DAYEdalera
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Man of the Hour
The Boss was really amazing. I haven’t met a person as superb as him, when it comes to law and things personal.
To answer your WHY?’s here is a recital of how the Boss awed me today:
First, I was reading the whole day a heinous crime case and was really confused on how to dispose of the ‘issues’ raised on appeal. Nearly 4pm when I seek the opinion of our judicial staff head, I was successful to get her confused too, that is why both of us were arguing as to how to dispose of the case. The Boss butted in and listened to our discussion, and then he simply stated a 10-15 sentence explanation on how the issue shall be discussed. The Boss was absolutely correct and he thought of it instant. Wow! that was quick. It ends up with me and our staff head admiring the sharp reasoning of the Boss.
Second, I haven’t told the Boss yet of a recent career development, I am suppose to tell him tomorrow when he is already on a weekend mood, but to my surprise I guess he felt I am concealing something from him that when he had the opportunity, I was cornered and he was able to get a confession. Thank God, somebody called at his cellphone that our conversation was cut short and I am given ample time to think of what to say correctly.
Third, I don’t know how he really manages stress, I guess more than his cigar and his beanie stress ball, he has some unique laughing hormones that make his smile show the wonders of a school-boy smile.
I wish to be like him someday. Sharp, Perceptive and always Happy.
To answer your WHY?’s here is a recital of how the Boss awed me today:
First, I was reading the whole day a heinous crime case and was really confused on how to dispose of the ‘issues’ raised on appeal. Nearly 4pm when I seek the opinion of our judicial staff head, I was successful to get her confused too, that is why both of us were arguing as to how to dispose of the case. The Boss butted in and listened to our discussion, and then he simply stated a 10-15 sentence explanation on how the issue shall be discussed. The Boss was absolutely correct and he thought of it instant. Wow! that was quick. It ends up with me and our staff head admiring the sharp reasoning of the Boss.
Second, I haven’t told the Boss yet of a recent career development, I am suppose to tell him tomorrow when he is already on a weekend mood, but to my surprise I guess he felt I am concealing something from him that when he had the opportunity, I was cornered and he was able to get a confession. Thank God, somebody called at his cellphone that our conversation was cut short and I am given ample time to think of what to say correctly.
Third, I don’t know how he really manages stress, I guess more than his cigar and his beanie stress ball, he has some unique laughing hormones that make his smile show the wonders of a school-boy smile.
I wish to be like him someday. Sharp, Perceptive and always Happy.
.JPG)
4 Comments:
Clarisse C. San Felipe
BPS 4-2
1. Yes, because it deals important relations for the welfare of each contracting states and has a friendly relations for the benefit of both states enter into a treaty.
2. Sovereign states can enter into executive agreements for external relations with other states
3. Treaty's impact to domestic legislation is that wether the treaty making process resides in a given states is answered by the municipal law.
4. During the treaty negotiations, we at State C were able to observe proper protocol. We have sent negotiation letters with State A and State B regarding our state's proposal.
5. State C, during the negotiation process, had difficulty in maintaining friendly relations with other state, particularly State A.
6. State C did not gain any reward. This is due to the State B's termination of their treaty with State C.
7. State C do not acquire more benefits compared to other two states.
8. If State C lost in the bargaining process, the next step should be the filing of Letter of Action complaining on the action of State B to enter into a treaty with State A even if they had an exclusive agreement on the distribution of LPG with State C.
kristine tyrol rosales
bps ir 4-2
1. Is it imperative for states to enter into treaties? Explain.
a. Treaty is considered legal and binding that encapsulates all the frameworks to coordinate, harmonize or even rationalize the policies, negotiations, strategies and objective for the benefits of the concerned states. It enhances the idea of equality and equity among states, solidarity peace and security, human rights and rule of law and the balance or mutual benefit. The involved states are expected to demonstrate their commitment to act in accordance with the set rules in a certain treaty that directly affect the lives of individual citizens of said states as it assumed the force of national laws.
b. The need for treaties has increased as the world's interdependence has intensified. Continuing technological innovation, economic globalization and the growth of transnational’s has resulted in an enormous increase in the frequency and rapidity of global interaction. Such challenges require both national and international responses. Where a problem cannot be adequately addressed by a country acting alone acting cooperatively at the international level becomes essential for a country to protect its own interests.
