war and neutrality

17
LAWS OF WAR AND NEUTRALITY - Events, Treaties, Laws, and Cases A. World War I 1. Also called First World War or Great War , an international conflict that in 28 July 1914 – 11 November 1918, embroiled most of the nations of Europe along with Russia , the United States , the Middle East , and other regions. 2. The war pitted the Central Powers —mainly Germany , Austria- Hungary , and Turkey —against the Allies—mainly France , Great Britain , Russia , Italy , Japan , and, from 1917, the United States. It ended with the defeat of the Central Powers . The war was virtually unprecedented in the slaughter, carnage, and destruction it caused. B. World War II 1. World War II ( WWII or WW2 ), also known as the Second World War , was a global war that lasted from 1 September 1939 to 2 September 1945, although related conflicts began earlier. It involved the vast majority of the world's nations —including all of the great powers —eventually forming two opposing military alliances : the Allies and the Axis . 2. It was the most widespread war in history, and directly involved more than 100 million people from over 30 countries. In a state of " total war ", the major participants threw their entire economic, industrial, and scientific capabilities behind the war effort , erasing the distinction between civilian and military resources. 3. The Empire of Japan aimed to dominate Asia and the Pacific and was already at war with the Republic of China in 1937, but the world war is generally said to have begun on 1 September 1939 with the invasion of Poland by Germany and subsequent declarations of war on Germany by France and the United Kingdom . C. American Civil War 1. The American Civil War , fought from 12 April 1861 to 9 May 1865 to determine the survival of the Union or independence for the Confederacy. Among the 34 states in January 1861, seven Southern slave states individually declared their secession from the United States and formed the Confederate States of America .

Upload: karl-lois-charlon

Post on 14-Jul-2016

9 views

Category:

Documents


6 download

DESCRIPTION

War and Neutrality

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: War and Neutrality

LAWS OF WAR AND NEUTRALITY - Events, Treaties, Laws, and CasesA. World War I

1. Also called First World War or Great War, an international conflict that in 28 July 1914 – 11 November 1918, embroiled most of the nations of Europe along with Russia, the United States, the Middle East, and other regions.

2. The war pitted the Central Powers—mainly Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey—against the Allies—mainly France, Great Britain, Russia, Italy, Japan, and, from 1917, the United States. It ended with the defeat of the Central Powers. The war was virtually unprecedented in the slaughter, carnage, and destruction it caused.

B. World War II1. World War II (WWII or WW2), also known as the Second World War, was a global

war that lasted from 1 September 1939 to 2 September 1945, although related conflicts began earlier. It involved the vast majority of the world's nations—including all of the great powers—eventually forming two opposing military alliances: the Allies and the Axis.

2. It was the most widespread war in history, and directly involved more than 100 million people from over 30 countries. In a state of "total war", the major participants threw their entire economic, industrial, and scientific capabilities behind the war effort, erasing the distinction between civilian and military resources.

3. The Empire of Japan aimed to dominate Asia and the Pacific and was already at war with the Republic of China in 1937, but the world war is generally said to have begun on 1 September 1939 with the invasion of Poland by Germany and subsequent declarations of war on Germany by France and the United Kingdom.

C. American Civil War1. The American Civil War, fought from 12 April 1861 to 9 May 1865 to determine the

survival of the Union or independence for the Confederacy. Among the 34 states in January 1861, seven Southern slave states individually declared their secession from the United States and formed the Confederate States of America.

2. The Confederacy, often simply called the South, grew to include eleven states, and although they claimed thirteen states and additional western territories, the Confederacy was never diplomatically recognized by any foreign country. The states that remained loyal and did not declare secession were known as the Union or the North.

3. The war had its origin in the factious issue of slavery, especially the extension of slavery into the western territories. After four years of combat, which had left around 750,000 Americans, Union and Confederate, dead and had destroyed much of the South's infrastructure, the Confederacy collapsed and slavery was abolished. Then began the Reconstruction and the processes of restoring national unity and guaranteeing civil rights to the freed slaves.

D. Covenant of the League of Nations1. The Covenant of the League of Nations was the charter of the League of Nations. It was

signed on 28 June 1919, and became effective on 10 January of 1920.2. Composed of three bodies:

a. The Secretariat. This permanent body was to be responsible for the administration of League policies and programs and was to be housed in Geneva, Switzerland.

