DAYEdalera

50 Comments:

 Heidi_Ortiz said...

ONLINE QUIZ:

HEIDI R. ORTIZ BPS 4-2

1. Is it imperative for States to enter into treaties? Explain.
For me It is imperative for a state to enter a treaties because being as an individual state, they cannot achieve the important reforms in their country. Even they are the richest or most influential states in the world they cannot achieve or eternally achieve their stability as the most powerful states without concerning or making a communication to other countries which A formal agreement between two or more states, as in reference to terms of peace or trade.

2. Why do States enter into treaties / executive agreements? Discuss.
States go through into treaties because a treaties can be loosely compared to contracts: both are means of willing parties assuming obligations among themselves, and a party to either that fails to live up to their obligations can be held liable under international law for that breach. Around the Treaty to be achieve important reforms in their country that can reduce violence and discrimination for example. a measures have been taken against sex slavery, domestic violence and trafficking of women; millions of girls are now receiving primary education that were previously denied access; women's health care services have improved, saving lives during pregnancy and childbirth; and millions of women have secured essential loans and the basic right to own or inherit property. so that no one will fierce the privileges of another country.

3. What is the impact of a treaty to domestic legislation?
The impact of a treaty into domestic legislation is that they make a country to be acknowledged by other country.

During the workshop:

4. Were you able to observe the proper protocol, exchange of letters during the treaty negotiations?
For a beginner to enter into a treaty during in our class, there is no proper protocol because during negotiation of our group to other country, some group or country enters to our states that not being acknowledged by our state and while during exchanging of letter into negotiation I could say we made it appropriately.

5. What are the challenges and difficulties your State has encountered?
The main difficulties our state come upon was we don’t have proper decorum in particular the state C that enters in our state. Also the state C is a egotistic into the treaty.

6. What are the rewards your State has gained after the conclusion of the treaty?
The rewards that our state gained was first we had a new partnership with the State A, secondly we get what we want or need ”water’ then lastly we did not make our state a self-interested not like state C.

7. Do you think your State acquired more benefit compared to the other two States? Explain.
Yes! I think our state which state B, have more profit than other state because we get what we want and we did not make conflict to other state.

8. If you think your State lost in the bargaining process, what is your next state action? Discuss.
I think if our state was lost in the bargaining process, our state should do first was find another way to revise the treaty that we drafted and try again to negotiate again and if we failed again. find another state that fits in out need and go into a making treaty process.

9:36 PM  

 Heidi_Ortiz said...

ONLINE QUIZ:

HEIDI R. ORTIZ BPS 4-2

1. Is it imperative for States to enter into treaties? Explain.
For me It is imperative for a state to enter a treaties because being as an individual state, they cannot achieve the important reforms in their country. Even they are the richest or most influential states in the world they cannot achieve or eternally achieve their stability as the most powerful states without concerning or making a communication to other countries which A formal agreement between two or more states, as in reference to terms of peace or trade.

2. Why do States enter into treaties / executive agreements? Discuss.
States go through into treaties because a treaties can be loosely compared to contracts: both are means of willing parties assuming obligations among themselves, and a party to either that fails to live up to their obligations can be held liable under international law for that breach. Around the Treaty to be achieve important reforms in their country that can reduce violence and discrimination for example. a measures have been taken against sex slavery, domestic violence and trafficking of women; millions of girls are now receiving primary education that were previously denied access; women's health care services have improved, saving lives during pregnancy and childbirth; and millions of women have secured essential loans and the basic right to own or inherit property. so that no one will fierce the privileges of another country.

3. What is the impact of a treaty to domestic legislation?
The impact of a treaty into domestic legislation is that they make a country to be acknowledged by other country.

During the workshop:

4. Were you able to observe the proper protocol, exchange of letters during the treaty negotiations?
For a beginner to enter into a treaty during in our class, there is no proper protocol because during negotiation of our group to other country, some group or country enters to our states that not being acknowledged by our state and while during exchanging of letter into negotiation I could say we made it appropriately.

5. What are the challenges and difficulties your State has encountered?

The main difficulties our state come upon was we don’t have proper decorum in particular the state C that enters in our state. Also the state C is a egotistic into the treaty.

6. What are the rewards your State has gained after the conclusion of the treaty?

The rewards that our state gained was first we had a new partnership with the State A, secondly we get what we want or need ”water’ then lastly we did not make our state a self-interested not like state C.

7. Do you think your State acquired more benefit compared to the other two States? Explain.

Yes! I think our state which state B, have more profit than other state because we get what we want and we did not make conflict to other state.

8. If you think your State lost in the bargaining process, what is your next state action? Discuss.
I think if our state was lost in the bargaining process, our state should do first was find another way to revise the treaty that we drafted and try again to negotiate again and if we failed again. find another state that fits in out need and go into a making treaty process.

9:37 PM  

 Anonymous said...

1. No, it is not imperative for the state to enter into treaty but it is necessary for the states to enter such. State has the capacity and competence to enter into a treaty or a binding international agreement with other states or their “Treaty –making capacity”. This capacity to enter into treaty is a manifestation of statehood and its independence, in law, from the authority of any other states. However, according to the requisites for a valid treaty, presence of consent from the involved parties must be freely given, because a mere obligatory or imperative may void the treaty. Aside from that, it is the state’s discretion in entering such treaty.
One of the requisites for a valid treaty; “ Parties must freely give consent; the consent of a state may be expressed by signature, exchange of instruments constituting a treaty, ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, or by other means manifesting consent. Where the consent of a party has been given in error or induced through fraud on the party of other or the “doctrine of unequal treaties”, the treaty is voidable.”

2. States enter into treaty for the purpose of:
• regulating their mutual relations under the law of nations;
• to enable the parties to settle finally actual and potential conflicts;
• to make it possible for the parties to modify rules of international customary law by means of optional principles or standards;
• to pave way for the transformation of unorganized international society into one which may be organized on any chosen level of social integration;
• To provide the humus for the growth of international customary law.
• And also for the state survival or state’s self-preservation

3. The impact of treaty in the domestic legislation is that it became part of the constitution as it is incorporated to the municipal law.

STATE B

4. Yes, all groups followed the proper protocol, exchange of letters during the treaty negotiations. Each party designated a person or persons to represent their state for negotiating, adopting or authenticating the text of a treaty, expressing the state’s consent in to be bound by a treaty or accomplishing any other act with respect to a treaty. These groups of persons representing each state for treaty are made up of foreign minister, and the head of diplomatic mission, it can also be the head of the state. However, group C, had a differing stand during the treaty negotiations, they are not consolidated into one stand so as to made confusion to other states.

5. Being a member of the middle party (state B), our situation in the treaty is very crucial. While observing our treaty obligations to state C, we cannot also disregard our necessity of water. Different offers are made by state C, they offer us water, but as a state advocating for international peace, we cannot also ignore the necessity of other state which is state A. Our state also offer state C for the equal benefit, so as also to provide the necessity of state A while providing our both necessity. But still state C refused.

6. Well due to unacceptable demand of state C, our state concluded to withdraw our treaty obligations to state C. Through that action of withdrawal were able to help state A for their necessity of LPG and in turn our necessity of water.

7. In essence, our state benefited equally to state A because both provide for each state’s necessity. And for state C, I think we concluded the right choice of withdrawal, because we cannot disregard the necessity of other state if in fact our state can also give help.

8. After various negotiations to state C, and concluding unacceptable demand, our state swiftly resolved the negotiation in withdrawing our treaty obligations to state C. That act of withdrawal resulted from being possessive of state C and disregarding the necessity of state A.

-Josephine C. Lucero
BPS IR 4-2

5:57 PM  

 Anonymous said...

SANCHEZ, ANALEN B.
BPS-IR 4-2

1. “No man is an island”-a very common and widely-known quote that have been continuously passed to the new generations. Indeed, a man can not live alone, he need other people for his survival. He needs the aid of other beings in order to enrich his spiritual, physiological, psychological, sociological, and political aspects of his life. Applying the said worthy quote in the existence of a state, “No state can not live alone”. Even major power countries need the help of other states even the small and weak states. It is imperative for States to enter into treaties. Treaties are vital tools for a State’s international communication and relations between and among other states whether minor or major power States. Treaty is a way of showing friendly relations with other countries; it is sometimes the way of a state in organizing its alliance with other states. There is no perfect state that acquires all the vital matters needed in order to preserve its existence. There will always come a time, or an emergency that may occur that will push through a State to enter into a treaty.

2. As what I have answered in preceding question, there is no perfect state. A state needs the aid of other state to enhance its economic and political aspects. Even Philippines though rich in various resources, still our country lacks many things. If a state wants to be powerful, it must have a tactful way of establishing a healthy relation with other state, and one good way of doing it is by entering into a treaty. A treaty is vital tool for a state for its world recognition, for its survival and preservation. A treaty is also needed for peace preservation. It is also a good tool to settle conflicts and disputes. Treaty is the formal way of making friends of as state with other states.

3. The impact of a treaty to domestic legislation depends upon the way in which is implemented. If the treaty is self-executing, then the treaty becomes part of municipal jurisprudence/law. If the treaty is not self-executing, then the treaty does not become part of municipal law. Treaties can sometimes violate domestic law. If that case so happen, domestic law shall prevail over the treaty. It is still the domestic law that should ruled over to avoid domestic problems and for the State’s preservation.

4. Our group (State C) were not able to observe all proper protocol, there some lacking exchange of letters during the treaty negotiations. Maybe due to the actions (also violent actions made by other members of other states) done by other, our group forgot to observe proper protocols. The activity was so active and alive. Exchange of negotiations was so intense, that different people belonging to each state became dramatic especially State C.

5. It was hard and tough decision that our State should make. Making a treaty with State A without harnessing the treaty with State C. It was hard for our State to negotiate with State C, for our State thinks that State C is so selfish and possessive, that they even don’t want our State to befriend with State A. Our State’s purpose is also to establish a friendly relation with State A, and by that, the problem of our State and the problem of State A be both solved. Different negotiations were done with State C, but State C was so tough and hard with its decision.

6. After the treaty with State A, our state have benefitted from it. Our State’s water problem (a problem which needs an urgent wise decision) was solve, our State have gained a friendly relation with State A, and it could also project that the treaty done between our State and State A is a start of an alliance. And the problem of State A was also solved; our State had helped a State which is also in need. A “symbiotic relationship” was obtained.

7. Yes, our water problem was solved. We have established a new relation with State A. Unlike State C, they have loss of LPG, our State is offering a good deal with State C but they rejected a profitable deal. Our State’s image was still preserve, for other States will understand that a primary problem should be taken a wise decision, and no State will put its country in danger.

8. I don’t think our State (State B) lost in the bargaining process. For I still adhere to my answer in the preceding question(#7).

(",)

6:25 PM  

 Anonymous said...

physiological, psychological, sociological, and political aspects of his life. Applying the said worthy quote in the existence of a state, “No state can not live alone”. Even major power countries need the help of other states even the small and weak states. It is imperative for States to enter into treaties. Treaties are vital tools for a State’s international communication and relations between and among other states whether minor or major power States. Treaty is a way of showing friendly relations with other countries; it is sometimes the way of a state in organizing its alliance with other states. There is no perfect state that acquires all the vital matters needed in order to preserve its existence. There will always come a time, or an emergency that may occur that will push through a State to enter into a treaty.

2. As what I have answered in preceding question, there is no perfect state. A state needs the aid of other state to enhance its economic and political aspects. Even Philippines though rich in various resources, still our country lacks many things. If a state wants to be powerful, it must have a tactful way of establishing a healthy relation with other state, and one good way of doing it is by entering into a treaty. A treaty is vital tool for a state for its world recognition, for its survival and preservation. A treaty is also needed for peace preservation. It is also a good tool to settle conflicts and disputes. Treaty is the formal way of making friends of as state with other states.

3. The impact of a treaty to domestic legislation depends upon the way in which is implemented. If the treaty is self-executing, then the treaty becomes part of municipal jurisprudence/law. If the treaty is not self-executing, then the treaty does not become part of municipal law. Treaties can sometimes violate domestic law. If that case so happen, domestic law shall prevail over the treaty. It is still the domestic law that should ruled over to avoid domestic problems and for the State’s preservation.

4. Our group (State C) were not able to observe all proper protocol, there some lacking exchange of letters during the treaty negotiations. Maybe due to the actions (also violent actions made by other members of other states) done by other, our group forgot to observe proper protocols. The activity was so active and alive. Exchange of negotiations was so intense, that different people belonging to each state became dramatic especially State C.

5. It was hard and tough decision that our State should make. Making a treaty with State A without harnessing the treaty with State C. It was hard for our State to negotiate with State C, for our State thinks that State C is so selfish and possessive, that they even don’t want our State to befriend with State A. Our State’s purpose is also to establish a friendly relation with State A, and by that, the problem of our State and the problem of State A be both solved. Different negotiations were done with State C, but State C was so tough and hard with its decision.

6. After the treaty with State A, our state have benefitted from it. Our State’s water problem (a problem which needs an urgent wise decision) was solve, our State have gained a friendly relation with State A, and it could also project that the treaty done between our State and State A is a start of an alliance. And the problem of State A was also solved; our State had helped a State which is also in need. A “symbiotic relationship” was obtained.

