Volume 1 / Part 2 — CHAPTER I STATE TERRITORY

I ON STATE TERRITORY IN GENERAL

Vattel, II. §§ 79-83—Hall, § 30—Westlake, I. pp. 84-88—Lawrence, §§ 71-72—Phillimore, I. §§ 150-154—Twiss, I. §§ 140-144—Halleck, I. pp. 150-156—Taylor, § 217—Wheaton, §§ 161-163—Moore, I. § 125—Bluntschli, § 277—Hartmann, § 58—Holtzendorff in Holtzendorff, II. pp. 225-232—Gareis, § 18—Liszt, § 9—Ullmann, § 86—Heffter, §§ 65-68—Bonfils, No. 483—Despagnet, Nos. 374-377—Pradier-Fodéré, II. No. 612—Mérignhac, II. pp. 356-366—Nys, I. pp. 402-412—Rivier, I. pp. 135-142—Calvo, I. §§ 260-262—Fiore, I. Nos. 522-530—Martens, I. § 88—Del Bon, "Proprietà territoriale degli Stati" (1867)—Fricker, "Vom Staatsgebiet" (1867).

Conception of State Territory.

§ 168. State territory is that definite portion of the surface of the globe which is subjected to the sovereignty of the State. A State without a territory is not possible, although the necessary territory may be very small, as in the case of the Free Town of Hamburg, the Principality of Monaco, the Republic of San Marino, or the Principality of Lichtenstein. A wandering tribe, although it has a Government and is otherwise organised, is not a State before it has settled down on a territory of its own.

State territory is also named territorial property of a State. Yet it must be borne in mind that territorial property is a term of Public Law and must not be confounded with private property. The territory of a State is not the property of the monarch, or of the Government, or even of the people of a State; it is the country which is subjected to the territorial supremacy or the imperium of a State. This distinction has, however, in former centuries not been sharply drawn.[270] In spite of the dictum of Seneca, "Omnia rex imperio possidet, singuli dominio," the imperium of the monarch and the State over the State territory has very often been identified with private property of the monarch or the State. But with the disappearance of absolutism this identification has likewise disappeared. It is for this reason that nowadays, according to the Constitutional Law of most countries, neither the monarch nor the Government is able to dispose of parts of the State territory at will and without the consent of Parliament.[271]

It must, further, be emphasised that the territory of a State is totally independent of the racial character of the inhabitants of the State. The territory is the public property of the State, and not of a nation in the sense of a race. The State community may consist of different nations, as, for instance, the British or the Swiss or the Austrians.

Different kinds of Territory.

§ 169. The territory of a State may consist of one piece of the surface of the globe only, such as that of Switzerland. Such kind of territory is named "integrate territory" (territorium clausum). But the territory of a State may also be dismembered and consist of several pieces, such as that of Great Britain. All States with colonies have a "dismembered territory."

If a territory or a piece of it is absolutely surrounded by the territory of another State, it is named an "enclosure." Thus the Republic of San Marino is an enclosure of Italy, and Birkenfeld, a piece of the territory of the Grand Duchy of Oldenburg situated on the river Rhine, is an enclosure of Prussia.

Another distinction is that between motherland and colonies. Colonies rank as territory of the motherland, although they may enjoy complete self-government and therefore be called Colonial States. Thus, if viewed from the standpoint of the Law of Nations, the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, New Zealand, and the Union of South Africa are British territory.

As regards the relation between the Suzerain and the Vassal State, it is certain that the vassal is not, in the strict sense of the term, a part of the territory of the suzerain. Crete and Egypt are not Turkish territory, although under Turkish suzerainty. But no general rule can be laid down, as everything depends on the merits of the special case, and as the vassal, even if it has some footing of its own within the Family of Nations, is internationally for the most part considered a mere portion of the Suzerain State.[272]

Importance of State Territory.

§ 170. The importance of State territory lies in the fact that it is the space within which the State exercises its supreme authority. State territory is an object of the Law of Nations because the latter recognises the supreme authority of every State within its territory. Whatever person or thing is on or enters into that territory, is ipso facto subjected to the supreme authority of the respective State according to the old rules, Quidquid est in territorio, est etiam de territorio and Qui in territorio meo est, etiam meus subditus est. No foreign authority has any power within the boundaries of the home territory, although foreign Sovereigns and diplomatic envoys enjoy the so-called privilege of exterritoriality, and although the Law of Nations does, and international treaties may, restrict[273] the home authority in many points in the exercise of its sovereignty.

One Territory, one State.

§ 171. The supreme authority which a State exercises over its territory makes it apparent that on one and the same territory can exist one full-Sovereign State only. Two or more full-Sovereign States on one and the same territory are an impossibility. The following five cases, of which the Law of Nations is cognisant, are apparent, but not real, exceptions to this rule.

(1) There is, first, the case of the so-called condominium. It happens sometimes that a piece of territory consisting of land or water is under the joint tenancy of two or more States, these several States exercising sovereignty conjointly over such piece and the individuals living thereon. Thus Schleswig-Holstein and Lauenburg from 1864 till 1866 were under the condominium of Austria and Prussia. Thus, further, Moresnet (Kelmis), on the frontier of Belgium and Prussia, is under the condominium of these two States[274] because they have not yet come to an agreement regarding the interpretation of a boundary treaty of 1815 between the Netherlands and Prussia. And since 1898 the Soudan is under the condominium of Great Britain and Egypt. It is easy to show that in such cases[275] there are not two States on one and the same territory, but pieces of territory, the destiny of which is not decided, and which are kept separate from the territories of the interested States[276] under a separate administration. Until a final settlement the interested States do not exercise each an individual sovereignty over these pieces, but they agree upon a joint administration under their conjoint sovereignty.

(2) The second case is that of the administration of a piece of territory by a foreign Power, with the consent of the owner-State. Thus, since 1878 the Turkish island of Cyprus has been under British administration, and the then Turkish provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina were from 1878 to 1908 under the administration of Austria-Hungary. In these cases a cession of pieces of territory has for all practical purposes taken place, although in law the respective pieces still belong to the former owner-State. Anyhow, it is certain that only one sovereignty is exercised over these pieces—namely, the sovereignty of the State which exercises administration. On the other hand, however, the fact that in these cases pieces of territory have for all practical purposes been ceded to another State does not empower the latter arbitrarily to annex the territory without the consent of the State owning it in law. Austria-Hungary had therefore no right to annex, in 1908, without the previous consent of Turkey, the provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina.[277]

(3) The third case is that of a piece of territory leased or pledged by the owner-State to a foreign Power. Thus, China in 1898 leased[278] the district of Kiauchau to Germany, Wei-Hai-Wei and the land opposite the island of Hong-Kong to Great Britain, and Port Arthur to Russia.[279] Thus, further, in 1803 Sweden pledged the town of Wismar[280] to the Grand Duchy of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, and the Republic of Genoa in 1768 pledged the island of Corsica to France. All such cases comprise, for all practical purposes, cessions of pieces of territory, but in strict law they remain the property of the leasing State. And such property is not a mere fiction, as some writers[281] maintain, for it is possible that the lease comes to an end by expiration of time or by rescission. Thus the lease, granted in 1894 by Great Britain to the former Congo Free State, of the so-called Lado Enclave, was rescinded[282] in 1906. However this may be, as long as the lease has not expired it is the lease-holder who exercises sovereignty over the territory concerned.

(4) The fourth case is that of a piece of territory of which the use, occupation, and control is in perpetuity granted by the owner-State to another State with the exclusion of the exercise of any sovereign rights over the territory concerned on the part of the grantor. In this way[283] the Republic of Panama transferred, in 1903, to the United States of America a ten-mile wide strip of territory for the purpose of constructing, administrating, and defending the so-called Panama Canal. In this case the grantor retains only in name the property of the territory, the transfer of the land concerned is really cession all but in name, and it is certain that only the grantee exercises sovereignty there.

(5) The fifth case is that of the territory of a Federal State. As a Federal State is considered[284] a State of its own side by side with its single member-States, the fact is apparent that the different territories of the single member-States are at the same time collectively the territory of the Federal State. But this fact is only the consequence of the other illogical fact that sovereignty is divided between a Federal State and its member-States. Two different sovereignties are here by no means exercised over one and the same territory, for so far as the Federal State possesses sovereignty the member-States do not, and vice versa.

II THE DIFFERENT PARTS OF STATE TERRITORY

Real and Fictional parts of Territory.

§ 172. To the territory of a State belong not only the land within the State boundaries, but also the so-called territorial waters. They consist of the rivers, canals, and lakes which water the land, and, in the case of a State with a seacoast, of the maritime belt and certain gulfs, bays, and straits of the sea. These different kinds of territorial waters will be separately discussed below in §§ 176-197. In contradistinction to these real parts of State territory there are some things that are either in every point or for some part treated as though they were territorial parts of a State. They are fictional and in a sense only parts of the territory. Thus men-of-war and other public vessels on the high seas as well as in foreign territorial waters are essentially in every point treated as though they were floating parts of their home State.[285] And the houses in which foreign diplomatic envoys have their official residence are in many points treated as though they were parts of the home States of the respective envoys.[286] Again, merchantmen on the high seas are for some points treated as though they were floating parts of the territory of the State under whose flag they legitimately sail.[287]

Territorial Subsoil.

§ 173. The subsoil beneath the territorial land and water[288] is of importance on account of telegraph and telephone wires and the like, and further on account of the working of mines and of the building of tunnels. A special part of territory the territorial subsoil is not, although this is frequently asserted. But it is a universally recognised rule of the Law of Nations that the subsoil to an unbounded depth belongs to the State which owns the territory on the surface.

Territorial Atmosphere.

§ 174. The space of the territorial atmosphere is no more a special part of territory than the territorial subsoil, but it is of the greatest importance on account of wires for telegraphs, telephones, electric traction, and the like; further on account of wireless telegraphy and of aviation.

(1) Nothing need be said concerning wires for telegraphs and the like, except that obviously the territorial State can prevent neighbouring States from making use of its territorial atmosphere for such wires.

