The document discusses several key concepts in international law: - The Principle of Reciprocity in relationships which defines a human tendency to want to give back when receiving something. - Sovereignty refers to the ultimate authority and jurisdiction of a state over its people and territory. - The key differences between treaties and executive agreements in how the US becomes party to international agreements - treaties require two-thirds Senate approval while executive agreements do not. - Other concepts discussed include baselines, which establish maritime boundaries, and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which defines rights and responsibilities of nations in using the oceans.

1. 1
What is the Principle of Reciprocity?
A basic tenet in the psychology of relationships is called the Principle of Reciprocity. This principle
defines the human need and tendency to want to give something back when something is received.
This need is strongest when the gift is given without expectation of return. But even at the lowly (but
important) level of simple social graces, a “thank you” (in response to an act of kindness or
compliment) is still followed by another reciprocal gesture of accommodation “you’re welcome.”
Not only are we compelled to give something back when a gift is received we are also compelled not
to feel indebted to others. The strongest and longest lasting interpersonal relationships are based on
the Principle of Reciprocity, and this extends far into the best relationships between sellers and
buyers.
In international relations and treaties, the principle of reciprocity states that favours, benefits, or
penalties that are granted by one state to the citizens or legal entities of another, should be returned
in kind.
According to the Principle of AUTO-LIMITATION:
Sovereignty is the property of the state-force due to which it has the exclusive capacity of legal self-
determination and self-restriction.
Doctrine wherein the Philippines adheres to principles of international law as a limitation to the
exercise of its sovereignty. It means that any state may, by its consent, express or implied, submit to
a restriction of its sovereign rights.
A state then, if it chooses, to, may refrain from the exercise of what otherwise is illimitable
competence. There may thus to be a curtailment of what otherwise is a power plenary in character.
-Reagan vs CIR, GR No. L-26379, December 27, 1969
What is Sovereignty?
Under current international law, sovereignty is defined as follows:
Sovereignty in the sense of contemporary public international law denotes the basic international
legal status of a state that is not subject, within its territorial jurisdiction, to the governmental,
executive, legislative, or judicial jurisdiction of a foreign state or to foreign law other than public
international law1
It is also defined as the '[u]ltimate authority, held by a person or institution, against which there is no
appeal'.2
In other words, Sovereignty is the ultimate power, authority and/or jurisdiction over a people
and a territory. No other person, group, tribe or state can tell a sovereign entity what to do
with its land and/or people. A sovereign entity can decide and administer its own laws, can
determine the use of its land and can do pretty much as it pleases, free of external influence
(within the limitations of international law).
In political theory, sovereignty is a substantive term designating supreme authority over some polity.
It is a basic principle underlying the dominant Westphalian model of state foundation.
The United Nations is a global organization that brings together its member states to confront
common challenges, manage shared responsibilities and exercise collective action in an enduring
quest for a peaceful, inclusive and sustainably developing world, in conformity with the principles of
justice and international law
The United Nations (UN) is an intergovernmental organization tasked to promote international
cooperation and to create and maintain international order. A replacement for the ineffective League
of Nations, the organization was established on 24 October 1945 after World War II with the aim of
preventing another such conflict. At its founding, the UN had 51 member states; there are now 193.
The headquarters of the UN is in Manhattan, New York City, and is subject to extraterritoriality.

2. 2
Further main offices are situated in Geneva, Nairobi, and Vienna. The organization is financed by
assessed and voluntary contributions from its member states. Its objectives include maintaining
international peace and security, promoting human rights, fostering social and economic
development, protecting the environment, and providing humanitarian aid in cases of famine, natural
disaster, and armed conflict. The UN is the largest, most familiar, most internationally represented
and most powerful intergovernmental organization in the world.[3]
Extradition treaties or agreements. The consensus in international law is that a state does not have
any obligation to surrender an alleged criminal to a foreign state, because one principle of sovereignty
is that every state has legal authority over the people within its borders.
