this freedom and neutrality, no fortification or military defenses will be raised that may clash with that object. (Foreign Relations U. S., 1881, p. 12.)

The United States had, in 1879, said that the Strait of Magellan could not be claimed as under the exclusive control of any state or states.

Straits connecting with inland waters. The idea that restrictions could be placed upon straits which led to closed seas has received considerable support, both in theory and practice.

The Bosphorus and Dardanelles were regarded as under the sole control of Turkey as long as Turkey held control of all of the Black Sea. After Russia obtained a footing on the Black Sea freedom of passage was granted by treaty to merchant vessels. However, in the convention of 1841 the European powers recognized the right of Turkey to exclude ships of war. The same principle was included in the treaties of 1856 and 1871. The United States has never admitted the binding force of this provision, though always asking permission to pass. Questions were raised when, in 1902, Russian torpedo destroyers passed through on condition that they be transformed and placed under the commercial flag, and again, in 1904, at the time of the Russo-Japanese War, when under the commercial flag vessels of the volunteer fleet passed through and were subsequently transformed into ships of war.

Such examples show the nature of the questions which may arise.

Extent of jurisdiction.-It would be admitted that a strait not wider than 6 miles would be under the jurisdiction of the adjacent state or states. According to circumstances, in absence of conventional agreement, if two or more states had territory along the shores the jurisdiction would be to the middle of the strait or to the middle of the navigable channel, but innocent passage could not be denied between open seas.

The claims for jurisdiction over straits more than 6 miles wide have been variously supported. The range

VIEW OF INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.

45

of cannon shot has been the common basis of measurement and for straits has naturally been reckoned from each shore. Just what area would thus be covered by twice the range of cannon shot has not been determined. An arbitrary limit of 10 miles width for straits which should be under the control of the coast states has often been proposed. The Institute of International Law proposed 12 miles. Certain writers have suggested 24 miles.

An extension beyond 6 miles necessarily carries with it the obligations to submit to jurisdiction which may not have been exercised in certain areas up to the present time.

When it is considered that such straits as Gibraltar, Bab el Mandeb, and others might be under coast jurisdiction if the limits are much extended beyond 6 miles, it is evident that there may be objections. Of course, war-like operations must not be carried on within neutral jurisdiction, and an increase in neutral jurisdiction is a decrease in area for war-like operations in that region.

Institute of International Law, 1894.-The Institute of International Law, in 1894, gave attention to the subject of straits in considering maritime jurisdiction. After prescribing rules for the use of territorial waters in general, the institute, after discussion, continues:

ART. 10. Les dispositions des articles précédents s'appliquent aux détroits dont l'écart n'excède pas douze milles, sauf les modifications et distinctions suivantes:

1° Les détroits dont les côtes appartiennent à des États, différents font partie de la mer territoriale des États riverains, qui y exerceront leur souveraineté jusqu'à la ligne médiane.

2° Les détroits dont les côtes appartiennent au même État et qui sont indispensables aux communications maritimes entre deux ou plusieurs États autres que l'État riverain font toujours partie de la mer territoriale du riverain, quel que soit le rapprochement des côtes.

3° Les détroits qui servent de passage d'une mer libre à une autre mer libre ne peuvent jamais être fermés.

ART. 11. Le régime des détroits actuellement soumis à des conventions ou usages spéciaux demeure résérve. (Annuaire, vol. 13, p. 330.)

This extent is, however, greater than that accepted even at the present time.

The International Law Association in 1895 proposed that straits mentioned under the second paragraph should never be closed, and also as a new regulation

Dans les détroits dont les côtes appartiennent au même État, la mer est territoriale bien que l'écartement des côtes dépasse douze milles, si à chaque entrée du détroit cette distance n'est pas dépassée.

These same modifications were proposed by Sir Thomas Barclay to the Institute of International Law in 1912.

The idea of various regulations seems to be to make a distinction between straits connecting what may be called open seas and those connecting seas wholly within the jurisdiction of a single state or a sea not regarded as generally open to the ships of the world.

Innocent passage.-As the adjacent state has jurisdiction over its marginal sea according to the above discussion, the general principle has been developed that “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 non fulfillment of their neutrality." (Hague Convention, Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Maritime War, Art. I.)

