A short essay on Philippine Environmental Law and the International Developments.

James Shemron C. Corro
Juris Doctor candidate- III
Main essay written : 22 November 2018 , Further Edits: 9 June 2019

“Despite having some of the best environmental laws in the word, the Philippines is still not able to reap the benefits of having such legislation.[1]”

The Philippine Constitution protects the environment by incorporating its sustainability as a necessity for an individual to fully exercise his rights as a human being. In other words the environment is an attachment to the individual rights of the person. In order for a person to fully exercise and advance his or her rights, the state has to cater to the policy for its protection and sustainability.

This is clear cut from the constitutional provisions. If we read each constitutional provision which relate to the environment carefully, one would note that there is always a human dimension attached in correlation to its preservation. Take for example Sec. 16 of Article II on the Declaration of State Policies which states that:

“SECTION 16. The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.”[2]

Section 16 is the basis for the “writ of kalikasan”, In the landmark case of Oposa vs. Factoran[3] the court recognized the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. It interpreted the “rhythm and harmony” in the provision, to indispensably include the judicious disposition, utilization, management, renewal and conservation of the country’s natural resources. To this end, the judiciary recognized the performance of the obligation to ensure the protection of the right to a balanced and healthful ecology for future generations to come.

To put emphasis, the court states that the right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment.

The reason why I pointed this out is because, while insofar the Philippines attaches the obligation to protect and conserve the environment in correlation to the right of the individual to a balanced and healthful ecology; Other states have already taken the next step to establishing and awarding inalienable rights to nature. [4] A Good example of that would be Ecuador. Ecuador is the first country to recognize Rights of Nature in its Constitution.[5] Chapter Seven of its Constitution is entitled the “Rights of nature”; Article 71 of its Constitution provides:

“Article 71. Nature, or Pacha Mama, where life is reproduced and occurs, has the right to integral respect for its existence and for the maintenance and regeneration of its life cycles, structure, functions and evolutionary processes.”[6]

The Ecuadorian Constitution does not treat nature as property attached to the individual for the full exact fulfilment of his or her rights but is a body of its own, with its own set rights. These rights include the right for its existence, regeneration and restoration. The effect is, the ecosystem itself can be named as the defendant.

This is important because if we take a look into the writ of kalikasan and its requisites, it is imperative that there is an infringement on the human dimension. One of the requisites of the writ is that “the actual or threatened violation involved will lead to an environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.[7] Needless to say if there is no prejudice to the life, health or property of inhabitants the writ cannot be issued.

Another difference in our Paradigm is the difficulty in obtaining relief from the courts because a party to a case may only be a natural or juridical person or entities authorized by law that may be parties in a civil action.[8] A good example of that would be in the case of “Resident Marine Mammals vs. Reyes”[9] In this case the Court specifically enunciated that the provisions on the Rules of Court as well as substantive law cannot be stretched to accommodate Marine Mammals or Animals. The fine point of the court is that it is impossible for animals to tell humans what their concerns are and petitions invoking a right and seeking legal redress before this court cannot be a product of guesswork. Service Contract 46 however was struck down as unconstitutional, not because it affected the environment or the animals, but because it directly affected the source of livelihood of fishermen, primarily felt through the significant reduction of their fish harvest.

This is the difference between the Philippine Constitution and the 2008 Ecuadorian Constitution, While as the Ecuadorian Constitution recognizes that nature has inalienable and actionable rights itself, the Philippine Constitution requires the justification of endangerment on the personal property or life of the individual. There is a stark contrast to the approach of the two states, one recognizes nature as a body itself while the other recognizes nature as a mere extension in the exercise of his or her rights.

The move to incorporate rights of nature into a national constitution is, in itself, a powerful paradigm shift.[10] On December 2010, following the practices of Ecuador, Bolivia passed the Law on Mother Earth recognizing that the environment is entitled to separate and distinct incorporeal rights. Chapter III of the statute establishes the rights of mother earth and the succeeding chapters enumerate the state obligations and responsibilities of the people.

The two approaches of recognizing nature as a personality itself like Bolivia and Ecuador and nature as an extension of exercise of human rights like the Philippines in my opinion are not mutually exclusive.