7. Yes, our water problem was solved. We have established a new relation with State A. Unlike State C, they have loss of LPG, our State is offering a good deal with State C but they rejected a profitable deal. Our State’s image was still preserve, for other States will understand that a primary problem should be taken a wise decision, and no State will put its country in danger.

8. I don’t think our State (State B) lost in the bargaining process. For I still adhere to my answer in the preceding question(#7).

(",)

6:29 PM  

 Anonymous said...

Vanessa Karen T. Fajardo BPS 4-2

Answers for no. 1:

It is actually a necessity for a State to engage into treaties. Treaties can be pertaining to trade and peace or some other agreement. But first, a treaty must have its validity. One of the requisites for validity is the treaty-making capacity. As an attribute of sovereignty, every State possesses the capacity to conclude treaties although such capacity may be limited by the purpose and the constitution of such organizations. There should be competence of the representative or organ concluding the treaty, the parties must freely give consent, the object and subject matter must be lawful and ratification in accordance with constitutional processes of the parties concerned.

Answer to no. 2:

A State can not stand alone. The State has the right to transact for their own national interest. There are resources that a State did not acquire. For example, State A lacks LPG and State B has the capability to produce LPG. On the other hand, State B lacks water which is abundant in State A. They can exchange products with the use of treaties.

Answer for no. 3:

It may or may not be beneficial for the domestic legislation if the State engaged into treaties. Treaties may affect the laws of the land for example the natural resources and trades. By their inherent nature, treaties really limit or restrict the absoluteness of sovereignty. By their voluntary act, nations may surrender some aspects of their state power in exchange for greater benefits granted by or derived from a convention or pact.

Answer for no. 4:

For State A, I think that there is no proper protocol that has been observed by the members of the group. There is no proper meeting that happened. However, we are trying to find a way on how we will convince the State B to agree on the treaty that we proposed.

Answer for no. 5:

There are many difficulties that we’ve encountered, like the proposal of State C to State B. State C proposed to give State B water that they need in accordance to observed the exclusive treaty that they’ve had before. State B might reject the proposal that we, State A, offer them.

Answer for no. 6:

Since that State B agreed to the proposal, we are able to make a treaty to utilize our resources as well as to support our national interest for the betterment of the people of State A.

Answer for no. 7:

I really think that we gained more benefits compared to the other two States. There are two products involved, that is water and LPG. As we can see, water is very abundant and recyclable while LPG is limited. The price of LPG is much expensive that water. If you look at it nowadays, the production of LPG is limited. The higher the demand and the lower the supply, the price of the product will be gold in time.

Answer for no. 8:

State A gained benefit in the bargaining process. All we have to do is to observe the treaty in good faith so that we will maintain the good relations with State B and State C as well as we meet our goals with regards to national interest.

7:30 PM  

 Anonymous said...

Vanessa Karen T. Fajardo BPS 4-2

Answers for no. 1:

It is actually a necessity for a State to engage into treaties. Treaties can be pertaining to trade and peace or some other agreement. But first, a treaty must have its validity. One of the requisites for validity is the treaty-making capacity. As an attribute of sovereignty, every State possesses the capacity to conclude treaties although such capacity may be limited by the purpose and the constitution of such organizations. There should be competence of the representative or organ concluding the treaty, the parties must freely give consent, the object and subject matter must be lawful and ratification in accordance with constitutional processes of the parties concerned.

Answer to no. 2:

A State can not stand alone. The State has the right to transact for their own national interest. There are resources that a State did not acquire. For example, State A lacks LPG and State B has the capability to produce LPG. On the other hand, State B lacks water which is abundant in State A. They can exchange products with the use of treaties.

Answer for no. 3:

It may or may not be beneficial for the domestic legislation if the State engaged into treaties. Treaties may affect the laws of the land for example the natural resources and trades. By their inherent nature, treaties really limit or restrict the absoluteness of sovereignty. By their voluntary act, nations may surrender some aspects of their state power in exchange for greater benefits granted by or derived from a convention or pact.

Answer for no. 4:

For State A, I think that there is no proper protocol that has been observed by the members of the group. There is no proper meeting that happened. However, we are trying to find a way on how we will convince the State B to agree on the treaty that we proposed.

Answer for no. 5:

There are many difficulties that we’ve encountered, like the proposal of State C to State B. State C proposed to give State B water that they need in accordance to observed the exclusive treaty that they’ve had before. State B might reject the proposal that we, State A, offer them.

Answer for no. 6:

Since that State B agreed to the proposal, we are able to make a treaty to utilize our resources as well as to support our national interest for the betterment of the people of State A.

Answer for no. 7:

I really think that we gained more benefits compared to the other two States. There are two products involved, that is water and LPG. As we can see, water is very abundant and recyclable while LPG is limited. The price of LPG is much expensive that water. If you look at it nowadays, the production of LPG is limited. The higher the demand and the lower the supply, the price of the product will be gold in time.

Answer for no. 8:

State A gained benefit in the bargaining process. All we have to do is to observe the treaty in good faith so that we will maintain the good relations with State B and State C as well as we meet our goals with regards to national interest.

7:31 PM  

 Anonymous said...

Karla Elaine Katigbak
BPS 4-2


1. Yes, it is imperative for the states to enter into treaties because it is deals with important relations for the welfare of each contracting states and for promoting for friendly relations for the benefit of both states enter into a treaty.

2. Sovereign states enter into executive agreements for external relations with other states. Under Sec. 20, Art. VII of the constitutions the state by virtue of the president may contract or guarantee foreign loans on behalf of its state subject to such limitations as provided by law.

3. The impact of a treaty to domestic legislation is that the question where the treaty making power resides in a given state is answered by the municipal law of the state.

4. yes, we observe proper protocol and exchange of letters during treaty negotiations. During the negotiation, the head of state A and its authorized representatives given full powers negotiate to state B and present the proposed treaty with its counter proposals. When both party, State A and B agreed to the term of the treaty we authenticated the instrument symbolizing good faith of the parties. Then ratified and exchange the instruments of ratification.

5. One of the challenges and difficulties that state A encountered is how to maintain friendly relations with state C even there is a conflict of interest among the states.

6. The rewards that state A gained after the conclusion of the treaty is that State A and State B ratified the treaty that supply the needs of both contracting parties done in good faith.

7. Yes, because state A won the agreement with state B.

8. If the state A lost in the bargaining. The state A has to make a letter of withdrawal towards state C.


Karla Elaine Katigbak
BPS 4-2

7:56 PM  

 Anonymous said...

Joy Marie Limbo
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. . Under Sec. 20, Art. VII of the constitutions the state by virtue of the president may contract or guarantee foreign loans on behalf of its state subject to such limitations as provided by law so that sovereign states can enter into executive agreements for external relations with other states

3. The impact of a treaty to domestic legislation is answered in municipal law


4. yes, during the negotiation, the head of state A and its authorized representatives given full powers negotiate to state B and present the proposed treaty with its counter proposals that we observe proper protocol and exchange of letters during treaty negotiations. When both party, agreed to the terms of the treaty we authenticated the instrument in good faith then ratified and exchange the instruments.

5. One of the challenges and difficulties that state A encountered is having a friendly relations with state C.

6. The rewards that state A gained after the conclusion of the treaty is that State A and State B agreed on the each others proposal.

7. Yes, because state A won the bargaining with state B.

8. . The state A has to make a letter of withdrawal towards state C. in case that State A lost in bargaining


Joy Marie Limbo
BPS 4-2

8:03 PM  

 Anonymous said...

Jacinta T. Enerio
BPS 4-2

1. Yes, because it deals important relations for the welfare of each contracting states.

2. Sovereign states enter into treaties/executive agreements for diplomatic relations with other states.


3. The impact of a treaty to domestic legislation is that whether the treaty making process resides in a given states is answered by the municipal law.

4. State C was able to observe proper protocol and exchange of letters during the treaty negotiations. With regards to our proposal, we have sent letters to both parties.

5. During the negotiation process, State C encountered difficulty in maintaining friendly relations with State A.

6. Due to State B's withdrawal to its treaty with State C, we did not gain any reward.

7. Compared to other two states, we at the State C do not acquire more benefits during the treaty process.

8. If ever State C lost in the bargaining process, a Letter of Action should be the next step. State C should complain on State B's action of entering into another treaty even if it has an exclusive agreement with State C regarding the distribution of LPG.

8:16 PM  

 Anonymous said...

1.Is it imperative for States to enter into treaties? Explain.
-It is not required for the state to enter into treaties but it is necessary for it will be beneficial for both state parties. Treaty regulates mutual agreement between two states and it is important for the purpose of international relations. Though treaty is necessary, it is not obligatory for the state to enter into treaties considering that one of the requisites of a valid treaty is that it should be given with free consent from both parties and should not be done out of obligation.
2. Why do States enter into treaties / executive agreements? Discuss.
-States enter into treaties/ executive agreements because these:
a.Enable the parties to settle finally actual and potential conflicts.
b.Make it possible for the parties to modify the rules of international customary law by means of optional principles or standards.
c.Pave the way for the transformation of unorganized international society into one which may be organized on any chosen level of social integration.
d.Provide the humus for the growth of international customary law.
3.What is the impact of a treaty to domestic legislation?
-Because of the treaty, domestic laws are being legislated in order for it to respond to the rules and regulations laid down by the treaty. Therefore, it would be applied to the local sphere and would be part of the municipal law.
During the workshop:
(STATE A)
4. Were you able to observe the proper protocol, exchange of letters during the treaty negotiations?
-No, negotiations should be done by the representatives of the States given full powers but it seems that anybody in the group is allowed to talk on the other group. We don’t know if who are the proper authorities to discuss and make the negotiations. Draft during negotiations was not made.
5. What are the challenges and difficulties your State has encountered?
-We are having the difficulty of convincing State C to amend their treaty with State B in order for us to also import LPG from State B. State C don’t want to amend their treaty instead they want the State B to get water from them.
6. What are the rewards your State has gained after the conclusion of the treaty?
-In the end, State B and our State had entered into treaty and it would be beneficial to us because we will have the LPG to use and we still maintain diplomatic relationship with State B.
7. Do you think your State acquired more benefit compared to the other two States? Explain.
-No, I think that our State has the same benefit with what the State B got because the treaty is both beneficial for the both of us. But we got more benefit than State C because they lost on the bargaining process and in the end they were not able to have LPG.
8. If you think your State lost in the bargaining process, what is your next state action? Discuss.
-
KHEMLE JANE T. VISCA
BPS I. R. 4-2

8:26 PM  

 Anonymous said...

brigette servino
bps 4-2

1.) Technically, every state, with their own discretion, can enter into any treaties with other sovereign states. In return, there will also be an implication that states may refuse of contracting treaties with other sovereign states of whatever reason, which is explicitly manifested by the fundamental right of the states, the right of independence. Therefore, it is not an imperative for states to enter into treaties. However, practically, no state can deal with the necessities and demand of its people and even peace and security without the cooperation of other states. Every state is unique from one another for its location and climate, which they may have what other may don’t. On the other hand, people are dynamic in their needs, which vary from time to time. That is why; states have no choice but to engage into treaties if they think it would benefit them, to satisfy the wants and needs of its people. It is impractical to make an isolationist stand. Also, being part of the family of nations, treaty is one step closer for establishing friendly relations and cooperation with other states.
2.) Due to the unexpected necessities that arise in every state, they are obliged to enter into treaties to promote friendly relations and improve their economic status for their development. Treaty-making’s goal is to promote the national interest and to gain benefits from the treaties. Therefore, entering into treaties is part of a system to sustain its stability. If there are conflicts, contracting treaties is a first consideration to prevent wars among states.
3.) A treaty should not compromise the provisions of the Constitution of every state. Most states adopt the generally accepted principles of international law like the Doctrine of Incorporation. Through domestic legislations, the treaty may be expressly ratify by making guidelines that will support the treaty. On the other hand, Congress, or the legislative body can express its opposition to any particular treaty withholding the necessary implementing legislation.
4.) I think, in essence, we have properly observed the proper protocol and exchange of letters of treaty negotiations. The mere steps in treaty-making are well addressed in the workshop. But the strict technicalities of the treaty making (doing nastiest things in the nicest way) we did it not the nice way. Hehehe!
5.) (I’m from group A) We find it hard how to deal with the both states without compromising our primary goal, to make en economic treaty with B and maintain friendly relations with state C. We struggle on keeping the friendly relation with C despite the fact that our economic treaty proposal with state B would mean a breach of obligations of treaty that binds State B and C.
6.) We gained the treaty with state B, to have a supply of LPG and in return, we will share them the abundance of our water.
7.) I think, we only lost on establishing a friendly relation with state C. Our next State action is to make efforts to reconcile with state C.

