that nation and interferes with
the rights of the nationals to decide on their own problems. The law
sanctions against continued loss of life, genocide and unacceptable
use of force. The United Nations uses collective legitimate use of
power to end genocide and loss of life.

It has always been the excuse that even where no other party
intervenes, a state is always being criticised for inviting external
forces.

Is the invitation the all and be all? Can one question the circumstances
under which the invitation is issued? An argument in PIL is never
conclusive, when the only organ that has the right to use force (UN)
enters the scene the first thing they do is to ask that the combatants
cease fire. When a nation intervenes to supply arms for the rebels who

33
are de-stabilising the legitimate government they are accused of
meddling.

Recognition of a state: this is a term used to refer to a situation in


which a state conducts normal international relations business with
another state which it recognises as a state i.e. by opening embassies,
negotiating agreements ,or making a statement recognising it as a
state. Once a state has been recognised, it will continue to exist as a
state. A Government de jure and a Government de facto.

The de jure is the one that possess the sovereignty having been in
power but is being prevented from exercising that power.

De facto does not have the sovereignty but is busy trying to exercise it
(opposition)

If the de facto government is trying to usurp power by use of bullet


other than ballot, then that government ought to be denied
recognition. This brings to mind two theories of recognition
1. Declaratory – the opposition has declared as the government
of Elgon;

2. Constitutive – however much one declares to be a state,


nobody will care until a body or a state like the UN or OAU
decide to recognise that state. EU now has in its charter that
where governments are coming to power through coups are
no longer acceptable. If a govt comes to power through the
gun – this leads to the Estrada Theory – Estrada was the
Mexican foreign minister who took the position that even if a
govt comes to power through the barrel of the gun, he should
not be denied recognition. All governments that emerge and

34
become de jure have sovereignty and control of the country
should be recognised irrespective of how they come into
power. Estrada was responding to a situation in which
President Wilson of USA refused to recognise a regime that
came into power in Mexico through a revolution which was
spearheaded by Huerta. Wilson refused to recognize the
Huerta regime and said that he would never recognise the
Huerta regime (this is positive non-recognition) if there is ever
to be relations such a regime, another positive statement of
recognition would be required. Recognition is an important
political act. It took the USA 20 years to recognise China.

What is a state? It is more than a national anthem or its currency, it


consists of the general population etc.

International law allows a state to pick its friends through established


rules of international law.

By remaining neutral or silent, a state could find itself being accused of


taking sides.

Belligerency – section of the state which is competing to control power


of that state i.e. in this case Nyabera (leader of opposition) it is entitled
to protection as a belligerent and therefore allowed to request help on
its own behalf.

EXTRADITION:

Extradition is only governed by treaties and there is no customary law


of extradition. This means that arresting someone who is alleged to

35
have committed a crime somewhere else or in ones own country but
against the interests of another country,

Nobody can be extradited to stand trial in another state except in


accordance with the extradition treaty between those two states. In
the treaty of extradition the parties will spell out the extraditable
offences. They will list the crimes for which they agree to turn over the
offenders through the treaty.

Before somebody is turned over the state being requested must see to
it that the offence for which extradition is required is checked by the
domestic state to determine whether the extradition is proper. There
has to be a procedure followed to determine whether to extradite or
not.

No state likes to extradite its own nationals to stand trial elsewhere


especially if the crimes they are accused of can be dealt with locally
whether there is a treaty of not. This is a state practice.

There is a big defence against extradition which is a political defence


namely nobody should be extradited for a political offence. Political
offence being so broad one may be accused with all kinds of charges
that are politically motivated.

If one is extradited because the offence is enumerated in that treaty,


one will only be tried only for that offence that they were extradited
i.e. if one is extradited for embezzlement, they cannot again charge
you with any other offence even if it is shown that apart from
embezzlement you are selling drugs.

36
After Kenya attained independence, Her Majesty convinced Kenya to
subscribe to the Commonwealth Extradition Treaty. Please note that
the treaty can be varied depending on each case. The United
Nations Conventions against taking of Hostages has a provision
saying that if a hostage taking situation arises between two states who
have no extradition treaty between them but if they are a party to the
UN hostage convention, then they can use it to effect extradition.

Collusion under International Law: Kenya criticised for allowing Israel


Entebbe raid casualties to be treated in Nairobi. There is no law
against collusion. There is however retortion, which means that one
state, can withdraw a favour originally granted.

