The Annexe II referred to above is as follows:

Tableau des États qui ont fixe une étendue de leurs eaux territoriales supérieure à trois milles, quant au droit de la guerre.

Germany.-Germany has usually claimed a cannon shot as the limit of jurisdiction seaward. Some German authorities, realizing that the range of cannon would probably increase, have proposed that the powers meet to readjust the limits of marginal sea from time to time and at intervals of 10 years.

Italy.-A law of June 16, 1912, regulates the passage and stay of merchant vessels upon Italian coasts:

ARTICLE 1er. Le transit et le séjour des navires marchands nationaux ou étrangers peuvent être défendus, en quelque temps que ce soit et dans un lieu déterminé quelconque, intérieur ou extérieur des mers de l'Etat, quand cela sera reconnu nécessaire a l'intérêt de la défense nationale. Aux seuls effets de la présente loi, par "mers de l'Etat" on entend la zone de la mer comprise entre dix milles marins du rivage. En ce qui concerne les golfes et les baies, la zone des dix milles est mesurée à partir d'une ligne droite tirée en travers de la sinuosité dans la partie la plus extérieure où l'ouevrture n'a pas une largeur supérieure à vingt milles. (Gazzetta ufficiale du 27 juin, 1912, n° 151.)

Japan. The Japanese regulations governing capture at sea, of March 15, 1904, contain a provision similar to the Russian regulations.

ART. II. No visit, search, or capture shall be made in neutral waters, nor in waters clearly placed by treaty stipulations outside the zone of hostile operations.

NATIONAL REGULATIONS AND CLAIMS.

25

Norway and Sweden.-Both Norway and Sweden, before, during, and since their union, have maintained 4 miles as the limit of maritime jurisdiction. Even their early laws specify that this distance shall be measured from the most remote islet which is exposed at low tide. Scandinavian writers argue that as many continental states maintain the extent of jurisdiction as the range of a cannon shot from shore, their contention for 4 miles is really a moderate one, as the range of cannon shot is much greater.

For control of fishing, the Norwegian claim in the seventeenth century (1636) extended even to 4 or 6 leagues.

The Swedish jurisdiction for revenue purposes has been fixed ordinarily at 6 miles.

The above jurisdiction becomes of special importance because practically uniform rules of neutrality were proclaimed for the waters of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden by concurrent agreement on December 21, 1912, and published on December 24. No change in the rules were to be made by one state without consulting the others.

Russia. A Russian ukase of September 7, 1821, relating to the Bering Sea, forbade all foreign vessels, except in case of distress, "not only to land on the coasts and islands belonging to Russia, as stated above, but also to approach them within less than a hundred Italian miles." Both the United States and Great Britain protested against this position of Russia.

In 1911 a bill was before the Russian Duma proposing to restrict fishing within 12 miles along the coast of the White Sea. This proposed law raised protests from several states and became a matter of inquiry in the British Parliament, where the sentiment of the Government was opposed to the elimination of the 3-mile limit of jurisdiction.

The Russian Regulations on Maritime Prizes, approved by the admirality board September 20, 1900, and made

operative for the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-5, provide in article 16 that—

The stoppage, examination, and detention of hostile or suspicious vessels and cargoes is permitted throughout the extent of the ocean and other waters, with the exception of those under the dominion of a neutral power or those excluded from military operations by special international agreements. (Foreign Relations, U. S. 1904 p. 737.)

Spain. The Spanish claims to jurisdiction seem to extend in ordinary cases to 6 marine miles.

Special regulations.-During the Russo-Japanese war of 1901-5 several states made known in their neutrality proclamation that they proposed to restrict the use of certain waters in special respects.

Denmark.- If warlike operations should extend to the vicinity of Denmark, the inner waters south of Sealand limited by the meridians of Omö and Stege shall be closed by means of stationary submarine mines; and ships of war belonging to either belligerent shall not be permitted to enter these waters nor the roadstead and harbor of Copenhagen, except in evident stress of weather, in which case such entrance shall be made public." (Foreign Relations, U. S., 1904, p. 21.)

Sweden and Norway.-The King has decided

1. To interdict to war vessels of the belligerents entry to the territorial waters within the fixed submarine defenses, as well as to the following ports:

(a) In Sweden:

Stockholm, comprising the waters within a line commencing at Spillersboda, on the Swedish Continent, and passing Furusund, Sandhamm, and Fiversätraö, to Dalarö and another line, Herrhamra-Landsort-Ledskär.

