YOUMAN CASE (art 4&7)

Mexican military forces, under command of officer, instead of protecting American

citizens attacked by mob, opened fire on Americans, as a result of which all were killed
either by armed forces or by mob.
The Mexican authorities argued that since the soldiers had acted in complete disregard
of their instructions, Mexico could not be responsible for the deaths.
The tribunal recognized that a state might not be responsible for the malicious acts of
officials acting in a personal capacity but held that a state would almost invariably be
responsible for wrongful acts committed by soldiers under the command of an officer.
The soldiers in this case had been under the immediate supervision and in the presence
of their commanding officer. On the other hand, if the troops had been off duty, their
acts would probably have been regarded merely as the acts of private individuals.

CAIRE CLAIM
Facts:
Caire, a French national, was killed in Mexico by Mexican soldiers after they
had demanded money from him.
Issue:
w/n Mexico is responsible for actions of individual military personnel acting
without orders or against the wishes of their commanding officers
Held:
French-Mexican Claims Commission held that Mexico was internationally
responsible for the conduct of the army officers. In this regard, Presiding
Commissioner Verzijl observed that, under the doctrine of objective
responsibility (state responsibility for the acts of state officials or state
organs even in the absence of fault on the part of the state), a state is
internationally responsible for acts committed by its officials or organs
outside their competence if the officials or organs acted at least to all
appearances as competent officials or organs, or used powers or methods
appropriate to their official capacity .

Applying this principle to the facts of the present case,

Presiding Commissioner Verzijl concluded as follows:
The officers in question consistently conducted
themselves as officers ; in this capacity they began by
exacting the remittance of certain sums of money; they
continued by having the victim taken to a barracks of the
occupying troops; and it was clearly because of the refusal
of M Caire to meet their repeated demands that they finally
shot him. Under these circumstances, there remains no
doubt that, even if they are to be regarded as having acted
outside their competence, which is by no means certain,
and even if their superior officers issued a counter-order,
these two officers have involved the responsibility of the
State, in view of the fact that they acted in their capacity
of officers and used the means placed at their disposition

HOME MISSIONARY SOCIETY CLAIM

(US v. BRITAIN)
The collection of a tax newly imposed by Great Britain on the natives of
Sierra Leone known as the hut tax was the signal for a serious and
widespread revolt in the Ronietta district.
In the course of rebellion, all US Missions were attacked, and either
destroyed or damaged, and some of the missionaries were murdered.
US contends that British Government is responsible for the revolt since
it wholly failed to take proper steps for the maintenance of order and
the protection of life and property, and that the loss of life and damage
to property is the result of such neglect.
Issue:
w/n the revolt is attributable to the British Government

Held:
Even assuming that the hut tax was the effective
cause of the native rebellion, it was in itself a fiscal
measure to which British Government was perfectly
entitled to exercise.
It is well established principle of international law that no
government can be held responsible for the act of
rebellious bodies of men committed in violation of its
authority, where it is itself guilty of no breach of good
faith, or of no negligence in suppressing insurrection.

US v. Iran
In its Judgment in the case concerning United States Diplomatic and
Consular Staff in Tehran, the Court decided (1) that Iran has
violated and is still violating obligations owed by it to the United
States; (2) that these violations engage Iran's responsibility; (3)
that the Government of Iran must immediately release the United
States nationals s held as hostages and place the premises of the
embassy in the hands of the protecting power; (4) that no member
of the United States diplomatic or consular staff may be kept in Iran
to be subjected to any form of judicial proceedings or to participate
in them as a witness; (5) that Iran is under an obligation to make
reparation for the injury caused to the United States; and (6) that
the form and amount of such repatriation, failing agreement
between the parties, shall be settled by the Court.

 The Court finds that Iran, by committing successive and

continuing breaches of the obligations laid upon it by
the Vienna Conventions of 196 1 and 1963, the 1955
treaty, and the applicable rules of general international
law, has incurred responsibility towards the United
States. A$; a consequence, there is an obligation on the
part of the Iranian State to make reparation for the
injury caused to the United States. Since, however, the
breaches are still continuing:, the form and amount of
such reparation cannot be determined.

Chattin v. Mexico
This claim is made by the United States of America against the United
Mexican States on behalf of B. E. Chattin, an American national.
Chattin, who since 1908 was an employee (at first freight conductor,
thereafter passenger conductor) of the Ferrocarril Sud-Pacifico de
Mexico (Southern Pacific Railroad Company of Mexico) and who in the
Summer of 1910 performed his duties in the State of Sinaloa, was on
July 9. 1910, arrested at Mazatln. Sinaloa, on a charge of
embezzlement; was tried there in January, 1911, convicted on
February 6, 1911, and sentenced to two years' imprisonment; but was
released from the jail at Mazatln in May or June, 1911, as a
consequence of disturbances caused by the Madero revolution.
He then returned to the United States. It is alleged that the arrest, the
trial and the sentence were illegal, that the treatment in jail was

Issue:
Whether the proceedings of the court of Mexico
are wrongful acts in the eyes of International
Standards.