Extradition is the act by one jurisdiction of delivering a person who has been accused of committing
a crime in another jurisdiction or has been convicted of a crime in that other jurisdiction into the
custody of a law enforcement agency of that other jurisdiction. It is a cooperative law enforcement
process between the two jurisdictions and depends on the arrangements made between them.
Besides the legal aspects of the process, extradition also involves the physical transfer of custody of
the person being extradited to the legal authority of the requesting jurisdiction.[1]
Through the extradition process, one sovereign jurisdiction typically makes a formal request to
another sovereign jurisdiction ("the requested state"). If the fugitive is found within the territory of the
requested state, then the requested state may arrest the fugitive and subject him or her to its
extradition process.[2] The extradition procedures to which the fugitive will be subjected are dependent
on the law and practice of the requested state.[2]
Between countries, extradition is normally regulated by treaties. Where extradition is compelled by
laws, such as among sub-national jurisdictions, the concept may be known more generally
as rendition. It is an ancient mechanism, dating back to at least the 13th century BC, when an
Egyptian Pharaoh, Ramesses II, negotiated an extradition treaty with Hittite King, Hattusili III.[2]
The concept of association is used in describing relationships between entities in an entity
relationship model or classes in an object model. The basic concept is the same regardless of the
type of modeling technique being used. For the purposes of consistency this concept description uses
the object oriented modeling term "class" for the "things" being related.
An association describes a relationship between two classes of object that must be remembered by a
system. For example, in a complaint management system an incident triggers a complaint. The
system must remember which complaints were triggered by which incidents. Associations can also
encapsulate the basic business rules of an organisation. For example an insurance claim must be
associated with an insured person.
The vast majority of associations involve two classes (binary) but on occasion can involve three
(ternary) or more. Where possible all associations should be decomposed into binaries as ternaries
and above are difficult to conceptualize.
Retorsion (from French: rétorsion, from Latin: retortus, influenced by Late Latin, 1585–95, torsi, a
twisting, wringing),[1] a term used in international law, is an act perpetrated by one nation upon
another in retaliation for a similar act perpetrated by the other nation. The typical methods of retorsion
are the use of comparably severe measures against citizens of the foreign nation found within the
borders of the retaliating nation.[2][3] It is different from a reprisal in that the retorsion is always an
action in conformity with international law, though unmistakably an unfriendly one. Examples
include international trade, where disputes within the World Trade Organization are typically tackled
in this manner, if dispute settlementdoes not reach its goal.
Retorsion also signifies the act by which an individual returns to his adversary evil for evil
Wrongful acts — Reprisals — Countermeasures — Representation of states in international
organizations — Acts of international organizations

3. 3
Published under the auspices of the Max Planck Foundation for International Peace and the Rule of
Law under the direction of Rüdiger Wolfrum.
1 At one time the term retorsion was used in a broad sense including all forms of retaliation by one
State against another for all kinds of unwelcome acts by the latter. Today, retorsion covers only those
reactions which do not interfere with the target State’s rights under international law. Reactions which
do are nowadays termed reprisals or, in the usage of the International Law Commission (ILC) ’s Draft
Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (‘Draft Articles’) of 2001 ,
countermeasures . These are only permissible in response to...
International human rights law (IHRL) is the body of international law designed to promote human
rights on social, regional, and domestic levels. As a form of international law, international human
rights law is primarily made up of treaties, agreements between sovereign states intended to have
binding legal effect between the parties that have agreed to them; and customary international law.
Other international human rights instruments, while not legally binding, contribute to the
implementation, understanding and development of international human rights law and have been
recognized as a source of political obligation.[1]
The relationship between international human rights law and international humanitarian law is
disputed among international law scholars. This discussion forms part of a larger discussion on
fragmentation of international law.[2] While pluralist scholars conceive international human rights law
as being distinct from international humanitarian law, proponents of the constitutionalist approach
regard the latter as a subset of the former.[3] In a nutshell, those who favors separate, self-contained
regimes emphasize the differences in applicability; international humanitarian law applies only during
armed conflict.