9:13 PM  

 Anonymous said...

brigette servino
bps 4-2

1.) Technically, every state, with their own discretion, can enter into any treaties with other sovereign states. In return, there will also be an implication that states may refuse of contracting treaties with other sovereign states of whatever reason, which is explicitly manifested by the fundamental right of the states, the right of independence. Therefore, it is not an imperative for states to enter into treaties. However, practically, no state can deal with the necessities and demand of its people and even peace and security without the cooperation of other states. Every state is unique from one another for its location and climate, which they may have what other may don’t. On the other hand, people are dynamic in their needs, which vary from time to time. That is why; states have no choice but to engage into treaties if they think it would benefit them, to satisfy the wants and needs of its people. It is impractical to make an isolationist stand. Also, being part of the family of nations, treaty is one step closer for establishing friendly relations and cooperation with other states.
2.) Due to the unexpected necessities that arise in every state, they are obliged to enter into treaties to promote friendly relations and improve their economic status for their development. Treaty-making’s goal is to promote the national interest and to gain benefits from the treaties. Therefore, entering into treaties is part of a system to sustain its stability. If there are conflicts, contracting treaties is a first consideration to prevent wars among states.
3.) A treaty should not compromise the provisions of the Constitution of every state. Most states adopt the generally accepted principles of international law like the Doctrine of Incorporation. Through domestic legislations, the treaty may be expressly ratify by making guidelines that will support the treaty. On the other hand, Congress, or the legislative body can express its opposition to any particular treaty withholding the necessary implementing legislation.
4.) I think, in essence, we have properly observed the proper protocol and exchange of letters of treaty negotiations. The mere steps in treaty-making are well addressed in the workshop. But the strict technicalities of the treaty making (doing nastiest things in the nicest way) we did it not the nice way. Hehehe!
5.) (I’m from group A) We find it hard how to deal with the both states without compromising our primary goal, to make en economic treaty with B and maintain friendly relations with state C. We struggle on keeping the friendly relation with C despite the fact that our economic treaty proposal with state B would mean a breach of obligations of treaty that binds State B and C.
6.) We gained the treaty with state B, to have a supply of LPG and in return, we will share them the abundance of our water.
7.) I think, we only lost on establishing a friendly relation with state C. Our next State action is to make efforts to reconcile with state C.

9:14 PM  

 Anonymous said...

brigette servino
bps 4-2

1.) Technically, every state, with their own discretion, can enter into any treaties with other sovereign states. In return, there will also be an implication that states may refuse of contracting treaties with other sovereign states of whatever reason, which is explicitly manifested by the fundamental right of the states, the right of independence. Therefore, it is not an imperative for states to enter into treaties. However, practically, no state can deal with the necessities and demand of its people and even peace and security without the cooperation of other states. Every state is unique from one another for its location and climate, which they may have what other may don’t. On the other hand, people are dynamic in their needs, which vary from time to time. That is why; states have no choice but to engage into treaties if they think it would benefit them, to satisfy the wants and needs of its people. It is impractical to make an isolationist stand. Also, being part of the family of nations, treaty is one step closer for establishing friendly relations and cooperation with other states.
2.) Due to the unexpected necessities that arise in every state, they are obliged to enter into treaties to promote friendly relations and improve their economic status for their development. Treaty-making’s goal is to promote the national interest and to gain benefits from the treaties. Therefore, entering into treaties is part of a system to sustain its stability. If there are conflicts, contracting treaties is a first consideration to prevent wars among states.
3.) A treaty should not compromise the provisions of the Constitution of every state. Most states adopt the generally accepted principles of international law like the Doctrine of Incorporation. Through domestic legislations, the treaty may be expressly ratify by making guidelines that will support the treaty. On the other hand, Congress, or the legislative body can express its opposition to any particular treaty withholding the necessary implementing legislation.
4.) I think, in essence, we have properly observed the proper protocol and exchange of letters of treaty negotiations. The mere steps in treaty-making are well addressed in the workshop. But the strict technicalities of the treaty making (doing nastiest things in the nicest way) we did it not the nice way. Hehehe!
5.) (I’m from group A) We find it hard how to deal with the both states without compromising our primary goal, to make en economic treaty with B and maintain friendly relations with state C. We struggle on keeping the friendly relation with C despite the fact that our economic treaty proposal with state B would mean a breach of obligations of treaty that binds State B and C.
6.) We gained the treaty with state B, to have a supply of LPG and in return, we will share them the abundance of our water.
7.) I think, we only lost on establishing a friendly relation with state C. Our next State action is to make efforts to reconcile with state C.

9:14 PM  

 Anonymous said...

brigette servino
bps 4-2

1.) Technically, every state, with their own discretion, can enter into any treaties with other sovereign states. In return, there will also be an implication that states may refuse of contracting treaties with other sovereign states of whatever reason, which is explicitly manifested by the fundamental right of the states, the right of independence. Therefore, it is not an imperative for states to enter into treaties. However, practically, no state can deal with the necessities and demand of its people and even peace and security without the cooperation of other states. Every state is unique from one another for its location and climate, which they may have what other may don’t. On the other hand, people are dynamic in their needs, which vary from time to time. That is why; states have no choice but to engage into treaties if they think it would benefit them, to satisfy the wants and needs of its people. It is impractical to make an isolationist stand. Also, being part of the family of nations, treaty is one step closer for establishing friendly relations and cooperation with other states.
2.) Due to the unexpected necessities that arise in every state, they are obliged to enter into treaties to promote friendly relations and improve their economic status for their development. Treaty-making’s goal is to promote the national interest and to gain benefits from the treaties. Therefore, entering into treaties is part of a system to sustain its stability. If there are conflicts, contracting treaties is a first consideration to prevent wars among states.
3.) A treaty should not compromise the provisions of the Constitution of every state. Most states adopt the generally accepted principles of international law like the Doctrine of Incorporation. Through domestic legislations, the treaty may be expressly ratify by making guidelines that will support the treaty. On the other hand, Congress, or the legislative body can express its opposition to any particular treaty withholding the necessary implementing legislation.
4.) I think, in essence, we have properly observed the proper protocol and exchange of letters of treaty negotiations. The mere steps in treaty-making are well addressed in the workshop. But the strict technicalities of the treaty making (doing nastiest things in the nicest way) we did it not the nice way. Hehehe!
5.) (I’m from group A) We find it hard how to deal with the both states without compromising our primary goal, to make en economic treaty with B and maintain friendly relations with state C. We struggle on keeping the friendly relation with C despite the fact that our economic treaty proposal with state B would mean a breach of obligations of treaty that binds State B and C.
6.) We gained the treaty with state B, to have a supply of LPG and in return, we will share them the abundance of our water.
7.) I think, we only lost on establishing a friendly relation with state C. Our next State action is to make efforts to reconcile with state C.

9:15 PM  

 Anonymous said...

SHENELYN V. DELA CRUZ
BPS IV-2

1. YES. it is imperative for states to enter into treaties, for the negotiating parties to settle final actual and potential conflicts. to provide also for the growth of International Customary law. for the negotiating parties to pave way for the transformation of unorganized international society into one which may be organized on any chosen of level of social integraton. also, to make it possible for the negotiating parties to modify rules of international customary law by means of optional priciples on standards..

2. States enter into treaties/ excutive agreemnets, first is to have a good and promote international relationship with the other states. Entering into a treaty or executive agreemennts of the states promotes a good international relationship because a reciprocal trade wherein both of the states are nhaving benefits to each other. second, for the sates to enhance their repetation or curry favor. Wherein, states sign treaties for a purpose taht has little or nothing to do with the undrlying subjest matter of the treaty. Wherein, sates are expecting a benefit from other states on a different issue in exchange for such commitment. Third , states enter into treaties to ensure taht their treaty partners observe the treaty when it is used against them. a reciprocal trade of defense agreements are one of the examples of such treaties. for example state S commit to an agreement for the principal legialation of getting state J to commit to act in a certain way that benefits the sate S. Fourth, some states sign treaties without concern taht they willl be tempted to violate the underlying norm but specifically to demonstrate their belief in a particular regime. Fifth, sates usaually enter into teraties because they really do wishto tie their hands for fear of the consequences of their later shoices. Wherein., the states are making a true precomitment.

3. the impact of the treaty to domestic legislation is to promote an economic development. treaties usually more on economic development, wherein, the treaty can help to promote the economic growth. On economic side of the 1998 VFA with the U.S a lot of jobs were created. Specially, on the place where they have they base or their headquarter. also, to eliminate barriers which use as a hindrance for the economic growth and social progress. wherein, the treaties should be made for the public welfare.


4. at first YES, although the treaty making process was not able to move on the second step, because every state dont want to accept the proposal of each state. Specially, our state, the state C. but, the letter of credence was shown by the state B who first came and introduced their proposal with their head of the mission.

5.it was a hard time for each state to think for the proposal on the treaty that each state would definitely agree upon. as part of the state C the challenges and the difficulties that we've encountered was first, it was hard to draft a treaty with those provisions that would the other states will also approve and sign on it. every member have their own perception on the proposed conditions of the two states and our state too. it was very hard to convince the two states to agree upon our proposal and since we are the state c. the two states should be the one to agree upon our proposal.

6. the reward that our state gained, that we were able to proposed the things that we want to offer, and that we were not shaken to their proposals... everyone was able to state their opinions and even the heart of each member was given.

7. YES. Only and if they will agree on our state's proposal. first, we'll be the one who will distribute the LPG to state A. and we proposed taht we'll be the one who will export water to state B. On that way, our state can have more profit on exporting LPG and water to the two states.

8. when it comes to the LPG negotiation, we will ask to the the UN to invoke the breach as the ground for temporarily suspending their obligations to that party under the treaty. And of course, the reflection on their state, that we have an exclusive agreement, abd to that they will enter to an economic partnership, and their reputation will be affected...

9:18 PM  

 Anonymous said...

SHENELYN V. DELA CRUZ
BPS IV-2

1. YES. it is imperative for states to enter into treaties, for the negotiating parties to settle final actual and potential conflicts. to provide also for the growth of International Customary law. for the negotiating parties to pave way for the transformation of unorganized international society into one which may be organized on any chosen of level of social integraton. also, to make it possible for the negotiating parties to modify rules of international customary law by means of optional priciples on standards..

2. States enter into treaties/ excutive agreemnets, first is to have a good and promote international relationship with the other states. Entering into a treaty or executive agreemennts of the states promotes a good international relationship because a reciprocal trade wherein both of the states are nhaving benefits to each other. second, for the sates to enhance their repetation or curry favor. Wherein, states sign treaties for a purpose taht has little or nothing to do with the undrlying subjest matter of the treaty. Wherein, sates are expecting a benefit from other states on a different issue in exchange for such commitment. Third , states enter into treaties to ensure taht their treaty partners observe the treaty when it is used against them. a reciprocal trade of defense agreements are one of the examples of such treaties. for example state S commit to an agreement for the principal legialation of getting state J to commit to act in a certain way that benefits the sate S. Fourth, some states sign treaties without concern taht they willl be tempted to violate the underlying norm but specifically to demonstrate their belief in a particular regime. Fifth, sates usaually enter into teraties because they really do wishto tie their hands for fear of the consequences of their later shoices. Wherein., the states are making a true precomitment.

3. the impact of the treaty to domestic legislation is to promote an economic development. treaties usually more on economic development, wherein, the treaty can help to promote the economic growth. On economic side of the 1998 VFA with the U.S a lot of jobs were created. Specially, on the place where they have they base or their headquarter. also, to eliminate barriers which use as a hindrance for the economic growth and social progress. wherein, the treaties should be made for the public welfare.


4. at first YES, although the treaty making process was not able to move on the second step, because every state dont want to accept the proposal of each state. Specially, our state, the state C. but, the letter of credence was shown by the state B who first came and introduced their proposal with their head of the mission.

5.it was a hard time for each state to think for the proposal on the treaty that each state would definitely agree upon. as part of the state C the challenges and the difficulties that we've encountered was first, it was hard to draft a treaty with those provisions that would the other states will also approve and sign on it. every member have their own perception on the proposed conditions of the two states and our state too. it was very hard to convince the two states to agree upon our proposal and since we are the state c. the two states should be the one to agree upon our proposal.

6. the reward that our state gained, that we were able to proposed the things that we want to offer, and that we were not shaken to their proposals... everyone was able to state their opinions and even the heart of each member was given.

7. YES. Only and if they will agree on our state's proposal. first, we'll be the one who will distribute the LPG to state A. and we proposed taht we'll be the one who will export water to state B. On that way, our state can have more profit on exporting LPG and water to the two states.

8. when it comes to the LPG negotiation, we will ask to the the UN to invoke the breach as the ground for temporarily suspending their obligations to that party under the treaty. And of course, the reflection on their state, that we have an exclusive agreement, abd to that they will enter to an economic partnership, and their reputation will be affected...

9:19 PM  

 Anonymous said...

SHENELYN V. DELA CRUZ
BPS IV-2

1. YES. it is imperative for states to enter into treaties, for the negotiating parties to settle final actual and potential conflicts. to provide also for the growth of International Customary law. for the negotiating parties to pave way for the transformation of unorganized international society into one which may be organized on any chosen of level of social integraton. also, to make it possible for the negotiating parties to modify rules of international customary law by means of optional priciples on standards..

2. States enter into treaties/ excutive agreemnets, first is to have a good and promote international relationship with the other states. Entering into a treaty or executive agreemennts of the states promotes a good international relationship because a reciprocal trade wherein both of the states are nhaving benefits to each other. second, for the sates to enhance their repetation or curry favor. Wherein, states sign treaties for a purpose taht has little or nothing to do with the undrlying subjest matter of the treaty. Wherein, sates are expecting a benefit from other states on a different issue in exchange for such commitment. Third , states enter into treaties to ensure taht their treaty partners observe the treaty when it is used against them. a reciprocal trade of defense agreements are one of the examples of such treaties. for example state S commit to an agreement for the principal legialation of getting state J to commit to act in a certain way that benefits the sate S. Fourth, some states sign treaties without concern taht they willl be tempted to violate the underlying norm but specifically to demonstrate their belief in a particular regime. Fifth, sates usaually enter into teraties because they really do wishto tie their hands for fear of the consequences of their later shoices. Wherein., the states are making a true precomitment.

