we can no longer be satisfied in the case of certain gulfs with a zone situated within cannon shot of the shore. We can only invoke an exception to the general rule of the liberty of the seas on serious grounds and when the extent of the bay is small; that is, Hudson Bay and the Gulf of Mexico are clearly a part of the open sea. Nobody contests the sovereignty of England over the arm of the sea which extends between the Isle of Wight and the English coast, which is not admitted for the sea situated between England and Ireland. The English Admiralty, has, however, at times maintained the theory of "narrow seas" and has sought, without success, to appropriate to itself under the name of "Kings Chambers" a considerable extent of sea. The treaty of August 2, 1839, between Great Britain and France on the subject of fishing in the channel establishes, in article 9, that bays less than 10 miles wide are considered as part of the territorial seas. The sovereignty of Turkey over the Dardanelles Strait and the Bosphorus can not be denied.

§ 310. The adjacent State may, consequently, with respect to the seas above designated, take all appropriate measures which it considers necessary for its security and the preservation of public order and the regulation of fishing and navigation within those waters. But it is not authorized in time of peace to forbid or inter fere with the free navigation in the waters dependent upon the land.

1. The adjacent State, in order to prevent contraband commerce, may require foreign ships to approach the coast at certain definite points only. It may, for its safety, forbid the approach to the shore by war vessels. Certain countries also forbid foreign fishermen to carry on their trade in the waters dependent upon their territory. Foreign fishermen do not contest this right, because we can not refuse to a State the right of increasing the fish on its coast.

$322.-Ships which navigate along the coast of a State in that part of the sea which is considered the territory of that State are temporarily subject to the sovereignty of that State in the sense that they are bound to respect military and police ordinances promulgated by the latter for the security of its territory and its coast population.

The jurisdiction of the adjacent sea only extends over the littoral sea within the limits considered necessary by the police and military authorities. The ship in all other respects is as free as if it were in the open sea; that is, it is regarded as a floating part of the territory of the State whose flag it flies. § 772. The passage of war vessels in the neutral waters which adjoin the coast is regarded as a violation of neutrality only when the neutral State has forbidden such passage to belligerents.

Indeed, the sovereignty of a State over the adjacent waters is a relative sovereignty since the entire sea is open to the free navigation of all peoples. Consequently neutral States are not under an absolute obligation to prevent the passage of war

vessels although they have the right to do it. Foreign vessels are, however, bound to observe the police and military regulations established with respect to these portions of the (Wheaton Int. Law, sec. 432.)

sea.

BONFILS: Manuel de Droit International Public. Seventh edition. Paris, 1914.

§ 491, page 322. The Littoral Sea.-The jurisdictional or littoral sea is the strip of the ocean adjacent to the continental or insular territory of a State over which the State may, from the shore washed by the waters of this sea, exercise effective control over it. The territory of the State is prolonged in 'the great interest of its conservation and defense over this portion of the ocean; hence the denomination of territorial sea adopted by the majority of jurists and publicists. We prefer to call it littoral or jurisdictional sea, this last qualification expressing the legal status of that part of the sea. What is the extent or width of this littoral sea? Under the influence of diverse theories all the older authors establish various and fantastic standards of measurement. Some writers of the sixteenth century fixed 60 miles as its width. In the eighteenth century Casaregis and Abreu extended it to 100 miles. Loccenius identified it with two days' journey. Sarpi accorded the adjacent State all that it needed; Valin all that portion in which bottom could be found; Rayneval the actual horizon.

With greater reason Grotius and Bynkershoek thought that the portion of the ocean subjected to the jurisdiction and control of the adjacent State ought to end where the force of arms ends. The rule was for the first time definitely formulated by Bynkershoek. Vattel, Bluntschli, Gessner, Hautefeuille, Klüber, Massé, Ortolan, Pradier-Fodéré, Schiatarella, etc., almost all the modern authors, and several diplomatic treaties admit that the extent of the jurisdictional sea is equal to the greatest range of cannon. This is the reasonable standard and the limit of general law, excepting special conventions. The protection of pieces of artillery placed on the shore can not extend beyond it. Beyond that distance projectiles launched from the enemy's ships can not reach the land. . .