2. Why do States enter into treaties/ executive agreements? Discuss.
a. Government has to enter into innumerable deals and treaties, more so in an age of globalization.
b. In regional organizations or states relations, states enter treaties to promote regional peace and stability through abiding respect for justice and the rule or law and enhancing regional resilience in their relations.
c. In the settlement of differences or disputes between countries, it should be regulated by rational, effective and sufficiently flexible procedures, avoiding negative attitudes which might endanger or hinder cooperation. Thus treaty responds to these.
d. Poor nations, often rich in diversity, are always demanding assurances that commercial benefits will be shared. But international companies have hesitated to commit themselves to expensive deals. Thus binding treaty setting binds them for stricter rules for benefit sharing.
e. Moreover, treaties serve as a leeway to open, enhance or improve the ties between states and to provide better avenue for having benefits consented by both parties.
3. What is the impact of a treaty in domestic legislation?
a. States must implement parts of treaties in domestic law to ensure they can meet their treaty obligations. While it is a matter for States to determine how to go about this implementation, a failure to implement appropriately may have serious consequences for a State under international law. Such a failure could lead to a dispute with another State, resulting in proceedings before an international court or tribunal. Proceedings of this type can impose significant financial and political costs.
b. Problems could arise from the application of treaty implementing legislation which might be void under domestic laws. One important cause of such defect is the lack of clarity in the provisions of the Constitution on the treaty implementation process into national laws, thus resulting in problems on the constitutionality of such treaty and implementing legislation.
c. Secondly, there have been problems on the application of domestic laws implementing treaty obligations due their force and status which are equal to the legislation concerned, i.e. an Act or delegated legislation as the case may be. As a consequence, a problem may arise in the event where a treaty implementing legislation becomes contrary to or inconsistent with a subsequently enacted law. In such a case, Thai courts are bound to apply and interpret laws in accordance with the rule of law under which subsequent laws repeal prior laws. The treaty obligations on such matter are thus rendered unenforceable domestically.
4. Were you able to observe the proper protocol, exchange of letters during the treaty negotiations?
a. Negotiation. Negotiation can take various forms: bilateral treaties involve only two countries, while multilateral involve many countries, complicating the process. But who actually negotiates? In most countries, this function is given to some part of the executive branch (prime minister, president, etc.) who often delegates it to a Cabinet Minister (Secretary of State, Foreign Minister) who delegates to a group of government officials or private citizens who become part of delegation, which is expert in the area of the treaty (telecommunications, shipping, environment, etc.). The process for doing this varies in each country, but it is rare in the modern world for leaders to personally negotiate treaties.
How do you know if the person you are negotiating with actually has the authority to negotiate? This is sometimes discussed as the "full powers" question. This is important because negotiation is a delicate process and in the course of negotiation confidential information may be revealed as positions change and compromises are reached. International Law says that a country has a right to rely upon the representation of the delegate that he has the authority to negotiate if either a) he presents formal documents to that effect like the letter of credence of ambassador or b) it appears that from the circumstances that the country intended to allow that person to act as an official representative.
(State A was able to show imaginary letter of credence carried by the ambassador that the President has consented, however the two states failed to do soand the negotiations appears informal and wasn’t able to show proper de quorum).
b. Signature. Unlike a contract, a signature alone rarely makes a treaty binding. Most states require a process of ratification or accession. A signature certifies that the document signed reflects the outcome of negotiation. Under international law, while a signature does not bind a country to the treaty, there is some authority that a state that signs a treaty has a duty not to defeat the object of the treaty after it has signed it (unless it renounces the treaty).
(State A and State B signed the written treaty. State C has different actions. All states signed.)
c. Ratification. The process of ratification is determined by domestic procedures in each state.
(State A doesn’t perform any ratification method, they assumed that it has been done since there is no time for making such procedures)
d. Registration. Generally, most treaties are registered, that is they are deposited with some authority, such as the UN or regional authorities. This allows other countries to officially know of the agreements and prevents "secret diplomacy." Often this is not an explicit requirement affecting the validity of a treaty.
e. Entering Into Force. How a treaty enters into force is often stated in the treaty itself. A bilateral treaty generally enters into force after it is ratified by both parties and a certain period of time, specified in the treaty, passes. Multilateral treaties usually require a certain number of ratifications, or ratifications by specific countries to enter into force. Notice, that the treaty enters into force between the parties, but that domestic law may be needed to give effect to the treaty.
