Public International Law

UN Dealings

2008-10-06T06:06:00.000-07:00

U.N. Negative Force In Dealing With Iran
Last week's opening of the United Nations General Assembly demonstrated just how morally bankrupt that body is. Holocaust-denying, nuke-seeking Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is treated as a celebrity, even as his nation defies sanctions from the U.N. Security Council.

That's the pattern with this international body. Aggressors are coddled; nuclear ambitions are ignored. And states that sponsor terrorism are given an international podium.

The U.N.'s failures are astounding, as its dealings with Iran show.

"Ahmadinejad's radical regime continues to defy U.N. Security Council resolutions regarding its nuclear program and seeks to destabilize fragile democracies that the U.N. supports in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lebanon," the Heritage Foundation's James Phillips points out. "Moreover, Ahmadinejad has -- in statements that can be construed as incitement for genocide -- repeatedly called for the destruction of the state of Israel, a member in good standing of the United Nations. Despite Ahmadinejad's aggressive foreign policy and repression of Iranian human rights at home, the president of U.N. General Assembly has regrettably seen fit to honor the Iranian leader by attending a dinner for him later this week."

Iran has successfully stared down the United Nations on the nuclear issue -- despite clear evidence that it seeks weapons, in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

"But past American and European efforts to ratchet up sanctions against Iran have been frustrated by Russia and China, both of which have lucrative trade relationships and strategic ties to Tehran," Phillips says. "Both countries have delayed and diluted efforts to impose sanctions at the Security Council."

In fact, Russia is selling more and more weapons to Iran -- including anti-aircraft missiles that will be used, presumably to protect its nuclear facilities.

"Given Moscow's increasingly confrontational behavior, the U.N. Security Council is likely to remain ineffective in addressing the Iranian nuclear issue because of the threat of the Russian veto," Phillips says.

Russia is enabling Iran to openly flout the existing U.N. sanctions.

"It's disturbing that Ahmadinejad will be allowed to parade before the United Nations. General Assembly and smugly hector a global audience," Phillips says. "Ahmadinejad seeks to shore up his flagging political support at home by lambasting the United States and engaging in a chest-thumping lecture on the superiority of Iran's radical Islamist regime."

It should be clear to all that the United States is both spineless and toothless.

"The U.N. Security Council has missed many opportunities to apply strong and effective sanctions against Iran," Phillips says.

We now have no choice but to forego the United Nations in our dealings with Iran.

"The United States should try to ramp up further sanctions against Iran outside the U.N. framework by working directly with its Japanese and European allies to impose the strongest possible bans on investments, loans, and trade with Iran," Phillips contends. "But the bottom line is that the failure of the United Nations to enforce the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and advance the collective security of its members has increased the chances of war in the near future."

Dealing with Taiwan's Referendum on the United Nations
by John J. Tkacik, Jr.
WebMemo #1606
Bizarre as it may seem, a peaceful referendum in Taiwan may portend war. Dozens of challenges bedevil U.S.–China relations, but the "Taiwan Issue" was first on the agenda for President George W. Bush's talks with China's Hu Jintao at the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum last week. Hu has warned Bush directly that this year and the next will be a "highly dangerous period" in the Taiwan Strait and accused Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian of "brazenly" pushing a referendum to secure Taiwan's admission to the U.N., which China sees as a move toward independence.[1] Hu alluded to a legal mandate under China's 2005 "Anti-Secession Law" to use "nonpeaceful means" to counter "major incidents entailing Taiwan's secession from China,"[2] and Beijing has informed Washington that, regardless of the actual wording of Taiwan's referendum, the referendum itself is just such a "major incident." "Referenda" and "wars" have thus become psychically entwined in America's distracted China policy, and shooting in the Taiwan Strait is the last thing the United States needs right now.

Taiwan's Referendum
Because Taiwan's last 12 attempts to join the United Nations as the "Republic of China" all failed, Taiwan is holding a popular referendum in March 2008 seeking the electorate's advice on whether Taiwan should apply to join the United Nations as "Taiwan" (or some other "flexible" nomenclature). The previous attempts failed because there already is a "China" in the U.N., so perhaps applying as something other than "China," Taiwan reasons, might work.

The specifics of Taiwan's referendum are irrelevant to China's threats of war. Chances are, partisan squabbling over the referendum's wording and the supermajority threshold that Taiwan's constitution places on referenda will prevent the referendum itself from passing. And referendum or no, Taiwan's application for U.N. membership has little hope of ever being approved. And just to make sure, in 2005, China embarked on a multi-year diplomatic campaign to remove Taiwan from every international forum it can find, including the U.N. and all its specialized and associated agencies.

Still, American officials are irritated by Taiwan's referendum. They see it as a cynical political move by some Taipei leaders seeking domestic electoral advantage. Of course, politics cannot but be some part of the equation. Policy and politics intersect in the U.S. political system—especially during election time. Why would it not be the case in Taiwan, a sister democracy approaching two momentous national elections?

But this is about more than just about politicians jockeying for position. Surely, Beijing's single-minded determination to stamp out all international reference to the democratic government in Taipei in an effort to bolster its own legitimacy is no more extraordinary than democratic Taiwan's desperate struggle to shore up its eroding international personality. So, as President Bush and his advisors fret about Taiwan's democratic processes, they might also consider that China's war threats are far more inimical to U.S. interests than Taiwan's referendum.

Taiwan's Problem
There is plenty of blame to go around for the Bush Administration's current confusion over Taiwan policy, much of which belongs in Taipei.

As former Taiwan President Lee Teng-hui observed to me last month, "U.N. membership is not a legal issue, it is a political issue." The former Taiwanese president explained that membership is a matter of votes, and to get votes in the U.N. "the most important things are power and friends." Taiwan's "power" pales in comparison to China's, so that leaves "friends." Taiwan's most important friends, President Lee said, are the United States and Japan, and "if you alienate people, you have a problem."[3] And so Taiwan has a problem.

President Bush was, no doubt, irritated to have Taiwan (democratic though it may be) inject its domestic politics into his broad China agenda, superseding Iran, North Korea, Darfur, trade, product safety, and climate change.[4] Moreover, the Administration appears to care little about Taiwan's referendum, except that China seems serious about a shooting war to resolve the matter. In the end, President Bush reassured his Chinese interlocutor of America's "one China policy" and the "consistent U.S. position of opposing any changes to the status quo."[5] After the meeting one White House aide, gratified, said he thought the Chinese "were pleased at the public reiteration of our position last week by John Negroponte" which called the Taiwan referendum a "mistake" and an "alteration of the status quo."[6]

What Is the "Status Quo"?
Alas, the Bush Administration (nor any previous administration since before World War II) has never defined just what the status quo in the Taiwan Strait actually is. Rather, U.S. policy toward Taiwan's "status" has been dogmatically agnostic—that is, the United States has "not formally recognized Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan and [has] not made any determination as to Taiwan's political status."[7]

Taiwan's "undetermined" status is, of course, a diplomatic fiction designed to propitiate Beijing. U.S. domestic law treats Taiwan as it does all other "foreign countries, nations, states, governments, or similar entities."[8] Moreover, given that Taiwan possesses "a permanent population; a defined territory; government; and capacity to enter into relations with the other states" it meets the description of a "state" under the 1933 Montevideo Convention, which the United States ratified in 1934.[9] Accordingly, the United States has no trouble—legal, philosophical, strategic, or otherwise—treating Taiwan as it does any other "country." Not incidentally, "undetermined" has also always meant that the U.S. does not regard Taiwan as a part of the Peoples' Republic of China.

But a crisis is in the making. While Taiwan's leaders remain tone-deaf amid the vast global preoccupations of their most important friend, the United States, the Bush Administration appears on the verge of reversing its "long-standing" agnosticism on the "status quo" in the Taiwan Strait to punish Taiwan's tone-deafness. On August 30, a National Security Council aide flatly and un-agnostically declaimed that "Taiwan is not a state in the international community."[10]

Beijing, naturally, is delighted. An American declaration that Taiwan is "not a state" has been Beijing's dream for a half a century. That the United States would, in the face of Chinese threats, appear to simply abandon a "long-standing" policy must also send a sobering signal to the rest of Asia: Washington is so distracted with real shooting wars that it cannot bring itself to risk Beijing's ill will under any circumstances. Even President Bush's "reiteration" at the Sydney APEC of "America's commitment to help strengthen the expansion of freedom" in the region looks squishy as Taiwan's political legitimacy erodes.[11]

Recommendations for Taiwan and the U.S.
To avoid an irreversible crisis in the U.S.-Taiwan relationship, both sides must recognize the gravity of the referendum issue.

Taipei should:

Rethink the referendum. Taiwan's referendum may be complicated by new and competing referenda texts which could wind up cancelling each other out. Taiwan's experience has been that a referendum that cannot pass is worse than no referendum at all. So it is still possible to finesse the matter.
Cease "alienating…friends." Coordinating with the United States and other key democracies is essential to preserving Taiwan's international personality in the United Nations, in its agencies, and across a broad spectrum of world organizations. Taiwan's leaders must approach these issues with a systematic and strategic outlook. Precipitate action will fail, and without friends, failure can be disasterous.
Washington should:

Think through the endgame for Taiwan. The United States must appreciate Taiwan's desperation as it struggles to preserve its identity. The last legs of Taiwan's democratic legitimacy are buckling as Washington signals—perhaps inadvertently—an end to a half-century-old doctrine that Taiwan's status is "undetermined" and endorses Beijing's stance that, whatever Taiwan is, it isn't sovereign. From there, it is a slippery slide to the next question: Who has sovereignty over Taiwan if not the people of Taiwan? To have lost Chiang Kai-shek's China in 1949 may be seen as a misfortune, but to lose democratic Taiwan 60 years later will look like carelessness. If, indeed, the NSC staff statement appearing to resolve Taiwan's "undetermined" sovereign status was inadvertent, it ought to be immediately corrected.
Articulate U.S. policy. The U.N. Secretary-General has promulgated documents asserting that the United Nations considers "Taiwan for all purposes to be an integral part of the PRC." This assertion is not universally held by U.N. member states. The State Department, apparently, has only mentioned the U.S.'s objection to a U.N. Under-Secretary-General because apparently U.S. Taiwan policy is a secret. Secret foreign policies are counter to America's democratic traditions and confuse the American public. The Bush Administration must be able to say forthrightly to the American people what it is willing to say to the United Nations Secretary-General.[12]
Negotiate with Taiwan. The U.S. and Taiwan should agree on a limit to Taiwan's declarations of its own independent identity from China in return for United States reassurances, first pledged by President Ronald Reagan in 1982,[13] that it will not recognize Chinese sovereignty over the Island without the express and uncoerced assent of the Taiwanese people as envisioned in the Taiwan Relations Act. Former U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia and Pacific Affairs, Randall G. Schriver, has suggested that the United States offer "six new assurances"[14] in return for Taiwan's reaffirming of President Chen Shui-bian's May 2000 "Five No's" on Taiwan's independence.
Establish better, higher level, on-going communication links with Taiwan's government. Matters should not need to rise to the level of a severe problem or crisis before being considered at senior U.S. government levels. Upgrading the rank and influence of the top U.S. representative in Taiwan would be a good start. Giving Taiwan's representatives in the U.S. regular access to the National Security Counsel, along with Defense, State, and Commerce Department staff, is also desirable.
Conclusion
Taiwan is the canary in America's Asia policy mineshaft. Clearly, a distracted Washington is allowing a laser-focused Beijing to shape the strategic agenda in the Pacific. America's democratic friends and allies in Asia, from Japan to Singapore to India to Australia, anxiously watch America's new willingness to accept China's new preeminence in the region. How the United States defends democratic Taiwan's international identity in its current crisis will tell Asia and the world much about Washington's willingness to defend them in future challenges from China.

COMPARATIVE STUDY: SC's Dealings with Treatises

2008-09-27T01:56:00.000-07:00

1. LIM vs. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, G.R. No. 151445
April 11, 2002

Supreme Court Ruling:

The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which contains provisos governing interpretations of international agreements, state:

SECTION 3. INTERPRETATION OF TREATIES

Article 31

General rule of interpretation

1. A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith ill accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the tenus of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.

2. The context for the purpose of the interpretation of a treaty shall comprise:

(a) any agreement relating to the treaty which was made between all the parties in connexion with the conclusion of the treaty;

(b) any instrument which was made by one or more parties in connexion with the conclusion of the treaty and accepted by the other parties as an instrument related to the party .

3. There shall be taken into account, together with the context:

(a) any subsequent agreement between the parties regarding the interpretation of the treaty or the application of its provisions;

(b) any subsequent practice in the application of the treaty which establishes the agreement of the parties regarding its interpretation;

(c) any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties.

4. A special meaning shall be given to a term if it is established that the parties so intended.

2. ABAYA vs. EBDANE, G.R. No. 167919
February 14, 2007

Supreme Court Ruling

It is well to understand the definition of an "exchange of notes" under international law. The term is defined in the United Nations Treaty Collection in this wise:

An "exchange of notes" is a record of a routine agreement that has many similarities with the private law contract. The agreement consists of the exchange of two documents, each of the parties being in the possession of the one signed by the representative of the other. Under the usual procedure, the accepting State repeats the text of the offering State to record its assent. The signatories of the letters may be government Ministers, diplomats or departmental heads. The technique of exchange of notes is frequently resorted to, either because of its speedy procedure, or, sometimes, to avoid the process of legislative approval.
It is stated that "treaties, agreements, conventions, charters, protocols, declarations, memoranda of understanding, modus vivendi and exchange of notes" all refer to "international instruments binding at international law." It is further explained that-

Although these instruments differ from each other by title, they all have common features and international law has applied basically the same rules to all these instruments. These rules are the result of long practice among the States, which have accepted them as binding norms in their mutual relations. Therefore, they are regarded as international customary law. Since there was a general desire to codify these customary rules, two international conventions were negotiated. The 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties ("1969 Vienna Convention"), which entered into force on 27 January 1980, contains rules for treaties concluded between States. The 1986 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations ("1986 Vienna Convention"), which has still not entered into force, added rules for treaties with international organizations as parties. Both the 1969 Vienna Convention and the 1986 Vienna Convention do not distinguish between the different designations of these instruments. Instead, their rules apply to all of those instruments as long as they meet the common requirements.
Significantly, an exchange of notes is considered a form of an executive agreement, which becomes binding through executive action without the need of a vote by the Senate or Congress. The following disquisition by Francis B. Sayre, former United States High Commissioner to the Philippines, entitled "The Constitutionality of Trade Agreement Acts," quoted in Commissioner of Customs v. Eastern Sea Trading,69 is apropos:

Agreements concluded by the President which fall short of treaties are commonly referred to as executive agreements and are no less common in our scheme of government than are the more formal instruments � treaties and conventions. They sometimes take the form of exchange of notes and at other times that of more formal documents denominated "agreements" or "protocols". The point where ordinary correspondence between this and other governments ends and agreements � whether denominated executive agreements or exchange of notes or otherwise � begin, may sometimes be difficult of ready ascertainment. It would be useless to undertake to discuss here the large variety of executive agreements as such, concluded from time to time. Hundreds of executive agreements, other than those entered into under the trade-agreements act, have been negotiated with foreign governments.

3. DEPARTMENT of BUDGET and MANAGEMENT PROCUREMENT SERVICE vs. KOLONWEL TRADING,
G.R. No. 175616, June 8, 2007

Supreme Court Ruling

Under the fundamental international law principle of pacta sunt servanda, [36] which is in fact embodied in the afore-quoted Section 4 of R.A. No. 9184, the RP, as borrower, bound itself to perform in good faith its duties and obligation under Loan No. 7118- PH. Applying this postulate in the concrete to this case, the IABAC was legally obliged to comply with, or accord primacy to, the WB Guidelines on the conduct and implementation of the bidding/procurement process in question.

4. BAYAN vs. EXEC. SEC. ZAMORA, G.R. No. 138570.
January 25, 2000

Supreme Court Ruling

This Court is of the firm view that the phrase “recognized as a treaty” means that the other contracting party accepts or acknowledges the agreement as a treaty.To require the other contracting state, the United States of America in this case, to submit the VFA to the United States Senate for concurrence pursuant to its Constitution, is to accord strict meaning to the phrase.

Well-entrenched is the principle that the words used in the Constitution are to be given their ordinary meaning except where technical terms are employed, in which case the significance thus attached to them prevails. Its language should be understood in the sense they have in common use.

Moreover, it is inconsequential whether the United States treats the VFA only as an executive agreement because, under international law, an executive agreement is as binding as a treaty.[35] To be sure, as long as the VFA possesses the elements of an agreement under international law, the said agreement is to be taken equally as a treaty.

A treaty, as defined by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, is “an international instrument concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments, and whatever its particular designation.” There are many other terms used for a treaty or international agreement, some of which are: act, protocol, agreement, compromis d’ arbitrage, concordat, convention, declaration, exchange of notes, pact, statute, charter and modus vivendi. All writers, from Hugo Grotius onward, have pointed out that the names or titles of international agreements included under the general term treaty have little or no legal significance. Certain terms are useful, but they furnish little more than mere description.

Article 2(2) of the Vienna Convention provides that “the provisions of paragraph 1 regarding the use of terms in the present Convention are without prejudice to the use of those terms, or to the meanings which may be given to them in the internal law of the State.”

Thus, in international law, there is no difference between treaties and executive agreements in their binding effect upon states concerned, as long as the negotiating functionaries have remained within their powers. International law continues to make no distinction between treaties and executive agreements: they are equally binding obligations upon nations.

In our jurisdiction, we have recognized the binding effect of executive agreements even without the concurrence of the Senate or Congress. In Commissioner of Customs vs. Eastern Sea Trading, we had occasion to pronounce:

“x x x the right of the Executive to enter into binding agreements without the necessity of subsequent congressional approval has been confirmed by long usage. From the earliest days of our history we have entered into executive agreements covering such subjects as commercial and consular relations, most-favored-nation rights, patent rights, trademark and copyright protection, postal and navigation arrangements and the settlement of claims. The validity of these has never been seriously questioned by our courts.

5. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. S.C. JOHNSON AND SON,INC., G.R. No. 127105 June 25, 1999

Supreme Court Ruling

The phrase "paid under similar circumstances in Article 13 (2) (b), (iii) of the RP-US Tax Treaty should be interpreted to refer to payment of royalty, and not to the payment of the tax, for the reason that the phrase "paid under similar circumstances" is followed by the phrase "to a resident of a third state". The respondent court held that "Words are to be understood in the context in which they are used", and since what is paid to a resident of a third state is not a tax but a royalty "logic instructs" that the treaty provision in question should refer to royalties of the same kind paid under similar circumstances.

The above construction is based principally on syntax or sentence structure but fails to take into account the purpose animating the treaty provisions in point. To begin with, we are not aware of any law or rule pertinent to the payment of royalties, and none has been brought to our attention, which provides for the payment of royalties under dissimilar circumstances. The tax rates on royalties and the circumstances of payment thereof are the same for all the recipients of such royalties and there is no disparity based on nationality in the circumstances of such payment.6 On the other hand, a cursory reading of the various tax treaties will show that there is no similarity in the provisions on relief from or avoidance of double taxation7 as this is a matter of negotiation between the contracting parties.

The RP-US Tax Treaty is just one of a number of bilateral treaties which the Philippines has entered into for the avoidance of double taxation. The purpose of these international agreements is to reconcile the national fiscal legislations of the contracting parties in order to help the taxpayer avoid simultaneous taxation in two different jurisdictions. More precisely, the tax conventions are drafted with a view towards the elimination of international juridical double taxation, which is defined as the imposition of comparable taxes in two or more states on the same taxpayer in respect of the same subject matter and for identical periods. The apparent rationale for doing away with double taxation is of encourage the free flow of goods and services and the movement of capital, technology and persons between countries, conditions deemed vital in creating robust and dynamic economies. Foreign investments will only thrive in a fairly predictable and reasonable international investment climate and the protection against double taxation is crucial in creating such a climate.

Double taxation usually takes place when a person is resident of a contracting state and derives income from, or owns capital in, the other contracting state and both states impose tax on that income or capital. In order to eliminate double taxation, a tax treaty resorts to several methods. First, it sets out the respective rights to tax of the state of source or situs and of the state of residence with regard to certain classes of income or capital. In some cases, an exclusive right to tax is conferred on one of the contracting states; however, for other items of income or capital, both states are given the right to tax, although the amount of tax that may be imposed by the state of source is limited.

The second method for the elimination of double taxation applies whenever the state of source is given a full or limited right to tax together with the state of residence. In this case, the treaties make it incumbent upon the state of residence to allow relief in order to avoid double taxation.

There are two methods of relief � the exemption method and the credit method. In the exemption method, the income or capital which is taxable in the state of source or situs is exempted in the state of residence, although in some instances it may be taken into account in determining the rate of tax applicable to the taxpayer's remaining income or capital.

On the other hand, in the credit method, although the income or capital which is taxed in the state of source is still taxable in the state of residence, the tax paid in the former is credited against the tax levied in the latter. The basic difference between the two methods is that in the exemption method, the focus is on the income or capital itself, whereas the credit method focuses upon the tax.

In negotiating tax treaties, the underlying rationale for reducing the tax rate is that the Philippines will give up a part of the tax in the expectation that the tax given up for this particular investment is not taxed by the other country.

6. AKBAYAN vs. Aquino, G.R. No. 170516
July 16, 2008

Supreme Court Ruling

By constitutional fiat and by the intrinsic nature of his office, the President, as head of State, is the sole organ and authority in the external affairs of the country. In many ways, the President is the chief architect of the nation's foreign policy; his "dominance in the field of foreign relations is (then) conceded." Wielding vast powers and influence, his conduct in the external affairs of the nation, as Jefferson describes, is “executive altogether.”

As regards the power to enter into treaties or international agreements, the Constitution vests the same in the President, subject only to the concurrence of at least two thirds vote of all the members of the Senate. In this light, the negotiation of the VFA and the subsequent ratification of the agreement are exclusive acts which pertain solely to the President, in the lawful exercise of his vast executive and diplomatic powers granted him no less than by the fundamental law itself. Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it.

While the power then to fix tariff rates and other taxes clearly belongs to Congress, and is exercised by the President only by delegation of that body, it has long been recognized that the power to enter into treaties is vested directly and exclusively in the President, subject only to the concurrence of at least two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate for the validity of the treaty. In this light, the authority of the President to enter into trade agreements with foreign nations provided under P.D. 1464 may be interpreted as an acknowledgment of a power already inherent in its office. It may not be used as basis to hold the President or its representatives accountable to Congress for the conduct of treaty negotiations.

7. PIMENTEL vs. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, G.R. No. 158088
July 6, 2005

Supreme Court Ruling

Justice Isagani Cruz, in his book on International Law, describes the treaty-making process in this wise:

The usual steps in the treaty-making process are: negotiation, signature, ratification, and exchange of the instruments of ratification. The treaty may then be submitted for registration and publication under the U.N. Charter, although this step is not essential to the validity of the agreement as between the parties.

Negotiation may be undertaken directly by the head of state but he now usually assigns this task to his authorized representatives. These representatives are provided with credentials known as full powers, which they exhibit to the other negotiators at the start of the formal discussions. It is standard practice for one of the parties to submit a draft of the proposed treaty which, together with the counter-proposals, becomes the basis of the subsequent negotiations. The negotiations may be brief or protracted, depending on the issues involved, and may even “collapse” in case the parties are unable to come to an agreement on the points under consideration.

If and when the negotiators finally decide on the terms of the treaty, the same is opened for signature. This step is primarily intended as a means of authenticating the instrument and for the purpose of symbolizing the good faith of the parties; but, significantly, it does not indicate the final consent of the state in cases where ratification of the treaty is required. The document is ordinarily signed in accordance with the alternat, that is, each of the several negotiators is allowed to sign first on the copy which he will bring home to his own state.

Ratification, which is the next step, is the formal act by which a state confirms and accepts the provisions of a treaty concluded by its representatives. The purpose of ratification is to enable the contracting states to examine the treaty more closely and to give them an opportunity to refuse to be bound by it should they find it inimical to their interests. It is for this reason that most treaties are made subject to the scrutiny and consent of a department of the government other than that which negotiated them.

The last step in the treaty-making process is the exchange of the instruments of ratification, which usually also signifies the effectivity of the treaty unless a different date has been agreed upon by the parties. Where ratification is dispensed with and no effectivity clause is embodied in the treaty, the instrument is deemed effective upon its signature.

Bar Questions

2008-09-18T09:19:00.004-07:00

1. May a treaty violate international law? If your answer is in the affirmative, explain when such may happen. If your answer is in the negative, explain why.

No, a treaty does not generally violate international law. A treaty to be valid must posses the following essential elements: a) treaty making capacity; b) authorized representatives; c)freedom of consent; d) lawful subject-matter; and e) compliance with constitutional processes.Therefore, a violation of the international law makes subject-matter unlawful. Any agreement which is contrary to international law makes a treaty null and void. Although it has been provided that one of the functions of treaty is...to make it possible for the parties to modify the rules of international customary law by means of optional principles or standards, but it does not mean that it can be violated. Instead, it serves to augment and strengthen the existence of international laws.

2. The President alone without the concurrence of the Senate abrogated a treaty. Assume that the other country-party to the treaty is agreeable to the abrogation provided it complies with the Philippine Constitution. If a case involving the validity of the treaty abrogation is brought to the Supreme Court, how should it be resolved?

The President of the Philippines has the sole right or duty to make or enter into treaties. The Constitution does not provide for the authority to abrogate. But since it has been stressed in the Constitution of the Philippines that the power to ratify treaties is vested in the President and not, as is commonly believed, in the Legislature,thus,it can be inferred that the power to abrogate is rightfully lodged in the same authority.

Convention on Diplomatic Relations

2008-09-18T09:19:00.003-07:00

Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961

The States Parties to the present Convention,

Recalling that peoples of all nations from ancient times have recognized the status of diplomatic agents,

Having in mind the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations concerning the sovereign equality of States, the maintenance of international peace and security, and the promotion of friendly relations among nations,

Believing that an international convention on diplomatic intercourse, privileges and immunities would contribute to the development of friendly relations among nations, irrespective of their differing constitutional and social systems,

Realizing that the purpose of such privileges and immunities is not to benefit individuals but to ensure the efficient performance of the functions of diplomatic missions as representing States,

Affirming that the rules of customary international law should continue to govern questions not expressly regulated by the provisions of the present Convention,

Have agreed as follows:

Article 1

For the purpose of the present Convention, the following expressions shall have the meanings hereunder assigned to them:

(a) the "head of the mission" is the person charged by the sending State with the duty of acting in that capacity;

(b) the "members of the mission" are the head of the mission and the members of the staff of the mission;

(c) the "members of the staff of the mission" are the members of the diplomatic staff, of the administrative and technical staff and of the service staff of the mission;

(d) the "members of the diplomatic staff" are the members of the staff of the mission having diplomatic rank;

(e) a "diplomatic agent" is the head of the mission or a member of the diplomatic staff of the mission;

(f) the "members of the administrative and technical staff" are the members of the staff of the mission employed in the administrative and technical service of the mission;

(g) the "members of the service staff" are the members of the staff of the mission in the domestic service of the mission;

(h) a "private servant" is a person who is in the domestic service of a member of the mission and who is not an employee of the sending State;

(i) the "premises of the mission" are the buildings or parts of buildings and the land ancillary thereto, irrespective of ownership, used for the purposes of the mission including the residence of the head of the mission.

