You are on page 1of 4

The difference between the territorial sea and the exclusive economic

zone is that the first confers full sovereignty over the waters, whereas
the second is merely a "sovereign right" which refers to the coastal
state's rights below the surface of the sea.

The contiguous zone is a band of water extending farther from the


outer edge of the territorial sea to up to 24 nautical miles from the
baseline, within which a state can exert limited control for the purpose
of preventing or punishing "infringement of its customs, fiscal,
immigration or sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or
territorial sea".

“The Nine Dash Line is used as a demarcation line by the government


of China for their claims over the South China Sea.”

In the exclusive economic zone, all States have freedoms as to the


navigation and overflight and of the laying of submarine cables and
pipelines, and other internationally lawful uses of the sea.

However, in exercising their rights and performing their duties under


this Convention in the exclusive economic zone, States shall have
due regard to the rights and duties of the coastal State and
shall comply with the laws and regulations adopted by the
coastal State.

The coastal State shall have exclusive jurisdiction over such artificial
islands, installations and structures, including jurisdiction with regard
to customs, fiscal, health, safety and immigration laws and
regulations.

NOTES

I. STATE IMMUNITY
State immunity, is a principle of customary international law, by
virtue of which one sovereign state cannot be sued before the courts
of another sovereign state without its consent. Put in another way, a
sovereign state is exempt from the jurisdiction of foreign national
courts.

According to the classical or absolute theory, a sovereign cannot,


without its consent, be made a respondent in the courts of another
sovereign.

According to the newer or restrictive theory, the immunity of the


sovereign is recognized only with regard to public acts or acts jure
imperii of a state, but not with regard to private acts or acts jure
gestionis.
If the act is in pursuit of a sovereign activity, or an incident thereof,
then it is an act jure imperii, especially when it is not undertaken for
gain or profit. WHICH MEANS: For commercial transactions, state
immunity cannot be invoked.

RULING: HOLY SEE CASE VS ROSARIO

HOLY SEE CAN INVOKE STATE IMMUNITY. Lot 5-A was acquired by
petitioner as a donation from the Archdiocese of Manila. The donation
was made not for commercial purpose, but for the use of petitioner to
construct thereon the official place of residence of the Papal Nuncio.
The decision to transfer the property and the subsequent disposal
thereof are clothed with a governmental character because petitioner
did not sell Lot 5-A for profit or gain.

II. DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY

Three (3) Classes of of persons who may invoke immunity from writs,
legal processes and arrests.

1) Diplomats
2) Agents, Representatives or Officials of states
3) Officials or representatives of international organizations.

RULING: WHO VS AQUINO

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, 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.

It is a settled principle that courts may not so exercise their


jurisdiction as to embarrass the executive arm of the government in
conducting foreign relations, by assuming an antagonistic jurisdiction.

III. IMMUNITY FROM ARREST OF HEADS OF STATE

RULING: CONGO VS BELGIUM

It is an established principle of international law that Heads of States and


Governments, Foreign Ministers and Diplomatic and Consular agents enjoy
immunities from civil and criminal jurisdictions of other States.

These immunities “…are not given for their personal benefit; but to
ensure the effective performance of their functions of behalf of
their…States”. The functions of the Foreign Minister require frequent travel
to other countries. International law recognizes him as a representative of
the State solely by virtue of his office. The functions of a Foreign Minister
are such that – during his tenure – he enjoys absolute immunity from
criminal jurisdiction and inviolability when he is abroad.
Four situations where an incumbent or former Foreign Minister could be
prosecuted:

a. Prosecution in his own country according to the domestic law ;

b. If his country waives his immunity, then prosecution before a foreign


court;

c. Once he ceases to be the Foreign Minister, he no longer enjoys


immunity before foreign courts for private acts committed during his
tenure as Foreign Minister; and for all acts committed before or after his
tenure in office; and

d. Prosecution before an international criminal body, with the necessary


jurisdiction (for example the ICC).

You might also like