3. the impact of the treaty to domestic legislation is to promote an economic development. treaties usually more on economic development, wherein, the treaty can help to promote the economic growth. On economic side of the 1998 VFA with the U.S a lot of jobs were created. Specially, on the place where they have they base or their headquarter. also, to eliminate barriers which use as a hindrance for the economic growth and social progress. wherein, the treaties should be made for the public welfare.


4. at first YES, although the treaty making process was not able to move on the second step, because every state dont want to accept the proposal of each state. Specially, our state, the state C. but, the letter of credence was shown by the state B who first came and introduced their proposal with their head of the mission.

5.it was a hard time for each state to think for the proposal on the treaty that each state would definitely agree upon. as part of the state C the challenges and the difficulties that we've encountered was first, it was hard to draft a treaty with those provisions that would the other states will also approve and sign on it. every member have their own perception on the proposed conditions of the two states and our state too. it was very hard to convince the two states to agree upon our proposal and since we are the state c. the two states should be the one to agree upon our proposal.

6. the reward that our state gained, that we were able to proposed the things that we want to offer, and that we were not shaken to their proposals... everyone was able to state their opinions and even the heart of each member was given.

7. YES. Only and if they will agree on our state's proposal. first, we'll be the one who will distribute the LPG to state A. and we proposed taht we'll be the one who will export water to state B. On that way, our state can have more profit on exporting LPG and water to the two states.

8. when it comes to the LPG negotiation, we will ask to the the UN to invoke the breach as the ground for temporarily suspending their obligations to that party under the treaty. And of course, the reflection on their state, that we have an exclusive agreement, abd to that they will enter to an economic partnership, and their reputation will be affected...

9:26 PM  

 Anonymous said...

Ramos, Sheilla d.R.
BPS 4-2

1. Yes. It is imperative for the States to enter into treaties for the growth of the international customary law, were it will be possible for the negotiating parties to modify rules of international customary law by means of optional principles on standards. And for those unorganized international society will be organize with regards on the society they will choose or have in treaty.
2. States enter into treaties or executive agreement for the reason of international relationship. Wherein in treaties or agreement the states must have their obligation or agreement to other states. In treaties we exercise or maintain the friendship of the states were each states must be benefited. States enter treaties in order to obtain public goods but that the transaction costs of negotiating and enforcing treaties also limit the value of treaties.
3. One impact of treaty to domestic legislation is to promote economic development were when we said treaties it is the involvement of different states that have the agreed obligation to each state. that’s why with the treaties we can have thje economic growth and progress.
4. Yes. Because treaties can be loosely compared to contracts were both are means of willing parties assuming obligations among themselves, and a party to either that fails to live up to their obligations can be held liable under international law for that breach. and the treaty we have is signed with the head of state.
5. As what I observed, our state encountered difficulties during the negotiating or the bargaining process because we are forcing the other state to agree or have the signature to the treaty we made. During the negotiating process we say the entire obligation or the offer what their state needed.
6. For me, the reward we have after the conclusion treaty is we wrote all our side or explanation with regards to the treaty were we said what happened during the negotiating process were on that time the other state can’t understood the agreement we are offering to them.
7. Yes. Because all we need to do let the two state to agree on the proposal we are offering. That we will be the one to distribute LPG to state A and we will export water to the state B. with that proposal I think our state is more benefited to two states.
8. The next state action of State C is to have the suspension or termination of the State B for violating or breached the said obligation on the treaty or agreement we have.

10:01 PM  

 Anonymous said...

1. yes because through entering treaties, states will be able to exercise its mutual relations to other states therefore making a bond between them.

2. To enable the parties to settle finally actual and potential conflicts
-to make it possible for the parties to modify rules of international customary law by means of optional principles on standards
-to pave the way fot the transformation of unorganozed international society into one which may be organized on any chosen level of social integration
-to provide the humus for the growth of international customary law
3.it affects the process by which the domestic legislation may be so finally created because treaties as we all know are basically the foundation of some laws that governs the country
4. N0t so..
because the parties are notreally observing the proper decorum during the negotiations.
5. Well. being a part of State A, we have faced a lot of challenges and difficulties in terms of negotiating with the State C and convincing them to agrre on our proposal regarding our previous business with State B that we will deliver them the water supply that they need in exchange to the cheaper price of LPG thatwe will import from them.
6. We were able to signed a treaty to the State B and that we will import LG from them and in exchange of the Water supply that they will import from our state.
7. I think so,,,
because state B sent an act of rejection to State C just to have our treaty with them be finally signed.
8. we will declare a war against STate C because we believe that in order to establish a harmonious relationship between nations, each must possess the attitude of giving something to others especially wnen they are experiencing a crisis.

10:19 PM  

 Anonymous said...

Gerald P Mesina BPS 4-2

1 .Yes, it is imperative for states to enter into a treaty to be able to promote national interest and to have an amicable diplomatic relations with other states. Treaty reflects a mutual understanding and cooperation between states and it produces harmonious relations. A state need to enter into treaty to conduct transactions, trade and to perform a joint cooperation and any other means of business and it manifest the importance of having treaty.

2. Treaty is a part of the foreign affairs of the state and it is essential in the conduct of international relations. According to art 2 of the 1969 Vienna convention on the law of treaties, treaty is define as “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. Therefore, a state in order to enter to a transaction or any means of business that would require a strict adherence would need to enter into a treaty to insure that it would be implemented properly. Hence there are two reasons why state need to enter to a treaty. First is that a treaty is an agreement that would include all the provisions regarding the subject, implementing rules and regulation, of a certain transaction between states, and treaty would set a clear rule to guide the conduct of a particular agreement between states. This will insure that the agreement entered by party states will be observed properly as supported by the international principle of Pacta sunt servanda. Second would be treaty is a mechanism for negotiation to promote national interest within the party states.

3.Treaty would require the domestic law to incorporate it to its own municipal law for observance and implementation. The legislative body would need to adopt its municipal law to a treaty once it is binding upon party states. Treaty would have the force and effect of a municipal law and shall be given the same standing as a stator law to that party state.
4. Yes, even if the situation in the class activity looks chaotic, it did go well on following the proper procedure in the process of treaty making.

5. My state, State C to be specific experience a threat from both State A and State B. The Head of state of State A threaten our nation by invoking war as a means to settle things. And State B has threaten us with economic sanction which includes the non observance of treaty.

6. State A and B did not issue State C of the treaty that they have agreed upon but instead, State B did ignore and violate its economic treaty with our state. In the end our State is the losing party for it was not given the justifiable means to settle the conflict of interest with state B.

7. State C files a resolution to the International Court of justice invoking the violation of State B of their treaty. State B clearly violates a jus cogens norm which is the principle of pacta sunt servanda which means that every treaty which is binding upon party state should be observe with good faith.

State C sends a letter of a proposal treaty to State A and B to settle the conflict of interest in a diplomatic process and would insure that good relations would remain between and among the states.

10:23 PM  

 Anonymous said...

Gerald P Mesina BPS 4-2
duplicate
1 .Yes, it is imperative for states to enter into a treaty to be able to promote national interest and to have an amicable diplomatic relations with other states. Treaty reflects a mutual understanding and cooperation between states and it produces harmonious relations. A state need to enter into treaty to conduct transactions, trade and to perform a joint cooperation and any other means of business and it manifest the importance of having treaty.

2. Treaty is a part of the foreign affairs of the state and it is essential in the conduct of international relations. According to art 2 of the 1969 Vienna convention on the law of treaties, treaty is define as “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. Therefore, a state in order to enter to a transaction or any means of business that would require a strict adherence would need to enter into a treaty to insure that it would be implemented properly. Hence there are two reasons why state need to enter to a treaty. First is that a treaty is an agreement that would include all the provisions regarding the subject, implementing rules and regulation, of a certain transaction between states, and treaty would set a clear rule to guide the conduct of a particular agreement between states. This will insure that the agreement entered by party states will be observed properly as supported by the international principle of Pacta sunt servanda. Second would be treaty is a mechanism for negotiation to promote national interest within the party states.

3.Treaty would require the domestic law to incorporate it to its own municipal law for observance and implementation. The legislative body would need to adopt its municipal law to a treaty once it is binding upon party states. Treaty would have the force and effect of a municipal law and shall be given the same standing as a stator law to that party state.
4. Yes, even if the situation in the class activity looks chaotic, it did go well on following the proper procedure in the process of treaty making.

5. My state, State C to be specific experience a threat from both State A and State B. The Head of state of State A threaten our nation by invoking war as a means to settle things. And State B has threaten us with economic sanction which includes the non observance of treaty.

6. State A and B did not issue State C of the treaty that they have agreed upon but instead, State B did ignore and violate its economic treaty with our state. In the end our State is the losing party for it was not given the justifiable means to settle the conflict of interest with state B.

7. State C files a resolution to the International Court of justice invoking the violation of State B of their treaty. State B clearly violates a jus cogens norm which is the principle of pacta sunt servanda which means that every treaty which is binding upon party state should be observe with good faith.

State C sends a letter of a proposal treaty to State A and B to settle the conflict of interest in a diplomatic process and would insure that good relations would remain between and among the states.

10:24 PM  

 Anonymous said...

Gerald P Mesina BPS 4-2
triplicate
1 .Yes, it is imperative for states to enter into a treaty to be able to promote national interest and to have an amicable diplomatic relations with other states. Treaty reflects a mutual understanding and cooperation between states and it produces harmonious relations. A state need to enter into treaty to conduct transactions, trade and to perform a joint cooperation and any other means of business and it manifest the importance of having treaty.

2. Treaty is a part of the foreign affairs of the state and it is essential in the conduct of international relations. According to art 2 of the 1969 Vienna convention on the law of treaties, treaty is define as “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. Therefore, a state in order to enter to a transaction or any means of business that would require a strict adherence would need to enter into a treaty to insure that it would be implemented properly. Hence there are two reasons why state need to enter to a treaty. First is that a treaty is an agreement that would include all the provisions regarding the subject, implementing rules and regulation, of a certain transaction between states, and treaty would set a clear rule to guide the conduct of a particular agreement between states. This will insure that the agreement entered by party states will be observed properly as supported by the international principle of Pacta sunt servanda. Second would be treaty is a mechanism for negotiation to promote national interest within the party states.

3.Treaty would require the domestic law to incorporate it to its own municipal law for observance and implementation. The legislative body would need to adopt its municipal law to a treaty once it is binding upon party states. Treaty would have the force and effect of a municipal law and shall be given the same standing as a stator law to that party state.
4. Yes, even if the situation in the class activity looks chaotic, it did go well on following the proper procedure in the process of treaty making.

5. My state, State C to be specific experience a threat from both State A and State B. The Head of state of State A threaten our nation by invoking war as a means to settle things. And State B has threaten us with economic sanction which includes the non observance of treaty.

6. State A and B did not issue State C of the treaty that they have agreed upon but instead, State B did ignore and violate its economic treaty with our state. In the end our State is the losing party for it was not given the justifiable means to settle the conflict of interest with state B.

7. State C files a resolution to the International Court of justice invoking the violation of State B of their treaty. State B clearly violates a jus cogens norm which is the principle of pacta sunt servanda which means that every treaty which is binding upon party state should be observe with good faith.

State C sends a letter of a proposal treaty to State A and B to settle the conflict of interest in a diplomatic process and would insure that good relations would remain between and among the states.

10:25 PM  

 Anonymous said...

Gerald P. Mesina
BPS IR 4-2
(original answer with #7)
1. Is it imperative for States to enter into treaties? Explain.
2. Why do States enter into treaties / executive agreements? Discuss.
3. What is the impact of a treaty to domestic legislation?

During the workshop:
4. Were you able to observe the proper protocol, exchange of letters during the treaty negotiations?
5. What are the challenges and difficulties your State has encountered?
6. What are the rewards your State has gained after the conclusion of the treaty?
7. Do you think your State acquired more benefit compared to the other two States? Explain.
8. If you think your State lost in the bargaining process, what is your next state action? Discuss.

1 .Yes, it is imperative for states to enter into a treaty to be able to promote national interest and to have an amicable diplomatic relations with other states. Treaty reflects a mutual understanding and cooperation between states and it produces harmonious relations. A state need to enter into treaty to conduct transactions, trade and to perform a joint cooperation and any other means of business and it manifest the importance of having treaty.

2. Treaty is a part of the foreign affairs of the state and it is essential in the conduct of international relations. According to art 2 of the 1969 Vienna convention on the law of treaties, treaty is define as “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. Therefore, a state in order to enter to a transaction or any means of business that would require a strict adherence would need to enter into a treaty to insure that it would be implemented properly. Hence there are two reasons why state need to enter to a treaty. First is that a treaty is an agreement that would include all the provisions regarding the subject, implementing rules and regulation, of a certain transaction between states, and treaty would set a clear rule to guide the conduct of a particular agreement between states. This will insure that the agreement entered by party states will be observed properly as supported by the international principle of Pacta sunt servanda. Second would be treaty is a mechanism for negotiation to promote national interest within the party states.