International Public Law-Lecture 5


8 July 2004

The famous article of the Charter of the United Nations:-

Article 33 (1):
The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to
endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall,
first of all seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation,
conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies
or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.”

1. Negotiation
2. Enquiry
3. Mediation
4. Conciliation
5. Arbitration,

37
6. Judicial settlement
7. Regional arrangements

Good offices -- entered in the 1950s, where a third party enters to


make an inquiry; it is informal. The third party is acceptable to both
parties. It is a mailbox services.

A mediator is different from somebody offering good offices. A


mediator has the power to study the situation from the result of the
enquiry and suggest how to solve the problem, offers solutions to the
problems as he sees them. A person offering good offices may become
a mediator.

Proximity talks, instead of shuttle diplomacy.

Conciliation: elucidates the problems, and is usually several not one,


with a chairman: hence conciliation commissions.

Negotiation-enquiries-mediation-conciliation-good office: Informal non-


compulsory procedures for the settlement of disputes, meaning that
whatever solutions arrived can be rejected by any of the parties. So it
is heavily politicized.

And this is why states hesitate to go to the next step: arbitration. Once
again arbitrators appointed like mediators. The arbitrators are actually
judges and the result is binding upon the parties. Known otherwise as
compulsory procedures.

States reluctant to move to the arbitration state, which closes in on


judicial settlement (through pre-constituted courts).

38
Arbitration is ad hoc. Judicial settlement you chose a court that already
exists.

1962: Ethiopia and Liberia bring a case against South Africa over the
League of Nations trusteeship of South-West Africa. ICJ Agreed the two
countries had the procedural rights to bring the case before the court.

Four years later, in 1966, the ICJ decides that although Ethiopia and
Liberia have the procedural rights to bring the case, they did not have
any of their citizens in South Africa suffering the injury of apartheid;
therefore the court could not offer judicial. A Pakistan judge excused
himself, thus allowing the majority to make that decision.

Under article 24, a judge can excuse himself by informing the


president of the court.

The decision led to a boycott of ICJ by African countries: ICJ was a white
man’s court dispensing white man’s justice.

15 years later after the Security Council had decided to take away the
control of South-west Africa from South Africa and South Africa
refusing to leave.

The UN created the Council for Namibia to take over the administration
of South-West Africa from South Africa, renamed Namibia. The Council
even passed laws to control the mines in Namibia.

But South Africa continued to sit tight. So in 1971 the Security Council
asked ICJ for an advisory opinion on South-West Africa, whether South
African action was a violation of international law. The ICJ. The ICJ gave

39
an opinion favourable to Africans and from then on African countries
began taking cases to ICJ.

Article 53, paragraph 1 of the Statutes of ICJ: when one of the parties
does not appear before the court or fails to defend its case the other
side may ask the court to rule in its favour.

Do no harm+ Equitable utilization

Problem 3

1962: Ethiopia and Liberia bring a case against South Africa over the
League of Nations trusteeship of South-West Africa. ICJ Agreed the two
countries had the procedural rights to bring the case before the court.

Four years later, in 1966, the ICJ decides that although Ethiopia and
Liberia have the procedural rights to bring the case, they did not have
any of their citizens in South Africa suffering the injury of apartheid;
therefore the court could not offer judicial. A Pakistan judge excused
himself, thus allowing the majority to make that decision.

Under article 24,a judge can excuse himself by informing the president
of the court.

The decision led to a boycott of ICJ by African countries: ICJ was a white
man’s court dispensing white man’s justice.

40
15 years later after the Security Council had decided to take away the
control of South-west Africa from South Africa and South Africa
refusing to leave.

The UN created the Council for Namibia to take over the administration
of South-West Africa from South Africa, renamed Namibia. The Council
even passed laws to control the mines in Namibia.

But South Africa continued to sit tight. So in 1971 the Security Council
asked ICJ for an advisory opinion on South-West Africa, whether South
African action was a violation of international law. The ICJ. The ICJ gave
an opinion favourable to Africans and from then on African countries
began taking cases to ICJ.

Article 53, paragraph 1 of the Statutes of ICJ: when one of the parties
does not appear before the court or fails to defend its case the other
side may ask the court to rule in its favour.

