13_Bautista_Hernaez

A COMPARATIVE STUDY ON INTERNATIONAL DISASTER LAW APPLICABLE TO SPAIN AND THE PHILIPPINES[*]

Un estudio comparado sobre el Derecho Internacional de Catástrofes aplicable a España y Filipinas

Andrés Bautista-Hernáez

Becario-colaborador del área de Derecho Internacional Público y Relaciones Internacionales

Universidad de Málaga

abautista@uma.es

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.18543/ed-66(1)-2018pp235-252

Recibido: 12.04.2018

Aceptado: 25.06.2018

Resumen

Debido al gran número de víctimas que dejan y a sus nefastas consecuencias, las catastrofes naturales constituyen hoy en día uno de los problemas más importantes. Sin embargo, la regulación internacional en este ámbito se caracteriza por tener considerables vacíos legales, y está compuesta principalmente de normas regionales y nacionales. Tanto España como Filipinas se ven afectados por estas catastrofes, si bien es cierto que este último ocupa el primer puesto en el ranking de número de muertes en el sudeste asíatico. Este documento tiene como objetivo analizar el marco normativo aplicable en ambos Estados en relación con esta materia, exponiendo sus principales fortalezas y debilidades.

Palabras clave

ASEAN; estudio comparativo; Derecho Internacional sobre catastrofes naturales; Ley 17/2015; España; Filipinas; Ley de la República No. 10121 de 2010.

Abstract

Disasters constitute nowadays one of the most relevant issues due to its large number of victims and its harmful consequences. However, the international disaster regulation contains considerable legal weaknesses and it is comprised eminently of regional and municipal rules. Both Spain and The Philippines are affected by disasters, albeit the latter constitutes the top State in number of death in Southeast Asia. This paper aims to analyse the applicable normative framework in both States regarding natural disasters, setting forth its main strengths and weaknesses.

Keywords

ASEAN; Comparative study; International Disaster Law; Law 17/2015; Spain; The Philippines; Republic Act No 10121 of 2010.

Sumario: I. Introduction. II. Conventional International Disaster Law Applicable to Spain and The Philippines. 1. Multilateral Level. 2. Regional Level. 3. Domestic Level. III. Conclusions. Bibliograpy.

I. INTRODUCTION

Disasters constitute a threat to both national and international security. Its effects may destroy or reduce significantly one country welfare state, produce state budgetary constraints, restriction to human rights, etcetera. The effects of a catastrophic situation depends on many factors, but mainly, the occurrence of these phenomena or the degree of vulnerability of the society, the country’s level of development and the improvement of disaster management systems within its territory and at international level.

The Southeast region is one of the most affected areas by disasters around the world. Special reference has to be made to The Philippines, which holds a prominent position compared to its neighbour States.[1] In fact, data shows that this State has a huge trouble to deal with, and that it has been a constant issue in its history.[2] Tables below shows data of natural disasters occurred in Spain and the Philippines from 2010 to 2017. If we compare these numbers, the Philippines has had more than one hundred catastrophic events than Spain, resulting in 75.145.098 people affected (almost the double of Spanish population). This is one of the reasons why disaster management is of vital importance for the Philippines.

Natural Disasters in Spain 2010-2017

Year

Disaster Subtype

Occurrence

Total Deaths

Injured

Affected

Homeless

Total Affected

Total Damage

2010

Extra-tropical storm

1

3

340000

2010

Riverine flood

1

2

30

30

2011

Ground movement

1

10

300

15000

15300

200000

2011

Riverine flood

1

1

2400

2400

2012

1

4

6

6

2012

Riverine flood

1

10

35

600

635

395000

2013

Extra-tropical storm

1

2013

Flash flood

1

600

600

2014

Convective storm

1

3

2015

Flash flood

2

8

150

150

2016

1

5

150

150

Total

12

46

341

3930

15000

19271

935000

Source: Country Profile, Guha-Sapir, D., Below, R., Hoyois, Ph., EM-DAT: The CRED/OFDA International Disaster Database, Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium, available at www.emdat.be.

 