Page 2: War and Neutrality

b. The Council. The Council was to be composed of nine member nations. Britain, France, Italy, Japan and the United States were to be permanent Council members. The remaining four positions were to be chosen by the Assembly on a rotating basis.

c. The Assembly. All member nations were to be represented in the Assembly and each was to have a single vote.

3. League members were to be pledged to the following, to:a. Protect the territorial integrity of other member states (Article X)b. Submit to the League disputes that threatened warc. Employ economic and military sanctions against nations that resorted to ward. Participate in arms reduction programse. Assist in the establishment of a Permanent International Court of Justice.

4. The League of Nations was dissolved on 18 April 1946, when its assets and responsibilities were transferred to the United Nations.

E. Kellogg-Briand Pact1. The Kellogg–Briand Pact (Pact of Paris, officially General Treaty for Renunciation of

War as an Instrument of National Policy) is a 1928 international agreement in which signatory states promised not to use war to resolve "disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them.

2. It was signed by Germany, France and the United States on August 27, 1928, and by most other nations soon after.

3. Sponsored by France and the U.S., the Pact renounces the use of war and calls for the peaceful settlement of disputes. Similar provisions were incorporated into the Charter of the United Nations and other treaties and it became a stepping-stone to a more activist American policy.

4. It is named after its authors, United States Secretary of State Frank B. Kellogg and French foreign minister Aristide Briand.

F. Declaration of Paris of 18561. The Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law of 16 April 1856 was issued to

abolish privateering. It regulated the relationship between neutral and belligerent and shipping on the high seas introducing new prize rules.

2. The major points in the declaration were:a. Privateering is, and remains, abolished;b. The neutral flag covers enemy's goods, with the exception of contraband of war;c. Neutral goods, with the exception of contraband of war, are not liable to capture

under enemy's flag;d. Blockades, in order to be binding, must be effective, that is to say, maintained by a

force sufficient really to prevent access to the coast of the enemy.G. Hague Convention of 1899 and 1907

1. The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 are a series of international treaties and declarations negotiated at two international peace conferences at The Hague in the Netherlands. The First Hague Conference was held in 1899 and the Second Hague Conference in 1907.

Page 3: War and Neutrality

2. Along with the Geneva Conventions, the Hague Conventions were among the first formal statements of the laws of war and war crimes in the body of secular international law. A third conference was planned for 1914 and later rescheduled for 1915, but it did not take place due to the start of World War I.

3. Subject Mattera. Both conferences included negotiations concerning disarmament, the laws of

war and war crimes. b. A major effort in both conferences was the creation of a binding international court

for compulsory arbitration to settle international disputes, which was considered necessary to replace the institution of war.

c. This effort, however, failed at both conferences; instead a voluntary forum for arbitration, the Permanent Court of Arbitration, was established.

d. Most of the countries present, including the United States, Britain, Russia, France, China, and Persia, favored a process for binding international arbitration, but the provision was vetoed by a few countries, led by Germany.

H. Geneva Convention of 19251. The Geneva Convention of 1925 or the Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use of

Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare was drawn up and signed at the conference for the supervision of the international trade in arms and ammunition, which was held in Geneva under the auspices of the League of Nations from 4 May to 17 June 1925.

2. The conference adopted a convention for the supervision of the international trade in arms, munitions and implements of war which was not entered into force and, as separate document, a protocol on the use of gases.

I. Geneva Convention of 19291. The Geneva Convention (1929) was signed at Geneva, July 27, 1929. Its official name is

the Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva July 27, 1929. It entered into force 19 June 1931.

2. It is this version of the Geneva Conventions which covered the treatment of prisoners of war during World War II. It is the predecessor of the Third Geneva Convention signed in 1949.

3. In 1921, the International Red Cross Conference held at Geneva expressed the wish that a special convention on the treatment of prisoners of war be adopted.

4. The International Committee of the Red Cross drew up a draft convention which was submitted to the Diplomatic Conference convened at Geneva in 1929.

5. The Convention does not replace but only completes the provisions of the Hague regulations. The most important innovations consisted in the prohibition of reprisals and collective penalties, the organization of prisoners' work, the designation, by the prisoners, of representatives and the control exercised by protecting Powers.