I believe that there exists a middle ground in both, like in New Zealand, where a former national park has been granted personhood, and a river system is expected to receive the same soon.[11] Personhood means, among other things, that lawsuits to protect the land can be brought on behalf of the land itself, with no need to show harm to a particular human. This approach is different from Ecuador and Bolivia because it does not incorporate the rights to the law and constitution itself but utilizes the existing legal national framework to grant already existing rights to specific natural entities.

I believe that a somewhat similar method can be implemented in the Philippines. That is, the creation of juridical entities, the sole purpose of organization is the conservation and protection of specific natural entities. Nothing in the corporation code disallows this.[12] However it is still quite different from the paradigm set by New Zealand because whatever suit is brought for its benefit must be brought under the name of the Corporation. And in our Rules of Court, specifically Section 2 of Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, Sec. 2. Parties in interest provides that a real party in interest, is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest.

This provision has two requirements: 1) to institute an action, the plaintiff must be the real party in interest; and 2) the action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest. Interest within the meaning of the Rules of Court means material interest or an interest in issue to be affected by the decree or judgment of the case, as distinguished from mere curiosity about the question involved. One having no material interest to protect cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court as the plaintiff in an action. When the plaintiff is not the real party in interest, the case is dismissible on the ground of lack of cause of action.[13]

But this begs the question, if a non-natural person like a corporation can be recognized as an entity having rights, then why not the environment? This was the question that Christopher D. Stone’s Essay, “Should Tree have Standing- Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects” tried to answer.[14] To quote:

“The world of the lawyer is peopled with inanimate right-holders: trusts, corporations, joint ventures, municipalities, Subchapter R partnerships,12 and nation-states, to mention just a few….We have become so accustomed to the idea of a corporation having “its” own rights, and being a “person” and “citizen” for so many statutory and constitutional purposes, that we forget how jarring the notion was to early jurists.”

In his essay he forwards the premise that the environment should have rights but that is not to say that it should have every right imaginable.

He asserts that it is not an argument that streams and forests cannot have standing because they cannot speak because Corporations cannot speak either; nor can states, estates, infants, incompetents, municipalities or universities. In the status quo, Lawyers already customarily speak for ordinary citizens. One should handle legal problems of natural objects as one does the problems of legal incompetents.

Stone’s view is in stark contrast to what was one of the fine points in Resident Mammals vs. Reyes[15] which declined to give standing to animals since it is impossible for animals to tell humans what their concerns are and petitions invoking a right and seeking legal redress before the court cannot be a product of guesswork.

Nevertheless, In Resident Marine Mammals vs. Reyes, The court did point out to Stone’s essay, by advancing the idea of guardianship. Guardianship, as practiced in America, as the court defines it is a well-established system by which nonhuman animals may obtain judicial review to enforce their statutory rights and protections. With court approval, animal advocacy organizations may bring suit on behalf of nonhuman animals in the same way court-appointed guardians bring suit on behalf of mentally-challenged humans who possess an enforceable right but lack the ability to enforce it themselves.[16] What the court requires is a long known standing history of advocacy.

What may be similar to Guardianship in America in our jurisdiction may be the principle of human stewardship over the environment, this is expressed in Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, Specifically Section 5.

SEC. 5. Citizen suit. – Any Filipino citizen in representation of others, including minors or generations yet unborn, may file an action to enforce rights or obligations under environmental laws. Upon the filing of a citizen suit, the court shall issue an order which shall contain a brief description of the cause of action and the reliefs prayed for, requiring all interested parties to manifest their interest to intervene in the case within fifteen (15) days from notice thereof. The plaintiff may publish the order once in a newspaper of a general circulation in the Philippines or furnish all affected barangays copies of said order.[17]

Hence, The Supreme court by giving a parallel alternative to the American remedy deems it fit that there is no necessity or practical requirement to implead and feign representation on behalf of animals and to do so with betray the anthropocentric view of environmental advocacy. To emphasize, the court says that:

“There is no way that we, humans, can claim to speak for animals let alone present that they would wish to use our court system, which is designed to ensure that humans seriously carry their responsibility including ensuring a viable ecology for themselves, which of course includes compassion for all living things.”

Our rules on standing are sufficient and need not be further relaxed.”

