Conflict of Laws - Pe Benito (OCR) PDF

CONFLICT OF LAWS GALAHAD R. A. PE BEN ITO.... Published & Distributed by...... 'a'REX Book Store...... 856 Nlcanor Reyes, Sr. St. Tel. Nos.: 8736-0567/8733-6746...... 2161-65 Freedom Bldg., C.M. Recto Avenue Tel. Nos.: 8522-4521...

CONFLICT OF LAWS GALAHAD R. A. PE BEN ITO.... Published & Distributed by...... 'a'REX Book Store...... 856 Nlcanor Reyes, Sr. St. Tel. Nos.: 8736-0567/8733-6746...... 2161-65 Freedom Bldg., C.M. Recto Avenue Tel. Nos.: 8522-4521/8522-4107...... Manila, PhlllppJnes www.rex.com.ph..................  Philippin pyright, 2020 by ALAJIAIJ lt. A. Pl! on 11' ISBN 978-621-04-0915-4 No portion of this book may be copied or reproduced in books, pamphlets, outlines or notes, whether printed, mimeographed, typewritten, copied in different electronic devices or in any other form, for distribution or sale~ without the written permission of the author except brief passages in books, articles, reviews, legal papers, and judicial or other official proceedings with proper citation. Any copy of this book without the corresponding number and the signature of the author on this page either proceeds from an illegitimate source or is in possession of one who has no authority to dispose of the same. · ALL RIGHTS RESERVED BY THE AUTHOR No. 5438 Reprinted July 2023 Printed by: I REH pRIDTlnq comPftOq, Inc. Typography & Creative Lithography 84 P. Florenllno St., Sta. Me&a Heights, Quezon City Tel. No.: 6857 7778  DEDICATION Specially dedicated to my wife, Genecar; and my son, Galgen: Life is all about choosing our love and loving our choice." -Galahad R. A. Pe Benito -&lmaJl Cena, Lawyer Learns Lessons from US, Comes Home, fhilippine Daily Inquire(, September 7, 2008 at A19. iii  PREFACE The s cond edition of th.ls book.Is the latest, updated textbook n confli t of laws in the PhiHppine legal market. lt includes a inpreh nsive coverage of cases, laws, and d octrines dealing with the application and in teraction of laws of various states. It contains a d i ussion of United States and Philippine cases on conflict of laws. US jurisprudence is rich in conflict cases and these cases illustrate the true and classic conflict cases. The second edition could euphemistically be called the COVID-19 edition or the Pandemic edition as I was able to revise this book during the "lockdown" of 2020. Due to the lockdown, I was able to revise this book in a more focused manner and with greater attention to international law developments. My inability to leave home provided me the opportunity to read recent cases and jurisprudence dealing with conflict of laws. These cases, to say the least, were intriguing and cut through the core of private international law. The second edition of this book provides updates on local and international developments in private international law and to a smaller degree on public international law. It includes relevant cases and laws promulgated in late 2016 to the early part of 2020. Cases were carefully selected to include those with novel issues as well as those with international and jurisprudential significance. Changes in the Corporation Code and Rules of Court were also included in the discussion of conflicts cases. This book follows a simplified presentation of issues so the reader can easily understand the concepts and doctrines being presented. In addition to presenting relevant conflicts cases, the rational and policy considerations behind conflicting legal regimes and doctrines are also shown with the objective of impressing upon the reader the reason behind the law. This book is helpful to students, bar reviewees, and legal practitioners because of its comprehensive discussion of relevant legal issues. This book highlights the burning legal issues of conflict of laws that encompass subjects concerning choice of law, contracts, torts and damages, adoption, citizenship, domicile, marriage and divorce, property, adoption, wills, intellectual property, corporations, transboundary pollution, and enforcement of foreign judgments. iv  ABOUT THE AUTHOR tt. alahad Pe Benito is an international law expert majoring in onfli t of Laws. He earned his Juris Doctor degree from the Ateneo Law School in 1994. In 2003, he acquired his Master of Laws in Energy and Environment, with distinction, from Tulane Law School in the United States where he was a scholar. Galahad is licensed to practice law in the United States and the Philippines. He is a member of the State Bar of California and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. He has written scholarly articles for law journals and news organizations and has appeared in several forums concerning international law. He is the author of several books, namely, Environmental Law: Pollution Control and ECC Basics. Galahad teaches Public International Law, Conflict of Laws, Environmental Law, Torts and Damages, and Consumer Law at the FED-Institute of Law, Lyceum College of Law, and MLQU School of Law. He is also a bar reviewer in Conflict of Laws and an MCLE lecturer in Environmental Law, International Law, Consumer Laws, and Legal Ethics. He is involved in advocacy issues concerning environmental protection, law reform, and consumer protection. V  CONTENTS CHAPTER I IN TRODUCTION TO PRIVATE IN TERN ATION AL LAW................ 1 International Law................................................................................ 1 Branches of International Law........................................................... 2 Distinctions between Public and Private International Law......... 2 Nevsun Resources, Ltd. v. Araya................................................................ 3 Transformation to Customary International Law........................... 5 Abdullahi v. Pfizer........................................................................................ 5 Foreign Element................................................................................ 13 Phases in Conflicts Resolution......................................................... 14 Hasegawa v. Kitamura................................................................................ 14 Steps in Determining Applicable Law............................................ 18 Choice of Applicable Law................................................................ 19 Extraterritoriality............................................................................... 19 Small v. United States................................................................................. 20 Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co....................................................... 22. Corporate Liability for Human Rights Violation........................... 