Article 2

The establishment of diplomatic relations between States, and of permanent diplomatic missions, takes place by mutual consent.

Article 3

1. The functions of a diplomatic mission consist, inter alia, in:

(a) representing the sending State in the receiving State;

(b) protecting in the receiving State the interests of the sending State and of its nationals, within the limits permitted by international law;

(c) negotiating with the Government of the receiving State;

(d) ascertaining by all lawful means conditions and developments in the receiving State, and reporting thereon to the Government of the sending State;

(e) promoting friendly relations between the sending State and the receiving State, and developing their economic, cultural and scientific relations.

2. Nothing in the present Convention shall be construed as preventing the performance of consular functions by a diplomatic mission.

Article 4

1. The sending State must make certain that the agrement of the receiving State has been given for the person it proposes to accredit as head of the mission to that State.

2. The receiving State is not obliged to give reasons to the sending State for a refusal of agrement.

Article 5

1. The sending State may, after it has given due notification to the receiving States concerned, accredit a head of mission or assign any member of the diplomatic staff, as the case may be, to more than one State, unless there is express objection by any of the receiving States.

2. If the sending State accredits a head of mission to one or more other States it may establish a diplomatic mission headed by a charge d'affaires ad interim in each State where the head of mission has not his permanent seat.

3. A head of mission or any member of the diplomatic staff of the mission may act as representative of the sending State to any international organization.

Article 6

Two or more States may accredit the same person as head of mission to another State, unless objection is offered by the receiving State.

Article 7

Subject to the provisions of Articles 5, 8, 9 and 11, the sending State may freely appoint the members of the staff of the mission. In the case of military, naval or air attaches, the receiving State may require their names to be submitted beforehand, for its approval.

Article 8

1. Members of the diplomatic staff of the mission should in principle be of the nationality of the sending State.

2. Members of the diplomatic staff of the mission may not be appointed from among persons having the nationality of the receiving State, except with the consent of that State which may be withdrawn at any time.

3. The receiving State may reserve the same right with regard to nationals of a third State who are not also nationals of the sending State.

Article 9

1. The receiving State may at any time and without having to explain its decision, notify the sending State that the head of the mission or any member of the diplomatic staff of the mission is persona non grata or that any other member of the staff of the mission is not acceptable. In any such case, the sending State shall, as appropriate, either recall the person concerned or terminate his functions with the mission. A person may be declared non grata or not acceptable before arriving in the territory of the receiving State.

2. If the sending State refuses or fails within a reasonable period to carry out its obligations under paragraph 1 of this Article, the receiving State may refuse to recognize the person concerned as a member of the mission.

Article 10

1. The Ministry for Foreign Affairs of the receiving State, or such other ministry as may be agreed, shall be notified of:

(a) the appointment of members of the mission, their arrival and their final departure or the termination of their functions with the mission;

(b) the arrival and final departure of a person belonging to the family of a member of the mission and, where appropriate, the fact that a person becomes or ceases to be a member of the family of a member of the mission;

(c) the arrival and final departure of private servants in the employ of persons referred to in sub-paragraph (a) of this paragraph and, where appropriate, the fact that they are leaving the employ of such persons;

(d) the engagement and discharge of persons resident in the receiving State as members of the mission or private servants entitled to privileges and immunities.

2. Where possible, prior notification of arrival and final departure shall also be given.

Article 11

1. In the absence of specific agreement as to the size of the mission, the receiving State may require that the size of a mission be kept within limits considered by it to be reasonable and normal, having regard to circumstances and conditions in the receiving State and to the needs of the particular mission.

2. The receiving State may equally, within similar bounds and on a nondiscriminatory basis, refuse to accept officials of a particular category.

Article 12

The sending State may not, without the prior express consent of the receiving State, establish offices forming part of the mission in localities other than those in which the mission itself is established.

Article 13

1. The head of the mission is considered as having taken up his functions in the receiving State either when he has presented his credentials or when he has notified his arrival and a true copy of his credentials has been presented to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of the receiving State, or such other ministry as may be agreed, in accordance with the practice prevailing in the receiving State which shall be applied in a uniform manner.

2. The order of presentation of credentials or of a true copy thereof will be determined by the date and time of the arrival of the head of the mission.

Article 14

1. Heads of mission are divided into three classes, namely:

(a) that of ambassadors or nuncios accredited to Heads of State, and other heads of mission of equivalent rank;

(b) that of envoys, ministers and internuncios accredited to Heads of State;

(c) that of charges d'affaires accredited to Ministers for Foreign Affairs.

2. Except as concerns precedence and etiquette, there shall be no differentiation between heads of mission by reason of their class.

Article 15

The class to which the heads of their missions are to be assigned shall be agreed between States.

Article 16

1. Heads of mission shall take precedence in their respective classes in the order of the date and time of taking up their functions in accordance with Article 13.

2. Alterations in the credentials of a head of mission not involving any change of class shall not affect his precedence.

3. This article is without prejudice to any practice accepted by the receiving State regarding the precedence of the representative of the Holy See.

Article 17

The precedence of the members of the diplomatic staff of the mission shall be notified by the head of the mission to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs or such other ministry as may be agreed.

Article 18

The procedure to be observed in each State for the reception of heads of mission shall be uniform in respect of each class.

Article 19

1. If the post of head of the mission is vacant, or if the head of the mission is unable to perform his functions, a charge d'affaires ad interim shall act provisionally as head of the mission. The name of the charge d'affaires ad interim shall be notified, either by the head of the mission or, in case he is unable to do so, by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of the sending State to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of the receiving State or such other ministry as may be agreed.

2. In cases where no member of the diplomatic staff of the mission is present in the receiving State, a member of the administrative and technical staff may, with the consent of the receiving State, be designated by the sending State to be in charge of the current administrative affairs of the mission.

Article 20

The mission and its head shall have the right to use the flag and emblem of the sending State on the premises of the mission, including the residence of the head of the mission, and on his means of transport.

Article 21

1. The receiving State shall either facilitate the acquisition on its territory, in accordance with its laws, by the sending State of premises necessary for its mission or assist the latter in obtaining accommodation in some other way.

2. It shall also, where necessary, assist missions in obtaining suitable accommodation for their members.

Article 22

1. The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.

2. The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity.

3. The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.

Article 23

1. The sending State and the head of the mission shall be exempt from all national, regional or municipal dues and taxes in respect of the premises of the mission, whether owned or leased, other than such as represent payment for specific services rendered.

2. The exemption from taxation referred to in this Article shall not apply to such dues and taxes payable under the law of the receiving State by persons contracting with the sending State or the head of the mission.

Article 24

The archives and documents of the mission shall be inviolable at any time and wherever they may be.

Article 25

The receiving State shall accord full facilities for the performance of the functions of the mission.

Article 26

Subject to its laws and regulations concerning zones entry into which is prohibited or regulated for reasons of national security, the receiving State shall ensure to all members of the mission freedom of movement and travel in its territory.

Article 27

1. The receiving State shall permit and protect free communication on the part of the mission for all official purposes. In communicating with the Government and the other missions and consulates of the sending State, wherever situated, the mission may employ all appropriate means, including diplomatic couriers and messages in code or cipher. However, the mission may install and use a wireless transmitter only with the consent of the receiving State.

2. The official correspondence of the mission shall be inviolable. Official correspondence means all correspondence relating to the mission and its functions.

3. The diplomatic bag shall not be opened or detained.

4. The packages constituting the diplomatic bag must bear visible external marks of their character and may contain only diplomatic documents or articles intended for official use.

5. The diplomatic courier, who shall be provided with an official document indicating his status and the number of packages constituting the diplomatic bag, shall be protected by the receiving State in the performance of his functions. He shall enjoy personal inviolability and shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention.

6. The sending State or the mission may designate diplomatic couriers ad hoc. In such cases the provisions of paragraph 5 of this Article shall also apply, except that the immunities therein mentioned shall cease to apply
when such a courier has delivered to the consignee the diplomatic bag in his charge.

7. A diplomatic bag may be entrusted to the captain of a commercial aircraft scheduled to land at an authorized port of entry. He shall be provided with an official document indicating the number of packages constituting the bag but he shall not be considered to be a diplomatic courier. The mission may send one of its members to take possession of the diplomatic bag directly and freely from the captain of the aircraft.

Article 28

The fees and charges levied by the mission in the course of its official duties shall be exempt from all dues and taxes.

Article 29

The person of a diplomatic agent shall be inviolable. He shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention. The receiving State shall treat him with due respect and shall take all appropriate steps to prevent any attack on his person, freedom or dignity.

Article 30

1. The private residence of a diplomatic agent shall enjoy the same inviolability and protection as the premises of the mission.

2. His papers, correspondence and, except as provided in paragraph 3 of Article 31, his property, shall likewise enjoy inviolability.

Article 31

1. A diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State. He shall also enjoy immunity from its civil and administrative jurisdiction, except in the case of:

(a) a real action relating to private immovable property situated in the territory of the receiving State, unless he holds it on behalf of the sending State for the purposes of the mission;

(b) an action relating to succession in which the diplomatic agent is involved as executor, administrator, heir or legatee as a private person and not on behalf of the sending State;

(c) an action relating to any professional or commercial activity exercised by the diplomatic agent in the receiving State outside his official functions.

2. A diplomatic agent is not obliged to give evidence as a witness.

3. No measures of execution may be taken in respect of a diplomatic agent except in the cases coming under sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph 1 of this Article, and provided that the measures concerned can be taken without infringing the inviolability of his person or of his residence.

4. The immunity of a diplomatic agent from the jurisdiction of the receiving State does not exempt him from the jurisdiction of the sending State.

Article 32

1. The immunity from jurisdiction of diplomatic agents and of persons enjoying immunity under Article 37 may be waived by the sending State.

2. Waiver must always be express.

3. The initiation of proceedings by a diplomatic agent or by a person enjoying immunity from jurisdiction under Article 37 shall preclude him from invoking immunity from jurisdiction in respect of any counter-claim directly connected with the principal claim.

4. Waiver of immunity from jurisdiction in respect of civil or administrative proceedings shall not be held to imply waiver of immunity in respect of the execution of the judgement, for which a separate waiver shall be necessary.

Article 33

1. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 3 of this Article, a diplomatic agent shall with respect to services rendered for the sending State be exempt from social security provisions which may be in force in the receiving State.

2. The exemption provided for in paragraph 1 of this Article shall also apply to private servants who are in the sole employ of a diplomatic agent, on condition:

(a) that they are not nationals of or permanently resident in the receiving State; and

(b) that they are covered by the social security provisions which may be in force in the sending State or a third State.

3. A diplomatic agent who employs persons to whom the exemption provided for in paragraph 2 of this Article does not apply shall observe the obligations which the social security provisions of the receiving State impose upon employers.

4. The exemption provided for in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article shall not preclude voluntary participation in the social security system of the receiving State provided that such participation is permitted by that State.

5. The provisions of this Article shall not affect bilateral or multilateral agreements concerning social security concluded previously and shall not prevent the conclusion of such agreements in the future.

Article 34

A diplomatic agent shall be exempt from all dues and taxes, personal or real, national, regional or municipal, except:

(a) indirect taxes of a kind which are normally incorporated in the price of goods or services;

(b) dues and taxes on private immovable property situated in the territory of the receiving State, unless he holds it on behalf of the sending State for the purposes of the mission;

(c) estate, succession or inheritance duties levied by the receiving State, subject to the provisions of paragraph 4 of Article 39;

(d) dues and taxes on private income having its source in the receiving State and capital taxes on investments made in commercial undertakings in the receiving State;

(e) charges levied for specific services rendered;

(f) registration, court or record fees, mortgage dues and stamp duty, with respect to immovable property, subject to the provisions of Article 23.

Article 35

The receiving State shall exempt diplomatic agents from all personal services, from all public service of any kind whatsoever, and from military obligations such as those connected with requisitioning, military contributions and billeting.

Article 36

1. The receiving State shall, in accordance with such laws and regulations as it may adopt, permit entry of and grant exemption from all customs duties, taxes, and related charges other than charges for storage, cartage and similar services, on:

(a) articles for the official use of the mission;

(b) articles for the personal use of a diplomatic agent or members of his family forming part of his household, including articles intended for his establishment.

2. The personal baggage of a diplomatic agent shall be exempt from inspection, unless there are serious grounds for presuming that it contains articles not covered by the exemptions mentioned in paragraph 1 of this Article, or articles the import or export of which is prohibited by the law or controlled by the quarantine regulations of the receiving State. Such inspection shall be conducted only in the presence of the diplomatic agent or of his authorized representative.

Article 37

1. The members of the family of a diplomatic agent forming part of his household shall, if they are not nationals of the receiving State, enjoy the privileges and immunities specified in Articles 29 to 36.

2. Members of the administrative and technical staff of the mission, together with members of their families forming part of their respective households, shall, if they are not nationals of or permanently resident in the receiving State, enjoy the privileges and immunities specified in Articles 29 to 35, except that the immunity from civil and administrative jurisdiction of the receiving State specified in paragraph 1 of Article 31 shall not extend to acts performed outside the course of their duties. They shall also enjoy the privileges specified in Article 36, paragraph 1, in respect of articles imported at the time of first installation.

3. Members of the service staff of the mission who are not nationals of or permanently resident in the receiving State shall enjoy immunity in respect of acts performed in the course of their duties, exemption from dues and taxes on the emoluments they receive by reason of their employment and the exemption contained in Article 33.

4. Private servants of members of the mission shall, if they are not nationals of or permanently resident in the receiving State, be exempt from dues and taxes on the emoluments they receive by reason of their employment. In other respects, they may enjoy privileges and immunities only to the extent admitted by the receiving State. However, the receiving State must exercise its jurisdiction over those persons in such a manner as not to interfere unduly with the performance of the functions of the mission.

Article 38

1. Except insofar as additional privileges and immunities may be granted by the receiving State, a diplomatic agent who is a national of or permanently resident in that State shall enjoy only immunity from jurisdiction, and inviolability, in respect of official acts performed in the exercise of his functions.

2. Other members of the staff of the mission and private servants who are nationals of or permanently resident in the receiving State shall enjoy privileges and immunities only to the extent admitted by the receiving State. However, the receiving State must exercise its jurisdiction over those persons in such a manner as not to interfere unduly with the performance of the functions of the mission.

Article 39

1. Every person entitled to privileges and immunities shall enjoy them from the moment he enters the territory of the receiving State on proceeding to take up his post or, if already in its territory, from the moment when his appointment is notified to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs or such other ministry as may be agreed.

2. When the functions of a person enjoying privileges and immunities have come to an end, such privileges and immunities shall normally cease at the moment when he leaves the country, or on expiry of a reasonable period in which to do so, but shall subsist until that time, even in case of armed conflict. However, with respect to acts performed by such a person in the exercise of his functions as a member of the mission, immunity shall continue to subsist.

3. In case of the death of a member of the mission, the members of his family shall continue to enjoy the privileges and immunities to which they are entitled until the expiry of a reasonable period in which to leave the country.

4. In the event of the death of a member of the mission not a national of or permanently resident in the receiving State or a member of his family forming part of his household, the receiving State shall permit the withdrawal of the movable property of the deceased, with the exception of any property acquired in the country the export of which was prohibited at the time of his death. Estate, succession and inheritance duties shall not be levied on movable property the presence of which in the receiving State was due solely to the presence there of the deceased as a member of the mission or as a member of the family of a member of the mission.

Article 40

1. If a diplomatic agent passes through or is in the territory of a third State, which has granted him a passport visa if such visa was necessary, while proceeding to take up or to return to his post, or when returning to his own country, the third State shall accord him inviolability and such other immunities as may be required to ensure his transit or return. The same shall apply in the case of any members of his family enjoying privileges or immunities who are accompanying the diplomatic agent, or travelling separately to join him or to return to their country.

2. In circumstances similar to those specified in paragraph 1 of this Article, third States shall not hinder the passage of members of the administrative and technical or service staff of a mission, and of members of their families, through their territories.

3. Third States shall accord to official correspondence and other official communications in transit, including messages in code or cipher, the same freedom and protection as is accorded by the receiving State. They shall accord to diplomatic couriers, who have been granted a passport visa if such visa was necessary, and diplomatic bags in transit the same inviolability and protection as the receiving State is bound to accord.

4. The obligations of third States under paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of this Article shall also apply to the persons mentioned respectively in those paragraphs, and to official communications and diplomatic bags, whose presence in the territory of the third State is due to force majeure.

Article 41

1. Without prejudice to their privileges and immunities, it is the duty of all persons enjoying such privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State. They also have a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of that State.

2. All official business with the receiving State entrusted to the mission by the sending State shall be conducted with or through the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of the receiving State or such other ministry as may be agreed.

3. The premises of the mission must not be used in any manner incompatible with the functions of the mission as laid down in the present Convention or by other rules of general international law or by any special agreements in force between the sending and the receiving State.

Article 42

A diplomatic agent shall not in the receiving State practise for personal profit any professional or commercial activity.

Article 43

The function of a diplomatic agent comes to an end, inter alia:

(a) on notification by the sending State to the receiving State that the function of the diplomatic agent has come to an end;

(b) on notification by the receiving State to the sending State that, in accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 9, it refuses to recognize the diplomatic agent as a member of the mission.

Article 44

The receiving State must, even in case of armed conflict, grant facilities in order to enable persons enjoying privileges and immunities, other than nationals of the receiving State, and members of the families of such persons irrespective of their nationality, to leave at the earliest possible moment. It must, in particular, in case of need, place at their disposal the necessary means of transport for themselves and their property.

Article 45

If diplomatic relations are broken off between two States, or if a mission is permanently or temporarily recalled:

(a) the receiving State must, even in case of armed conflict, respect and protect the premises of the mission, together with its property and archives;

(b) the sending State may entrust the custody of the premises of the mission, together with its property and archives, to a third State acceptable to the receiving State;

(c) the sending State may entrust the protection of its interests and those of its nationals to a third State acceptable to the receiving State.

Article 46

A sending State may with the prior consent of a receiving State, and at the request of a third State not represented in the receiving State, undertake the temporary protection of the interests of the third State and of its nationals.

Article 47

1. In the application of the provisions of the present Convention, the receiving State shall not discriminate as between States.

2. However, discrimination shall not be regarded as taking place:

(a) where the receiving State applies any of the provisions of the present Convention restrictively because of a restrictive application of that provision to its mission in the sending State;

(b) where by custom or agreement States extend to each other more favourable treatment than is required by the provisions of the present Convention.

Article 48

The present Convention shall be open for signature by all States Members of the United Nations or of any of the specialized agencies or Parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice, and by any other State invited by the General Assembly of the United Nations to become a Party to the Convention, as follows: until 31 October 1961 at the Federal Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Austria and subsequently, until 31 March 1962, at the United Nations Headquarters in New York.

Article 49

The present Convention is subject to ratification. The instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Article 50

The present Convention shall remain open for accession by any State belonging to any of the four categories mentioned in Article 48. The instruments of accession shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Article 51

1. The present Convention shall enter into force on the thirtieth day following the date of deposit of the twenty-second instrument of ratification or accession with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

2. For each State ratifying or acceding to the Convention after the deposit of the twenty-second instrument of ratification or accession, the Convention shall enter into force on the thirtieth day after deposit by such State of its instrument of ratification or accession.

Article 52

The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall inform all States belonging to any of the four categories mentioned in Article 48:

(a) of signatures to the present Convention and of the deposit of instruments of ratification or accession, in accordance with Articles 48, 49 and 50;

(b) of the date on which the present Convention will enter into force, in accordance with Article 51.

Article 53

The original of the present Convention, of which the Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall send certified copies thereof to all States belonging to any of the four categories mentioned in Article 48.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned Plenipotentiaries, being duly authorized thereto by their respective Governments, have signed the present Convention.

DONE at Vienna, this eighteenth day of April one thousand nine hundred and sixty-one.

CONVENTION ON CONSULAR RELATIONS

2008-09-18T09:19:00.002-07:00

VIENNA CONVENTION ON CONSULAR RELATIONS
AND OPTIONAL PROTOCOLS

DONE AT VIENNA, ON 24 APRIL 1963

The States Parties to the present Convention,

Recalling that consular relations have been established between peoples
since ancient times,

Having in mind the Purposes and Principles of the Charter of the United
Nation concerning the sovereign equality of States, the maintenance of
international peace and security, and the promotion of friendly relations
among nations,

Considering that the United Nations Conference on Diplomatic Intercourse
and Immunities adopted the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations which
was opened for signature on 18 April 1961,

Believing that an international convention on consular relations,
privileges and immunities would also contribute to the development of
friendly relations among nations, irrespective of their differing
constitutional and social systems,

Realizing that the purpose of such privileges and immunities is not to
benefit individuals but to ensure the efficient performance of functions by
consular posts on behalf of their respective States,

Affirming that the rules of customary international law continue to govern
matters not expressly regulated by the provisions of the present
Convention,

Have agreed as follows:

Article 1

DEFINITIONS

1. For the purposes of the present Convention, the following expressions
shall have the meanings hereunder assigned to them:

(a) "consular post" means any consulate-general, consulate,
vice-consulate or consular agency;
(b) "consular district" means the area assigned to a consular post for
the exercise of consular functions;
(c) "head of consular post" means the person charged with the duty of
acting in that capacity;
(d) "consular officer" means any person, including the head of a consular
post, entrusted in that capacity with the exercise of consular
functions;
(e) "consular employee" means any person employed in the administrative
or technical service of a consular post;
(f) "member of the service staff" means any person employed in the
domestic service of a consular post;
(g) "members of the consular post" means consular officers, consular
employees and members of the service staff;
(h) "members of the consular staff" means consular officers, other than
the head of a consular post, consular employees and members of the
service staff;
(i) "member of the private staff" means a person who is employed
exclusively in the private service of a member of the consular post;

(j) "consular premises" means the buildings or parts of buildings and the
land ancillary thereto, irrespective of ownership, used exclusively
for the purposes of the consular post;
(k) "consular archives" includes all the papers, documents,
correspondence, books, films, tapes and registers of the consular
post, together with the ciphers and codes, the card-indexes and any
article of furniture intended for their protection or safekeeping.

2. Consular officers are of two categories, namely career consular officers
and honorary consular officers. The provisions of Chapter II of the present
Convention apply to consular posts headed by career consular officers; the
provisions of Chapter III govern consular posts headed by honorary consular
officers.

3. The particular status of members of the consular posts who are nationals
or permanent residents of the receiving State is governed by Article 71 of
the present Convention.

CHAPTER I

CONSULAR RELATIONS IN GENERAL

Section I

ESTABLISHMENT AND CONDUCT OF CONSULAR RELATIONS

Article 2
ESTABLISHMENT OF CONSULAR RELATIONS

1. The establishment of consular relations between States takes place by
mutual consent.

2. The consent given to the establishment of diplomatic relations between
two States implies, unless otherwise stated, consent to the establishment
of consular relations.

3. The severance of diplomatic relations shall not ipso facto involve the
severance of consular relations.

Article 3
EXERCISE OF CONSULAR FUNCTIONS

Consular functions are exercised by consular posts. They are also exercised
by diplomatic missions in accordance with the provisions of the present
Convention.

Article 4
ESTABLISHMENT OF A CONSULAR POST

1. A consular post may be established in the territory of the receiving
State only with that State's consent.

2. The seat of the consular post, its classification and the consular
district shall be established by the sending State and shall be subject to
the approval of the receiving State.

3. Subsequent changes in the seat of the consular post, its classification
or the consular district may be made by the sending State only with the
consent of the receiving State.

4. The consent of the receiving State shall also be required if a
consulate-general or a consulate desires to open a vice-consulate or a
consular agency in a locality other than that in which it is itself
established.

5. The prior express consent of the receiving State shall also be required
for the opening of an office forming part of an existing consular post
elsewhere than at the seat thereof.

Article 5
CONSULAR FUNCTIONS

Consular functions consist in:

(a) protecting in the receiving State the interests of the sending State
and of its nationals, both individuals and bodies corporate, within
the limits permitted by international law;
(b) furthering the development of commercial, economic, cultural and
scientific relations between the sending State and the receiving
State and otherwise promoting friendly relations between them in
accordance with the provisions of the present Convention;
(c) ascertaining by all lawful means conditions and developments in the
commercial, economic, cultural and scientific life of the receiving
State, reporting thereon to the Government of the sending State and
giving information to persons interested;
(d) issuing passports and travel documents to nationals of the sending
State, and visas or appropriate documents to persons wishing to
travel to the sending State;
(e) helping and assisting nationals, both individuals and bodies
corporate, of the sending State;
(f) acting as notary and civil registrar and in capacities of a similar
kind, and performing certain functions of an administrative nature,
provided that there is nothing contrary thereto in the laws and
regulations of the receiving State;
(g) safeguarding the interests of nationals, both individuals and bodies
corporate, of the sending State in cases of succession mortis causa
in the territory of the receiving State, in accordance with the laws
and regulations of the receiving State;
(h) safeguarding, within the limits imposed by the laws and regulations
of the receiving State, the interests of minors and other persons
lacking full capacity who are nationals of the sending State,
particularly where any guardianship or trusteeship is required with
respect to such persons;
(i) subject to the practices and procedures obtaining in the receiving
State, representing or arranging appropriate representation for
nationals of the sending State before the tribunals and other
authorities of the receiving State, for the purpose of obtaining, in
accordance with the laws and regulations of the receiving State,
provisional measures for the preservation of the rights and interests
of these nationals, where, because of absence or any other reason,
such nationals are unable at the proper time to assume the defence of
their rights and interests;
(j) transmitting judicial and extrajudicial documents or executing
letters rogatory or commissions to take evidence for the courts of
the sending State in accordance with international agreements in
force or, in the absence of such international agreements, in any
other manner compatible with the laws and regulations of the
receiving State;
(k) exercising rights of supervision and inspection provided for in the
laws and regulations of the sending State in respect of vessels
having the nationality of the sending State, and of aircraft
registered in that State, and in respect of their crews;
(l) extending assistance to vessels and aircraft mentioned in
sub-paragraph (k) of this Article and to their crews, taking
statements regarding the voyage of a vessel, examining and stamping
the ship's papers, and,without prejudice to the powers of the
authorities of the receiving State, conducting investigations into
any incidents which occurred during the voyage, and settling disputes
of any kind between the master, the officers and the seamen in so far
as this may be authorized by the laws and regulations of the sending
State;
(m) performing any other functions entrusted to a consular post by the
sending State which are not prohibited by the laws and regulations of
the receiving State or to which no objection is taken by the
receiving State or which are referred to in the international
agreements in force between the sending State and the receiving
State.

Article 6
EXERCISE OF CONSULAR FUNCTIONS OUTSIDE THE CONSULAR DISTRICT

A consular officer may, in special circumstances, with the consent of the
receiving State, exercise his functions outside his consular district.

Article 7
EXERCISE OF CONSULAR FUNCTIONS IN A THIRD STATE

The sending State may, after notifying the States concerned, entrust a
consular post established in a particular State with the exercise of
consular functions in another State, unless there is express objection by
one of the States concerned.