Natural Disasters in the Philippines 2010-2017

Year

Disaster Subtype

Occurrence

Total Deaths

Injured

Affected

Homeless

Total Affected

Total Damage

2010

Ash fall

1

14161

14161

2010

Flash flood

4

118

22

2059840

2059862

50589

2010

Landslide

1

2

2

925

927

78

2010

Riverine flood

5

44

787073

787073

2010

Tropical cyclone

3

212

133

2595412

2595545

284420

2010

Viral disease

1

737

123939

123939

2011

Ash fall

2

33931

33931

2011

Bacterial disease

2

23

200

617

817

2011

Flash flood

7

33

162272

162272

179247

2011

Ground movement

1

3

25

28

2011

Landslide

3

29

19

870

889

2011

Riverine flood

8

89

190

2056366

2056556

23540

2011

Tropical cyclone

12

1782

6291

9462385

9468676

527238

2011

Viral disease

1

33

6778

6778

2012

Bacterial disease

1

30

3158

3158

2012

Flash flood

2

1

13000

13000

2012

Ground movement

3

114

123

353034

353157

12144

2012

Landslide

1

75

16

7

23

2012

Riverine flood

6

156

16

4565850

35762

4601628

75330

2012

Tropical cyclone

9

2039

2724

7557756

7560480

918137

2013

Flash flood

1

10

507769

507769

2800

2013

Ground movement

1

230

976

3221248

3222224

51459

2013

Riverine flood

4

95

59

3992510

3992569

2231988

2013

Tropical cyclone

8

7415

28858

17915713

17944571

10136563

2014

2

1

102720

102720

2014

Flash flood

1

4

3770

3770

2014

Riverine flood

1

99185

99185

2014

Tropical cyclone

9

326

2269

13066714

13068983

1062899

2015

4

44

230429

230429

200

2015

Drought

1

181687

181687

84399

2015

Riverine flood

1

9

880

880

2015

Tropical cyclone

10

148

131

3602774

3300

3606205

1881367

2016

2

26

1271907

1271907

9320

2016

Tropical cyclone

6

10

2

1069297

1069299

67093

Total

124

13835

165973

74940063

39062

75145098

17598811

Source: Country Profile, Guha-Sapir, D., Below, R., Hoyois, Ph., EM-DAT: The CRED/OFDA International Disaster Database… op. cit.

 

Furthermore, disaster management regulation has to face problems such as the misleading and overcomplicated terminology.[3] In that sense, there is no uniformity on defining the term “disaster”. Doctrinal debate still goes on, but some definitions where provided by international instruments and academia.[4] The United Nations International Law Commission (ILC) ended up its work on the protection of persons in the event of disaster defining the term as “a serious disruption of the functioning of a society”.[5] For its part, the 2005 Vientiane Agreement[6] gives a similar definition.[7] The Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010[8] provide a large notion of the term, as follows:

“A serious disruption of the functioning of a community or a society involving widespread human, material, economic or environmental losses and impacts, which exceeds the ability of the affected community or society to cope using its own resources. Disasters are often described as a result of the combination of: the exposure to a hazard; the conditions of vulnerability that are present; and insufficient capacity or measures to reduce or cope with the potential negative consequences, Disaster impacts may include loss of life, injury, disease and other negative effects on human, physical, mental and social well-being, together with damage to property, destruction of assets, loss of services, social and economic disruption and environmental degradation”.[9]

In the European scene a similar definition can be found in the European Union (EU) legislation and in domestic law of its Member States (MS). The Decision No. 1313/2013/EU on a Union Civil Protection Mechanism (UCPM)[10] set out the following definition: “Disaster means any situation which has or may have a severe impact on people, the environment, or property, including cultural heritage”. Also, the Spanish national law defined disaster (catástrofe) as “a situation or event that disrupts the functioning of a community”.[11]

Therefore, taking into account the similarities between definitions described, one of the main idea is that disaster reflects in some way a “serious disruption of the functioning of a community”.

International disaster law (IDL) regulates a wide array of issues during the various phases of natural, anthropogenic or hybrid disasters.[12] These matters are, inter alia, “the obligation of the States to prevent or mitigate a disaster and to appropriately give assistance, the relations between the disaster-affected State and other States or international organizations, the way of request and offer assistance, the status of relief personnel”.[13] Likewise, IDL has to give an adequate response to these matters during all the phases of the so call disaster management cycle which includes: prevention, preparedness, response and reconstruction.[14]

II. CONVENTIONAL INTERNATIONAL DISASTER LAW APPLICABLE TO SPAIN AND THE PHILIPPINES

The sources of Public International Law (PIL) are treaties, international custom, general principles of law, judicial decisions and academia scientific publishing, among others.[15] The bound of the present paper does not allow a comprehensive research of all aforementioned sources of law; thereby we will focus on conventional rules applicable to the Philippines and to Spain.

Some other general rules may be applicable even if they could not be enforced.[16] These include United Nations (UN) documents, particularly its General Assembly Resolutions (UNGA Res.),[17] Disaster Risk Reduction Declarations comprising the Sendai Framework[18] and the Hyogo Framework,[19] climate change agreements (such as the Paris Agreement[20]), and the recent work of the ILC on this subject.[21]

1. Multilateral level

We could find two key multilateral universal agreements related to natural disasters: the 1998 Tampere Convention on the Provision of Telecommunication Resources for Disaster Mitigation and Relief Operations[22] (hereinafter the Tampere Convention) and the 2000 Framework Convention in Civil Defence Assistance[23] (henceforth, the Framework Convention in Civil Defence).

Spain accessed to the Tampere Convention on 27 February 2006,[24] but the Philippines have not signed not ratified the agreement to date. Regarding the Framework Convention in Civil Defence it has been ratified only by four States: Jordan, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Tunisia and Ukraine; all of them MS of the ICDO, except Ukraine. In that sense, despite the importance and a truly lack of other universal agreements on this topic, the Framework Convention in Civil Defence has not been ratified neither by Spain not by the Philippines. Probably this decision is related to the fact that they are not MS of ICDO,[25] however nothing would impede the ratification of the Agreement if they really intended to do so.