25 Jesner v. Arab Bank..................................................................................... 25 Nevsun Resources, Ltd. v. Araya.............................................................. 28 Forum Non Conveniens................................................................... 28 Saudi Arabian Airlines v. Rebesencio~ et al............................................. 29 Bangladesh Bank v. Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation, et al.... 37 vii  HAPTER JI 1-,0 1 E or L w...................................................................................... 41 'hoh·l' of Lnw l'rin ipl 8.................................................................. 41 I ri ncil-'I I : Lo 111 Law....................................................................... 42 Th I robl 111 of re11voi........................................................................ 43 znor. or io............................................................................................ 43 B >llis. Il llis.................................................................................................. 47 Principle 2: Needs of the Interstate and International Systems............................................................. 49 Principle 3: Relevant Policies of the Forum.................................. so Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company............................ so Cadalin, et al. v. POEA Administrator..................................................... 53 Bank of America NT & Asia v. American Realty Corporation............. 54 Dacasin v. Dacasin...................................................................................... 56 Principle 4: Relevant Policies of Other Interested States............ 59 Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney........................................................... 59 Butler v. Adoption Media, LLC................................................................. 68 Steps in Governmental Interest Analysis Test............................... 75 Criticism of Governmental Interest Analysis Approach............. 76 Principle 5: Protection of Justified Expectations........................... 76 Francisco v. Stolt Achievement MT···················································~····· 76 Principle 6: Basic Policies Underlying the Particular Field of Law.............................................................................. 78 Hancock v. Watson...................................................................................... 79 Principle 7: Certainty, Predictability, and Uniformity of Result..................................................................................... 80 Principle 8: Ease in the Determination and Application of the Law to be Applied........................................................ 81 Other Principles Affecting Choice of Law..................................... 81 Proof of Foreign Law and Processual Presumption..................... 81 Wild valley Shipping v. Court of Appeals................................................ 83 VU\ Manufa lu1 - rs Hanov r 1h.t t ·. v. u rr ro....................................... 85 Edi- taff Build rs Internationa l v. NLR................................................ 86 n,. Ap still 0 11V ntion................................................................ 87 E, ption to Proof of Foreign Laws.............................................. 88 Norse Management Co. v. National Seamen Board............................... 89 Scrivener's Error................................................................................ 90 Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation v. Sherman, et al................................................................................ 90 Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute.......................................................... 92 CHAPTER III CON TRACTS.................... :........................................................................ 95 Conflict of Laws in Contractual Relations..................................... 95 Primacy of Contractual Stipulations.............................................. 96 Bagong Filipinas Overseas Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission........................................................... 96 Atienza v. Philimare Shipping................................................................... 97 Pakistan International Airlines v. Blas Ople............................................ 98 Choice of Law Stipulations..........................:................................. 103 Pandemics and Force Majeure....................................................... 103 Waiver of Renvoi............................................................................. 106 Approaches to Contractual Conflicts of Law.............................. 108 Erie Insurance Exchange v. Edmund D. Heffernan II.......................... 109 Government v. Frank................................................................................. 111 In re KMH............................................................. ,..................................... 114 Depecage............................................................................................. 116 Philippines Follows Lex Loci Contractus..................................... 117 Triple Eight Integrated Services, Inc. v. NLRC...................................... 117 Defenses to Jurisdiction and Choice of Law................................. 119 Hasegawa v. Kitamura............................................................................. 120 ix  HAPTERIV TORTS AN D DAMAGES...................................................................... I 1brts as a our e of Obligation...................................................... 1 on pt of Negllg nee.................................................................... J onflict of Laws In Torts................................................................. 125 Approaches to Conflicts' Torts...................................................... 125 Dowis, et al. v. Mud Stingers, Inc., et al................................................. 126 Melton v. Stephens.................................................................................... 127 Saudi Arabian Airlines v. Court of Appeals.......................................... 130 First National Bank in Fort Collins v. Rostek........................................ 133 Kamelgard v. Macura...................................... :........................................ 