J. Geneva Convention of 19491. The Third Geneva Convention, relative to the treatment of prisoners of war, is one of

the four treaties of the Geneva Conventions. The Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War was first adopted in 1929, but significantly revised and replaced by the Third Geneva Convention of 1949.

Page 4: War and Neutrality

2. It defines humanitarian protections for prisoners of war. There are 196 state parties to the Convention.

3. Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies in non-international conflicts. It describes minimal protections which must be adhered to by all individuals within a signatory's territory during an armed conflict not of an international character (regardless of citizenship or lack thereof): Non-combatants, members of armed forces who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognised as indispensable by civilised peoples.

4. Article 3's protections exist even if one is not classified as a prisoner of war. Article 3 also states that parties to the internal conflict should endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of GCIII.

5. Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include:a. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of

such armed forcesb. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of

organised resistance movementsc. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an

authority not recognised by the Detaining Power.d. Civilians who have non-combat support roles with the military and who carry a valid

identity card issued by the military they support.e. Merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do

not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

f. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

K. Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty1. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, commonly known as

the Non-Proliferation Treaty or NPT, is an international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament.

2. Opened for signature in 1968, the Treaty entered into force in 1970. On 11 May 1995, the Treaty was extended indefinitely.

3. The NPT consists of a preamble and eleven articles. Three-pillar system of the treaty, with an implicit balance among them:

a. non-proliferation ,b. disarmament , andc. the right to peacefully use nuclear technology .

Page 5: War and Neutrality

4. The NPT is often seen to be based on a central bargain: “the NPT non-nuclear-weapon states agree never to acquire nuclear weapons and the NPT nuclear-weapon states in exchange agree to share the benefits of peaceful nuclear technology and to pursue nuclear disarmament aimed at the ultimate elimination of their nuclear arsenals”.

L. Treaty of Ghent1. The Treaty of Ghent signed on December 24, 1814 in the city of Ghent, was the peace

treaty that ended the War of 1812 between the United States and the United Kingdom.2. The treaty restored relations between the two nations to status quo ante bellum,

restoring the borders of the two countries to the lines before the war started in June 1812.

3. The Treaty was approved by the UK parliament and signed into law by the Prince Regent (the future King George IV) on December 30 1814. The Treaty of Ghent was not fully in effect until it was ratified by the U.S. Senate unanimously on February 18, 1815.

4. Agreement:a. The treaty released all prisoners and restored all captured lands and ships. Returned

to the United States were approximately 10,000,000 acres (40,000 km2) of territory, near Lakes Superior and Michigan, and in Maine.

b. American-held areas of Upper Canada (present-day Ontario) were returned to British control, and the American-held territory in Spanish Florida taken from Britain and officially-uninvolved Spain were returned to Spanish control.

c. Britain promised to return the freed black slaves that they had taken. In actuality, a few years later Britain instead paid the United States $1,204,960 for them.

d. Both nations also promised to work towards an ending of the international slave trade.

M. San Francisco Treaty on September 8, 19511. Treaty of San Francisco or commonly known as the Treaty of Peace with Japan, Peace

Treaty of San Francisco, or San Francisco Peace Treaty, mostly between Japan and the Allied Powers, was officially signed by 48 nations on September 8, 1951, at the War Memorial Opera House in San Francisco, California, United States.

2. It came into force on April 28, 1952. According to Article 11 of the Treaty of San Francisco, Japan accepts the judgments of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East and of other Allied War Crimes Courts imposed on Japan both within and outside Japan.

3. This treaty served to officially end Japan's position as an imperial power, to allocate compensation to Allied civilians and former prisoners of war who had suffered Japanese war crimes during World War II, and to end the Allied post-war occupation of Japan and return sovereignty to that nation.

N. Nuremberg Charter and Judgment1. The Charter of the International Military Tribunal – Annex to the Agreement for the

prosecution and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis(usually referred to as the Nuremberg Charter or London Charter) was the decree issued on 8 August 1945 that set down the laws and procedures by which the Nuremberg trials were to be conducted.