(All states assumed to register and passed the copy of treaties.)
5. What are the challenges and difficulties your State has to encountered?
Some of the challenges that our state encountered is the time when there is the existence in the gap of expectations, visions and motives. These entered when our State is trying to suffice the need of State B and C as part of the international state social responsibility and obligations. Both can offer water as our State needs but State C wanted to maintain the strict adherence of the treaty we made. Another, we offered solutions, win-win solutions but the other State still firm on prohibiting our state for making an agreement with the other state. Next, is to make a final judgment of what we will do in this case, that is to economically sanction the state that we think is selfish and detrimental for our national interest and hamper our state of building relations with other states. Last, is the lacking of good faith of one state and how it ruined every single mean to provide benefits for all that leads to the exhaustion of our means therefore creating gap between us and State C.
6. What are the rewards your State has gained after the conclusion of the treaty.
First, the circumstances have given as the chance to be the arbiter and the judge on the issue for the States B and C need for LPG.
Second, the negotiation let us be able to see the intentions and motives of states we are relating to and which state has been the cause of dispute and which should we don’t have to trust.
Third, if only State C has not been unreasonable of prohibiting us to accept the offered help from State B as their gratitude of helping them having LPG, our State could have double help for the supply of water we could get at cheaper price.
7. Do you think your State acquired more benefit compared to the other? Explain.
We are in the position that both States B and C needed LPG which is only produced by our State. Both states has water that our state needed. Both expressed their willingness to help us to supply water in our country. The decision is in our hand and from this point, we can say that we got the advantage of the situation.
However, as our international responsibility to maintain amity to any other nations, our state finds solutions to remedy the existing problem and come up to a win- win solution for all. But due to the lacking of good faith of State C we decided the situation to favor State B and punish State C for its selfish intention and unconsented intervention.
8. If you think your State has lost in the bargaining process, what is your next state action? Discuss.
State A would never loose the bargaining process since we offered the best method to remedy the problem where all would be benefited and that could lead to the expansion of friendly relations. (Since State C wanted strict adherence of the treaty we made before as to the exclusivity of production of LPG, that refusing to follow such would create gap or dispute between us, we offered to double the production in exchange of State C would export LPG to State B as they concededly understand the others need for LPG. As to consider the fear of State B for the value that would be added by State C in LPG, we offered and promised them to lower the cost and prices for them to be able to get same price or amount of LPG that State C has to offer or with a very minimal added value. State B agreed. Bottom line, state A and C still maintain the strict adherence of the exclusivity of production and State A helps indirectly State B by double pumping and the production with no or little benefit. State B as their appreciation for the efforts we made offered the help for our problem to the supply of water. But State C, with unclear reason of insisting us not to make treaty as to help offered by State B. We withdraw the treaty we made from them for their intervention of our sovereign right of accepting aid to other country and their selfishness of intention.
1. treaties are necessary but not obligatory. international agreement between 2 states are manifestation that a sovereign country exists. it defines the mere exixtence of a nation as a nation can only engage into bilateral agreement when all other recognizes it as capable of carrying it out.
2. it is practical for a state to enter into executive agreements these help into ecomic, economic development of country. mutualism is the name of the game. what a nation lacks can be provided by another and vice versa more often than not more efficient, less costly as everthing is settled and written on papers laid before and decided by the most capable people of the contracting states. these treaties aswell make a nation an international person/figure. treaties strengten a nations position in the arena of international politics. engaging into a treaty is a safe move of a country against possible intrusion of outer forces.
3. most treaties a nation engage into are for the purposes of domestic legislation and local development. agreements such as the jpepa are created to help out the economy. it may be a treaty signed by and between two internatonal persons but the end product shall be enjoyed by the locals of both parties.
4. no. it is different from the actual exchange of demands and proposals but the purposes is the same as both aspire to meet in between.
5. the close and exclusive relationship the other state would like to preserve. state c closes its door from any other agreement offered by other nations. as a state with an exclusive agreement with c, we become limited to the moves we can contract with other states.
6. we made a treaty with state a in view that this is a healthier relationship. we have lost the tight relationship with state c but in the long run we can make more treaties with other nations as state c got no hold of us anylonger.
7. yes as i explained in #6.
8. we lost our bargaining process with state c. if everything else also fails with state a, then we'll open door for a more free market and trade.
Post a Comment
<< Home