137 Lankenau v. Boles................................ ·..... ···......................................... 139 Winter v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp......................................... 140 FutureSelect Portfolio Management, Inc. v. Tremont Group Holdings............................................................... 141 Lex Loci Delicti v. Most Significant Relationship....................... 143 Philippines' Preference for Most Significant Relationship........ 144 Abandonment of Stare Decisis.................................................. _. 144 CHAPTERV CITIZEN SHIP AN D DUAL N ATION ALITY......................_............. 146 How Acquired.................................................................................. 147 Citizenship at Birth.......................................................................... 148 Multiple Citizenships...................................................................... 148 Natural Born Citizenship............................................................... 148 Bengson III v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal............... 149 Foundlings Are Natural-Born Citizens......................................... 151 Poe-Llamanzares v. COMELEC............,.,............................................... 151 Importance of Citizenship.............................................................. 1 X  Ojun,a,,tan v. 0 1ningo.........,.................................................................. 159 R lali 1, tu onflict of Laws..................................... ,..................... 161 Dual Allegia1,ce.................................,.............................................. 161 Mercado v. Manzano..................................................................... ,.......... 164 Expatriation...................................................................................... 167 Board of Immigration Commissioners v. Go Callano.......................... 168 Republic Act No. 9225: Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act........................................ 172 Jacot v. Dal.................................................................................................. 183 Sobejana-Condon v. COMELEC............................................................. 185 Maquiling v. COMELEC.......................................................................... 189 Amado v. COMELEC............................................................................... 191 Reacquisition v. Retention.............................................................. 194 David v. Agbay.......................................................................................... 195 Practice of Profession............................................................._......... 198 In Re: Petition to Re-Acquire the Privilege to Practice Law in the Philippines........................................................................................ 198 General Principles in Dealing with Conflict of Nationality Laws.................................................................... 199 Citizenship under U.S. Laws......................................................... 201 Perez v. Brownell....................................................................................... 201 Afroyim v. Rusk......................................................................................... 205 Republic Act No. 9225 and U.S. Citizenship............................... 209 Assisted Reproductive Technology Children and Citizenship.........................................................._............ 209 Dvash-Banks v. Pompeo........................................................... ,................ 211 ART ls Not Against Publie; Policy ,.......................................... ,..... 213 xi  HAPTER VI DOMI ILE......................................,........................................................ 21 Kinds................................................................................................. 21 Domi ii artd ltizenship............................................................... 21 L and R t ntion......................................................................... 216 Schill v. incinnati Ins. Co............................ ,.......................................... 217 Romualdez Marcos v. COMELEC........................................................... 219 JalosJ·os v. COMELEC............ ·····...... · ··· ······.. ····.................................... 224 Permanent Residency Overseas and the Process of Foreign Naturalization..................................................... 226 Caballero v. COMELEC............................................................................ 2Z7 Caasi v. Court of Appeals....................................................................... 229 # Coquilla v. COMELEC.............................................................................. 231 Poe-Llamanzares v. COMELEC....................................................-........ 234 Absentee Voting and Domicile...................................................... 241 Macalintal v. COMELEC............................................................ ············ - 242 Nicolas-Lewis v. COMELEC.................................................................... 246 Republic Act No. 10590................................................................... 249 Venue in Estate Proceedings.......................................................... 252 Jao v. Court of Appeals............................................................................ 253 San Luis v. San Luis.................................................................................. 254 CHAPTER VII PROPERTY................................................................................................ 257 When Conflict Arises...................................................................... 257 Laurel v. Garcia......................................................................................... 257 Rule as to Real and Personal Property.. ,...................................... 259 Roberts v. Locke........................................................... ···························· 260 Tayag v. Benguet Consolidated............................................................... 62 xii  iR Rul st wn r. hip of R al Property........................ 265 R· tnh z v. Vd. d Raml z.................................................................... 265 M tth ws. Ta lor.................................................................................... 266 h man v. lnterm dial App lJate ourt...................... ,,,................. 