Source: http://www.takeartcollection.com/2017/04/29/short-notes-for-law-students-taking-public-international-law/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 06:45:52+00:00

Document:
The treaty is to be concluded by an international legal person who has capacity to enter into treaty.
Who is an international legal person who can conclude treaties?
b) International organization (in Anglo-Iranian Oil Company case, ICJ held that contract between the company and Iranian government was not a treaty because there is no privity of contract.
There are less formal agreements such as exchange of notes (letters). States may send letters to each other and agree on certain things. If the letters intended to be a treaty, it is customary to expressly state that it shall constitute an agreement between our Governments.
In the case of Qatar and Bahrain, exchange of notes that was done by parties conferred jurisdiction to ICJ to hear the dispute.
This element is not expressly mentioned in Art 2 VCLT. But, it is very important because without intention, an instrument will not be a treaty.
What are the effects of Unilateral Statements (only 1 party enter into treaty)?
If the state made such declaration with intention to be bound, a state may be bound by such unilateral statement.
In Legal Status of Eastern Greenland case, Norway made unilateral statement that it won’t create difficulties in respect of Danish’s claim over Eastern Greenland. ICJ held that Norway is bound by this unilateral statement.
This was confirmed again by ICJ in Nuclear Test cases.
WHAT IF A STATE MAKES RESERVATION TO ONE OF TERMS IN THE TREATY?
Refer to Art 19 – 23 VCLT.
If the Treaty allows reservation, then can reserve. But, if do not allow, cannot.
Art 120 Rome Statute: No reservation may be made to the statute of ICC.
What if there are no provisions stating about reservation in that Treaty? Are states not allowed to make reservation?
ICJ in the case of Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide answered this question. If there are no provisions stating about reservation, it does not automatically mean that you cannot reserve. But, you need to look at the purpose of the Treaty. Your reservation cannot defeat the purpose and object of the Treaty, otherwise, you are not a party to the Treaty.
Art 30 VLCT: If there are 2 same treaties concluded on the same matter, the one concluded later will prevail.
However, if the provision of an ordinary treaty is in conflict with UN Charter, Art 30 VCLT & Art 103 UN Charter provides that UN Charter prevails.
Art 34 VCLT: 3rd party states are not bound by the Treaty without its consent.
However, Art 35-38 VCLT states that there are exceptions where 3rd party states may be bound.
That State may have erred in entering the Treaty due to some misunderstanding. However, error does not make the Treaty automatically void. The mistaken party may invoke the error as invalidating its consent.
Art 2 (4) UN Charter provides use of force is prohibited. Force means ‘military force’.
g) Treaty conflicting with jus cogens, e.g.
c) Art 64 VCLT – emergence of a new jus cogens.
A state may incur liability if it violate a rule of customary international law or ignore its obligation under a treaty.
State cannot act on its own. State Organs shall represent the State in any matters.
Art 4 DA provides that the conduct of any state organ shall be considered an act of that state under international law whether the organ exercises legislative, executive or judiciary function. An organ includes any person or entity.
Diplomatic and Consular Staff case: Iran was responsible because of omission to act when it should have done so.
Corfu Channel case: Albanian was responsible because it should have known about presence of mines in its territorial waters and failed to inform the 3rd state about it.
Judicial organ can be the cause of state responsibility because of ‘denial of justice’.
Janes Claim case: Mexico failed to arrest and punish an offender which caused death to an American citizen. ICJ held that this is ‘a denial of justice’ and Mexico should be liable.
Massey claim case: a US citizen who was working in Mexico was killed. Mexican authority failed to punish the offender. Mexico is liable and should pay damages to US.
Does the state be responsible if wrongful conduct committed by its organ when off duty?
No. A state would only be attributable to such wrongful conduct when it is committed on duty. If committed off duty, it cannot be attributable to the State.
Mallen case: A consul has been attacked by American police officer 2 times. 1st attack was when he was off duty. 2nd attack he showed his badge to assert his official capacity. US was responsible for the 2nd attack.
SEDCO case: there was a seizure of vehicle. The claimant argued that a state owned company took it. However, argument was rejected because there was no proof to show that government directed it to be seized.
Foremost Tehran Inc v Iran case: Iranian company did not pay dividends to shareholders. The conduct was attributable to Iran because it had been influenced by Government representatives on the board of directors.
US v Mexico: Mexican soldiers ignored their orders and attacked on a house where Americans was seeking refuge. It was held Mexico liable.
However, what is the degree of control that State need to exercise over the persons?
ii) According to Prosecutor v Tadic, State only need to exercise overall control. State does not necessarily need issue instructions concerning each specific action.
Art 12 DA: A State is in breach of its obligation when any act of the State does not conform to its obligation.
