POSITION OF UNITED STATES, 1896.

29

respondingly decreased as regards neutral waters, but increased as regards the area which might be regarded as within belligerent jurisdiction. It would not be reasonable to grant that the neutral marginal sea could be extended in time of war unless the belligerent marginal sea might be similarly extended. The liability for cutting cables on the high sea, for example, would under this regulation be reduced, as nearly all cables if cut at all must be cut within range of cannon shot though perhaps not within 3 miles. If the neutral may thus extend the - zone of neutrality to the range of a cannon, violations of neutrality will be more liable to occur, and the neutral will, under recent conventions, be under great obligations to prevent these violations. These and other possible consequences seem to have led to the suggestion in the report of 1912 that this article be eliminated from the proposed regulations.

Position of United States, 1896.-The proposition of the Institute of International Law in 1894 for a 6-mile limit of marginal sea was brought to the attention of the United States by the Netherlands minister, and a reply was made by Secretary Olney in 1896:

In conformity with your recent oral request, I have now the honor to make further response to your unofficial note of November 5 last, which was acknowledged on the 9th of the same month, by informing you that careful consideration would be given to the important inquiry therein made as to the views of the United States Government touching the expediency of settling by treaty among the interested powers the question of the extent of territorial jurisdiction over maritime waters.

This Government would not be indisposed, should a sufficient number of maritime powers concur in the proposition, to take part in an endeavor to reach an accord having the force and effect of international law as well as of conventional regulation, by which the territorial jurisdiction of a state, bounded by the high seas, should henceforth extend 6 nautical miles from low-water mark, and at the same time providing that this 6-mile limit shall also be that of the neutral maritime zone.

I am unable, however, to express the views of this Government upon the subject more precisely at the present time, in view of the important consideration to be given to the question of the effect of such a modification of existing international and conventional

law upon the jurisdictional boundaries of adjacent states and the application of existing treaties in respect to the doctrine of headlands and bays.

I need scarcely observe to you that an extension of the headland doctrine, by making territorial all bays situated within promontories, 12 miles apart instead of 6, would affect bodies of water now deemed to be high seas and whose use is the subject of existing conventional stipulations. (Quoted in Moore, International Law Digest, Vol. I, p. 734.)

Institute of International Law, 1912.-A report to the Institute of International Law in 1912 by Sir Thomas Barclay retained the provision recommending 6 miles as the limit of jurisdiction over marginal sea, but it was proposed to strike out the regulation giving to a neutral state the right to extend its zone of marginal neutral waters in time of war to the range of a cannon shot, thus leaving the zone in peace, as in war, at the 6-mile line.

Conclusion. The report presented to the Institute of International Law in 1912, to be more particularly considered at a later session, makes the following provision in regard to the area of hostilities.

ART. 1. Théâtre des hostilités.-Le théâtre de la guerre maritime comprend: 1° la mer ouverte; 2° les golfes, les baies, les rades, les ports et les eaux territoriales des belligérants, y compris leurs détroits et leurs canaux maritimes; 3° leurs eaux continentales servant à la navigation maritime, autant que des navires de guerre ennemis y pénètrent de la mer.

Des actes d'hostilité ne peuvent avoir lieu ni dans les eaux des États neutres, ni dans les parties de la mer, les détroits et les canaux conventionnellement neutralisés.

This does not, however, determine what are the limits of the respective waters.

General trend of the coast.-In measuring the limits of marginal sea the opinion seems to be that it may not be wise to follow all the minor sinuosities of the coast. These small indentations can not easily be discovered from the sea and may vary. The reasonable position has been held to be that in establishing the lines of limitation of the marginal sea, the general trend of the coast shall be followed in cases where questions arise. (Hague Arbitration, Norway v. Sweden, 1909.)

HAGUE REGULATIONS.

31

Regulations of The Hague conventions.-The regulations of the conventions agreed upon at The Hague in certain respects recognized a somewhat modern idea, viz, that the burden of the war should, so far as possible, fall exclusively upon the belligerents, and that neutrals should be freed from its consequences.

The first article of The Hague convention concerning the rights and duties of neutral powers in maritime war, which was signed in 1907 and proclaimed in 1910 by the United States, provides—

ARTICLE 1. Belligerents are bound to respect the sovereign rights of neutral powers and to abstain, in neutral territory or neutral waters, from all acts which would constitute, on the part of the neutral powers which knowingly permitted them, a nonfulfillment of their neutrality.

This article, which was adopted by the representatives at The Hague, was emphatically declared by the British delegate who presented it to be a formal recognition that the belligerents are bound to respect the rights of neutrals. (Deuxième Conférence, vol. 3, p. 572.)