Article 8
EXERCISE OF CONSULAR FUNCTIONS ON BEHALF OF A THIRD STATE

Upon appropriate notification to the receiving State, a consular post of
the sending State may, unless the receiving State objects, exercise
consular functions in the receiving State on behalf of a third State.

Article 9
CLASSES OF HEADS OF CONSULAR POSTS

1. Heads of consular posts are divided into four classes, namely:
(a) consuls-general;
(b) consuls;
(c) vice-consuls;
(d) consular agents.

2. Paragraph 1 of this Article in no way restricts the right of any of the
Contracting Parties to fix the designation of consular officers other than
the heads of consular posts.

Article 10
APPOINTMENT AND ADMISSION OF HEADS OF CONSULAR POSTS

1. Heads of consular posts are appointed by the sending State and are
admitted to the exercise of their functions by the receiving State.

2. Subject to the provisions of the present Convention, the formalities for
the appointment and for the admission of the head of a consular post are
determined by the laws, regulations and usages of the sending State and of
the receiving State respectively.

Article 11
THE CONSULAR COMMISSION OR NOTIFICATION OF APPOINTMENT

1. The head of a consular post shall be provided by the sending State with
a document, in the form of a commission or similar instrument, made out for
each appointment, certifying his capacity and showing, as a general rule,
his full name, his category and class, the consular district and the seat
of the consular post.

2. The sending State shall transmit the commission or similar instrument
through the diplomatic or other appropriate channel to the Government of
the State in whose territory the head of a consular post is to exercise his
functions.

3. If the receiving State agrees, the sending State may, instead of a
commission or similar instrument, send to the receiving State a
notification containing the particulars required by paragraph 1 of this
Article.

Article 12
THE EXEQUATUR

1. The head of a consular post is admitted to the exercise of his functions
by an authorization from the receiving State termed an exequatur, whatever
the form of this authorization.

2. A State which refuses to grant an exequatur is not obliged to give to
the sending State reasons for such refusal.

3. Subject to the provisions of Articles 13 and 15, the head of a consular
post shall not enter upon his duties until he has received an exequatur.

Article 13
PROVISIONAL ADMISSION OF HEADS OF CONSULAR POSTS

Pending delivery of the exequatur, the head of a consular post may be
admitted on a provisional basis to the exercise of his functions. In that
case, the provisions of the present Convention shall apply.

Article 14
NOTIFICATION TO THE AUTHORITIES OF THE CONSULAR DISTRICT

As soon as the head of a consular post is admitted even provisionally to
the exercise of his functions, the receiving State shall immediately notify
the competent authorities of the consular district. It shall also ensure
that the necessary measures are taken to enable the head of a consular post
to carry out the duties of his office and to have the benefit of the
provisions of the present Convention.

Article 15
TEMPORARY EXERCISE OF THE FUNCTIONS OF THE HEAD OF A CONSULAR POST

1. If the head of a consular post is unable to carry out his functions or
the position of head of consular post is vacant, an acting head of post may
act provisionally as head of the consular post.

2. The full name of the acting head of post shall be notified either by the
diplomatic mission of the sending State or, if that State has no such
mission in the receiving State, by the head of the consular post, or, if he
is unable to do so, by any competent authority of the sending State, to the
Ministry for Foreign Affairs of the receiving State or to the authority
designated by that Ministry. As a general rule, this notification shall be
given in advance. The receiving State may make the admission as acting head
of post of a person who is neither a diplomatic agent nor a consular
officer of the sending State in the receiving State conditional on its
consent.

3. The competent authorities of the receiving State shall afford assistance
and protection to the acting head of post. While he is in charge of the
post, the provisions of the present Convention shall apply to him on the
same basis as to the head of the consular post concerned. The receiving
State shall not, however, be obliged to grant to an acting head of post any
facility, privilege or immunity which the head of the consular post enjoys
only subject to conditions not fulfilled by the acting head of post.

4. When, in the circumstances referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, a
member of the diplomatic staff of the diplomatic mission of the sending
State in the receiving State is designated by the sending State as an
acting head of post, he shall, if the receiving State does not object
thereto, continue to enjoy diplomatic privileges and immunities.

Article 16
PRECEDENCE AS BETWEEN HEADS OF CONSULAR POSTS

1. Heads of consular posts shall rank in each class according to the date
of the grant of the exequatur.

2. If, however, the head of a consular post before obtaining the exequatur
is admitted to the exercise of his functions provisionally, his precedence
shall be determined according to the date of the provisional admission;
this precedence shall be maintained after the granting of the exequatur.

3. The order of precedence as between two or more heads of consular posts
who obtained the exequatur or provisional admission on the same date shall
be determined according to the dates on which their commissions or similar
instruments or the notifications referred to in paragraph 3 of Article 11
were presented to the receiving State.

4. Acting heads of posts shall rank after all heads of consular posts and,
as between themselves, they shall rank according to the dates on which they
assumed their functions as acting heads of posts as indicated in the
notifications given under paragraph 2 of Article 15.

5. Honorary consular officers who are heads of consular posts shall rank in
each class after career heads of consular posts, in the order and according
to the rules laid down in the foregoing paragraphs.

6. Heads of consular posts shall have precedence over consular officers not
having that status.

Article 17
PERFORMANCE OF DIPLOMATIC ACTS BY CONSULAR OFFICERS

1. In a State where the sending State has no diplomatic mission and is not
represented by a diplomatic mission of a third State, a consular officer
may, with the consent of the receiving State, and without affecting his
consular status, be authorized to perform diplomatic acts. The performance
of such acts by a consular officer shall not confer upon him any right to
claim diplomatic privileges and immunities.

2. A consular officer may, after notification addressed to the receiving
State, act as representative of the sending State to any inter-governmental
organization. When so acting, he shall be entitled to enjoy any privileges
and immunities accorded to such a representative by customary international
law or by international agreements; however, in respect of the performance
by him of any consular function, he shall not be entitled to any greater
immunity from jurisdiction than that to which a consular officer is
entitled under the present Convention.

Article 18
APPOINTMENT OF THE SAME PERSON BY TWO OR MORE STATES
AS A CONSULAR OFFICER

Two or more States may, with the consent of the receiving State, appoint
the same person as a consular officer in that State.

Article 19
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS OF CONSULAR STAFF

1. Subject to the provisions of Articles 20, 22 and 23, the sending State
may freely appoint the members of the consular staff.

2. The full name, category and class of all consular officers, other than
the head of a consular post, shall be notified by the sending State to the
receiving State in sufficient time for the receiving State, if it so
wishes, to exercise its rights under paragraph 3 of Article 23.

3. The sending State may, if required by its laws and regulations, request
the receiving State to grant an exequatur to a consular officer other than
the head of a consular post.

4. The receiving State may, if required by its laws and regulations, grant
an exequatur to a consular officer other than the head of a consular post.

Article 20
SIZE OF THE CONSULAR STAFF

In the absence of an express agreement as to the size of the consular
staff, the receiving State may require that the size of the staff be kept
within limits considered by it to be reasonable and normal, having regard
to circumstances and conditions in the consular district and to the needs
of the particular post.

Article 21
PRECEDENCE AS BETWEEN CONSULAR OFFICERS OF A CONSULAR POST

The order of precedence as between the consular officers of a consular post
and any change thereof shall be notified by the diplomatic mission of the
sending State or, if that State has no such mission in the receiving State,
by the head of the consular post, to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of
the receiving State or to the authority designated by that Ministry.

Article 22
NATIONALITY OF CONSULAR OFFICERS

1. Consular officers should, in principle, have the nationality of the
sending State.

2. Consular officers may not be appointed from among persons having the
nationality of the receiving State except with the express consent of that
State which may be withdrawn at any time.

3. The receiving State may reserve the same right with regard to nationals
of a third State who are not also nationals of the sending State.

Article 23
PERSONS DECLARED "NON GRATA"

1. The receiving State may at any time notify the sending State that a
consular officer is persona non grata or that any other member of the
consular staff is not acceptable. In that event, the sending State shall,
as the case may be, either recall the person concerned or terminate his
functions with the consular post.

2. If the sending State refuses or fails within a reasonable time to carry
out its obligations under paragraph 1 of this Article, the receiving State
may, as the case may be, either withdraw the exequatur from the person
concerned or cease to consider him as a member of the consular staff.

3. A person appointed as a member of a consular post may be declared
unacceptable before arriving in the territory of the receiving State or, if
already in the receiving State, before entering on his duties with the
consular post. In any such case, the sending State shall withdraw his
appointment.

4. In the cases mentioned in paragraphs 1 and 3 of this Article, the
receiving State is not obliged to give to the sending State reasons for its
decision.

Article 24
NOTIFICATION TO THE RECEIVING STATE OF APPOINTMENTS,
ARRIVALS AND DEPARTURES

1. The Ministry for Foreign Affairs of the receiving State or the authority
designated by that Ministry shall be notified of:

(a) the appointment of members of a consular post, their arrival after
appointment to the consular post, their final departure or the
termination of their functions and any other changes affecting their
status that may occur in the course of their service with the
consular post;
(b) the arrival and final departure of a person belonging to the family
of a member of a consular post forming part of his household and,
where appropriate, the fact that a person becomes or ceases to be
such a member of the family;
(c) the arrival and final departure of members of the private staff and,
where appropriate, the termination of their service as such;
(d) the engagement and discharge of persons resident in the receiving
State as members of a consular post or as members of the private
staff entitled to privileges and immunities.

2. When possible, prior notification of arrival and final departure shall
also be given.

Section II

END OF CONSULAR FUNCTIONS

Article 25
TERMINATION OF THE FUNCTIONS OF A MEMBER OF A CONSULAR POST

The functions of a member of a consular post shall come to an end inter
alia:

(a) on notification by the sending State to the receiving State that his
functions have come to an end;
(b) on withdrawal of the exequatur;
(c) on notification by the receiving State to the sending State that the
receiving State has ceased to consider him as a member of the
consular staff.

Article 26
DEPARTURE FROM THE TERRITORY OF THE RECEIVING STATE

The receiving State shall, even in case of armed conflict, grant to members
of the consular post and members of the private staff, other than nationals
of the receiving State, and to members of their families forming part of
their households irrespective of nationality, the necessary time and
facilities to enable them to prepare their departure and to leave at the
earliest possible moment after the termination of the functions of the
members concerned. In particular, it shall, in case of need, place at their
disposal the necessary means of transport for themselves and their property
other than property acquired in the receiving State the export of which is
prohibited at the time of departure.

Article 27
PROTECTION OF CONSULAR PREMISES AND ARCHIVES AND OF THE INTERESTS OF THE
SENDING STATE IN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES

1. In the event of the severance of consular relations between two States:

(a) the receiving State shall, even in case of armed conflict, respect
and protect the consular premises, together with the property of the
consular post and the consular archives;
(b) the sending State may entrust the custody of the consular premises,
together with the property contained therein and the consular
archives, to a third State acceptable to the receiving State;
(c) the sending State may entrust the protection of its interests and
those of its nationals to a third State acceptable to the receiving
State.

2. In the event of the temporary or permanent closure of a consular post,
the provisions of sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 1 of this Article shall
apply. In addition,

(a) if the sending State, although not represented in the receiving State
by a diplomatic mission, has another consular post in the territory
of that State, that consular post may be entrusted with the custody
of the premises of the consular post which has been closed, together
with the property contained therein and the consular archives, and,
with the consent of the receiving State, with the exercise of
consular functions in the district of that consular post; or
(b) if the sending State has no diplomatic mission and no other consular
post in the receiving State, the provisions of sub-paragraphs (b) and
(c) of paragraph 1 of this Article shall apply.

CHAPTER II

FACILITIES, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES
RELATING TO CONSULAR POSTS, CAREER CONSULAR OFFICERS
AND OTHER MEMBERS OF A CONSULAR POST

Section I

FACILITIES, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES
RELATING TO A CONSULAR POST

Article 28
FACILITIES FOR THE WORK OF THE CONSULAR POST

The receiving State shall accord full facilities for the performance of the
functions of the consular post.

Article 29
USE OF NATIONAL FLAG AND COAT-OF-ARMS

1. The sending State shall have the right to the use of its national flag
and coat-of-arms in the receiving State in accordance with the provisions
of this Article.

2. The national flag of the sending State may be flown and its coat-of-arms
displayed on the building occupied by the consular post and at the entrance
door thereof, on the residence of the head of the consular post and on his
means of transport when used on official business.

3. In the exercise of the right accorded by this Article regard shall be
had to the laws, regulations and usages of the receiving State.

Article 30
ACCOMMODATION

1. The receiving State shall either facilitate the acquisition on its
territory, in accordance with its laws and regulations, by the sending
State of premises necessary for its consular post or assist the latter in
obtaining accommodation in some other way.

2. It shall also, where necessary, assist the consular post in obtaining
suitable accommodation for its members.

Article 31
INVIOLABILITY OF THE CONSULAR PREMISES

1. Consular premises shall be inviolable to the extent provided in this
Article.

2. The authorities of the receiving State shall not enter that part of the
consular premises which is used exclusively for the purpose of the work of
the consular post except with the consent of the head of the consular post
or of his designee or of the head of the diplomatic mission of the sending
State. The consent of the head of the consular post may, however, be
assumed in case of fire or other disaster requiring prompt protective
action.

3. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 2 of this Article, the receiving
State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the
consular premises against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any
disturbance of the peace of the consular post or impairment of its dignity.

4. The consular premises, their furnishings, the property of the consular
post and its means of transport shall be immune from any form of
requisition for purposes of national defence or public utility. If
expropriation is necessary for such purposes, all possible steps shall be
taken to avoid impeding the performance of consular functions, and prompt,
adequate and effective compensation shall be paid to the sending State.

Article 32
EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION OF CONSULAR PREMISES

1. Consular premises and the residence of the career head of consular post
of which the sending State or any person acting on its behalf is the owner
or lessee shall be exempt from all national, regional or municipal dues and
taxes whatsoever, other than such as represent payment for specific
services rendered.

2. The exemption from taxation referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article
shall not apply to such dues and taxes if, under the law of the receiving
State, they are payable by the person who contracted with the sending State
or with the person acting on its behalf.

Article 33
INVIOLABILITY OF THE CONSULAR ARCHIVES AND DOCUMENTS

The consular archives and documents shall be inviolable at all times and
wherever they may be.

Article 34
FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT

Subject to its laws and regulations concerning zones entry into which is
prohibited or regulated for reasons of national security, the receiving
State shall ensure freedom of movement and travel in its territory to all
members of the consular post.

Article 35
FREEDOM OF COMMUNICATION

1. The receiving State shall permit and protect freedom of communication on
the part of the consular post for all official purposes. In communicating
with the Government, the diplomatic missions and other consular posts,
wherever situated, of the sending State, the consular post may employ all
appropriate means, including diplomatic or consular couriers, diplomatic or
consular bags and messages in code or cipher. However, the consular post
may install and use a wireless transmitter only with the consent of the
receiving State.

2. The official correspondence of the consular post shall be inviolable.
Official correspondence means all correspondence relating to the consular
post and its functions.

3. The consular bag shall be neither opened nor detained. Nevertheless, if
the competent authorities of the receiving State have serious reason to
believe that the bag contains something other than the correspondence,
documents or articles referred to in paragraph 4 of this Article, they may
request that the bag be opened in their presence by an authorized
representative of the sending State. If this request is refused by the
authorities of the sending State, the bag shall be returned to its place of
origin.

4. The packages constituting the consular bag shall bear visible external
marks of their character and may contain only official correspondence and
documents or articles intended exclusively for official use.

5. The consular courier shall be provided with an official document indicat
ing his status and the number of packages constituting the consular bag.
Except with the consent of the receiving State he shall be neither a
national of the receiving State, nor, unless he is a national of the
sending State, a permanent resident of the receiving State. In the
performance of his functions he shall be protected by the receiving State.
He shall enjoy personal inviolability and shall not be liable to any form
of arrest or detention.

6. The sending State, its diplomatic missions and its consular posts may
designate consular couriers ad hoc. In such cases the provisions of
paragraph 5 of this Article shall also apply except that the immunities
therein mentioned shall cease to apply when such a courier has delivered to
the consignee the consular bag in his charge.

7. A consular bag may be entrusted to the captain of a ship or of a
commercial aircraft scheduled to land at an authorized port of entry. He
shall be provided with an official document indicating the number of
packages constituting the bag, but he shall not be considered to be a
consular courier. By arrangement with the appropriate local authorities,
the consular post may send one of its members to take possession of the bag
directly and freely from the captain of the ship or of the aircraft.

Article 36
COMMUNICATION AND CONTACT WITH NATIONALS OF THE SENDING STATE

1. With a view to facilitating the exercise of consular functions relating
to nationals of the sending State:

(a) consular officers shall be free to communicate with nationals of the
sending State and to have access to them. Nationals of the sending
State shall have the same freedom with respect to communication with
and access to consular officers of the sending State;
(b) if he so requests, the competent authorities of the receiving State
shall, without delay, inform the consular post of the sending State
if, within its consular district, a national of that State is
arrested or committed to prison or to custody pending trial or is
detained in any other manner. Any communication addressed to the
consular post by the person arrested, in prison, custody or detention
shall also be forwarded by the said authorities without delay. The
said authorities shall inform the person concerned without delay of
his rights under this sub-paragraph;
(c) consular officers shall have the right to visit a national of the
sending State who is in prison, custody or detention, to converse and
correspond with him and to arrange for his legal representation. They
shall also have the right to visit any national of the sending State
who is in prison, custody or detention in their district in pursuance
of a judgment. Nevertheless, consular officers shall refrain from
taking action on behalf of a national who is in prison, custody or
detention if he expressly opposes such action.

2. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be exercised
in conformity with the laws and regulations of the receiving State, subject
to the proviso, however, that the said laws and regulations must enable
full effect to be given to the purposes for which the rights accorded under
this Article are intended.

Article 37
INFORMATION IN CASES OF DEATHS, GUARDIANSHIP OR TRUSTEESHIP,
WRECKS AND AIR ACCIDENTS

If the relevant information is available to the competent authorities of
the receiving State, such authorities shall have the duty:

(a) in the case of the death of a national of the sending State, to
inform without delay the consular post in whose district the death
occurred;
(b) to inform the competent consular post without delay of any case where
the appointment of a guardian or trustee appears to be in the
interests of a minor or other person lacking full capacity who is a
national of the sending State. The giving of this information shall,
however, be without prejudice to the operation of the laws and
regulations of the receiving State concerning such appointments;
(c) if a vessel, having the nationality of the sending State, is wrecked
or runs aground in the territorial sea or internal waters of the
receiving State, or if an aircraft registered in the sending State
suffers an accident on the territory of the receiving State, to
inform without delay the consular post nearest to the scene of the
occurrence.

Article 38
COMMUNICATION WITH THE AUTHORITIES OF THE RECEIVING STATE

In the exercise of their functions, consular officers may address:

(a) the competent local authorities of their consular district;
(b) the competent central authorities of the receiving State if and to
the extent that this is allowed by the laws, regulations and usages
of the receiving State or by the relevant international agreements.

Article 39
CONSULAR FEES AND CHARGES

1. The consular post may levy in the territory of the receiving State the
fees and charges provided by the laws and regulations of the sending State
for consular acts.

2. The sums collected in the form of the fees and charges referred to in
paragraph 1 of this Article, and the receipts for such fees and charges,
shall be exempt from all dues and taxes in the receiving State.

Section II

FACILITIES, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES
RELATING TO CAREER CONSULAR OFFICERS
AND OTHER MEMBERS OF A CONSULAR POST

Article 40
PROTECTION OF CONSULAR OFFICERS

The receiving State shall treat consular officers with due respect and
shall take all appropriate steps to prevent any attack on their person,
freedom or dignity.

Article 41
PERSONAL INVIOLABILITY OF CONSULAR OFFICERS

1. Consular officers shall not be liable to arrest or detention pending
trial, except in the case of a grave crime and pursuant to a decision by
the competent judicial authority.

2. Except in the case specified in paragraph 1 of this Article, consular
officers shall not be committed to prison or liable to any other form of
restriction on their personal freedom save in execution of a judicial
decision of final effect.

3. If criminal proceedings are instituted against a consular officer, he
must appear before the competent authorities. Nevertheless, the proceedings
shall be conducted with the respect due to him by reason of his official
position and, except in the case specified in paragraph 1 of this Article,
in a manner which will hamper the exercise of consular functions as little
as possible. When, in the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 of this
Article, it has become necessary to detain a consular officer, the
proceedings against him shall be instituted with the minimum of delay.

Article 42
NOTIFICATION OF ARREST, DETENTION OR PROSECUTION

In the event of the arrest or detention, pending trial, of a member of the
consular staff, or of criminal proceedings being instituted against him,
the receiving State shall promptly notify the head of the consular post.
Should the latter be himself the object of any such measure, the receiving
State shall notify the sending State through the diplomatic channel.

Article 43
IMMUNITY FROM JURISDICTION

1. Consular officers and consular employees shall not be amenable to the
jurisdiction of the judicial or administrative authorities of the receiving
State in respect of acts performed in the exercise of consular functions.

2. The provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article shall not, however, apply
in respect of a civil action either:

(a) arising out of a contract concluded by a consular officer or a
consular employee in which he did not contract expressly or impliedly
as an agent of the sending State; or
(b) by a third party for damage arising from an accident in the receiving
State caused by a vehicle, vessel or aircraft.

Article 44
LIABILITY TO GIVE EVIDENCE

1. Members of a consular post may be called upon to attend as witnesses in
the course of judicial or administrative proceedings. A consular employee
or a member of the service staff shall not, except in the cases mentioned
in paragraph 3 of this Article, decline to give evidence. If a consular
officer should decline to do so, no coercive measure or penalty may be
applied to him.

2. The authority requiring the evidence of a consular officer shall avoid
interference with the performance of his functions. It may, when possible,
take such evidence at his residence or at the consular post or accept a
statement from him in writing.

3. Members of a consular post are under no obligation to give evidence
concerning matters connected with the exercise of their functions or to
produce official correspondence and documents relating thereto. They are
also entitled to decline to give evidence as expert witnesses with regard
to the law of the sending State.

Article 45
WAIVER OF PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES

1. The sending State may waive, with regard to a member of the consular
post, any of the privileges and immunities provided for in Articles 41, 43
and 44.

2. The waiver shall in all cases be express, except as provided in
paragraph 3 of this Article, and shall be communicated to the receiving
State in writing.

3. The initiation of proceedings by a consular officer or a consular
employee in a matter where he might enjoy immunity from jurisdiction under
Article 43 shall preclude him from invoking immunity from jurisdiction in
respect of any counter-claim directly connected with the principal claim.

4. The waiver of immunity from jurisdiction for the purposes of civil or
administrative proceedings shall not be deemed to imply the waiver of
immunity from the measures of execution resulting from the judicial decisio
n; in respect of such measures, a separate waiver shall be necessary.

Article 46
EXEMPTION FROM REGISTRATION OF ALIENS AND RESIDENCE PERMITS

1. Consular officers and consular employees and members of their families
forming part of their households shall be exempt from all obligations under
the laws and regulations of the receiving State in regard to the
registration of aliens and residence permits.

2. The provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article shall not, however, apply
to any consular employee who is not a permanent employee of the sending
State or who carries on any private gainful occupation in the receiving
State or to any member of the family of any such employee.

Article 47
EXEMPTION FROM WORK PERMITS

1. Members of the consular post shall, with respect to services rendered
for the sending State, be exempt from any obligations in regard to work
permits imposed by the laws and regulations of the receiving State
concerning the employment of foreign labour.

2. Members of the private staff of consular officers and of consular
employees shall, if they do not carry on any other gainful occupation in
the receiving State, be exempt from the obligations referred to in
paragraph 1 of this Article.

Article 48
SOCIAL SECURITY EXEMPTION

1. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 3 of this Article, members of the
consular post with respect to services rendered by them for the sending
State, and members of their families forming part of their households,
shall be exempt from social security provisions which may be in force in
the receiving State.

2. The exemption provided for in paragraph 1 of this Article shall apply
also to members of the private staff who are in the sole employ of members
of the consular post, on condition:

(a) that they are not nationals of or permanently resident in the
receiving State; and
(b) that they are covered by the social security provisions which are in
force in the sending State or a third State.

3. Members of the consular post who employ persons to whom the exemption
provided for in paragraph 2 of this Article does not apply shall observe
the obligations which the social security provisions of the receiving State
impose upon employers.

4. The exemption provided for in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article shall
not preclude voluntary participation in the social security system of the
receiving State, provided that such participation is permitted by that
State.

Article 49
EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION

1. Consular officers and consular employees and members of their families
forming part of their households shall be exempt from all dues and taxes,n
personal or real, national, regional or municipal, except:

(a) indirect taxes of a kind which are normally incorporated in the price
of goods or services;
(b) dues or taxes on private immovable property situated in the territory
of the receiving State, subject to the provisions of Article 32;
(c) estate, succession or inheritance duties, and duties on transfers,
levied by the receiving State, subject to the provisions of paragraph
(b) of Article 51;
(d) dues and taxes on private income, including capital gains, having its
source in the receiving State and capital taxes relating to
investments made in commercial or financial undertakings in the
receiving State;
(e) charges levied for specific services rendered;
(f) registration, court or record fees, mortgage dues and stamp duties,
subject to the provisions of Article 32.

2. Members of the service staff shall be exempt from dues and taxes on the
wages which they receive for their services.

3. Members of the consular post who employ persons whose wages or salaries
are not exempt from income tax in the receiving State shall observe the
obligations which the laws and regulations of that State impose upon
employers concerning the levying of income tax.

Article 50
EXEMPTION FROM CUSTOMS DUTIES AND INSPECTION

1. The receiving State shall, in accordance with such laws and regulations
as it may adopt, permit entry of and grant exemption from all customs
duties, taxes, and related charges other than charges for storage, cartage
and similar services, on:

(a) articles for the official use of the consular post;
(b) articles for the personal use of a consular officer or members of his
family forming part of his household, including articles intended for
his establishment. The articles intended for consumption shall not
exceed the quantities necessary for direct utilization by the persons
concerned.

2. Consular employees shall enjoy the privileges and exemptions specified
in paragraph 1 of this Article in respect of articles imported at the time
of first installation.

3. Personal baggage accompanying consular officers and members of their
families forming part of their households shall be exempt from inspection.
It may be inspected only if there is serious reason to believe that it
contains articles other than those referred to in sub-paragraph (b) of
paragraph 1 of this Article, or articles the import or export of which is
prohibited by the laws and regulations of the receiving State or which are
subject to its quarantine laws and regulations. Such inspection shall be
carried out in the presence of the consular officer or member of his family
concerned.

Article 51
ESTATE OF A MEMBER OF THE CONSULAR POST
OR OF A MEMBER OF HIS FAMILY

In the event of the death of a member of the consular post or of a member
of his family forming part of his household, the receiving State:

(a) shall permit the export of the movable property of the deceased, with
the exception of any such property acquired in the receiving State
the export of which was prohibited at the time of his death;
(b) shall not levy national, regional or municipal estate, succession or
inheritance duties, and duties on transfers, on movable property the
presence of which in the receiving State was due solely to the
presence in that State of the deceased as a member of the consular
post or as a member of the family of a member of the consular post.

Article 52
EXEMPTION FROM PERSONAL SERVICES AND CONTRIBUTIONS

The receiving State shall exempt members of the consular post and members
of their families forming part of their households from all personal
services, from all public service of any kind whatsoever, and from military
obligations such as those connected with requisitioning, military
contributions and billeting.