(2) As regards wireless telegraphy,[289] the "International Radiographic Convention," signed at Berlin on November 3, 1906, represents an agreement[290] of the signatory Powers concerning the exchange of radio-telegrams on the part of coast stations and ship stations, but it contains no stipulation respecting the question in general whether the territorial State is compelled to allow the passage over its territory of waves emanating from a foreign wireless telegraphy station. There ought to be no doubt that no such compulsion exists according to customary International Law, and that therefore the territorial State can prevent the passage of such waves[291] over its territory.

(3) The space of the territorial atmosphere is of particular importance with regard to aviation, but no customary or conventional rules of International Law are as yet in existence which settle the very much controverted[292] matter. An international conference for the purpose of agreeing upon an international convention concerning aviation met in 1910 at Paris, but did not produce any result. The fact is that, since aviation is still in its infancy, practical experience is lacking concerning many questions which can only be settled when aviation has been more developed. It is tempting to apply the rules concerning the maritime belt and the Open Sea analogously to the space of the atmosphere, and, therefore, to distinguish between a zone of a certain height, in which the territorial State can exercise sovereignty, and, on the other hand, the atmosphere beyond that height, which is to be considered free like the Open Sea. This comparison between the atmosphere and the sea is, however, faulty for two reasons. Firstly, the Open Sea is an international highway that connects distant lands between which, except by sea, no communication would be possible, whereas the atmosphere is not such an indispensable highway. Secondly, navigation on the Open Sea comprises no danger whatever to the security of the different States and the lives and property of their inhabitants, whereas aviation threatens such danger to a great extent. The chief question at issue is, therefore, whether the territorial State should or should not be considered to exercise sovereignty over the space of the atmosphere to an unbounded height, and to have the power to prevent the passage of foreign aviators altogether, or to enact stringent rules with which they have to comply. It would probably be best for the States in conference to adopt such rules concerning the whole space of the atmosphere as are similar to those valid by customary International Law for the maritime belt, that is:—to recognise, on the one hand, sovereignty of the territorial State over the space of its atmosphere, but, on the other hand, to give a right to foreign States to demand from the territorial State that foreign private—but not public!—air-vessels may pass through its atmosphere, provided they comply with the rules enacted by the territorial State for the aerial traffic.[293]

Aviation through the atmosphere above the Open Sea will require special regulation on account of the dangers to the vessels of all nations traversing the sea, as will also aviation in general in time of war.

Inalienability of Parts of Territory.

§ 175. It should be mentioned that not every part of territory is alienable by the owner-State. For it is evident that the territorial waters are as much inseparable appurtenances of the land as are the territorial subsoil and atmosphere. Only pieces of land together with the appurtenant territorial waters are alienable parts of territory.[294] There is, however, one exception to this, since boundary waters[295] may wholly belong to one of the riparian States, and may therefore be transferred through cession from one to the other riparian State without the bank itself. But it is obvious that this is only an apparent, not a real, exception to the rule that territorial waters are inseparable appurtenances of the land. For boundary waters that are ceded to the other riparian State remain an appurtenance of land, although they are now an appurtenance of the one bank only.

III RIVERS

Grotius, II. c. 2, §§ 11-15—Pufendorf, III. c. 3, § 8—Vattel, II. §§ 117, 128, 129, 134—Hall, § 39—Westlake, I. pp. 142-159—Lawrence, § 92—Phillimore, I. §§ 125-151—Twiss, I. § 145—Halleck, I. pp. 171-177—Taylor, §§ 233-241—Walker, § 16—Wharton, I. § 30—Moore, I. §§ 128-132—Wheaton, §§ 192-205—Bluntschli, §§ 314, 315—Hartmann, § 58—Heffter, § 77—Caratheodory in Holtzendorff, II. pp. 279-406—Gareis, § 20—Liszt, §§ 9 and 27—Ullmann, §§ 87 and 105—Bonfils, Nos. 520-531—Despagnet, Nos. 419-421—Mérignhac, II. pp. 605-632—Pradier-Fodéré, II. Nos. 688-755—Nys, I. pp. 438-441, and II. pp. 109-131—Rivier, I. p. 142 and § 14—Calvo, I. §§ 302-340—Fiore, II. Nos. 755-776, and Code, §§ 283-285 and 976-982—Martens, I. § 102, II. § 57—Delavaud, "Navigation ... sur les fleuves internationaux" (1885)—Engehardt, "Du régime conventionnel des fleuves internationaux" (1879), and "Histoire du droit fluvial conventionnel" (1889)—Vernesco, "Des fleuves en droit international" (1888)—Orban, "Etude sur le droit fluvial international" (1896)—Berges, "Du régime de navigation des fleuves internationaux" (1902)—Lopez, "Regimen internacional de los rios navigables" (1905)—Huber in Z.V. I. (1906), pp. 29 and 159—Hyde in A.J. IV. (1910), pp. 145-155.

Rivers State property of Riparian States.

§ 176. Theory and practice agree upon the rule that rivers are part of the territory of the riparian State. Consequently, if a river lies wholly, that is, from its source to its mouth, within the boundaries of one and the same State, such State owns it exclusively. As such rivers are under the sway of one State only and exclusively, they are named "national rivers." Thus, all English, Scotch, and Irish rivers are national, and so are, to give some Continental examples, the Seine, Loire, and Garonne, which are French; the Tiber, which is Italian; the Volga, which is Russian. But many rivers do not run through the land of one and the same State only, whether they are so-called "boundary rivers," that is, rivers which separate two different States from each other, or whether they run through several States and are therefore named "not-national rivers." Such rivers are not owned by one State alone. Boundary rivers belong to the territory of the States they separate, the boundary line[296] running either through the middle of the river or through the middle of the so-called mid-channel of the river. And rivers which run through several States belong to the territories of the States concerned; each State owns that part of the river which runs through its territory.

There is, however, another group of rivers to be mentioned, which comprises all such rivers as are navigable from the Open Sea and at the same time either separate or pass through several States between their sources and their mouths. Such rivers, too, belong to the territory of the different States concerned, but they are nevertheless named "international rivers," because freedom of navigation in time of peace on all of those rivers in Europe and on many of them outside Europe for merchantmen of all nations is recognised by International Law.

Navigation on National, Boundary and not-National Rivers.

§ 177. There is no rule of the Law of Nations in existence which grants foreign States the right of admittance of their public or private vessels to navigation on national rivers. In the absence of commercial or other treaties granting such a right, every State can exclude foreign vessels from its national rivers or admit them under certain conditions only, such as the payment of a due and the like. The teaching of Grotius (II. c. 2, § 12) that innocent passage through rivers must be granted has not been recognised by the practice of the States, and Bluntschli's assertion (§ 314) that such rivers as are navigable from the Open Sea must in time of peace be open to vessels of all nations, is at best an anticipation of a future rule of International Law, it does not as yet exist.

As regards boundary rivers and rivers running through several States, the riparian States[297] can regulate navigation on such parts of these rivers as they own, and they can certainly exclude vessels of non-riparian States altogether unless prevented therefrom by virtue of special treaties.

Navigation on International Rivers.

§ 178. Whereas there is certainly no recognised principle of free navigation on national, boundary, and not-national rivers, a movement for the recognition of free navigation on international rivers set in at the beginning of the nineteenth century. Until the French Revolution towards the end of the eighteenth century, the riparian States of such rivers as are now called international rivers could, in the absence of special treaties, exclude foreign vessels altogether from those parts of the rivers which run through their territory, or admit them under discretionary conditions. Thus, the river Scheldt was wholly shut up in favour of the Netherlands according to article 14 of the Peace Treaty of Munster of 1648 between the Netherlands and Spain. The development of things in the contrary direction begins with a Decree of the French Convention, dated November 16, 1792, which opens the rivers Scheldt and Meuse to the vessels of all riparian States. But it was not until the Vienna Congress[298] in 1815 that the principle of free navigation on the international rivers of Europe by merchantmen of not only the riparian but of all States was proclaimed. The Congress itself realised theoretically that principle in making arrangements[299] for free navigation on the rivers Scheldt, Meuse, Rhine, and on the navigable tributaries of the latter—namely, the rivers Neckar, Maine, and Moselle—although more than fifty years elapsed before the principle became realised in practice.

The next step was taken by the Peace Treaty of Paris of 1856, which by its article 15[300] stipulated free navigation on the Danube and expressly declared the principle of the Vienna Congress regarding free navigation on international rivers for merchantmen of all nations as a part of "European Public Law." A special international organ for the regulation of navigation on the Danube was created, the so-called European Danube Commission.

A further development took place at the Congo Conference at Berlin in 1884-85, since the General Act[301] of this Conference stipulated free navigation on the rivers Congo and Niger and their tributaries, and created the so-called "International Congo Commission" as a special international organ for the regulation of the navigation of the said rivers.

Side by side with these general treaties, which recognise free navigation on international rivers, stand treaties[302] of several South American States with other States concerning free navigation for merchantmen of all nations on a number of South American rivers. And the Arbitration Court in the case of the boundary dispute between Great Britain and Venezuela decided in 1903 in favour of free navigation for merchantmen of all nations on the rivers Amakourou and Barima.

Thus the principle of free navigation, which is a settled fact as regards all European and some African international rivers, becomes more and more extended over all other international rivers of the world. But when several writers maintain that free navigation on all international rivers of the world is already a recognised rule of the Law of Nations, they are decidedly wrong, although such a universal rule will certainly be proclaimed in the future. There can be no doubt that as regards the South American rivers the principle is recognised by treaties between a small number of Powers only. And there are examples which show that the principle is not yet universally recognised. Thus by article 4 of the Treaty of Washington of 1854 between Great Britain and the United States the former grants to vessels of the latter free navigation on the river St. Lawrence as a revocable privilege, and article 26 of the Treaty of Washington of 1871 stipulates for vessels of the United States, but not for vessels of other nations, free navigation "for ever" on the same river.[303]

However this may be, the principle of free navigation embodies the rule that vessels of all nations must be admitted without payment of any dues whatever. Yet this principle does not exclude the levy of dues from all navigating vessels for expenses incurred by the riparian States for such improvements of the navigability of rivers as embankments, breakwaters, and the like.[304]

I should mention that the Institute of International Law, at its meeting at Heidelberg in 1888, adopted a Projet de Règlement international de navigation fluviale,[305] which comprises forty articles.