Do no harm+ Equitable utilization

Problem 3
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW Lecture 6 29th July
04

LAW OF THE SEA:

From the time sailors ventured into the sea, there was a problem of
how far they could go. Coastal states where fishermen go seaward
looking for fish since time immemorial, it was a problem as to how far

41
the state would extend its jurisdiction to the sea. Two competing
concepts were debated in the early 1600.

John Selden said that the sea was closed or ‘closed sea – mare clossum
that the sea only belonged to countries with coasts. This was opposed
by a Dutch Jurist Hugo Grotius who argued for the freedom of the sea
and that all countries could come to the sea and do whatever they
wanted freedom of the sea – mare liberum. Grotius won. Which
means that the High Seas belonged to everybody and other countries
can come and enjoy. But the declaration of the freedom of the sea
concept did not settle 1930 the question of determining the extent of
coastal state jurisdiction sea-ward how far coastal state can extend
their jurisdiction in the sea. From 1600 –remained unanswered. Some
extended their jurisdiction 3 nautical miles others 12 and some 20
nautical miles as territorial sea.

In 1930 the League of Nations decided to undertake a study of the Law


of the Sea to see if they could settle the question the breadth of
territorial sea. The League of Nations to codify the Law of the Sea
failed and the question of coastal jurisdiction remained unanswered.
3 Nautical Miles was declared by the USA argument has it that that
was the distance of a canon ball shot at the coast. The USA was only
going to acquire territory that it could defend.

In the early 40’s after failure of the League of Nations to settle the
issue there emerged a number of unilateral declarations by states
extending their territorial sea.

In 1947 Harry S Truman’s Proclamation brought in the concept of the


doctrine of Continental shelf. Truman said that the coastal state
jurisdiction should be on the basis of the continental shelf which he

42
described as a natural prolongation of the land mass. At this time
1947 -1950 in response to Truman some states extended their territory
to 100 nautical miles and most South American countries extended
their jurisdiction to 200 nautical miles of territorial sea.

The United Nations decided to codify Law of the Sea so from 1950 –
1958 the UN was studying and trying to codify international law of the
sea. In 1958 the Geneva Convention on the Law of the sea was
passed. Four conventions were actually passed, one on territorial sea,
one on continental shelf, one on High Seas and one on fisheries
jurisdiction. At this time apart from the countries that had declared
200 miles, the world was beginning to realise it was perhaps not
realistic. The Vienna convention accepted the natural prolongation of
the land mass theory but one can follow the land mass to the extent it
permits exploitation. This became the law of the sea as was produced
in 1958. this was the first UN conference on the Law of the Sea.
UNCLOSE I

In 1960 the United Nations there was another convention exclusively


devoted to solving the Fisheries jurisdiction UNCLOSE II. This one
failed miserably. Richard Quenton claimed UNCLOSE II was not a total
failure as he met his future wife here. It failed because it was unable
to answer the crucial question of how far the state could extend fishing
jurisdiction.

Not all countries have continental shelves. There are those shelf-
locked countries which do not even have a coast to speak about.
There are other countries with shelf continuing to the deep sea and
those that have straight coast lines. The legal definition of continental
shelf became the continental shelf proper, continental slope,
continental rise which equals to continental margin. Some states

43
claimed upto to 600 miles some 500, some 400, some 3000 some
land-locked and others with barely a shelf – how was an agreement to
be arrived at?

It was discovered that countries like Japan could roam the world and
were fishing from coasts of other countries. The United Nations
convened the 3rd United Nations Conference on the law of the Sea
UNCLOSE III this is the one that for almost 8 years began to unravel all
the problems of the continental sea shelf. It was agreed that efforts
must be made to get a solution on how far a state can extend
jurisdiction and the rest would be high seas and whatever was in the
High Seas was to be declared common heritage of mankind.

The seabed, the sub-soil and the resources thereof beyond the limit of
natural jurisdiction were declared common heritage of mankind and
cannot be expropriated by any state but can only be exploited on
behalf of mankind.

It took almost 9 years to come to an agreement. The states finally


negotiated and arrived at an agreement …all the countries wanted a
new law of the sea and were ready to agree. In this effort there was an
appeal for all the states to have a territorial sea that extended only
upto 12 nautical miles so now all countries of the world have territorial
seas of up to 12 nautical miles.