Article 53
BEGINNING AND END OF CONSULAR PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES

1. Every member of the consular post shall enjoy the privileges and immunit
ies provided in the present Convention from the moment he enters the
territory of the receiving State on proceeding to take up his post or, if
already in its territory, from the moment when he enters on his duties with
the consular post.

2. Members of the family of a member of the consular post forming part of
his household and members of his private staff shall receive the privileges
and immunities provided in the present Convention from the date from which
he enjoys privileges and immunities in accordance with paragraph 1 of this
Article or from the date of their entry into the territory of the receiving
State or from the date of their becoming a member of such family or private
staff, whichever is the latest.

3. When the functions of a member of the consular post have come to an end,
his privileges and immunities and those of a member of his family forming
part of his household or a member of his private staff shall normally cease
at the moment when the person concerned leaves the receiving State or on
the expiry of a reasonable period in which to do so, whichever is the
sooner, but shall subsist until that time, even in case of armed conflict.
In the case of the persons referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article,
their privileges and immunities shall come to an end when they cease to
belong to the household or to be in the service of a member of the consular
post provided, however, that if such persons intend leaving the receiving
State within a reasonable period thereafter, their privileges and
immunities shall subsist until the time of their departure.

4. However, with respect to acts performed by a consular officer or a
consular employee in the exercise of his functions, immunity from
jurisdiction shall continue to subsist without limitation of time.

5. In the event of the death of a member of the consular post, the members
of his family forming part of his household shall continue to enjoy the
privileges and immunities accorded to them until they leave the receiving
State or until the expiry of a reasonable period enabling them to do so,
whichever is the sooner.

Article 54
OBLIGATIONS OF THIRD STATES

1. If a consular officer passes through or is in the territory of a third
State, which has granted him a visa if a visa was necessary, while
proceeding to take up or return to his post or when returning to the
sending State, the third State shall accord to him all immunities provided
for by the other Articles of the present Convention as may be required to
ensure his transit or return. The same shall apply in the case of any
member of his family forming part of his household enjoying such privileges
and immunities who are accompanying the consular officer or travelling
separately to join him or to return to the sending State.

2. In circumstances similar to those specified in paragraph 1 of this
Article, third States shall not hinder the transit through their territory
of other members of the consular post or of members of their families
forming part of their households.

3. Third States shall accord to official correspondence and to other
official communications in transit, including messages in code or cipher,
the same freedom and protection as the receiving State is bound to accord
under the present Convention. They shall accord to consular couriers who
have been granted a visa, if a visa was necessary, and to consular bags in
transit, the same inviolability and protection as the receiving State is
bound to accord under the present Convention.

4. The obligations of third States under paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of this
Article shall also apply to the persons mentioned respectively in those
paragraphs, and to official communications and to consular bags, whose
presence in the territory of the third State is due to force majeure.

Article 55
RESPECT FOR THE LAWS AND REGULATIONS OF THE RECEIVING STATE

1. Without prejudice to their privileges and immunities, it is the duty of
all persons enjoying such privileges and immunities to respect the laws and
regulations of the receiving State. They also have a duty not to interfere
in the internal affairs of that State.

2. The consular premises shall not be used in any manner incompatible with
the exercise of consular functions.

3. The provisions of paragraph 2 of this Article shall not exclude the
possibility of offices of other institutions or agencies being installed in
part of the building in which the consular premises are situated, provided
that the premises assigned to them are separate from those used by the
consular post. In that event, the said offices shall not, for the purposes
of the present Convention, be considered to form part of the consular
premises.

Article 56
INSURANCE AGAINST THIRD PARTY RISKS

Members of the consular post shall comply with any requirement imposed by
the laws and regulations of the receiving State in respect of insurance
against third party risks arising from the use of any vehicle, vessel or
aircraft.

Article 57
SPECIAL PROVISIONS CONCERNING PRIVATE GAINFUL OCCUPATION

1. Career consular officers shall not carry on for personal profit any
professional or commercial activity in the receiving State.

2. Privileges and immunities provided in this Chapter shall not be
accorded:

(a) to consular employees or to members of the service staff who carry on
any private gainful occupation in the receiving State;
(b) to members of the family of a person referred to in sub-paragraph (a)
of this paragraph or to members of his private staff;
(c) to members of the family of a member of a consular post who
themselves carry on any private gainful occupation in the receiving
State.

CHAPTER III

REGIME RELATING TO HONORARY CONSULAR OFFICERS
AND CONSULAR POSTS HEADED BY SUCH OFFICERS

Article 58
GENERAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO FACILITIES,
PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES

1. Articles 28, 29, 30, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39, paragraph 3 of Article
54 and paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 55 shall apply to consular posts
headed by an honorary consular officer. In addition, the facilities,
privileges and immunities of such consular posts shall be governed by
Articles 59, 60, 61 and 62.

2. Articles 42 and 43, paragraph 3 of Article 44, Articles 45 and 53 and
paragraph 1 of Article 55 shall apply to honorary consular officers. In
addition, the facilities, privileges and immunities of such consular
officers shall be governed by Articles 63, 64, 65, 66 and 67.

3. Privileges and immunities provided in the present Convention shall not
be accorded to members of the family of an honorary consular officer or of
a consular employee employed at a consular post headed by an honorary
consular officer.

4. The exchange of consular bags between two consular posts headed by
honorary consular officers in different States shall not be allowed without
the consent of the two receiving States concerned.

Article 59
PROTECTION OF THE CONSULAR PREMISES

The receiving State shall take such steps as may be necessary to protect
the consular premises of a consular post headed by an honorary consular
officer against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of
the peace of the consular post or impairment of its dignity.

Article 60
EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION OF CONSULAR PREMISES

1. Consular premises of a consular post headed by an honorary consular
officer of which the sending State is the owner or lessee shall be exempt
from all national, regional or municipal dues and taxes whatsoever, other
than such as represent payment for specific services rendered.

2. The exemption from taxation referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article
shall not apply to such dues and taxes if, under the laws and regulations
of the receiving State, they are payable by the person who contracted with
the sending State.

Article 61
INVIOLABILITY OF CONSULAR ARCHIVES AND DOCUMENTS

The consular archives and documents of a consular post headed by an honorar
y consular officer shall be inviolable at all times and wherever they may
be, provided that they are kept separate from other papers and documents
and, in particular, from the private correspondence of the head of a
consular post and of any person working with him, and from the materials,
books or documents relating to their profession or trade.

Article 62
EXEMPTION FROM CUSTOMS DUTIES

The receiving State shall, in accordance with such laws and regulations as
it may adopt, permit entry of, and grant exemption from all customs duties,
taxes, and related charges other than charges for storage, cartage and
similar services on the following articles, provided that they are for the
official use of a consular post headed by an honorary consular officer:
coats-of-arms, flags, signboards, seals and stamps, books, official printed
matter, office furniture, office equipment and similar articles supplied by
or at the instance of the sending State to the consular post.

Article 63
CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

If criminal proceedings are instituted against an honorary consular officer
, he must appear before the competent authorities. Nevertheless, the
proceedings shall be conducted with the respect due to him by reason of his
official position and, except when he is under arrest or detention, in a
manner which will hamper the exercise of consular functions as little as
possible. When it has become necessary to detain an honorary consular
officer, the proceedings against him shall be instituted with the minimum
of delay.

Article 64
PROTECTION OF HONORARY CONSULAR OFFICERS

The receiving State is under a duty to accord to an honorary consular
officer such protection as may be required by reason of his official
position.

Article 65
EXEMPTION FROM REGISTRATION OF ALIENS AND RESIDENCE PERMITS

Honorary consular officers, with the exception of those who carry on for
personal profit any professional or commercial activity in the receiving
State, shall be exempt from all obligations under the laws and regulations
of the receiving State in regard to the registration of aliens and
residence permits.

Article 66
EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION

An honorary consular officer shall be exempt from all dues and taxes on the
remuneration and emoluments which he receives from the sending State in
respect of the exercise of consular functions.

Article 67
EXEMPTION FROM PERSONAL SERVICES AND CONTRIBUTIONS

The receiving State shall exempt honorary consular officers from all
personal services and from all public services of any kind whatsoever and
from military obligations such as those connected with requisitioning,
military contributions and billeting.

Article 68
OPTIONAL CHARACTER OF THE INSTITUTION
OF HONORARY CONSULAR OFFICERS

Each State is free to decide whether it will appoint or receive honorary
consular officers.

CHAPTER IV

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Article 69
CONSULAR AGENTS WHO ARE NOT HEADS OF CONSULAR POSTS

1. Each State is free to decide whether it will establish or admit consular
agencies conducted by consular agents not designated as heads of consular
post by the sending State.

2. The conditions under which the consular agencies referred to in
paragraph 1 of this Article may carry on their activities and the
privileges and immunities which may be enjoyed by the consular agents in
charge of them shall be determined by agreement between the sending State
and the receiving State.

Article 70
EXERCISE OF CONSULAR FUNCTIONS BY DIPLOMATIC MISSIONS

1. The provisions of the present Convention apply also, so far as the
context permits, to the exercise of consular functions by a diplomatic
mission.

2. The names of members of a diplomatic mission assigned to the consular
section or otherwise charged with the exercise of the consular functions of
the mission shall be notified to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of the
receiving State or to the authority designated by that Ministry.

3. In the exercise of consular functions a diplomatic mission may address:

(a) the local authorities of the consular district;
(b) the central authorities of the receiving State if this is allowed by
the laws, regulations and usages of the receiving State or by
relevant international agreements.

4. The privileges and immunities of the members of a diplomatic mission
referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article shall continue to be governed by
the rules of international law concerning diplomatic relations.

Article 71
NATIONALS OR PERMANENT RESIDENTS OF THE RECEIVING STATE

1. Except in so far as additional facilities, privileges and immunities may
be granted by the receiving State, consular officers who are nationals of
or permanently resident in the receiving State shall enjoy only immunity
from jurisdiction and personal inviolability in respect of official acts
performed in the exercise of their functions, and the privilege provided in
paragraph 3 of Article 44. So far as these consular officers are concerned,
the receiving State shall likewise be bound by the obligation laid down in
Article 42. If criminal proceedings are instituted against such a consular
officer, the proceedings shall, except when he is under arrest or
detention, be conducted in a manner which will hamper the exercise of
consular functions as little as possible.

2. Other members of the consular post who are nationals of or permanently
resident in the receiving State and members of their families, as well as
members of the families of consular officers referred to in paragraph 1 of
this Article, shall enjoy facilities, privileges and immunities only in so
far as these are granted to them by the receiving State. Those members of
the families of members of the consular post and those members of the
private staff who are themselves nationals of or permanently resident in
the receiving State shall likewise enjoy facilities, privileges and immunit
ies only in so far as these are granted to them by the receiving State. The
receiving State shall, however, exercise its jurisdiction over those
persons in such a way as not to hinder unduly the performance of the
functions of the consular post.

Article 72
NON-DISCRIMINATION

1. In the application of the provisions of the present Convention the
receiving State shall not discriminate as between States.

2. However, discrimination shall not be regarded as taking place:

(a) where the receiving State applies any of the provisions of the
present Convention restrictively because of a restrictive application
of that provision to its consular posts in the sending State;
(b) where by custom or agreement States extend to each other more
favourable treatment than is required by the provisions of the
present Convention.

Article 73
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PRESENT CONVENTION
AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS

1. The provisions of the present Convention shall not affect other
international agreements in force as between States parties to them.

2. Nothing in the present Convention shall preclude States from concluding
international agreements confirming or supplementing or extending or
amplifying the provisions thereof.

CHAPTER V

FINAL PROVISIONS

Article 74
SIGNATURE

The present Convention shall be open for signature by all States Members of
the United Nations or of any of the specialized agencies or Parties to the
Statute of the International Court of Justice, and by any other State
invited by the General Assembly of the United Nations to become a Party to
the Convention, as follows until 31 October 1963 at the Federal Ministry
for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Austria and subsequently, until 31
March 1964, at the United Nations Headquarters in New York.

Article 75
RATIFICATION

The present Convention is subject to ratification. The instruments of
ratification shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United
Nations.

Article 76
ACCESSION

The present Convention shall remain open for accession by any State belongi
ng to any of the four categories mentioned in Article 74. The instruments
of accession shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United
Nations.

Article 77
ENTRY INTO FORCE

1. The present Convention shall enter into force on the thirtieth day
following the date of deposit of the twenty-second instrument of
ratification or accession with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

2. For each State ratifying or acceding to the Convention after the deposit
of the twenty-second instrument of ratification or accession, the
Convention shall enter into force on the thirtieth day after deposit by
such State of its instrument of ratification or accession.

Article 78
NOTIFICATIONS BY THE SECRETARY-GENERAL

The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall inform all States belongi
ng to any of the four categories mentioned in Article 74:

(a) of signatures to the present Convention and of the deposit of
instruments of ratification or accession, in accordance with Articles
74, 75 and 76;
(b) of the date on which the present Convention will enter into force, in
accordance with Article 77.

Article 79
AUTHENTIC TEXTS

The original of the present Convention, of which the Chinese, English,
French, Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited
with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall send certified
copies thereof to all States belonging to any of the four categories
mentioned in Article 74.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned Plenipotentiaries, being duly authorized
thereto by their respective Governments, have signed the present
Convention.

DONE at Vienna, this twenty-fourth day of April, one thousand nine hundred
and sixty-three.

OPTIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE VIENNA CONVENTION ON CONSULAR RELATIONS CONCERNING
ACQUISITION OF NATIONALITY. DONE AT VIENNA, ON 24 APRIL 1963

The States Parties to the present Protocol and to the Vienna Convention on
Consular Relations, hereinafter referred to as "the Convention", adopted by
the United Nations Conference held at Vienna from 4 March to 22 April 1963,

Expressing their wish to establish rules between them concerning
acquisition of nationality by members of the consular post and by members
of their families forming part of their households,

Have agreed as follows:

Article I

For the purposes of the present Protocol, the expression "members of the
consular post" shall have the meaning assigned to it in sub-paragraph (g)
of paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the Convention, namely, "consular officers,
consular employees and members of the service staff".

Article II

Members of the consular post not being nationals of the receiving State,
and members of their families forming part of their households, shall not,
solely by the operation of the law of the receiving State, acquire the
nationality of that State.

Article III

The present Protocol shall be open for signature by all States which may
become Parties to the Convention, as follows: until 31 October 1963 at the
Federal Ministry for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Austria and,
subsequently, until 31 March 1964, at the United Nations Headquarters in
New York.

Article IV

The present Protocol is subject to ratification. The instruments of
ratification shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United
Nations.

Article V

The present Protocol shall remain open for accession by all States which
may become Parties to the Convention. The instruments of accession shall be
deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Article VI

1. The present Protocol shall enter into force on the same day as the
Convention or on the thirtieth day following the date of deposit of the
second instrument of ratification of or accession to the Protocol with the
Secretary-General of the United Nations, whichever date is the later.

2. For each State ratifying or acceding to the present Protocol after its
entry into force in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article, the
Protocol shall enter into force on the thirtieth day after deposit by such
State of its instrument of ratification or accession.

Article VII

The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall inform all States which
may become Parties to the Convention:

(a) of signatures to the present Protocol and of the deposit of
instruments of ratification or accession, in accordance with Articles
III, IV and V;
(b) of the date on which the present Protocol will enter into force, in
accordance with Article VI.

Article VIII

The original of the present Protocol, of which the Chinese, English,
French, Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited
with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall send certified
copies thereof to all States referred to in Article III.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned plenipotentiaries, being duly authorized
thereto by their respective Governments, have signed the present Protocol.

DONE at Vienna, this twenty-fourth day of April, one thousand nine hundred
and sixty-three.

OPTIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE VIENNA CONVENTION ON CONSULAR RELATIONS CONCERNING
THE COMPULSORY SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES. DONE AT VIENNA, ON 24 APRIL
1963

The States Parties to the present Protocol and to the Vienna Convention on
Consular Relations, hereinafter referred to as "the Convention", adopted by
the United Nations Conference held at Vienna from 4 March to 22 April 1963,

Expressing their wish to resort in all matters concerning them in respect
of any dispute arising out of the interpretation or application of the
Convention to the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of
Justice, unless some other form of settlement has been agreed upon by the
parties within a reasonable period,

Have agreed as follows:

Article I

Disputes arising out of the interpretation or application of the Convention
shall lie within the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of
Justice and may accordingly be brought before the Court by an application
made by any party to the dispute being a Party to the present Protocol.

Article II

The parties may agree, within a period of two months after one party has
notified its opinion to the other that a dispute exists, to resort not to
the International Court of Justice but to an arbitral tribunal. After the
expiry of the said period, either party may bring the dispute before the
Court by an application.

Article III

1. Within the same period of two months, the parties may agree to adopt a
conciliation procedure before resorting to the International Court of
Justice.

2. The conciliation commission shall make its recommendations within five
months after its appointment. If its recommendations are not accepted by
the parties to the dispute within two months after they have been
delivered, either party may bring the dispute before the Court by an
application.

Article IV

States Parties to the Convention, to the Optional Protocol concerning
Acquisition of Nationality, and to the present Protocol may at any time
declare that they will extend the provisions of the present Protocol to
disputes arising out of the interpretation or application of the Optional
Protocol concerning Acquisition of Nationality. Such declarations shall be
notified to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Article V

The present Protocol shall be open for signature by all States which may
become Parties to the Convention as follows: until 31 October 1963 at the
Federal Ministry for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Austria and,
subsequently, until 31 March 1964, at the United Nations Headquarters in
New York.

Article VI

The present Protocol is subject to ratification. The instruments of
ratification shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United
Nations.

Article VII

The present Protocol shall remain open for accession by all States which
may become Parties to the Convention. The instruments of accession shall be
deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Article VIII

1. The present Protocol shall enter into force on the same day as the
Convention or on the thirtieth day following the date of deposit of the
second instrument of ratification or accession to the Protocol with the
Secretary-General of the United Nations, whichever date is the later.

2. For each State ratifying or acceding to the present Protocol after its
entry into force in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article, the
Protocol shall enter into force on the thirtieth day after deposit by such
State of its instrument of ratification or accession.

Article IX

The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall inform all States which
may become Parties to the Convention:

(a) of signatures to the present Protocol and of the deposit of
instruments of ratification or accession, in accordance with Articles
V, VI and VII;
(b) of declarations made in accordance with Article IV of the present
Protocol;
(c) of the date on which the present Protocol will enter into force, in
accordance with Article VIII.

Article X

The original of the present Protocol, of which the Chinese, English,
French, Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited
with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall send certified
copies thereof to all States referred to in Article V.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned plenipotentiaries, being duly authorised
thereto by their respective Governments, have signed the present Protocol.

DONE at Vienna, this twenty-fourth day of April, one thousand nine hundred
and sixty-three.

REPUBLIC ACT No. 75

2008-09-18T09:19:00.001-07:00

AN ACT TO PENALIZE ACTS WHICH WOULD IMPAIR THE PROPER OBSERVANCE BY THE REPUBLIC AND INHABITANTS OF THE PHILIPPINES OF THE IMMUNITIES, RIGHT, AND PRIVILEGES OF DULY ACCREDITED FOREIGN DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR AGENTS IN THE PHILIPPINES

Section 1. Any person who shall falsely assume and take upon himself to act as a diplomatic, consular, or any other official of a foreign government duly accredited as such to the Government of the Republic of the Philippines with intent to defraud such foreign government or the Government of the Philippines, or any person, or in such pretended character shall demand or obtain, or attempt to obtain from person or from said foreign government or the Government of the Philippines, or from any officer thereof, any money, paper, document, or other thing, of value, shall be fined not more than five thousand pesos, or shall be imprisoned for not more than five years, or both, in addition to the penalties that may be imposed under the Revised Penal Code.

Section 2. Any person, other than a diplomatic or consular officer or attach�, who shall act in the Republic of the Philippines as an agent of a foreign government without prior notification to, and registration with, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs shall be fined not more than five thousand pesos, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both, aside from other penalties that may be imposed by law.

Section 3. Any person, who with intent to deceive or mislead, within the jurisdiction of the Republic, wear any naval, military, police, or other official uniform, decoration, or regalia of any foreign State, nation or government with which the Republic of the Philippines is at peace, or any uniform, decoration or regalia so nearly resembling the same as to be calculated to deceive, unless such wearing thereof be authorized by such State, nation, or government, shall upon conviction, be punished by a fine not exceeding two hundred pesos or imprisonment not exceeding six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment.1awphil-itc-alf

Section 4. Any writ or process sued out or prosecuted by any person in any court of the Republic of the Philippines, or by any judge or justice, whereby the person of any ambassador or public minister of any foreign State, authorized and received as such by the President, or any domestic or domestic servant of any such ambassador or minister is arrested or imprisoned, or his goods or chattels are distrained, seized, or attached, shall be deemed void, and every person by whom the same is obtained or prosecuted, whether as party or as attorney, and every officer concerned in executing it, shall upon conviction, be punished by imprisonment for not more than three years and a fine of not exceeding two hundred pesos in the discretion of the court.

Section 5. The provisions of section four hereof shall not apply to any case where the person against whom the process is issued is a citizen or inhabitant of the Republic of the Philippines, in the service of an ambassador or a public minister, and the process is founded upon a debt contracted before he entered upon such service; nor shall the said section apply to any case where the person against whom the process is issued is a domestic servant of an ambassador or a public minister, unless the name of the servant has, before the issuing thereof, been registered in the Department of Foreign Affairs, and transmitted by the Secretary of Foreign Affairs to the Chief of Police of the City of Manila, who shall upon receipt thereof post the same in some public place in his office. All persons shall have resort to the list of names so posted in the office of the Chief of Police, and take copies without fee.

Section 6. Any person who assaults, strikes, wounds, imprisons or in any other manner offers violence to the person of an ambassador or a public minister, in violation of the law of nations, shall be imprisoned not more than three years, and fined not exceeding two hundred pesos, in the discretion of the court, in addition to the penalties that may be imposed under the Revised Penal Code.

Section 7. The provisions of this Act shall be applicable only in case where the country of the diplomatic or consular representative adversely affected has provided for similar protection to duly accredited diplomatic or consular representatives of the Republic of the Philippines by prescribing like or similar penalties for like or similar offenses herein contained.itc-alf

Section 8. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.

Approved: October 21, 1946

JURISDICTION: Bigamy

2008-09-10T09:03:00.000-07:00

Case Problem :

M married F here in the Philippines. Both are natural-born Filipino citizens. After years of marriage, M contracted a second marriage in a foreign country after obtaining a divorce therein. Is there Bigamy? Is the divorce obtained by M in a foreign country valid? Is the second marriage legal?

Answer:

The State has jurisdiction over its national (nationality principle/personal jurisdiction). It is based on the theory that a national is entitled to the protection of the State wherever he may be and is therefore, bound to it by a duty of obedience and allegiance. This duty follows him even when he is outside the territory of his state and he may not be ordinarily be excused from it unless he is prepared to renounce his own nationality.

An example of the assertion of this personal jurisdiction by the Republic of the Philippines is found in Article 15 of the Civil Code, which provides that “laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity of persons, are binding upon citizens of the Philippines , even living abroad.

Therefore, M in this case has committed Bigamy because he enter into a second marriage where his 1st marriage was still valid and existing. The second marriage is considered void ab initio. The divorce he obtained in a foreign country is not valid in the Philippines. As being a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, they are bound by its laws, more specifically concerning family rights and duties wherever they may be.

GRP-MILF Deal

2008-08-28T07:40:00.000-07:00

The Philippine government peace panel and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) will preliminary accord granting minority Muslims an expanded homeland as part of a deal to end decades of an Islamic insurgency in Mindanao. This deal will lead to the establishment of a Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE), an entity which would grant sovereign rights to the MILF on “ancestral domain”. The ancestral domain, in this case, covers the eight barangays, which included the villages of Digkilaan, Hindang, Rogongon, Panoroganan, Lanipao, Dulag, and Mainit, covered 65,500 hectares or 82 percent of the total land area of Iligan city. The GRP peace panel agreed to give the Bangsamoro political, economic and even police powers to the MILF under this deal. This is supposed to be signed Tuesday in Malaysia, which has been brokering the negotiations.

Iligan City Mayor Lawrence Cruz said Iligan residents felt "deceived and betrayed" for the failure of the GRP-MILF peace panel to inform them that eight barangays in their city are being included in the expanded Moro territory called the "Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE)."

The protesters held placards reading, "Gloria, Don't Sell Us," appealing to President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo not to allow the signing of the MOA on ancestral domain.

Some said that this deal will probably end the Moro secessionist struggle in Mindanao. Others, like traditional Moro families and wealthy Christian landowners, have registered their protests. They see the landmark deal as property encroachments which could potentially lead to more violence at the onset.

This is just a start of the Bangsamoro struggle because after this, an escalation of violence between and among groups with various interests in Mindanao. Expect the Mindanaoans to wage war against each other, starting with an interacine conflict between Moros themselves. This is expected since Mindanao has been under the grip of traditional “royal families” and Christian land owners and caciques whose interests will definitely be affected and even end should this deal pushes through.

There will be a period of great instability and turmoil, but this should not hinder nor discourage Arroyo from signing this deal. For the costs of such turmoil rests in the shoulders of the MILF, not the government. The MILF will have a greater struggle ahead of it, owning to the firepower that these groups have ranged against it. The MILF should persevere and should not deter from the reason of its formation—the creation of an Independent Bangsamoro State.

This will benefit the entire nation, not only the Bangsamor Juridical Entity. The potential of foreign investments from both China, the Middle East, India, the United States and Europe is there. Mindanao is underdeveloped. With a new government to be administered by the Bangsamoro themselves, anything is possible there.

A lots of oppurtunities for everyone now like the Bangsamoro can build its own megacities, create jobs. The Bangsamoro can build investment sites. The territory to be given to them has enormous potential for development and growth. The area is rich in mineral and oil resources which, if developed, could potentially increase investment and further grow and modernize the Bangsamoro state.

However, this is just a small step. The growth and development of the BJE will take years before we finally enjoy its fruits. For now, the Bangsamoro People will have to prepare themselves against those who don’t want progress. These groups have enslaved the Bangsamoro people for centuries. The enslavement have kept Mindanao underdeveloped and poor. For the Bangsamoro People to end it, it would need the Help of God to shackle those chains that have impoverished its people.

Georgia-Russia Conflict

2008-08-28T06:54:00.000-07:00

Russia has long viewed itself as protecting South Ossetia and Abkhazia in their drive to separate from Georgia. Both republics have close ties to Moscow, which has been angered by U.S.-backed Georgia's bid to join NATO.

In 1989, South Ossetia declared its autonomy from Georgia, then known as the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic, setting off three months of fighting. Another conflict began in December 1990 and lasted until 1992, when Georgian, Russian and South Ossetian leaders signed an armistice and Russian troops began patrolling the border. The same year, Abkhazia declared its independence from Georgia, sparking a war that ended in 1994 with a treaty between Russia and Georgia, with Russian troops patrolling that border as
well.

As Russia's flash war with Georgia winds down, two distinct – and contradictory – stories about what happened and why are taking shape.Each side also has some valid points in its defense.