3.Treaty would require the domestic law to incorporate it to its own municipal law for observance and implementation. The legislative body would need to adopt its municipal law to a treaty once it is binding upon party states. Treaty would have the force and effect of a municipal law and shall be given the same standing as a stator law to that party state.
4. Yes, even if the situation in the class activity looks chaotic, it did go well on following the proper procedure in the process of treaty making.

5. My state, State C to be specific experience a threat from both State A and State B. The Head of state of State A threaten our nation by invoking war as a means to settle things. And State B has threaten us with economic sanction which includes the non observance of treaty.

6. State A and B did not issue State C of the treaty that they have agreed upon but instead, State B did ignore and violate its economic treaty with our state. In the end our State is the losing party for it was not given the justifiable means to settle the conflict of interest with state B.

7. No, we lost the negotiation because State B violated its economic treaty with our State resulting to economic loss.

8. State C files a resolution to the International Court of justice invoking the violation of State B of their treaty. State B clearly violates a jus cogens norm which is the principle of pacta sunt servanda which means that every treaty which is binding upon party state should be observe with good faith.

State C sends a letter of a proposal treaty to State A and B to settle the conflict of interest in a diplomatic process and would insure that good relations would remain between and among the states.

10:34 PM  

 Unknown said...

Jan Richard A. Renes BPS IV-2

1. In one way or another, treaties are unavoidable. Although, there are other types of diplomatic methods that states can perform in the conduct of International Relations, in a world such as what we have now, treaties have become a staple of Amity and Cooperation between nations that every single country recognizes.
2. States enter into treaties in order to agree on a certain definitive goal. States, in the conduct of its international and diplomatic relations, also aims to ensure that they get the most benifits in there agreements.
3. Implementation of treaties inside a sovereign state depends on the domestic laws. In the Philippines, there are certain instances when International agreements like covenants and conventions that are self-implementing and does not need a domestic legislation. But for the most part, treaties require domestic law to be passed as an implementing legislation.

(i'm from state B)
4. As seen, we have not observed proper protocol like exchange of documents, because for the most part, the negotiations were mere oral and discussion based.
5. State B had a difficult time negotiating with state C for a compromise deal that would ensure their exclusive LPG contract, including negotiating with state A for a deal on water exportation for the water needs of our state. State C wanted not only an exclusive LPG deal but an exclusive bilateral relations altogether, which our state was not in favor of. So due to these facts, our state had no choice but to put forth a unilateral rejection for the treaty with state C, and now moving on with a treaty with state A.
6. Our state, as I see it, clearly gained a lot from the treaty with State A, even if we rejected the former treaty with state C. Our state gained our water needs, and in fact got a blessing in disguise, by escaping an emotionally unstable relations with State C that demanded an exclusive bilatreral relations with their state alone, which was unacceptable since that is not even part of the original treaty with them, which only talked about exclusive LPG importation.
7. As I stated in number 6, State B not only gained something but actually gained more than the others. State C lost its relations not only with state B, but also with state A, by emotionally rejecting the compromise agreement that was concocted in the negotiations, due to "tradition and tradition alone". State A on the other hand gained a new ally and LPG. Our state not only gained water for its water shortage, but also started a new LPG deal with state B.
8. Our state, in my opinion, won in the negotiations. Although, there would have been more things that could be exhausted in order to maintain relations with State C, but at the end of the day, they were the ones who turned down the compromise deal which would have been a win-win solution for all states.

10:35 PM  

 Anonymous said...

Rhea, Bps4-2

1. I think it’s not an imperative for States to enter into treaties. It is based on the State’s discretion if they will go or not for a certain treaty.

2. I think the popular saying ‘give and take’ relationship would be a reason why States enter into treaties or Exec. Agreements with other States. Aside from the benefit that States gained from entering into treaties, the States also establish a ‘ties’, ‘bond’, and friendly relation with other states (w/c is more important).

4. In the initial stage of the negotiation I observed the proper proceedings in treaty making process. As a matter of fact, when our State, State C was visited by other States we required them to show us their ‘letter of credence’ first before we entertain them.
Our State also made letters which contains our proposals for the two States. But that was at the initial stage. When we’re at the middle of the negotiation, it seems that we all forgot or ‘neglects’ the proper proceedings... It’s as if everyone is bargaining for something.

5. The challenges and difficulties that we encountered was to make State A and State B agreed to our proposals. We’ve prepared several options which all the State would gain benefit. Yet at the end, we didn’t even agree to a single detail of such proposals.

6. The only reward that our State gained is the maintenance of our ‘executive treaty’ with State B which was really threatened to cease. But the consequence of this reward is to be isolated by the two other States.

7. I think the other States acquired more benefit than us. Based on what I heard, the two States enters into an agreement which would benefit the both of them. And our State has been isolated; we’re excluded with such agreement.

8. Our State can’t really accept that we lost in this bargaining process. But our next State action is to bring the issue in the ICJ. Because as we all know there’s still a conflict of interest which has not yet been resolve by the State B. And yet they enter into certain agreement with State C without first resolving such conflict.

10:44 PM  

 Anonymous said...

Rhea, Bps4-2

1. I think it’s not an imperative for States to enter into treaties. It is based on the State’s discretion if they will go or not for a certain treaty.

2. I think the popular saying ‘give and take’ relationship would be a reason why States enter into treaties or Exec. Agreements with other States. Aside from the benefit that States gained from entering into treaties, the States also establish a ‘ties’, ‘bond’, and friendly relation with other states (w/c is more important).

4. In the initial stage of the negotiation I observed the proper proceedings in treaty making process. As a matter of fact, when our State, State C was visited by other States we required them to show us their ‘letter of credence’ first before we entertain them.
Our State also made letters which contains our proposals for the two States. But that was at the initial stage. When we’re at the middle of the negotiation, it seems that we all forgot or ‘neglects’ the proper proceedings... It’s as if everyone is bargaining for something.

5. The challenges and difficulties that we encountered was to make State A and State B agreed to our proposals. We’ve prepared several options which all the State would gain benefit. Yet at the end, we didn’t even agree to a single detail of such proposals.

6. The only reward that our State gained is the maintenance of our ‘executive treaty’ with State B which was really threatened to cease. But the consequence of this reward is to be isolated by the two other States.

7. I think the other States acquired more benefit than us. Based on what I heard, the two States enters into an agreement which would benefit the both of them. And our State has been isolated; we’re excluded with such agreement.

8. Our State can’t really accept that we lost in this bargaining process. But our next State action is to bring the issue in the ICJ. Because as we all know there’s still a conflict of interest which has not yet been resolve by the State B. And yet they enter into certain agreement with State C without first resolving such conflict.

10:46 PM  

 Anonymous said...

shiela m. coderis bps 4-2

1. Is it imperative for States to enter into treaties? Explain.
Yes. Treaties are vital to states yet they are not obligatory for them to enter into such. It is essential for the states to engage into treaties as their instrument through which all the international transactions are conducted and that they will enable the states to settle conflicts (if any) among them. However, obligatory treaties are invalid they do not fulfill the requisite for validity of treaties, which is the freely given consent by the states that will be involved.

2. Why do States enter into treaties / executive agreements? Discuss.
States enter into treaties for the purpose of regulating their mutual relations under the law of nations. Treaties are instrument through which all the kind of international transactions are made and that it enables the states to extend their national interests. They also enables the states to settle actual and potential conflicts among nations.

3. What is the impact of a treaty to domestic legislation?
Treaties, as part of international law, are adopted and deemed part of the law of the land and incorporated in domestic legislation in respect with the contracting parties by constitutional mandate as expressed in the doctrine of incorporation.
The local legislative can modify or repeal treaties by subsequent on the same subject because under the doctrine, treaties and statutes are of the same level.
However, when a treaty conflicts with a statute, the last in point of time prevails because treaty and statute are of the same level.

During the workshop:
4. Were you able to observe the proper protocol, exchange of letters during the treaty negotiations?
I think we were able to do the protocol and exchange of letters during the negotiations, It’s just that I find the negotiation disorganized.

5. What are the challenges and difficulties your State has encountered?
Being part of State A, we encountered so many problems. First, we had a hard time thinking of what would be the steps of State B to arrange the conflict of interest with State C. We are also challenged when State C proposed that they would be the one who will provide the water for State B just to stick with their treaty. Lastly, was the challenge of maintaining our friendly relations with State C.

6. What are the rewards your State has gained after the conclusion of the treaty?
When the State B signed the treaty we made, we got what we ought to get. They would get water from us and we would get our LPG.

7. Do you think your State acquired more benefit compared to the other two States? Explain.
I think we gained fair enough. We have LPG in exchange of water in which we are abundant of.

8. If you think your State lost in the bargaining process, what is your next state action? Discuss.
No. I think we are not losers.

10:57 PM  

 Anonymous said...

Marinelle O. Magsino
BPS 4-2


1. Yes, because treaties can help each state to pursue their interests and to have friendly relations and they will benefit for their own welfare.

2. . States enter into treaties or executive agreements because Sec. 20, Art. VII of the constitutions state that by virtue of the president may contract or guarantee foreign loans on behalf of its state subject to such limitations as provided by law so that sovereign states can enter into executive agreements for external relations with other states

3. Municipal law of the state where the treaty making resides is the impact of the treaty to the domestic legislation.

4. No, on the first place there is a conflict in negotiation because each state doesn’t know what to do. Then each state has their own interest to pursue. Suddenly there is a misunderstanding between State A and C. State C did not maintain their friendly relation with other state. They just won’t satisfy their interest no matter what happen.


5. As a member of State A, it is difficult to negotiate to other states because each state protects their own interest and want to benefit for their own welfare. In spite of that they have to keep friendly relations with each other.

6. After the conclusion of the treaty State A rewarded by a resolve treaty with State B that will satisfy the needs of both parties.

7. Yes, State A acquired more benefit to other state because we successfully entered the treaty with State B and at the same time we maintain the friendly relations with other state.

8. If ever State A lost in the bargaining process, State A has to make a letter of withdrawal towards state C.



Marinelle O. Magsino
BPS 4-2

10:59 PM  

 Anonymous said...

Answers:

1. Yes because one of the essential attributes of statehood is its capacity and competence to enter into a treaty or a binding international agreement with other states. The capacity t enter into a treaty is in fact a vital evidence of statehood. The capacity to enter into relations with other States is a requirement of statehood and a manifestation of its independence, in law, from the authority f any other state.

2. States enter into treaties to gain greater or mutual benefits from other states. As what JFK aptly said: “Today, no nation can build its destiny alone. The age of self-sufficient nationalism is over. The age of interdependence is here." Treaties are created to maintain unity, peace and cooperation among states. Entering into treaty also means adhering to the law of nations.

3. The impact of a treaty to domestic legislation is can be traced through the doctrine of transformation under the 1987 Constitution wherein the concurrence of the Senate is needed before the treaty become part of the law of the land. In international law, international agreements or treaties should be more superior than the municipal law or domestic legislation. On the other hand, on the part of domestic legislation, international agreements should conform with the municipal laws.

4. No, we were not able to observe proper protocol during the treaty negotiation because we didn’t know it (the workshop) has to be a formal one. The workshop is somewhat chaotic that time though we came up with our output.

5. I am the head of state of State B. We have a difficulty in dealing with State C because they didn’t want us to enter into treaty with State A. Though we, the state A, have a lot of proposal that will benefit the three states, still, we did not reach an agreement. So we decided to terminate the treaty with State C then entered into a new treaty with State B.

6. I think State A and State B acquired just the same benefit since what the State B need is LPGs while we need water. State C did not benefit because of their “possessive” actions that resulted to the termination of treaty between State a and State C.

7. I think our state did not loss in the bargaining process.


-Gerald T. Magno
BPS (IR) 4-2

11:03 PM  

 Anonymous said...

Answers:

1. Yes because one of the essential attributes of statehood is its capacity and competence to enter into a treaty or a binding international agreement with other states. The capacity t enter into a treaty is in fact a vital evidence of statehood. The capacity to enter into relations with other States is a requirement of statehood and a manifestation of its independence, in law, from the authority f any other state.

2. States enter into treaties to gain greater or mutual benefits from other states. As what JFK aptly said: “Today, no nation can build its destiny alone. The age of self-sufficient nationalism is over. The age of interdependence is here." Treaties are created to maintain unity, peace and cooperation among states. Entering into treaty also means adhering to the law of nations.

3. The impact of a treaty to domestic legislation is can be traced through the doctrine of transformation under the 1987 Constitution wherein the concurrence of the Senate is needed before the treaty become part of the law of the land. In international law, international agreements or treaties should be more superior than the municipal law or domestic legislation. On the other hand, on the part of domestic legislation, international agreements should conform with the municipal laws.

4. No, we were not able to observe proper protocol during the treaty negotiation because we didn’t know it (the workshop) has to be a formal one. The workshop is somewhat chaotic that time though we came up with our output.

5. I am the head of state of State B. We have a difficulty in dealing with State C because they didn’t want us to enter into treaty with State A. Though we, the state A, have a lot of proposal that will benefit the three states, still, we did not reach an agreement. So we decided to terminate the treaty with State C then entered into a new treaty with State B.

6. I think State A and State B acquired just the same benefit since what the State B need is LPGs while we need water. State C did not benefit because of their “possessive” actions that resulted to the termination of treaty between State a and State C.

7. I think our state did not loss in the bargaining process.


-Gerald T. Magno
BPS (IR) 4-2

11:03 PM  

 Anonymous said...

