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]
[270] And some writers refuse to draw it even nowadays, as, for instance, Lawrence, § 71.
[271] In English Constitutional Law this point is not settled. The cession of the Island of Heligoland to Germany in 1890 was, however, made conditional on the approval of Parliament.
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.
[273] See above, §§ [126]-128.
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.
[274] See Schröder, "Das grenzstreitige Gebiet von Moresnet" (1902).
[275] The New Hebrides are materially likewise under a condominium, namely, that of Great Britain and France, although article 1 of the Convention of October 20, 1906—see Martens, N.R.G. 3rd Ser. I. (1909), p. 523—speaks only of "a region of joint influence" with regard to the New Hebrides. See Brunet, "Le Régime International des Nouvelles-Hebrides" (1908), and Politis in R.G. XIV. (1907), pp. 689-759.
[276] As regards the proposed condominium over Spitzbergen, see Waultrin in R.G. XV. (1908), pp. 80-105, and Piccioni in R.G. XVI. (1909), pp. 117-134.
(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.
[279] Russia in 1905, by the Peace Treaty of Portsmouth, transferred her lease to Japan.
[280] This transaction took place for the sum of 1,258,000 thaler, on condition that Sweden, after the lapse of 100 years, should be entitled to take back the town of Wismar on repayment of the money, with 3 per cent. interest per annum. Sweden in 1903—see Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XXXI. (1905), pp. 572 and 574—formally waived her right to retake the town.
[281] See, for instance, Perrinjaquet in R.G. XVI. (1909), pp. 349-367.
[282] By article 1 of the Treaty of London of May 9, 1906; see Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XXXV. (1908), p. 454.
(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.
[283] See below, § [184], and Boyd in R.G. XVII. (1910), pp. 614-624.
(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.
[288] As regards the subsoil of the Open Sea, see below, §§ [287c] and [287d].
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.
[289] See Meili, "Die drahtlose Telegraphie, &c." (1908); Schneeli, "Drahtlose Telegraphie und Völkerrecht" (1908); Landsberg, "Die drahtlose Telegraphie" (1909); Kausen, "Die drahtlose Telegraphie im Völkerrecht" (1910); Rolland in R.G. XIII. (1906), pp. 58-92; Fauchille in Annuaire, XXI. (1906), pp. 76-87; Bonfils, Nos. 53110 and 53111; Despagnet, No. 433 quater; Meurer and Boidin in R.G. XVI. (1909), pp. 76 and 261.
[290] See below, §§ [287]a, [287b], and [582, No. 4].
[291] The Institute of International Law—see Annuaire, XXI. (1906), p. 328—proposes by art. 3 of its "Régime de la Télégraphie sans fil" to restrict the power of the territorial State to exclude such waves from passing over its territory to the case in which the exclusion is necessary in the interest of its security.
(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]
[292] The literature on aviation is abundant, see Holtzendorff, II. p. 230; Lawrence, § 73; Bonfils, Nos. 5311-5319; Despagnet, Nos. 433 bis and 433 ter; Mérignhac, II. pp. 398-410; Nys, I. pp. 523-532; Grünwald, "Das Luftschiff, &c." (1908); Meili, "Das Luftschiff, &c." (1908); Meurer, "Luftschiffahrtsrecht" (1909); Meyer, "Die Erschliessung des Luftraums und ihre rechtlichen Folgen" (1909); Magnani, "Il diritto sullo spazio aereo e l'aeronautica" (1909); Leech, "The Jurisprudence of the Air" (1910), a reprint from the Journal of the Royal Artillery, vol. XXXVII.; Lycklama à Nijeholt, "Air Sovereignty" (1910); Hazeltine, "The Law of the Air" (1911); Bielenberg, "Die Freiheit des Luftraums" (1911); Catellani, "Il diritto aereo" (1911); Sperl, "Die Luftschiffahrt, &c." (1911); Loubeyre, "Les principes du droit aérien" (1911); Fauchille in Annuaire, XIX. (1902) pp. 19-114, XXIV. (1911), and in R.G. VIII. (1901), pp. 414-485, XVII. (1910), pp. 55-62; Zitelmann in the Zeitschrift für internationales Privat- und Öffentliches Recht, XIX. (1909), pp. 458-496; Baldwin and Kuhm in A.J. IV. (1910), pp. 95-108, 109-132; Baldwin in Z.V. V. (1911), pp. 394-399.
[293] The Institute of International Law is studying the question of aviation, and passed, in 1911, at its meeting in Madrid, some rules concerning the "Régime juridiques des Aéronefs"; see Annuaire, XXIV. (1911).
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.
[296] See below, § [199], and Huber in Z.V. I. (1906), pp. 29 and 159.
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.
[298] Articles 108-117 of the Final Act of the Vienna Congress; see Martens, N.R. II. p. 427.
[299] "Règlements pour la libre navigation des rivières"; see Martens, N.R. II. p. 434.
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.
[300] See Martens, N.R.G. XV. p. 776. The documents concerning navigation on the Danube are collected by Sturdza, "Recueil de documents relatifs à la liberté de navigation du Danube" (Berlin, 1904).
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.
[301] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. X. p. 417.
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.
[302] See Taylor, § 238, and Moore, I. § 131, pp. 639-651.
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]
[303] See Wharton, pp. 81-83; Moore, I. § 131, p. 631, and Hall, § 39.
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]
[304] As regards the question of levying dues for navigation of the rivers Rhine and Elbe, see Arndt in Z.V. IV. (1910), pp. 208-229.
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.
[305] See Annuaire, IX. p. 182.
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":—
[307] See, for instance, the treaty of Washington of January 11, 1909—Martens, N.R.G. 3rd Ser. (1911), p. 208—between Great Britain and the United States concerning the utilisation of the boundary waters between the United States and Canada.
[308] See Annuaire, XXIV. (1911). See also Bar in R.G. XVII. (1910), pp. 281-288.
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]
[309] See, for instance, Calvo, I. § 301; Caratheodory in Holtzendorff, II. p. 378.
[310] As regards the utilisation of the flow of such lakes and seas, the same is valid as that concerning the utilisation of the flow of rivers; see above, § [178a].
[311] See Stoffel, "Die Fischerei-Verhältnisse des Bodensees unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der an ihm bestehenden Hoheitsrechte" (1906).
[312] But the Caspian Sea is almost entirely under Russian control through the two treaties of Gulistan (1813) and Tourkmantschai (1828). See Rivier, I. p. 144, and Phillimore, I. § 205.
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.
[313] See, for instance, Rivier, I. p. 230; Caratheodory in Holtzendorff, II. p. 378; Calvo, I. § 301.
[314] Article 15 of the General Act of the Congo Conference. (See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. X. p. 417.)
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.
[316] See Martens, N.R.G. XV. p. 775.
[317] See Martens, N.R.G. XVIII. p. 303.
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.
[319] See, however, Holland, Studies, p. 278.
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:—
[320] See R.I. VII. pp. 682-694.
[321] See Annuaire, III. and IV. vol. I. p. 349.
[322] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd, Ser. XV. p. 557. It must, however, be mentioned that Great Britain is a party to the Convention of Constantinople under the reservation that its terms shall not be brought into operation in so far as they would not be compatible with the transitory and exceptional condition in which Egypt is put for the time being in consequence of her occupation by British forces, and in so far as they might fetter the liberty of action of the British Government during the occupation of Egypt. But article 6 of the Declaration respecting Egypt and Morocco signed at London on April 8, 1904, by Great Britain and France (see Parliamentary Papers, France, No. 1 (1904), p. 9), has done away with this reservation, since it stipulates the following:—"In order to ensure the free passage of the Suez Canal, his Britannic Majesty's Government declare that they adhere to the stipulations of the Treaty of October 29, 1888, and that they agree to their being put in force. The free passage of the canal being thus guaranteed, the execution of the last sentence of paragraph 1 as well as of paragraph 2 of article 8 of that treaty will remain in abeyance." (See Holland, Studies, p. 293, and Westlake, I. p. 328.)
(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:—
[323] See Martens, N.R.G. XV. p. 187, and Moore, III. §§ 351-365. According to its article 8 this treaty was also to be applied to a proposed canal through the Isthmus of Panama.
[324] See Moore, III. §§ 366-368.
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.
[325] This does not mean that the United States have a right permanently to fortify the canal. Such a right has likewise been deduced from article 23 of the Hay-Varilla Treaty of November 18, 1903, which runs:—"If it should become necessary at any time to employ armed forces for the safety or protection of the canal, or of the ships that make use of the same, or the railways and auxiliary works, the United States shall have the right, at all times in its discretion, to use its police and its land and naval forces or to establish fortifications for these purposes." However, it would seem that by this article 23 only temporary fortifications are contemplated. On the other hand, if read by itself, article 3 of the Hay-Varilla Treaty, according to which the Republic of Panama grants to the United States all the rights, power, and authority which the United States would possess and exercise if she were the sovereign of the territory concerned, could be quoted as indirectly empowering the United States to fortify the Panama Canal permanently. But the question is whether article 3 must not be interpreted in connection with article 23. The fact that article 23 stipulates expressly the power of the United States temporarily to establish fortifications would seem to indicate that it was intended to exclude permanent fortifications. The question of the fortification of the Panama Canal is discussed by Hains (contra) and Davis (pro) in A.J. III. (1909), pp. 354-394 and pp. 885-908, and by Olney, Wambough, and Kennedy in A.J. V. (1911), pp. 298, 615, 620.