There seems little doubt that the conflict began with a massive military assault, launched overnight by Georgia on Aug. 7-8, apparently aimed at retaking the breakaway republic of South Ossetia before Moscow could react.

Human rights monitors and Western journalists now being admitted to the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali can find little evidence to back up Russian claims that the Georgians committed genocide.

But their reports so far implicate the initial Georgian artillery and rocket bombardment of the city of 10,000 people as causing the massive destruction they're finding, including schools, churches, and the main hospital.

Also crucial, from Moscow's point of view, is that the Georgian attack on Aug. 8 killed 15 Russian peacekeeping troops, stationed there under 1992 peace accords, and injured dozens.

But the causes of the conflict run deep and, like the layers of an onion, the conflict has many different levels.

When the USSR broke up in 1991, Georgia won its independence and was admitted to the United Nations as a sovereign state within its Soviet-era borders. Under international law, therefore, the breakaway territories of South Ossetia and Abkhazia belong to Georgia. Tbilisi alleges, with considerable evidence, that Russian meddling during the bitter civil wars that followed helped the two statelets win their de facto independence and that Moscow's support has been crucial to keeping them going ever since.

In 2003, the pro-democracy "Rose Revolution" brought Mr. Saakashvili to power on pledges to reunite the country and lead it into the premier Western military alliance, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Georgia claims that Russia, which brutally suppressed its own separatist uprising in Chechnya, backed the Ossetian and Abkhazian rebels in order to keep Georgia weak and dependent upon Moscow.

After Saakashvili was elected, Russia began upgrading its relations with the two rebel statelets and issued Russian passports to the majority of its citizens – in preparation, Tbilisi says, for a showdown. It contends that this year, as NATO considered Georgia's application for entry, the Russian 58th Army – which roared into South Ossetia 10 days ago to blunt the Georgian assault – massed provocatively near Georgia's border.

PIMENTEL, JR., vs OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, G.R. No. 158088

2008-08-17T06:37:00.000-07:00

Facts:

This is a petition for mandamus filed to transmit the signed copy of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court to the Senate of the Philippines for its concurrence in accordance with Section 21, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution.

The theory of the petitioners that ratification of a treaty, under both domestic law and international law, is a function of the Senate. Hence, it is the duty of the executive department to transmit the signed copy of the Rome Statute to the Senate to allow it to exercise its discretion with respect to ratification of treaties. Moreover, petitioners submit that the Philippines has a ministerial duty to ratify the Rome Statute under treaty law and customary international law. Petitioners invoke the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties enjoining the states to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of a treaty when they have signed the treaty prior to ratification unless they have made their intention clear not to become parties to the treaty.

The Office of the Solicitor General, commenting for the respondents, questioned the standing of the petitioners to file the instant suit. It also contended that the petition at bar violates the rule on hierarchy of courts. On the substantive issue raised by petitioners, respondents argue that the executive department has no duty to transmit the Rome Statute to the Senate for concurrence.

Issue:

Whether or not the executive department has a ministerial duty to transmit the Rome Statute.

Ruling:

The petition was dismissed. The President, being the head of state, is regarded as the sole organ and authority in external relations and is the country’s sole representative with foreign nations.[12] As the chief architect of foreign policy, the President acts as the country’s mouthpiece with respect to international affairs. Hence, the President is vested with the authority to deal with foreign states and governments, extend or withhold recognition, maintain diplomatic relations, enter into treaties, and otherwise transact the business of foreign relations.[13] In the realm of treaty-making, the President has the sole authority to negotiate with other states.

Nonetheless, while the President has the sole authority to negotiate and enter into treaties, the Constitution provides a limitation to his power by requiring the concurrence of 2/3 of all the members of the Senate for the validity of the treaty entered into by him. Section 21, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution provides that “no treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.” The 1935 and the 1973 Constitution also required the concurrence by the legislature to the treaties entered into by the executive. Section 10 (7), Article VII of the 1935 Constitution provided:

Sec. 10. (7) The President shall have the power, with the concurrence of two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate, to make treaties xxx.

Section 14 (1) Article VIII of the 1973 Constitution stated:

Sec. 14. (1) Except as otherwise provided in this Constitution, no treaty shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by a majority of all the Members of the Batasang Pambansa.

The participation of the legislative branch in the treaty-making process was deemed essential to provide a check on the executive in the field of foreign relations.[14] By requiring the concurrence of the legislature in the treaties entered into by the President, the Constitution ensures a healthy system of checks and balance necessary in the nation’s pursuit of political maturity and growth.

International Criminal Court

2008-08-09T08:16:00.000-07:00

http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/icc/whowhat.htm

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ICC.asp

http://www.humanrights-geneva.info/ICC-Good-Progress-Amid-Missteps-in,3291

http://www.crimesofwar.org/icc_magazine/icc-intro.html

http://www.international.gc.ca/court-cour/index.aspx?lang=eng

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11750485

http://www.usembassy.at/en/download/pdf/crs_icc1.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court

http://portal.unesco.org/shs/fr/ev.php-URL_ID=6154&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11750485

Structure of the Court
Arabic

The Court is an independent institution. The Court is not part of the United Nations, but it maintains a cooperative relationship with the U.N. The Court is based in The Hague , the Netherlands , although it may also sit elsewhere.

The Court is composed of four organs. These are the Presidency, the judicial Divisions, the Office of the Prosecutor and the Registry.

Presidency
Judicial Divisions
Office of the Prosecutor
Registry
Other Offices

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Presidency

The Presidency is responsible for the overall administration of the Court, with the exception of the Office of the Prosecutor, and for specific functions assigned to the Presidency in accordance with the Statute. The Presidency is composed of three judges of the Court, elected to the Presidency by their fellow judges, for a term of three years. The President of the Court is Judge Philippe Kirsch ( Canada ). Judge Akua Kuenyehia ( Ghana ) is First Vice-President, and Judge René Blattmann ( Bolivia ) is Second Vice-President.

up

Judicial Divisions

The Judicial Divisions consists of eighteen judges organized into the Pre-Trial Division, the Trial Division and the Appeals Division. The judges of each Division sit in Chambers which are responsible for conducting the proceedings of the Court at different stages. Assignment of judges to Divisions is made on the basis of the nature of the functions each Division performs and the qualifications and experience of the judge. This is done in a manner ensuring that each Division benefits from an appropriate combination of expertise in criminal law and procedure and international law. The judges of the Court are: Philippe Kirsch (Canada), Akua Kuenyehia (Ghana), Judge René Blattmann (Bolivia), Georghios M. Pikis (Cyprus), Elizabeth Odio Benito (Costa Rica), Navanethem Pillay (South Africa), Sang-Hyun Song (Republic of Korea), Hans-Peter Kaul (Germany), Mauro Politi (Italy), Maureen Harding Clark (Ireland), Erkki Kourula (Finland), Fatoumata Dembele Diarra (Mali), Anita Ušacka (Latvia), Adrian Fulford (United Kingdom), Syvia Steiner (Brazil) and Ekaterina Trendafilova (Bulgaria).

up

Office of the Prosecutor

The Office of the Prosecutor is responsible for receiving referrals and any substantiated information on crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court, for examining them and for conducting investigations and prosecutions before the Court. The Office is headed by the Prosecutor, Luis Moreno Ocampo ( Argentina ), who was elected by the States Parties for a term of nine years. The Prosecutor is assisted by two Deputy Prosecutors, Serge Brammertz ( Belgium ) with responsibility for investigations and Fatou Bensouda (The Gambia) with responsibility for prosecutions.

up

Registry

The Registry is responsible for the non-judicial aspects of the administration and servicing of the Court. The Registry is headed by the Registrar who is the principal administrative officer of the Court. The Registrar exercises his or her functions under the authority of the President of the Court. The current Registrar, elected by the judges for a term of five years, is Bruno Cathala ( France ).

up

Other Offices

The Court also the Court includes a number of semi-autonomous offices such as the Office of Public Counsel for victims and the Office of Public Counsel for Defence. These Offices fall under the Registry for administrative purposes but otherwise function as wholly independent offices. The Assembly of States Parties has also established a Trust Fund for the benefit of victims of crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court and the families of these victims.

RECOGNITION of STATES

2008-08-02T07:06:00.000-07:00

Wilson Doctrine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Wilson Doctrine is a ban on the tapping of UK MPs' and Peers' (but not members of devolved legislatures) telephones introduced in 1966 and named after Harold Wilson, the Labour Prime Minister who established the rule.

He gave MPs a pledge that their phones would not be tapped and subsequent prime ministers have regularly confirmed it remains in place. However the pledge was qualified in two respects, as the Intelligence and Security Committee made clear in their 2005-06 Annual Report:

'In 1966 the then Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, gave instructions that there was to be no interception of telephones belonging to Members of Parliament, and that if there were a development which required a change of this policy he would, at such a moment as was compatible with the security of the country, make a statement about it in the House of Commons. This approach, known as the Wilson Doctrine, has been maintained under successive administrations.'

This meant that the Prime Minister could reverse the doctrine in the interests of national security, but that he did not need to reveal the fact to the House of Commons until he felt it safe to do so. In theory this means that the Wilson Doctrine could already have been reversed, with the Prime Minister having decided it was premature to disclose the fact.

In January 2006, Interception of communications commissioner Sir Swinton Thomas had asked the government to reconsider the implications of the doctrine on the regulatory framework established under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. Prime Minister Tony Blair confirmed he would be considering whether or not the ban should be lifted, in order to comply with the act.

However, in March 2006 - in a written ministerial statement - Tony Blair said that following a period of fresh consultation, the 'Wilson doctrine' will remain in place.

In February 2007, Sir Swinton Thomas again called for the ban to be removed,saying:

It is fundamental to the constitution of this country that no one is above the law or is seen to be above the law. But in this instance, MPs and peers are anything but equal with the rest of the citizens of this country and are above the law"

In September 2007 Prime Minister Gordon Brown reaffirmed the doctrine as "The Wilson Doctrine applies to all forms of interception that are subject to authorisation by Secretary of State warrant."

In February 2008 an incident was reported where MP Sadiq Khan was allegedly bugged whilst talking to a constituent in Woodhill Prison. This appears to have been a face to face conversation and thus, even if it was bugged, that may not have been a literal breach of the Wilson Doctrine.

References

1.ISC Annual Report 2005-06 Cm 6864 June 2006 Para 26.
2.Richard Norton-Taylor (2007-02-20). "Watchdog urges end to ban on MP phone taps". The Guardian. Retrieved on 2008-02-04.
3.Gordon Brown, Written Answers for 12 September 2007 - Members: Surveillance, Hansard, 12 Sep 2007 : Column 2103W,

Tobar Doctrine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Tobar The doctrine was formulated in 1907 by Carlos Tobar, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Ecuador who was appointed to the Nobel Peace Prize in 1909.

It relates to the recognition of the State at international level. Recognition of a State is a unilateral act by which a State recognizes as the effective government of another state.

The doctrine Tobar proposed that any government formed after a coup d'état is confirmed by free elections before being recognized internationally.

His goal was to reduce the threat of revolution and civil war, stressing the need for all governments to act for the establishment of democracy and respect for the rule of law.

She enjoyed some success in Central America up to be incorporated in a treaty of December 20, 1907, between Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Salvador and Ecuador. But it was never recognised outside of the Americas and is not a principle of international law.

The Tobar doctrine has given way to the doctrine Estrada (1930).

Stimson Doctrine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Stimson Doctrine is a policy of the United States federal government, enunciated in a note of January 7, 1932 to Japan and China, of non-recognition of international territorial changes affected by force.

Named after Henry L. Stimson, United States Secretary of State in the Hoover Administration (1929–1933), the policy followed Japan's unilateral seizure of Manchuria in northeastern China following action by Japanese soldiers at Mukden (now Shenyang), on September 18, 1931.

The principles of this doctrine were also used in the U.S. Under Secretary of State Sumner Welles's declaration of July 23, 1940, on the non-recognition policy of the Soviet annexation and incorporation of three Baltic countries — Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. These principles were still applied until the de facto restoration of independence of these three Baltic nations in August 1991.

The Japanese invasion of Manchuria in late 1931 placed U.S. Secretary of State Henry L. Stimson in a difficult position. It was evident that appeals to the spirit of the Kellogg-Briand Pact had no impact on either the Chinese or the Japanese, and the secretary was further hampered by President Hoover’s clear indication that he would not support economic sanctions as a means to bring peace in the Far East.

On January 7, 1932, Secretary Stimson sent identical notes to China and Japan that incorporated a diplomatic approach used by earlier secretaries facing crises in the Far East. Later known as the Stimson Doctrine, or sometimes the Hoover-Stimson Doctrine, the notes read in part as follows:

The American Government deems it to be its duty to notify both the Imperial Japanese Government and the Government of the Chinese Republic that it cannot admit the legality of any situation de facto nor does it intend to recognize any treaty or agreement entered into between those Governments, or agents thereof, which may impair the treaty rights of the United States or its citizens in China, including those which relate to the sovereignty, the independence, or the territorial and administrative integrity of the Republic of China, or to the international policy relative to China, commonly known as the open door policy….

Stimson had stated that the United States would not recognize any changes made in China that would curtail American treaty rights in the area and that the "open door" must be maintained. The Japanese, however, were not dissuaded by non-recognition and continued their aggression, confident that the U.S. would not take stronger action because of the heavy economic restrictions of the Depression.

By early 1932, some American newspapers were critical of the secretary’s tepid response to the Manchurian crisis, but many citizens felt that the doctrine’s idealistic, but non-threatening, tone was exactly right. Most Americans were probably far more sympathetic to China, but did not want to provoke Japan. Memories of American losses in foreign war were still fresh.

References

• The Baltic Issue during the Cold War by Vahur Made

Estrada Doctrine
Recognition of states approach

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A recognition of states approach, also known as the Estrada doctrine, is a development on the earlier recognition of governments approach whereby a government would recognize another governments. This caused political problems following an unconstitutional change in the government of another state.

It is the policy of recognizing states rather than governments. It is an alternative to the method of express recognition, in which an express statement is made according or withholding recognition after each unconstitutional change of government, and tacit recognition in which, only under exceptional circumstances, is a recognition statement made.

It was first enunciated by Mexico's foreign minister Genaro Estrada, in 1930.

References

• Kindred, Hugh M., and Saunders, Phillip M., International Law Chiefly as Interpreted and Applied in Canada Emond Montgomery Publications Limited, Seventh Edition (2006), "Chapter Two — International Legal Persons".

ICMC VS CALLEJA, G.R. No. 85750 September 28, 1990

2008-08-02T06:10:00.000-07:00

Facts:

As an aftermath of the Vietnam War, the plight of Vietnamese refugees fleeing from South Vietnam's communist rule confronted the international community.

In response to this crisis, on 23 February 1981, an Agreement was forged between the Philippine Government and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees whereby an operating center for processing Indo-Chinese refugees for eventual resettlement to other countries was to be established in Bataan.

ICMC was one of those accredited by the Philippine Government to operate the refugee processing center in Morong, Bataan. It was incorporated in New York, USA, at the request of the Holy See, as a non-profit agency involved in international humanitarian and voluntary work. It is duly registered with the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and enjoys Consultative Status, Category II. As an international organization rendering voluntary and humanitarian services in the Philippines.

On 14 July 1986, Trade Unions of the Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS) filed with the then Ministry of Labor and Employment a Petition for Certification Election among the rank and file members employed by ICMC The latter opposed the petition on the ground that it is an international organization registered with the United Nations and, hence, enjoys diplomatic immunity.

On appeal by TUPAS, Director Pura Calleja of the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR), reversed the Med-Arbiter's Decision and ordered the immediate conduct of a certification election. At that time, ICMC's request for recognition as a specialized agency was still pending with the Department of Foreign Affairs (DEFORAF).

Subsequently, however, on 15 July 1988, the Philippine Government, through the DEFORAF, granted ICMC the status of a specialized agency with corresponding diplomatic privileges and immunities, as evidenced by a Memorandum of Agreement between the Government and ICMC.

ICMC then sought the immediate dismissal of the TUPAS Petition for Certification Election invoking the immunity expressly granted but the same was denied by respondent BLR Director who, again, ordered the immediate conduct of a pre-election conference.

Issue:

Whether or not the grant of diplomatic privileges and immunites to ICMC extends to immunity from the application of Philippine labor laws.

Ruling:

Article II of the Memorandum of Agreement between the Philippine Government and ICMC provides that ICMC shall have a status "similar to that of a specialized agency." Article III, Sections 4 and 5 of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of Specialized Agencies, adopted by the UN General Assembly on 21 November 1947 and concurred in by the Philippine Senate through Resolution No. 19 on 17 May 1949, explicitly provides:

Art. III, Section 4. The specialized agencies, their property and assets, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall enjoy immunity from every form of legal process except insofar as in any particular case they have expressly waived their immunity. It is, however, understood that no waiver of immunity shall extend to any measure of execution.
Sec. 5. � The premises of the specialized agencies shall be inviolable. The property and assets of the specialized agencies, wherever located and by whomsoever held shall be immune from search, requisition, confiscation, expropriation and any other form of interference, whether by executive, administrative, judicial or legislative action. (Emphasis supplied).

The foregoing opinions constitute a categorical recognition by the Executive Branch of the Government that ICMC enjoys immunities accorded to international organizations, which determination has been held to be a political question conclusive upon the Courts in order not to embarrass a political department of Government.

It is a recognized principle of international law and under our system of separation of powers that diplomatic immunity is essentially a political question and courts should refuse to look beyond a determination by the executive branch of the government, and where the plea of diplomatic immunity is recognized and affirmed by the executive branch of the government as in the case at bar, it is then the duty of the courts to accept the claim of immunity upon appropriate suggestion by the principal law officer of the government . . . or other officer acting under his direction. Hence, in adherence to the settled principle that courts may not so exercise their jurisdiction . . . as to embarrass the executive arm of the government in conducting foreign relations, it is accepted doctrine that in such cases the judicial department of (this) government follows the action of the political branch and will not embarrass the latter by assuming an antagonistic jurisdiction.

ICMC's immunity from local jurisdiction by no means deprives labor of its basic rights, which are guaranteed by Article II, Section 18, 14 Article III, Section 8, 15and Article XIII, Section 3 (supra), of the 1987 Constitution.

For, ICMC employees are not without recourse whenever there are disputes to be settled. Section 31 of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies of the United Nations 17 provides that "each specialized agency shall make provision for appropriate modes of settlement of: (a) disputes arising out of contracts or other disputes of private character to which the specialized agency is a party." Moreover, pursuant to Article IV of the Memorandum of Agreement between ICMC the the Philippine Government, whenever there is any abuse of privilege by ICMC, the Government is free to withdraw the privileges and immunities accorded.

FERDINAND E. MARCOS vs. RAUL MANGLAPUS,G.R. No. 88211 September 15, 1989

2008-08-02T04:45:00.000-07:00

Facts:

The ratification of the 1987 Constitution enshrined the victory of "people power". Ferdinand E. Marcos was deposed from the presidency and forced into exile. Corazon C. Aquino was declared President of the Republic under a revolutionary government. This did not, however, stop bloody challenges to the government. Her ascension to and consilidation of power have not been unchallenged.

Mr. Marcos, in his deathbed, has signified his wish to return to the Philipppines to die. But Mrs. Aquino, considering the dire consequences to the nation of his return at a time when the stability of government is threatened from various directions and the economy is just beginning to rise and move forward, has stood firmly on the decision to bar the return of Mr. Marcos and his family.

This petition for mandamus and prohibition asks the Courts to order the respondents to issue travel documents to Mr. Marcos and the immediate members of his family and to enjoin the implementation of the President's decision to bar their return to the Philippines.

The petitioners invoke the Bill of Rights specifically the right of a person of liberty of abode and the right to travel. It has also mentioned the freedom of movement and the right to leave any country and to return to his country as provided for in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The petitioners further assert that under international law, the right of Mr. Marcos and his family to return to the Philippines is guaranteed.

The respondents, on the other hand argues that the issue in this case involves a political question which is non-justiciable. The President has decided, as an executive act, to bar the return of the Marcoses because such return and residence will endanger national security and public safety. Respondents argue for the primacy of the right of the State to national security over individual rights as provided for in the Constitution.

Issues:

1. Whether or not the President has the power under the Constitution, to bar the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines.

2. Whether or not the President acted arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when she determined that the return of the Marcose's to the Philippines poses a serious threat to national interest and welfare and decided to bar their return.

Ruling:

1. The right to return to one's country is not among the rights specifically guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, which treats only of the liberty of abode and the right to travel, but it is our well-considered view that the right to return may be considered, as a generally accepted principle of international law and, under our Constitution, is part of the law of the land [Art. II, Sec. 2 of the Constitution.]

However, it is distinct and separate from the right to travel and enjoys a different protection under the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, i.e., against being "arbitrarily deprived" thereof.

It would not be accurate, however, to state that "executive power" is the power to enforce the laws, for the President is head of state as well as head of government and whatever powers inhere in such positions pertain to the office unless the Constitution itself withholds it.

Furthermore, the Constitution itself provides that the execution of the laws is only one of the powers of the President. It also grants the President other powers that do not involve the execution of any provision of law, e.g., his power over the country's foreign relations.

On these premises, we hold the view that although the 1987 Constitution imposes limitations on the exercise of specific powers of the President, it maintains intact what is traditionally considered as within the scope of "executive power." Corollarily, the powers of the President cannot be said to be limited only to the specific powers enumerated in the Constitution. In other words, executive power is more than the sum of specific powers so enumerated, It has been advanced that whatever power inherent in the government that is neither legislative nor judicial has to be executive.

2. The Supreme Court find that from the pleadings filed by the parties, from their oral arguments, and the facts revealed during the briefing in chambers by the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the National Security Adviser, wherein petitioners and respondents were represented, there exist factual bases for the President's decision.

The Court cannot close its eyes to present realities and pretend that the country is not besieged from within by a well-organized communist insurgency, a separatist movement in Mindanao, rightist conspiracies to grab power, urban terrorism, the murder with impunity of military men, police officers and civilian officials, to mention only a few. The documented history of the efforts of the Marcose's and their followers to destabilize the country, as earlier narrated in this ponencia bolsters the conclusion that the return of the Marcoses at this time would only exacerbate and intensify the violence directed against the State and instigate more chaos.
As divergent and discordant forces, the enemies of the State may be contained. The military establishment has given assurances that it could handle the threats posed by particular groups. But it is the catalytic effect of the return of the Marcoses that may prove to be the proverbial final straw that would break the camel's back. With these before her, the President cannot be said to have acted arbitrarily and capriciously and whimsically in determining that the return of the Marcoses poses a serious threat to the national interest and welfare and in prohibiting their return.
It will not do to argue that if the return of the Marcoses to the Philippines will cause the escalation of violence against the State, that would be the time for the President to step in and exercise the commander-in-chief powers granted her by the Constitution to suppress or stamp out such violence. The State, acting through the Government, is not precluded from taking pre- emptive action against threats to its existence if, though still nascent they are perceived as apt to become serious and direct. Protection of the people is the essence of the duty of government. The preservation of the State the fruition of the people's sovereignty is an obligation in the highest order. The President, sworn to preserve and defend the Constitution and to see the faithful execution the laws, cannot shirk from that responsibility.

Montevideo Convention

2008-07-21T01:20:00.000-07:00

Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States

Signed at Montevideo, 26 December 1933
Entered into Force, 26 December 1934
Article 8 reaffirmed by Protocol, 23 December 1936

Bolivia alone amongst the states represented at the Seventh International Conference of American States did not sign the Convention. The United States of America, Peru, and Brazil ratified the Convention with reservations directly attached to the document.

CONVENTION ON RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF STATES

The Governments represented in the Seventh International Conference of American States:

Wishing to conclude a Convention on Rights and Duties of States, have appointed the following Plenipotentiaries:

Honduras:
Miguel PAZ Baraona
Augusto C. COELLO
Luis BOGRAN

United States of America:
Cordell HULL
Alexander W. WEDDELL
J. Reuben CLARK
J. Butler WRIGHT
Spruille BRADEN
Miss Sophonisba P. BRECKINRIDGEEl

Salvador:
Hector David CASTRO
Arturo Ramon AVILA
J. Cipriano CASTRO

Dominican Republic:
Tulio M. CESTERO

Haiti:
Justin BARAU
Francis SALGADO
Antoine PIERRE-PAUL
Edmond MANGONES

Argentina:
Carlos SAAVEDRA Lamas
Juan F. CAFFERATA
Ramon S. CASTILLO
Carlos BREBBIA
Isidoro RUIZ Moreno
Luis A. PODESTA
CostaRaul PREBISCH
Daniel ANTOKOLETZ

Venezuela:
Cesar ZUMETA
Luis CHURTONJosé
Rafael MONTILLA

Uruguay:
Alberto MANE
Juan José AMEZAGA
José G. ANTUNA
Juan Carlos BLANCO
Senora Sofia A. V. DE DEMICHELI
Martin R. ECHEGOYEN
Luis Alberto DE HERRERA
Pedro MANINI
RiosMateo MARQUES
CastroRodolfo MEZZERA
Octavio MORATA
Luis MORQUIO
Teofilo PINEYRO
ChainDardo REGULES
José SERRATO
José Pedro VARELA

Paraguay:
Justo Pastor BENITEZ
Geronimo RIART
Horacio A. FERNANDEZ
Senorita Maria F. GONZALEZ

Mexico:
José Manuel PUIG
CasaurancAlfonso REYES
Basilio VADILLO
Genaro V. VASQUEZ
Romeo ORTEGA
Manuel J. SIERRA
Eduardo SUAREZ

Panama:
J. D. AROSEMENA
Eduardo E. HOLGUIN
Oscar R. MULLER
Magin PONS

Bolivia:
Casto ROJAS
David ALVESTEGUI
Arturo PINTO Escalier

Guatemala:
Alfredo SKINNER
KleeJosé GONZALEZ
Campo Carlos SALAZAR
Manuel ARROYO

Brazil:
Afranio DE MELLO
Franco Lucillo A. DA CUNHA
Bueno Francisco Luis DA SILVA
Campos Gilberto AMADO
Carlos CHAGAS
Samuel RIBEIRO

Ecuador:
Augusto AGUIRRE
Aparicio Humberto ALBORNOZ
Antonio PARRA
Carlos PUIG
VilassarArturo SCARONE

Nicaragua:
Leonardo ARGUELLO
Manuel CORDERO
Reyes Carlos CUADRA Pasos

Colombia:
Alfonso LOPEZ
Raimundo RIVAS
José CAMACEO Carreno

Chile:
Miguel CRUCHAGA Tocornal
Octavio SENORET
SilvaGustavo RIVERA
José Ramon GUTIERREZ
Felix NIETO DEL RIO
Francisco FIGUEROA
SanchezBenjamin COHEN

Peru:
Alfredo SOLE Y MURO
Felipe BARREDA
LaosLuis Fernan CISNEROS

Cuba:
Angel Alberto GIRAUDY
Herminio PORTELL Vila
Alfredo NOGUEIRA

Who, after having exhibited their Full Powers, which were found to be in good and due order, have agreed upon the following:

Article 1
The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

Article 2
The federal state shall constitute a sole person in the eyes of international law.

Article 3
The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts. The exercise of these rights has no other limitation than the exercise of the rights of other states according to international law.

Article 4
States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.

Article 5
The fundamental rights of states are not susceptible of being affected in any manner whatsoever.