In conclusion, Philippine Environmental Laws and the provisions concerning the environment in our Constitution have been hailed as one of the best in the world, but only insofar as it benefits to our extension of rights in the environment.

[1] Environmentalists lament govt’s inability to fully implement green laws, GMA News Online, http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/305051/news/nation/environmentalists-lament-govt-s-inability-to-fully-implement-green-laws/ (last visited Nov 22, 2018).

[2] Section 16, Article II, 1987 Philippine Constitution.

[3] Oposa vs. Factoran, Jr. G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993

[4] Environmentalists lament govt’s inability to fully implement green laws, GMA News Online, http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/305051/news/nation/environmentalists-lament-govt-s-inability-to-fully-implement-green-laws/ (last visited Nov 22, 2018).

[5] Ecuador adopts Rights of Nature in Constitution, The Rights of Nature, http://therightsofnature.org/ecuador-rights/ (last visited Nov 22, 2018).

[6] 2008 Ecuador Constitution Chapter Seven, Article 71

[7] Seogvia vs. The Climate Change Commission, G.R. No. 211010, March 7, 2017

[8] Rule 3, Section 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure

[9] Resident Marine Mammals of the Protected Seascape Tanon Strait vs. Reyes, GR 180771, April 21, 2015

[10] Laurence Delina, Nature’s place in PH Constitution, https://opinion.inquirer.net/110817/natures-place-ph-constitution (last visited Nov 22, 2018).

[11] Bryant Rousseau, In New Zealand, Lands and Rivers Can Be People (Legally Speaking), The New York Times, December 21, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/14/world/what-in-the-world/in-new-zealand-lands-and-rivers-can-be-people-legally-speaking.html (last visited Nov 22, 2018).

[12] Corporation Code of the Philippines

[13] Goco vs. Court of Appeals, GR No 157449, April 6, 2010

[14] Should Trees Have Standing- Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects, Christopher D. Stone, Southern California Law Review 45 (1972)

[15] Resident Marine Mammals of the Protected Seascape Tanon Strait vs. Reyes, GR 180771, April 21, 2015

[16] Animal Lovers Volunteer Ass’n v. Weinberger, 765 F.2d 937, 938 (9th Cir., 1985).

[17] Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, Section 5

Terrorism, ripples to the world.

James Shemron C. Corro,

Juris Doctor Applicant-III,

Initial work: October 20, 2018, further edits on: June 7, 2019

“Historically, terrorism falls in a category different from crimes that concern a criminal court judge”

– Jürgen Habermas , German philosopher and sociologist in the tradition of critical theory and pragmatism

The quote lays true to its substance. Indeed, Terrorism has required states to evaluate principles and balance interests. The subject-matter of terrorism has spawned unique relationships between states and, states with their own nationals. Since 1963, the international community has produced nineteen universal instruments in the form of conventions and protocols to prevent terrorism.[1] The conventions begin as international meetings of representatives from many nations. Many result to a general consensus about procedures or actions they will take on specific topics.[2] The usual output of these conventions are law-making treaties. A treaty is an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law.[3] Law-making treaties create general norms for the future conduct of the parties in terms of legal propositions, and the obligations are basically the same for all parties.[4] Some conventions in this case, bind state parties to enact legislation to counteract financing of terrorists and to suppress bombs.[5] Other conventions go as far as to suppress terrorism involving nuclear weapons.[6] These instruments must be read together with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The Convention prescribes that the validity and continuance in force of a treaty may be based on pacta sunt servanda[7]. Pacta Sunt Servanda as a general principle of international law, states that a treaty in force is binding upon the parties and must be performed by them in good faith.[8]. Abrogation from the principle of pacta sunt servanda is allowable only in limited circumstances. These Circumstances must be fundamental. To be fundamental they must constitute as an essential basis of the consent of the parties to be bound by the treaty. The circumstances must transform the extent of obligations still to be performed under the treaty.[9]

Legal Challenges already arise when requirements under international law come in conflict with municipal law. The Question therefore is, may these fundamental circumstances be considered by a state party unilaterally and serve as basis for derogation from a treaty?