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.
[326] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XXXI. p. 599.
[327] That this grant is really cession all but in name, was pointed out above, [§ 171 (4)]; see also below § [216].
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]
[328] Hall, p. 158. The question is treated with great clearness by Heilborn, "System," pp. 37-57, and Schücking, pp. 14-20.
[329] See above, § [175]. Bynkershoek's ("De Dominio Maris," c. 5) opinion that a littoral State can alienate its maritime belt without the coast itself, is at the present day untenable.
[330] The fact that art. I. of Convention 13 (Neutral Rights and Duties in Maritime War) of the second Hague Peace Conference, 1907, speaks of sovereign rights ... in neutral waters would seem to indicate that the States themselves consider their sway over the maritime belt to be of the nature of sovereignty.
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.
[331] See Schücking, p. 13.
[332] See Annuaire, XIII. p. 329.
(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.
[333] But not universally. Thus Norway claims a breadth of four miles and Spain even a breadth of six miles. As regards Norway, see Aubert in R.G. I. (1894), pp. 429-441.
[334] The Institute of International Law has voted in favour of six miles, or two marine leagues, as the breadth of the belt. See Annuaire, XIII. p. 281.
[335] See above, § [25], and Maine, p. 39.
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.
[336] All treaties stipulate for the purpose of fishery a three miles wide territorial maritime belt. See, for instance, article 1 of the Hague Convention concerning police and fishery in the North Sea of May 6, 1882. (Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. IX. p. 556.)
(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.
[337] See Pradier-Fodéré, V. Nos. 2441, 2442.
[338] See below, § [579], where the matter is more amply treated.
(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]
[339] See Twiss, I. § 194.
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.
[341] Klüber, § 76; Pradier-Fodéré, II. No. 628.
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.
[343] The Institute of International Law—see Annuaire, XVII. (1898), p. 273—adopted at its meeting at the Hague in 1898 a "Règlement sur le régime légal des navires et de leurs équipages dans les ports étrangers" comprising seven rules.
[344] See Perels, pp. 69-77. The Institute of International Law, which at its meeting at Paris in 1894 adopted a body of eleven rules regarding the maritime belt, gulfs, bays, and straits, voted against the jurisdiction of a littoral State over foreign vessels merely passing through the belt. See Annuaire, XIII. p. 328.
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.
[345] See, for instance, the British so-called Hovering Acts, 9 Geo. II. c. 35 and 24 Geo. III. c. 47. The matter is treated by Moore, I. § 151; Taylor, § 248; Twiss, I. § 190; Phillimore, I. § 198; Halleck, I. p. 157; Stoerk in Holtzendorff, II. pp. 475-478; Perels, § 5, pp. 25-28. See also Hall, "Foreign Powers and Jurisdiction," §§ 108 and 109, and Annuaire, XIII. (1894), pp. 135 and 141.
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.
[346] I have no reason to alter the above statement, although Lord Fitzmaurice declared in the House of Lords on February 21, 1907, in the name of the British Government, that they considered such bays only to be territorial as possessed an entrance not wider than six miles. The future will have to show whether Great Britain and her self-governing colonies consider themselves bound by this statement. No writer of authority can be quoted in favour of it, although Walker (§ 18) and Wilson and Tucker (5th ed., 1910, § 53) state it. Westlake (vol. I. p. 187) cannot be cited in favour of it, since he distinguishes between bays and gulfs in such a way as is not generally done by international lawyers, and as is certainly not recognised by geography; for the very examples which he enumerates as gulfs are all called bays, namely those of Conception, of Cancale, of Chesapeake, and of Delaware. In the North Atlantic Coast Fisheries case, between the United States and Great Britain, which was decided by the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague in 1910, the United States—see the official publication of the case, p. 136—also contended that only such bays could be considered territorial as possessed an entrance not wider than six miles, but the Court refused to agree to this contention.
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]
[347] See Taylor, § 229; Wharton, I. §§ 27 and 28; Moore, I. § 153.
[348] See Annuaire, XIII. p. 329.
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.
[349] Whereas Hall (§ 41, p. 162) says: "England would, no doubt, not attempt any longer to assert a right of property over the King's Chambers," Phillimore (I. § 200) still keeps up this claim. The attitude of the British Government in the Moray Firth Case—see below, p. [264]—would seem to demonstrate that this claim is no longer upheld. See also Lawrence, § 87, and Westlake, I. p. 188.
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]
[350] 52 and 53 Vict. c. 23.
[351] Mortensen v. Peters, "The Scotch Law Times Reports," vol. 14, p. 227.
[352] 9 Edw. VII. c. 8.
[353] See Oppenheim in Z.V. V. (1911), pp. 74-95.
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.
[354] The Hague Convention concerning police and fishery in the North Sea, concluded on May 6, 1882, between Great Britain, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, and Holland reserves by its article 2 the fishery for subjects of the littoral States of such bays as have an entrance from the sea not wider than ten miles, but reserves likewise a maritime belt of three miles to be measured from the line where the entrance is ten miles wide. Practically the fishery is therefore reserved for subjects of the littoral State within bays with an entrance thirteen miles wide. See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. IX. (1884), p. 556.
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.
[356] See Phillimore, I. § 189, and above, § [191] (King's Chambers). Concerning the Bristol Channel, Hall (§ 41, p. 162, note 2) remarks: "It was apparently decided by the Queen's Bench in Reg. v. Cunningham (Bell's "Crown Cases," 86) that the whole of the Bristol Channel between Somerset and Glamorgan is British territory; possibly, however, the Court intended to refer only to that portion of the Channel which lies within Steepholm and Flatholm." See also Westlake, I. p. 188, note 3.
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.
[357] The claim of Russia—see Waultrin in R.G. XV. (1908), p. 410—to have a right to exclude foreign merchantmen from the passage through the Kara and the Yugor Straits, is therefore unfounded. As regards the Kara Sea, see below, § [253], note 2.
[358] As, for instance, the Straits of Magellan. These straits were neutralised in 1881—see below, § [568], and [vol. II. § 72]—by a treaty between Chili and Argentina. See Abribat, "Le détroit de Magellan au point de vue international" (1902); Nys, I. pp. 470-474; and Moore, I. § 134.
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.
[361] See the details, which have historical interest only, in Twiss, I. § 188; Phillimore, I. § 189; Wharton, I. § 29; and Scherer, "Der Sundzoll" (1845).
[362] The Treaty of Copenhagen of March 14, 1857. See Martens, N.R.G. XVI. 2nd part, p. 345.
[363] Convention of Washington of April 11, 1857. See Martens, N.R.G. XVII. 1st part, p. 210.
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.
[364] See Holland, "The European Concert in the Eastern Question," p. 225, and Perels, p. 29.
[366] The United States, although she actually acquiesces in the exclusion of her men-of-war, seems not to consider herself bound by the Convention of London, to which she is not a party. See Wharton, I. § 29, pp. 79 and 80, and Moore, I. § 134, pp. 666-668.
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]
[367] See Perels, p. 30.
[368] See below, [vol. II. § 84].
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.
[369] The Romans of antiquity very often constructed boundary walls, and the Chinese Wall may also be cited as an example.
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].
[370] See Huber in Z.V. I. (1906), pp. 29-52 and 159-217.
[371] This case is not to be confounded with the other, in which a river runs through the lands of two different States. In this latter case the boundary line runs across the river.
[373] See Twiss, I. §§ 147 and 148, and Westlake, I. p. 142.
(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.
[375] See Twiss, I. §§ 183 and 184, and above, § [194].
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]
[376] See Fiore, II. No. 800.
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]
[377] A good example of such a boundary treaty is that between Great Britain and the United States of America respecting the demarcation of the international boundary between the United States and the Dominion of Canada, signed at Washington on April 11, 1908. See Martens, N.R.G. 3rd Ser. IV. (1911), p. 191.
[378] See above, § [171], No. 1.
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.
[379] See Rivier, I. p. 166.
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.
[380] This is done, for instance, by Heffter (§ 43), Martens (§ 94), Nys (II. p. 271), and Hall (§ 42*); the latter speaks of the right of innocent use of territorial seas as a servitude.
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.
[381] The conception of State servitudes is rejected by Bulmerincq (§ 49), Gareis (§ 71), Liszt (§§ 8 and 19), Jellinek ("Allgemeine Staatslehre," p. 366).