2. The charter stipulated that crimes of the European Axis Powers could be tried. Three categories of crimes were defined: crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against

Page 6: War and Neutrality

humanity. Article 8 of the charter also stated that holding an official position was no defense to war crimes. Obedience to orders could only be considered in mitigation of punishment if the Tribunal determined that justice so required.

3. The criminal procedure used by the Tribunal was closer to civil law than to common law, with a trial before a panel of judges rather than a jury trial and with wide allowance for hearsay evidence. Defendants who were found guilty could appeal the verdict to the Allied Control Council. In addition, they would be permitted to present evidence in their defense and to cross-examine witnesses.

4. Principles:a. Principle I: "Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under

international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment."b. Principle II: "The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which

constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law."

c. Principle III: "The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law."

d. Principle IV: "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him".

e. Principle V: "Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law."

f. Principle VI: "The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:i. Crimes against peace:

1. Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;

2. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

ii. War crimes:1. Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not

limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the Seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction ofcities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

iii. Crimes against humanity:1. Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane

acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime."

Page 7: War and Neutrality

g. Principle VII: "Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law."

O. Declaration of St. Petersburg1. The Saint Petersburg Declaration of 1868 or in full Declaration Renouncing the Use, in

Time of War, of Explosive Projectiles under 400 Grammes Weight is an international treaty agreed in Saint Petersburg, Russian Empire, November 29 /December 11, 1868. It succeeded the First Geneva Convention of 1864. It was a predecessor of the well-known Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907.

2. It was signed by the members of the International Military Commission convened for this purpose in the presence of the Imperial Cabinet of Russia.

3. The treaty provides distinction between "explosive" and "fulminating" bullets, to wit:a. An "explosive" bullet contains explosive filler that detonates on impact.b. A "fulminating" bullet contains a small unstable high explosive charge and is

designed to shatter into fragments after impact or inside the wound. They also have the added potential of detonating when jarred or while being removed, complicating first aid or surgery.

P. 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law1. Adopted by the UN General Assembly Resolution on 24 October 1970 as the “1970

Declaration on principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among states in accordance with the charter of the United Nations.”

2. Principles:a. The principle that States shall refrain in their international relations from the threat

or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

b. The principle that States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered.

c. The principle concerning the duty not to intervene in matters within the domestic jurisdiction of any State, in accordance with the Charter.

d. The duty of States to co-operate with one another in accordance with the Charter.e. The principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.f. The principle of sovereign equality of States.g. The principle that States shall fulfil that the obligations assumed by them in

accordance with the Charter. Q. Mutual Defense Treaty Between the Philippines and the USA

1. The Mutual Defense Treaty Between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America was signed on August 30, 1951 in Washington, D.C. between representatives of the Philippines and the United States. The overall accord contained eight articles and dictated that both nations would support each other if either the Philippines or the United States were to be attacked by an external party.

2. As stated in article one of the treaty each party is to settle international disputes in a peaceful manner so that the international peace is not threatened and to refrain from the threat of the use of force in any manner that is inconsistent with the purpose of the United Nations.

Page 8: War and Neutrality

3. Article II states that each party either separately or jointly through mutual aid may acquire, develop and maintain their capacity to resist armed attack.

4. Article III states that from time to time the parties will consult one another through the use of their secretaries of state, foreign ministers or consuls in order to determine the appropriate measures of implementation. The parties will also consult one another when either of the party determines that their territorial integrity, political independence or national security is threatened by armed attack in the Pacific.

5. Article four states that an attack on either party will be acted upon in accordance with their constitutional processes and that any armed attack on either party will be brought to the attention of the United Nations for immediate action.

6. Article five defines the meaning of attack and its purpose which includes all attacks by a hostile power will be held as an attack on a metropolitan area by both parties or on the island territories under its jurisdiction in the Pacific or on its armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific.

7. Article six states that this treaty does not affect, impede, or shall not be interpreted as affecting the rights and obligations of the parties under the Charter of the United Nations.

8. Article seven states that the treaty shall be ratified in accordance with the constitutional processes set delineated by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines.

9. Lastly, article eight stipulates that the treaty terms are indefinite until one or both parties wish to terminate the agreement. If the agreement is to be terminated either party must give one year advanced notice.