267 Llantin. v. o Llor,g Chong..................................................................... 268 ndominium Act of the Philippines ,.............. ,.......................... 270 CHAPTER VIII MARRIAGE AN D DIVORCE............................................................... 272 Marriage Conflict of Laws............................................................. 272 Full Faith and Credit....................................................................... 272 US v. Jarvison............................................................................................. 273 Cook v. Cook.............................................................................................. 275 Validity of Marriages in Consulates............................................. 276 In re Marriage of Antonia R. Medina..................................................... 277 Importance of Marriage.................................................................. 283 Marriages Not Subject of Recognition......................................... 283 Obergefell v. Hodges................................................................................ 284 Civil Unions...................................................................................... 289 Langan v. St. Vmcent's Hosp. of N.Y................................................:..... 289 Divorce and Public Policy............................................ :................. 292 Tencha vez v. Escano.................................................................................. 293 Limited Recognition of Divorce.................................................... 295 Van Dom v. Romillo................................................................................. ,. 296 San Luis v. San Luis.................................................................................. 298 Pilapil v. lbay-Somera............................................ ,................. ,................ 3QO Roehr v. Rodriguez..... ,................................................... ,......................... 302 Right to Re-marry after Divorce.................................................... 304 xiii  R publi v. Orb ido.. ;.............................................................................. 305 R cognition of Foreign Divorce and Correction of Entry.......... 308 orpuz v. Sto. To1nas................................................................................ 309 ontinuing Liberalization of Divorce........................................... 311 Republic v. Manalo............................. ··................................................ 312 Nature of Recognition of Foreign Divorce Proceedings............ 318 Fujiki v. Marinay........................................................................................ 318 CHAPTER IX WILLS AN D SUCCESSION.................................................................. 326 Conflict of Laws in Succession............................... ,...................... 326 Definition.......................................................................................... 326 Extrinsic Validity of Wills............................................................... 327 Allowance of Will Proved Outside of the Philippines............... 329 Dalton v. Giberson..................................................................................... 330 Intrin.sic Validity of Will................................................................. 330 Miciano v. Brimo....................................................................................... 331 Bohanan v. Bohanan.................................................................................. 332 CHAPTERX ADOPTION.............................................................................................. 334 Ramirez Marcaida v. Aglubat.................................................................. 334 Applicable Law at Time of Adoption........................................... 3.36 Republic v. Miller...................................................................................... 3.36 Resident or Non-resident Aliens May Adopt............................. 337 Spouses Park v. Liwanag......................................................................... 337 Domestic and Inter-Country Adoption....................................... 339 xiv  HAPTERXI RPORATION S................................................................................... 342 onfli ts Probl ms on orporations............................................ 342 Domestic and Foreign Corporations............................................ 342 argilL Inc. v. Intra Strata Assurance Corporation.............................. 343 Steelcase v. Design International Selections, Inc.................................. 347 Residence of orporations..................................... ,....................... 352 State Investment House, Inc. v. Citibank............................. ,................. 352 The "Internal Affairs" Rule............................................................ 354 Rogers v. Guaranty Trust Co................................................................... 355 Western Air Lines, Inc. v. Sobieski.......................................................... 357 Mansfield Hardwood Lumber Co. v. Johnson...................................... 359 State of Incorporation..................................................................... 360 Domicile of Corporations............................................................... 360 Hyatt Elevators v. Goldstar Elevators.................................................... 361 Clavecilla Radio System v. Antillon....................................................... 363 Tayag v. Benguet Consolidated............................................................... 365 Nationality of Corporations........................................................... 368 Tests of Corporate Nationality: Control Test............................... 370 Tests of Corporate Nationality: Grandfather Rule..................... 371 Narra Nickel Mining and Development Corporation v. _. Redmont Consolidated Mines Corporation.....................:.::.:.:.-... 371 Controlling Doctrine: Control Test............................................... 375 Capital Refers to Common Shares................................................ 376 Gamboa v. Teves........................................................................................ 376 SEC Memorandum Circular No. 8, Series of 2013...................... 