To illustrate, the Philippines adopts generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land.[10] As a party to several of these conventions, it is bound to enact municipal laws to enforce agreements of treaties it has entered. One of the conventions that the Philippines entered is the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.[11]The Convention requires state parties not to refuse a request for mutual legal assistance on the ground of bank secrecy.[12] If the Philippine government on its own findings consider events in the country as fundamental, to the extent that it is unable or unwilling to provide mutual legal assistance, May it derogate from the treaty despite the absence of acquiescence of other state parties and refuse to provide mutual assistance?

I answer in the affirmative. The Vienna Convention must be read alongside the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States.[13] Article 5 of the Convention considers that fundamental rights of states are not susceptible of being affected in any manner whatsoever.[14] Article 1 of the same convention provides that qualifications of states include the capacity to enter into relations with the other states.[15] Necessarily, the capacity to enter relations include the capacity choose and severe relations, which cannot be impaired through contract or treaty. The best understanding of this criterion is that it means independence. It is that independence that provides a capacity to enter into relations with other States, as a State.[16] This, however, does not mean that a unilateral derogation from a treaty does not come with its own set of consequences. As a remedy, parties may refer the matter to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) under Article 36 and 37.[17] The erring party may be held liable for reparations.[18]After the merits of the proceedings, reparations are usually left to be decided between state parties. In cases where there is difficulty in determining the adequate amount of reparations, the ICJ may rule on the amount based on the Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Act.[19] Article 31 of the instrument provides that,

“The responsible State is under an obligation to make full reparation for the injury caused by the Internationally wrongful act.”[20]However, this but leads to further questions. If entering into these instruments, come with the price of subjecting the state-party to the terms and conditions of a treaty and place them in the risk of reparations if a treaty is violated, then why do states enter into these treaties in the first place? The standard answer to this question is that states enter treaties in order to obtain gains from cooperation.[21] The propensity of states to enter into bilateral and multilateral arrangements concerning terrorism is correlated to the effects and degree of harm imposed by terrorism. The origin of the state is due to the general agreement freely entered into by equal and independent individuals living in a state of nature to form themselves in to a community and obey a government established by them for the protection of natural rights.[22] If applied on an international scale, states come together for mutual aid and protection. A State, just like individuals, would logically be more disposed to enter into an agreement for so as long as mutual aid and protection outweigh the costs. The intensity and effect of terrorism must be dissected to fully appreciate the reasons why nations bind themselves together in treaties.

Terrorism is now a global phenomenon, which must be addressed comprehensively.[23] Terrorism around the world has incurred both human and material costs. The four deadliest terrorist groups were responsible for 59 percent of all deaths in 2016. ISIL was the deadliest group in 2016 with a 50 percent increase in deaths from its previous peak in 2015. The group killed 9,132 people in 2016 with the majority of these deaths occurring in Iraq.[24] Studies in Europe show states have lost around €180 billion in GDP terms due to terrorism between 2004 and 2016.[25] South Asia was more affected than anywhere else in the world between 2008 and 2013 according to the Global Terrorism Database (GTD).[26] On several mediums you can read first-hand experiences of the victims. During 9/11 attack, an executive working in the world trade centre, narrated the attack to quote:

“When it hit, everything went instantly black. You know how a little kid packs a pail of sand at the beach? That’s what it was like in my mouth, my nose, my ears, my eyes—everything packed with debris. I spat it out. I puked, mostly out of horror. I felt myself: Am I intact? Can I move? I was all there. There was moaning. People were hurt and crying all around me.”[27]

Tamir, a photographer born and raised in Turkey has been photographing the aftermath of terrorist attacks since he was a teenager. He describes, that life in the country as erratic and one plagued by fear.

“One week [after a bombing], normal life is starting to (return), but after one month (people fear) another (attack) is coming and everything turns back again.” “Right after these bombings,” he said, “the whole country is in shock. … Most of the time, people don’t go outside for the next few days because they are afraid”.[28]

World Leaders have thrown their lot, and have time and again, condemned terrorism. Pope Francis has expressed the view that terrorism generates greater inequalities and just like repression violates human rights.[29] An optimistic quote President Obama: “”The threat from terrorism is real, but we will overcome it.”[30] The General Assembly heard today as it adopted by consensus a resolution stressing the need for countries to join forces, with many Member States reiterating that no one country nor Government could tackle the scourge alone.[31] However, not all statements of state parties are reflective of a general affinity of global cooperation against terrorism. Vladimir Putin, President of Russia has recurrently blamed the United States for funding terrorists. To quote Putin, ““95% of the world’s terrorist attacks are orchestrated by the CIA,” and the St. Petersburg metro bombing must be investigated “with this in mind. “[32]