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.
[382] See the official publication of the case, pp. 115-116; Hogg in The Law Quarterly Review, XXVI. (1910), pp. 415-417; Richards in The Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation, New Series, XI. (1910), pp. 18-27; Lansing in A.J. V. (1911), pp. 1-31; Balch and Louter in R.I. 2nd Ser. XIII. (1911), pp. 5-23, 131-157.
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.
[383] Bluntschli, § 353; Heffter, § 44.
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.
[384] The contention of the United States, adopted by the Hague Arbitration Tribunal, in 1910, in the case of the North Atlantic Coast Fisheries, that a State servitude conferred a sovereign right upon the State in favour of which it is established, was refuted above in § [203], p. 275.
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]
[385] See, for instance, Bluntschli, § 356.
[386] Thus by article 32 of the peace treaty of Paris, 1856, and by the Convention of March 30, 1856, between Great Britain, France, and Russia, annexed to the peace treaty of Paris—see Martens, N.R.G. XV. pp. 780 and 788—Russia is prevented from fortifying the Aland Islands in the Baltic. See below, § [522], and Waultrin in R.G. XIV. pp. 517-533. See also A.J. II. (1908), p. 397.
[387] Examples of such fishery servitudes are:—
(a) The former French fishery rights in Newfoundland which were based on article 13 of the Treaty of Utrecht, 1713, and on the Treaty of Versailles, 1783. See the details regarding the Newfoundland Fishery Dispute, in Phillimore, I. § 195; Clauss, pp. 17-31; Geffcken in R.I. XXII. p. 217; Brodhurst in Law Magazine and Review, XXIV. p. 67. The French literature on the question is quoted in Bonfils, No. 342, note 1. The dispute is now settled by France's renunciation of the privileges due to her according to article 13 of the Treaty of Utrecht, which took place by article 1 of the Anglo-French Convention signed in London on April 8, 1904 (see Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XXXII. (1905), p. 29). But France retains, according to article 2 of the latter Convention, the right of fishing for her subjects in certain parts of the territorial waters of Newfoundland.
(b) The fishery rights granted by Great Britain to the United States of America in certain parts of the British North Atlantic Coast by article 1 of the Treaty of 1818 which gave rise to disputes extending over a long period. The dispute is now settled by an award of the Hague Permanent Court of Arbitration given in September (1910). That the Court refused to recognise the conception of State servitudes, was pointed out above, § [203]. See above, § [203], and the literature there quoted.
[388] Phillimore (I. § 283) quotes two interesting State servitudes which belong to the past. According to articles 4 and 10 of the Treaty of Utrecht, 1713, France was, in the interest of Great Britain, not to allow the Stuart Pretender to reside on French territory, and Great Britain was, in the interest of Spain, not to allow Moors and Jews to reside in Gibraltar.
[389] The controverted question whether neutralisation of a State creates a State servitude is answered by Clauss (p. 167) in the affirmative, but by Ullmann (§ 99), correctly, I think, in the negative. But a distinction must be drawn between neutralisation of a whole State and neutralisation of certain parts of a State. In the latter case a State servitude is indeed created.
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]
[390] Affirmative State servitudes consist in patiendo, negative servitudes in non faciendo. The rule of Roman Law servitus in faciendo consistere nequit has been adopted by the Law of Nations.
(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]
[391] Details in Clauss, pp. 15-17.
[392] Details in Clauss, pp. 8-15.
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]
[393] This question became practical when in 1900, during the South African war, Great Britain claimed, and Portugal was ready to grant, passage of troops through Portuguese territory in South Africa. See below, [vol. II. §§ 306] and [323]; Clauss, pp. 212-217; and Dumas in R.G. XVI. (1909), pp. 289-316.
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.
[394] See Bluntschli, § 359 b. The opposition of Clauss (p. 219) and others to this sound statement of Bluntschli's is not justified.
[396] See Bluntschli, § 359 d, and Pradier-Fodéré, II. No. 845. Clauss (p. 222) and others oppose this sound statement likewise.
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.
[397] There is no doubt that no full-Sovereign State is, as a rule, prevented by the Law of Nations from acquiring more territory than it already owns, unless some treaty arrangement precludes it from so doing. As regards the question whether a neutralised State is, by its neutralisation, prevented from acquiring territory, see above, § [96], and below, § [215].
(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]
[399] See above, § [101]. The case of Sir James Brooke, who acquired in 1841 Sarawak, in North Borneo, and established an independent State there, of which he became the Sovereign, may also be cited. Sarawak is under English protectorate, but the successor of Sir James Brooke is still recognised as Sovereign.
[400] The matter is treated with great lucidity by Heimburger, pp. 44-77, who defends the opinion represented in the text against Sir Travers Twiss (I. Preface, p. x.; also in R.I. XV. p. 547, and XVI. p. 237) and other writers. See also Ullmann, § 93.
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.
[401] See above, § [168]. The distinction between imperium and dominium in Seneca's dictum that "omnia rex imperio possidet, singuli dominio" was well known, and Grotius, II. c. 3, § 4, quotes it, but the consequences thereof were nevertheless not deduced. (See Westlake, Chapters, pp. 129-133, and Westlake, I. pp. 84-88.)
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.
[402] Thus Gareis (§ 70) recognises cession and occupation only, whereas Heimburger (pp. 106-110) and Holtzendorff (II. p. 254) recognise cession, occupation, and accretion only.
[403] See below, § [216]. Such alleged special modes are sale, exchange, gift, marriage contract, testamentary disposition, and the like.
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]
[404] Lawrence (§ 74) enumerates conquest (subjugation) and prescription besides cession as derivative modes. This is, however, merely the consequence of a peculiar conception of what is called a derivative mode of acquisition.
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]
[408] See above, § [209, No. 2].
[409] See below, §§ [221] and [222].
Object of cession.
§ 215. The object of cession is sovereignty over such territory as has hitherto already belonged to another State. As far as the Law of Nations is concerned, every State as a rule can cede a part of its territory to another State, or by ceding the whole of its territory can even totally merge in another State. However, since certain parts of State territory, as for instance rivers and the maritime belt, are inalienable appurtenances of the land, they cannot be ceded without a piece of land.[411]
[411] See above, §§ [175] and [185].
The controverted question whether permanently neutralised parts of a not permanently neutralised State can be ceded to another State must be answered in the affirmative,[412] although the Powers certainly can exercise an intervention by right. On the other hand, a permanently neutralised State could not, except in the case of mere frontier regulation, cede a part of its neutralised territory to another State without the consent of the Powers.[413] Nor could a State under suzerainty or protectorate cede a part or the whole of its territory to a third State without the consent of the superior State. Thus, the Ionian Islands could not in 1863 have merged in Greece without the consent of Great Britain, which exercised a protectorate over these islands.
[412] Thus in 1860 Sardinia ceded her neutralised provinces of Chablais and Faucigny to France. See above, §207.
[413] See above, § [96], and the literature there quoted.
Form of cession.
§ 216. The only form in which a cession can be effected is an agreement embodied in a treaty between the ceding and the acquiring State. Such treaty may be the outcome of peaceable negotiations or of war, and the cession may be one with or without compensation.
If a cession of territory is the outcome of war, it is the treaty of peace which stipulates the cession among its other provisions. Such cession is regularly one without compensation, although certain duties may be imposed upon the acquiring State, as, for instance, of taking over a part of the debts of the ceding State corresponding to the extent and importance of the ceded territory, or that of giving the individuals domiciled on the ceded territory the option to retain their old citizenship or, at least, to emigrate.
Cessions which are the outcome of peaceable negotiations may be agreed upon by the interested States from different motives and for different purposes. Thus Austria, during war with Prussia and Italy in 1866, ceded Venice to France as a gift, and some weeks afterwards France on her part ceded Venice to Italy. The Duchy of Courland ceded in 1795 its whole territory to and voluntarily merged thereby in Russia, in the same way the then Free Town of Mulhouse merged in France in 1798, the Congo Free State in Belgium in 1908, and the Empire of Korea in Japan in 1911.
Cessions have in the past often been effected by transactions which are analogous to transactions in private business life. As long as absolutism was reigning over Europe, it was not at all rare for territory to be ceded in marriage contracts or by testamentary dispositions.[414] In the interest of frontier regulations, but also for other purposes, exchanges of territory frequently take place. Sale of territory is quite usual; as late as 1868 Russia sold her territory in America to the United States for 7,200,000 dollars, and in 1899 Spain sold the Caroline Islands to Germany for 25,000,000 pesetas. Pledge and lease are also made use of. Thus, the then Republic of Genoa pledged Corsica to France in 1768, Sweden pledged Wismar to Mecklenburg in 1803; China[415] leased in 1898 Kiaochau to Germany,[416] Wei-Hai-Wei and the land opposite the island of Hong Kong to Great Britain,[417] and Port Arthur to Russia.