It can therefore be concluded that only Spain is compelled by a set of international obligations due its ratification to the Tampere Convention, and none of the above agreements is applicable to the Philippines.[26] However, the Tampere Convention’s purpose is not an all-encompassing regulation of disasters. It only contains rules regarding the procedures for the provision and request of telecommunication support in the event of a disaster. Albeit, this treaty recognizes the right of a State to give their consent prior to receive assistance within its territory and the right to control and to coordinate aid provided.[27]

2. Regional level

Regarding the Philippines, disasters regulation has been strongly developed within the regional sphere,[28] in particular, throw the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).[29] The latter is based on the purposes of to promote active collaboration and mutual assistance on matters of common interest, inter alia, in the economic, social, cultural, technical, scientific and administrative fields.[30] Bearing this in mind, ASEAN constitutes the most appropriate sphere for regional disaster management. There are a number of instruments adopted within this Organisation regulating catastrophe-related issues, such as, the mutual assistance,[31] emergency food supply,[32] and disaster management itself.

There are two basic instruments applicable for managing disasters: the 2005 Vientiane Agreement and the 2011 Bali Agreement.[33] The former, regulate regional and international cooperation at the various stages of disaster, but mainly on prevention,[34] preparedness[35] and response.[36] One of the most relevant aspects of this instrument is the creation of the ASEAN Standby Arrangements for Disaster Relief and Emergency Response (article 9); it provides equipment and human resources earmarked for disaster response. It is established on a voluntary basis by each State Party, and must be listed by the ASEAN Coordinating Centre for Humanitarian Assistance on disaster management. The Bali Agreement creates the ASEAN Coordinating Centre for Humanitarian Assistance on disaster management (AHA Centre) based on the Terms of reference included as Annex in the 2005 Vientiane Agreement.[37] The AHA Centre serves as a requesting point throw which disaster relief could be applied for; but also it could be demanded directly to another State Party. In my opinion, it seems not to be very effective since there is not a specific pooling of command and control of disaster management. For that reason, in practice, the AHA Centre constitutes a kind of “voluntary” liaison point between MS, lacking efficiency and effectiveness in managing a rapid response to disasters.

Spain, as member of the EU shares its disaster related competencies with this regional Organization. EU regulation on disaster mainly concerns civil protection, which implement the solidarity clause under article 222 of the Treaty of Functioning of the European Union (FTEU).[38] Civil protection policy culminated in Decision No. 1313/2013/EU on a Union Civil Protection Mechanism,[39] in force since 2014. It brought many enhancements from the previous Community mechanism for Civil Protection.[40] The Decision focuses on prevention, preparedness and response phases of disaster management. The EU disaster management creates the European Emergency Response Capacity[41] which aims to improve response relief. It also established a coordination centre (the Emergency Response Coordination Centre[42]) with more and best-defined functions and powers than its ASEAN counterpart (the AHA Centre).

Both regions have in common a number of security challenges, besides disaster management, that requires a nearest cooperation between them.[43] Spanish and Philippines regional mechanisms are based on solidarity between their neighbouring states, as a mean of promoting amity assistance to disasters. Both systems creates a coordination focal point with pooling capacities and specific budgetary resources (within the text or deferred for upcoming one), but only the EU brought in an specific evaluation system of the Decision.[44]

3. Domestic level

Philippines municipal regulation on disasters was adopted as the Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010 (Republic Act No. 10121 of 2010), and it is implemented by Implementing Rules of 27 September 2010.[45] These set down the legal basis for national disaster management in the State. The mechanism is based in two main pillars: the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Framework (NDRRMF) and the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Plan (NDRRMP).[46] It also provides two different bodies: the Office of Civil Defence (OCD) and the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council (NDRRMC).[47] The former has the function of formulate, implement, and harmonize policies, while OCD is in charge of operational powers.[48] The NDRRMF is developed by the NDRRMC and provides a “comprehensive, all-hazard, multi-sectorial, inter-agency and community-based approach to disaster risk management”.[49] The NDRRMP, that brings goals and specific objectives for disaster risk reduction,[50] is conveyed and implemented by the OCD.

Philippine domestic legislation takes actions in the four phases of disaster management cycle by providing policies and plans throw the NDRRMP.[51] Also, an information and monitoring mechanism (the Emergency Response Integration Centre) has been established for gather pieces of information to be used in relief operations.[52]

Spanish key legislation on national disaster management was amended in 2015, creating the National Civil Protection System (NCPS).[53] It repealed the previous Law 2/1985 of 21 January on Civil Protection.[54] The law adopted responds to the commitments undertaken by the UCPM at the European level in terms of national monitoring and risk assessment.[55] The main purpose of the Spanish instrument is to put accent in prevention, integration, inter-administrative coordination and effectiveness on disaster response. To achieve these goals a national coordination centre (in Spanish: Centro Nacional de Seguimiento y Coordinación de Emergencias de Protección Civil) was established.[56] It will perform and manage disaster response on a national level. The NCPS may take actions on all emergency cycle (forecast,[57] prevention,[58] planning,[59] intervention,[60] recovery[61] and general coordination[62]).