394 Validity of SEC Memorandum Circular No. 8, s. of 2013.......... 398 Roy v. Herbosa........................................................................................... 399 xv  CHAPTER XII TRAN SBOUN OARY POLLUTION..................................................... 408 The Problem of Pollution............................................................... 408 li1nate Change............................................................................... 4()9 Paris Climate Agreement................................................................411 Climate Change Litigation............................................................. 412 Georgia v. Te1messee Copper Co........................... ,................................ 413 Approaches to Transboundary Pollution.................................... 414 Pakootas v. Teck Cominco Metals, Ltd.................................................. 414 Nnadili v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc................................................................ 416 CHAPTER XIII IN TELLECTUAL PROPERTY................................................................ 419 Conflict in Intellectual Property Rights....................................... 419 Intellectual Property Code and International Conventions...... 420 Bridgeman Art Library, Ltd. v. Corel Corp........................................... 421 Approaches to IP Conflicts of Law............................................... 423 Subafilms, Ltd. v. MGM-Pathe Communication s Co.......................... 423 Allarcom Pay Television v. General Instrument Corp..............:········· 426 Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc....................... 427 Sari Louis Feraud Intern. v. Viewfinder, Inc......................................... 429 CHAPTER XIV EN FORCEMEN T OF FOREIGN JUDGMEN TS............................... 432 Effect of Foreign Judgments.......................................................... 432 Res Judicata Effect of Foreign Judgment..................................... 433 Fujiki v. Marinay........................................................................................ 433 When Foreign Judgment May Be Repelled................................. 437 Roehr v. Rodriguez................................................................................... 437 xvi  · t. A latlon rvi v. rand Int rnational AirwayR......................... 440 lropi L isure orp. v. I-Jail y................................................................. 442 Wrong Int rpretation of Law......................................................... 446 uin,ataes v. Brann.................................................................................. 446 Local ourts Not a Refuge for Failed Business Dealings.......... 453 Philippine Aluminum Wheels v. FASGI Enterprises........................... 454 Proof of Foreign Law.............. ,....................................................... 457 The Apostille Convention.............................................................. 458 LIST OF CASES Philippine Cases....................................................................................... 461 U.S. Cases.................................................................................................. 463 Other Case................................................................................................. 465 xvii............ CHAPTERI IN TRODUCTION TO PRIVATE IN TERN ATION AL LAW International Law International law has been defined as the "rules ~d principles of general application dealing with the conduct of states and of international organizations and with their relations inter se, as well as ·th som of their relations with persons,. ~ h er~ natural or, ~cal." 1 It includes not ohly questions of right between nations but ' cemm.. II - · is therefo~ -.acl=-, branm o es as we latio dil~~t~s~ta~ ~ili~~p~u~b~hk"c;-~character when international subjects are involved and a private character when individuals, domestic laws, or local events intermingle with each other necessitating a determination of the applicable law. Thus, international law has both a public side as well as a private side to it. An example of public international law is when two or more countries have territorial disputes that are governed by international treaties or conventions. F -i-~ ~~-===-=-=-~ comes int so or ¥0 Section 101 of the Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law of the United 1 States (1987). 2 Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113. 1  CONFU or LAWS Bran 11es of Jrrt-enrntio11a l La w Int rnational law haA two branches: l. u ill n ational law - governs the relationsh 'p f 1:11~0 ~ and internationa1 entitle. 2. riv in m tion law comprehends laws regula · private interactions across national fcontiers. 3 It dea]s wifh conflict of laws among the laws of two or m~e sta and necessitates a determination of which municipal Jaw app ·_ to a case. The objective is the harmonization of the laws o f several states whenever a conflicts of law situation exists. Distinctions between Public and Private International Law As to , · · ernatio · d on co · s, ifite custQIIl, :;~s~:.;-:::;::;~ r=....,,QP- recogruze Bycii · · ~ - _ ,and·. ot:ffi~..most highly.: q ublicist e various nations.4 They are generally known as nal ~ources of international law and are commonly referred to as "hard law" because of their binding nature, 4 In recent years, a form of law outside of the tfaditional sources has 6ecome accepted as an additional source of public international law. · Often referred to as "soft law," they are usually "normative statements in non-binding political instruments such as declaratio~, resolutions., and programs of action" where "compliance is expected with the norms that these texts contain."5 They are "political commitments that can lead to law, but they are not law, and thus give rise only to political consequences."6 Hence, they are so-called "soft law' because their binding force is questionable. Soft laws come in the form of normative resolutions of international organizations, concluding texts of summit meetings or intemation~l \ onfe1-'ences, recommendations of tf~ty bodies overseeing compliance·with treaty obligations, bilateral or multilateral memoranda of understanding, executive poli~ agreements, and guidelines or codes of conduct adopted in a variety Am. Soc'y lnt'I L., "International Law Defined," in Benchbook on International Law 3 § I.A (Diane Marie Amann, Ed., 2014), available at www.asil.org/benchbook / definition.pdf. 4 Article 38, Statute of the International Court of Justice. 