Held:
It was proven that accused had not been dully informed regarding the charges brought
against him and that the hearings in open court lasted only some five minutes.
Clearly, there is a violation of International standard. The proceedings of Mexican
authorities were insufficient and unjust. There was a denial of justice.
A delinquency represents a violation of the international standards. If a mistreatment
should amount to an outrage, to bad faith, to willful neglect of duty or to an
insufficiency of governmental action so far short of international standards that every
reasonable and partial man would readily recognize its insufficiency.
Equality of treatment doctrine states that a state should treat an alien exactly as it
treats its own nationals, no better no worse.

Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino

Respondent American commodity broker contracted with a Cuban corporation
largely owned by United States residents to buy Cuban sugar. Thereafter,
subsequent to the United States Government's reduction of the Cuban sugar
quota, the Cuban Government expropriated the corporation's property and
rights. To secure consent for shipment of the sugar, the broker, by a new
contract, agreed to make payment for the sugar to a Cuban instrumentality
which thereafter assigned the bills of lading to petitioner, another Cuban
instrumentality, and petitioner instructed its agent in New York to deliver to
the broker the bills of lading and sight draft in return for payment. The broker
accepted the documents, received payment for the sugar from its customer,
but refused to deliver the proceeds to petitioner's agent. Petitioner brought
this action for conversion of the bills of lading to recover payment from the
broker and to enjoin from exercising dominion over the proceeds a receiver
who had been appointed by a state court to protect the New York assets of the
corporation.

The District Court concluded that the corporation's property interest

in the sugar was subject to Cuba's territorial jurisdiction, and
acknowledged the "act of state" doctrine, which precludes judicial
inquiry in this country respecting the public acts of a recognized
foreign sovereign power committed within its own territory. The court
nevertheless rendered summary judgment against the petitioner,
ruling that the act of state doctrine was inapplicable when the
questioned act violated international law, which the District Court
found had been the case here. The Court of Appeals affirmed,
additionally relying upon two State Department letters which it took
as evidencing willingness by the Executive Branch to a judicial
testing of the validity of the expropriation.

Held:
The act of state doctrine applies and is desirable with
regard to a foreign expropriation even though the
expropriation allegedly violates customary international
law.
The privilege of resorting to United States courts being
available to a recognized sovereign power not at war
with the United States, and not being dependent upon
reciprocity of treatment, petitioner has access to the
federal courts

INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL ALLIANCE OF EDUCATORS

(ISAE) v. HON. LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
International School (IS) pays its teachers who are hired
from abroad, or foreign-hires, a higher salary than its
local-hires, whether the latter are Filipino or not (most are
Filipino, but some are American). It justifies this under
the dislocation factor that foreigners must be given a
higher salary both to attract them to teach here, and to
compensate them for the significant economic
disadvantages involved in coming here. The Teachers
Union cries discrimination.

 HELD: Discrimination exists. Equal pay for equal work is a principal long
honored in this jurisdiction, as it rests on fundamental norms of justice.
1.
Art. XIII, Sec. 1 of the Constitution (Social Justice and Human Rights)
exhorts Congress to give the highest priority to the enactment of measures
that protect and ennhance the right od all people to human dignity, reduce
social, economic, and political inequalitites. The Constitution also provides
that labor is entitled to humane conditions of work.. These conditions are
not restricted to the physical workplace, but include as well the manner by
which employers treat their employees. Lastly, the Constitution directs the
State to promote equality of employment opportunities for all,
regardless of sex, race, or creed. It would be an affront to both the spirit
and the letter of these provisions if the State closes its eyes to unequal and
discriminatory terms and conditions of employment.

 International law, which springs from general principles

of law, likewise proscribes discrimination. General
principles of law include principles of equity, i.e.,
fairness and justice, based on the test of what is
reasonable. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and numerous other international Conventions all
embody the general principle against discrimination,
the very antithesis of fairness and justice. The
Philippines, through its Constitution, has incorporated
this principle as part of its national laws.

Nottebohm case
Nottebohm, born September 16, 1881, in Hamburg, Germany,
possessed German citizenship. Although he lived in Guatemala from
1905 until 1943 he never became a citizen of Guatemala. On
October 9, 1939, Nottebohm applied to become a naturalized
citizen of Liechtenstein. The application was approved and he
became a citizen of Liechtenstein. He then returned to Guatemala
on his Liechtenstein passport and informed the local government of
his change of nationality. When he tried to return to Guatemala
once again in 1943 he was refused entry as an enemy alien since
the Guatemalan authorities did not recognise his naturalisation and
regarded him as still German. It has been suggested that the timing
of the event was due to the recent entry of the United States and
Guatemala into the Second World War.

 He was later extradited to the United States, where he was held

at an internment camp until the end of the war. All his
possessions in Guatemala were confiscated. After his release, he
lived out the rest of his life in Liechtenstein.
The Government of Liechtenstein granted Nottebohm protection
against unjust treatment by the government of Guatemala and
petitioned the International Court of Justice. However, the
government of Guatemala argued that Nottebohm did not gain
Liechtenstein citizenship for the purposes of international law.
The court agreed and thus stopped the case from continuing.

 Key Principle:

Nationality as a basis for exercising jurisdiction must

be real and effective to give a right to a state who has
conferred it. Real and effective link with the state of
nationality necessary. Right to diplomatic protection and
protection by means of international judicial
proceedings only arises when proper nationality link
exist between the individual concerned and the state
seeking to exercise such rights [Effective Nationality
Theory]