Both States set down very important pieces of legislation. For the very first time, the Spanish law included an article dedicated to terminology. Philippines law comprised eight pages of definitions of key concepts. This reflects the importance of this issue in disaster management. They also include penalty clauses to avoid infringements of regulations. Regarding the ways of financing of national mechanisms, Philippines law include a budget provision covering one billion pesos (approx. 18 million Euros). Albeit, Spanish law did not include any budgetary restraint; quite astonishingly, it stated that “the measures included within this law must not mean an increase of budget appropriations”.[63] In my opinion, this imposes a lack of efficacy in implementation of disaster management policies due to economic necessities.

Despite the relevance of instruments for disaster management within regional integration organization, we found no specific mention to the ASEAN mechanism in Philippine law. There is only a generic clause in Sec. 6 (q) about the functions of the NDRRMC that states as follows: “Coordinate or oversee the Implementation of the country’s obligations with disaster management treaties to which it is a party…”.[64] On the other hand, Spanish laws include particular dispositions referred to the Mechanism. This is probably due to the closest relationship between EU and States Members, which are not the same that in ASEAN and Philippines.

III. CONCLUSIONS

This paper has addressed the conventional and domestic legal rules applicable to disaster management in Spain and in the Philippines. It was made clear that instead the lack of general international treaties, regional and national regulation prevail to date.

With regard to the regional system, there are differences in the commitments undertaken between the national and the supranational organizations, which are reflected in the legislation adopted. Spain, member of the EU, has specifics obligations due to a deeper transfer of sovereignty; its national law was updated but also it had to integrate obligations set forth by the UCPM to the States Members. The Philippines, in the other hand, is part of a regional system (the ASEAN); however, its national law of 2010 did not set up specific measures to implement regional assignments. It only contains a general provision for ensuring alignment with international agreements adopted by the State.

Both regional systems highlight the cooperation between Member States as one of the key element of disaster management, albeit we could find an even more refined coordination instrument in the European field. In fact, the Vientiane Treaty of 2005 did not create the ASEAN Coordinating centre; it was established by the 2011 Bali Treaty (in force since 2014), almost 10 years later.

In my opinion, a strong domestic system is crucial to face the challenge of disaster phenomena. It is necessary not only to adopt series of principles and “proclaiming rights and duties” but also set up structural mechanism and take clear actions in prevention, preparedness, response and reconstruction. Both national laws allow performing activities in the four phases of disaster management cycle, including recovery. They also lay down evaluating procedure to assess deficiencies and enhance the mechanisms.

In conclusion, disasters are a menace not only of welfare state but of the individual itself in all its ways of live. International law has to give adequate answers to this matter. As a corollary, we bring the words of the former UN Secretary General Mr Ban Ki-Moon pronounced in the 2016 international day for disaster reduction:

“We can replace material possessions, but we cannot replace people.  I am repeatedly appalled at how many people die in disasters.  The majority of victims are invariably the poor and vulnerable”.[65]

In this sense, the challenge is to give an effective and efficient response to disasters under a humanize international law.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Auly, T., Laymond, P., Prat, M. C. y Veiga, J. Petit vocabulaire des risques et des catastrophes d’origine naturelle, Editions Confluence (Bordeaux, 2012).

Bartolini, G. “La definizione di disastro nel progetto di articoli della Commissione del diritto internazionale”, Rivista di diritto internazionale, vol. 98, n. 1 (2015): 184-191.

Caon, D.D. y Leben, C. The international aspects of natural and industrial catastrophes, The Hague Academy of International Law (Martinus Nijhoff, 2001): 33.

Guttry, A. de, Gestri, M. y Venturini, G. International Disaster Responde Law, TMC Asser Press, The Hague (The Netherlands, 2012): 9.

Fernández Liesa, C. R. y Olivia Matínez, J.D. El Derecho Internacional y la cooperación frente a los desastres en materia de Protección Civil, Dirección General de Protección Civil y Emergencias (Madrid, 2012): 19 y 27.

Institut de Droit International, L’assistance humanitaire, Resolution, 16th Commission, Bruges session, secc. I (8 September 2003): 3-4.

International Law Commission. Preliminary report on the protection of persons in the event of disasters by Mr. Eduardo Valencia-Ospina, Special Rapporteur, A/CN.4/598, (5.5.2008): 16

Park, K. J. “La protection des personnes enc as de catastrophe”, Rescueil des cours, vol. 368 (2014): 291-307.

Perez de Armino, K. Diccionario de Acción Humanitaria y Cooperación del Desarrollo, Icaria/Hegoa (Universidad del País Vasco, Bilbao, 2000).