Jezza F. Blastique
BPS IR IV-2


1. Is it imperative for states to enter into treaties? Explain.
Yes, it is vital for states to make treaties with other states. In the present times where globalization is the name of the game, states opt to enter into international agreements than remain alone and end up a strictly closed state. But then again, there is no specific law that obliges states to enter into treaties. It is a state’s prerogative if they want to be part of international agreements or not.

2. Why do states enter into treaties/executive agreements? Discuss.
States enter into treaty/international agreements for them to be able to negotiate with other states regarding the things that will benefit them both. A state enters into a treaty because of the benefit it can extend to the national interest of it. Other reasons of course are “…to keep friendly relations among nations, irrespective of their differing constitutional and social systems…” Vienna Convention

3. What is the impact of a treaty to domestic legislation?
A treaty, which is deemed incorporated as part of the law of the land, is of the same class as a statute enacted by Congress. If there is a conflict between statute and a treaty on the same subject matter, the statute, if enacted subsequently, would prevail, either by repealing the treaty or amending the same, to the extent of its inconsistency. Because a treaty cannot nullify a law.
If a statute deals with a subject matter similar that of a treaty, the statute and the treaty should be construed together, as statutes in pari material. If a treaty is a special law dealing on the same subject as that of a statute of general application, the treaty will be construed as an exception to the general statute, by applying rules of statutory construction.

4. Were you able to observe the proper protocol, exchange of letters during the treaty negotiations?
Yes, but the letters are not really properly presented during visits for negotiations.

5. What are the challenges and difficulties your State has encountered?
The situation itself where our state (State C) have to make it sure that the exclusive agreement between State B and State C will prevail, by not making it appear like we’re against State’s A and State B’s welfare. And at the last part, we will have no more LPG…huhu

6. What are the rewards your State has gained after the conclusion of the treaty?
Honestly, nothing. Because our sources told us that State B terminated our executive agreement with them. Meaning, no more gas.

8. If you think your State lost in the bargaining process, what is your next state action? Discuss.
Next state action would be to pass to ICJ our proposed resolution regarding our proposed treaty texts with both State A and State B (the one passed to Ma’am Daye in papers last Saturday) and ask if State B can really terminate legally their executive agreement with us, even without our consent, and on what grounds. Ask for their recommendations/ advice on what to do if ever we have a ‘say’ on the situation. And of course, lay down our proposed treaties to family of nations and ask if our wish will possibly be granted. Last resort, if all else fails, find another state/s, have treaty with it/them to get LPG. Hehe..

11:04 PM  

 Anonymous said...

Answers:

1. Yes because one of the essential attributes of statehood is its capacity and competence to enter into a treaty or a binding international agreement with other states. The capacity t enter into a treaty is in fact a vital evidence of statehood. The capacity to enter into relations with other States is a requirement of statehood and a manifestation of its independence, in law, from the authority f any other state.

2. States enter into treaties to gain greater or mutual benefits from other states. As what JFK aptly said: “Today, no nation can build its destiny alone. The age of self-sufficient nationalism is over. The age of interdependence is here." Treaties are created to maintain unity, peace and cooperation among states. Entering into treaty also means adhering to the law of nations.

3. The impact of a treaty to domestic legislation is can be traced through the doctrine of transformation under the 1987 Constitution wherein the concurrence of the Senate is needed before the treaty become part of the law of the land. In international law, international agreements or treaties should be more superior than the municipal law or domestic legislation. On the other hand, on the part of domestic legislation, international agreements should conform with the municipal laws.

4. No, we were not able to observe proper protocol during the treaty negotiation because we didn’t know it (the workshop) has to be a formal one. The workshop is somewhat chaotic that time though we came up with our output.

5. I am the head of state of State B. We have a difficulty in dealing with State C because they didn’t want us to enter into treaty with State A. Though we, the state A, have a lot of proposal that will benefit the three states, still, we did not reach an agreement. So we decided to terminate the treaty with State C then entered into a new treaty with State B.

6. I think State A and State B acquired just the same benefit since what the State B need is LPGs while we need water. State C did not benefit because of their “possessive” actions that resulted to the termination of treaty between State a and State C.

7. I think our state did not loss in the bargaining process.


-Gerald T. Magno
BPS (IR) 4-2

11:04 PM  

 Anonymous said...

MARVIN LUNA BPS IR 4-2
1. Yes, Because no one can live alone without interaction with others. Same principle for the states, no state can exists without the help of other states.All states has need the other states to sustain some of their primary needs like food, raw materials, goods, petroleum or anything that humans need to preserve life and existence. And also, it is imperative, for every states need securities from invasion , attacks, that states need to huddle to each other for protection to any thing that can endanger the nation and disturb peace, and to maintain harmony and unity.

2. Treaties/ executive agreements are made between states to be binded by the rules, or procedures that both parties agreed upon and willing in assuming obligations, to "lock" both parties to it, securing confidence to each other. It is made for example for trade agreements, military cooperation, etc. A party who fails to follow the "contract" can be Held liable to intl laws.
3.



4.yES. aFTER the parties negotiated with each other through emissaries, terms and condition are created and agreed by the states A and B and as part of protocol, did exchange of signatures for treaty papers.
5.I think one of difficulties we experienced is having fear of being bypassed and being thrown aside during the time states A and C are negotiating. Anytime that states A and C agreed on their terms, my state B will be not getting the thing we need on B. Also one of the challenges is to convince/persuade state B to forgot its treaty with state C and we create new agreements for the exchange of goods.
6. WE REACHED OUR GOALS. we secured treaty with state B and we secured ourselves of steady supply of LPG in exchange of supplying water for state B.
7.YES, because we need LPG for our economies and state B need water for their people.For A and B I think we both benefited from the treaty and the state C loss their former partner in trade. ###

11:10 PM  

 Anonymous said...

Melanie P. Aldeon
BPS IR 4-2
1. Is it imperative for States to enter into treaties? Explain.
 It is important for states to enter into treaties for some various reasons. First, it binds the two contracting parties, maintaining friendly relations with each other. Second, adherence to international law, making the state recognized in the international community. A State may not stand by itself all the times. Hence, it needs the help of its neighboring countries to provide the need of its people. As one big family, nations in the world must have to extend a helping hand to those who are in need. Entering into treaties may also means promoting the national interest of one’s state. ʁ

2. Why do States enter into treaties/executive agreements? Discuss.
 States enter into treaties/executive agreements to maintain the friendly relations with other states and with international organizations as well. Treaties are essential in the conduct of international relations and foreign affairs of a State. In order to conduct a relation between and among states, they must first enter into treaty wherein the agreements, policies clearly are embodied. In transacting business with others, the State promotes its national interest within the contracting party.

3. What is the impact of a treaty to domestic legislation?
 Treaties may be incorporated by the state in its domestic legislation. They may be treated as one of its municipal laws or a basis of such. Treaties must be respected, under the principle pacta sunt servanda “every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith”.

4. Were you able to observe the proper protocol, exchange of letters during the treaty negotiations?
 At first, yes. But the succeeding part was very chaotic because everyone was talking at the top of their lungs just to hear their proposals for each State.

5. What are the challenges and difficulties your State has encountered?
 State C was threatened by State A to invoke war if they don’t get what they want from us. At the same time, State B threatened us that they will withdraw their treaty with us if we won’t give in to them.

6. . What are the rewards your State has gained after the conclusion of the treaty?
 State A and State B came up with an economic treaty despite the fact that State B still has a current economic treaty with State C. The former ignored it and violated its provisions. The two States did not issue a copy of the treaty they’ve agreed upon to State C. At the end of the day, our State wasn’t given the justification in settling the conflict of interest between the three states.
7. Do you think your State acquired more benefit compared to the other two States? Explain.
 No because the two States singled us out. They had connivance against us. They were so cruel. They “tangled” us down.

8. If you think your State lost in the bargaining process, what is your next state action? Discuss.
 State c will file a petition on the International Court of Justice for the violation of State B in its treaty with our State, that “pacts must be respected and observed with good faith.
 Our state also made a proposal for both State A and B to settle the conflict of interest and thus maintain friendly relations with one another. ü

11:17 PM  

 Anonymous said...

Melanie P. Aldeon
BPS IR 4-2
1. Is it imperative for States to enter into treaties? Explain.
 It is important for states to enter into treaties for some various reasons. First, it binds the two contracting parties, maintaining friendly relations with each other. Second, adherence to international law, making the state recognized in the international community. A State may not stand by itself all the times. Hence, it needs the help of its neighboring countries to provide the need of its people. As one big family, nations in the world must have to extend a helping hand to those who are in need. Entering into treaties may also means promoting the national interest of one’s state. ʁ

2. Why do States enter into treaties/executive agreements? Discuss.
 States enter into treaties/executive agreements to maintain the friendly relations with other states and with international organizations as well. Treaties are essential in the conduct of international relations and foreign affairs of a State. In order to conduct a relation between and among states, they must first enter into treaty wherein the agreements, policies clearly are embodied. In transacting business with others, the State promotes its national interest within the contracting party.

3. What is the impact of a treaty to domestic legislation?
 Treaties may be incorporated by the state in its domestic legislation. They may be treated as one of its municipal laws or a basis of such. Treaties must be respected, under the principle pacta sunt servanda “every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith”.

4. Were you able to observe the proper protocol, exchange of letters during the treaty negotiations?
 At first, yes. But the succeeding part was very chaotic because everyone was talking at the top of their lungs just to hear their proposals for each State.

5. What are the challenges and difficulties your State has encountered?
 State C was threatened by State A to invoke war if they don’t get what they want from us. At the same time, State B threatened us that they will withdraw their treaty with us if we won’t give in to them.

6. . What are the rewards your State has gained after the conclusion of the treaty?
 State A and State B came up with an economic treaty despite the fact that State B still has a current economic treaty with State C. The former ignored it and violated its provisions. The two States did not issue a copy of the treaty they’ve agreed upon to State C. At the end of the day, our State wasn’t given the justification in settling the conflict of interest between the three states.
7. Do you think your State acquired more benefit compared to the other two States? Explain.
 No because the two States singled us out. They had connivance against us. They were so cruel. They “tangled” us down.

8. If you think your State lost in the bargaining process, what is your next state action? Discuss.
 State c will file a petition on the International Court of Justice for the violation of State B in its treaty with our State, that “pacts must be respected and observed with good faith.
 Our state also made a proposal for both State A and B to settle the conflict of interest and thus maintain friendly relations with one another.ü

11:19 PM  

 Anonymous said...

Arvie Joy Arce
BPS 4-2

1. Yes, the relationships of States,are usually embodied in form of treaties now. A treaty also signifies the friendly relation of one State to another.

2. States enter into treaties to establish friendly relationships, to settle disputes, and to gain benefit for your own state while maintaining a good relationship with other states.

3. It was given that we adopt the generally accepted principles of international law, with that, treaties, are considered parts of national law, under the doctrine of incorporation.

4. No, i think what happened was not really the proper procedure, there were no formal talks between the state representatives and way the situation was handled informally.

5. I'm part of State B, i think one of the big challenges was to make a decision that will benefit our state and establish a friendly relation with State A without having conflicts with Our State's Relation with State C.

6. We gained water in exchange with LPG with the State A.

7. No, i think we acquired benefit but we also damaged our friendly relation with state C.

8.we lost the friendly relation with State C, I think it was well stated in our resolutions the reasons why we have to withdraw from the treaty, maybe we will try to establish new friendly relation with them in form of a new treaty not exclusive in the distribution of of LPG.

11:23 PM  

 bigfluffybird said...

Lumbo, Jay-R
BPS (IR) IV-2

1. Is it imperative for States to enter into treaties? Explain.

- Absolutely yes. it is imperative for the states to enter into treaties. because every state need each others hand.

2. Why do States enter into treaties / executive agreements? Discuss.

- so that they would make good relations with other states and for them to promote national interest of the state.

3. What is the impact of a treaty to domestic legislation?
- Sometimes there would be a conflict of law in domestic legislation. For example the conflict of laws that happens in the visiting forces agreement.

During the workshop:
4. Were you able to observe the proper protocol, exchange of letters during the treaty negotiations?
- somehow yes.

5. What are the challenges and difficulties your State has encountered?
- Negotiating with other state made it difficult for us.

6. What are the rewards your State has gained after the conclusion of the treaty?
- none.. state a and state b had made a new negotiation

7. Do you think your State acquired more benefit compared to the other two States? Explain.
- no, because for me we had fail to negotiate with the other states

8. If you think your State lost in the bargaining process, what is your next state action? Discuss.
- offer much more effective negotiation with the two other states. for much more better results ü

11:29 PM  

 Anonymous said...

