Public International Law Cases

Texaco v. Libya, 17 ILM or 53 ILR 389,

1978
Doctrines:
In determining the binding nature of the GA
resolution, the court looked at the voting patterns of
the participant states. It is generally recommendatory
but may serve as an indicia of norm.
When there was clear evidence of contrary opinio
juris by a number of States, including specially
affected ones, international case-law has held that the
existence of a rule of customary international was not
proven.

Texaco v. Libya, 17 ILM or 53 ILR 389,

1978
Facts:

Texaco was operating in Libya under 14 different concession agreements. However

sometime in 1973 and 1974, the Libyan Government promulgated decrees
purporting to nationalize all of the rights, interest and property of Texaco in Libya.
Texaco objected claiming:
Violation of the terms and conditions of their Deeds of Concession including Clause 28,
permitting international arbitration.

The Sole Arbitrator held that

(a) the Deeds of Concession are binding on the parties,
(b) by adopting the measures of nationalization, the Libyan Government breached its
obligations arising under the Deeds of Concession and
(c) the Libyan Government is legally bound to perform the Deeds of Concession and to give
them their full force and effect.

Libyan government argued:

with respect to nationalization, municipal law should govern and not international law.

Several UN GA resolutions were invoked by both parties mainly related to

expropriation and the standards set for compensation.

Texaco v. Libya, 17 ILM or 53 ILR 389,

1978
Issue: Whether or not the UN GA resolutions were binding to the parties.
Held:
Yes. With regard to the legal value of UN GA resolutions, it must be
determined on the basis of the circumstance under which they were
adopted and an analysis of the principles they state, as in the case, voting
pattern of the member states were specifically looked into. Further, to be
binding, they must be accepted by the majority of members including
those specially affected.
The UN GA Resolution No. 1803 had these characteristics, while those
cited by the Libyan Govt indeed showed a vote of the majority, but it
lacked the sufficient support by one group of specially affected nations.
The consensus by a majority of States belonging to the various
representative groups indicate without the slightest doubt universal
recognition of the rules incorporated. Thus customary law is based on
state practice and opinio juris.

BP v. Libya, 53 ILR 297

Facts:
BP Exploration Company (BP) had a contractual agreement with the
Government of Libya (Libya), which allowed BP to operate in Libya
for the extraction, processing and export of petroleum under
Concession 65
However, Libya, on December 1971 passed the BP Nationalization
Law, which nationalized the operations of BP in Concession 65, then
transferred such rights to a new company, the Arabian Gulf
Exploration Company.
As a result of the Nationalization Law which (which was rapidly
implemented), BPs operations in Consession 65 were brought to a
complete halt and its staff were immediately excluded from the
premises and facilities. The Arabian Gulf Exploration Company had
taken over Concession 65.

BP v. Libya, 53 ILR 297

Issues:
WON the law that governs is international or
municipal law.
WON the remedies of specific performance,
restitution or damages is available.

BP v. Libya, 53 ILR 297

Held:
1. Clause 28 provided a governing system of law, that
in the absence of principles common to the Libyan
and International law, general principles of law,
including those that may have been applied by
international tribunals, should apply. As in the case,
the general principles of a contract such as
autonomy, mutuality, consensuality and obligatory
force are observed. An obligation must be
performed and the law between the parties must be
complied with in good faith.

BP v. Libya, 53 ILR 297

2. Both specific performance(SP) and restitution is
unavailable. SP is not available as under the general
principles of law, no uniform principle provides for
such option. Unavailability of restitution is not
based on legal impossibility but impracticability.
Under PIL and the BP Nationalization Law, the norm
of payment is damages and compensation,
respectively.

Saudi Arabia v. Arabian American Oil

Company, 27 ILR 117
Facts:
The dispute refers to the meaning of Art. 1 of the Concession
Agreement of 1933, as amended, which provided that the company
had the exclusive right to explore, prospect, drill for, extract,
treat, manufacture, transport, deal with, carry away and export
petroleum. Aramco entered into agreements with regular
purchasers whereby the purchasers could themselves transport oil
from certain Arabian outlets.
In 1954, the Saudi Arabian Government entered into an agreement
with Aristotle Onassis to establish a private company, Saudi Arabian
Maritime Tankers Co., Ltd. (SATCO), which was to transport Arabian
oil. ARAMCO objected to SATCO tankers receiving priority in
transporting oil, and invoked the arbitration provision of art. 1 of
the Concession Agreement.

Saudi Arabia v. Arabian American Oil

Company, 27 ILR 117
Issue: WON the general doctrines of private international law are
applicable.
Held:
In so far as the Tribunal is empowered to determine the law to be
applied, it will do so by resorting to the general doctrine of Private
International Law;
that a concession agreement has a double character ; it involves,
first, a State act and,
second, rights of ownership vested in the concessionaire;

that the rules of Moslem law clearly demonstrate that the oil
Concession of Aramco has a contractual character;
that [t]he Concession Agreement is thus the fundamental law of the
Parties and the Arbitration Tribunal is bound to recognize its particular
importance owing to the fact that it fills a gap in the legal system of
Saudi Arabia with regard to the oil industry.