Kenya came up with the concept of Exclusive Economic Zone and


floated the idea Frank Njenga the legal adviser in the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs suggested at the meeting of African, Asian Legal
meeting suggested that they tried an area in which the state exercised
less than complete sovereignty. The area was to be called an
exclusive economic zone. The question was how far could the

44
exclusive economic zone extend? What was to be the regime of the
economic zone?

Landlocked states jumped in and EEZ and wanted to share in the


resources of the EEZ. The Africans met in Kampala and made a
declaration on the Law of the Sea in 1985. Landlocked states of Africa
would exploit the EEZ resources with the same rights as coastal
nations. This was taken to the 3rd World Caucus where the proposal
was rejected. However, it remained a concept of EEZ remained a
viable concept that was finally accepted and is written in the Law of
the Sea. A country can now have 12 nautical miles of territorial sea
and 188 nautical miles EEZ making it a total 200 miles of jurisdiction.

Within the EEZ a coastal state permits other states the right of over-
flight and they can layout pipelines, can install submarine cables within
the EEZ of a state but with that state’s consent. In the exclusive
economic zone, no state can do any research of any kind without the
consent of the coastal state. consent regime on scientific research and
the treaty enumerates the rights and obligations of the states that
want to conduct research on the EEZ, the coastal states have to
approve. Since it is the Western world that have the capacity to do the
research, it became clear that the Western World were not going to
accept the consent regime, the Western World Engineers manipulated
another clause that provides that although there was the consent
regime, they would introduce the concept of implied consent meaning
that if a Norwegian Government ship sent an application to come and
study the mating habits of Lobsters and answered all the questions as
required by the treaty, if they wait for 3 months without consent, there
is implied consent and they can now come and do their research.
States have the right of not being held hostage by other nations. This
implied consent became a big problem to the 3rd world.

45
The law of the sea took so long to succeed. Some countries have
concave coasts, other convex coasts. The Geneva Convention of 1958
had a provision saying that the states with opposite or adjacent coasts
were to delimit their territories by medium equidistant lines which are
drawn in such a way such that the states with convex and those with
concave could avoid being cut off. But the states with straight line i.e.
between Germany and Netherlands, the question of the use of the
Median/Equidistance line to delimit was tested. Here the court
advocated equitable principles of delimitation so that a state could
avoid an unjust result. Where it was possible to use the
Median/Equidistance line one could use where not one could use other
methods of delimitation and up to today the Law of the Sea failed to
reach an agreement on the method of delimitation. Look at the Pemba
Channel delimitation.

In the area of managing the fisheries, every state has the right to
sustainably develop the resources of the EEZ as follows:

Our scientists must tell us that for the Lobster in order to achieve
avoiding over-utilisations and under-utilization of the species, the
scientists must every year tell us how to maintain maximum
sustainable yield of the Lobster so that we do not over-utilise the
species. The scientists must tell us the total allowable catch. The law
requires that if a state’s technical capability allows it to only harvest
60% less than optimum yield, the law requires that state to declare the
surplus. The problem arises though where states may have
submarines in other states’ coasts without anyone knowing what they
are doing and developed countries do sometimes dispute the figures
that are given but not so developed states like Kenya.

46
Continental shelf

They agreed to give the coastal states the continental shelves upto to
the slopes, this was not unanimously agreed. They then allowed 60
extra nautical miles from the slopes and the states refused. The
scientist were called in who said that the difference was in the earth
crust and the ocean crust – just follow the sand sediments and you will
know when you are exiting the earth crust and in any case more than
350 nautical miles was disallowed. Stay within the earth crust but
don’t go beyond 350 nautical miles. The law of the sea is now the
continental shelf, the slope and the earth’s crust and not more than
350 nautical miles of the earth’s crust.

The deep sea bed area is the common heritage of mankind. The
minerals like manganese nodules are potato crisps like nodules which
are rich in Nickel, copper, cobalt which can be mined and distributed to
mankind.

USA, France and Germany who had the technology to mine the sea
beds and have access to the minerals were stopped from exploiting
the minerals wanted automatic access to the sea bed had to agree to
keep the sea shelf for upto 350 nautical miles to be allowed automatic
access to the minerals in the common heritage sea bed area.

Two studies were commissioned on the economic consequences of


seabed mining, whether the seabed mining had the capacity to affect
the economies of states who depended on mining the minerals in their
own countries. The two studies produced opposite results. The
question of automatic access to seabed mining was therefore rejected
as the 3rd world created their poor multinational called enterprise. This
enterprise was supposed to be the operational arm of the seabed.