Article 6
The recognition of a state merely signifies that the state which recognizes it accepts the personality of the other with all the rights and duties determined by international law. Recognition is unconditional and irrevocable.

Article 7
The recognition of a state may be express or tacit. The latter results from any act which implies the intention of recognizing the new state.

Article 8
No state has the right to intervene in the internal or external affairs of another.

Article 9
The jurisdiction of states within the limits of national territory applies to all the inhabitants. Nationals and foreigners are under the same protection of the law and the national authorities and the foreigners may not claim rights other or more extensive than those of the nationals.

Article 10
The primary interest of states is the conservation of peace. Differences of any nature which arise between them should be settled by recognized pacific methods.

Article 11
The contracting states definitely establish as the rule of their conduct the precise obligation not to recognize territorial acquisitions or special advantages which have been obtained by force whether this consists in the employment of arms, in threatening diplomatic representations, or in any other effective coercive measure. The territory of a state is inviolable and may not be the object of military occupation nor of other measures of force imposed by another state directly or indirectly or for any motive whatever even temporarily.

Article 12
The present Convention shall not affect obligations previously entered into by the High Contracting Parties by virtue of international agreements.

Article 13
The present Convention shall be ratified by the High Contracting Parties in conformity with their respective constitutional procedures. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Uruguay shall transmit authentic certified copies to the governments for the aforementioned purpose of ratification. The instrument of ratification shall be deposited in the archives of the Pan American Union in Washington, which shall notify the signatory governments of said deposit. Such notification shall be considered as an exchange of ratifications.

Article 14
The present Convention will enter into force between the High Contracting Parties in the order in which they deposit their respective ratifications.

Article 15
The present Convention shall remain in force indefinitely but may be denounced by means of one year's notice given to the Pan American Union, which shall transmit it to the other signatory governments. After the expiration of this period the Convention shall cease in its effects as regards the party which denounces but shall remain in effect for the remaining High Contracting Parties.

Article 16
The present Convention shall be open for the adherence and accession of the States which are not signatories. The corresponding instruments shall be deposited in the archives of the Pan American Union which shall communicate them to the other High Contracting Parties.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the following Plenipotentiaries have signed this Convention in Spanish, English, Portuguese and French and hereunto affix their respective seals in the city of Montevideo, Republic of Uruguay, this 26th day of December, 1933.

Reservations
The Delegation of the United States of America, in signing the Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, does so with the express reservation presented to the Plenary Session of the Conference on December 22, 1933, which reservation reads as follows:

The Delegation of the United States, in voting "yes" on the final vote on this committee recommendation and proposal, makes the same reservation to the eleven articles of the project or proposal that the United States Delegation made to the first ten articles during the final vote in the full Commission, which reservation is in words as follows:

"The policy and attitude of the United States Government toward every important phase of international relationships in this hemisphere could scarcely be made more clear and definite than they have been made by both word and action especially since March 4. I [Secretary of State Cordell Hull, chairman of U.S. delegation] have no disposition therefore to indulge in any repetition or rehearsal of these acts and utterances and shall not do so. Every observing person must by this time thoroughly understand that under the Roosevelt Administration the United States Government is as much opposed as any other government to interference with the freedom, the sovereignty, or other internal affairs or processes of the governments of other nations.

"In addition to numerous acts and utterances in connection with the carrying out of these doctrines and policies, President Roosevelt, during recent weeks, gave out a public statement expressing his disposition to open negotiations with the Cuban Government for the purpose of dealing with the treaty which has existed since 1903. I feel safe in undertaking to say that under our support of the general principle of non-intervention as has been suggested, no government need fear any intervention on the part of the United States under the Roosevelt Administration. I think it unfortunate that during the brief period of this Conference there is apparently not time within which to prepare interpretations and definitions of these fundamental terms that are embraced in the report. Such definitions and interpretations would enable every government to proceed in a uniform way without any difference of opinion or of interpretations. I hope that at the earliest possible date such very important work will be done. In the meantime in case of differences of interpretations and also until they (the proposed doctrines and principles) can be worked out and codified for the common use of every government, I desire to say that the United States Government in all of its international associations and relationships and conduct will follow scrupulously the doctrines and policies which it has pursued since March 4 which are embodied in the different addresses of President Roosevelt since that time and in the recent peace address of myself on the 15th day of December before this Conference and in the law of nations as generally recognized and accepted".

The delegates of Brazil and Peru recorded the following private vote with regard to article 11: "That they accept the doctrine in principle but that they do not consider it codifiable because there are some countries which have not yet signed the Anti-War Pact of Rio de Janeiro 4 of which this doctrine is a part and therefore it does not yet constitute positive international law suitable for codification".

Honduras:
Miguel PAZ Baraona
Augusto C. COELLO
Luis BOGRAN

United States of America:
Alexander W. WEDDELL
J. Butler WRIGHTEl

Salvador:
Hector David CASTRO
Arturo Ramon AVILA

Dominican Republic:
Tulio M. CESTERO

Haiti:
J. BARAUF. SALGADO
Edmond MANGONES
A. PIERRE-PAUL

Argentina:
Carlos SAAVEDRA
LamasJuan F. CAFFERATA
Ramon S. CASTILLOI. RUIZ
MorenoL. A. PODESTA
CostaD. ANTOKOLETZ

Venezuela:
Luis CHURTONJ. R. MONTILLA

Uruguay:
A. MANE
José Pedro VARELA
Mateo MARQUES
CastroDardo REGULES
Sofia Alvarez Vignoli DE DEMICHELI
Teofilo PINEYRO
ChainLuis A. DE HERRERA
Martin R. ECHEGOYEN
José G. ANTUNA
J. C. BLANCO
Pedro MANINI
RiosRodolfo MEZZERA
Octavio MORATA
Luis MORQUIO
José SERRATO

Paraguay:
Justo Pastor BENITEZ
Maria F. GONZALEZ

Mexico:
B. VADILLO M. J. SIERRA
Eduardo SUAREZ

Panama:
J. D. AROSEMENA
Magin PONS
Eduardo E. HOLGUIN

Guatemala:
M. ARROYO

Brazil:
Lucillo A. DA CUNHA
Bueno Gilberto AMADO

Ecuador:
A. AGUIRRE Aparicio
H. ALBORNOZ
Antonio PARRA V.
C. PUIG V.
Arturo SCARONE

Nicaragua:
Leonardo ARGUELLO M. CORDERO
Reyes Carlos CUADRA Pasos

Colombia:
Alfonso LOPEZ
Raimundo RIVAS

Chile:
Miguel CRUCHAGA
J. Ramon GUTIERREZ
F. FIGUEROA
F. NIETO DEL RIO
B. COHEN

Peru:(with reservation set forth)
Alfredo SOLE Y MURO

Cuba:
Alberto GIRAUDY
Herminio PORTELL Vila
Ing. NOGUEIRA

Zimbabwe Situation

2008-07-21T00:54:00.000-07:00

Zimbabwe: Situation Calls for Decisive Action

The Times of Zambia (Ndola)
OPINION29 June 2008Posted to the web 30 June 2008

Nebert Mulenga

WITH no end in sight to the worsening scenario of Zimbabwe's human rights abuses, pressure is now beginning to mount on southern African countries to break the silence and join hands to help resolve the neighbouring country's crisis.

"All SADC (Southern African Development Community) member states must move into Zimbabwe to organise elections and to make the people come together," says Wisdom Gondwe, a Lusaka-based political observer.

"As far as the situation in Zimbabwe is concerned, President Robert Mugabe is ruling by default, he is not the president of Zimbabwe because his mandate expired before the (March 29) election. So, that country's chief justice should have been in control during the period of preparing for the election re-run. He is ruling by default, and even his government officials are all ruling by default."

Zimbabwe is in its eighth year of an economic recession that has seen inflation soar to unofficial estimates of one million per cent - the highest ever in the world - and unemployment levels rising to above 80 per cent. Shortages of key commodities such as fuel and food, have over the years been commonplace in literally every corner of the once-buoyant southern African economic giant.

According to international donor organisations, nearly five million Zimbabweans are in need of emergency food assistance this year alone. It is estimated that as many as three million Zimbabweans could have left the country for neighbouring states, such as Zambia, Botswana, Malawi and South Africa, or have gone further outside the continent to England and the United States.

Inside Zimbabwe, a myriad of glaring cases of violent attacks has been reported with about 86 people, mostly supporters of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) killed in targeted attacks since the March 29 election, according to the MDC.

The first round presidential election was won by the MDC's Morgan Tsvangarai, but he fell short of the required 50 per cent plus one vote for an outright victory, forcing a re-run with Mugabe, 84,who has ruled Zimbabwe since independence in 1980.

Last week, about five people were reportedly found dead after missing for some days in the capital Harare, one of them a wife of the MDC's mayor for Harare. Thousands others have been beaten and displaced in recent weeks.

In the wake of the violent clashes in this SADC country, Zambia's President Levy Mwanawasa this week called for the postponement of the election re-run, saying the atmosphere was not conducive for a free and fair ballot.

"The run-off election in Zimbabwe must be postponed to a later date. I urge the responsible authorities in Zimbabwe to implement this postponement to allow for the establishment of conditions that are suitable for holding of genuinely free and fair elections in accordance with Zimbabwean law, the SADC principles and the charter and conventions of the African Union," said President Mwanawasa who is a also chairperson of the 14-nation regional bloc, with an estimated population of about 400 million people.

Dr Mwanawasa's remarks, at a Press conference held on Sunday at State House, came a few hours after the MDC's Tsvangarai announced the withdrawal of his candidature from tomorrow's election re-run which could leave Mr Mugabe as the automatic winner, if the poll went ahead.

"What is happening in Zimbabwe is a matter of serious embarrassment to all of us. It is scandalous for the SADC to remain silent in the light of what is happening," said Mwanawasa.

Several international organisations and individuals have since re-echoed his sentiments with the United Nations Security Council, stating that a free and fair presidential run off in Zimbabwe was impossible.

"The Security Council condemns the campaign of violence against the political opposition. The Security Council regrets that the campaign of violence and the restrictions on the political opposition have made it impossible for a free and fair election to take place on 27 June," said the 15-member body in a statement issued on June 23.

A few days before the Security Council's unanimous position, UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon had called for the ballot to be delayed, saying "conditions do not exist for free and fair elections right now in Zimbabwe. There has been too much violence, too much intimidation."

But Zimbabwe's ambassador to the UN, Boniface Chidyausiku said the vote would still go on as planned even in the absence of Mr Mugabe's rival. "As far as we are concerned, the election will take place on Friday," Chidyausiku was quoted this week by the BBC.

"Should the people of Zimbabwe decide, whoever they elect, that's their sovereign right and there is nobody who can say: 'you have made the wrong decision - you should've elected another candidate'."

The happenings in Zimbabwe have far-reaching consequences on the economic growth and stability of southern Africa. For Zambia particularly, it is feared that the confusions in the neighbouring country could have a damaging effect on its economic prospects. Zambia's Southern Province shares three border posts - Kariba, Kazungula and Chirundu - with Zimbabwe. This is in addition to the electricity generation plant at Kariba, the international tourism draw-card in the name of Victoria Falls, and the world's biggest artificial lake, the Kariba Dam.

But other than the shared geographical and economic facilities, concerns are also mounting on the possible influx of Zimbabwean immigrants escaping worsening political violence in the aftermath of their presidential run-off election.

The Zambian Government does not demand visa requirements from people in neighbouring countries, which analysts say makes it easier for fleeing Zimbabwean immigrants to cross into Zambia as a safe haven.

According to Joseph Chilengi, executive director of the Africa Internally Displaced Persons' Voice, a lobby group championing the rights of displaced persons, Zambia is likely to receive more Zimbabwean immigrants than any other country in the region because of its hospitable environment.

"Zambia seems to be the only country in the region that appears to be offering a conducive environment for asylum at the moment," Chilengi told this writer.

The Zambian Government recently granted refugee status to 12 supporters of Zimbabwe's MDC, but Home Affairs Permanent Secretary, Susan Sikaneta could not confirm whether there were more Zimbabweans seeking asylum in Zambia.

She however, disclosed that Government had stepped up security measures at the three border posts in Southern Province to ensure people were thoroughly screened before entering the country to avoid abuse of the 'asylum facility'.

Although South Africa has, by virtue of its powerful economy, been a favoured destination for Zimbabweans fleeing the economic meltdown in that country, the odds are now changing following the recent xenophobic attacks in South Africa. The attacks were targeted at foreigners, mostly Zimbabweans, and left over 60 people dead with tens of thousands displaced.

According to the Red Cross, the South African attacks which went on for over three weeks in May 2008, put up to 25,000 South African-based Zimbabweans on their path to Zambia. The figures are yet to be verified by both the Zambian Government and the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR).

Southern African Centre for Constructive Resolution of Disputes (Saccord) executive director, Lee Habasonda said chances of other regional countries repeating the South African xenophobic attacks on Zimbabweans were high if the Zimbabwe situation was left unattended to.

"It's not just here in Zambia where Zimbabweans are being resented, even in Botswana, even in Mozambique, and even in Malawi the situation is the same," Mr Habasonda said.

SADC member countries, seemingly divided over Zimbabwe, are yet to agree on their next course in the event of tpmorrow's election re-run going on as planned.

When asked by journalists at a Press briefing on whether SADC would regard the 'new' Zimbabwean government after tomorrow's poll as legitimate or consider introducing some sanctions, President Mwanawasa said:

"As SADC, we are still thinking about whether to introduce sanctions against Zimbabwe or not, and what sanctions. I think let's not cross the bridge before we reach the river."

The SADC member countries may not be willing just as yet to cross 'that' Zimbabwe bridge but certainly, the turn of events this tomorrow, will push them to acknowledge that they actually reached 'that' bridge a long time ago.

CONFLICT IN SUDAN

2008-07-21T00:35:00.000-07:00

Q&A: Sudan's Darfur conflict

The prosecutor at the International Criminal Court has asked judges to issue an arrest warrant against Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir for alleged war crimes during the conflict in Darfur.

What are the charges against President al-Bashir?

The chief prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo has alleged that “there are reasonable grounds to believe that Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir bears criminal responsibility in relation to 10 counts of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes."

The president is alleged to have "masterminded and implemented a plan to destroy in substantial part the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa groups, on account of their ethnicity. His motives were largely political. His alibi was a 'counterinsurgency.' His intent was genocide."

What happens now?

The request for an arrest warrant will be considered by a panel of three ICC judges. They are expected to take several months to give their opinion. If they issue the warrant, Sudan is supposed to hand over the president, since the court has a mandate from the Security Council, even though Sudan is not party to the ICC treaty.

What has been Sudan's reaction?

It has rejected the court's jurisdiction, indicating that it would not hand over the president if the warrant was issued. Sudan is hoping to get enough votes on the Security Council to postpone any warrant but such a move would have to get the agreement of the United States, Britain and France, all of which hold a veto in the Council.

How did the conflict start?

The conflict began in the arid and impoverished region early in 2003 after a rebel group began attacking government targets, saying the region was being neglected by Khartoum.

The rebels say the government is oppressing black Africans in favour of Arabs.

Darfur, which means land of the Fur, has faced many years of tension over land and grazing rights between the mostly nomadic Arabs, and farmers from the Fur, Massaleet and Zagawa communities.

There are two main rebel groups, the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) and the Justice and Equality Movement (Jem), although both groups have split, some along ethnic lines.

There are now more than a dozen rebel groups - making peace talks extremely difficult.

What is the government doing?

It admits mobilising "self-defence militias" following rebel attacks but denies any links to the Janjaweed, accused of trying to "cleanse" black Africans from large swathes of territory.

Refugees from Darfur say that following air raids by government aircraft, the Janjaweed ride into villages on horses and camels, slaughtering men, raping women and stealing whatever they can find.

Many women report being abducted by the Janjaweed and held as sex slaves for more than a week before being released.

The US and some human rights groups say that genocide is taking place - though a UN investigation team sent to Sudan said that while war crimes had been committed, there had been no intent to commit genocide.

Sudan's government denies being in control of the Janjaweed and President Bashir has called them "thieves and gangsters".

After strong international pressure and the threat of sanctions, the government promised to disarm the Janjaweed. But so far there is little evidence this has happened.

Trials have been announced in Khartoum of some members of the security forces suspected of abuses - but this is viewed as part of a campaign against UN-backed attempts to get some 50 key suspects tried at the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

What has happened to Darfur's civilians?

Millions have fled their destroyed villages, with some two million in camps near Darfur's main towns.

The Janjaweed patrol outside the camps and Darfuris say the men are killed and the women raped if they venture too far in search of firewood or water.

Some 200,000 have also sought safety in neighbouring Chad, but many of these are camped along a 600km (372-mile) stretch of the border and remain vulnerable to attacks from Sudan.

The refugees are also threatened by the diplomatic fall-out between Chad and Sudan, as the neighbours accuse one another of supporting each other's rebel groups.

Chad's eastern areas have a similar ethnic make-up to Darfur and the violence has spilled over the border area. Both capitals have also been attacked this year by rebel groups.

Many aid agencies are working in Darfur but they are unable to get access to vast areas because of the fighting.

How many have died?

With much of Darfur inaccessible to aid workers and researchers, calculating how many deaths there have been in the past three years is impossible.

What researchers have done is to estimate the deaths based on surveys in areas they can reach.

The latest research published in September 2006 in the journal Science puts the numbers of deaths above and beyond those that would normally die in this inhospitable area at "no fewer than 200,000".

They have made no distinction between those dying as a result of violence and those dying as a result of starvation or disease in refugee camps.

UN officials say they believe the figure is now about 300,000.

Accurate figures are crucial in determining whether the deaths in Darfur are genocide or - as the Sudanese government says - the situation is being exaggerated.

Have there been previous peace talks?

Lots.

The leader of one SLA faction, Minni Minnawi, who signed a peace deal in 2006 after long-running talks in Nigeria, was given a large budget and became a presidential adviser.

But his fighters have been accused by Amnesty International of abuses against people in areas opposed to the peace deal.

Amid international threats of sanctions for those refusing to attend, many rebel groups briefly attended preliminary talks with the government in Libya in October 2007 - but there is little hope of a quick breakthrough.

Is anyone trying to stop the fighting?

The joint African Union-UN peacekeeping mission, Unamid, has about 9,000 troops in Darfur. It is due to be increased to about 26,000.

Some say even this new 26,000 force will not be enough to cover such a large, remote area - the size of France.

Others point out that peacekeepers cannot do much unless there is a peace to keep.

They say the fighting can only end through a deal agreed by all sides, which has yet to materialise.

NATIONAL TERRITORY

2008-07-13T10:39:00.000-07:00

Article 1: National Territory

The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial domains, including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas. The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines.

ARCHIPELAGIC DOCTRINE

2008-07-13T09:24:00.000-07:00

Committee studies bill defining country’s archipelagic baselines

Committee Source: FOREIGN AFFAIRS

A LEGISLATIVE proposal seeking to define the archipelagic baselines of the Philippines to conform with the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is now under consideration by the Committee on Foreign Affairs headed by Representative Antonio Cuenco (2nd District, Cebu City).The proposal, embodied in House Bill 1973 and authored by the Committee chair, in effect, will amend Republic Act 3046 or the law which earlier defined the baselines of the territorial sea of the Philippines, as amended by RA 5446.The UNCLOS, which took effect on November 4, 1994, provides that an archipelagic state is a “group of islands including parts of islands, interconnecting waters and other natural features which are so closely interrelated that such islands, waters and other natural features form an intrinsic geographical, economic and political entity, or which historically have been regarded as such.”In his explanatory note, Rep. Cuenco stressed the necessity to establish a new baseline law to serve as a basis for drawing the 12-mile nautical territorial sea, the 24 mile contiguous zone and the 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) as provided under the UNCLOS.Likewise, he pointed out that the proposed law shall also serve as the official notification to all States on the extent of the limits of the maritime zone of the Philippine archipelago and thus avert any unnecessary dispute with vessels of foreign States entering Philippine maritime territory without permission.The Committee chair added that RA 3046 was enacted in 1961 and was amended by RA 5446 in 1968 long before the effectivity of the UNCLOS and the recognition of the archipelagic doctrine. He further mentioned that the bill seeks to include the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) into the country’s archipelagic baseline by virtue of historic right and legal title. The KIG consists of about 75 islands, cays, shoals and bank reefs with a total area of 68,807 nautical square miles. During the meeting of the Committee on the bill, Rep. Antonio Alvarez (1st District, Palawan) suggested that a provision be included in the proposed law in order to accommodate the jurisdictional claims of local government units (LGUs) over natural resources which will be affected by the new baselines.He also informed the body that he is filing a bill creating a national committee that will focus on the Philippines’ claim to an extended continental shelf (ECS) of 200 nautical miles under the 1982 UNCLOS or UNCLOS III to cover its territorial claim to the KIG, the part of the disputed Spratlys on which it has staked ownership.According to reports, there is a compelling possibility that the country has unexploited reserves estimated to be between 2 to 28 billion barrels of oil which are believed to be deposited in the disputed KIG into which the country’s continental shelf – a shallow, underwater continuation of the Palawan Island, is believed to extend. To get its hand on this rich natural resource, Manila must prove before the UN, using geologic evidence, the Philippines’ rights over the area.Ambassador Alberto Encomienda of the Department of Foreign Affairs’ (DFA) Maritime and Ocean Affairs Center (MOAC), however, said that the UNCLOS defines “continental shelf” under a juridical concept, that is, a coastal state like the Philippines is automatically recognized to have a continental shelf 200 NM from its baseline or land borders. Thus, he said if a country believes its continental shelf extends beyond 200 NM, it has to prove this claim based on the technical and scientific guidelines set by the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf.“In the case of the Philippines, the extended continental shelf shall be valid only in the Pacific shore because we are expected to have therein a boundary with a so-called sea bed authority,” he said. He added that under the UNCLOS, a claim to an overlapping extended continental shelf can be resolved by negotiation. Department of National Defense (DND) Undersecretary Ariston delos Reyes, meanwhile, commented that the proposed bill is silent on the definition of internal waters. He maintained that territorial waters should not extend more than 12 nautical miles beyond archipelagic baselines nor should contiguous waters go beyond 24 nautical miles from the baseline. Neither should EEZs extend beyond 200 nautical miles from such baseline,” he added. The same view was shared by Philippine Navy (PN) Lt. Col. Jose Johriel Cenabre.From the National Security Council, Clarissa Ruote-Garcio, a national security specialist, opined that the interest of the country must always be considered in defining the country’s baselines. Department of Energy (DOE) Undersecretary Guillermo Balce expressed support for the bill saying that it will not prejudice the claim of the local government of Palawan in the Malampaya oil and gas fields.Meanwhile, Rep. Cuenco gave four options regarding the delineation of the baselines for consideration by the Committee.The first option encloses the Philippine archipelago and Scarborough shoal with 135 baselines, four of which are long baselines. The KIG will be declared under the regime of islands. The second option encloses the Philippine archipelago with 111 baselines, three of which are long baselines. The KIG and Scarborough shoals are under the regime of islands.The third option encloses the Philippine archipelago and KIG with 102 baselines, three of which are long baselines, while the last option encloses the Philippine archipelago, Scarborough shoals and KIG with 134 baselines, four of which are long baselines.Encomienda said the third and fourth options are not feasible because dealing with the KIG issue may not be timely. “We feel that establishing the baselines by amending RA 3046 and 5546 to conform to the UN laws is safer and easier,” he said. Similarly, Commodore Henry Catapang and Department of Justice (DOJ) Assistant Chief State Counsel Ruben Fondevilla chose the first option because it is less contentious. Fondevilla added that the other options carry a lot of implications particularly on the issue of the KIG with regard to rival country claimants. Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) Lt. Cmdr. Ramon Rebnora, for his part, expressed support for the measure saying that PCG’s mandate calls for maritime environmental protection. He also preferred the first option because it conforms with the UNCLOS. Dr. Antonio Socrates, a representative of the governor and vice-governor of Palawan, however, favored the third and fourth options. The Committee is scheduled to hold an executive meeting to finally decide on the best option regarding the delineation of the country’s archipelagic baselines.

Source: Committee Administrative Support Service, Committee Affairs Department

TREATY OF PARIS

2008-07-13T09:15:00.000-07:00

The Philippine-American War
The Treaty of Paris

TREATY OF PEACEof December Tenth Eighteen Hundred Ninety Eight
The United States of America and Her Majesty The Queen Regent of Spain, in the name of her august son Don Alfonso XIII, desiring to end the state of war now existing between the two countries, have for that purpose appointed as plenipotentiaries:
The President of the United States,
William R. Day, Cushman K. Davis, William P. Frye, George Gray, and Whitelaw Reid, citizens of the United States;
And her Majesty the Queen Regent of Spain,
Don Eugenio Montero Rios, president of the Senate, Don Buenaventura de Abarzuza, senator of the Kingdom and ex-minister of the Crown; Don Jose de Garnica, deputy to the Cortes and associate justice of the supreme court. Don Wenceslao Ramirez de Villa Urrutia, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary at Brussels,and Don Rafael Cerero, General of Division;
Who, having assembled in Paris, and having exchanged their full powers, which were found to be in due and proper form, after discussion of the matters before them, agreed upon the following articles:

ARTICLE I

Spain relinquishes all claim of sovereignty over the title to Cuba, And as the Island is, upon its evacuation by Spain will, so long as such occupation shall last, assume and discharge the obligation that may under international law result from the fact of its for the protection of life and property.

ARTICLE II

Spain cedes to the United States the Island of Porto Rico, and other islands now under Spanish sovereignty in the West Indies, and the Island of Guam in the Marianas or Ladrones.

ARTICLE III

Spain cedes to the United States the archipelago known as the Philippines Islands, and comprehending the islands lying within the following line:
A line running from west to east along or near the twentieth parallel of north latitude, and through the middle of the navigable channel of Bacchi, from the one hundred and eighteenth to the one hundred and eighteenth to the one hundred and twenty-seventh degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich, thence along the parallel and forty-five minutes north latitude to its intersection with the meridian of longitude one hundred and nineteen degrees and thirty-five minutes east of Greenwich to the parallel of latitude seven degrees and forty minutes north to its intersection with the one hundred and sixteenth degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich, and thence along the one hundred and eighteenth degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich to the point of beginning.
The United States will pay to Spain the sum of twenty million dollars, within three months after the exchange of the ratifications of the present treaty.

ARTICLE IV

The United States will, for the term of ten years from the date of the exchange of the ratifications of the present treaty, admit Spanish ships and merchandise to the ports of the Philippine Islands on the same terms as ships and merchandise of the United States.

ARTICLE V

The United States will, upon the signature of the present treaty, send back to Spain, at its own cost, the Spanish soldiers taken as prisoners of war on the capture of Manila by the American forces. The arms of the soldiers in question shall be restored to them.
Spain will, upon the exchange of the ratification of the present treaty, proceed to evacuate the Philippines as well as the Island of Guam, on terms similar to those agreed upon by the Commissioners appointed to arrange for the evacuation of Porto Rico and other Island in the West Indies, under the protocol of August twelfth, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, which is to continue in force till its provisions are completely executed.
The time within which the evacuation of the Philippine Islands and Guam shall be completed shall be fixed by the two Governments. Stands of colors, uncaptured war vessels, small arms, guns of all calibers, with their carriages and accessories, powder, ammunition, live stock, and materials and supplies of all kinds, belonging to the land and naval forces of Spain in the Philippines and Guam, remain the property of Spain.
Pieces of heavy ordinance, exclusive of filled artillery, in the fortifications and coast defenses, shall remain in their emplacements for the term of six months, to be reckoned from the exchange of ratifications of the treaty, and the United States may, in a satisfactory agreement between the two governments on the subject shall be reached.