The Law on Treaties

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) is
a treaty concerning the international law on treaties
between states.
Only applies to treaties concluded between states.
Ratified by 113 states as of Jan. 2013
Those that have not ratified: recognize it as a restatement
of customary law and binding upon them as such.

Important Dates:

Beginning of drafting: 1949 by International Law Commission

Adoption: May 22, 1969
Opened for signature: May 23, 1969
Entered into force: January 27, 1980

Definition of Treaty
"an international agreement 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. - VCLT

Qatar v. Bahrain, ICJ 1994

Doctrine: No particular form is prescribed for treaties thus exchange of notes between two heads
of states are considered international agreements
Facts:
Qatar brought suit against Bahrain in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to determine
whether two exchanges of letters between the countries constituted international
agreements establishing a jurisdictional basis for the ICJ to hear all disputes between Qatar
and Bahrain.
1st letter was drafted by the Amirs of Qatar and Bahrain through the mediation of the King of
Saudi Arabia in 1987.
The second document, titled Minutes had been signed in Qatar by the Ministers of Foreign
Affairs of Bahrain in 1990, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia.
Qatar argued that the two documents were international agreements creating an obligation
for Qatar and Bahrain to submit to the ICJ the whole of their dispute involving sovereignty
over certain islands, sovereign rights over certain shoals, and the delimitation of a maritime
boundary between the two States.
Bahrain argued that the two documents did not constitute international agreements,
especially the second document as it is simply a record of negotiations and that Qatar did not
have a jurisdictional basis for bringing a unilateral suit in the ICJ.

Qatar v. Bahrain, ICJ 1994

Issue: WON the two documents constituted international agreements.
Held:
YES. The ICJ found that both the 1987 and 1990 exchanges and their
resulting documents constituted international agreements as
international agreements may take a number of forms and be given
a diversity of names as supported by Art 2, par 1 of the Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969).
Document examination showed that the document did not merely
give an account of discussions and summarize points of agreements
or disagreements. Rather, it enumerated the commitments to
which the parties consented thus, they created rights and
obligations in international law for the Parties.

Air France vs Saks 470 US 392

Doctrine: If there is conflict in official texts, the language that is agreed by the
parties as authoritative is followed.
Facts:
Valerie Saks, suffered a permanent hearing loss in her left ear while she was a
passenger on an international flight operated by the defendant airline, Air France,
allegedly caused by normal cabin pressurization changes during landing.
Saks sued Air France for damages under Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention,
which makes air carriers liable for injuries sustained by a passenger "if the accident
which caused the damage so sustained took place on board the aircraft or in the
course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking."
District court ruled in favor of Air France: injury caused by an air carrier's normal
operation is not an "accident" (defined by precedent as "unusual or unexpected"
happening) within the meaning of Article 17.
The CA reversed stating that airlines are imposed with absolute liability on airlines
for injuries proximately caused by the risks inherent in air travel; and that normal
cabin pressure changes qualify as an "accident" within the definition contained in
Annex 13 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation as meaning "an
occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft."

Air France vs Saks 470 US 392

Issue: WON Air France is liable under the Warsaw Convention.
Held:
NO. Liability only arises if a passenger's injury is caused by an
unexpected or unusual event or happening (definition of accident) that
is external to the passenger and only when the passenger proves that
an accident was the cause of the injury.
To determine the definition of accident, the Court, interpreted the
treaty is the following manner: . "Treaties are construed more
liberally than private agreements, and to ascertain their meaning
we may look beyond the written words to the history of the treaty,
the negotiations, and the practical construction adopted by the
parties."
France: Accident = a fortuitous, unexpected, unusual, or unintended
event
Britain, Germany, US = event of a person's injury

Abaya v. Sec. Ebdane, G.R. No. 167919,

February 14, 2007
Doctrine: Although International instruments differ from each other by title, they all have
common features and international law has applied basically the same rules to all. Their rules
apply to all of those instruments as long as they meet the common requirements.
Facts:
Japan and the Philippines entered into a loan agreement made through the Japan Bank for
International Cooperation(JBIC) for the rehabilitation of a bridge in Catanduanes . They
evidenced such agreement with an Exchange of Notes.
All the necessary procedures on procurement under the agreement were followed by DPWH.
(from bidding to contract award)
Abaya et al: NULLIFY resolution as neither of the agreements are considered a treaty nor an
executive agreement. They stress that the parties must be 2 sovereigns or states in these
agreements. What should therefore apply to the loan, is not what was set forth by the JBIC,
but RA 9184 of the Philippine Procurement Act.
Sec. Ebdane, et al characterize foreign loan agreements, including the one at bar, as
executive agreements and should be complied with pursuant to the fundamental principle
in international law of pacta sunt servanda. They also cite Section 20, Article 7 of the
Constitution which authorizes the president to contract or guarantee foreign loans in behalf
of the Philippines with concurrence of the Monetary. They stand that the agreement is a
contract and must be complied with in good faith.

Abaya v. Sec. Ebdane, G.R. No. 167919,

February 14, 2007
Issue: WON the procurement loan is an executive agreement or a treaty.
Held:
Executive Agreement. The Loan agreement taken in conjunction with the
exchange of notes is an executive agreement.
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. 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.
Although International instruments differ from each other by title, they all
have common features and international law has applied basically the
same rules to all. Their rules apply to all of those instruments as long as
they meet the common requirements.