Utilisation of the flow of rivers.

§ 178a. Apart from navigation on rivers, the question of the utilisation of the flow of rivers is of importance. With regard to national rivers, the question can not indeed be raised, since the local State is absolutely unhindered in the utilisation of the flow. But the flow of not-national, boundary, and international rivers is not within the arbitrary power of one of the riparian States, for it is a rule of International Law[306] that no State is allowed to alter the natural conditions of its own territory to the disadvantage of the natural conditions of the territory of a neighbouring State. For this reason a State is not only forbidden to stop or to divert the flow of a river which runs from its own to a neighbouring State, but likewise to make such use of the water of the river as either causes danger to the neighbouring State or prevents it from making proper use[307] of the flow of the river on its part. Since, apart from special treaties between neighbouring countries concerning special cases, neither customary nor conventional detailed rules of International Law concerning this subject are in existence, the Institute of International Law, at its meeting at Madrid[308] in 1911, adopted the following "Réglementation internationale des cours d'eau internationaux au point de vue de leur force motrice et de leur utilisation industrielle ou agricole":—

I. When a stream of water forms the frontier of two States, neither State may, without the consent of the other, and in the absence of a special and valid legal title, make any changes prejudicial to the bank of the other State, nor allow such changes to be made by individuals, societies, &c. Moreover, neither State may on its own territory utilise the water, or allow it to be utilised, in such a manner as to cause great damage to its utilisation by the other State or by the individuals, societies, &c., of the other.

The foregoing conditions are also applicable when a lake is situated between territories of more than two States.

II. When a stream of water traverses successively the territories of two or of several States:—

(1) The point at which this stream of water traverses the frontiers of the two States, whether natural or from time immemorial, may not be changed by the establishments of one of the States without the assent of the other.

(2) It is forbidden to make any alteration injurious to the water, or to throw in injurious matter (coming from factories, &c.).

(3) Water may not be withdrawn by the establishments (especially factories for the working of hydraulic pressure) in such a quantity as to modify greatly the constitution, or, in other words, the utilisable character or the essential character, of the stream of water on its arrival at the territory nearer the mouth of the river.

The right of navigation by virtue of a title recognised by International Law cannot be restricted by any usage whatever.

(4) A State farther down the river may not make, or allow to be made, in its territory any constructions or establishments which might cause danger of flooding a State farther up the river.

(5) The foregoing rules are applicable in the same way to the case in which streams of water flow from a lake, which is situated in one territory, into the territory of another State or the territories of other States.

(6) It is recommended that the States concerned appoint common permanent Commissions which may give decisions, or at least may give their advice, when such new establishments are built, or when such modifications are made in the existing establishments, as may influence the flow of the stream of water situated on the territory of another State.

IV LAKES AND LAND-LOCKED SEAS

Vattel, I. § 294—Hall, § 38—Phillimore, I. §§ 205-205A—Twiss, I. § 181—Halleck, I. p. 170—Moore, I. §§ 135-143—Bluntschli, § 316—Hartmann, § 58—Heffter, § 77—Caratheodory in Holtzendorff, II. pp. 378-385—Gareis, §§ 20-21—Liszt, § 9—Ullmann, §§ 88 and 106—Bonfils, Nos. 495-505—Despagnet, No. 407—Mérignhac, II. 587-596—Pradier-Fodéré, II. Nos. 640-649—Nys, I. pp. 447-450—Calvo, I. §§ 301, 373, 383—Fiore, II. Nos. 811-813, and Code, Nos. 279 and 1000—Martens, I. § 100—Rivier, I. pp. 143-145, 230—Mischeff, "La Mer Noire et les détroits de Constantinople" (1901)—Hunt in A.J. IV. (1910), pp. 285-313.

Lakes and land-locked seas State Property of Riparian States.

§ 179. Theory and practice agree upon the rule that such lakes and land-locked seas as are entirely enclosed by the land of one and the same State are part of the territory of this State. Thus the Dead Sea in Palestine is Turkish, the Sea of Aral is Russian, the Lake of Como is Italian territory. As regards, however, such lakes and land-locked seas as are surrounded by the territories of several States, no unanimity exists. The majority of writers consider these lakes and land-locked seas parts of the surrounding territories, but several[309] dissent, asserting that these lakes and seas do not belong to the riparian States, but are free like the Open Sea. The practice of the States seems to favour the opinion of the majority of writers, for special treaties frequently arrange what portions of such lakes and seas belong to the riparian States.[310] Examples are:—The Lake of Constance,[311] which is surrounded by the territories of Germany (Baden, Würtemberg, Bavaria), Austria, and Switzerland (Thurgau and St. Gall); the Lake of Geneva, which belongs to Switzerland and France; the Lakes of Huron, Erie, and Ontario, which belong to British Canada and the United States; the Caspian Sea, which belongs to Persia and Russia.[312]

So-called International Lakes and Land-locked Seas.

§ 180. In analogy with so-called international rivers, such lakes and land-locked seas as are surrounded by the territories of several States and are at the same time navigable from the Open Sea, are called "international lakes and land-locked seas." However, although some writers[313] dissent, it must be emphasised that hitherto the Law of Nations has not recognised the principle of free navigation on such lakes and seas. The only case in which such free navigation is stipulated is that of the lakes within the Congo district.[314] But there is no doubt that in a near future this principle will be recognised, and practically all so-called international lakes and land-locked seas are actually open to merchantmen of all nations. Good examples of such international lakes and land-locked seas are the fore-named lakes of Huron, Erie, and Ontario.

The Black Sea.

§ 181. It is of interest to give some details regarding the Black Sea. This is a land-locked sea which was undoubtedly wholly a part of Turkish territory as long as the enclosing land was Turkish only, and as long as the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles, the approach to the Black Sea, which are exclusively part of Turkish territory, were not open for merchantmen of all nations. But matters have changed through Russia, Roumania, and Bulgaria having become littoral States. It would be wrong to maintain that now the Black Sea belongs to the territories of the four States, for the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles, although belonging to Turkish territory, are nevertheless parts of the Mediterranean Sea, and are now open to merchantmen of all nations. The Black Sea is consequently now part of the Open Sea[315] and is not the property of any State. Article 11 of the Peace Treaty of Paris,[316] 1856, neutralised the Black Sea, declared it open to merchantmen of all nations, but interdicted it to men-of-war of the littoral as well as of other States, admitting only a few Turkish and Russian public vessels for the service of their coasts. But although the neutralisation was stipulated "formally and in perpetuity," it lasted only till 1870. In that year, during the Franco-German War, Russia shook off the restrictions of the Treaty of Paris, and the Powers assembled at the Conference of London signed on March 13, 1871, the Treaty of London,[317] by which the neutralisation of the Black Sea and the exclusion of men-of-war therefrom were abolished. But the right of the Porte to forbid foreign men-of-war passage through the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus[318] was upheld by that treaty, as was also free navigation for merchantmen of all nations on the Black Sea.

V CANALS

Westlake, I. pp. 320-331—Lawrence, § 90, and Essays, pp. 41-162—Phillimore, I. §§ 399 and 207—Moore, III. §§ 336-371—Caratheodory in Holtzendorff, II. pp. 386-405—Liszt, § 27—Ullmann, § 106—Bonfils, Nos. 511-515—Despagnet, No. 418—Mérignhac, II. pp. 597-604—Pradier-Fodéré, II. Nos. 658-660—Nys, I. pp. 475-495—Rivier, I. § 16—Calvo, I. §§ 376-380—Fiore, Code, Nos. 983-987—Martens, II. § 59—Sir Travers Twiss in R.I. VII. (1875), p. 682, XIV. (1882), p. 572, XVII. (1885), p. 615—Holland, Studies, pp. 270-298—Asser in R.I. XX. (1888), p. 529—Bustamante in R.I. XXVII. (1895), p. 112—Rossignol, "Le Canal de Suez" (1898)—Camand, "Étude sur le régime juridique du Canal de Suez" (1899)—Charles-Roux, "L'Isthme et le canal de Suez" (1901)—Othalom, "Der Suezkanal" (1905)—Müller-Heymer, "Der Panamakanal in der Politik der Vereinigten Staaten" (1909)—Arias, "The Panama Canal" (1911)—Hains, Davis, Knapp, Wambough, Olney, and Kennedy in A.J. III. (1909), pp. 354 and 885, IV. (1910), p. 314, V. (1911), pp. 298, 615, 620.

Canals State Property of Riparian States.

§ 182. That canals are parts of the territories of the respective territorial States is obvious from the fact that they are artificially constructed waterways. And there ought to be no doubt[319] that all the rules regarding rivers must analogously be applied to canals. The matter would need no special mention at all were it not for the interoceanic canals which have been constructed during the second half of the nineteenth century or are contemplated in the future. And as regards two of these, the Emperor William (Kiel or Baltic) Canal, which connects the Baltic with the North Sea, and the Corinth Canal, which connects the Gulf of Corinth with the Gulf of Ægina, there is not much to be said. The former is a canal made mainly for strategic purposes by the German Empire entirely through German territory. Although Germany keeps it open for navigation to vessels of all other nations, she exclusively controls the navigation thereof, and can at any moment exclude foreign vessels at discretion, or admit them upon any conditions she likes, apart from special treaty arrangements to the contrary. The Corinth Canal is entirely within the territory of Greece, and although the canal is kept open for navigation to vessels of all nations, Greece exclusively controls the navigation thereof.

The Suez Canal.

§ 183. The most important of the interoceanic canals is that of Suez, which connects the Red Sea with the Mediterranean. Already in 1838 Prince Metternich gave his opinion that such a canal, if ever made, ought to become neutralised by an international treaty of the Powers. When, in 1869, the Suez Canal was opened, jurists and diplomatists at once discussed what means could be found to secure free navigation upon it for vessels of all kinds and all nations in time of peace as well as of war. In 1875 Sir Travers Twiss[320] proposed the neutralisation of the canal, and in 1879 the Institute of International Law gave its vote[321] in favour of the protection of free navigation on the canal by an international treaty. In 1883 Great Britain proposed an international conference to the Powers for the purpose of neutralising the canal, but it took several years before an agreement was actualised. This was done by the Convention of Constantinople[322] of October 29, 1888, between Great Britain, Austria-Hungary, France, Germany, Holland, Italy, Spain, Russia, and Turkey. This treaty comprises seventeen articles, whose more important stipulations are the following:—

(1) The canal is open in time of peace as well as of war to merchantmen and men-of-war of all nations. No attempt to restrict this free usage of the canal is allowed in time either of peace or of war. The canal can never be blockaded (article 1).