[414] Phillimore, I. §§ 274-276, enumerates many examples of such cession. The question whether the monarch of a State under absolute government could nowadays by a testamentary disposition cede territory to another State must, I believe, be answered in the affirmative.
[415] See above, § [171, No. 3]. Cession may also take place under the disguise of an agreement according to which territory comes under the "administration" or under the "use, occupation, and control" of a foreign State. See above, § [171, Nos. 2] and [4].
[416] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XXX. (1904), p. 326.
[417] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XXXII. (1905), pp. 89 and 90.
Whatever may be the motive and the purpose of the transaction, and whatever may be the compensation, if any, for the cession, the ceded territory is transferred to the new sovereign with all the international obligations[418] locally connected with the territory (Res transit cum suo onere, and Nemo plus juris transferre potest, quam ipse habet).
[418] How far a succession of States takes place in the case of cession of territory has been discussed above, § 84.
Tradition of the ceded Territory.
§ 217. The treaty of cession must be followed by actual tradition of the territory to the new owner State, unless such territory is already occupied by the new owner, as in the case where the cession is the outcome of war and the ceded territory has been during such war in the military occupation of the State to which it is now ceded. But the validity of the cession does not depend upon tradition,[419] the cession being completed by ratification of the treaty of cession, and the capability of the new owner to cede the acquired territory to a third State at once without taking actual possession of it.[420] But of course the new owner State cannot exercise its territorial supremacy thereon until it has taken physical possession of the ceded territory.
[419] This is controversial. Many writers—see, for instance, Rivier, I. p. 203—oppose the opinion presented in the text.
[420] Thus France, to which Austria ceded in 1859 Lombardy, ceded this territory on her part to Sardinia without previously having actually taken possession of it.
Veto of third Powers.
§ 218. As a rule, no third Power has the right of veto with regard to a cession of territory. Exceptionally, however, such right may exist. It may be that a third Power has by a previous treaty acquired a right of pre-emption concerning the ceded territory, or that some early treaty has created another obstacle to the cession, as, for instance, in the case of permanently neutralised parts of a not-permanently neutralised State.[421] And the Powers have certainly the right of veto in case a permanently neutralised State desires to increase its territory by acquiring land through cession from another State.[422] But even where no right of veto exists, a third Power might intervene for political reasons. For there is no duty on the part of third States to acquiesce in such cessions of territory as endanger the balance of power or are otherwise of vital importance.[423] And a strong State will practically always interfere in case a cession of such a kind as menaces its vital interests is agreed upon. Thus, when in 1867 the reigning King of Holland proposed to sell Luxemburg to France, the North German Confederation intervened, and the cession was not effected, but Luxemburg became permanently neutralised.
[422] See above, §§ [209] and [215].
Plebiscite and option.
§ 219. As the object of cession is sovereignty over the ceded territory, all such individuals domiciled thereon as are subjects of the ceding State become ipso facto by the cession subjects[424] of the acquiring State. The hardship involved in the fact that in all cases of cession the inhabitants of the territory lose their old citizenship and are handed over to a new Sovereign whether they like it or not, has created a movement in favour of the claim that no cession shall be valid until the inhabitants have by a plebiscite[425] given their consent to the cession. And several treaties[426] of cession concluded during the nineteenth century stipulate that the cession shall only be valid provided the inhabitants consent to it through a plebiscite. But it is doubtful whether the Law of Nations will ever make it a condition of every cession that it must be ratified by a plebiscite.[427] The necessities of international policy may now and then allow or even demand such a plebiscite, but in most cases they will not allow it.
[424] See Keith, "The Theory of State Succession, &c." (1907), pp. 42-45; Cogordan, "La Nationalité" (1890), pp. 317-400; Moore, III. § 379.
[425] See Stoerk, "Option und Plebiscite" (1879); Rivier, I. p. 204; Freudenthal, "Die Volksabstimmung bei Gebietsabtretungen und Eroberungen" (1891); Bonfils, No. 570; Despagnet, No. 391; Ullmann, § 97.
[426] See Rivier, I. p. 210, where all these treaties are enumerated.
[427] Although Grotius (II. c. VI. § 4) taught this to be necessary.
The hardship of the inhabitants being handed over to a new Sovereign against their will can be lessened by a stipulation in the treaty of cession binding the acquiring State to give the inhabitants of the ceded territory the option of retaining their old citizenship on making an express declaration. Many treaties of cession concluded during the second half of the nineteenth century contain this stipulation. But it must be emphasised that, failing a stipulation expressly forbidding it, the acquiring State may expel those inhabitants who have made use of the option and retained their old citizenship, since otherwise the whole population of the ceded territory might actually consist of aliens and endanger the safety of the acquiring State.
The option to emigrate within a certain period, which is frequently stipulated in favour of the inhabitants of ceded territory, is another means of averting the charge that inhabitants are handed over to a new Sovereign against their will. Thus article 2 of the Peace Treaty of Frankfort, 1871, which ended the Franco-German war, stipulated that the French inhabitants of the ceded territory of Alsace and Lorraine should up to October 1, 1872, enjoy the privilege of transferring their domicile from the ceded territory to French soil.[428]
[428] The important question whether subjects of the ceding States who are born on the ceded territory but have their domicile abroad become ipso facto by the cession subjects of the acquiring State, must, I think, be answered in the negative, unless special treaty arrangements stipulate the contrary. Therefore, Frenchmen born in Alsace but domiciled at the time of the cession in Great Britain, would not have lost their French citizenship through the cession to Germany but for article 1, part 2, of the additional treaty of Dec. 11, 1871, to the Peace Treaty of Frankfort. (Martens, N.R.G. XX. p. 847.) See Bonfils, No. 427, and Cogordan, "La Nationalité, &c." (1890), p. 361.
XIII OCCUPATION
Hall, §§ 32-34—Westlake, I. pp. 96-111, 119-133—Lawrence, § 74—Phillimore, I. §§ 236-250—Twiss, I. §§ 118-126—Halleck, I. p. 154—Taylor, §§ 221-224—Walker, § 9—Wharton, I. § 2—Moore, I. §§ 80-81—Wheaton, §§ 165-174—Bluntschli, §§ 278-283—Hartmann, § 61—Heffter, § 70—Holtzendorff in Holtzendorff, II. pp. 255-266—Gareis, § 70—Liszt, § 10—Ullmann, §§ 93-96—Bonfils, Nos. 536-563—Despagnet, Nos. 329-399—Mérignhac, II. pp. 419-487—Pradier-Fodéré, II. Nos. 784-802—Rivier, I. pp. 188-197—Nys, II. pp. 47-108—Calvo, I. §§ 266-282—Fiore, II. Nos. 841-849, and Code, Nos. 1054-1067—Martens, I. § 90—Tartarin, "Traité de l'occupation" (1873)—Westlake, Chapters, pp. 155-187—Heimburger, "Der Erwerb der Gebietshoheit" (1888), pp. 103-155—Salomon, "L'occupation des territoires sans maître" (1889)—Jèze, "Étude théorique et pratique sur l'occupation, &c." (1896)—Macdonell in the Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation, New Series, I. (1899), pp. 276-286—Waultrin in R.G. XV. (1908), pp. 78, 185, 401.
Conception of Occupation.
§ 220. Occupation is the act of appropriation by a State through which it intentionally acquires sovereignty over such territory as is at the time not under the sovereignty of another State. Occupation as a mode of acquisition differs from subjugation[429] chiefly in so far as the conquered and afterwards annexed territory has hitherto belonged to another State. Again, occupation differs from cession in so far as through cession the acquiring State receives sovereignty over the respective territory from the former owner State. In contradistinction to cession, which is a derivative mode of acquisition, occupation is therefore an original mode. And it must be emphasised that occupation can only take place by and for a State;[430] it must be a State act, that is, it must be performed in the service of a State, or it must be acknowledged by a State after its performance.
Object of Occupation.
§ 221. Only such territory can be the object of occupation as is no State's land, whether entirely uninhabited, as e.g. an island, or inhabited by natives whose community is not to be considered as a State. Even civilised individuals may live and have private property on a territory without any union by them into a State proper which exercises sovereignty over such territory. And natives may live on a territory under a tribal organisation which need not be considered a State proper. But a part or the whole of the territory of any State, even although such State is entirely outside the Family of Nations, is not a possible object of occupation, and it can only be acquired through cession[431] or subjugation. On the other hand, a territory which belonged at one time to a State but has been afterwards abandoned, is a possible object for occupation on the part of another State.[432]
[432] See below, §§ [228] and [247].
Although the Open Sea is free and is, therefore, not the object of occupation, the subsoil[433] of the bed of the Open Sea may become the object of occupation through driving mines and piercing tunnels from the coast.[434]
[433] See below, §§ [287c] and [287d].