R. Cases1. Haw Pia VS. China Banking Corporation - G.R. No. L-554 April 9, 1948

FACTS: Haw Pia had previously contracted a loan from China Banking Corporation in the amount of P5,103.35, which, according to Haw Pia, had been completely paid, on different occasions from 1942 to 1944 through Bank of Taiwan, Ltd., which was appointed by the Japanese Military authorities as liquidator of China Banking Corp. With this, Haw Pia instituted an action against China Banking Corp. to compel the bank to execute a deed of cancellation of mortgage on the property used as security for the loan and to deliver its title. However, upon service of summons, China Banking Corp. demanded from Haw Pia for the payment of the sum of its indebtedness with interests, which also constituted its counter claim in its answer. RTC rendered a decision in favor of China Banking Corp. on the basis that there was no evidence to show that Bank of Taiwan was authorized by China Banking Corp. to accept Haw Pia's payment and that Bank of Taiwan, as an agency of the Japanese invading army, was not authorized under the international law to liquidate the business of China Banking Corp. As such, Haw Pia's payment to Bank of Taiwan has not extinguished his indebtedness to China Banking Corp.

ISSUE: Whether the Japanese Military Administration had authority to order the liquidation of the business of China Banking Corp. and to appoint Bank of Taiwan as liquidator authorized as such to accept payment

HELD: YES. Under international law, the Japanese Military authorities had power to order the liquidation of China Banking Corp. and to appoint and authorize Bank of Taiwan as liquidator to

Page 9: War and Neutrality

accept the payment in question, because such liquidation is not confiscation of the properties of China Banking Corp., but a mere sequestration of its assets which required its liquidation. The sequestration or liquidation of enemy banks in occupied territories is authorized expressly, not only by the US Army and Naval Manual of Military Government and Civil Affairs, but also similar manuals of other countries, without violating Art. 46 or other articles of the Hague Regulations. They do not amount to an outright confiscation of private property. The purpose of such sequestration, as expounded in the Annual Report of the Office of the Alien Custodian, is that enemy-owned property can be used to further the interest of the enemy and to impede their war efforts. All enemy controlled assets can be used to finance propaganda, espionage, and sabotage in these countries or in countries friendly to their cause. It is presumed that Japan, in sequestering and liquidating China Banking Corp., must have acted in accordance, either with her own Manual of the Army and Navy and Civil Affairs OR with her Trading with the Enemy Act, and even if not, it being permitted to the Allied Nations, specially the US and England, to sequestrate, impound, and block enemy properties found within their own domain or in enemy territories occupied during the war by their armed forces, and it not being contrary to Hague Regulations or international law, Japan had also the right to do the same in the Philippines by virtue of the international law principle that "what is permitted to one belligerent is also allowed to the other." Taking these into consideration, it appears that Japan did not intend to confiscate or appropriate the assets of said banks or the debts due them from their debtors. The fact that the Japanese Military authorities failed to pay the enemy banks the balance of the money collected by the Bank of Taiwan from the debtors of the said banks, did not and could not change the sequestration by them of the bank's assets during the war, into an outright confiscation thereof. It was physically impossible for the Japanese Military authorities to do so because they were forcibly driven out of the Philippines, following the readjustment of rights of private property on land seized by the enemy provided by the Treaty of Versailles and other peace treaties entered into at the close of WWI. The general principles underlying such arrangements are that the owners of properties seized are entitled to receive compensation for the loss or damage inflicted on their property by the emergency war measures taken by the enemy. Since Japan war notes were issued as legal tender, Japan was bound to indemnify the aggrieved banks for the loss or damage on their property, in terms of Phil. Pesos of US $. Since the Japanese Military Forces had power to sequestrate and impound the assets of China Banking Corp. and to appoint Bank of Taiwan as liquidator, it follows that payments of Haw Pia to Bank of Taiwan extinguished his obligations to China Banking Corp.

2. Banaag VS. Singson Encarnacion G.R. No. L-493 April 19, 1949

FACTS: Santiago Banaag prayed for a declaratory judgment under the provisions of Rule 66, upholding validity of a contract of lease executed in his favor on June 3, 1943. Petitioner then contends that said contract should be declared valid for the whole period of five years therein stipulated, from July 1, 1943, to June 30, 1948, while respondents maintain the theory that the contract or concession should be declared terminated as of the date of the liberation of the Province of Batangas or that at least, subject to suspension or cancellation at the will of the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce or of any person who may competently act in his behalf.