Karlskrona, within the fixed submarine defenses;

Fårösund, the entrance from the north, comprising the waters within a line connecting Vialmsudde with Hällergrundsudde, and the entrance from the south, comprising the waters within a line Ryssnäs-boundary of Bungeör-Bungnäs; and

Slite, comprising the waters within the true north and west lines connecting the boundary of Magö with the mainland of the island of Gottland.

(b) In Norway:

The port of Fredrikshald;

The fjord of Kristiania inside of Bastö;

The fjord of Tönsberg inside of Natholmen and of the lighthouses of Östre Vakerholmen, of Mogerötangen, and of Vallö;

VIEW OF INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.

27

The port of Kristianssand with the waters inside of Fredriksholm and of the lighthouses of Oxö, of Grönningen, and of Torsö; The port of Bergen with its entrances (a) Byfjorden inside of Hjelteskjaer-Stangen, (b) The entrance from the north inside of Herlö-Agnö-Bognö;

The fjord of Trondhjem inside of the fortifications of Agdenes; and

The port of Vardö. (Ibid, p. 31.)

Institute of International Law, 1894.-The question of the limit of jurisdiction over the marginal sea has received much attention from the Institute of International Law. The report of Sir Thomas Barclay, in 1894, showed that there had been such lack of unanimity as to the limit of jurisdiction that he had deemed it expedient to leave the number of miles in the proposed rules to be filled in by the Institute.

The report of 1894 showed a tendency to make a distinction between the limit to be prescribed for the exercise of jurisdiction in time of war and the limit which should be prescribed for the exercise of control of fishing and similar purposes. Some authorities of great weight stood firmly for an extension of the maritime jurisdiction to the limit of the range of cannon shot. M. de Martens, of Russia, held that this range was the real basis upon which the limit of jurisdiction should be determined, and that accordingly the limit would vary as the range of cannon increased. To M. de Martens the 3-mile limit seemed obsolete and illogical. He proposed 10 miles as a convenient conventional limit. If the doctrine of Bynkershoek is to be followed to its logical conclusion, and "the land dominion is to be limited by the range of cannon," then there is reason for extending the marginal jurisdiction. If the question is one of the distance to which the adjacent state can in fact control the marginal waters, then the limit may be extended. This was frequently shown to be the attitude in the eighteenth century claims and writings.

The ideas expressed by the Institute of International Law in 1894 indicate that there is a common belief that the adjacent state has not merely jurisdiction, but also

The rule proposed

sovereignty, over the marginal sea. by the Institute was:

Article premier. L'État a un droit de souverainité sur une zone de la mer qui baigne la côte sauf le droit de passage inoffensif réservé a l'article 5. (XIII Annuaire, 1894-95, p. 329.)

ART. 5. Tous les navires sans distinction ont le droit de passage inoffensif par la mer territoriale, sauf le droit des belligérants de réglementer et, dans un but de défense, de barrer le passage dans ladite mer pour tout navire, et sauf le droit des neutres de réglementer le passage dans ladite mer pour les navires de guerre de toutes nationalités.

The Institute was basing its action upon a marginal limit of 6 miles instead of the generally recognized 3 milts. The Institute by another regulation had proposed to give the neutral state a right to extend the zone of control in time of war even to the range of a cannon shot.

It may be said that Sir Thomas Barclay, in 1894, after considering all the propositions which had been made to him as the reporter of the committee, judged 6 miles to be the limit which would be most in accord with general opinion, though in special cases this limit might be extended. The investigations and discussions resulted in the formulation of the proposed regulation in the following form:

ART. 2. La mer territoriale s'étend à 6 milles marins (60 au degré de latitude) de la laisse de basse marée sur toute l'étendue des côtes. (13 Annuaire de l'Institut de Droit International, p. 329.)

The same regulation was presented to the Institute in

1912.

The Institute in 1894 also proposed to give the neutral state a right in time of war to extend its zone of neutrality to the range of a cannon.

ART. 4. En cas de guerre, l'État riverain neutre a le droit de fixer, par la déclaration de neutralité ou par notification spéciale, sa zone neutre au delà de 6 milles, jusqu'à portée du canon des côtes. (XIII Annuaire, p. 329.)

The extent of marginal waters would, under this regulation if adopted, be very much enlarged, and the area of possible hostile action by belligerents would be cor