47
They created the Seabed authority to govern all the activities of
seabed mining. Only the seabed authority could giving mining
authority to prospecting states. The Seabed Authority came up with
the banking system that allowed them to negotiate with the countries
with technology such that where they allowed mining, the area was to
be divided into two equal parts, one for the prospecting state and the
other for the Authority to negotiate and share with a company that
could share the proceeds with the Authority.

All these problems were surmounted and there was a new law of the
sea, all states agreed they wanted a new law of the sea and in the
spirit of compromise, consensus to deal with issues and agree came
out.
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW Lecture 7 6th August
04

PROBLEM III

The chase of Ogulmama chased a foreign vessel to the High Seas – this
is the concept of hot pursuit. This exists in customary international law
and was frequently used by Coastal States in relation to their territorial
seas (which was an area of coastal jurisdiction and a state could
pursue a ship that invaded its waters.

Article 111 of Law of Sea – establishes concept of the Law of the Sea.
States as follows the hot pursuit of a ship may be undertaken …

Such pursuit must be commenced


Hot pursuit can now be applied mutatis when …
mutandis in the EEC including safety zones. The pursuit may only be
commenced after a visual or auditory signal has been issued or

48
There is no indication that ogulmama sent any signal to stop the
foreign ship so there was no ship or auditory or visual signal.

Para 3 – foreign vessels claims to be in the High Seas Ogulmama


claims the ship is in the EEC.
Ogulmama had no business to enter into the foreign ship if it was in
the High Seas. The ships fly the flags of the states of which they are
nationals. In the High seas they are only subjects to the jurisdiction of
the states whose flags they fly. In the High Seas the ships are
assumed to be in the territory of the state whose flag it is flying and
cannot be subject to any other jurisdiction. Objective territory.

Since states are equal they are sovereign you cannot enter their
territory without their permission. In customary international law the
case most cited for hot pursuit concept is called I’M Alone Case.

The case most cited for objective territoriality is the Lotus Case

Paragraph 4:

A government ship entitled to protection under customary


international law means that “it was a government ship that enjoyed
sovereign immunity.” What is sovereign immunity? There are two
types
1. Public Acts of a State: - Acta jure Imperil’ total immunity
2. Private Acts of a state: - (Commercial Activities of a state) Acta
Jure Gestionis – qualified immunity to begin with then finally no
immunity.

49
for years US, UK Germany France claimed that Act Jure Imperil are
immune from questions by anybody. Later on they began to change
the rules and to come up with the private acts of a state or commercial
activities of a state which are not immune – they don’t have total
immunity. And finally they have no immunity at all. There were a lot of
disagreements and the United Nations suggested that a particular
legal standard be made on jurisdiction of immunity.

The developed nations tried to codify the acts which would be act jure
gestionis for which no immunity would be granted. The study went on
for 15 years. The conclusion and the model treaty which was
suggested has not been produced even today. This is because it
became baffling to the states on why the developed nations were
passing on sovereign immunity Acts saying that the acts they enjoyed
before are now no longer going to be covered by immunity. The draft
articles produced never saw the light of day because the argument
was that if a state undertakes a commercial activity and competes with
individuals and they all sign a contract with the same supplier, how is
the problem where one refuses to pay and the other one is compel to
be resolved.

For an act to be act jure gestationis Nigeria in the Trendtex Case


argued that they had bought cement from Texas to build army
barracks, they argued that the nature of the contract. Which was for
government purposes, if the activity involved was an act that any
ordinary person would do, then it could not be afforded immunity.

Properties that Foreign states owned abroad how were these to be


treated? One cannot attach the property of a foreign state. This
means that domestic courts cannot issue judgments against other
states and their property. This jurisdiction.

50
Sovereign immunity -
Act of state doctrine – every state should respect the sovereignty and
political independence of other states. An act of one state taking place
within its own territory is not subject to be question by the court of
another state. not the same as saying that a state is immuned from
jurisdiction.

In trendtex Case it was sovereign immunity Nigeria was claiming as the


act happened in Texas.

For a court to conclusively establish that International Law forms part


of the law of the State ‘Paquette Habana’ is the case most quoted
where the court confirmed that international law forms part of the law
of the state.

West Rand Central Mining Company V. The King – cited for Her
Majesty’s judges confirming that International law forms part of
England’s state law.