5 Dinah L. Shelton, Soft Law in Handbook of International Law 1 (Routledge Press, 2008). 6/d.  INTR oucn N TO PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW I 3 f conte ts. 7 Exampl s of soft law would be United Nations General Assembly 1 solutions or de laratlons and United Nations Commission on Hu man Righ ts resolutions. Count.rles may honor or ignore the recommendations of these bodies, Also, decisions of the UN Arbitral 1iibunal have been dependent on the willingness of the parties to honor its decision. ·:vat-e inlem tional law, n the other hand, · ba d orrd.omraJtlCl ,----.. -= mu.fiicipal la which include the constituti and sta do1Pted by individual countrie Public international law is the same for all states which is not necessarily the case with private international law. As to subjects, ublie intema 'oruil.1 aw Has states. d · tematio - ttons as s. On the other hand, private international law has individuals and corporations as subjects thereof. However, recent cases and developments in human rights law and environmental law have started considering individuals and corporations as subjects of public international law. N evsun Resources, Ltd. v. Araya 2020SCC5 Facts: Three Eritrean workers sued Nevsun Resources before a Canadian court for damages arising from violations of customary international law in the form of forced labour, slavery, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and crimes against humanity. They claimed that they were forced to join Eritrea's military service where they experienced violent, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment arising from a forced labor regime. Nevsun filed a motion to strike the pleadings on the basis of the act of state doctrine that bars domestic courts,_from reviewing the sovereign acts of a foreign government. Nevsun charged that the claims based on customary international law had no reasonable prospect of success. The lower court judge dismissed the motion, which dismissal was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Issue 1: Do the Eritrean workers have the standing to claim violation of customary international law? Held: Yes. ld. at 4. 7 4 NflLf. P LAWS While stat s were his torically the main subjects of international law, it has long since evolved from this state- ce11tric template. The past 70 years have seen a prolifer ation of human rights law that transfor med internat ional law and made the individu al an integral part of this legal domain, reflected in the creation of a complex network of conventions and normativ e instrum ents intended to protect human rights and ensure complia nce w ith those rights. The rapid emergence of human rights signified a revoluti onary shift in international law to a human-cen tric concept ion of global order. The result of these develop ments is that international law now works not only to maintai n peace.,,. between states, but to protect the lives of individu als, their liberty, their health, and their educatio n The context in which international human rights norms must be interpre ted and applied today is one in which such norms are routinely applied to private actors. It is therefor e not : plain and obvious that corporations today enjoy a blanket exclusio n under customary internati onal law from direct liability for violations of obligatory, definable, and universa l norms of international law. Issue 2: Are the claims of the Eritrean workers barred by the act of state doctrine? Held:No. The act of state doctrine has played no role in Canadia n law and is not part of Canadia n common law. Whereas English jurispru dence has reaffirm ed and reconstructed the act of state doctrine , Canadia n law has develop ed its own approac h to addressi ng the twin principle s underlyi ng the doctrine : conflict of laws and judicial restraint. Both principle s have develop ed separate ly in Canadia n jurisprud ence rather than as element s of an all-encompassing act of state doctrine. As such, in Canada, the principle s underlyi ng the act of state doctrine have been complet ely subsume d within this jurispru dence. Canadia n courts determin e question s dealing with the enforcement of foreign laws according to ordinary private international law principle s which generally call for deference, but allow for judicial discretion to decline to enforce foreign laws where such laws are contrary to public policy, including respect for public international law.  INTR UCTI N TO PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW 5 Note: n, act of tal·e d ctrine is still a well-respected doctrine in intemational law. It i a viable defens to a foreign court's attempt to re i w th acts of a sover ign and independent state on the basis of intematiot,al comity. The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on this i ue must be taken to be applicable only to Canada, on the ground of public policy and necessity. 'Iransfonnation to Customary International Law International law is neither static nor stillborn. There may be conduct which was formerly not considered as a norm of international law but through practice and acceptance by states, have been transformed into a norm of customary international law. For this transformation to happen, the norm must have become universal in character, must be of mutual concern to states, and must be of a specific character that is definite in content. If all three elements converge, a norm may be considered to have become customary international law. Abdullahi v. Pfizer 562 F.3d 163 (2d Cir. 2009) Facts: Pfizer had an experimental antibiotic, Trovan, which it administered to young patients in Nigeria without getting the informed consent of the children nor their guardians. Trovan had adverse side effects on the test patients as some died while others became blind, deaf, paralyzed, or brain-damaged. Abdullahi and other plaintiffs sued Pfizer under the Alien Tort Statute (" ATS") before a United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. They alleged that Pfizer violated international law for non-consensual medical experimentation. Pfizer moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim under the ATS and on the basis of forum non conveniens. The district court granted the motion on the ground that plaintiffs failed to identify a source of international law that "provide[s) a proper predicate for jurisdiction under the ATS." The court justified its decision on the ground that "[a) cause of action for Pfizer's failure to get any consent, informed or otherwise, before performing medical experiments on the subject children would expand customary international law far beyond that contemplated by the ATS." With respect to forum non conveniens, the court held that "plaintiffs had failed to submit specific evidence that the Nigerian judiciary would be biased ag~inst its own fl I.ONPLI I' fl LAW~ ili ze ns in Rn lion against Pfiz r" and that "Nig ria wa an ad quat alternate forum." Plaintiffs appealed. lss11es: 1. Whether Pfizer violated international Jaw on non- ons nsual medical exp erimentation. 