(2) In time of war, even if Turkey is a belligerent, no act of hostility is allowed either inside the canal itself or within three sea miles from its ports. Men-of-war of the belligerents have to pass through the canal without delay. They may not stay longer than twenty-four hours, a case of absolute necessity excepted, within the harbours of Port Said and Suez, and twenty-four hours must intervene between the departure from those harbours of a belligerent man-of-war and a vessel of the enemy. Troops, munitions, and other war material may neither be shipped nor unshipped within the canal and its harbours. All rules regarding belligerents' men-of-war are likewise valid for their prizes (articles 4, 5, 6).

(3) No men-of-war are allowed to be stationed inside the canal, but each Power may station two men-of-war in the harbours of Port Said and Suez. Belligerents, however, are not allowed to station men-of-war in these harbours (article 7). No permanent fortifications are allowed in the canal (article 2).

(4) It is the task of Egypt to secure the carrying out of the stipulated rules, but the consuls of the Powers in Egypt are charged to watch the execution of these rules (articles 8 and 9).

(5) The signatory Powers are obliged to notify the treaty to others and to invite them to accede thereto (article 16).

The Panama Canal.

§ 184. Already in 1850 Great Britain and the United States in the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty[323] of Washington had stipulated the free navigation and neutralisation of a canal between the Pacific and the Atlantic Ocean proposed to be constructed by the way of the river St. Juan de Nicaragua and either or both of the lakes of Nicaragua and Managua. In 1881 the building of a canal through the Isthmus of Panama was taken in hand, but in 1888 the works were stopped in consequence of the financial collapse of the Company undertaking its construction. After this the United States came back to the old project of a canal by the way of the river St. Juan de Nicaragua. For the eventuality of the completion of this canal, Great Britain and the United States signed, on February 5, 1900, the Convention of Washington, which stipulated free navigation on and neutralisation of the proposed canal in analogy with the Convention of Constantinople, 1888, regarding the Suez Canal, but ratification was refused by the Senate of the United States. In the following year, however, on November 18, 1901, another treaty was signed and afterwards ratified. This so-called Hay-Pauncefote Treaty[324] applies to a canal between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans by whatever route may be considered expedient, and its five articles are the following:—

Article 1

The High Contracting Parties agree that the present Treaty shall supersede the aforementioned Convention of April 19, 1850.

Article 2

It is agreed that the canal may be constructed under the auspices of the Government of the United States, either directly at its own cost, or by gift or loan of money to individuals or corporations, or through subscription to or purchase of stock or shares, and that, subject to the provisions of the present Treaty, the said Government shall have and enjoy all the rights incident to such construction, as well as the exclusive right of providing for the regulation and management of the canal.

Article 3

The United States adopts, as the basis of the neutralisation of such ship canal, the following Rules, substantially as embodied in the Convention of Constantinople, signed October 29, 1888, for the free navigation of the Suez Canal, that is to say:—

1. The canal shall be free and open to the vessels of commerce and of war of all nations observing these Rules, on terms of entire equality, so that there shall be no discrimination against any such nation, or its citizens or subjects, in respect of the conditions or charges of traffic, or otherwise. Such conditions and charges of traffic shall be just and equitable.

2. The canal shall never be blockaded, nor shall any right of war be exercised or any act of hostility be committed within it. The United States, however, shall be at liberty to maintain such military police along the canal as may be necessary to protect[325] it against lawlessness and disorder.

3. Vessels of war of a belligerent shall not revictual nor take any stores in the canal except so far as may be strictly necessary; and the transit of such vessels through the canal shall be effected with the least possible delay in accordance with the regulations in force, and with only such intermission as may result from the necessities of the service.

Prizes shall be in all respects subject to the same rules as vessels of war of belligerents.

4. No belligerent shall embark or disembark troops, munitions of war, or warlike materials in the canal, except in case of accidental hindrance of the transit, and in such case the transit shall be resumed with all possible despatch.

5. The provisions of this article shall apply to waters adjacent to the canal, within three marine miles of either end. Vessels of war of a belligerent shall not remain in such waters longer than twenty-four hours at any one time except in case of distress, and in such case shall depart as soon as possible; but a vessel of war of one belligerent shall not depart within twenty-four hours from the departure of a vessel of war of the other belligerent.

6. The plant, establishments, buildings and all works necessary to the construction, maintenance, and operation of the canal shall be deemed to be part thereof, for the purposes of this Treaty, and in time of war, as in time of peace, shall enjoy complete immunity from attack or injury by belligerents, and from acts calculated to impair their usefulness as part of the canal.

Article 4

It is agreed that no change of territorial sovereignty or of the international relations of the country or countries traversed by the before-mentioned canal shall affect the general principle of neutralisation or the obligation of the high contracting parties under the present Treaty.

Article 5

The present Treaty shall be ratified by his Britannic Majesty and by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate thereof; and the ratifications shall be exchanged at Washington or at London at the earliest possible time within six months from the date hereof.

In faith whereof the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed this Treaty and thereunto affixed their seals.

Done in duplicate at Washington, the 18th day of November, in the year of Our Lord 1901.

(Seal) Pauncefote. (Seal) John Hay.

On November 18, 1903, the so-called Hay-Varilla Treaty[326] was concluded between the United States and the new Republic of Panama, according to which, on the one hand, the United States guarantees and will maintain the independence of the Republic of Panama, and, on the other hand, the Republic of Panama grants[327] to the United States in perpetuity for the construction, administration, and protection of a canal between Colon and Panama the use, occupation, and control of a strip of land required for the construction of the canal, and, further, of land on both sides of the canal to the extent of five miles on either side, with the exclusion, however, of the cities of Panama and Colon and the harbours adjacent to these cities. According to article 18 of this treaty the canal and the entrance thereto shall be neutral in perpetuity, and shall be open to vessels of all nations as stipulated by article 3 of the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty.

VI MARITIME BELT

Grotius, II. c. 3, § 13—Vattel, I. §§ 287-290—Hall, §§ 41-42—Westlake, I. pp. 183-192—Lawrence, § 187—Phillimore, I. §§ 197-201—Twiss, I. §§ 144, 190-192—Halleck, I. pp. 157-167—Taylor, §§ 247-250—Walker, § 17—Wharton, § 32—Moore, I. §§ 144-152—Wheaton, §§ 177-180—Bluntschli, §§ 302, 309-310—Hartmann, § 58—Heffter, § 75—Stoerk in Holtzendorff, II. pp. 409-449—Gareis, § 21—Liszt, § 9—Ullmann, § 87—Bonfils, Nos. 491-494—Despagnet, Nos. 403-414—Mérignhac, II. pp. 370-392—Pradier-Fodéré, II. Nos. 617-639—Nys, I. pp. 496-520—Rivier, I. pp. 145-153—Calvo, I. §§ 353-362—Fiore, II. Nos. 801-809, and Code, Nos. 271-273, 1025—Martens, I. § 99—Bynkershoek, "De dominio maris" and "Quaestiones juris publici," I. c. 8—Ortolan, "Diplomatie de la mer" (1856), I. pp. 150-175—Heilborn, System, pp. 37-57—Imbart-Latour, "La mer territoriale, &c." (1889)—Godey, "La mer côtière" (1896)—Schücking, "Das Küstenmeer im internationalen Recht" (1897)—Perels, § 5—Fulton, "The Sovereignty of the Seas" (1911), pp. 537-740—Barclay in Annuaire, XII. (1892), pp. 104-136, and XIII. (1894), pp. 125-162—Martens in R.G. I. (1894), pp. 32-43—Aubert, ibidem, pp. 429-441—Engelhardt in R.I. XXVI. (1894), pp. 209-213—Godey in R.G. III. (1896), pp. 224-237—Lapradelle in R.G. V. (1898), pp. 264-284, 309-347.

State Property of Maritime Belt contested.

§ 185. Maritime belt is that part of the sea which, in contradistinction to the Open Sea, is under the sway of the littoral States. But no unanimity exists with regard to the nature of the sway of the littoral States. Many writers maintain that such sway is sovereignty, that the maritime belt is a part of the territory of the littoral State, and that the territorial supremacy of the latter extends over its coast waters. Whereas it is nowadays universally recognised that the Open Sea cannot be State property, such part of the sea as makes the coast waters would, according to the opinion of these writers, actually be the State property of the littoral States, although foreign States have a right of innocent passage of their merchantmen through the coast waters.

On the other hand, many writers of great authority emphatically deny the territorial character of the maritime belt and concede to the littoral States, in the interest of the safety of the coast, only certain powers of control, jurisdiction, police, and the like, but not sovereignty.

This is surely erroneous, since the real facts of international life would seem to agree with the first-mentioned opinion only. Its supporters rightly maintain[328] that the universally recognised fact of the exclusive right of the littoral State to appropriate the natural products of the sea in the coast waters, especially the use of the fishery therein, can coincide only with the territorial character of the maritime belt. The argument of their opponents that, if the belt is to be considered a part of State territory, every littoral State must have the right to cede and exchange its coast waters, can properly be met by the statement that territorial waters of all kinds are inalienable appurtenances[329] of the littoral and riparian States.[330]

Breadth of Maritime Belt.

§ 186. Be that as it may, the question arises how far into the sea those waters extend which are coast waters and are therefore under the sway of the littoral State. Here, too, no unanimity exists upon either the starting line of the belt on the coast or the breadth itself of the belt from such starting line.

(1) Whereas the starting line is sometimes drawn along high-water mark, many writers draw it along low-water mark. Others draw it along the depths where the waters cease to be navigable; others again along those depths where coast batteries can still be erected, and so on.[331] But the number of those who draw it along low-water mark is increasing. The Institute of International Law[332] has voted in favour of this starting line, and many treaties stipulate the same.