Withdrawal of Ambassadors is meant to show displeasure.

Severing diplomatic relations

International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea,

Provisional Measures – under Article 41 of the Statute of ICJ the court


shall have the power to indicate provisional measures if it considers
that circumstances so require. Any provisional measures which ought
to be taken to preserve the rights of both parties.

51
Article 290 – If a dispute duly submitted to a court or tribunal which
considers that prima facie it has jurisdiction under the Article the Court
or tribunal may prescribe provisional measures which it considers
appropriate under circumstance to protect the rights of either party.

The difference between Article 290 (1982) UN law of the Sea and the
article 41 OF THE Statute of the ICJ is that this one had power to
prescribe provisional measures and once prescribed they were meant
to be complied with and the former was meant to indicate.

If there is a conflict between states that have not both accepted either
the ICJ or the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the case
should go for Arbitration.

A Compromis is the legal term referring to an agreement between


states that the parties have agreed to submit a certain dispute to an
agreed forum to which they have conferred jurisdiction for dispute
settlement.

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW Lecture 8


PROBLEM IV

Treaty

How are treaties negotiated.

Usually a problem is identified by states and meetings are held.

52
NOTE VERBAL (Verbal Note)

The instruments exchanged between governments to initiate


communication between themselves.

1. Convention:
2. International Agreements
3. Accord
4. Protocol
5. Covenants
6. Charter
7. Memorandum Of Understanding – an instrument with
connotations and legal consequences for non-compliance.

These are all means of recording agreements reached on negotiations.


There are no hard and fast rules to the distinctions of the above.
Because of this reason the international community got together to
decide how to negotiate all these instruments and they called it the
Law of the Treaties. All these terms are alright but they will stick to
the term Treaty.

Vienna Convention on the law of treaties: a treaty is an international


agreement concluded between states in writing governed by
international law and may be in a single or more documents whatever
designation.

Preamble: a preamble is a part of a treaty in which the drafters


establish the philosophy, inspirations and reasons why they are putting
a particular matter in writing. The preamble is the rationale behind the
desire to have the treaty. Examples of a preamble is where states
after realising that something they are responsible for together they

53
get together to form a treaty. The preamble will be the inspiration of
the subject matter. They have to have an issue in common. E.g. in
problem IV sustainable use of Lolwe river.

Every treaty must have a preamble and a final clause. Final clause is
where the treaty says that it will be open for signature when the treaty
is concluded. The text of a treaty is deposited with a person who
keeps the text and circulates it to all the involved parties. Usually it is
head of an organisations e.g the Secretary General of OAU etc.
The law of treaties is to the effect that a state negotiating a treaty can
sign within the specified period wherever it has been agreed upon to
be signed within a certain period.

The law of treaty says that the treaty in the final clause shall be
subject to ratification, accession or approval. These are key terms in
any treaty and together they are referred to as expression of consent
to be bound.

If a state takes part in the negotiation of the treaty and the treaty
opens for signature, unless the treaty itself permits the only way a
state can bind itself is by ratification, signature and then ratification.
Ratification is done by producing an instrument to express consent to
be bound.

Where the treaty was negotiated and never signed because open day
has expired, it means the state who did not sign on time can no longer
become party to it and can only become party to the treaty by
accession.

Signature alone does not mean that if a country signs it becomes


bound on that date of signing unless the treaty permits but this is rare.

54
The final clause will also by agreement of the state negotiating decide
how many such instruments i.e. ratification, accession, approval are
needed for that treaty to enter into force. Entry into force of a treaty –
i.e. the treaty shall enter into force on 30th August 2004. Once it is
signed and ratified by a number of states even though it has not
reached the maximum number but once it receives 7 stated
instruments, it is ready. The treaty only becomes law when it achieves
the 7 instruments of a treaty it enters into force. The states
themselves agree on how many instruments are required before the
treaty can be binding. For example the state can agree on how many
instruments are required to make the treaty binding.

Ratification, Signatory, Accession


Ratification - The state binds itself to the convention and agrees to
immediately start implementing steps to realise the rights contained in
the covenant;
Signatory – The state shows willingness to be bound by the
convention, but the convention is not binding on it yet;
Accession – Instead of signing and then ratifying a convention, a
state becomes party to it by a single act.