On the other hand, a more systemic perspective explains that international humanitarian law
represents a function of international human rights law; it includes general norms that apply to
everyone at all time as well as specialized norms which apply to certain situations such as armed
conflict between both state and military occupation (i.e. IHL) or to certain groups of people including
refugees (e.g. the 1951 Refugee Convention), children (the Convention on the Rights of the Child),
and prisoners of war (the 1949 Third Geneva Convention).
The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 is an international treaty that defines a
framework for diplomatic relations between independent countries. It specifies the privileges of
a diplomatic mission that enable diplomats to perform their function without fear of coercion or
harassment by the host country. This forms the legal basis for diplomatic immunity. Its articles are
considered a cornerstone of modern international relations. As of February 2017, it has been ratified
by 191 states. Throughout the history of sovereign states, diplomats have enjoyed a special status.
Their function to negotiate agreements between states demands certain special privileges. An envoy
from another nation is traditionally treated as a guest, their communications with their home nation
treated as confidential, and their freedom from coercion and subjugation by the host nation treated as
essential.
The first attempt to codify diplomatic immunity into diplomatic law occurred with the Congress of
Vienna in 1815. This was followed much later by the Convention regarding Diplomatic Officers
(Havana, 1928).
The present treaty on the treatment of diplomats was the outcome of a draft by the International Law
Commission. The treaty was adopted on 18 April 1961, by the United Nations Conference on
Diplomatic Intercourse and Immunities held in Vienna, Austria, and first implemented on 24 April
1964. The same Conference also adopted the Optional Protocol concerning Acquisition of Nationality,
the Optional Protocol concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes, the Final Act and four
resolutions annexed to that Act.
Two years later, the United Nations adopted a closely related treaty, the Vienna Convention on
Consular Relations

4. 4
The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) is a treaty concerning the international
law on treaties between states. It was adopted on 23 May 1969[3] and opened for signature on 23
May 1969.[1] The Convention entered into force on 27 January 1980.[1] The VCLT has been ratified by
116 states as of January 2018.[2] Some countries that have not ratified the Convention, such as
the United States,[4] recognize parts of it as a restatement of customary law and binding upon them as
such. The VCLT was drafted by the International Law Commission (ILC) of the United Nations, which
began work on the Convention in 1949.[3] During the twenty years of preparation, several draft
versions of the convention and commentaries were prepared by special rapporteurs of the
ILC.[3] James Brierly, Hersch Lauterpacht, Gerald Fitzmaurice and Humphrey Waldock were the four
special rapporteurs.[3] In 1966, the ILC adopted 75 draft articles which formed the basis for the final
work.[5] Over two sessions in 1968 and 1969, the Vienna Conference completed the Convention,
which was adopted on 22 May 1969 and opened for signature the following day.
• Baselines serve as basis for a country’s maritime jurisdiction and a means to establish maritime
boundaries with neighboring coastal States. • Establishment of archipelagic baselines – will meet
requirements of statehood – fulfill Philippine treaty obligations under UNCLOS – clearly define
Philippine maritime zones under UNCLOS including the ECS claim
A baseline, as defined by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, is the line along the
coast from which the seaward limits of a state's territorial sea and certain other maritime zones of
jurisdiction are measured, such as a state's exclusive economic zone.
The baselines of the Philippines (Filipino: Mga batayang-guhit ng Pilipinas) are the set of geodesic
lines completely encircling the main Philippine archipelago from where the maritime entitlements of
the country are measured from. It was first established in 1961[1] by an act of the Congress of the
Philippines which was further amended in April 2009 to optimize and conform it to the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea, which the Philippines is a signatory to. A total of 101 basepoints
providing for 100 baselines were identified under Republic Act 9522, which identified Amianan
Island as the northernmost, Frances Reef as the southernmost, Pusan Point as its easternmost and
the Balabac Great Reef as the westernmost points of the main Philippine archipelago.