Emil L. Samaniego
BPS IV-2
After few attempst mam, i got it... maybe the prob is on the web connection of my pc. :-)

1. Is it imperative for States to enter into treaties? Explain.
Yes, it is an imperative for states to enter into treaty as member of family of nations who ‘adhere to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations’ (emphasis supplied, Art. II Sec. 2, 1987 Phil. Cont.), in order to mutually cooperate, benefit and peacefully co-exist with each other, though in strict legal sense, it is not obligatory/mandatory.
2. Why do States enter into treaties / executive agreements? Discuss.
States enter into treaties/executive agreement on the purpose of mutual cooperation, mutual benefit and peaceful co-existence of all states with each other.
3. What is the impact of a treaty to domestic legislation?
If a country adopts the ‘general principle of international laws as part of the law of the land’ either through transformation and incorporation, then treaty has a force similar to a domestic law, and no domestic legislation shall be passed in contrast with the provisions of a treaty. But, if a country provides otherwise, but is still a signatory of a specific treaty, then that country is still held hostage by the treaty but limited only on the terms and provisions stipulated in the treaty.
4. Were you able to observe the proper protocol, exchange of letters during the treaty negotiations?
I believe so.
5. What are the challenges and difficulties your State has encountered?
The state found difficulties on persuading both states to adhere to its direction (of course, those two states in any sense wont let themselves to do so, because that could mean failure for the groups).
6. What are the rewards your State has gained after the conclusion of the treaty?
No concrete rewards since the State C found itself no treaty at all because State B unilaterally terminated its treaty with State C. But diplomatically speaking, the State C may win international favor for in the end it posed itself as the underdog state party between the three states, and since it’s not the one who broke an international treaty and violated international custom but State B.
Note: On violation of international custom by State B
 State B violated an international customary law or protocol on entering treaty and forging alliance to another state, because if State B is in dire need of something (e.g water), it shall FIRST seek the assistance/help of its allied state (State C) before the other state (State B), and on the case, State C was indeed very willing to assist State B by exporting or even to the point of giving water to State B as an aid. This custom must be observed for variety of reasons, first, in order to prevent a scenario ‘what If’, the treaty with State A and State B will be perceived inimical to the State interest of State C, and indeed it is in our case; and second, this must be observed as sign of respect to your allied states, as we see on the case, State B and State C entered into an exclusive treaty, and this only goes to show, that State C and State B enjoy a very close and secured relation, because in the first place, a country will not enter into exclusive treaty with another country if they don’t possess a very close and secured ties like the Philippines and the US on its RP-US military based treaty.
The case is also not an issue of State C as too ‘possessive’ but issues of respect and recognition to the very close and secured tie of State B and State C, which State B happened, did not seem to realize. This is also not an issue of State C restricting the sovereignty of State B particularly its right to enter treaty with each other, but an issue of international custom or protocol that they shall adhere to as law abiding member of family of nations.
Try to think of it, if State A will become China, State B as the Philippines and State C as the US, do you think the US (State C) will just allow the Philippines to enter into a treaty with China for instance with regards to military bases? Certainly no, but if State B and State A will still proceed to their treaty, they may do so without violating strict legal provisions of international law, but the way the international community will perceive these two states, for sure, they will harvest a lots of international condemnation, and the favors to state C.

7. Do you think your State acquired more benefit compared to the other two States? Explain.

 Obviously no.

8. If you think your State lost in the bargaining process, what is your next state action? Discuss.

 We should seek international favor by condemning the actions taken by State A and State B since it is violative of international custom. It can be done through resolutions, media propaganda (as happened in Gaza), or to the very last option of going to international tribunals for redress of right.

11:30 PM  

 Anonymous said...

Emil L. Samaniego
BPS IV-2
After few attempst mam, i got it... maybe the prob is on the web connection of my pc. :-)

1. Is it imperative for States to enter into treaties? Explain.
Yes, it is an imperative for states to enter into treaty as member of family of nations who ‘adhere to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations’ (emphasis supplied, Art. II Sec. 2, 1987 Phil. Cont.), in order to mutually cooperate, benefit and peacefully co-exist with each other in the era of greater states interdependency in the globalized international set up, though in strict legal sense, it is not obligatory/mandatory.
2. Why do States enter into treaties / executive agreements? Discuss.
States enter into treaties/executive agreement on the purpose of mutual cooperation, mutual benefit and peaceful co-existence of all states with each other.
3. What is the impact of a treaty to domestic legislation?
If a country adopts the ‘general principle of international laws as part of the law of the land’ either through transformation and incorporation, then treaty has a force similar to a domestic law, and no domestic legislation shall be passed in contrast with the provisions of a treaty. But, if a country provides otherwise, but is still a signatory of a specific treaty, then that country is still held hostage by the treaty but limited only on the terms and provisions stipulated in the treaty.
4. Were you able to observe the proper protocol, exchange of letters during the treaty negotiations?
I believe so.
5. What are the challenges and difficulties your State has encountered?
The state found difficulties on persuading both states to adhere to its direction (of course, those two states in any sense wont let themselves to do so, because that could mean failure for the groups).
6. What are the rewards your State has gained after the conclusion of the treaty?
No concrete rewards since the State C found itself no treaty at all because State B unilaterally terminated its treaty with State C. But diplomatically speaking, the State C may win international favor for in the end it posed itself as the underdog state party between the three states, and since it’s not the one who broke an international treaty and violated international custom but State B.
Note: On violation of international custom by State B
 State B violated an international customary law or protocol on entering treaty and forging alliance to another state, because if State B is in dire need of something (e.g water), it shall FIRST seek the assistance/help of its allied state (State C) before the other state (State B), and on the case, State C was indeed very willing to assist State B by exporting or even to the point of giving water to State B as an aid. This custom must be observed for variety of reasons, first, in order to prevent a scenario ‘what If’, the treaty with State A and State B will be perceived inimical to the State interest of State C, and indeed it is in our case; and second, this must be observed as sign of respect to your allied states, as we see on the case, State B and State C entered into an exclusive treaty, and this only goes to show, that State C and State B enjoy a very close and secured relation, because in the first place, a country will not enter into exclusive treaty with another country if they don’t possess a very close and secured ties like the Philippines and the US on its RP-US military based treaty.
The case is also not an issue of State C as too ‘possessive’ but issues of respect and recognition to the very close and secured tie of State B and State C, which State B happened, did not seem to realize. This is also not an issue of State C restricting the sovereignty of State B particularly its right to enter treaty with each other, but an issue of international custom or protocol that they shall adhere to as law abiding member of family of nations.
Try to think of it, if State A will become China, State B as the Philippines and State C as the US, do you think the US (State C) will just allow the Philippines to enter into a treaty with China for instance with regards to military bases? Certainly no, but if State B and State A will still proceed to their treaty, they may do so without violating strict legal provisions of international law, but the way the international community will perceive these two states, for sure, they will harvest a lots of international condemnation, and the favors to state C.

7. Do you think your State acquired more benefit compared to the other two States? Explain.

 Obviously no.

8. If you think your State lost in the bargaining process, what is your next state action? Discuss.

 We should seek international favor by condemning the actions taken by State A and State B since it is violative of international custom. It can be done through resolutions, media propaganda (as happened in Gaza), or to the very last option of going to international tribunals for redress of right.

11:35 PM  

 Anonymous said...

A.) The steps to be followed in the treaty-making process are negotiation, signature, ratification, and entry into force.

During negotiation, the head of state or the authorized representatives of States A and B undertakes discussion and exchanges of notes regarding the proposed terms and conditions of the economic partnership treaty. After the negotiation, upon reaching an agreement on the form and content of the treaty, the parties should put their signature on the instrument. This signifies that the parties are in good faith in entering into an agreement. The principle of alternat is exercised during this process, wherein the name of the state will be listed first on the copy of the instrument that he will bring home to his country. The next step is the ratification. During this process, the head of state must seek the approval of the senate. A 2/3 vote of all members of the senate is required. After the ratification, the treaty will enter into force on the date agreed upon by the State parties.

B.) The rights and obligations of State A and B in their economic partnership treaty are the ff:

State A has the right to import LPG from State B and has the obligation to export water to the said State. On the other hand, it is the right of State B to import water from State A and is obliged to provide LPG to the said State.

In the treaty of State B and C regarding the exclusive distribution of LPG, the rights and obligations of each State-party are as follows:

It is the right of state B to be the sole distributor of LPG of state C. While state C has the right to have an exclusive access to the LPG of state B. State B's obligation is to export or distribute LPG exclusively to sate C. While State C is oblige to import LPG solely to State B.

C.) As head of state of State B, i will resolve the conflict of interest by offering a proposal to state c. First proposal is the amendment of our treaty that the distribution of LPG be made not exclusive to State C but also to State A. Second Proposal is to lower the cost of LPG being imported by State c as long as state c will agree to be the exporter of LPG to State A and in exchange of the low cost of LPG, State a must export water to state b. In case of refusal to all the proposals, I will just asked for the termination of treaty with State c by voidance because of incompatibility with a subsequent agreement. then i will continue to conclude the economic partnership treaty with state a since it will be much more beneficial for my state.

DIMAYA, JESSICA E.
BPS (IR) 4-2

1.)Yes. As a member of the family of nations, it is the duty of every state to establish harmonious relationship with one another as well as to promote international peace and order. These duties will be realized if every state are bound by their treaty obligations.

2.) States enter into treaties or executive agreements in order for them to establish friendly relations or alliances among other states, to maintain international peace and order by settling disputes, protect and promote vested interest and to gain benefits in terms of economic, social, political, military, and other aspects.

3.)In the Philippines, we adopt international laws including treaties as part of the law of the land.

A state-party is obliged to create domestic legislation that is
necessary for the realization of a particular treaty.

4.)No. Though the negotiation has been undertaken by the head of state or their authorized representatives, still, the standard practice of submitting a draft of the proposed treaty together with counter-proposals which are the basis of subsequent negotiations has not been undertaken. There are no exchanges of notes regarding the proposed terms and conditions of the treaty.

5.) Among the challenges and difficulties encountered by State A are the ff.:

-promoting State A's interest while avoiding conflict with state c
-convincing state c to affirm the proposals of state b
-when state c refused the proposals of state b and instead, made their own proposal of exporting water to state b just to prevent state b from concluding a treaty with state A.

6.)At the end of the negotiation, State B opted to terminate its treaty with state c and decided to conclude the economic partnership treaty with state a. therefore, state a is now enable to import LPG from State B in exchange of exporting water to the said state.

7.) Yes. In the end, State A had conclude the economic partnership treaty with State b which allows state a to import LPG from state B in exchange of importing water to the said state. while state B and State C had already terminated their treaty. State B and State C are now in conflict.

11:44 PM  

 Anonymous said...

Lascano, kingjhan
BPS IR IV-2

1. Is it imperative for States to enter into treaties? Explain.

- yes. logically no state can live alone. every state has scarce resources. without the treaties it would be hard for the state to maintain it's preservation.we enter treaties for the purpose of political economic and security etc.

2. Why do States enter into treaties / executive agreements? Discuss.

- to push it's national interest, because of realpolitik.

3. What is the impact of a treaty to domestic legislation?
- the congress would have limits on legislating. there would be an auto-limitation of sovereignty.

During the workshop:
4. Were you able to observe the proper protocol, exchange of letters during the treaty negotiations?
- no due to we don't have enough knowledge and experience

5. What are the challenges and difficulties your State has encountered?
- negotiating process to each states.

6. What are the rewards your State has gained after the conclusion of the treaty?
- the treaty with state b

7. Do you think your State acquired more benefit compared to the other two States? Explain.
- yes,we successfully pushed our national interest

8. If you think your State lost in the bargaining process, what is your next state action? Discuss.
- our state should offer a much more effective negotiation woth the other states

11:49 PM  

 Anonymous said...

Lascano, kingjhan
BPS IR IV-2

1. Is it imperative for States to enter into treaties? Explain.

- yes. logically no state can live alone. every state has scarce resources. without the treaties it would be hard for the state to maintain it's preservation.we enter treaties for the purpose of political economic and security etc.

2. Why do States enter into treaties / executive agreements? Discuss.

- to push it's national interest, because of realpolitik.

3. What is the impact of a treaty to domestic legislation?
- the congress would have limits on legislating. there would be an auto-limitation of sovereignty.

During the workshop:
4. Were you able to observe the proper protocol, exchange of letters during the treaty negotiations?
- no due to we don't have enough knowledge and experience

5. What are the challenges and difficulties your State has encountered?
- negotiating process to each states.

6. What are the rewards your State has gained after the conclusion of the treaty?
- the treaty with state b

7. Do you think your State acquired more benefit compared to the other two States? Explain.
- yes,we successfully pushed our national interest

8. If you think your State lost in the bargaining process, what is your next state action? Discuss.
- our state should offer a much more effective negotiation woth the other states

11:49 PM  

 Anonymous said...

Clarence G. Salazar BPS-IR 4-2

Scenario: State A would like to enter into an economic partnership treaty with State B involving the importation of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) in exchange it agreed to export water (h2o) in favor of State B. However, State B has a treaty for exclusive distribution of LPG in favor of State C. State B is running out of water.

(a) What are the steps to be followed in the Treaty-making process?

State B having a treaty of exclusive distribution of liquefied petroleum gas in favor of State C, but, since the State B is running out of water supply and that State A is offering State B an economic partnership treaty involving the importation of LPG in exchange it agreed to export water in favor of State B. Therefore State B should follow the treaty making process by.

State B must negotiate with both State A and State C announcing to terminate the treaty as ‘rebus sic stantibus’ for a vital change of circumstances occurs such as the lack of water supply in their state. Therefore entering into another treaty with both State A and State C.

After the meeting of minds signing of treaty will follow applying the principle of alternat according to which the order of the naming of the parties and of the signatures of the plenipotentiary is varied so that each party is named and it plenipotentiary signs first in the copy of the instrument to be kept by it.