In a general way "all acts of hostility" are forbidden in neutral waters. Some of the specific acts which are forbidden to belligerents are enumerated in this same convention; such are the setting up of prize courts in neutral jurisdiction, the use of neutral waters as a base, sojourn by belligerent ships in neutral waters for more than 24 hours, the bringing in of prize, etc. Under articles 25 and 26 the neutral state is bound to "exercise such surveillance as the means at its disposal allow to prevent" violations of its neutrality, and the exercise of its rights "can not be considered as an unfriendly act." The report accompanying this convention, which is an official commentary upon its meaning, says:

Le principe qu'il convient d'affirmer tout d'abord c'est l'obligation pour les belligérants de respecter les droits souverains des États neutres. Cette obligation ne résulte pas de la guerre, pas plus que le droit d'un État à l'inviolabilité de son territoire ne résulte de sa neutralité. C'est une obligation et c'est un droit qui sont inhérents à l'existence même des États, mais qu'il est bon de rappeler expressément dans des circonstances où ils sont plus exposés à être méconnus. Suivant une parole de Sir Ernest Satow,

commentant un article de la proposition britannique auquel a été emprunté presque textuellement l'article 1 de notre projet, il y a là "l'expression de la pensée maîtresse de cette partie du droit international." (Séance du 27 juillet.)

Le principe est applicable à la guerre continentale comme à la guerre maritime, et il ne faut pas s'étonner que le réglement élaboré par le Deuxième Commission au sujet des droits et des devoirs des États neutres sur terre commence par cette disposition: Le territoire des États neutres est inviolable."

66

D'une manière générale, les belligérants doivent s'abstenir dans les eaux neutres de tout acte qui, s'il était toléré par l'État neutre, constituerait un manquement à la neutralité. Il importe de remarquer, dès à présent, qu'un devoir du neutre ne correspond pas nécessairement à un devoir du belligérant et cela est conforme à la nature des choses. On peut imposer au belligérant l'obligation absolue de s'abstenir de certains actes dans les eaux de l'État neutre; il lui est aisé, et, dans tous les cas, possible de satisfaire à cette obligation, qu'il s'agisse des ports ou des eaux territoriales. On ne peut, au contraire, imposer à l'État neutre l'obligation de prévenir ou de réprimer tous les actes que voudrait faire ou ferait un belligérant, parce que très souvent l'État neutre ne sera pas en situation de remplir une pareille obligation. Il peut ne pas savoir tout ce qui se passe dans ses eaux et il peut n'être pas en état de l'empêcher. Le devoir n'existe que dans la mesure où on peut le connaître et le remplir. Cette observation reç it son application dans un certain nombre de cas. (Deuxième Conférence Internationale de la Paix, Vol. I, p. 297.)

Use of terms in The Hague conventions.-In different articles of The Hague conventions different expressions are used. Sometimes the general terms "neutral waters " or "territorial waters" are used; sometimes more special terms, as neutral ports and waters," "ports, roadsteads, or territorial waters," "neutral ports," "ports or roadsteads."

While the variation in the use of terms may not in some instances be entirely consistent with the plan of the conventions, in the convention concerning the rights and duties of neutral powers in maritime war, the use was recognized as giving rise to some difference of obligation as regarded the neutral power, but not as regard bellig

erents.

On a parfois à se demander s'il y a lieu de distinguer entre les ports et les eaux territoriales: la distinction se comprend en

CONSIDERATION OF PROJECTS.

33

ce qui concerne les devoirs du neutre, qui ne peut être au même degré responsable de ce qui se passe dans les ports soumis à l'action directe de ses autorités ou dans ses eaux territoriales sur lesquelles il n'a souvent qu'un faible contrôle; la distinction ne se comprend pas pour le devoir du belligérant, qui est le même partout. (Deuxième Conférence de la Paix, Vol. I, p. 298.)

If the limits of jurisdiction in marginal waters should be extended to 6 or more miles, there would be an increased difficulty in maintaining these rules.

Consideration of projects.-The admission of the claim of the right to exercise jurisdiction over the marginal sea would carry the corresponding obligation to exercise this jurisdiction. There would therefore be an increase in the extent of right together with that of duty.

The proposed assumption of a jurisdiction by the United States to the Gulf Stream in the Atlantic Ocean would involve obligations which the Government would probably be reluctant to assume. The claims to 100 miles, 60 miles, 20 miles, etc., would likewise involve large obligations. It should therefore be emphasized that the possession of jurisdiction, if granted, carries obligations as well as rights.

The extension of jurisdiction in the marginal seas is a corresponding reduction of the area which has formerly been considered as the high seas, an area generally recognized by all the states of the world as being outside the limits of possible appropriation or exclusive jurisdiction. Any change from the 3-mile limit which may be regarded as properly accepted should therefore be by general agreement of the maritime states.

The rights and duties of belligerents and neutrals would be materially modified by such a change.

The exercise of jurisdiction over area beyond the 3-mile limit has been generally admitted for purpose of enforcement of revenue laws and granted by convention for fishing and other purposes. There would accordingly be little difficulty in introducing more uniformity in these practices. Several states have signified willingness to make changes in their domestic regulations.

19148-14-3