FINALS Flashcards
can State A acquire jurisdiction over the offense?
On the premise that the
domestic law of State A acknowledges or
adopts passive nationality, State A can acquire jurisdiction over the crime even if it is committed extraterritorially because the
victim is its national and international law recognizes passive nationality. Same thing
with active. On the premise that the domestic law of State A adopts active nationality, then it can have jurisdiction because the offender is its national and
international law acknowledges active nationality as basis for extraterritorial jurisdiction.
Suppose, two or more states
would contest on their jurisdiction to
prosecute, unya it will have to be resolved
by the ICJ. National siya sa State A, ang
State A adopts jus soli and X, the offender,
was born in State A. Pero iyahang parents
kay citizens man of State B and State B
adopts jus sanguinis. So citizen sad siya by
birth of State B. But by virtue of investment
naka-adopt siya ug citizenship sa State C.
Which state can have jurisdiction?
Theoretically silang tulo naa. But suppose
there will be a contest now because let’s
say the offender is found or had been
arrested by the officers of State A. And
State B would now claim, please extradite
that because we also have jurisdiction. How
do we resolve that issue?
here is no specific rule that deals with that
issue in international law but we can apply
by way of analogy. So what we use in
international law is we can apply mutatis
mutandis, we can apply by way of analogy.
The solution adopted by the ICJ in
Nottebohm Case (Liechtenstein vs.
Guatemala, ICJ,1955)
conditions for extradition
- there is a treaty
- person committed extraditable offense
- person arrested, detained, and asked to respond the complaint for extradition
- should not cover political offenses
- ex post facto does not apply
trevane’s request to be extradited when there was no charge, is this valid?
note : NA to investigation purposes. needs a CHARGE(criminal indictment)
States A and B entered into an
extradition treaty in 2020 covering the
offense of murder among others.
Extradition treaty between States A and B
entered into force in 2020. Now, State A
makes a request on State B because Juan
facing a murder case in State A is found in
State B. State A is requesting State B. But
the offense was committed in 2015.
The correct answer is no. That is a
misapplication of the ex post facto law
because ex post facto law is applicable in a
penal law. Extradition treaty is not a penal
law. It’s just a procedure, it is not a
punishment.
If a criminal is found in the territory of a state, which does not cooperate by voluntarily surrendering the criminal to the
requesting state, precisely for example because there is no extradition treaty, The only remaining recourse on the part of that state trying to have custody of the criminal is to
ABDUCT him abroad as in the practice of the US
RENDITION may be in the form of
- extradition
- abduction
- deportation
if there is an
extradition treaty between the United
States and Mexico, would an abduction of a
criminal in Mexico, a breach of the
extradition treaty.
No, because the extradition treaty does not prohibit abduction
the sending state is state A, the receiving state is state B. This diplomat however, is found in another territory, let’s say state C,
taking a vacation for example, and there, found to be committing an offense, and this
diplomat now in state C, not the receiving state, not the sending state, would invoke diplomatic immunity, immune from
jurisdiction now
the grant of immunity
is a duty of the receiving state and not the duty of any other state. And therefore, state C has no obligation to grant the diplomat assigned in state B, personal
inviolability.
basic zoens provided by Law of the SEa
AI TECCH
- Area
- internal waters
- territorial waters
- exclusive economic zones
- contiguous waters
- continental shelf
- high seas
X, american, possess marijuana, on board MV Francois, registered in France
While essel was in British internal waters, when called out by Y, a Filipino captain of he vessel, X killed Y
a. which court has JD
b. would your answer be the same if the MV Francois was in territorial sea of UK? why/why not
c. will your answer be the same if the case involved a NAVAL ship of France? (gov’t ship)
a.
subjective &objective extra-territoriality
passive & active nationality
[b]
yes since that is still the territory of the state
french rule
british rule
[c]
No, coastal states do not exercise JD over gov’t ships as they are not ivolved in commercial activities BUT due to misconduct, coastal state may ask gov’t ship to leave
when is their valid exercise of right of innocent passage
- not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security
- generally, continuous & expeditious
legally how to get China out of west phil sea?
- invoke Art. 60 of UNCLOS that coastal states have exclusive right to construct,
- invoke Art. 73 enforcing laws & regulation
EEZ vs. Continental Shelf
insofar as SURPLUS is concerned
once coastal state determines “allowable catch”, if the same cannot exploit the declared allowable catch, it results to SURPLUS which other states, with consent of coastal state can exploit such surplus [EEZ]
In case of CS, even if no exploitation by coastal, there is NO SUCH THING AS SURPLUS and thus is always reserved to the coastal
what are the freedom on the high seas?
freedom of
- navigation
- fishing,
- laying of submarine cables & piplines
- overflight