(2) With regard to the breadth of the maritime belt various opinions have in former times been held, and very exorbitant claims have been advanced by different States. And although Bynkershoek's rule that terrae potestas finitur ubi finitur armorum vis is now generally recognised by theory and practice, and consequently a belt of such breadth is considered under the sway of the littoral State as is within effective range of the shore batteries, there is still no unanimity on account of the fact that such range is day by day increasing. Since at the end of the eighteenth century the range of artillery was about three miles, or one marine league, that distance became generally[333] recognised as the breadth of the maritime belt. But no sooner was a common doctrine originated than the range of projectiles increased with the manufacture of heavier guns. And although Great Britain, France, Austria, the United States of America, and other States, in Municipal Laws and International Treaties still adhere to a breadth of one marine league, the time will come when by a common agreement of the States such breadth will be very much extended.[334] As regards Great Britain, the Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act[335] of 1878 (41 and 42 Vict. c. 73) specially recognises the extent of the territorial maritime belt as three miles, or one marine league, measured from the low-water mark of the coast.

Fisheries, Cabotage, Police, and Maritime Ceremonials within the Belt.

§ 187. Theory and practice agree upon the following principles with regard to fisheries, cabotage, police, and maritime ceremonials within the maritime belt:—

(1) The littoral State can exclusively reserve the fishery within the maritime belt[336] for its own subjects, whether fish or pearls or amber or other products of the sea are in consideration.

(2) The littoral State can, in the absence of special treaties to the contrary, exclude foreign vessels from navigation and trade along the coast, the so-called cabotage,[337] and reserve this cabotage exclusively for its own vessels. Cabotage meant originally navigation and trade along the same stretch of coast between the ports thereof, such coast belonging to the territory of one and the same State. However, the term cabotage or coasting trade as used in commercial treaties comprises now[338] sea trade between any two ports of the same country, whether on the same coasts or different coasts, provided always that the different coasts are all of them the coasts of one and the same country as a political and geographical unit in contradistinction to the coasts of colonial dependencies of such country.

(3) The littoral State can exclusively exercise police and control within its maritime belt in the interest of its custom-house duties, the secrecy of its coast fortifications, and the like. Thus foreign vessels can be ordered to take certain routes and to avoid others.

(4) The littoral State can make laws and regulations regarding maritime ceremonials to be observed by such foreign merchantmen as enter its territorial maritime belt.[339]

Navigation within the Belt.

§ 188. Although the maritime belt is a portion of the territory of the littoral State and therefore under the absolute territorial supremacy of such State, the belt is nevertheless, according to the practice of all the States, open to merchantmen of all nations for inoffensive navigation, cabotage excepted. And it is the common conviction[340] that every State has by customary International Law the right to demand that in time of peace its merchantmen may inoffensively pass through the territorial maritime belt of every other State. Such right is correctly said to be a consequence of the freedom of the Open Sea, for without this right navigation on the Open Sea by vessels of all nations would in fact be an impossibility. And it is a consequence of this right that no State can levy tolls for the mere passage of foreign vessels through its maritime belt. Although the littoral State may spend a considerable amount of money for the erection and maintenance of lighthouses and other facilities for safe navigation within its maritime belt, it cannot make merely passing foreign vessels pay for such outlays. It is only when foreign ships cast anchor within the belt or enter a port that they can be made to pay dues and tolls by the littoral State. Some writers[341] maintain that all nations have the right of inoffensive passage for their merchantmen by usage only, and not by the customary Law of Nations, and that, consequently, in strict law a littoral State can prevent such passage. They are certainly mistaken. An attempt on the part of a littoral State to prevent free navigation through the maritime belt in time of peace would meet with stern opposition on the part of all other States.

But a right of foreign States for their men-of-war to pass unhindered through the maritime belt is not generally recognised. Although many writers assert the existence of such a right, many others emphatically deny it. As a rule, however, in practice no State actually opposes in time of peace the passage of foreign men-of-war and other public vessels through its maritime belt. And it may safely be stated, first, that a usage has grown up by which such passage, if in every way inoffensive and without danger, shall not be denied in time of peace; and, secondly, that it is now a customary rule of International Law that the right of passage through such parts of the maritime belt as form part of the highways for international traffic cannot be denied to foreign men-of-war.[342]

Jurisdiction within the Belt.

§ 189. That the littoral State has exclusive jurisdiction within the belt as regards mere matters of police and control is universally recognised. Thus it can exclude foreign pilots, can make custom-house arrangements, sanitary regulations, laws concerning stranded vessels and goods, and the like. It is further agreed that foreign merchantmen casting anchor within the belt or entering a port,[343] fall at once and ipso facto under the jurisdiction of the littoral State. But it is a moot point whether such foreign vessels as do not stay but merely pass through the belt are for the time being under this jurisdiction. It is for this reason that the British Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act of 1878 (41 & 42 Vict. c. 73), which claims such jurisdiction, has called forth protests from many writers.[344] The controversy itself can be decided only by the practice of the States. The British Act quoted, the basis of which is, in my opinion, sound and reasonable, is a powerful factor in initiating such a practice; but as yet no common practice of the States can be said to exist.

Zone for Revenue and Sanitary Laws.

§ 190. Different from the territorial maritime belt is the zone of the Open Sea, over which a littoral State extends the operation of its revenue and sanitary laws. The fact is that Great Britain and the United States, as well as other States, possess revenue and sanitary laws which impose certain duties not only on their own but also on such foreign vessels bound to one of their ports as are approaching, but not yet within, their territorial maritime belt.[345] Twiss and Phillimore agree that in strict law these Municipal Laws have no basis, since every State is by the Law of Nations prevented from extending its jurisdiction over the Open Sea, and that it is only the Comity of Nations which admits tacitly the operation of such Municipal Laws as long as foreign States do not object, and provided that no measure is taken within the territorial maritime belt of another nation. I doubt not that in time special arrangements will be made as regards this point by a universal international convention. But I believe that, since Municipal Laws of the above kind have been in existence for more than a hundred years and have not been opposed by other States, a customary rule of the Law of Nations may be said to exist which allows littoral States in the interest of their revenue and sanitary laws to impose certain duties on such foreign vessels bound to their ports as are approaching, although not yet within, their territorial maritime belt.

VII GULFS AND BAYS

Vattel, I. § 291—Hall, § 41—Westlake, I. pp. 183-192—Lawrence, § 72—Phillimore, I. §§ 196-206—Twiss, I. §§ 181-182—Halleck, I. pp. 165-170—Taylor, §§ 229-231—Walker, § 18—Wharton, I. §§ 27-28—Moore, I. § 153—Wheaton, §§ 181-190—Bluntschli, §§ 309-310—Hartmann, § 58—Heffter, § 76—Stoerk in Holtzendorff, II. pp. 419-428—Gareis, § 21—Liszt, § 9—Ullmann, § 88—Bonfils, No. 516—Despagnet, Nos. 405-406—Mérignhac, II. pp. 394-397—Pradier-Fodéré, II. Nos. 661-681—Nys, I. pp. 441-447—Rivier, I. pp. 153-157—Calvo, I. §§ 366-367—Fiore, II. Nos. 808-815, and Code, Nos. 278-279—Martens, I. § 100—Perels, § 5—Schücking, "Das Küstenmeer im internationalen Recht" (1897), pp. 20-24—Barclay in Annuaire, XII. pp. 127-129—Oppenheim in Z.V. I. (1907), pp. 579-587, and V. (1911), pp. 74-95.

Territorial Gulfs and Bays.

§ 191. It is generally admitted that such gulfs and bays as are enclosed by the land of one and the same littoral State, and whose entrance from the sea is narrow enough to be commanded by coast batteries erected on one or both sides of the entrance, belong to the territory of the littoral State even if the entrance is wider[346] than two marine leagues, or six miles.

Some writers maintain that gulfs and bays whose entrance is wider than ten miles, or three and a third marine leagues, cannot belong to the territory of the littoral State, and the practice of some States accords with this opinion. But the practice of other countries, approved by many writers, goes beyond this limit. Thus Great Britain holds the Bay of Conception in Newfoundland to be territorial, although it goes forty miles into the land and has an entrance more than twenty miles wide. And the United States claim the Chesapeake and Delaware Bays, as well as other inlets of the same character, as territorial,[347] although many European writers oppose this claim. The Institute of International Law has voted in favour of a twelve miles wide entrance, but admits the territorial character of such gulfs and bays with a wider entrance as have been considered territorial for more than one hundred years.[348]

As the matter stands, it is doubtful as regards many gulfs and bays whether they are territorial or not. Examples of territorial bays in Europe are: The Zuider Zee is Dutch; the Frische Haff, the Kurische Haff, and the Bay of Stettin, in the Baltic, are German, as is also the Jade Bay in the North Sea. The whole matter calls for an international congress to settle the question once for all which gulfs and bays are to be considered territorial. And it must be specially observed that it is hardly possible that Great Britain would still, as she formerly did for centuries, claim the territorial character of the so-called King's Chambers,[349] which include portions of the sea between lines drawn from headland to headland.

Non-territorial Gulfs and Bays.

§ 192. Gulfs and bays surrounded by the land of one and the same littoral State whose entrance is so wide that it cannot be commanded by coast batteries, and, further, all gulfs and bays enclosed by the land of more than one littoral State, however narrow their entrance may be, are non-territorial. They are parts of the Open Sea, the marginal belt inside the gulfs and bays excepted. They can never be appropriated, they are in time of peace and war open to vessels of all nations including men-of-war, and foreign fishing vessels cannot, therefore, be compelled to comply with municipal regulations of the littoral State concerning the mode of fishing.