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), also called the Law of the Sea
Convention or the Law of the Sea treaty, is the international agreement that resulted from the third
United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III), which took place between 1973 and
1982. The Law of the Sea Convention defines the rights and responsibilities of nations with respect to
their use of the world's oceans, establishing guidelines for businesses, the environment, and the
management of marine natural resources. The Convention, concluded in 1982, replaced four
1958 treaties. UNCLOS came into force in 1994, a year after Guyana became the 60th nation to ratify
the treaty.[1] As of June 2016, 167 countries and the European Union have joined in the Convention. It
is uncertain as to what extent the Convention codifies customary international law.
While the Secretary General of the United Nations receives instruments of ratification and accession
and the UN provides support for meetings of states party to the Convention, the UN has no direct
operational role in the implementation of the Convention. There is, however, a role played by
organizations such as the International Maritime Organization, the International Whaling Commission,
and the International Seabed Authority (ISA). (The ISA was established by the UN Convention.)
UNCLOS replaces the older 'freedom of the seas' concept, dating from the 17th century: national
rights were limited to a specified belt of water extending from a nation's coastlines, usually 3 nautical
miles (5.6 km) (Three-mile limit), according to the 'cannon shot' rule developed by the Dutch
jurist Cornelius van Bynkershoek.[4] All waters beyond national boundaries were
considered international waters: free to all nations, but belonging to none of them (the mare
liberum principle promulgated by Hugo Grotius).[5]
In the early 20th century, some nations expressed their desire to extend national claims: to include
mineral resources, to protect fish stocks, and to provide the means to enforce pollution controls.
(The League of Nations called a 1930 conference at The Hague, but no agreements resulted.) Using
the customary international law principle of a nation's right to protect its natural resources,
President Harry S. Truman in 1945 extended United States control to all the natural resources of
its continental shelf. Other nations were quick to follow suit. Between 1946 and 1950, Chile, Peru,
and Ecuador extended their rights to a distance of 200 nautical miles (370 km) to cover

5. 5
their Humboldt Current fishing grounds. Other nations extended their territorial seas to 12 nautical
miles (22 km)
What is the difference between a treaty and an executive agreement?
As explained in greater detail in 11 FAM 721.2, there are two procedures under domestic law through
which the United States becomes a party to an international agreement. First, international
agreements (regardless of their title, designation, or form) whose entry into force with respect to the
United States takes place only after two thirds of the U.S. Senate has given its advice and consent
under Article II, section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution are "treaties." Second, international
agreements brought into force with respect to the United States on a constitutional basis other than
with the advice and consent of the Senate are "international agreements other than treaties" and are
often referred to as "executive agreements." There are different types of executive agreements.
Treaties can be referred to by a number of different names: international conventions, international
agreements, covenants, final acts, charters, protocols, pacts, accords, and constitutions for
international organizations. Usually these different names have no legal significance in international
law. Treaties may be bilateral (two parties) or multilateral (between several parties) and a treaty is
usually only binding on the parties to the agreement. An agreement "enters into force" when the
terms for entry into force as specified in the agreement are met. Bilateral treaties usually enter into
force when both parties agree to be bound as of a certain date.
For more information on treaties, see Thomas Buergenthal & Sean Murphy, Public International Law
in a Nutshell (4th ed. 2007) or the Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (UCB only).
U.S. TREATIES AND AGREEMENTS
'Domestically, treaties to which the United States is a party are equivalent in status to Federal
legislation, forming part of what the Constitution calls 'the supreme Law of the Land.' Yet, the word
treaty does not have the same meaning in the United States and in international law.[1] The Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties defines a treaty "as 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." [2]
Under United States law, however, there is a distinction made between the
terms treaty and executive agreement. "In the United States, the word treaty is reserved for an
agreement that is made 'by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate' (Article II, section 2,
clause 2 of the Constitution). International agreements not submitted to the Senate are known as
'executive agreements' in the United States." [3] Generally, a treaty is a binding international
agreement and an executive agreement applies in domestic law only. Under international law,
however, both types of agreements are considered binding. Regardless of whether an international
agreement is called a convention, agreement, protocol, accord, etc.; if it is submitted to the Senate for
advice and consent, it is considered a treaty under United States law.