[434] When, in 1909, Admiral Peary reached the North Pole and hoisted the flag of the United States the question was discussed whether the North Pole could be the object of occupation. The question must, I believe, be answered in the negative since there is no land on the Pole. See Scott in A.J. III. (1909), pp. 928-941, and Balch in A.J. IV. (1910), pp. 265-275.
Occupation how effected.
§ 222. Theory and practice agree nowadays upon the rule that occupation is effected through taking possession of and establishing an administration over the territory in the name of and for the acquiring State. Occupation thus effected is real occupation, and, in contradistinction to fictitious occupation, is named effective occupation. Possession and administration are the two essential facts that constitute an effective occupation.
(1) The territory must really be taken into possession by the occupying State. For this purpose it is necessary that the respective State should take the territory under its sway (corpus) with the intention to acquire sovereignty over it (animus). This can only be done by a settlement on the territory accompanied by some formal act which announces both that the territory has been taken possession of and that the possessor intends to keep it under his sovereignty. The necessary formal act is usually performed either by the publication of a proclamation or by the hoisting of a flag. But such formal act by itself constitutes fictitious occupation only, unless there is left on the territory a settlement which is able to keep up the authority of the flag. On the other hand, it is irrelevant whether or not some agreement is made with the natives by which they submit themselves to the sway of the occupying State. Any such agreement is usually neither understood nor appreciated by them, and even if the natives really do understand the meaning, such agreements have a moral value only.[435]
[435] If an agreement with natives were legally important, the respective territory would be acquired by cession, and not by occupation. But although it is nowadays quite usual to obtain a cession from a native chief, this is, nevertheless, not cession in the technical sense of the term in International Law; see above, § [214].
(2) After having, in the aforementioned way, taken possession of a territory, the possessor must establish some kind of administration thereon which shows that the territory is really governed by the new possessor. If within a reasonable time after the act of taking possession the possessor does not establish some responsible authority which exercises governing functions, there is then no effective occupation, since in fact no sovereignty of a State is exercised over the territory.
Inchoate Title of Discovery.
§ 223. In former times the two conditions of possession and administration which now make the occupation effective were not considered necessary for the acquisition of territory through occupation. In the age of the discoveries, States maintained that the fact of discovering a hitherto unknown territory was sufficient reason for considering it as acquired through occupation by the State in whose service the discoverer made his explorations. And although later on a real taking possession of the territory was considered necessary for its occupation, it was not until the eighteenth century that the writers on the Law of Nations postulated an effective occupation as necessary,[436] and it was not until the nineteenth century that the practice of the States accorded with this postulate. But although nowadays discovery does not constitute acquisition through occupation, it is nevertheless not without importance. It is agreed that discovery gives to the State in whose service it was made an inchoate title; it "acts as a temporary bar to occupation by another State"[437] within such a period as is reasonably sufficient for effectively occupying the discovered territory. If such period lapses without any attempt by the discovering State to turn its inchoate title into a real title of occupation, such inchoate title perishes, and any other State can now acquire the territory by means of an effective occupation.
[436] See Vattel, I. § 208.
[437] Thus Hall, § 32.
Notification of Occupation to other Powers.
§ 224. No rule of the Law of Nations exists which makes notification of occupation to other Powers a necessary condition of its validity. But as regards all future occupations on the African coast the Powers assembled at the Berlin Congo Conference in 1884-1885 have by article 34 of the General Act[438] of this Conference stipulated that occupation shall be notified to one another, so that such notification is now a condition of the validity of certain occupations in Africa. And there is no doubt that in time this rule will either by custom or by treaty be extended from occupations on the African coast to occupations everywhere else.
[438] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. X. p. 426.
Extent of Occupation.
§ 225. Since an occupation is valid only if effective, it is obvious that the extent of an occupation ought only to reach over so much territory as is effectively occupied. In practice, however, the interested States have neither in the past nor in the present acted in conformity with such a rule; on the contrary, they have always tried to attribute to their occupation a much wider area. Thus it has been maintained that an effective occupation of the land at the mouth of a river is sufficient to bring under the sovereignty of the occupying State the whole territory through which such river and its tributaries run up to the very crest of the watershed.[439] Again, it has been maintained that, when a coast line has been effectively occupied, the extent of the occupation reaches up to the watershed of all such rivers as empty into the coast line.[440] And it has, thirdly, been asserted that effective occupation of a territory extends the sovereignty of the possessor also over neighbouring territories as far as it is necessary for the integrity, security, and defence of the really occupied land.[441] But all these and other fanciful assertions have no basis to rest upon. In truth, no general rule can be laid down beyond the above, that occupation reaches as far as it is effective. How far it is effective is a question of the special case. It is obvious that when the agent of a State takes possession of a territory and makes a settlement on a certain spot of it, he intends thereby to acquire a vast area by his occupation. Everything depends, therefore, upon the fact how far around the settlement or settlements the established responsible authority that governs the territory in the name of the possessor succeeds in gradually extending the established sovereignty. The payment of a tribute on the part of tribes settled far away, the fact that flying columns of the military or the police sweep, when necessary, remote spots, and many other facts, can show how far round the settlements the possessor is really able to assert the established authority. But it will always be difficult to mark exactly in this way the boundary of an effective occupation, since naturally the tendency prevails to extend the sway constantly and gradually over a wider area. It is, therefore, a well-known fact that disputes concerning the boundaries of occupations can only rarely be decided on the basis of strict law; they must nearly always be compromised, whether by a treaty or by arbitration.[442]
[439] Claim of the United States in the Oregon Boundary dispute (1827) with Great Britain. See Twiss, I. §§ 126 and 127, and his "The Oregon Question Examined" (1846); Phillimore, I. § 250; Hall, § 34.
[440] Claim of the United States in their dispute with Spain concerning the boundary of Louisiana (1803), approved of by Twiss, I. § 125.
[441] This is the so-called "right of contiguity," approved of by Twiss, I. §§ 124 and 131.
[442] The Institute of International Law, in 1887, at its meeting in Lausanne, adopted a "Projet de déclaration internationale relatif aux occupations de territoires," comprising ten articles; see Annuaire, X. p. 201.
Protectorate as Precursor of Occupation.
§ 226. The growing desire to acquire vast territories as colonies on the part of States unable at once to occupy effectively such territories has, in the second half of the nineteenth century, led to the contracting of agreements with the chiefs of natives inhabiting unoccupied territories, by which these chiefs commit themselves to the "protectorate" of States that are members of the Family of Nations. These so-called protectorates are certainly not protectorates in the technical sense of the term designating the relation that exists between a strong and a weak State through a treaty by which the weak State surrenders itself into the protection of the strong and transfers to the latter the management of its more important international relations.[443] Neither can they be compared with the protectorate of members of the Family of Nations exercised over such non-Christian States as are outside that family,[444] because the respective chiefs of natives are not the heads of States, but heads of tribal communities only. Such agreements, although they are named "Protectorates," are nothing else than steps taken to exclude other Powers from occupying the respective territories. They give, like discovery, an inchoate title, and are preparations and precursors of future occupations.
[443] See above, §§ [92] and [93].
Spheres of influence.
§ 227. The uncertainty of the extent of an occupation and the tendency of every colonising State to extend its occupation constantly and gradually into the interior, the "Hinterland," of an occupied territory, has led several States which have colonies in Africa to secure for themselves "spheres of influence" by international treaties with other interested Powers. Spheres of influence are therefore the names of such territories as are exclusively reserved for future occupation on the part of a Power which has effectively occupied adjoining territories. In this way disputes are avoided for the future, and the interested Powers can gradually extend their sovereignty over vast territories without coming into conflict with other Powers. Thus, to give some examples, Great Britain has concluded treaties regarding spheres of influence with Portugal[445] in 1890, with Italy[446] in 1891, with Germany[447] in 1886 and 1890, and with France[448] in 1898.[449]
[445] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XVIII. p. 558.
[446] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XVIII. p. 175.
[447] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XII. p. 298, and XVI. p. 895.
[448] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XXIX. p. 116.
[449] Protectorates and Spheres of Influence are exhaustively treated in Hall, "Foreign Powers and Jurisdiction of the British Crown," §§ 92-100; but Hall fails to distinguish between protectorates over Eastern States and protectorates over native tribes.
Consequences of Occupation.
§ 228. As soon as a territory is occupied by a member of the Family of Nations, it comes within the sphere of the Law of Nations, because it constitutes a portion of the territory of a subject of International Law. No other Power can acquire it hereafter through occupation, unless the present possessor has either intentionally withdrawn from it or has been successfully driven away by the natives without making efforts, or without capacity, to re-occupy it.[450] On the other hand, the Power which now exercises sovereignty over the occupied territory is hereafter responsible for all events of international importance on the territory. Such Power has in especial to keep up a certain order among the native tribes in order to restrain them from acts of violence against neighbouring territories, and has eventually to punish them for such acts.