An illustrative case is that of the fisheries in the Moray Firth. By article 6 of the Herring[350] Fishery (Scotland) Act, 1889, beam and otter trawling is prohibited within certain limits of the Scotch coast, and the Moray Firth inside a line drawn from Duncansby Head in Caithness to Rattray Point in Aberdeenshire is included in the prohibited area. In 1905, Mortensen, the captain of a Norwegian fishing vessel, but a Danish subject, was prosecuted for an offence against the above-mentioned article 6, convicted, and fined by the Sheriff Court at Dornoch, although he contended that the incriminating act was committed outside three miles from the coast. He appealed to the High Court of Justiciary, which,[351] however, confirmed the verdict of the Sheriff Court, correctly asserting that, whether or not the Moray Firth could be considered as a British territorial bay, the Court was bound by a British Act of Parliament even if such Act violates a rule of International Law. The British Government, while recognising that the Scotch Courts were bound by the Act of Parliament concerned, likewise recognised that, the Moray Firth not being a British territorial bay, foreign fishing vessels could not be compelled to comply with an Act of Parliament regulating the mode of fishing in the Moray Firth outside three miles from the coast, and therefore remitted Mortensen's fine. To remedy the conflict between article 6 of the above-mentioned Herring Fishery (Scotland) Act, 1889, and the requirements of International Law, Parliament passed the Trawling in Prohibited Areas Prevention Act,[352] 1909, according to which no prosecution can take place for the exercise of prohibited fishing methods outside the three miles from the coast, but the fish so caught may not be landed or sold in the United Kingdom.[353]

Navigation and Fishery in Territorial Gulfs and Bays.

§ 193. As regards navigation and fishery within territorial gulfs and bays, the same rules of the Law of Nations are valid as in the case of navigation and fishery within the territorial maritime belt. The right of fishery may, therefore, exclusively be reserved for subjects of the littoral State.[354] And navigation, cabotage excepted, must be open to merchantmen of all nations, but foreign men-of-war need not be admitted.

VIII STRAITS

Vattel, I. § 292—Hall, § 41—Westlake, I. pp. 193-197—Lawrence, §§ 87-89—Phillimore, I. §§ 180-196—Twiss, I. §§ 183, 184, 189—Halleck, I. pp. 165-170—Taylor, §§ 229-231—Walker, § 17—Wharton, §§ 27-29—Wheaton, §§ 181-190—Moore, I. §§ 133-134—Bluntschli, § 303—Hartmann, § 65—Heffter, § 76—Stoerk in Holtzendorff, II. pp. 419-428—Gareis, § 21—Liszt, §§ 9 and 26—Ullmann, § 88—Bonfils, Nos. 506-511—Despagnet, Nos. 415-417—Pradier-Fodéré, II. Nos. 650-656—Nys, I. pp. 451-474—Rivier, I. pp. 157-159—Calvo, I. §§ 368-372—Fiore, II. Nos. 745-754, and Code, Nos. 280-281—Martens, I. § 101—Holland, Studies, p. 277.

What Straits are Territorial.

§ 194. All straits which are so narrow as to be under the command of coast batteries erected either on one or both sides of the straits, are territorial. Therefore, straits of this kind which divide the land of one and the same State belong to the territory of such State. Thus the Solent, which divides the Isle of Wight from England, is British, the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus are Turkish, and both the Kara and the Yugor Straits, which connect the Kara Sea with the Barents Sea, are Russian. On the other hand, if such narrow strait divides the land of two different States, it belongs to the territory of both, the boundary line running, failing a special treaty making another arrangement, through the mid-channel.[355] Thus the Lymoon Pass, the narrow strait which separates the British island of Hong Kong from the continent, was half British and half Chinese as long as the land opposite Hong Kong was Chinese territory.

It would seem that claims of States over wider straits than those which can be commanded by guns from coast batteries are no longer upheld. Thus Great Britain used formerly to claim the Narrow Seas—namely, the St. George's Channel, the Bristol Channel, the Irish Sea, and the North Channel—as territorial; and Phillimore asserts that the exclusive right of Great Britain over these Narrow Seas is uncontested. But it must be emphasised that this right is contested, and I believe that Great Britain would now no longer uphold her former claim,[356] at least the Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act 1878 does not mention it.

Navigation, Fishery, and Jurisdiction in Straits.

§ 195. All rules of the Law of Nations concerning navigation, fishery, and jurisdiction within the maritime belt apply likewise to navigation, fishery, and jurisdiction within straits. Foreign merchantmen, therefore, cannot[357] be excluded; foreign men-of-war must be admitted to such straits as form part of the highways for international traffic;[358] the right of fishery may exclusively be reserved for subjects of the littoral State; and the latter can exercise jurisdiction over all foreign merchantmen passing through the straits. If the narrow strait divides the land of two different States, jurisdiction and fishery are reserved for each littoral State within the boundary line running through the mid-channel or otherwise as by treaty arranged.

It must, however, be stated that foreign merchantmen cannot be excluded from the passage through territorial straits only when these connect two parts of the Open Sea. In case a territorial strait belonging to one and the same State connects a part of the Open Sea with a territorial gulf or bay, or with a territorial land-locked sea belonging to the same State—as, for instance, the Strait of Kertch[359] at present, and formerly the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles[360]—foreign vessels can be excluded therefrom.

The former Sound Dues.

§ 196. The rule that foreign merchantmen must be allowed inoffensive passage through territorial straits without any dues and tolls whatever, had one exception until the year 1857. From time immemorial, Denmark had not allowed foreign vessels the passage through the two Belts and the Sound, a narrow strait which divides Denmark from Sweden and connects the Kattegat with the Baltic, without payment of a toll, the so-called Sound Dues.[361] Whereas in former centuries these dues were not opposed, they were not considered any longer admissible as soon as the principle of free navigation on the sea became generally recognised, but Denmark nevertheless insisted upon the dues. In 1857, however, an arrangement[362] was completed between the maritime Powers of Europe and Denmark by which the Sound Dues were abolished against a heavy indemnity paid by the signatory States to Denmark. And in the same year the United States entered into a convention[363] with Denmark for the free passage of their vessels, and likewise paid an indemnity. With these dues has disappeared the last witness of former times when free navigation on the sea was not universally recognised.

The Bosphorus and Dardanelles.

§ 197. The Bosphorus and Dardanelles, the two Turkish territorial straits which connect the Black Sea with the Mediterranean, must be specially mentioned.[364] So long as the Black Sea was entirely enclosed by Turkish territory and was therefore a portion of this territory, Turkey could exclude[365] foreign vessels from the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles altogether, unless prevented by special treaties. But when in the eighteenth century Russia became a littoral State of the Black Sea, and the latter, therefore, ceased to be entirely a territorial sea, Turkey, by several treaties with foreign Powers, conceded free navigation through the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles to foreign merchantmen. But she always upheld the rule that foreign men-of-war should be excluded from these straits. And by article 1 of the Convention of London of July 10, 1841, between Turkey, Great Britain, Austria, France, Prussia, and Russia, this rule was once for all accepted. Article 10 of the Peace Treaty of Paris of 1856 and the Convention No. 1 annexed to this treaty, and, further, article 2 of the Treaty of London, 1871, again confirm the rule, and all those Powers which were not parties to these treaties submit nevertheless to it.[366] According to the Treaty of London of 1871, however, the Porte can open the straits in time of peace to the men-of-war of friendly and allied Powers for the purpose, if necessary, of securing the execution of the stipulations of the Peace Treaty of Paris of 1856.

On the whole, the rule has in practice always been upheld by Turkey. Foreign light public vessels in the service of foreign diplomatic envoys at Constantinople can be admitted by the provisions of the Peace Treaty of Paris of 1856. And on several occasions when Turkey has admitted a foreign man-of-war carrying a foreign monarch on a visit to Constantinople, there has been no opposition by the Powers.[367] But when, in 1902, Turkey allowed four Russian torpedo destroyers to pass through her straits on the condition that these vessels should be disarmed and sail under the Russian commercial flag, Great Britain protested and declared that she reserved the right to demand similar privileges for her men-of-war should occasion arise. As far as I know, however, no other Power has joined Great Britain in this protest. On the other hand, no protest was raised when, in 1904, during the Russo-Japanese war, two vessels belonging to the Russian volunteer fleet in the Black Sea were allowed to pass through to the Mediterranean, for nobody could presume that these vessels, which were flying the Russian commercial flag, would later on convert themselves into men-of-war by hoisting the Russian war flag.[368]

IX BOUNDARIES OF STATE TERRITORY

Grotius, II. c. 3, § 18—Vattel, I. § 266—Hall, § 38—Westlake, I. pp. 141-142—Twiss, I. §§ 147-148—Taylor, § 251—Moore, I. §§ 154-162—Bluntschli, §§ 296-302—Hartmann, § 59—Heffter, § 66—Holtzendorff in Holtzendorff, II. pp. 232-239—Gareis, § 19—Liszt, § 9—Ullmann, § 91—Bonfils, Nos. 486-489—Despagnet, No. 377—Pradier-Fodéré, II. Nos. 759-777—Mérignhac, II. p. 358—Nys, I. pp. 413-422—Rivier, I. § 11—Calvo, I. §§ 343-352—Fiore, II. Nos. 799-806, and Code, Nos. 1040-1049—Martens, I. § 89—Lord Curzon of Kedleston, "Frontiers" (Romanes lecture of 1907).

Natural and Artificial Boundaries.

§ 198. Boundaries of State territory are the imaginary lines on the surface of the earth which separate the territory of one State from that of another, or from unappropriated territory, or from the Open Sea. The course of the boundary lines may or may not be indicated by boundary signs. These signs may be natural or artificial, and one speaks, therefore, of natural in contradistinction to artificial boundaries. Natural boundaries may consist of water, a range of rocks or mountains, deserts, forests, and the like. Artificial boundaries are such signs as have been purposely put up to indicate the way of the imaginary boundary-line. They may consist of posts, stones, bars, walls,[369] trenches, roads, canals, buoys in water, and the like. It must, however, be borne in mind that the distinction between artificial and natural boundaries is not sharp, in so far as some natural boundaries can be artificially created. Thus a forest may be planted, and a desert may be created, as was the frequent practice of the Romans of antiquity, for the purpose of marking the frontier.

Boundary Waters.

§ 199. Natural boundaries consisting of water must be specially discussed on account of the different kinds of boundary waters. Such kinds are rivers, lakes, landlocked seas, and the maritime belt.