Indeed, Terrorism has brought several challenges to the doorstep of many nations. And the fight against terrorism which requires global cooperation brings its own set of tasks related with cooperation. These problems may be in the form of jurisdictional challenges concerning the jurisdiction over a terrorist or even a consensus on what acts should constitute as terrorism. The United Nations has spent more than 20 years trying to form a consensus on what constitutes terrorism, but has yet to succeed. Sticking points are usually about conflicting national interests and unwillingness to change national legislative traditions.[33] As an example, China on November 2, 2017 for the fourth time blocked India, the US and other nations’ bid to list Pakistan-based JeM chief and Pathankot terror attack mastermind Masood Azhar as a global terrorist.[34] China, in its statement, said that since Pakistan didn’t agree with India on this issue, there is no “consensus” between the two directly affected parties. Beijing made it clear that China will support the issue only if Pakistan agrees with India.[35]

To understand the effects of terrorism in the relationship between states we have to understand the state under the auspices of international law. Article I of the Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States provides: ‘The State as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with other States.[36]

The United Nations was founded on the principle of sovereign equality between nations.[37] And the Principle of respect for territorial sovereignty inevitably overlap with those of the principles of the prohibition of the use of force and of non-intervention.[38] Territorial integrity and political independence are two core elements of Statehood. Territorial integrity refers to the territorial ‘oneness’ or ‘wholeness’ of the State. As a norm of international law, it protects the territorial framework of the independent State and is an essential foundation of the sovereignty of States.[39]

From the foregoing we could deduce from the rules, that no nation has the right to intervene in the political affairs of one state, its citizens in its territory or its independent capacity. No state may do things in the territory of another state without the consent of the affected state.

Problems arise in a hypothetical situation where Person X is a national of State A, Person X resides in State B, X plans terrorist operations in State C, Executes acts of terrorism in State D and escapes to State E and was arrested there. In this situation there are at least 5 states involved. The Question is who has authority and jurisdiction to try Person X?

Situations such as these, are where treaties find their prominence. Article 6 of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings provide the grounds of acquiring jurisdiction.[40] This is to be viewed in correlation with Article 8 which provides a situation where a terrorist is arrested in the territory of one of the state parties and there is refusal to extradite.[41] However despite the existing treaty, there is still no clear and categorical answer to the above situation. Each situation must be viewed in a case to case basis. International law is, but a budding class of its own. Until now states have difficulties balancing situations involving the principle of non-intervention and human rights. Terrorism is a problem that traverses across boundaries and is of such magnitude to compel nations to work together. It exposes nations to problems historically recurring in the conduct of its relations to other states. It, as well, pushes nations to re-evaluate and reconsider traditional stances. Needless to say, it is a situation that has forever changed the conduct of states and the face of the earth.

[1] UNITED NATIONS Office of Counter-Terrorism (OCT), , http://www.un.org/en/counterterrorism/legal-instruments.shtml (last visited Oct 20, 2018).

[2] 530 FW 2, International Protocols, Treaties, and Conventions, Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, , https://www.fws.gov/policy/530fw2.html (last visited Oct 20, 2018).

[3] Vienna Convention on the law of treaties, No. 18232 (1969). Article II, 1(a)

[4] Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law (Sixth ed. 2003).

[5] United Nations, 1999 International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.

[6] United Nations, INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF ACTS OF NUCLEAR TERRORISM (2005).

[7] Vienna Convention on the law of treaties, No. 18232 (1969).

[8] Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law (Sixth ed. 2003). pp. 591-592; Vienna Convention on the law of treaties, No. 18232 (1969). Article 26

[9] Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law (Sixth ed. 2003). P.595

[10] Constitutional Commission of 1986, 1987 Philippine Constitution (1987).

[11] United Nations, International Convention For the Suppression Of The Financing Of Terrorism (1999).

[12] United Nations, International Convention For the Suppression Of The Financing Of Terrorism (1999). Article 12 par. 2

[13] Seventh International Conference of American States., Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States (1934).