On the other side, "the neutrality of a power is not affected by the mere passage through its territorial waters of ships of war or prizes belonging to belligerents." Also a certain number of belligerent ships of war may be permitted to remain for a specified period within neutral waters, and to take on provisions or fuel and to make certain repairs.

Summary. While there may be arguments for different regulations for gulfs, bays, straits, roadsteads, etc., it is difficult to adjust these so as to reconcile the principles of maritime jurisdiction unless the same limits as for marginal seas are assumed. Accordingly, if a limit of 6 miles is accepted for marginal seas, the same should be used for other waters.

Conclusion. b (1) (a) The limits of gulfs or bays shall be the line where the distance between the opposite shores of the entrance to the waters first narrows to 12 miles and the marginal sea extends 6 miles from this line. (b) Roadsteads according to their situation are regarded as subject to jurisdiction corresponding to that over marginal sea or over gulfs and bays. (c) Straits, when not more than 12 miles in width, are under the jurisdiction of the adjacent state or states.

Canals. Canals may be national, constructed purely for national purposes and within national jurisdiction. The canal connecting the waters of Lake Michigan with the Mississippi River would unquestionably be such a canal. Some of the other canals along the Great Lakes have a mixed character. The Suez Canal is regarded as international.

General. It is admitted that there are routes along which commerce between certain points would pass if left free. The diversion of commerce to other routes would be an additional burden to those engaged in such enterprises.

There are also certain routes which have been or are closed to commerce by natural obstructions. If these obstructions are removed and commerce is allowed to follow a direct route, it will tend to take such a course.

Sometimes on land the obstruction may be a river, a mountain, a valley, or other obstruction. If the river or valley is bridged or the mountain is tunneled, the party performing this service is usually recompensed by the privilege of regulating the use of the means by which the new route has been made possible.

Sometimes the obstruction to maritime commerce may be a shallow channel, a rock, or the entire absence of a waterway. If the channel is deepened or if the rock is removed it often happens that the cost of such work is recompensed by charges upon commerce using such routes.

If a waterway is made where previously none existed, the use of such a route is usually under control of the party which bears the cost of the construction.

When the general principles and conditions under which an artificial waterway may be used have been established, and the use of the waterway under these conditions has become customary, there is reason for protest. if sudden or unjust restrictions are placed upon the future use. Contracts may have been made based upon the expectation of the continuation of the status quo. Boats of special design or for the special service may have been constructed, etc. Conditions should not therefore be suddenly changed.

Interparliamentary Union, 1913.—A set of rules upon the subject of the regulation of the use of canals is contained in a report of the committee of the Interparliamentary Union, approved March 18, 1913. It was as follows:

CONCLUSIONS DU RAPPORT DE LA COMMISSION DES DETROITS ET DES

CANAUX.

L'application du régime intégral des conventions du 23 juillet 1881 pour le détroit de Magellan, du 29 octobre 1888 pour le canal de Suez, et du 18 novembre 1901 pour le canal de Panama, à tous les détroits et canaux interocéaniques présente trop de difficultés pour qu'on puisse d'ores et déjà la prôner comme une solution possible.

II. Il y a pourtant certains principes dans ce domaine qu'on peut considérer emme étant susceptibles d'être adoptés dès à présent par la généralité des États civilisés dans l'intérêt des communications internationales et de la paix mondiale.

Ces principes seraient :

(a) La reconnaissance expresse du droit de libre passage des navires de commerce sans distinction de pavillon en temps de paix et de guerre dans tous les détroits reliant deux mers non intérieures et dans les canaux interocéaniques proprement dits;

(b) La stricte prohibition du blocus de ces détroits et canaux; (c) L'interdiction de placer des mines ou des torpilles pouvant barrer totalement le passage de ces détroits et canaux et l'obligation de donner avis à la navigation quant au placement des mines et des torpilles dans les eaux territoriales avoisinantes;

(d) L'interdiction d'éteindre, même en temps de guerre, les phares qui balisent le passage de ces détroits et canaux;

(e) La reconnaissance dans les traités sur les détroits et canaux, de l'emploi de l'arbitrage, ou d'autres moyens amiables ou judiciaires, pour la solution des litiges relatifs à l'application ou à l'interprétation de ces traités.