(1) Boundary rivers[370] are such rivers as separate two different States from each other.[371] If such river is not navigable, the imaginary boundary line runs down the middle of the river, following all turnings of the border line of both banks of the river. On the other hand, in a navigable river the boundary line runs through the middle of the so-called Thalweg, that is, the mid-channel of the river. It is, thirdly, possible that the boundary line is the border line of the river, so that the whole bed belongs to one of the riparian States only.[372] But this is an exception created by treaty or by the fact that a State has occupied the lands on one side of a river at a time prior to the occupation of the lands on the other side by some other State.[373] And it must be remembered that, since a river sometimes changes its course more or less, the boundary line running through the middle or the Thalweg or along the border line is thereby also altered. In case a bridge is built over a boundary river, the boundary line runs, failing special treaty arrangements, through the middle of the bridge. As regards the boundary lines running through islands rising in boundary rivers and through the abandoned beds of such rivers, see below, §§ 234 and 235.

(2) Boundary lakes and land-locked seas are such as separate the lands of two or more different States from each other. The boundary line runs through the middle of these lakes and seas, but as a rule special treaties portion off such lakes and seas between riparian States.[374]

(3) The boundary line of the maritime belt is, according to details given above (§ 186), uncertain, since no unanimity prevails with regard to the width of the belt. It is, however, certain that the boundary line runs not nearer to the shore than three miles, or one marine league, from the low-water mark.

(4) In a narrow strait separating the lands of two different States the boundary line runs either through the middle or through the mid-channel,[375] unless special treaties make different arrangements.

Boundary Mountains.

§ 200. Boundary mountains or hills are such natural elevations from the common level of the ground as separate the territories of two or more States from each other. Failing special treaty arrangements, the boundary line runs on the mountain ridge along with the watershed. But it is quite possible that boundary mountains belong wholly to one of the States which they separate.[376]

Boundary Disputes.

§ 201. Boundary lines are, for many reasons, of such vital importance that disputes relating thereto are inevitably very frequent and have often led to war. During the nineteenth century, however, a tendency began to prevail to settle such disputes peaceably. The simplest way in which this can be done is always by a boundary treaty, provided the parties can come to terms.[377] In other cases arbitration can settle the matter, as, for instance, in the Alaska Boundary dispute between Great Britain (representing Canada) and the United States, settled in 1903. Sometimes International Commissions are specially appointed to settle the boundary lines. In this way the boundary lines between Turkey, Bulgaria, Servia, Montenegro, and Roumania were settled after the Berlin Congress of 1878. It sometimes happens that the States concerned, instead of settling the boundary line, keep a strip of land between their territories under their joint tenure and administration, so that a so-called condominium comes into existence, as in the case of Moresnet (Kelmis) on the Prusso-Belgian frontier.[378]

Natural Boundaries sensu politico.

§ 202. Whereas the term "natural boundaries" in the theory and practice of the Law of Nations means natural signs which indicate the course of boundary lines, the same term is used politically[379] in various different meanings. Thus the French often speak of the river Rhine as their "natural" boundary, as the Italians do of the Alps. Thus, further, the zones within which the language of a nation is spoken are frequently termed that nation's "natural" boundary. Again, the line enclosing such parts of the land as afford great facilities for defence against an attack is often called the "natural" boundary of a State, whether or not these parts belong to the territory of the respective State. It is obvious that all these and other meanings of the term "natural boundaries" are of no importance to the Law of Nations, whatever value they may have politically.

X STATE SERVITUDES

Vattel, I. § 89—Hall, § 42*—Westlake, I. p. 61—Phillimore, I. §§ 281-283—Twiss, I. § 245—Taylor, § 252—Moore, I. §§ 163-168, II. § 177—Bluntschli, §§ 353-359—Hartmann, § 62—Heffter, § 43—Holtzendorff in Holtzendorff, II. pp. 242-252—Gareis, § 71—Liszt, §§ 8 and 19—Ullmann, § 99—Bonfils, Nos. 340-344—Despagnet, Nos. 190-192—Mérignhac, II. pp. 366-368—Pradier-Fodéré, II. Nos. 834-845, 1038—Rivier, I. pp. 296-303—Nys, II. pp. 271-279—Calvo, III. § 1583—Fiore, I. § 380, and Code, Nos. 1095-1097—Martens, I. §§ 94-95—Clauss, "Die Lehre von den Staatsdienstbarkeiten" (1894)—Fabres, "Des servitudes dans le droit international" (1901)—Hollatz, "Begriff und Wesen der Staatsservituten" (1909)—Labrousse, "Des servitudes en droit international public" (1911)—Nys in R.I. 2nd Ser. VII. (1905), pp. 118-125, and XIII. (1911), pp. 312-323.

Conception of State Servitudes.

§ 203. State servitudes are those exceptional and conventional restrictions on the territorial supremacy of a State by which a part or the whole of its territory is in a limited way made perpetually to serve a certain purpose or interest of another State. Thus a State may by a convention be obliged to allow the passage of troops of a neighbouring State, or may in the interest of a neighbouring State be prevented from fortifying a certain town near the frontier.

Servitudes must not be confounded[380] with those general restrictions upon territorial supremacy which, according to certain rules of the Law of Nations, concern all States alike. These restrictions are named "natural" restrictions of territorial supremacy (servitutes juris gentium naturales), in contradistinction to the conventional restrictions (servitutes juris gentium voluntariae) which constitute the State servitudes in the technical sense of the term. Thus, for instance, it is not a State servitude, but a "natural" restriction on territorial supremacy, that a State is obliged to admit the free passage of foreign merchantmen through its territorial maritime belt.

That State servitudes are or may on occasions be of great importance, there can be no doubt whatever. The vast majority[381] of writers and the practice of the States accept, therefore, the conception of State servitudes, although they do not agree with regard to the definition and the width of the conception, and although, consequently, in many cases the question is disputed whether a certain restriction upon territorial supremacy is or is not a State servitude.

The theory of State servitudes has of late been rejected by the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague in the case[382] (1910) of the North Atlantic Coast Fisheries between Great Britain and the United States, chiefly for the three reasons that a servitude in International Law predicated an express grant of a sovereign right, that the doctrine of international servitude originated in the peculiar and now obsolete conditions prevailing in the Holy Roman Empire, and that this doctrine, being little suited to the principle of sovereignty which prevails in States under a constitutional government and to the present international relations of Sovereign States, had found little, if any, support from modern publicists. It is hardly to be expected that this opinion of the Court will induce theory and practice to drop the conception of State servitudes, which is of great value because it fitly covers those restrictions on the territorial supremacy of the State by which a part or the whole of its territory is in a limited way made perpetually to serve a certain purpose or interest of another State. That the doctrine of State servitudes originated in the peculiar conditions of the Holy Roman Empire does not make it unfit for the conditions of modern life if its practical value can be demonstrated. Further, the assertion that the doctrine is but little suited to the principle of sovereignty which prevails in States under a constitutional government, and has, therefore, found little, if any, support from modern publicists, does not agree with the facts. Lastly, the statement that a servitude in International Law predicated an express grant of a sovereign right, is not based on any other authority than the contention of the United States, which made this unfounded statement in presenting their case before the Tribunal. The fact is that a State servitude, although to a certain degree it restricts the sovereignty (territorial supremacy) of the State concerned, does as little as any other restriction upon the sovereignty of a State confer a sovereign right upon the State in favour of which it is established.

Subjects of State Servitudes.

§ 204. Subjects of State servitudes are States only and exclusively, since State servitudes can exist between States only (territorium dominans and territorium serviens). Formerly some writers[383] maintained that private individuals and corporations were able to acquire a State servitude; but nowadays it is agreed that this is not possible, since the Law of Nations is a law between States only and exclusively. Whatever rights may be granted by a State to foreign individuals and corporations, such rights can never constitute State servitudes.

On the other hand, every State can acquire and grant State servitudes, although some States may, in consequence of their particular position within the Family of Nations, be prevented from acquiring or granting some special kind or another of State servitudes. Thus neutralised States are in many points hampered in regard to acquiring and granting State servitudes, because they have to avoid everything that could drag them indirectly into war. Thus, further, half-Sovereign and part-Sovereign States may not be able to acquire and to grant certain State servitudes on account of their dependence upon their superior State. But apart from such exceptional cases, even not-full Sovereign States can acquire and grant State servitudes, provided they have any international status at all.

Object of State Servitudes.

§ 205. The object of State servitudes is always the whole or a part of the territory of the State the territorial supremacy of which is restricted by any such servitude.[384] Since the territory of a State includes not only the land but also the rivers which water the land, the maritime belt, the territorial subsoil, and the territorial atmosphere, all these can, as well as the service of the land itself, be an object of State servitudes. Thus a State may have a perpetual right of admittance for its subjects to the fishery in the maritime belt of another State, or a right to lay telegraph cables through a foreign maritime belt, or a right to make and use a tunnel through a boundary mountain, and the like. And should ever aërostation become so developed as to be of practical utility, a State servitude might be created through a State acquiring a perpetual right to send military aerial vehicles through the territorial atmosphere of a neighbouring State. It must, however, be emphasised that the Open Sea can never be the object of a State servitude, since it is no State's territory.

Since the object of State servitudes is the territory of a State, all such restrictions upon the territorial supremacy of a State as do not make a part or the whole of its territory itself serve a purpose or an interest of another State are not State servitudes. The territory as the object is the mark of distinction between State servitudes and other restrictions on the territorial supremacy. Thus the perpetual restriction imposed upon a State by a treaty not to keep an army beyond a certain size is certainly a restriction on territorial supremacy, but is not, as some writers[385] maintain, a State servitude, because it does not make the territory of one State serve an interest of another. On the other hand, when a State submits to a perpetual right enjoyed by another State of passage of troops, or to the duty not to fortify a certain town, place, or island,[386] or to the claim of another State for its subjects to be allowed the fishery within the former's territorial belt;[387] in all these and the like[388] cases the territorial supremacy of a State is in such a way restricted that a part or the whole of its territory is made to serve the interest of another State, and such restrictions are therefore State servitudes.[389]

Different kinds of State Servitudes.

§ 206. According to different qualities different kinds of State servitudes must be distinguished.

(1) Affirmative, active, or positive, are those servitudes which give the right to a State to perform certain acts on the territory of another State, such as to build and work a railway, to establish a custom-house, to let an armed force pass through a certain territory (droit d'étape), or to keep troops in a certain fortress, to use a port or an island as a coaling station, and the like.