Porfiriev, B.N. “Disaster and Disaster areas: Methodological Issues of Definition and Delineation”, International Journal and Mass Emergencies and Disasters, vol. 13, n. 3 (1995): 286.

Prieto Sanjuán, R. A. y Thouvenin, J. M. International Law and Disasters: Studies on Prevention and Assistance to Victims, Colección Estudios de Derecho Internacional, n. 14, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana y Universidad Paris Oust La Défense, Grupo Editorial Ibáñez (Bogotá, 2011): 41-50.

Thouvenin, J. M. “La definition de la catastrophe par la CDI: vers une catastrophe juridique?”.

United Nations. 2009 UNISDR Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction (Ginebra, 2009): 13-14.

Walhers, G. ASEAN and the European Union, Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung (Singapore, 2006): 53.


[*] Cómo citar / Citation ‘Chicago-Deusto’ (Autor-fecha / Author-date / Lista de referencias / Reference list entries): Bautista Hernáez, Andrés. 2018. “A Comparative Study on International Disaster Law applicable to Spain and the Philippines”. Estudios de Deusto 66, n.º 1: 235-252. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.18543/ed-66(1)-2018pp235-252.

[1] See data collected in Country Profile, Guha-Sapir, D., Below, R., Hoyois, Ph., EM-DAT: The CRED/OFDA International Disaster Database, Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium, available at www.emdat.be.

[2] See a list of relevant disasters occurred in The Philippines history in http://www.ultimahora.com/los-10-desastres-naturales-mas-mortiferos-filipinas-n740168.html.

[3] This problem is not new, as it was pointed out, in the field of sociology, long time ago in Porfiriev 1995: 286.

[4] Authors that have work on this topic are, inter alia, Auly, Laymond, Prat y Veiga 2012; Caron y Leben 2001: 33; United Nations 2009: 13-14; Park 2014: 291-307; Pérez de Armiño 2000; Prieto Sanjuán y Thouvenin 2011: 41-50.

[5] See article 3(a) of Draft articles on the protection of persons in the event of disasters, adopted by the International Law Commission at its sixty-eighth session, in 2016, and submitted to the General Assembly as a part of the Commission’s report covering the work of that session (A/71/10), paragraph 48. The report is reproduced in United Nations, Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2016, vol. II, Part Two. See academic debate on the ILC proposal in Thouvenin 2011: 41-50; Bartolini 2015: 184-191.

[6] 2005 Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency Response, signed in Vientiane 26 July 2005, entered into force 24 December 2009, reproduced in ASEAN Documents Series 2005, available at http://agreement.asean.org/.

[7] Emphasis added; Article 1 paragraph 3.

[8] Republic Act No. 10121, An Act Strengthening the Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management System, Providing for the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Framework and Institutionalizing the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Plan, Appropriating Funds therefor and for Other Purposes, Official Gazette 27 May 2010, available at http://www.gov.ph/2010/05/27/republic-act-no-10121/. See also the Republic Act No. 10821, An Act Mandating the Provision of Emergency Relief and Protection for Children before, during, and after Disasters and other Emergency Situations, 27 July 2015, Official Gazette 18 May 2016, available at http://www.gov.ph/2016/05/18/republic-act-no-10821/.

[9] Sec. 3, Paragraph (h).

[10] Decision No. 1313/2013/EU, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013, on a Union Civil Protection Mechanism (Text with EEA relevance), OJ L 347 of 20 December 2013. See also: Commission Implementing Decision of 16 October 2014, laying down rules for the implementation of Decision No 1313/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Union Civil Protection Mechanism and repealing Commission Decisions 2004/277/EC, Euratom and 2007/606/EC, Euratom, (notified under document C (2014) 7489) (Text with EEA relevance) (2014/762/EU), OJ L 320 of 6 November 2014.

[11] Article 2 paragraph 6 of Law 17/2015, of 9 July, del Sistema Nacional de Protección Civil, BOE No 164 of 10 July 2015.

[12] According to the inception of the hazard, disasters could be classified in three different kinds: natural, anthropogenic (or man-made) or hybrid. The latter is also known as Natech or Na-Tech accidents; they are defined as “accidents initiated by a natural hazard or disaster which result in the release of hazardous materials [...]. This includes releases from fixed chemical installations and spills from oil and gas pipelines”; see http://enatech.jrc.ec.europa.eu/. This classification has been used by academia, inter alia, Pérez de Armino 2000; Institut de Droit International 2003: 3-4; International Law Commission 2008: 16; Fernández Liesa y Olivia Martínez 2012: 19.