A question of some importance is how far occupation affects private property of the inhabitants of the occupied territory. As according to the modern conception of State territory the latter is not identical with private property of the State, occupation brings a territory under the sovereignty only of the occupying State, and therefore in no wise touches or affects existing private property of the inhabitants. In the age of the discoveries, occupation was indeed considered to include a title to property over the whole occupied land, but nowadays this can no longer be maintained. Being now their sovereign, the occupying State may impose any burdens it likes on its new subjects, and may, therefore, even confiscate their private property; but occupation as a mode of acquiring territory does not of itself touch or affect private property thereon. If the Municipal Law of the occupying State does give a title to private property over the whole occupied land, such title is not based on International Law.
XIV ACCRETION
Grotius, II. c. 8, §§ 8-16—Hall, § 37—Lawrence, § 75—Phillimore, I. §§ 240-241—Twiss, I. §§ 131 and 154—Moore, I. § 82—Bluntschli, §§ 294-295—Hartmann, § 61—Heffter, § 69—Holtzendorff in Holtzendorff, II. pp. 266-268—Gareis, § 20—Liszt, § 10—Ullmann, § 92—Bonfils, No. 533—Despagnet, No. 387—Pradier-Fodéré, II. Nos. 803-816—Rivier, I. pp. 179-180—Nys, II. pp. 3-7—Calvo, I. § 266—Fiore, II. No. 852, and Code, Nos. 1068-1070—Martens, I. § 90—Heimburger, "Der Erwerb der Gebietshoheit" (1888), p. 107.
Conception of Accretion.
§ 229. Accretion is the name for the increase of land through new formations. Such new formations may be a modification only of the existing State territory, as, for instance, where an island rises within such river or a part of it as is totally within the territory of one and the same State; and in such case there is no increase of territory to correspond with the increase of land. On the other hand, many new formations occur which really do enlarge the territory of the State to which they accrue, as, for instance, where an island rises within the maritime belt. And it is a customary rule of the Law of Nations that enlargement of territory, if any, created through new formations, takes place ipso facto by the accretion, without the State concerned taking any special step for the purpose of extending its sovereignty. Accretion must, therefore, be considered as a mode of acquiring territory.
Different kinds of Accretion.
§ 230. New formations through accretion may be artificial or natural. They are artificial if they are the outcome of human work. They are natural if they are produced through operation of nature. And within the circle of natural formations different kinds must again be distinguished—namely, alluvions, deltas, new-born islands, and abandoned river beds.
Artificial Formations.
§ 231. Artificial formations are embankments, breakwaters, dykes, and the like, built along the river or the coast-line of the sea. As such artificial new formations along the bank of a boundary river may more or less push the volume of water so far as to encroach upon the other bank of the river, and as no State is allowed to alter the natural condition of its own territory to the disadvantage[451] of the natural conditions of a neighbouring State territory, a State cannot build embankments, and the like, of such kind without a previous agreement with the neighbouring State. But every State may construct such artificial formations as far into the sea beyond the low-water mark as it likes, and thereby gain considerably in land and also in territory, since the extent of the at least three miles wide maritime belt is now to be measured from the extended shore.
Alluvions.
§ 232. Alluvion is the name for an accession of land washed up on the sea-shore or on a river-bank by the waters. Such accession is as a rule produced by a slow and gradual process, but sometimes also through a sudden act of violence, the stream detaching a portion of the soil from one bank of a river, carrying it over to the other bank, and embedding it there so as to be immovable (avulsio). Through alluvions the land and also the territory of a State may be considerably enlarged. For, if the alluvion takes place on the shore, the extent of the territorial maritime belt is now to be measured from the extended shore. And, if the alluvion takes place on the one bank of a boundary river, and the course of the river is thereby naturally so altered that the waters in consequence cover a part of the other bank, the boundary line, which runs through the middle or through the mid-channel,[452] may thereby be extended into former territory of the other riparian State.
[452] See above, § [199], No. 1.
Deltas.
§ 233. Similar to alluvions are Deltas. Delta is the name for a tract of land at the mouth of a river shaped like the Greek letter Δ, which land owes its existence to a gradual deposit by the river of sand, stones, and earth on one particular place at its mouth. As the Deltas are continually increasing, the accession of land they produce may be very considerable, and such accession is, according to the Law of Nations, considered an accretion to the land of the State to whose territory the mouth of the respective river belongs, although the Delta may be formed outside the territorial maritime belt. It is evident that in the latter case an increase of territory is the result, since the at least three miles wide maritime belt is now to be measured from the shore of the Delta.
New-born Islands.
§ 234. The same and other natural processes which create alluvions on the shore and banks, and Deltas at the mouths of rivers, lead to the birth of new islands. If they rise on the High Seas outside the territorial maritime belt, they are no State's land, and may be acquired through occupation on the part of any State. But if they rise in rivers, lakes, and within the maritime belt, they are, according to the Law of Nations, considered accretions to the neighbouring land. It is for this reason that such new islands in boundary rivers as rise within the boundary line of one of the riparian States accrue to the land of such State, and that, on the other hand, such islands as rise upon the boundary line are divided into parts by it, the respective parts accruing to the land of the riparian States concerned. If an island rises within the territorial maritime belt, it accrues to the land of the littoral State, and the extent of the maritime belt is now to be measured from the shore of the new-born island.
An illustrative example is the case[453] of the Anna. In 1805, during war between Great Britain and Spain, the British privateer Minerva captured the Spanish vessel Anna near the mouth of the River Mississippi. When brought before the British Prize Court, the United States claimed the captured vessel on the ground that she was captured within the American territorial maritime belt. Lord Stowell gave judgment in favour of this claim, because, although it appeared that the capture did actually take place more than three miles off the coast of the continent, the place of capture was within three miles of some small mud-islands composed of earth and trees drifted down into the sea.
[453] See 5 C. Rob. 373.
Abandoned Riverbeds.
§ 235. It happens sometimes that a river abandons its bed entirely or dries up altogether. If such river was a boundary river, the abandoned bed is now the natural boundary. But often the old boundary line cannot be ascertained, and in such cases the boundary line is considered to run through the middle of the abandoned bed, and the portions ipso facto accrue to the land of the riparian States, although the territory of one of these States may become thereby enlarged, and that of the other diminished.
XV SUBJUGATION
Vattel, III. §§ 199-203—Hall, §§ 204-205—Lawrence, § 77—Halleck, II. pp. 467-498—Taylor, § 220—Walker, § 11—Wheaton, § 165—Moore, I. § 87—Bluntschli, §§ 287-289, 701-702—Heffter, § 178—Liszt, § 10—Ullmann, §§ 92 and 97—Bonfils, No. 535—Despagnet, Nos. 387-390—Rivier, I. pp. 181-182, II. 436-441—Nys, II. pp. 40-46—Calvo, V. §§ 3117, 3118—Fiore, II. No. 863, III. No. 1693, and Code, Nos. 1078-1081—Martens, I. § 91—Holtzendorff, "Eroberung und Eroberungsrecht" (1871)—Heimburger, "Der Erwerb der Gebietshoheit" (1888), pp. 121-132—Westlake in The Law Quarterly Review, XVII. (1901), p. 392.
Conception of Conquest and of Subjugation.
§ 236. Conquest is the taking possession of enemy territory through military force in time of war. Conquest alone does not ipso facto make the conquering State the sovereign of the conquered territory, although such territory comes through conquest for the time under the sway of the conqueror. Conquest is only a mode of acquisition if the conqueror, after having firmly established the conquest, formally annexed the territory. Such annexation makes the enemy State cease to exist and thereby brings the war to an end. And as such ending of war is named subjugation, it is conquest followed by subjugation, and not conquest alone, which gives a title and is a mode of acquiring territory.[454] It is, however, quite usual to speak of conquest as a title, and everybody knows that subjugation after conquest is thereby meant. But it must be specially mentioned that, if a belligerent conquers a part of the enemy territory and makes afterwards the vanquished State cede the conquered territory in the treaty of peace, the mode of acquisition is not subjugation but cession.[455]
[454] Concerning the distinction between conquest and subjugation, see below, [vol. II. § 264].
[455] See above, §§ [216] and [219].
Subjugation in Contradistinction to Occupation.
§ 237. Some writers[456] maintain that subjugation is only a special case of occupation, because, as they assert, through conquest the enemy territory becomes no State's land and the conqueror can acquire it by turning his military occupation into absolute occupation. Yet this opinion cannot be upheld, because military occupation, which is conquest, in no way makes enemy territory no State's land. Conquered enemy territory, although actually in possession and under the sway of the conqueror, remains legally under the sovereignty of the enemy until through annexation it comes under the sovereignty of the conqueror. Annexation turns the conquest into subjugation. It is the very annexation which uno actu makes the vanquished State cease to exist and brings the territory under the conqueror's sovereignty. Thus the subjugated territory has not for one moment been no State's land, but comes from the enemy's into the conqueror's sovereignty, although not through cession, but through annexation.