Petitioner advances the theory that the Executive Commission during Japanese occupation, upon whose authority the concession and adjudication of the Pansipit fisheries were granted to him was

Page 10: War and Neutrality

a de facto government and under certain limitation, obligation assumed by it in behalf of the country, will in general, be respected by the government de jure when restored.

Respondent allege that the deed of lease granted to petitioner on July 3, 1943, even if valid at its inception, cannot bind the Government of the Philippines, not only because it was not a party thereto, but because the Executive Commission was merely an instrumentality of the Japanese forces of occupation and as such must be regarded only as administration and usufructuary of the public building real estate, forest, and agricultural works situated in the occupied country, and that the deed of lease in question should be deemed terminated with the establishment of the Commonwealth upon the principle that a government of occupation can let lands and buildings and make contracts in reference to them only for such time as it is in occupation "may be suspended or cancelled at any time as the circumstances demand and it should be presented upon the demand of competent authorities."

ISSUE: Whether or not Mr. Banaag has the right to continue in occupying the fisheries.

HELD: NO. The said deed of lease having expressly provided that the concession "may suspended or cancelled at any time as the circumstances demand" — and no one question the authority of the municipality of Taal and Lemery, to which the Pansipit fisheries belong, to suspend or cancel the deed of lease in behalf of the Philippines Government and it appearing that said municipalities have actually demanded from petitioner the return of the administration and occupation of said fisheries since August 17, 1945, it is evident that petitioner lost since then his right to continue administering and occupying said fisheries.

The deed of lease executed on June 3, 1943, by Florencio Tamesis, Director of Forestry and Fishery, in favor of petitioner Santiago Banaag is declared cancelled and without effect since the liberation of the Province of Batangas or, at lease, since August 17, 1945.

Yamashita vs Styer G.R. No. L-129 December 19, 1945

FACTS: Petitioner Tomoyuki Yamashita, the commanding general of the 14th army group of the Japanese Imperial Army in the Philippines, after his surrender became a prisoner of war of the United States of America but was later removed from such status and placed in confinement as an accused war criminal charged before an American Military Commission constituted by respondent Lieutenant General Styer, Commanding General of the United States Army Forces, Western Pacific.Filing for habeas corpus and prohibition against respondent, he asks that he be reinstated to his former status as prisoner of war, and that the Military Commission be prohibited from further trying him. He questions, among others, the jurisdiction of said Military Commission.Issue/s:1. Should the petitions for habeas corpus and prohibition be granted in this case?2. Was the Military Commission validly constituted by respondent, therefore having jurisdiction over the war crimes?Ruling: 1. NO. 2. YES.1. A petition for habeas corpus is improper when release of petitioner is not sought. It seeks no discharge of petitioner from confinement but merely his restoration to his former status as a

Page 11: War and Neutrality

prisoner of war, to be interned, not confined. The relative difference as to the degree of confinement in such cases is a matter of military measure, disciplinary in character, beyond the jurisdiction of civil courts. Prohibition cannot issue against one not made party respondent. Neither may the petition for prohibition prosper against Lt. Gen. Wilhelm D. Styer. The Military Commission is not made party respondent in this case, and although it may be acting, as alleged, without jurisdiction, no order may be issued in these case proceedings requiring it to refrain from trying the petitioner.The Court further ruled that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition even if the commission be joined as respondent. As it has said, in Raquiza vs. Bradford (pp. 50, 61, ante), “. . . an attempt of our civil courts to exercise jurisdiction over the United States Army before such period (state of war) expires, would be considered as a violation of this country’s faith, which this Court should not be the last to keep and uphold.”2. Under the laws of war, a military commander has an implied power to appoint and convene a military commission. This is upon the theory that since the power to create a military commission is an aspect of waging war, military commanders have that power unless expressly withdrawn from them.By the Articles of War, and especially Article 15, the Congress of the United States has explicitly provided, so far as it may constitutionally do so, that military tribunals shall have jurisdiction to try offenders or offenses against the laws of war in appropriate cases.