[13] See Guttry, Gestri y Venturini 2012: 9

[14] There are many activities that fall under these four main phases, such as, disaster risk reduction (DRR), mitigation and early recovery. See on this issue Guttry, Gestri y Venturini 2012: 8-9

[15] As classically stated by article 38 of the Statute of International Court of Justice (established by the Charter of United Nations, signed 26 June 1945), similar to the previous criteria of article 38 of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice (Protocol of Signature relating to the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice provided for by Article 14 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, done in Geneva 16 December 1920, LNTS, vol. 6, nº. 170 (1921)). See about sources of PIL, inter alia, Rodríguez Carrión, A.-J., Lecciones de Derecho Internacional Público, 6ª edición, Tecnos, Madrid, 2006, particularly pp. 141-145; González Campos, J.-D., Sánchez Rodríguez, L.-I. y Andrés Sáenz de Santa María, P., Curso de Derecho Internacional Público, 4th ed., Thomson-Civitas, Navarra, 2008, pp. 167-189; Daillier, P., Forteau, M., Pellet, A., Droit International Public, L.G.D.J., Paris, 8th ed., 2009, pp. 124-126; Remiro Brotóns, A. et al, Derecho Internacional. Curso General, Tirant lo Blanch, Valencia, 2010, pp. 175-236; Jiménez Piernas, C., Introducción al Derecho Internacional Público: práctica de España y de la Unión Europea, Tecnos, Madrid, 2011, pp. 91-93; Abass, A., International Law. Text, Cases, and Materials, Oxford University Press, 2012, pp. 26-64; Casado Raigón, R., Derecho Internacional. Parte General, 2nd ed., Tecnos, Madrid, 2014, pp. 148-153; Salinas de Frias, A. (dir.), Alcaide Fernández, J., Expósito González, P., García Rico, E.-M., García San José, D., Torres Cazorla, M.-I., Lecciones de Derecho Internacional Público, Tecnos, Málaga, 2015, pp. 111-162; Casanovas, O., y Rodrigo, A.-J., Compendio de Derecho Internacional Público, 5ª edición, Tecnos, Madrid, 2016, pp. 55-74; Andrés Sáenz de Santa María, P., Sistema de Derecho Internacional Público, 4th ed., Thomson Reuters-Civitas, Navarra, 2016, pp. 109-230. Also see the relevant work of the ILC, specifically on the topics: “Law of treaties”, “Identification of customary international law” and “Peremptory norms of general international law (Jus cogens)”, available throw http://legal.un.org/ilc.

[16] With the exception of the UN Security Council Resolutions, General Assembly Resolutions and other UN documents do not represent mandatory rules of PIL, but may be considered significant evidence of an ongoing customary rule or principle.

[17] See the following latest key documents, among many others, UN Secretary-General Reports A/54/132-E/1999/80, 21 July 1999 (The Geneva Mandate on Disaster Reduction), A/57/578, 29 October 2002 (International cooperation on humanitarian assistance in the field of natural disasters, from relief to development); A/71/230, 29 July 2016 (on implementation of the International Strategy for Disasters Reduction); UNGA Resolutions A/RES/46/182, 19 December 1991 (Strengthening of the coordination of humanitarian emergency assistance of the United Nations), A/RES/59/279, 28 January 2005 (Strengthening emergency relief, rehabilitation, reconstruction and prevention in the aftermath of the Indian Ocean tsunami disaster), A/RES/63/217, 18 February 2009 (Natural disasters and vulnerability), A/RES/70/204, 23 February 2016 (International Strategy for Disaster Reduction).

[18] The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, adopted at the Third UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction in Sendai, Japan, on March 18, 2015, endorsed by the UNGA Res. 69/283, 3 June 2015.

[19] The Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters (HFA), endorsed by the UNGA Res. 60/195, 2 March 2006.

[20] Done in Paris 12 December 2015, endorsed by Decision 1/CP.21, doc. FCCC/CP/2015/10/Add.1, of 29.1.2016, Annex, pp. 23-40; entered into force on 4 November 2016, entered into force in Spain on 11 February 2017 (BOE No 28 of 2 February 2017). See about the relationship of this agreement and International Disaster Law in Bautista-Hernáez, A., “The 2015 Paris Agreement and Disaster Prevention: Progress and Challenges”, in press.

[21] See Draft articles on the protection of persons in the event of disasters, adopted by the International Law Commission at its sixty-eighth session, in 2016.

[22] Tampere Convention on the Provision of Telecommunication Resources for Disaster Mitigation and Relief Operations, adopted 18 June 1998, entered into force 8 January 2005, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 2296, p. 5.

[23] Framework Convention in Civil Defence Assistance, adopted 22 May 2000, entered into force 23 September 2001, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 2172, p. 213. The latter was developed within the International Civil Defence Organization (ICDO). This Organization has its origin back in 1931 when Surgeon-General Saint-Paul founded the “Association des Lieux de Genève” that in 1958 became a Non-Governmental Organization. With the adoption of the Constitution of the International Civil Defence Organization (with Statutes dated 10 January 1958), Concluded at Monaco on 17 October 1966 (United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 985, No. 14376), and entered into force 1 March 1972, it acquired the status of international intergovernmental organization.