[456] Holtzendorff, II. p. 255; Heimburger, p. 128; Salomon, p. 24.
Justification of Subjugation as a Mode of Acquisition.
§ 238. As long as a Law of Nations has been in existence, the States as well as the vast majority of writers have recognised subjugation as a mode of acquiring territory. Its justification lies in the fact that war is a contention between States for the purpose of overpowering one another. States which go to war know beforehand that they risk more or less their very existence, and that it may be a necessity for the victor to annex the conquered enemy territory, be it in the interest of national unity or of safety against further attacks, or for other reasons. One must hope that the time will come when war will disappear entirely, but, as long as war exists, subjugation will also be recognised. If some writers[457] refuse to recognise subjugation at all as a mode of acquiring territory, they show a lack of insight into the historical development of States and nations.[458]
[457] Bonfils, No. 535; Fiore, II. No. 863, III. No. 1693, and Code N. See also Despagnet, Nos. 387-390.
[458] It should be mentioned that the Pan-American Congress at Washington, 1890, passed a resolution that conquest should hereafter not be a mode of acquisition of territory in America; see Moore, I. § 87.
Subjugation of the whole or of a part of Enemy Territory.
§ 239. Subjugation is as a rule a mode of acquiring the entire enemy territory. The actual process is regularly that the victor destroys the enemy military forces, takes possession of the enemy territory, and then annexes it, although the head and the Government of the extinguished State might have fled, might protest, and still keep up a claim. Thus after the war with Austria and her allies in 1866, Prussia subjugated the territories of the Duchy of Nassau, the Kingdom of Hanover, the Electorate of Hesse-Cassel, and the Free Town of Frankfort-on-the-Main; and Great Britain subjugated in 1900 the territories of the Orange Free State and the South African Republic.
But it is possible, although it will nowadays hardly occur, for a State to conquer and annex a part of enemy territory, whether the war ends by a Treaty of Peace in which the vanquished State, without ceding the conquered territory, submits silently[459] to the annexation, or by simple cessation of hostilities.[460]
[459] See below, [vol. II. § 273].
[460] See below, [vol. II. § 263].
It must, however, be emphasised that such a mode of acquiring a part of enemy territory is totally different from forcibly taking possession of a part thereof during the continuance of war. Such a conquest, although the conqueror may intend to keep the conquered territory and therefore annex it, is not a title as long as the war has not terminated either actually through simple cessation of hostilities or through a Treaty of Peace. Therefore, the practice, which sometimes prevails, of annexing a conquered part of enemy territory during war cannot be approved. Concerning subjugation either of the whole or of a part of enemy territory, it must be asserted that annexation gives a title only after a firmly established conquest. So long as war continues, conquest is not firmly established.[461]
[461] See below, [vol. II. § 60], concerning guerilla war after the termination of real war. Many writers, however, deny that a conquest is firmly established as long as guerilla war is going on.
Consequences of Subjugation.
§ 240. Although subjugation is an original mode of acquisition, since the sovereignty of the new acquirer is not derived from that of the former owner State, the new owner State is nevertheless the successor of the former owner State as regards many points which have been discussed above (§ [82]). It must be specially mentioned that, as far as the Law of Nations is concerned, the subjugator does not acquire the private property of the inhabitants of the annexed territory. Being now their Sovereign, the subjugating State may indeed impose any burdens it pleases on its new subjects, it may even confiscate their private property, since a Sovereign State can do what it likes with its subjects, but subjugation itself does not by International Law touch or affect private property.
As regards the national status of the subjects of the subjugated State, doctrine and practice agree that such enemy subjects as are domiciled on the annexed territory and remain there after annexation become ipso facto by the subjugation[462] subjects of the subjugator. But the national status of such enemy subjects as are domiciled abroad and do not return, and further of such as leave the country before the annexation or immediately afterwards, is matter of dispute. Some writers maintain that these individuals do in spite of their absence become subjects of the subjugator, others emphatically deny it. Whereas the practice of the United States of America seems to be in conformity with the latter opinion,[463] the practice of Prussia in 1866 was in conformity with the former. Thus in the case of Count Platen-Hallermund, a Cabinet Minister of King George V. of Hanover, who left Hanover with his King before the annexation in 1866 and was in 1868 prosecuted for high treason before the Supreme Prussian Court at Berlin, this Court decided that the accused had become a Prussian subject through the annexation of Hanover.[464] I believe that a distinction must be made between those individuals who leave the country before and those who leave it after annexation. The former are not under the sway of the subjugator at the time of annexation, and, since the personal supremacy of their home State terminates with the latter's extinction through annexation, they would seem to be outside the sovereignty of the subjugator. But those individuals who leave the country after annexation leave it at a time when they have become subjects of the new Sovereign, and they therefore remain such subjects even after they have left the country, for there is no rule of the Law of Nations in existence which obliges a subjugator to grant the privilege of emigration[465] to the inhabitants of the conquered territory.
[462] See Hall v. Campbell (1774), 1 Cowper 1208, and United States v. Repentigny (1866), 5 Wallace, 211. The case is similar to that of cession: see above, § [219]; Keith, "The Theory of State Succession" (1907), pp. 45 and 48; Moore, III. § 379.
[463] See Halleck, II. p. 476.
[464] See Halleck, II. p. 476, on the one hand, and, on the other, Rivier, II. p. 436. Valuable opinions of Zachariae and Neumann, who deny that Count Platen was a Prussian subject, are printed in the "Deutsche Strafrechts-Zeitung" (1868), pp. 304-320.
[465] Both Westlake and Halleck state that the inhabitants must have a free option to stay or leave the country; but there is no rule of International Law which imposes the duty upon a subjugator to grant this option.
Different from the fact that enemy subjects become through annexation subjects of the subjugator is the question what position they acquire within the subjugating State. This question is one of Municipal, and not of International Law. The subjugator can, if he likes, allow them to emigrate and to renounce their newly acquired citizenship, and the Municipal Law of the subjugating State can put them in any position it likes, can in especial grant or refuse them the same rights as those which its citizens by birth enjoy.
Veto of third Powers.
§ 241. Although subjugation is an original mode of acquiring territory and no third Power has as a rule[466] a right of intervention, the conqueror has not in fact an unlimited possibility of annexation of the territory of the vanquished State. When the balance of power is endangered or when other vital interests are at stake, third Powers can and will intervene, and history records many instances of such interventions. But it must be emphasised that the validity of the title of the subjugator does not depend upon recognition on the part of other Powers. And a mere protest of a third Power is of no legal weight either.
[466] But this rule has exceptions, as in the case of a State whose independence and integrity have been guaranteed by one or more Powers.
XVI PRESCRIPTION
Grotius, II. c. 4—Vattel, I. §§ 140-151—Hall, § 36—Westlake, I. pp. 92-94—Lawrence, § 78—Phillimore, I. §§ 251-261—Twiss, I. § 129—Taylor, §§ 218-219—Walker, § 13—Wheaton, § 164—Moore, I. § 88—Bluntschli, § 290—Hartmann, § 61—Heffter, § 12—Holtzendorff in Holtzendorff, II. p. 255—Ullmann, § 92—Bonfils, No. 534—Mérignhac, II. p. 412—Despagnet, No. 380—Pradier-Fodéré, II. Nos. 820-829—Rivier, I. pp. 182-184—Nys, II. pp. 34-39—Calvo, I. §§ 264-265—Fiore, II. Nos. 850-851, and Code, Nos. 1074-1077—Martens, I. § 90—G. F. Martens, §§ 70-71—Bynkershoek, "Quaestiones juris publici," IV. c 12—Heimburger, "Der Erwerb der Gebietshoheit" (1888), pp. 140-155—Ralston in A.J. IV. (1910), pp. 133-144.
Conception of Prescription.
§ 242. Since the existence of a science of the Law of Nations there has always been opposition to prescription as a mode of acquiring territory. Grotius rejected the usucaption of the Roman Law, yet adopted the same law's immemorial prescription[467] for the Law of Nations. But whereas a good many writers[468] still defend that standpoint, others[469] reject prescription altogether. Again, others[470] go beyond Grotius and his followers and do not require possession from time immemorial, but teach that an undisturbed continuous possession can under certain conditions produce a title for the possessor, if the possession has lasted for some length of time.
[467] See Grotius, II. c. 4, §§ 1, 7, 9.
[468] See, for instance, Heffter, § 12; Martens, § 90.
[469] G. F. Martens, § 71; Klüber, §§ 6 and 125; Holtzendorff, II. p. 255; Ullmann, § 92.
[470] Vattel, II. § 147; Wheaton, § 165; Phillimore, I. § 259; Hall, § 36; Bluntschli, § 290; Pradier-Fodéré, II. No. 825; Bonfils, No. 534, and many others.