ARTICLE VI

Spain will, upon the signature of the present treaty, release all prisoners of war, and all persons detained or imprisoned for political offenses, in connection with the insurrections in Cuba and the Philippines and the war with the United States.
Reciprocally, the United States will release all persons made prisoners of war by the American forces, and will undertake to obtain the release of all Spanish prisoners in the hands of the insurgents in Cuba and the Philippines.
The Government of the United States will, at its own cost, return to Spain and the Government of Spain, at its own cost, return to the United States, Cuba, Porto Rico, and the Philippines, according to the situation of their respective homes, prisoners released or caused to be released by them, respectively, under this article.

ARTICLE VII

The United States and Spain mutually relinquish all claims for indemnity, national and individual, of every kind, of either Government, or of its citizens or subjects, against the other late insurrection in Cuba and prior to the exchange of ratifications of the present treaty, including all claims for indemnity for the cost of the war.
The United States will adjudicate and settle the claims of its citizens against Spain relinquished in this article.

ARTICLE VIII

In conformity with the provisions of Articles One, Two, and Three of this Treaty, Spain relinquishes in Cuba, and cedes in Porto Rico and other islands of the West Indies, in the Island of Guam, and in the Philippine Archipelago, all the buildings, wharves, public which, in conformity with law, belong to the public domain, and as such belong to the Crown of Spain.
And it is hereby declared that the relinquishment or cession, as the case may be, to which the preceding paragraph refers, can not in any respects impair the property of rights which law belong to the peaceful procession of property of all kinds, of provinces, municipalities, public or private establishments, ecclesiastical or civil bodies, or any other associations, having legal capacity to acquire and possess property in the aforesaid whatsoever nationality such individuals may be.
The aforesaid relinquishment of cession, as the case may be, includes all documents exclusively referring to the sovereignty relinquished or ceded that may exist in the archives of the Peninsula. Where any document in such archives only in part relates to said sovereignty, a copy of such part will be furnished whenever it shall be requested. Like rules shall be reciprocally observed in favor of Spain in respects of documents in the archives ot the islands above referred to.
In the aforesaid relinquishment or cession, as the case mat be, are also included such rights as the Crown of Spain and its authorities possess in respect of the official archives and records, executive as well as judicial, in the islands above referred to, which relate to said islands or the rights and property of their inhabitants. Such archives and records shall be carefully preserved, and private persons shall without distinction have the right to require, in accordance with law, authenticated copies of the contracts, wills, and other instruments forming part of notarial protocols or files, or which may be contained in executive or judicial archives, be the latter in Spain or in the islands aforesaid.

ARTICLE IX

Spanish subject, natives of the Peninsula, residing in the territory over which Spain by the present treaty relinquishes or cedes her sovereignty, may remain in such territory or may remove therefrom, retaining in either event all their rights of property, including the rights to sell or dispose of such property or of its proceeds; and they shall also have the right to carry on their industry, commerce, and professions, being subject in respect thereof to such laws as are applicable to other foreigners. In case they remain in the territory they may preserve their allegiance to the Crown of Spain by making, before a court of record, within a year from the date of the exchange of ratifications of this treaty, a declaration of their decision to preserve such allegiance; in default of which declaration they shall be held to have renounced it and to have adopted the nationality of the territory in which they may reside.
The civil rights and political status of the native inhabitants of the territories hereby ceded to the United States shall be determined by Congress.

ARTICLE X

The inhabitants of the territories over which Spain relinquishes or cedes her sovereignty shall be secured in the free exercise of their religion.

ARTICLE XI

The Spaniards residing in the territories over which Spain by this treaty cedes or relinquishes her sovereignty shall be subject in matters civil as criminal to the jurisdiction of the courts of the country wherein they reside, pursuant to the ordinary laws governing the same, and they shall have the right to appear before such courts; and to pursue the same course as citizens of the country to which the courts belong.

ARTICLE XII

Judicial proceedings pending at the time of the exchange of ratifications of this treaty in the territories over which Spain relinquishes or cedes her sovereignty shall been determined according to the following rules.
Judgments rendered either in civil suits between private individuals, or in criminal matters, before the date mentioned, and with respect to which there is no recourse or right of review under the Spanish law, shall deemed to be final, and shall be executed in due from by competent authority in the territory within which such judgments should be carried out.
Civil suits between private individuals which may on the date mentioned be undetermined shall be prosecuted to judgment before the court in which they maythen be pending or in the court that may be substituted therefor.
Criminal actions pending on the date mentioned before the supreme court of Spain against citizens of the territory which by this treaty ceases to be Spanish shall continue under its jurisdiction until final judgment; but such judgment having been rendered, the execution thereof shall be committed to the competent authority of the place in which the arose.

ARTICLE XIII

The rights of property secured by copyrights and patents acquired by Spaniards in the Island of Cuba, and in Porto Rico, the Philippines, and other ceded territories, at the time of the exchange of the ratifications of this treaty, shall continue to be respected. Spanish scientific, literary and artistic works, not subversive of public order in the territories in question, shall continue to be admitted free of duty into such territories, for the period of ten years, to be reckoned from the date of exchange of the ratifications of this treaty.

ARTICLE XIV

Spain shall have the power to establish consular officers in the ports and places of the territories, the sovereignty over which has been either relinquished or ceded by the present treaty.

ARTICLE XV

The Government of each country will, for the term of ten years, accord to the merchant vessels of the other country the same treatment in respect of all port charges, including entrance and clearance due, lights dues, and tonnage duties as it accords to its own merchant vessels, not engaged in the coastwise trade.
This article may at any time be terminated on six months' notice given by either Government to the other.

ARTICLE XVI

It is understood that any obligations assumed in this treaty by the United States, with respect to Cuba are limited to the time of its occupancy, advise any Government established in the island to assume the same obligations.

ARTICLE XVII

The present treaty shall be ratified by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate thereof, and by Her majesty, the Queen Regent of Spain; and the ratifications shall be exchanged at Washington within six months from the date hereof, or earlier if possible.
In faith whereof, we, the respective plenipotentiaries, have signed this treaty and have hereunto affixed our seals. One in duplicate at Paris, the tenth day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight.

(Seal) William R. Day. (Seal) Cushman K. Davis. (Seal) William P. Fyre. (Seal) George Gray. (Seal) Whitelaw Reid. (Seal) Eugenio Montero Rios. (Seal) B. De Abarzuza. (Seal) J. de Garnica. (Seal) W. R. De Villa Urrutia. (Seal) Rafael Cerero.
Source : Appendix C. MALOLOS: The Crisis of the Republic. Teodoro A Agoncillo
Centennial Site designed by MSC Communications Technologies, Inc.. Hosted by MSC Computer Training Center. Updated 01/02/1999

SEA

2008-07-13T09:08:00.000-07:00

Sea

A sea is either a large expanse of saline water connected with an ocean, or a large, usually saline, lake that lacks a natural outlet such as the Caspian Sea and the Dead Sea. Colloquially, the term is used synonymous with ocean. Large lakes, such as the Great Lakes, are sometimes referred to as inland seas. Marginal seas are those that have currents caused by ocean winds, and mediterranean seas are those in which currents are caused by differentials in salinity and temperature.

Contents
1 International Hydrographic Organization
2 List of seas
2.1 Atlantic Ocean
2.2 Arctic Ocean
2.3 Indian Ocean
2.4 Pacific Ocean
2.5 Southern Ocean
2.6 Landlocked seas
3 Nomenclature
4 Extraterrestrial seas
5 Science
6 See also
7 References
International Hydrographic Organization
The International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) is the international authority that sets forth nomenclature and definition of bodies of water.[1] The IHO's Limits of Oceans and Seas was first published in 1928, with its current working document the third edition published in 1953.[2] A fourth draft edition was proposed in 1986 but has yet to be ratified due to outstanding issues such as the Sea of Japan naming dispute.
List of seas
Atlantic Ocean
Adriatic Sea
Aegean Sea
Alboran Sea
Argentine Sea
Bay of Biscay
Bay of Bothnia
Bay of Campeche
Bay of Fundy
Baltic Sea
Black Sea
Bothnian Sea
Caribbean Sea
Celtic Sea
Central Baltic Sea
Chesapeake Bay
English Channel
Gulf of Bothnia
Gulf of Guinea
Gulf of Finland
Gulf of Mexico
Gulf of Sidra
Gulf of St. Lawrence
Gulf of Venezuela
Ionian Sea
Ligurian Sea
Irish Sea
Marmara Sea
Mediterranean Sea
Mirtoon Sea
North Sea
Sea of Azov
Sea of Crete
Sea of the Hebrides
Sargasso Sea
Tampa Bay
Thracian Sea
Tyrrhenian Sea
Arctic Ocean
Amundsen Gulf
Baffin Bay
Barents Sea
Beaufort Sea
Bering Sea
Cambridge Bay
Chukchi Sea
Cold Bay
Davis Strait
Denmark Strait
East Siberian Sea
Greenland Sea
Hudson Bay
James Bay
Kara Sea
Kara Strait
Labrador Sea
Laptev Sea
Lincoln Sea
Norwegian Sea
White Sea
Indian Ocean
Arafura Sea
Andaman Sea
Arabian Sea
Bay of Bengal
Gulf of Aden
Gulf of Oman
Mozambique Channel
Persian Gulf
Red Sea
Timor Sea
Pacific Ocean
Arafura Sea
Banda Sea
Bering Sea
Bismarck Sea
Bohai Sea
Bohol Sea (Mindanao Sea)
Camotes Sea
Celebes Sea
Ceram Sea
Chilean Sea
Coral Sea
East China Sea
Flores Sea
Gulf of Alaska
Gulf of California (Sea of Cortés)
Gulf of Carpentaria
Gulf of Thailand
Halmahera Sea
Java Sea
Koro Sea
Molucca Sea
Philippine Sea
Savu Sea
Sea of Japan
Sea of Okhotsk
Seto Inland Sea
Solomon Sea
South China Sea
Sulu Sea
Tasman Sea
Timor Sea
Yellow Sea
Southern Ocean
Amundsen Sea
Bass Strait
Bellingshausen Sea
Davis Sea
Great Australian Bight
Gulf Saint Vincent
Ross Sea
Scotia Sea
Spencer Gulf
Weddell Sea
Landlocked seas
Aral Sea
Caspian Sea
Dead Sea
Sea of Galilee
Salton Sea
Great Salt Lake
† Not listed in IHO S-23 4th ed. (There are 113 Seas on Earth.)
Nomenclature
Some bodies of water that are called "seas" are not actually seas; there are also some seas that are not called "seas". The following is an incomplete list of such potentially confusing names.
The Sea of Galilee is a small freshwater lake with a natural outlet, which is properly called Lake Tiberias or Lake Kinneret on modern Israeli maps, but its original name remains in use.
The Sea of Cortés is more commonly known as the Gulf of California.
The Persian Gulf is a sea.
The Dead Sea is actually a lake, as is the Caspian Sea.
Extraterrestrial seas
See also Extraterrestrial liquid water
Lunar maria are vast basaltic plains on the Moon that were thought to be bodies of water by early astronomers, who referred to them as "seas".
Liquid water may have existed on the surface of Mars in the distant past, and several basins on Mars have been proposed as dry sea beds. The largest is Vastitas Borealis; others include Hellas Planitia and Argyre Planitia.
Liquid water is thought to be present under the surface of several moons, most notably Europa.
Liquid hydrocarbons are thought to be present on the surface of Titan, though it may be more accurate to describe them as "lakes" rather than "seas".
Science
The term "sea" has also been used in quantum physics. Dirac sea is an interpretation of the negative energy states that comprises the vacuum.
See also

Wikimedia Commons has media related to:
Seas

Look up maritime in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Look up sea in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Oceanography
Inlet
International Maritime Organization
List of places on land with elevations below sea level
Pole of inaccessibility: the locations farthest from any coastline
Marine debris
Sea level
Sea level rise
Sea salt
Seven Seas
References
1. ^ "IHO Background Information". International Hydrographic Organization (25 August 2004). Retrieved on 2008-05-17.
2. ^ International Hydrographic Conference of 1952 (1953). "Limits of Oceans and Seas: Special publication S-23" (.PDF). Third edition. International Hydrographic Organization. Retrieved on 2008-05-17

OUTER SPACE

2008-07-13T09:06:00.000-07:00

Outer space
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Outer space, often simply called space, refers to the relatively empty regions of the universe outside the atmospheres of celestial bodies. Outer space is used to distinguish it from airspace (and terrestrial locations). Contrary to popular understanding, outer space is not completely empty (i.e. a perfect vacuum) but contains a low density of particles, predominantly hydrogen plasma, as well as electromagnetic radiation. Hypothetically, it also contains dark matter and dark energy.
The term "outer space" was first recorded by H. G. Wells in 1901.[1] The shorter term space is actually older, being first used to mean the region beyond Earth's sky in John Milton's Paradise Lost in 1667.[2]
Contents[hide]
1 Environment
2 Space versus orbit
3 Regions
3.1 Geospace
3.2 Interplanetary
3.3 Interstellar
3.4 Intergalactic
4 Milestones
5 See also
6 References
7 External links

Environment

Outer space is not a perfect vacuum, but a tenuous plasma awash with charged particles, electromagnetic fields, and the occasional star.
Outer space is the closest physical approximation of a perfect vacuum. It has effectively no friction, allowing stars, planets and moons to move freely along ideal gravitational trajectories. But no vacuum is truly perfect, not even in intergalactic space where there are still a few hydrogen atoms per cubic centimeter. (For comparison, the air we breathe contains about 1019 molecules per cubic centimeter.) The deep vacuum of space could make it an attractive environment for certain industrial processes, for instance those that require ultraclean surfaces; however, it is currently much less costly to create an equivalent vacuum on Earth than to leave the Earth's gravity well.
Stars, planets, asteroids, and moons keep their atmospheres by gravitational attraction, and as such, atmospheres have no clearly delineated boundary: the density of atmospheric gas simply decreases with distance from the object. The Earth's atmospheric pressure drops to about 1 Pa (10-3 Torr) at 100 km of altitude, the Kármán line which is a common definition of the boundary with outer space. Beyond this line, isotropic gas pressure rapidly becomes insignificant when compared to radiation pressure from the sun and the dynamic pressure of the solar wind, so the definition of pressure becomes difficult to interpret. The thermosphere in this range has large gradients of pressure, temperature and composition, and varies greatly due to space weather. Astrophysicists prefer to use number density to describe these environments, in units of particles per cubic centimetre.
But although it meets the definition of outer space, the atmospheric density within the first few hundred kilometers above the Kármán line is still sufficient to produce significant drag on satellites. Most artificial satellites operate in this region called low earth orbit and must fire their engines every few days to maintain orbit. The drag here is low enough that it could theoretically be overcome by radiation pressure on solar sails, a proposed propulsion system for interplanetary travel. Planets are too massive for their trajectories to be affected by these forces, although their atmospheres are eroded by the solar winds.
All of the observable universe is filled with large numbers of photons, the so-called cosmic background radiation, and quite likely a correspondingly large number of neutrinos. The current temperature of this radiation is about 3 K, or −270 °C (−454.00 °F).
Contrary to popular belief,[3] a person suddenly exposed to the vacuum would not explode, freeze to death or die from boiling blood, but would take a short while to die by asphyxiation (suffocation). Air would immediately leave the lungs due to the enormous pressure gradient. Any oxygen dissolved in the blood would empty into the lungs to try to equalize the partial pressure gradient. Once the deoxygenated blood arrived at the brain, death would quickly follow.
Humans and animals exposed to vacuum will lose consciousness after a few seconds and die of hypoxia within minutes. Blood and other body fluids do boil when their pressure drops below 6.3 kPa, (47 Torr,) the vapor pressure of water at body temperature.[4] This condition is called ebullism. The steam may bloat the body to twice its normal size and slow circulation, but tissues are elastic and porous enough to prevent rupture. Ebullism is slowed by the pressure containment of blood vessels, so some blood remains liquid.[5][6] Swelling and ebullism can be reduced by containment in a flight suit. Shuttle astronauts wear a fitted elastic garment called the Crew Altitude Protection Suit (CAPS) which prevents ebullism at pressures as low as 2 kPa (15 Torr).[7] Water vapor would also rapidly evaporate off from exposed areas such as the lungs, cornea of the eye and mouth, cooling the body. Rapid evaporative cooling of the skin will create frost, particularly in the mouth, but this is not a significant hazard. Space may be cold, but it's mostly vacuum and can hardly transfer heat, so the main temperature worry for space suits is how to get rid of naturally generated body heat.
Cold or oxygen-rich atmospheres can sustain life at pressures much lower than atmospheric, as long as the density of oxygen is similar to that of standard sea-level atmosphere. The colder air temperatures found at altitudes of up to 3 km generally compensate for the lower pressures there.[4] Above this altitude, oxygen enrichment is necessary to prevent altitude sickness, and spacesuits are necessary to prevent ebullism above 19 km.[4] Most spacesuits use only 20 kPa (150 Torr) of pure oxygen, just enough to sustain full consciousness. This pressure is high enough to prevent ebullism, but simple evaporation of blood can still cause decompression sickness and gas embolisms if not managed.
Rapid decompression can be much more dangerous than vacuum exposure itself. Even if the victim does not hold his breath, venting through the windpipe may be too slow to prevent the fatal rupture of the delicate alveoli of the lungs.[4] Eardrums and sinuses may be ruptured by rapid decompression, soft tissues may bruise and seep blood, and the stress of shock will accelerate oxygen consumption leading to hypoxia.[8] Injuries caused by rapid decompression are called barotrauma. A pressure drop as small as 100 Torr, (13 kPa,) which produces no symptoms if it is gradual, may be fatal if occurs suddenly.[4]

[edit] Space versus orbit
To perform an orbital spaceflight, a spacecraft must travel faster than it must for a sub-orbital spaceflight. A spacecraft has not entered orbit until it is traveling with a sufficiently great horizontal velocity such that the acceleration due to gravity on the spacecraft is less than or equal to the centripetal acceleration being caused by its horizontal velocity (see circular motion). So to enter orbit, a spacecraft must not only reach space, but must also achieve a sufficient orbital speed (angular velocity). For a low-Earth orbit, this is about 7.9 km/s (18,000 mph); by contrast, the fastest airplane speed ever achieved (excluding speeds achieved by deorbiting spacecraft) was 2.02 km/s (4,520 mph) in 1967 by the North American X-15 [9]. Konstantin Tsiolkovsky was the first person to realize that, given the energy available from any available chemical fuel, a several-stage rocket would be required. The escape velocity to pull free of Earth's gravitational field altogether and move into interplanetary space is about 40,000 km/h (25,000 mph or 11,000 m/s). The energy required to reach velocity for low Earth orbit (32 MJ/kg) is about twenty times the energy required simply to climb to the corresponding altitude (10 kJ/(km·kg)).
There is a major difference between sub-orbital and orbital spaceflights. The minimum altitude for a stable orbit around Earth (that is, one without significant atmospheric drag) begins at around 350 km (220 miles) above mean sea level. A common misunderstanding about the boundary to space is that orbit occurs simply by reaching this altitude. Achieving orbital speed can theoretically occur at any altitude, although atmospheric drag precludes an orbit that is too low. At sufficient speed, an airplane would need a way to keep it from flying off into space, but at present, this speed is several times greater than anything within reasonable technology.

[edit] Regions
Space being not a perfect vacuum, its different regions are defined by the various atmospheres and "winds" that dominate within them, and extend to the point at which those winds give way to those beyond. Geospace extends from Earth's atmosphere to the outer reaches of Earth's magnetic field, whereupon it gives way to the solar wind of interplanetary space. Interplanetary space extends to the heliopause, whereupon the solar wind gives way to the winds of the interstellar medium. Interstellar space then continues to the edges of the galaxy, where it fades into the intergalactic void.

[edit] Geospace

Geospace (dark blue).
In the context of space weather, geospace is the region of outer space near the Earth. Geospace includes the upper region of the atmosphere, as well as the ionosphere and magnetosphere. The Van Allen radiation belts also lie within the geospace.
There is no clear boundary between Earth's atmosphere and space as the density of the atmosphere gradually decreases as the altitude increases. Nevertheless, the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale has established the Kármán line at an altitude of 100 km (62 miles) as a working definition for the boundary between aeronautics and astronautics. This is used because above an altitude of roughly 100 km, as Theodore von Kármán calculated, a vehicle would have to travel faster than orbital velocity in order to derive sufficient aerodynamic lift from the atmosphere to support itself. The United States designates people who travel above an altitude of 80 km (50 statute miles) as astronauts. During re-entry, roughly 120 km (75 miles) marks the boundary where atmospheric drag becomes noticeable, depending on the ballistic coefficient of the vehicle.
Geospace is populated at very low densities by electrically charged particles, whose motions are controlled by the Earth's magnetic field. These plasmas form a medium from which storm-like disturbances powered by the solar wind can drive electrical currents into the Earth’s upper atmosphere.
During geomagnetic storms two regions of geospace, the radiation belts and the ionosphere, can become strongly disturbed. These disturbances interfere with the functioning of satellite communications and navigation (GPS) technologies. These storms increase fluxes of energetic electrons that can permanently damage satellite electronics, and can also be a hazard to astronauts, even in low-Earth orbit.
A common misconception is that people in orbit are outside Earth's gravity because they are "floating". They are floating because they are in "free fall": they are accelerating toward Earth, along with their spacecraft, but are simultaneously moving sideways fast enough that the "fall" away from a straight-line path merely keeps them in orbit at a constant distance above Earth's surface. Earth's gravity reaches out far past the Van Allen belt and keeps the Moon in orbit at an average distance of 384,403 km (238,857 miles).
Geospace contains material left over from previous manned and unmanned launches that are a potential hazard to spacecraft. Some of this debris re-enters Earth's atmosphere periodically.
The absence of air makes geospace (and the surface of the Moon) ideal locations for astronomy at all wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum, as evidenced by the spectacular pictures sent back by the Hubble Space Telescope, allowing light from about 13.7 billion years ago — almost to the time of the Big Bang — to be observed.
The outer boundary of geospace is the interface between the magnetosphere and the solar wind. The inner boundary is the ionosphere.[10] Alternately, geospace is the region of space between the Earth’s upper atmosphere and the outermost reaches of the Earth’s magnetic field.[11] The region between Earth's atmosphere and the Moon is sometimes referred to as cis-Lunar space.

[edit] Interplanetary
Main article: Interplanetary medium
Outer space within the solar system is called interplanetary space, which passes over into interstellar space at the heliopause. The vacuum of outer space is not really empty; it is sparsely filled with cosmic rays, which include ionized atomic nuclei and various subatomic particles. There is also gas, plasma and dust, small meteors, and several dozen types of organic molecules discovered to date by microwave spectroscopy. Interplanetary space is defined by the solar wind, a continuous stream of charged particles emanating from the Sun that creates a very tenuous atmosphere (the heliosphere) for billions of miles into space. The discovery since 1995 of extrasolar planets means that other stars must possess their own interplanetary media.

[edit] Interstellar
Main article: Interstellar medium
Interstellar space is the physical space within a galaxy not occupied by stars or their planetary systems. The interstellar medium resides – by definition – in interstellar space.

[edit] Intergalactic
Main articles: Intracluster medium and Cosmic microwave background
Intergalactic space is the physical space between galaxies. Generally free of dust and debris, intergalactic space is very close to a total vacuum. Some theories put the average density of the Universe as the equivalent of one hydrogen atom per cubic meter[12][13]. The density of the Universe, however, is clearly not uniform; it ranges from relatively high density in galaxies (including very high density in structures within galaxies, such as planets, stars, and black holes) to conditions in vast voids that have much lower density than the Universe's average. The temperature is only 2.73 Kelvin [14]. NASA's COBE mission (Cosmic Background Explorer) measured the temperature as 2.725 +/- 0.002 K.

[edit] Milestones
Sea level - 101.3 kPa (1 atm; 1.013 bar; 29.92 in Hg; 760 mm Hg; 14.7 lbf/in²) of atmospheric pressure
3.9 km (12,500 ft) (2.4 miles) - FAA requires supplemental oxygen for aircraft pilots in unpressurized aircraft.[15]
5.0 km (16,400 ft) (3.1 miles) - 50 kPa of atmospheric pressure
5.3 km (17,400 ft) (3.3 miles) - Half of the Earth's atmosphere is below this altitude.
8.0 km (26,200 ft) (5 miles) - Death zone for human climbers
8.85 km (29,035 ft) (5.5 miles) - Summit of Mount Everest, the highest mountain on Earth (26 kPa)
16 km (52,500 ft) (9.9 miles) - Pressurized cabin or pressure suit required.
18 km (59,100 ft) (11.2 miles) - Boundary between troposphere and stratosphere
20 km (65,600 ft) (12.4 miles) - Water at room temperature boils without a pressurized container. (The popular notion that bodily fluids would start to boil at this point is false because the body generates enough internal pressure to prevent it.)
24 km (78,700 ft) (14.9 miles) - Regular aircraft pressurization systems no longer function.
32 km (105,000 ft) (19.9 miles) - Turbojets no longer function.
34.7 km (113,740 ft) (21.5 miles) - Altitude record for manned balloon flight
45 km (147,600 ft) (28 miles) - Ramjets no longer function.
50 km (164,000 ft) (31 miles) - Boundary between stratosphere and mesosphere
53 km (174,000 ft) (33 miles) - Altitude record of Balloon.
80.5 km (264,000 ft) (50 miles) - Boundary between mesosphere and thermosphere. USA definition of space flight.
100 km (328,100 ft) (62.1 miles) - Kármán line, defining the limit of outer space according to the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale. Aerodynamic surfaces ineffective due to low atmospheric density. Lift speed generally exceeds orbital velocity. Turbopause.
120 km (393,400 ft) (74.6 miles) - First noticeable atmospheric drag during re-entry from orbit
200 km (124.2 miles) - Lowest possible orbit with short-term stability (stable for a few days)
307 km (190.8 miles) - STS-1 mission orbit
350 km (217.4 miles) - Lowest possible orbit with long-term stability (stable for many years)
360 km (223.7 miles) - ISS average orbit, which still varies due to drag and periodic boosting.
390 km (242.3 miles) - Mir mission orbit
440 km (273.4 miles) - Skylab mission orbit
587 km (364.8 miles) - HST orbit
690 km (428.7 miles) - Boundary between thermosphere and exosphere, start of the inner Van Allen Belt
780 km (484.7 miles) - Iridium orbit
1,374 km (850 miles) - Highest altitude by a manned Earth-orbiting flight (Gemini XI with Agena Target Vehicle)
10,000 km (6,213 miles) - End of the inner Van Allen Belt
19,000 km (11,900 miles) - Start of the outer Van Allen Belt
20,200 km (12,600 miles) - GPS orbit
35,786 km (22,237 miles) - Geostationary orbit height
63,800 km (39,600 miles) - End of the outer Van Allen Belt
320,000 km (200,000 miles) - Lunar gravity exceeds Earth's (at Lagrange point)
348,200 km (238,700 miles) - lunar perigee (closet approach of the Moon)
402,100 km (249,900 miles) - lunar apogee (largest distance between Earth and Moon)

[edit] See also

Astronomy portal

Space portal

Space tourism portal

Spaceflight portal
Astronaut Badge
Extraterrestrial life
Intergalactic space
Interplanetary Internet
Kármán line
NASA
Outer Space Treaty
Private spaceflight
Solar wind
Space and survival
Space colonization
Space exploration
Space science
Space station
Space technology
Spaceflight
Timeline of spaceflight

[edit] References
^ "Etymonline : Outer". Retrieved on 2008-03-24.
^ "Etymonline: Space". Retrieved on 2008-03-24.
^ NASA Human Body in a Vacuum
^ a b c d e Harding, Richard M. (1989), Survival in Space: Medical Problems of Manned Spaceflight, London: Routledge, ISBN 0-415-00253-2 .
^ Billings, Charles E. (1973). "Barometric Pressure", in edited by James F. Parker and Vita R. West: Bioastronautics Data Book, Second Edition, NASA. NASA SP-3006.
^ "Human Exposure to Vacuum". Retrieved on 2006-03-25.
^ Webb P. (1968). "The Space Activity Suit: An Elastic Leotard for Extravehicular Activity". Aerospace Medicine 39: 376–383.
^ Czarnik, Tamarack R.. "EBULLISM AT 1 MILLION FEET: Surviving Rapid/Explosive Decompression". Retrieved on 2006-03-25.
^ Linda Shiner. "X-15 Walkaround: A short guide to the fastest airplane ever.". Air & Space Magazine. Retrieved on 2007-01-19.
^ "Report of the Living With a Star Geospace Mission Definition Team". NASA (September, 2002).
^ "LWS Geospace Missions". NASA.
^ Davidson, Keay & Smoot, George. Wrinkles in Time. New York: Avon, 1993: 158-163
^ Silk, Joseph. Big Bang. New York: Freeman, 1977: 299.
^ NASA COBE website[1]
^ FAR 91.211, http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/0/ba9afbf96dbc56f0852566cf006798f9!OpenDocument&ExpandSection=-3

[edit] External links

Look up intergalactic inWiktionary, the free dictionary.