[24] Accession made with the following Reservation (as well as others EU Member States) “To the extent to which certain provisions of the Tampere Convention on the Provision of Telecommunication Resources for Disaster Mitigation and Relief Operations fall within the area of responsibility of the European Community, Spain cannot implement those decisions unless the European Community becomes a party to the Convention”. Up to date, the European Union is not part of this Convention, thus we may find a lack of implementation of related decisions due to a distribution of competences. See the full text of declarations and reservations at https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXV-4&chapter=25&CharOverride-6">.

[26] See the status of signatures, accessions and ratifications of both treaties at United Nations Treaty Collection, online resource available throw https://treaties.un.org.

[27] Fernández Liesa y Olivia Martínez 2012: 27.

[28] Many problems related to disaster and international law in the Southeast region have been studied by academia, i.e., in Loevy, K., “The Legal Politics of Jurisdiction: Understanding ASEAN’s Role in Myanmar’s Disaster, Cyclone Nargis (2008)”, Asian Journal of International Law, vol. 5, Issue 1 (2015), pp. 55-93; Barber, R. “Legal Preparedness for the Facilitation of International Humanitarian Assistance in the Aftermath of Vanuatu’s Cyclone Pam”, Asian Journal of International Law, (2016), pp. 1-23; Lewis, B. and Maguire, R., “A Human Rights-based Approach to Disaster Displacement in the Asia-Pacific”, Asian Journal of International Law, vol. 6, Issue 2 (2016), pp. 326-352; Simm, G., “Disaster Response in Southeast Asia: The ASEAN Agreement on Disaster Response and Emergency Management”, Asian Journal of International Law, (2016), pp. 1-27; Ramsden, M., “Uniting for MH17”, Asian Journal of International Law, vol. 7, Issue 2 (2017), pp. 337-360.

[29] The ASEAN was established by the ASEAN Declaration (Bangkok Declaration) done in Bangkok on 8 August 1967 (United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1331, p. 243) by the founding fathers, namely Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand. Currently, the Organization has ten MS: the five founding members and Brunei Darussalam (joined on 7 January 1984), Viet Nam (on 28 July 1995), Lao Peoples Democratic Republic’s and Myanmar (on 23 July 1997), and Cambodia (on 30 April 1999). The ASEAN Secretariat is based in Jakarta, Indonesia. Later in 2007 the ASEAN Member States adopted the Charter of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, on 20 November 2007, entered into force 15 December 2008. Currently, the Philippines hold the presidency of ASEAN for 2017; see http://www.asean2017.ph/. About this international organization and its international personality see Chesterton, S., “Does ASEAN exist? The Association of Southeast Asian Nations as an International Legal Person”, Singapore Yearbook of International Law, vol. 12 (2008), pp. 199-211.

[30] See Bangkok Declaration, article Second, paragraph 3.

[31] The ASEAN Declaration on Mutual Assistance on Natural Disasters of 26 June 1976 and the ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution of 10 June 2002.

[32] Agreement on the ASEAN Food Security Reserve of 4 October 1979. This instrument allows the storage of rice in the case of a crisis. Food security is of vital importance in the region and has been studied by scholars, for instance, Bello, A.L., “Ensuring Food Security: A Case for ASEAN Integration”, Asian Journal of International for Agriculture and Development, vol. 2 (2010), pp. 1-2; Briones, R.M., “Regional Cooperation for Food Security: The Case of Emergency Rice Reserves in the ASEAN Plus Three”, ADB Sustainable Development Working Paper Series, Asian Development Bank, 2011.

[33] Agreement on the Establishment of the ASEAN Coordinating Centre for Humanitarian Assistance on Disaster Management, signed in Bali 17 November 2011, entered into force 7 April 2014, reproduced in ASEAN Documents Series 2011, available at http://agreement.asean.org/.

[34] Regulating: risk identification, monitoring (article 5), mitigation (article 6) and early warning systems (article 7).

[35] Setting out of regional contingency/response plans and standard operating procedures for regional actions (article 8).

[36] Procedure for requesting assistance is regulated in article 11.

[37] The AHA Centre is located in Jakarta (Indonesia). This instrument lays down the rules governing its functioning, its governing bodies and its legal personality in the territory of the host country.

[38] For studies on the solidarity clause see Bou Franch, V. (dir.), Introducción al Derecho de la Unión Europea, Thomson Reuters, Cizur Menor, 2014, pp.463-464; Escobar Hernández, C. (dir.), Instituciones de la Unión Europea, 2nd ed., Tirant lo Blanch, Valencia, 2015, pp. 83-84; Kaczorowska-Ireland, A., European Union Law, 4th ed., Routledge, Abingdon & New York, 2016, pp. 42, 125, 164, 177, 219, 848 and 1061.