[14] Seventh International Conference of American States., Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States (1934). Article 5

[15] Seventh International Conference of American States., Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States (1934). Article 1

[16] Dakpo Akanda, EJIL: Talk! – The Importance of Legal Criteria for Statehood: A Response to Jure Vidmar, https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-importance-of-legal-criteria-for-statehood-a-response-to-jure-vidmar/ (last visited Oct 21, 2018).

[17] United Nations, International Court of Justice (1945) Article 36 and 38.

[18] regarding-rights, The International Court of Justice and the Question of Reparations Regarding Rights (2015), http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/regarding-rights/2015/07/17/the-international-court-of-justice-and-the-question-of-reparations/ (last visited Oct 21, 2018).

[19] International Law Commission, Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (2001).

[20] International Law Commission, Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (2001).

[21] Thomas J. Miles & Eric A. Posner, Which States Enter Into Treaties, And Why?, The Law School The University of Chicago (2008).

[22] John Lockes Social Contract Theory, , http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1726/John-Lockes-Social-Contract-Theory.html (last visited Oct 21, 2018).

[23] Global Cooperation, Tackling Root Causes Central to Fight against Terrorism, World Leaders Stress on Third Day of General Debate | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases, , https://www.un.org/press/en/2017/ga11950.doc.htm (last visited Oct 21, 2018). Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi of Pakistan

[24] Global Terrorism Index 2017, (2017), https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/Global%20Terrorism%20Index%202017%20%284%29.pdf. p.5

[25] The cost of terrorism in Europe, , https://www.rand.org/randeurope/research/projects/the-cost-of-terrorism-in-europe.html (last visited Oct 23, 2018).

[26] Global Terrorism Index 2017, (2017), https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/Global%20Terrorism%20Index%202017%20%284%29.pdf.

[27]As told to Cal Fussman, My Escape From the 81st Floor of the World Trade Center Esquire (2015), https://www.esquire.com/features/what-ive-learned/ESQ0102-JAN_WTC_rev (last visited Oct 24, 2018).

[28] Turkey in the shadow of terror, , https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2016/07/world/turkey-terror-cnnphotos/ (last visited Oct 24, 2018).

[29] CBC News · Posted: Mar 13, 2013 9:00 PM ET | Last Updated: March 14 & 2013, Pope Francis: In his own words | CBC News CBC (2013), https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/pope-francis-in-his-own-words-1.1349801 (last visited Oct 24, 2018).

[30] Key quotes from Obama’s IS speech, September 11, 2014, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-29152590 (last visited Oct 24, 2018).

[31] General Assembly Unanimously Adopts Resolution Calling for Strong Coordinated Action by Member States to Tackle Terrorism, Violent Extremism Worldwide | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases, , https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/ga12035.doc.htm (last visited Oct 24, 2018).

[32] Putin: 95% Of World Terrorist Attacks Are Made By The CIA, Geopolitica.RU (2017), https://www.geopolitica.ru/en/news/putin-95-world-terrorist-attacks-are-made-cia (last visited Oct 24, 2018).

[33] When it comes to defining ‘terrorism,’ there is no consensus | PBS NewsHour, , https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/defining-terrorism-consensus (last visited Oct 24, 2018).

[34] China blocks moves to list Masood Azhar as global terrorist: Official | The Economic Times

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/no-consensus-over-listing-azhar-as-global-terrorist-china/articleshow/61457780.cms (last visited October 24, 2018).

[35] China Defends Terrorist Masood Azhar, Justifies UN Veto Of India’s Move, NDTV.com, https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/china-defends-terrorist-masood-azhar-justifies-its-veto-of-indias-move-at-united-nations-1924157 (last visited Oct 24, 2018).

[36] Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law (Sixth ed. 2003); Seventh International Conference of American States., Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States (1934).

[37] U.N. Charter, art. 2(1)

[38] Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicar. V. U.S.), Merits on the Judgment, 1986 I.C.J. 14, ¶251 (June 27). [hereinafter “Nicaragua Case”].

[39] Territorial Integrity and Political Independence, , http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1116 (last visited Oct 24, 2018).

[40] United Nations, International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings (1997).

[41] United Nations, International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings (1997).