(2) Negative, are such servitudes as give a right to a State to demand of another State that the latter shall abstain from exercising its territorial supremacy in certain ways. Thus a State can have a right to demand that a neighbouring State shall not fortify certain towns near the frontier, that another State shall not allow foreign men-of-war in a certain harbour.[390]

(3) Military, are those State servitudes which are acquired for military purposes, such as the right to keep troops in a foreign fortress, or to let an armed force pass through foreign territory, or to demand that a town on foreign territory shall not be fortified, and the like.

(4) Economic, are those servitudes which are acquired for the purpose of commercial interests, traffic, and intercourse in general, such as the right of fisheries in foreign territorial waters, to build a railway on or lay a telegraph cable through foreign territory, and the like.

Validity of State Servitudes.

§ 207. Since State servitudes, in contradistinction to personal rights (rights in personam), are rights inherent to the object with which they are connected (rights in rem), they remain valid and may be exercised however the ownership of the territory to which they apply may change. Therefore, if, after the creation of a State servitude, the part of the territory affected comes by subjugation or cession under the territorial supremacy of another State, such servitude remains in force. Thus, when the Alsatian town of Hüningen became in 1871, together with the whole of Alsace, German territory, the State servitude created by the Treaty of Paris, 1815, that Hüningen should, in the interest of the Swiss canton of Basle, never be fortified, was not extinguished.[391] Thus, further, when in 1860 the former Sardinian provinces of Chablais and Faucigny became French, the State servitude created by article 92 of the Act of the Vienna Congress, 1815, that Switzerland should have temporarily during war the right to locate troops in these provinces, was not extinguished.[392]

It is a moot point whether military State servitudes can be exercised in time of war by a belligerent if the State with whose territory they are connected remains neutral. Must such State, for the purpose of upholding its neutrality, prevent the belligerent from exercising the respective servitude—for instance, the right of passage of troops?[393]

Extinction of State Servitudes.

§ 208. State servitudes are extinguished by agreement between the States concerned, or by express or tacit[394] renunciation on the part of the State in whose interest they were created. They are not, according to the correct opinion, extinguished by reason of the territory involved coming under the territorial supremacy of another State. But it is difficult to understand why, although State servitudes are called into existence through treaties, it is sometimes maintained that the clause rebus sic stantibus[395] cannot be applied in case a vital change of circumstances makes the exercise of a State servitude unbearable. It is a matter of course that in such case the restricted State must previously try to come to terms with the State which is the subject of the servitude. But if an agreement cannot be arrived at on account of the unreasonableness of the other party, the clause rebus sic stantibus may well be resorted to.[396] The fact that the practice of the States does not provide any example of an appeal to this clause for the purpose of doing away with a State servitude proves only that such appeal has hitherto been unnecessary.

XI MODES OF ACQUIRING STATE TERRITORY

Vattel, I. §§ 203-207—Hall, § 31—Westlake, I. pp. 84-116—Lawrence, §§ 74-78—Phillimore, I. §§ 222-225—Twiss, I. §§ 113-139—Halleck, I. p. 154—Taylor, §§ 217-228—Wheaton, §§ 161-163—Bluntschli, §§ 278-295—Hartmann, § 61—Heffter, § 69—Holtzendorff in Holtzendorff, II. pp. 252-255—Gareis, § 76—Liszt, § 10—Ullmann, § 92—Bonfils, No. 532—Despagnet, No. 378—Pradier-Fodéré, II. Nos. 781-787—Mérignhac, II. pp. 410-412—Rivier, I. § 12—Nys, II. pp. 1-3—Calvo, I. § 263—Fiore, I. Nos. 838-840—Martens, I. § 90—Heimburger, "Der Erwerb der Gebietshoheit" (1888).

Who can acquire State Territory?

§ 209. Since States only and exclusively are subjects of the Law of Nations, it is obvious that, as far as the Law of Nations is concerned, States[397] solely can acquire State territory. But the acquisition of territory by an existing State and member of the Family of Nations must not be confounded, first, with the foundation of a new State, and, secondly, with the acquisition of such territory and sovereignty over it by private individuals or corporations as lies outside the dominion of the Law of Nations.

(1) Whenever a multitude of individuals, living on or entering into such a part of the surface of the globe as does not belong to the territory of any member of the Family of Nations, constitute themselves as a State and nation on that part of the globe, a new State comes into existence. This State is not, by reason of its birth, a member of the Family of Nations. The formation of a new State is, as will be remembered from former statements,[398] a matter of fact, and not of law. It is through recognition, which is a matter of law, that such new State becomes a member of the Family of Nations and a subject of International Law. As soon as recognition is given, the new State's territory is recognised as the territory of a subject of International Law, and it matters not how this territory was acquired before the recognition.

(2) Not essentially different is the case in which a private individual or a corporation acquires land with sovereignty over it in countries which are not under the territorial supremacy of a member of the Family of Nations. The actual proceeding in all such cases is that all such acquisition is made either by occupation of hitherto uninhabited land, for instance an island, or by cession from a native tribe living on the land. Acquisition of territory and sovereignty thereon in such cases takes place outside the dominion of the Law of Nations, and the rules of this law, therefore, cannot be applied. If the individual or corporation which has made the acquisition requires protection by the Law of Nations, they must either declare a new State to be in existence and ask for its recognition by the Powers, as in the case of the former Congo Free State,[399] or they must ask a member of the Family of Nations to acknowledge the acquisition as made on its behalf.[400]

Former Doctrine concerning Acquisition of Territory.

§ 210. No unanimity exists among writers on the Law of Nations with regard to the modes of acquiring territory on the part of the members of the Family of Nations. The topic owes its controversial character to the fact that the conception of State territory has undergone a great change since the appearance of the science of the Law of Nations. When Grotius created that science, State territory used to be still, as in the Middle Ages, more or less identified with the private property of the monarch of the State. Grotius and his followers applied, therefore, the rules of Roman Law concerning the acquisition of private property to the acquisition of territory by States.[401] As nowadays, as far as International Law is concerned, every analogy to private property has disappeared from the conception of State territory, the acquisition of territory by a State can mean nothing else than the acquisition of sovereignty over such territory. It is obvious that under these circumstances the rules of Roman Law concerning the acquisition of private property can no longer be applied. Yet the fact that they have been applied in the past has left traces which can hardly be obliterated; and they need not be obliterated, since they contain a good deal of truth in agreement with the actual facts. But the different modes of acquiring territory must be taken from the real practice of the States, and not from Roman Law, although the latter's terminology and common-sense basis may be made use of.

What Modes of Acquisition of Territory there are.

§ 211. States as living organisms grow and decrease in territory. If the historical facts are taken into consideration, different reasons may be found to account for the exercise of sovereignty by a State over the different sections of its territory. One section may have been ceded by another State, another section may have come into the possession of the owner in consequence of accretion, a third through subjugation, a fourth through occupation of no State's land. As regards a fifth section, a State may say that it has exercised its sovereignty over the same for so long a period that the fact of having had it in undisturbed possession is a sufficient title of ownership. Accordingly, five modes of acquiring territory may be distinguished, namely: cession, occupation, accretion, subjugation, and prescription. Most writers recognise these five modes. Some, however, do not recognise prescription; some assert that accretion creates nothing else than a modification of the territory of a State; and some do not recognise subjugation at all, or declare it to be only a special case of occupation. It is for these reasons that some writers recognise only two or three[402] modes of acquiring territory. Be that as it may, all modes, besides the five mentioned, enumerated by some writers, are in fact not special modes, but only special cases of cession.[403] And whatever may be the value of the opinions of publicists, so much is certain that the practice of the States recognises cession, occupation, accretion, subjugation, and prescription as distinct modes of acquiring territory.

Original and derivative Modes of Acquisition.

§ 212. The modes of acquiring territory are correctly divided according as the title they give is derived from the title of a prior owner State, or not. Cession is therefore a derivative mode of acquisition, whereas occupation, accretion, subjugation, and prescription are original modes.[404]

XII CESSION

Hall, § 35—Lawrence, § 76—Phillimore, I. §§ 252-273—Twiss, I. § 138—Walker, § 10—Halleck, I. pp. 154-157—Taylor, § 227—Moore, I. §§ 83-86—Bluntschli, §§ 285-287—Hartmann, § 61—Heffter, §§ 69 and 182—Holtzendorff in Holtzendorff, II. pp. 269-274—Gareis, § 70—Liszt, § 10—Ullmann, §§ 97-98—Bonfils, Nos. 364-371—Mérignhac, II. pp. 487-497—Despagnet, Nos. 381-391—Pradier-Fodéré, II. Nos. 817-819—Rivier, I. pp. 197-217—Nys, II. pp. 8-31—Calvo, I. § 266—Fiore, II. §§ 860-861, and Code, No. 1053—Martens, I. § 91—Heimburger, "Der Erwerb der Gebietshoheit" (1888), pp. 110-120.

Conception of cession of State Territory.

§ 213. Cession of State territory is the transfer of sovereignty over State territory by the owner State to another State. There is no doubt whatever that such cession is possible according to the Law of Nations, and history presents innumerable examples of such transfer of sovereignty. The Constitutional Law of the different States may or may not lay down special rules[405] for the transfer or acquisition of territory. Such rules can have no direct influence upon the rules of the Law of Nations concerning cession, since Municipal Law can neither abolish existing nor create new rules of International Law.[406] But if such municipal rules contain constitutional restrictions on the Government with regard to cession of territory, these restrictions are so far important that such treaties of cession concluded by heads of States or Governments as violate these restrictions are not binding.[407]

Subjects of cession.

§ 214. Since cession is a bilateral transaction, it has two subjects—namely, the ceding and the acquiring State. Both subjects must be States, and only those cessions in which both subjects are States concern the Law of Nations. Cessions of territory made to private persons and to corporations[408] by native tribes or by States outside the dominion of the Law of Nations do not fall within the sphere of International Law, neither do cessions of territory by native tribes made to States[409] which are members of the Family of Nations. On the other hand, cession of territory made to a member of the Family of Nations by a State as yet outside that family is real cession and a concern of the Law of Nations, since such State becomes through the treaty of cession in some respects a member of that family.[410]

Object of cession.