2. Whether Nigeria offers an adequate forum for the adjudi atton f plaintiffs' claims. Held: 1. Yes, Pfizer violated international law on non- ns nsual medical experimentation. 2. No, Nigeria has not been shown to be an adequate foru m for the adjudication of plaintiffs' claims. * * * Turning now to this appeal, and remaining mindful of our obligation to proceed cautiously and self-consciously in this area, we determine whether the norm alleged: (1) is a norm of international character that States universally abide by, or accede to, out of a sense of legal obligation; (2) is defined with a specificity comparable to the 18th-century paradigms discussed in Sosa; and (3) is of mutual concern to States. A. The Prohibition of Nonconsensual Medical Experimentation on Humans Appellants' ATS claims are premised on the existence of a norm of customary international law prohibiting medical experimentation on non-consenting human subjects. To determine whether this prohibition constitutes a universally accepted norm of customary international law, we examine the current state of international law by consulting the sources identified by Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice ("ICJ Statute"), to which the United States and all members of the United Nations are parties. Article 38 identifies the authorities that provide "competent proof of the Content of customary international law." These sources consist of: (a) international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting states; (b) international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law;  lNTR ucn N TO PRlVAT INTERNATIONAL LAW 7 ( ) the gen rat principles of law recognized by iviliz d nations; (d)... judicial decisions and the teachings of the mo t highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as ub idiary means for the determination of rules of law. The appellants ground their claims in four sources of international law that categorically forbid medical experimentation on non-consenting human subjects: (1) the Nuremberg Code, which states as its first principle that "[t]he voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential"; (2) the World Medical Association's Declaration of Helsinki, which sets forth ethical principles to guide physicians world-wide and provides that human subjects should be volunteers and grant their informed consent to participate in research; (3) the guidelines authored by the Council for International Organizations of Medical Services ("CIOMS"), which require "the voluntary informed consent of [a] prospective subject"; and (4) Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ("ICCPR"), which provides that "no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation." X X X In sum, it was inappropriate for the district court to forego a more extensive examination of whether treaties, international agreements, or State practice have ripened the prohibition of nonconsensual medical experimentation on human subjects into a customary international law norm that is sufficiently (i) universal and obligatory, (ii) specific and definable, and (iii) of mutual concern, to permit courts to infer a cause of action under the ATS. See Sosa, 542 U.S. at 732-35,124 S.Ct. 2739. We now proceed with such an examination. i. Universality The appellants must allege the violation of a norm of customary international law to which States universally subscribe. See Sosa, 542 U.S. at 732, 124 S.Ct. 2739; Vietnam Assn for Victims of Agent Orange, 517 F.3d at 117. The prohibition on nonconsensual medical experimentation on human beings meets this standard because, among other reasons, it is specific, focused, and accepted by nations around the world without significant exception.  NU PLAWS Th volulion of th prohibition into a norm of cu tomary int rnational law began with the war crim 8 trials at Nu1 mberg. The United States, the Soviet Union, th United Kingdom, and Fra nce "acting Jn the interest of aJ1 th United Nations," established the Internationa l Military Tribunal ("lMf" ) through entry into the London Agreement f August 8, 1945. According to the Ch arter, the IMT had the "pow r to try and punish persons who, acting in the interes ts of the European Axis countr ies, whether as individuals or as members of organization s, committed," among other offenses, war crimes and crimes against humanity. The IMT tried 22 "major'' Nazi war criminals leaving "lower-level" war criminals, including "[l]eading physicians... and leading German industrialist s," to be tried in subsequent trials by U.S. military tribunals acting "under the aegis of the IMT." The law that authorized the creation of the U.S. military tribunals, Control Council Law No. 10, was enacted in 1945 by the Allied Control Council, an authority through which the London Agreement signatories exerted joint-control over Germany. In August 1947, Military Tribunal 1, staffed by American judges and prosecutors and conducted under American procedural rules, promulgated the Nuremberg Code as part of the tribunal's final judgment against 15 doctors who were found guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity for conducting medical experiment s without the subjects' consent. Among the nonconsens ual experiments that the tribunal cited as a basis for their convictions were the testing of drugs for immunizati on against malaria, epidemic jaundice, typhus, smallpox, and cholera. Seven of the convicted doctors were sentenced to death and the remaining eight were sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment. The judgment concluded that "[m]anifestl y human experiments under such conditions are contrary to the principles of the law of nations as they result from usages established among civilized peoples, from the laws of humanity, and from the dictates of public conscience." The Code created as part of the tribunal's judgment, therefore, emphasized as its first principle that "[t]he voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential."  