A state can send its instruments of ratification indicating what it


chooses to be bound by. The reservation must be indicated in the
face of the instrument and when the reservation has been formulated
and received by the depository it is circulated to all parties who have
agreed to be bound. Please note that the treaty must be one that
allows reservations. There are however treaties that says they are not
subject to reservations and this means that all its clauses must be
accepted by everybody. The states that feel that they will not ratify a
treaty that does not permit reservations may decide to vote against it.

55
If a treaty is silent about reservations, can a state make reservations
anyway? Yes a state can make reservations but not to the article that
forms the fundamental purpose of the treaty. The reason why

The law of treaty will decide whether a reservation effectively nullifies


the membership of a state to that treaty. Most treaties opt for a no
reservation clause or silence.

CLEAN SLATE DOCTRINE (Tabular Rasa)

Where a state becomes independent and says it will no longer be


bound by the treaties ratified by the colonial masters and want to start
with a clean slate.

Concept of historical rights: Egypt insisting on historical rights vis-à-


vis waters of the Nile.

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW Lecture 9


PROBLEM IV

The population dependent in riparian in each riparian state.

Equitable utilisation of a river

The idea of treaty law and conflict management in dealing with shared
natural resources like rivers.

PROBLEM V

56
There are 5 international relations problems

Mining Contract – Concession- an agreement between a


sovereign state and a corporation is called a concession. It is also
called a ‘State Contract’ signed between a state and a natural or
juridical person.

Which law governs the contract? Lex loci celebrationis - the


law of the place where the contract is negotiated, the contract makes
the choice on whether to follow the law of the place where the contract
was negotiated or the law of the state that party to the contract.

Any dispute arising from such contracts – usually the contracts have an
arbitration clause.

Choice of laws and dispute settlement.

There must be Environmental Impact Assessment after mining is


completed e.g. to fill the holes already dug and to leave the area in a
habitable way. This is called an Agreement for Natural Resources
Development. If a company wants to build a subsidiary foreign
company, it has to use local materials, if it is employing many people it
has to build schools for the children of the employees living there, if
they are prospecting for hard minerals or oil, the expert prospectus
must be accompanied by local experts of technology.

Jus cogens – this is the peremptory norm, the norm that cannot be
delegated to it will prevent states from conspiring to attack another
state. Other states cannot also enter into an agreement in which they
produce counterfeit.

57
Can countries change their boundaries? In 1964 the OAU meeting in
Cairo passed a resolution in which they all agreed to accept unchanged
the inherited colonial boundaries at independence. This is the principal
adopted by African Countries relying on the principle of not disturbing
the boundaries and leaving them as they were – the principle is called

Uti Possidetis. This principle is invoked on any country that


wants to change boundaries.
The principle of proportionality: The crossing of the border to another
country could be met by a comparable force proportionate to the
force that is incoming or in responding to an unarmed attack. Refer
to the case of Naulilaa Case:

Provisional Measure of Protection Interim Measure of protection under


International Law and under domestic law is called an interlocutory
injunction: this is where somebody wanting to stop some activities
from continuing while there is a dispute going on. Article 41 of the
Charter of the United Nations. The court must weigh the case before it
and indicate if it considers the circumstances required to preserve the
rights of the party, but where the court feels that the activities are
going on that are not okay the court will preserve the rights of the
parties.

Article 62 of the Charter deals with question of an interest of a legal


nature. Intervention is only allowed where the interest being protected
is of a legal nature.

The Temple Preah Vihear Case [1962] I.C.J. Reports (Thailad& Burma

58
Changing your position to the detriment of another person who relied
on your position before it was changed is estopped. The doctrine of
estoppel.

This country is estopped from denying since it acquiesced.

Walvis Bay was administered as part of Namibia although it was part of


the Orange Free State in South Africa. When South Africa realised that
Namibia was about to become independent they annexed Walvis Bay.
South Africa had not raised the question of Walvis Bay for the 10 years
that Namibia was fighting for independence. As the matter came up
and became a problem, the republic of South Africa declared Walvis
Bay annexed to its territory but Namibia re-annexed it back to
Namibia, it was held that Walvis Bay was part of Namibia and South
Africa could not all of a sudden change its position and declare that
Walvis Bay is not part of Namibia, South Africa was estopped from
claiming Walvis Bay.

Acquiescence and estoppels, one must show conduct, reliance upon


that conduct, detriment from that reliance.

59

You might also like