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to:
space

Wikimedia Commons has media related to:
Space

Wikinews has related news:
Portal:Space
Intergalactic Space, Natural History, Feb 1998
Morgan Freeman's Space Exploration Channel "Our Space" on ClickStar
Profits set to soar in outer space
Newscientist Space.
X PRIZE Foundation.
Images of Earth and space taken from outer space
[hide]
v • d • eElements of Nature
Earth
History of Earth · Earth science · Structure of the Earth · Plate tectonics · Geological history of Earth · Geology
Weather
Climate · Earth's atmosphere
Life
Biosphere · Origin of life · Microbe · Flora · Plants · Fungi · Fauna · Animals · Biology · Evolutionary history of life
Environment
Wilderness · Ecology · Ecosystem
Universe
Matter · Energy · Outer space
Category · Portal

The Principal Organs Of The United Nations

2008-07-07T00:59:00.000-07:00

(1) The General Assembly

The General Assembly is made up of 191 Member States. The States and the dates on which they became Members are listed in Press Release ORG/1360 issued 4 October 2002. According to the Charter of the United Nations, the General Assembly may:- Consider and make recommendations on the general principles of cooperation for maintaining international peace and security, including disarmament;- Discuss any question relating to international peace and security and, except where a dispute or situation is currently being discussed by the Security Council, make recommendations on it;- Discuss, with the same exception, and make recommendations on any questions within the scope of the Charter or affecting the powers and functions of any organ of the United Nations;- Initiate studies and make recommendations to promote international political cooperation, the development and codification of international law, the realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms and international collaboration in the economic, social, humanitarian, cultural, educational and health fields;- Make recommendations for the peaceful settlement of any situation that might impair friendly relations among nations;- Receive and consider reports from the Security Council and other United Nations organs;- Consider and approve the United Nations budget and establish the financial assessments of Member States;- Elect the non-permanent members of the Security Council and the members of other - United Nations councils and organs and, on the recommendation of the Security Council, appoint the Secretary-General.

(2) The Security Council

The Security Council has 15 members. The United Nations Charter designates five States as permanent members and the General Assembly elects 10 other members for two-year terms. The term of office for each non-permanent member of the Council ends on 31 December of the year indicated in parentheses next to its name.The five permanent members of the Security Council are China, France, Russian Federation, United Kingdom and the United States.The 10 non-permanent members of the Council in 2005 are Algeria (2005), Argentina (2006), Benin (2005), Brazil (2005), Denmark (2006), Greece (2006), Japan (2006), Romania (2005), Philippines (2005) and the United Republic of Tanzania (2006). Functions and Powers of this organ is to maintain international peace and security in accordance with the principles and purposes of the United Nations;to investigate any dispute or situation which mightlead to international friction;to recommend methods of adjusting such disputes or the terms of settlement;to formulate plans for the establishment of a system to regulate armaments;to determine the existence of a threat to the peace or act of aggression and to recommend what action should be taken;to call on Members to apply economic sanctions and other measures not involving the use of force to prevent or stop aggression;to take military action against an aggressor;to recommend the admission of new Members;to exercise the trusteeship functions of the United Nations in "strategic areas";to recommend to the GeneralAssembly the appointment of the Secretary-General and, together with the Assembly, to elect the Judges of the International Court of Justice.

(3) The Economic and Social Council

The Economic and Social Council has 54 members, elected for three-year terms by the General Assembly. The term of office for each member expires on 31 December of the year indicated in parentheses next to its name. In 2005, the Council is composed of the following:Albania (2007), Armenia (2006), Australia (2007), Azerbaijan (2005), Bangladesh (2006), Belgium (2006), Belize (2006), Benin (2005), Brazil (2007), Canada (2006), Chad (2007), China (2007), Colombia (2006), Congo (2005), Costa Rica (2007), Cuba (2005), Democratic Republic of the Congo (2007), Denmark (2007), Ecuador (2005), France (2005), Germany (2005), Guinea (2007), Iceland (2007), India (2007), Indonesia (2006), Ireland (2005), Italy (2006), Jamaica (2005), Japan (2005), Kenya (2005), Lithuania (2007), Malaysia (2005), Mauritius (2006), Mexico (2007), Mozambique (2005), Namibia (2006), Nicaragua (2005), Nigeria (2006), Pakistan (2007), Panama (2006), Poland (2006), Republic of Korea (2006), Russian Federation (2007), Saudi Arabia (2005), Senegal (2005), South Africa (2007), Spain (2005), Thailand (2007), Tunisia (2006), Turkey (2005), United Arab Emirates (2006), United Kingdom (2007), United Republic of Tanzania (2006), United States (2006). Its function is to exert efforts toward :1. Higher standaards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;2. Solutions of international economic, social, health and related problems, and international, cultural and educational cooperation , and;3. Universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language and religion.

(4) The Trusteeship Council

The Trusteeship Council is made up of the five permanent members of the Security Council -– China, France, Russian Federation, United Kingdom and the United States. With the independence of Palau, the last remaining UnitedNationsTrustTerritory, the Council formally suspended operations on 1 November 1994. The Council amended its rules of procedure to drop the obligation to meet annually and agreed to meet as the occasion required, by its decision or the decision of its President or at the request of a majority of its members or the General Assembly or the Security Council. The organ charged with the duty of assisting the Security Council and General AssemblyThe United Nations Trusteeship Council, one of the principal organs of the United Nations, was established to help ensure that non-self-governing territories were administered in the best interests of the inhabitants and of international peace and security. The trust territories – most of them former mandates of the League of Nations or territories taken from nations defeated at the end of World War II – have all now attained self-government or independence, either as separate nations or by joining neighbouring independent countries. The last was Palau, which became a member state of the United Nations in December 1994.

(5) The International Court Justice

The International Court of Justice has 15 Judges, elected by both the General Assembly and the Security Council for nine-year terms. The current composition of the Court, with terms expiring on 5 February of the year in parentheses, is as follows: Ronny Abraham (France) (2009); Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh (Jordan) (2009); Nabil Elaraby (Egypt) (2006); Thomas Buergenthal (United States) (2006); Rosalyn Higgins (United Kingdom) (2009); Shi Jiuyong (China)(2012); Pieter H. Kooijmans (Netherlands)(2006); Abdul G. Koroma (Sierra Leone) (2012); Hisashi Owada (Japan) (2012); Gonzalo Parra-Aranguren (Venezuela) (2009); Raymond Ranjeva (Madagascar) (2009); José Francisco Rezek (Brazil) (2006); Bruno Simma (Germany) (2012); Peter Tomka (Slovakia) (2012); and Vladlen S. Vereshchetin (Russian Federation)(2006). The functions of the court are to decide contentious cases and to render advisory opinions.(Contentious cases)Only States (States Members of the United Nations and other States which have become parties to the Statute of the Court or which have accepted its jurisdiction under certain conditions) may be parties to contentious cases.The Court is competent to entertain a dispute only if the States concerned have accepted its jurisdiction in one or more of the following ways:by entering into a special agreement to submit the dispute to the Court;by virtue of a jurisdictional clause, i.e., typically, when they are parties to a treaty containing a provision whereby, in the event of a dispute of a given type or disagreement over the interpretation or application of the treaty, one of them may refer the dispute to the Court;through the reciprocal effect of declarations made by them under the Statute whereby each has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court as compulsory in the event of a dispute with another State having made a similar declaration. A number of these declarations, which must be deposited with the United Nations Secretary-General, contain reservations excluding certain categories of dispute.Proceedings may be instituted in one of two ways:through the notification of a special agreement: this document, which is of a bilateral nature, can be lodged with the Court by either of the States parties to the proceedings or by both of them. A special agreement must indicate the subject of the dispute and the parties thereto. Since there is neither an “applicant” State nor a “respondent” State, in the Court’s publications their names are separated by an oblique stroke at the end of the official title of the case, e.g., Benin/Niger;by means of an application: the application, which is of a unilateral nature, is submitted by an applicant State against a respondent State. It is intended for communication to the latter State and the Rules of Court contain stricter requirements with respect to its content. In addition to the name of the party against which the claim is brought and the subject of the dispute, the applicant State must, as far as possible, indicate briefly on what basis - a treaty or a declaration of acceptance of compulsory jurisdiction - it claims the Court has jurisdiction, and must succinctly state the facts and grounds on which it bases its claim. At the end of the official title of the case the names of the two parties are separated by the abbreviation “v.” (for the Latin versus), e.g., Nicaragua v. Colombia.

(6) The Secretariat

The chief administrative organ of the United Nation. Headed by Secretary General chosen by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.Secretary General is the highest representative of the United Nation. He/She is entitled to full diplomatic immunities and privileges. Secretary General has a fixed term of five years and he may be re-elected. His primary duty is to bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten international peace and security.Acts as secretary in all meeting of th General Assembly, Security Council, Economic and Social Council and Trusteeship Council (any may perform other functions as may be assigned to him by theses organs)Prepares budget of the UN for submission to the General AssemblyProvides technical facilities and in general coordinates its vast administrative machinery.

There are also subsidiary organs which the Charter itself has created or which it allows to be created whenever necessary by the General Assembly, the Security Council or the Economic and Social Council.

SECRETARY OF JUSTICE vs. HON. RALPH C. LANTION

2008-06-29T18:20:00.000-07:00

Facts:

On June 18, 1999, the Department of Justice received from the Department of Foreign Affairs U.S. Note Verbale No. 0522 containing a request for the extradition of private respondent Mark Jimenez to the United States. On the same day, petitioner issued Department Order No. 249 designating and authorizing a panel of attorneys to take charge of and to handle the case pursuant to Section 5(1) of Presidential Decree No. 1069. Accordingly, the panel began with the "technical evaluation and assessment" of the extradition request and the documents in support thereof. Pending evaluation of the aforestated extradition documents, private respondent, through counsel, wrote a letter dated July 1, 1999 addressed to petitioner requesting copies of the official extradition request from the U.S. Government, as well as all documents and papers submitted therewith; and that he be given ample time to comment on the request after he shall have received copies of the requested papers. Private respondent also requested that the proceedings on the matter be held in abeyance in the meantime. Later, private respondent requested that preliminary, he be given at least a copy of, or access to, the request of the United States Government, and after receiving a copy of the Diplomatic Note, a period of time to amplify on his request. Private respondent denied the foregoing requests for the following reasons:1. it is premature to furnish the copies of the extradition request and supporting documents from the United States Government, pending evaluation by this Department of the sufficiency of the extradition documents submitted in accordance with the provisions of the extradition treaty and our extradition law. Article 7 of the Extradition Treaty between the Philippines and the United States enumerates the documentary requirements and establishes the procedures under which the documents submitted shall be received and admitted as evidence. Evidentiary requirements under our domestic law are also set forth in Section 4 of P.D. No. 106. Evaluation by this Department of the aforementioned documents is not a preliminary investigation nor akin to preliminary investigation of criminal cases. It is only after the filing of the petition for extradition when the person sought to be extradited will be furnished by the court with copies of the petition, request and extradition documents and this Department will not pose any objection to a request for ample time to evaluate said documents.2. The formal request for extradition of the United States contains grand jury information and documents obtained through grand jury process covered by strict secrecy rules under United States law. The United States had to secure orders from the concerned District Courts authorizing the United States to disclose certain grand jury information to Philippine government and law enforcement personnel for the purpose of extradition of Mr. Jimenez. Any further disclosure of the said information is not authorized by the United States District Courts.
3. This Department is not in a position to hold in abeyance proceedings in connection with an extradition request. Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, to which we are a party provides that "Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith". Extradition is a tool of criminal law enforcement and to be effective, requests for extradition or surrender of accused or convicted persons must be processed expeditiously.
On August 6, 1999, private respondent filed with the Regional Trial Court of the National Capital Judicial Region a petition against the Secretary of Justice, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, and the Director of the National Bureau of Investigation, for mandamus (to compel herein petitioner to furnish private respondent the extradition documents, to give him access thereto, and to afford him an opportunity to comment on, or oppose, the extradition request, and thereafter to evaluate the request impartially, fairly and objectively); certiorari (to set aside herein petitioner's letter dated July 13, 1999); and prohibition (to restrain petitioner from considering the extradition request and from filing an extradition petition in court; and to enjoin the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and the Director of the NBI from performing any act directed to the extradition of private respondent to the United States), with an application for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction.
On August 10, 1999, respondent judge issued an order disposing that the respondents to maintain the status quo by refraining from committing the acts complained of; from conducting further proceedings in connection with the request of the United States Government for the extradition of the petitioner; from filing the corresponding Petition with a Regional Trial court; and from performing any act directed to the extradition of the petitioner to the United States.
Forthwith, petitioner initiated the instant proceedings, arguing that public respondent acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the temporary restraining order.

Issue:

1. Whether or not public respondent acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amou nting yo lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the temporary restraining order?

Ruling:

The Extradition Law provides Rules of Court shall apply, thus extradite has the basic right of notice and hearing. The RP-US Extradition Treaty under the Incorporation Clause in case of conflict is not superior over a national law. International law is given equal standing but not superior to national legislative enactment. The principle lex posterior degorat oriori takes effect – a treaty may repeal a statute and a statute may repeal a treaty. In States where the constitution is the highest law of the land, such as the Republic of the Philippines, both statutes and treaties may be invalidated if they are in conflict with the constitution.Thus, petitioner is ordered to furnish private respondent copies of the extradition request and its supporting papers and to grant him (Jimenez) a reasonable period within which to file his comment and supporting evidence.

WIGBERTO E. TAÑADA vs. EDGARDO ANGARA

2008-06-29T18:07:00.000-07:00

Facts:

On April 15, 1994, Respondent Rizalino Navarro, then Secretary of The Department of Trade and Industry (Secretary Navarro, for brevity), representing the Government of the Republic of the Philippines, signed in Marrakesh, Morocco, the Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Negotiations (Final Act, for brevity).By signing the Final Act, 2 Secretary Navarro on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, agreed to submit, as appropriate, the WTO Agreement for the consideration of their respective competent authorities, with a view to seeking approval of the Agreement in accordance with their procedures; andto adopt the Ministerial Declarations and Decisions. On December 29, 1994, the present petition was filed. After careful deliberation on respondents' comment and petitioners' reply thereto, the Court resolved on December 12, 1995, to give due course to the petition, and the parties thereafter filed their respective memoranda. The court also requested the Honorable Lilia R. Bautista, the Philippine Ambassador to the United Nations stationed in Geneva, Switzerland, to submit a paper, hereafter referred to as "Bautista Paper," 9 for brevity, (1) providing a historical background of and (2) summarizing the said agreements.

Issues:

1. Whether the petition presents a political question or is otherwise not justiciable.

2. Whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the Senate in giving its concurrence of the said WTO agreement.

Rulings:

1. In seeking to nullify an act of the Philippine Senate on the ground that it contravenes the Constitution, the petition no doubt raises a justiciable controversy. Where an action of the legislative branch is seriously alleged to have infringed the Constitution, it becomes not only the right but in fact the duty of the judiciary to settle the dispute. "The question thus posed is judicial rather than political. The duty (to adjudicate) remains to assure that the supremacy of the Constitution is upheld." 12 Once a "controversy as to the application or interpretation of a constitutional provision is raised before this Court (as in the instant case), it becomes a legal issue which the Court is bound by constitutional mandate to decide." 13
The jurisdiction of this Court to adjudicate the matters 14 raised in the petition is clearly set out in the 1987 Constitution, 15 as follows:
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government.

2. In its Declaration of Principles and state policies, the Constitution “adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land, and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and amity , with all nations. By the doctrine of incorporation, the country is bound by generally accepted principles of international law, which are considered automatically part of our own laws. Pacta sunt servanda – international agreements must be performed in good faith. A treaty is not a mere moral obligation but creates a legally binding obligation on the parties.
Through WTO the sovereignty of the state cannot in fact and reality be considered as absolute because it is a regulation of commercial relations among nations. Such as when Philippines joined the United Nations (UN) it consented to restrict its sovereignty right under the “concept of sovereignty as autolimitation.” What Senate did was a valid exercise of authority. As to determine whether such exercise is wise, beneficial or viable is outside the realm of judicial inquiry and review. The act of signing the said agreement is not a legislative restriction as WTO allows withdrawal of membership should this be the political desire of a member. Also, it should not be viewed as a limitation of economic sovereignty. WTO remains as the only viable structure for multilateral trading and the veritable forum for the development of international trade law. Its alternative is isolation, stagnation if not economic self-destruction. Thus, the people be allowed, through their duly elected officers, make their free choice.Petitions is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

Kuroda vs. Jalandoni

2008-06-29T17:01:00.000-07:00

Facts:

Kuroda, formerly a Lieutenant-General of the Japanese Imperial Army and Commanding General of the Japanese Imperial Forces in the Philippines during a period covering 1943 and 1944, who is now charged before a Military Commission convened by the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, with having unlawfully disregarded and failed “to discharge his duties as such commander to control the operations of members of his command, permitting them to commit brutal atrocities and other high crimes against noncombatant civilians and prisoners of the Imperial Japanese Forces, in violation of the laws and customs of war”-comes before this court seeking to establish the illegality of Executive Order No. 68 of the President of the Philippines; to enjoin and prohibit respondents Melville S. Hussey and Robert Port, American attorneys from participating in the prosecution of petitioner’s case before the Military Commission; and to permanently prohibit respondents from proceeding with the case of petitioner.

Issues:

1. Does Executive Order No. 68 illegal on the ground that it violates not only the provisions of our constitutional but also our local laws, to say nothing of the fact the on Rules and Regulations covering Land Warfare and, therefore, petitioner is charged of crimes not based on law, national and international?

2. Whether or not the two American Attorneys qualified to practice law in the Philippines and the appointment of the two attorneys as prosecutors is violative of our national sovereignty?

3. Whether or not the respondent Military Commission has jurisdiction over the petitioner for acts committed in violation of the Hugue Convention and the Geneva Convention because the Philippines is not a signatory to the first and signed the second only in 1947?

Rulings:

1. Executive Order No. 68 which was issued by the President of the Philippines is valid and constitutional. Article 2 of our Constitution provided in its section 3 that “ The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, and adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the la of the nation.

2. Respondent Military Commission is a special military tribunal governed by special law and not by the Rules of Court which govern ordinary civil courts. It has already been shown that Executive Order No. 68 which provides for the organization of such Military Commission is a valid and a constitutional law. There’s nothing in said executive order which requires that counsel appearing before said commission must be attorneys qualified to practice law in the Philippines in accordance with the Rules of Court. In fact, it is common in military tribunals that counsel for the parties are usually military personnel who are neither attorneys nor even possessed of legal training. Secondly, the appointment of the two attorneys are not violative of our national sovereignty. It is only fair and proper that the United States, which has submitted the vindication of crimes against her government and her people to a tribunal of our nation, should be allowed representation in the trial of those very crimes.

3. It cannot be denied that the rules and regulations of the Hague and Geneva conventions form part of and are wholly based on the generally accepted principles of international law. In fact, these riles and principles were accepted by the two belligerent nations, the United States and Japan, who are signatories to the two conventions. Such rules and principles, therefore, form part of the law of our nation even if the Philippines were not signatory to the conventions embodying them, for our Constitution has been deliberately general and extensive in its scope and is not confined to the recognition of rules and principles of international law as contained in treaties to which our government may have been or shall be a signatory.

Boris Mejoff vs. The Director of Prisons

2008-06-29T16:59:00.000-07:00

Facts:

This is a second petition for habeas corpus by Boris Mejoff, the first having denied in a decision of this court of July 30, 1949. The history of the petitioner’s detention was: Boris Mejoff is a descent who was brought to the Philippines from Shanghai as a secret operative by the Japanese forces during the latters regime in this Islands. He was arrested as a Japanese spy by US Army Counter Intelligence Corps and handed to the Commonwealth Government for the disposition. Thereafter the People’s Court ordered his release. But it was found our by the Deportation Board that he has no travel documents and was illegally entered in this country. With this, it was ordered that he be deported on the first available transportation to Russia. On the contrary there’s no vessel available to take him back to ship the deportee abroad.
The court held the petitioner’s detention temporary and said that “temporary detention is a necessary step in the process of exclusion or expulsion of undesirable aliens and that pending arrangements for his deportation, the Government has the right to hold the undesirable alien under confinement for a reasonable length of time. Mr. Justice Paras, Mr. Justice Feustice Perfecto and the writer of this decision dissented. Stice Feria and Mr. Justice Perfecto voted for the outright discharge of the prisoner from custody. Mr. Justice Paras qualified his dissent by stating he might agree “to a further detention of the herein petitioner, provided that he be released if after six months, the government is still unable to deport him. Over two years having elapsed since the decision aforesaid was promulgated, the government has not found ways and means of removing the petitioner out of the country, and none are in sight, although, it was through no fault of theirs that no ship or country would take the petitioner. The petitioner claims that he is stateless and therefore have right to asylum.

Issue:

Whether or not the petition for habeas corpus be granted.

Ruling:

1. The petition is granted. A foreign national, not enemy, against whom no criminal detention. He also has the right to life and liberty and all other fundamental rights as applied to human beings, as proclaimed in the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations, of which the Philippine is a member. The theory on which the court is given power to act is that the warrant for his without any of law. The possibility that he might join or aid disloyal elements if turned out at large does not justify prolonged detention, the remedy in that case being to impose conditions in the order of release and exact bail in a reasonable amount sufficient sureties.

Agustin vs. Edu, in his capacity as Land Transportation Commissioner

2008-06-29T16:53:00.000-07:00

Facts:

The validity of a Letter of Instruction providing for an early warning device for motor vehicles as well as the implementing rules and regulations in Administrative Order No.1 issued by the Land and Transportation Commission is assailed in this prohibition proceeding as being violative of the constitutional guarantee of due process and, insofar as the rules and regulations for its implementation are concerned, for transgressing the fundamental principle of non-delegation of legislative power. The Letter of Instruction is stigmatized by petitioner, who is possessed of the requisite standing, as being arbitrary and oppressive. Considering the allegations contained, a temporary restraining order was issued and respondents were required to answer. Then an answer from the respondents in paragraphs X and XI(including its subparagraphs 1,2,3,4) of petition to the effect that Letter of Instruction as well as Land Transportation Commission Administrative order No. 1 and its Memorandum Circular No. 32 violates the constitutional provisions on due process of law, equal protection of law and undue delegation of police power, and that the same are likewise oppressive, arbitrary, confiscatory, one-sided, onerous, immoral, unreasonable and illegal, the truth being that said allegation are without legal and factual basis.

Issues:

1. Whether or not the petition be dismissed.

2. Whether or not the Letter of Instruction No. 229 requiring the installation of early warning devices to vehicles repugnant to the due process clause?

3. Does Letter of Instruction No. 229, as amended, violates the provisions and delegation of police power?

4. Whether or not the “early-warning device” requirement on vehicles an expensive redundancy?

5. Does the letter of Instruction compel the car owners to purchase the prescribed early warning device?

Rulings:

1. The petition must be dismissed. The petition itself quoted these two whereas clauses of the assailed Letter of Instruction: “, the hazards posed by such obstruction to traffic have been recognized by international bodies concerned with traffic safety, the 1968 Vienna Convention on Road signs and Signals and the United Nations Organization; , the said Vienna Convention which was ratified by the Philippine government under P.D, no. 207, recommended the enactment of local legislation for the installation of road safety signs and devices;” It cannot be disputed then that this Declaration of Principle found in the Constitution possesses relevance: “ The Philippine adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the la of the land, ****.” The 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals is impressed with such a character. It is not for this country to repudiate commitment to which it had pledged its word. The concept of Pacta sunt servanda stands in a way of such an attitude, which is, moreover, at war the principle of international morality

2. Letter of Instruction NO.229 requiring the installation of early warning devices to vehicles are not repugnant to the due process clause. Conjectural claims of petitioner as to number o nighttime vehicular collisions cannot be a basis for setting aside of law that was promulgated after a careful study by the Executive Department.

3. The Letter of Instruction was valid exercise of Police Power and implementing rules and regulations of respondent not susceptible to the charge that there was unlawful delegation of legislative power. Justice laurel, in the first leading decision, Calalang vs. Williams, identified police power with state authority to enact legislation that may interfere with personal liberty or property in order to promote the general welfare. Persons and property could thus be subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens in order to secure the general comfort, health and prosperity of the state. The police power is thus a dynamic agency, suitably vague and far precisely defined, rooted in the conception that men in organizing the state and imposing upon its government limitations to safeguard constitutional rights did not intend thereby to enable an individual citizen or a group of citizens to obstruct unreasonably the enactment of such salutary measures calculated to insure communal peace, safety, good order, and welfare.

4. Such early warning device requirement is not an expensive redundancy, nor oppressive, for car owners whose cars are already equipped with 1.) blinking lights in the fore and aft of said motor vehicles 2.) battery-powered blinking lights inside motor vehicles 3.) built-in reflectorized tapes on front and near bumpers of motor vehicles 4.) well-lighted two petroleum lamps.

5. There is nothing in Letter of Instruction which compels the car owners to purchase the prescribed early warning device. Vehicle owners can produce the device themselves with a little ingenuity.