ION 1 PRJVAT INrERNATJ NAL LAW I 9 Th Am ri an tribunal' c nclusion that action that ntraven d th od 's first principle constituted a crime a ain t humanity Is a lucid Indication of the international l gal ignlficance of the prohibition on nonconsensual m di al experimentation. As Ju stices of the Supreme Court have recognized, "[t]he medical trials at Nuremberg in 1947 deeply impressed upon the world that experimentation with unknowing human subjects is morally and legally unacceptable." United States v. Stanley, 483 U.S. 669, 687, 107 S.Ct. 3054, 97 L.Ed.2d 550 (1987) In 1955, the draft International Covenants on Human Rights was revised to add a second sentence to its prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. The addition provided that "[i]n particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation involving risk, where such is not required by his state of physical or mental health." The clause was later revised to offer the simpler and sweeping prohibition that "no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation." ICCPR, supra, at art. 7. This prohibition became part of Article 7 of the ICCPR, which entered into force in 1976, and is legally binding on the more than 160 States-Parties that have ratified the convention without reservation to the provision. By its terms this prohibition is not limited to state actors; rather, it guarantees individuals the right to be free from non- consensual medical experimentation by any entity - state actors, private actors, or state ~d private actors behaving in concert. Its status as a norm that states conceive as legally binding - and therefore part of customary international law - is confirmed by Article 2 of the accord, which requires that "[e]ach State Party... undertake to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant." ICCPR art. 2(1). The international community's recognition in the ICCPR of its obligation to protect humans against nonconsensual medical experimentation, regardless of the source of the action, is powerful evidence of the prohibition's place in customary international law. 10 I NU OF LAW~ In 1964, th World Medi al Ass iation adop th D l ration of H lsinki, which enuncia ed tandard for t inln inform d onsent from human subj. I p1 vid d th l in llni al r ea rch combined with professional a , " [i)f a l all possible, consistent with patient psychology, th do tor should obtain the patient's freely given consent af~ r th pati nt has been given a full explanation," and that non-therapeutic clinical research on a person "cannot be undertaken without his free consent, after he has been fully informed." World Med. Ass'n, Declaration of Helsinki: Code of Ethics of the World Medical Association, art. ID(3a), G.A. Res. (1964), http://www.pubmedce ntral.nih.gov/ picrender. fcgi?artid=l816102 blob-type=pdf. The Declaration has since been amended five times. The informed consent provision now provides that "subjects must be volunteers and informed participants in the research project." Declaration of Helsinki, supra, at art. 20. The Declaration also requires that "[i]n any research on human beings, each potential subject must be adequately informed of the aims, methods,... anticipated benefits and potential risks of the study, and the discomfort it may entail" and that researchers "obtain the subject's freely-given informed consent, preferably in writing." Id. at art. 22. Although the Declaration itself is non-binding, since the 1960s, it has spurred States to regulate human experimentation, often by incorporating its informed consent requirement into domestic laws or regulations. Currently, the laws and regulations of at least 84 countries, including the United States, require the informed consent of human subjects in medical research. That this conduct has been the subject of domestic legislation is not, of course, in and of itself proof of a norm. However, the incorporation of this norm into the laws of this country and this host of others is a powerful indication of the international acceptance of this norm as a binding legal obligation, where, as here, states have shown that the norm is of mutual concern by including it in a variety of international accords. This history illustrates that from its origins with the trial of the Nazi doctors at Nuremberg through its evolution in international conventions, agreements, declarations, and domestic laws and regulations, the norm prohibiting nonconsensual medical experimentation on human subjects has become firmly embedded and has secured universal acceptance in the community of nations. Unlike ur  INTR DUCTION TO PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW 11 dissenting colleague's customary international law analysis, which essentially rests on the mistaken assumption ,that ratified international treaties are the only valid sources of customary inten,ational law for ATS purposes, see Dissent at 200-02, we reach this conclusion as a result of our review of the multiplicity of sources - including international conventions, whether general or particular, and international custom as identified through international agreements, declarations and a consistent pattern of action by national law-making authorities - that our precedent requires us to examine for the purpose of determining the existence of a norm of customary international law. ii. Specificity Sosa requires that we recognize causes of action only to enforce those customary international law norms that are no "less definite [in] content... than the historical paradigms familiar when [the ATS] was enacted." Sosa, 542 U.S. at 732, 124 S.Ct. 2739. The norm prohibiting non-consensual Q.1edical experimentation on human subjects meets this requirement. The Nuremberg Code, Article 7 of the ICCPR, the Declaration of Helsinki, the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, the 2001 Clinical Trial Directive, and the domestic laws of at least 84 States all uniformly and unmistakably prohibit medical experiments on human beings without their consent, thereby providing concrete.content for the norm. ' iii Mutual Concern As we have seen, States throughout the world have entered into two express and binding international agreements prohibiting non-consensual medical experimen- tation: the ICCPR and the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine. The entry of over 160 States into these agreements and the European Union's passage of the 2001 Clinical Trial Directive demonstrates that States have not only acted independently to outlaw large-scale, non- consensual drug testing on humans, but they have also acted in concert to do so. In other words, acting out of a sense of mutual concern, "the nations [of the world] have made it their business, both through international accords