This opinion would indeed seem to be correct, because it recognises theoretically what actually goes on in practice. There is no doubt that in the practice of the members of the Family of Nations a State is considered to be the lawful owner even of those parts of its territory of which originally it took possession wrongfully and unlawfully, provided only the possessor has been in undisturbed possession for such a length of time as is necessary to create the general conviction among the members of the Family of Nations that the present condition of things is in conformity with international order. Such prescription cannot be compared with the usucaption of Roman Law because the latter required bona-fide possession, whereas the Law of Nations recognises prescription both in cases where the State is in bona-fide possession and in cases where it is not. The basis of prescription in International Law is nothing else than general recognition[471] of a fact, however unlawful in its origin, on the part of the members of the Family of Nations. And prescription in International Law may therefore be defined as the acquisition of sovereignty over a territory through continuous and undisturbed exercise of sovereignty over it during such a period as is necessary to create under the influence of historical development the general conviction that the present condition of things is in conformity with international order. Thus, prescription in International Law has the same rational basis as prescription in Municipal Law—namely, the creation of stability of order.
[471] This is pointed out with great lucidity by Heimburger, pp. 151-155; he rejects, however, prescription as a mode of acquiring territory, maintaining that there is a customary rule of International Law in existence according to which recognition can make good originally wrongful possession.
Prescription how effected.
§ 243. From the conception of prescription, as above defined, it becomes apparent that no general rule can be laid down as regards the length of time and other circumstances which are necessary to create a title by prescription. Everything depends upon the merits of the individual case. As long as other Powers keep up protests and claims, the actual exercise of sovereignty is not undisturbed, nor is there the required general conviction that the present condition of things is in conformity with international order. But after such protests and claims, if any, cease to be repeated, the actual possession ceases to be disturbed, and thus under certain circumstances matters may gradually ripen into that condition which is in conformity with international order. The question, at what time and under what circumstances such a condition of things arises, is not one of law but of fact. The question, for instance, whether, although the three partitions of Poland were wrongful and unlawful acts, Prussia, Austria, and Russia have now a good title by prescription to hold territories which were formerly Polish must, I doubt not, be answered in the affirmative. For all the members of the Family of Nations have now silently acquiesced in the present condition of things, although as late as 1846 Great Britain and France protested against the annexation of the Republic of Cracow on the part of Austria. In spite of the fact that the Polish nation has not yet given up its hope of seeing a Polish State re-established on the former Polish territory, the general conviction among the members of the Family of Nations is that the present condition of things is in conformity with international order. When, to give another example, a State which originally held an island mala fide under the title by occupation, knowing well that this land had already been occupied by another State, has succeeded in keeping up its possession undisturbed for so long a time that the former possessor has ceased to protest and has silently dropped the claim, the conviction will be prevalent among the members of the Family of Nations that the present condition of things is in conformity with international order. These examples show why a certain number of years[472] cannot, once for all, be fixed to create the title by prescription. There are indeed immeasurable and imponderable circumstances and influences besides the mere run of time[473] at work to create the conviction on the part of the members of the Family of Nations that in the interest of stability of order the present possessor should be considered the rightful owner of a territory. And these circumstances and influences, which are of a political and historical character, differ so much in the different cases that the length of time necessary for prescription must likewise differ.
[472] Vattel (II. § 151) suggests that the members of the Family of Nations should enter into an agreement stipulating the number of years necessary for prescription, and David Dudley Field proposes the following rule (52) in his Outlines of an International Code: "The uninterrupted possession of territory or other property for fifty years by a nation excludes the claim of every other nation."
[473] Heffter's (§ 12) dictum, "Hundert Jahre Unrecht ist noch kein Tag Recht" is met by the fact that it is not the operation of time alone, but the co-operation of other circumstances and influences which creates the title by prescription.
XVII LOSS OF STATE TERRITORY
Hall, § 34—Phillimore, I. §§ 284-295—Moore, I. §§ 89 and 90—Holtzendorff in Holtzendorff, II. pp. 274-279—Gareis, § 70—Liszt, § 10—Ullmann, § 101—Pradier-Fodéré, II. Nos. 850-852—Rivier, I. § 13—Fiore, II. No. 865—Martens, I. § 92.
Six modes of losing State Territory.
§ 244. To the five modes of acquiring sovereignty over territory correspond five modes of losing it—namely, cession, dereliction, operation of nature, subjugation, prescription. But there is a sixth mode of losing territory—namely, revolt. No special details are necessary with regard to loss of territory through subjugation, prescription, and cession, except that it is of some importance to repeat here that the historical cases of pledging, leasing, and giving territory to another State to administer are in fact, although not in strict law, nothing else than cessions[474] of territory. But operation of nature, revolt, and dereliction must be specially discussed.
[474] See above, §§ [171] and [216].
Operation of Nature.
§ 245. Operation of nature as a mode of losing corresponds to accretion as a mode of acquiring territory. Just as through accretion a State may become enlarged, so it may become diminished through the disappearance of land and other operations of nature. And the loss of territory through operation of nature takes place ipso facto by such operation. Thus, if an island near the shore disappears through volcanic action, the extent of the maritime territorial belt of the respective littoral State is hereafter to be measured from the low-water mark of the shore of the continent, instead of from the shore of the former island. Thus, further, if through a piece of land being detached by the current of a river from one bank and carried over to the other bank, the river alters its course and covers now part of the land on the bank from which such piece became detached, the territory of one of the riparian States may decrease through the boundary line being ipso facto transferred to the present middle or mid-channel of the river.
Revolt.
§ 246. Revolt followed by secession is a mode of losing territory to which no mode of acquisition corresponds.[475] Revolt followed by secession has, as history teaches, frequently been a cause of loss of territory. Thus the Netherlands fell away from Spain in 1579, Belgium from the Netherlands in 1830, the United States of America from Great Britain in 1776, Brazil from Portugal in 1822, the former Spanish South American States from Spain in 1810, Greece from Turkey in 1830, Cuba from Spain in 1898, Panama from Colombia in 1903. The question at what time a loss of territory through revolt is consummated cannot be answered once for all, since no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down regarding the time when it can be said that a State broken off from another has established itself safely and permanently. The matter has, as will be remembered, been treated above (§ 74), in connection with recognition. It may well happen that, although such a seceded State is already recognised by a third Power, the mother country does not consider the territory to be lost and succeeds in reconquering it.
[475] The possible case where a province revolts, secedes from the mother country, and, after having successfully defended itself against the attempts of the latter to reconquer it, unites itself with the territory of another State, is a case of merger by cession of the whole territory.
Dereliction.
§ 247. Dereliction as a mode of losing corresponds to occupation as a mode of acquiring territory. Dereliction frees a territory from the sovereignty of the present owner State. Dereliction is effected through the owner State's complete abandonment of the territory with the intention of withdrawing from it for ever, thus relinquishing sovereignty over it. Just as occupation[476] requires, first, the actual taking into possession (corpus) of territory and, secondly, the intention (animus) to acquire sovereignty over it, so dereliction requires, first, actual abandonment of a territory, and, secondly, the intention to give up sovereignty over it. Actual abandonment alone does not involve dereliction as long as it must be presumed that the owner has the will and ability to retake possession of the territory. Thus, for instance, if the rising of natives forces a State to withdraw from a territory, such territory is not derelict as long as the former possessor is able and makes efforts to retake possession. It is only when a territory is really derelict that any State may acquire it through occupation.[477] History knows of several such cases. But very often, when such occupation of derelict territory occurs, the former owner protests and tries to prevent the new occupier from acquiring it. The cases of the island of Santa Lucia and of the Delagoa Bay may be quoted as illustrations:—
(a) In 1639 Santa Lucia, one of the Antilles Islands, was occupied by England, but in the following year the English settlers were massacred by the natives. No attempt was made by England to retake the island, and France, considering it no man's land, took possession of it in 1650. In 1664 an English force under Lord Willoughby attacked the French, drove them into the mountains, and held the island until 1667, when the English withdrew and the French returned from the mountains. No further step was made by England to retake the island, but she nevertheless asserted for many years to come that she had not abandoned it sine spe redeundi, and that, therefore, France in 1650 had no right to consider it no man's land. Finally, however, England resigned her claims by the Peace Treaty of Paris of 1763.[478]
[478] See Hall, § 34, and Moore, I. § 89.
(b) In 1823 England occupied, in consequence of a so-called cession from native chiefs, a piece of territory at Delagoa Bay, which Portugal claimed as part of the territory owned by her at the bay, maintaining that the chiefs concerned were rebels. The dispute was not settled until 1875, when the case was submitted to the arbitration of the President of France. The award was given in favour of Portugal, since the interruption of the Portuguese occupation in 1823 was not to be considered as abandonment of a territory over which Portugal had exercised sovereignty for nearly three hundred years.[479]
[479] See Hall, § 34. The text of the award is printed in Moore, "Arbitrations," V. p. 4984.