[39] See about EU legislation on disaster, inter alia, Kotzur, M., “European Union Law on Disaster Preparedness and Response”, German Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 55 (2012), pp. 253-278; Bautista-Hernáez, A., “Recientes avances en la regulación de la Unión Europea en materia de catástrofes: el Mecanismo de Protección Civil de la Unión”, in García San José, D., Sánchez Patrón, J.-M. y Torres Cazorla, M.-I. (cords.), Bioderecho, Seguridad y Medioambiente. Biolaw, Security and Environment, Tirant lo Blanch, Valencia, 2015, pp. 173-194; Torres Cazorla, M.I., “¿Lecciones aprendidas? El papel de la Unión Europea en materia de prevención y coordinación en caso de catástrofe”, in García San José, D., Sánchez Patrón, J.-M. y Torres Cazorla, M.-I. (cords.), Bioderecho, Seguridad y Medioambiente… op. cit., pp. 151-173; Bautista-Hernáez, A., “La relación entre la Unión Europea y sus Estados miembros en la respuesta a las catástrofes: el papel de España en el mecanismo europeo de protección civil”, en Alcaide Fernández, J. y Petit de Gabriel, E.W. (eds.), España y la Unión Europea en el orden internacional, Valencia, Tirant lo Blanch, 2017, pp. 1187-1198.

[40] See Council Decision 2007/799/EC, Euratom of 8 November 2007 establishing a Community Civil Protection Mechanism, OJ L 314, 1 December 2007, and Council Decision 2007/162/EC, Euratom of 5 March 2007 establishing a civil Protection Financial Instrument, OJ L 71, 10 March 2007.

[41] Provided under Article 11 of Decision No. 1313/2013/EU, it is formed by a voluntary pool of capacities from the MS, as well as the ASEAN Standby Arrangements for Disaster Relief and Emergency Response.

[42] It is regulated by article 8 of Decision No. 1313/2013/EU. It serves as coordination and monitoring focal point, operating 24/7, and attached to the Directorate-General for European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations (ECHO), formerly known as the European Community Humanitarian Aid Office.

[43] See Wahlers 2006: 53

[44] See article 34 of Decision No. 1313/2013/EU.

[45] See Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 10121, also known as “an act strengthening the Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management System, providing for the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Framework and institutionalizing the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Plan, appropriating funds therefor and for other purposes”, 27 September 2010, available at http://www.ndrrmc.gov.ph/attachments/article/95/Implementing_Rules_and_Regulartion_RA_10121.pdf. See also DRR rules regarding the Philippines at: http://www.ndrrmc.gov.ph/13-disaster-risk-reduction-and-management-laws.

[46] The latest Plan comprising the period 2011-2018 could be fund in The National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Plan (NDRRMP) 2011-2018, available at http://www.ndrrmc.gov.ph/attachments/article/41/NDRRM_Plan_2011-2028.pdf.

[47] Its webpage is accessible at http://www.ndrrmc.gov.ph/.

[48] By setting up the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Operations Center (NDRRMOC), operating 24 hours, see Republic Act No. 10121 of 2010, Sec. 9 (n).

[49] See Republic Act No. 10121 of 2010, sec. 3 (y).

[50] Sec. 3 (z), Republic Act No. 10121 of 2010. The NDRRMP “aims to strengthen the capacity of the national government and the local government units (LGUs), together with partner stakeholders, to build the disaster resilience of communities, and to institutionalize arrangements and measures for reducing disaster risks, including projected climate risks, and enhancing disaster preparedness and response capabilities at all levels”; see Sec. 2 (e), Republic Act No. 10121 of 2010.

[51] It has a broad scope of action, taking measures: “to all aspects of disaster risk reduction and management, including good governance, risk assessment and early warning, knowledge building and awareness raising, reducing underlying risk factors, and preparedness for effective response and early recovery”; see Republic Act No. 10121 of 2010, sec. 4.

[52] It has also been put in place a mobile alert system in the event of a disaster by Republic Act No. 10639, an Act mandating the telecommunications service providers to send free mobile alerts in the event of natural and man-made disasters and calamities, 20 June 2014, available at http://www.ndrrmc.gov.ph/attachments/article/2570/Republic_Act_No_10639.pdf.

[53] See Law 17/2015.

[54] BOE No. 22 of 25 January 1985.

[55] See Bautista-Hernáez, A., “La relación entre la Unión Europea…” op. cit., p. 1197.

[56] Regulated in article 18 of Law 17/2015.

[57] Articles 12 paragraph 3 and 14 paragraph 1 of Law 17/2015.

[58] Regulated under Title II chapter II, Law 17/2015.

[59] Covered in Title II chapter III, Law 17/2015.

[60] Inmediate emergency response is regulated in Title II chapter IV, Law 17/2015.

[61] Regulated in Title II chapter V, Law 17/2015.

[62] One of mechanisms through the general coordination is implemented is the declaration of a “national concern emergency”, regulated in Title II chapter VII, Law 17/2015.

[63] Seventh additional provision, Law 17/2015.

[64] Emphasis added.

[65] See press release about this event at https://www.un.org/press/en/2016/sgsm18187.doc.htm.

Enlaces refback

  • No hay ningún enlace refback.