Provisions of the treaties as formerly confirmed and approved by the states and the states expresses its willingness to be bound by the treaty called ratification. After the ratification process, the treaty enters into force in such manners and on such date as it provides or as the negotiating parties may agree. Consent of all the parties to be bound by the treaty is established.


(b) What are the rights and obligations of each State-party?

A treaty like an ordinary contract under the Civil code is the law among the parties which governs their relations, rights and obligation and thus must follow the binding force called Pacta sunt sevanda which means “pacts must be respected”. It requires that every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith.

(c) If you are the head of state of State B, how would you resolve the conflict of interests?

As the head of state of State B, as what I have discussed in the first part of the letter A question, State B having a treaty of exclusive distribution of liquefied petroleum gas in favor of State C, but since State B is in the crisis of running out of water supply and that State is offering State B an economic partnership treaty involving the importation of LPG in exchange, it agreed to export water in favor of State B. Therefore, State B should have negotiations with the two States. First is to announce the termination of the treaty they have with State C using the rebus sic stantibus for a vital change of circumstances occurs such as the shortage of water supply in their State.

Thus, State B will enter into another treaty with State C and will continue to supply the said State with LPG but not exclusively and enter into a treaty with State A that they will supply State A with LPG in exchange of water supply.


Ma’am Daye, since I was not able to attend in your class last Saturday. I answered these questions.




ON-LINE QUIZ

Clarence G. Salazar BPS-IR 4-2

1. Is it imperative for States to enter into treaties? Explain.

Yes, it is essential for a State to enter into treaties. Even though a State is powerful and it has stable and progressive economy, still a state cannot go alone on its own. It is necessary to interact and build good relations with other states. But States enter into treaties due to their own choice and rights, and no law can oblige a State to enter into a specific treaty without the practice of its freewill.


2. Why do States enter into treaties / executive agreements? Discuss.

States enter into treaties for various important reasons. One is for the purpose of having and maintaining friendly relations with other states for them to live in peace. Another is for the State to extend the benefits it may get for its natural interest from other States. Such exportation of goods that a state lacks or importing goods that a state is abundant and so its economy will progress. A State would not want to enter into treaties without the assurance of pursuing their own interests and benefits.


3. What is the impact of a treaty to domestic legislation?

Treaties, under the doctrine of incorporation being part of settled rules in international law, with respect to contracting states would form part as the law of the land by constitutional mandate. Legislature can modify or repeals treaties by subsequent legislation on the same subject because it is said under that doctrine that treaties and statutes occupy the same level. But it still when there will be conflict between a treaty and a specific statute, statutes prevail over the prior treaties.

11:54 PM  

 Anonymous said...

BPS IR 4-2
Ma. Shiela H. Garcia
1. Is it imperative for States to enter into treaties? Explain.
Yes, it is imperative for states to enter into a treaty or executive agreements. It promotes a friendly diplomatic relations with other states and also promotes national interest. A treaty and an executive agreement may also result to a harmonious relationship with other states.
2. Why do States enter into treaties / executive agreements? Discuss
States enter into treaties because it is an agreement that promotes the national interest of every state and that it also promotes peace in trade or transactions of every state.
3. What is the impact of a treaty to domestic legislation?
The impact of a treaty to a domestic legislation is that it require the domestic law to join with its own municipal law for observation and presentation of law.
4. Were you able to observe the proper protocol, exchange of letters during the treaty negotiations?
Yes.. but the class became too noisy.. that make some scenarios chaotic,.,.,

5. What are the challenges and difficulties your State has encountered?

That the State B might agree with State C, that they can supply them the water that they need.. and if this happens, then our State (State A) will not benefit from any of them, and will not have the supply of LPG..

6. What are the rewards your State has gained after the conclusion of the treaty?

The State C will be the one to sell LPG to us in a cheaper price..

7. Do you think your State acquired more benefit compared to the other two States?

Yes.. because our only problem is to maintain a good relationship with State C.. since we want to have an a agreement with State B, While State B find a hard time in negotiating with State C regarding the exclusive distribution of LPG in their State…

8. If you think your State lost in the bargaining process, what is your next state action? Discuss.

We didn’t lose in the bargaining process…

11:57 PM  

 Anonymous said...

1. Yes. It is imperative for a state to enter into treaty for reasons that a state cannot survive on its own. It is necessary to form alliance with other state and gain from this cooperation. Also, a state entering into a treaty manifests its capacity to participate and form friendly relations.
2. States enter into treaties for various reasons. A state may enter into treaties in order to acquire gains from cooperation. It may be in the form of external defense, internal policy, and enforcement of contracts or benefit to the economy of both parties.
3. Treaties impact the domestic legislation as it may be adopted as part of the law. In the Philippines in the case of treaties as international law, as stated in our constitution “The Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of int’l law as part of the law of the land”. The constitution demonstrate its adherence to the incorporation theory which explains that international law become part of domestic law and it must be deliberately and specifically transformed through the appropriate constitutional act of Congress.
4. No. Although each state observes the need for the requirements to negotiate like the letter of credence, the process of welcoming the state officials still everything was done in a very informal way. Members of each state despite diligently discussing the issue still the negotiations were done in a very casual way of talking.
5. Being part of State B the major problem was negotiating and availing the treaties from the two other states. State B being in need of water which can be provided by State A through a treaty was opposed by State C on the grounds that entering into a treaty with State A will violate the previous “exclusive treaty” of State B and C. State B aims to assume a treaty with both state for the purpose of gains for each other. State B believes that entering into a treaty with State A will not violate the exclusive treaty since State B will give greater priority to State C (State B’s first proposal was a 70-30 distribution of LPG) However, State C still insists the exclusivity of the treaty.
6. State B gained from the conclusion of treaty in a manner that it has already solved the emerging problem on depletion of water resources and it also has established a friendly relation and good economic ties with State A.
7. State A and B have equal benefits to the treaty adopted. State A wanting the importation of LPG and State B being in need of water entered into a treaty to solve each nations gap in resources. As to State C, their nation was left behind with no other option. Due to their greed and refusal to enter and share resources to State A they end up with nothing to gain – importation of LPG was pulled out.
8. Since State B wanted a friendly relation to both state so that each of them may benefit on each others resources, however this vision was refused by State C insisting that it should be an exclusive treaty only with B & C. I believe that State B has done the proper remedy which is to withdraw the treaty with State C.
_Charmaine Danica Aguila [BPS 4-2]

12:02 AM  

 Anonymous said...

1. Yes. It is imperative for a state to enter into treaty for reasons that a state cannot survive on its own. It is necessary to form alliance with other state and gain from this cooperation. Also, a state entering into a treaty manifests its capacity to participate and form friendly relations.
2. States enter into treaties for various reasons. A state may enter into treaties in order to acquire gains from cooperation. It may be in the form of external defense, internal policy, and enforcement of contracts or benefit to the economy of both parties.
3. Treaties impact the domestic legislation as it may be adopted as part of the law. In the Philippines in the case of treaties as international law, as stated in our constitution “The Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of int’l law as part of the law of the land”. The constitution demonstrate its adherence to the incorporation theory which explains that international law become part of domestic law and it must be deliberately and specifically transformed through the appropriate constitutional act of Congress.
4. No. Although each state observes the need for the requirements to negotiate like the letter of credence, the process of welcoming the state officials still everything was done in a very informal way. Members of each state despite diligently discussing the issue still the negotiations were done in a very casual way of talking.
5. Being part of State B the major problem was negotiating and availing the treaties from the two other states. State B being in need of water which can be provided by State A through a treaty was opposed by State C on the grounds that entering into a treaty with State A will violate the previous “exclusive treaty” of State B and C. State B aims to assume a treaty with both state for the purpose of gains for each other. State B believes that entering into a treaty with State A will not violate the exclusive treaty since State B will give greater priority to State C (State B’s first proposal was a 70-30 distribution of LPG) However, State C still insists the exclusivity of the treaty.
6. State B gained from the conclusion of treaty in a manner that it has already solved the emerging problem on depletion of water resources and it also has established a friendly relation and good economic ties with State A.
7. State A and B have equal benefits to the treaty adopted. State A wanting the importation of LPG and State B being in need of water entered into a treaty to solve each nations gap in resources. As to State C, their nation was left behind with no other option. Due to their greed and refusal to enter and share resources to State A they end up with nothing to gain – importation of LPG was pulled out.
8. Since State B wanted a friendly relation to both state so that each of them may benefit on each others resources, however this vision was refused by State C insisting that it should be an exclusive treaty only with B & C. I believe that State B has done the proper remedy which is to withdraw the treaty with State C.

_Charmaine Danica Aguila [BPS 4-2}

12:03 AM  

 Anonymous said...

Calugay, Jesus kristian King
Bps Ir 4-2

1. Is it imperative for States to enter into treaties? Explain.

xx without a doubt it is imperative for states to enter into treaties. the world we live in maybe large but we still exist under one earth, and our existence are interwined with the existence of others.

2. Why do States enter into treaties / executive agreements? Discuss.

xx to preserve not only peace and order among states but to promote the pursuit of state interest and develop harmmonic relationships with other co-existing states.

3. What is the impact of a treaty to domestic legislation?
xx An auto-limit of sovereignty will be triggered as to the congress which would have limits on legislating.

During the workshop:
4. Were you able to observe the proper protocol, exchange of letters during the treaty negotiations?
xx my knowledge in proper international treaty negotiations protocols still lacts gravely but i was able to absorb some of these protocols from fellow participants.

5. What are the challenges and difficulties your State has encountered?
xx communication and proper protocols. i have observed that we sometimes encounter misunderstanding between two parties and we sometimes lack proper execution of important actions which must take effect.

6. What are the rewards your State has gained after the conclusion of the treaty?
xx our reward was we were able to preserve national interest but with the cost of losing favor of state C.

7. Do you think your State acquired more benefit compared to the other two States? Explain.
xx yes. we were able to protect our state needs and established treaty with state A.

8. If you think your State lost in the bargaining process, what is your next state action? Discuss.
xx i do not think our state lost bargains but i do regret the actions made by state C that lead us no choice but to severe our ties with their state inorder to preserve our state and its national interest.

12:08 AM  

 daye said...

*** NOTHING FOLLOWS ***

8:09 AM  

 Anonymous said...

dana evangelista
bps 4-2

1. Is it imperative for States to enter into treaties? Explain.
-- No,States are not compelled to enter into treaties. Compelling them to enter into treaties is just like demanding them what to do and same as making them your "robots".

But, of course, there is a need for them to enter into agreements like this which could preobably help their country as it will represent their interest.

Especially, they cannot stand alone.
2. Why do States enter into treaties / executive agreements? Discuss.
--They enter into agreement because States wanted something will happen in their interest. i think that is the first. Secondary is to help those coutries who are in need countries.

of course, first and foremost, they are entering into agreement because it must be beneficial to them. Say,an importation of a state's products and exportation of their products. it will make their products known to other countries as well as it will boost their economy.

Second reason i think is that they wanted to help other countries because they believe this is their responsibility for humanity. but i don't know if this thinking is still present.
3. What is the impact of a treaty to domestic legislation?
-- it will be affected because we are adhering to the international law as also the Law of the Land. as also being stated in the incorporation theory.
During the workshop:
4. Were you able to observe the proper protocol, exchange of letters during the treaty negotiations?
--Somehow. we were able to observe protocol but not proper because we are in the same room. other state's plan were heard and it just like hearing what they wanted to happen which we, of course, know is biased.
5. What are the challenges and difficulties your State has encountered?
--we encountered difficulties in talking with State C to meet into an end which is beneficial to the both of us. We are in the State A and State C is compelling State B to adhere in their previous treaty which will be prejudicial for our state because we are badly in need of LPG. anyway, we are bargaining because State A will also benefit from this. it's just that State C is obliging State B not to enter into treaty with us.

we felt it's a sabotage on our state.
6. What are the rewards your State has gained after the conclusion of the treaty?
--Because State B might have realized that they also have the human responsibilty to help us, State A, who are in need of LPG, we were able to contract with State B- that we will export our water to them and that we will import their LPG.

They were able to realize that State C is not a good partner.
7. Do you think your State acquired more benefit compared to the other two States? Explain.
--Somehow, because at the end of the activity we were able to attain our goal and that is to enter into traty with State B.
We were able to have more benefit with State C because State B is their previous "exclusive economic" partner, and when we came to the scenario, State C lost their partner.
8. If you think your State lost in the bargaining process, what is your next state action? Discuss.
I don't think our group lost. hehe


NOTE:
I know it's an honest mistake for not been able to pass this requirement. work is killing my time in studying. i am not expecting that you will grade this but i hope you will at least read it.

thanks po.

1:46 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

About Me

Name: daye

Location: Manila / Balagtas, Bulacan, Philippines

pretty as i always claim... I was born youngest of the three children of Mr. Conrado Tolentino and Mrs. Flordeliza Castro-Tolentino. I am very ambitious, my childhood dream is becoming a teacher...second to becoming a brilliant, professional and the most talk-about lawyer here in the Philippines. Others said that I am a born politician, though sometimes I don't believe them...I prefer to be a "woman" behind a good politician :). I am a pragmatist but my idealism is towards Liberalism...I love to travel places, I've been to the US and Japan but my goal is to visit all provinces in the Philippines...I have obssession in acquiring Vincent Van Gogh's "STARRY NIGHT", for what reason? I myself don't know. My fulfillment in life would be to make others happy everyday of my life...

View my complete profile