There must be unforeseen circumstances to perform the obligation.
Rainbow Warrior: New Zealand argued that French breached its obligation because French failed to seek consent of NZ before removing NZ’s soldiers from the island. French said that NZ soldiers were sick and need medical attention, so it was a force majeure. It was held that this situation does not suffice to amount to force majeure.
Every state has the right to protect its nationals. However, it is up to the state whether to take up the claim or not.
Nottebohm: a state’s right to extend diplomatic protection to its individual is not unlimited.
However, according to Art 1 of Hague Convention, there must be a genuine link between the State and the national.
Mr. N was born in Germany & had German nationality until his naturalisation with Liechtenstein. Later he went to Guatemala and resided & conducts business there. L sued GU for unlawfully expelled and seized property of Mr N who had been neutralised by L. Court said that for the claim to succeed, a genuine link between L and Mr N must be proven.
Court said that for a genuine link to exist, there must be dominant nationality. Here, Mr. N’s link with L is not dominant.
Art 44 (b) DA: responsibility of a state cannot be invoked if local remedies still available.
This principle was confirmed in ELSI case and Interhandel Case.
General treaty for law of the sea is UNCLOS.
It is an area of the sea that is near to coast.
Art 2 UNCLOS: Coastal state can exercise sovereignty over its territorial sea.
Art 3: The limit of territorial sea extends up to 12 nautical miles measured from baselines.
It refers to the starting place to calculate the breadth of territorial waters and other zones.
Does the coastal State have rights over its territorial sea?
Although coastal State have rights, it has to give right of innocent passage through its territorial sea.
Art 17: Ships of all states shall enjoy right of innocent passage.
Innocent passage means navigation through the territorial area for the purpose of proceeding to other internal waters.
Art 19: passage is not innocent if it causes prejudice to peace or security of coastal state.
When foreign ships pass territorial waters, it must abide by the coastal state’s municipal law. If municipal law is breached, it shall be tried under that municipal law.
PP v Narogne: Thai fishermen were on a vessel which was then at sea about 3 miles off the Malaysian coast. There were fishing equipment on board the vessel. They were arrested by Malaysian Naval Authority for breaching its national laws. It was held that the passage by fishermen was not innocent passage.
The coastal state has civil jurisdiction [Art 28] and criminal jurisdiction [Art 27] over ships in passage of its territorial waters.
However, warships, naval vessels and government operated for non-commercial purposes are immune from any interference from coastal state [Art 32]. If it causes damage to coastal state during its passage, the flag State (passer-by ship) shall bear international responsibility.
It is a sea zone which does not extend 24 nautical miles.
It is the ocean area beyond territorial sea and out to 200 nautical miles. EEZ is also defined in Art 55.
The coastal state can exercise its rights over its EEZ. Such rights are laid down in Art 56, 60, 61 and 62.
[Art 73]: Coastal state may enforce jurisdiction over foreign ships including arresting and bringing them to national courts to ensure compliance with its national laws.
[Art 246]: Scientific research cannot be carried out by other states in a coastal State’s EEZ. That right is reserved for that coastal state.
Art 86 defines high seas as all parts of sea except internal waters, territorial sea and EEZ.
It is open to all States and free for enjoyment of all. Refer to Art 87-97 UNCLOS for rights of States in the high seas.
According to Lotus case, vessels on high seas are subject to no authority except that of the flag state.
The crime of piracy is prohibited and now recognized as international crime. Refer to Art 100-110 UNCLOS for details.
This right is designed to prevent a foreign ship that has violated laws of a coastal state to avoid arrest by escaping to high seas.
Hot pursuit can start in any sea zones in that coastal state & can extend to high seas.
Are there limitations for this right?
1. Hot pursuit is limited once the foreign ship entered territorial waters of a 3rd coastal state / other states.
2. Hot pursuit should not cause sinking of ships. According to Art 293 UNCLOS, use of force should be avoided. But if need to use force, it should be reasonable only to effect boarding, searching seizing and bringing the suspected ship into port.
In I’m Alone case, a British ship named I’m Alone smuggled prohibited liquor into US. When I’m Alone was chased, it fled to high seas. US pursued and fired at it. The I’m Alone ship sunk and caused loss of 1 crew. It was held that US coast guard may use reasonable force but intentional sinking is not allowed.
Red Crusader case also held that direct firing of solid shot to the Red crusader exceeded the legitimate use of armed force.
Art 111 (4) UNCLOS: jurisdiction of a coastal state may be extended. if boats from a mother ship acted illegally within a zone while mother ship is lying outside the zone, coastal state may exercise jurisdiction on that mother ship.

References: Art 2
 Art 19

Art 120

Art 30
 Art 30
 Art 103

Art 34
 Art 35

Art 2
 Art 64

Art 4

Art 12
 Art 1

Art 44

Art 2

Art 3

Art 17

Art 19
 Art 55
 Art 56

Art 86
 Art 87
 Art 100
 Art 293

Art 111