§ 492.-Some States have by special laws or treaties fixed other limits. Thus, in Spain, the width of the territorial sea is 6 miles. (See the Anglo-American treaty of Oct. 20, 1818; Belgian law of June 7, 1832.) Some States, adopting in principle the limit of 3 miles, nevertheless establish a greater extent to that portion of the sea in order to facilitate the enforcement of their customs laws. Thus,

in France, the limit is extended to 2 myriameters; by the treaty signed between France and Mexico, November 27, 1886 (art. 15), it is fixed at 20 kilometers from low-water mark. Great Britain exercises a right of surveillance by its cruisers up to 12 miles. . .

$492.1-From what exact point shall the territorial zone be calculated? There is some disagreement on this score. Some authors, like Ortolan, say that it shall be calculated from the place at which the sea becomes navigable. This statement is generally rejected. To fix the point of departure we ordinarily take the shore line, but even here there are two methods of calculation. The first method takes low-water mark as the point of departure. This is the common opinion. (See French law, March 1, 1888; Resolutions of the Institute of International Law; Conventions on Fishing.) Others fix it at that point which the highest tide fails to reach.

§ 493.-But the coasts are not regular. There are capes and headlands, peninsulas, bays, creeks, coves, and gulfs of wider or smaller dimension. It is impossible to measure the width of the maritime domain by taking each of these various sinuosities as points of departure. (This is, however, adopted in the arbitral award of Oct. 20, 1903, in the Alaskan Boundary question between the United States and Great Britain.) In practice, for bays and small gulfs, the radius of 3 miles is measured by a straight line drawn across the bay at the point where its shores most closely approach, in which the opening does not exceed 10 miles. (Treaty of The Hague, May 6, 1882, art. 2.)

§ 494. This strip of sea, the littoral sea, may be subjected to the effective control of the adjacent State; it is protected and defended by it. For the adjacent State there exists the evident and undeniable necessity of protecting its coasts, ports, and roadsteads against attack, more sudden and easy to effect than attacks on land. It must have the right of expelling every adversary from that part of the sea and forbidding access to it with the aid of batteries placed on the shore. The exterior security of a maritime State requires that this extent of sea be subjected to its power.

$516, page 342. Gulfs, bays, roadsteads, and ports.-Doctrine and custom without hesitation place gulfs, bays, roadsteads, and ports, which make indentations into their coasts, within the maritime domain of the State. The possibility of an exclusive possession, of defending their approaches by cross-fire from the shore, the neces

1 As to the law of War, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden admit 4 miles; France, 6 miles distant from the base of operations of the fleet (decrees of October 18, 1912, R. D. I. P., vol. 20, Documents, p. 6; of May 26, 1913, ibid., p. 56); Italy and Russia cannon-range; Turkey, 5 miles (declaration issued at the time of its war of 1911 with Italy). Upon the extent of the territorial sea, according to Norwegian law, see Rapport du 29 février 1912 de la commission (Norwegian) de la frontière des eaux territoriales, Kristiania, 1912 (in French). This report contains also numerous indications of the limits of territorial waters as determined by interior legislation and individual treaties of the different States (pp. 55 et seq.).

sity of looking to its own security-all these reasons combine to justify this practice and this doctrine. The only contested point is with respect to a claim raised by certain States as to great bays and gulfs situated between the headlands of their coasts. Above all, Great Britain made claim to a right of jurisdiction over the encroachments of the sea into the land, called Kings Chambers. The United States made similar claims over the great bays on the coasts of North America. Kent drew an imaginary line of delimitation from the southern part of Florida to the mouth of the Mississippi. The sovereignty of the United States would thus be extended about 180 miles from the shore. With the exception of certain English and American publicists, recent publicists generally are little inclined to recognize these exaggerated claims of sovereignty.

Great Britain also asserted its territorial sovereignty over the straits and great bays which surround Great Britain and Irelandthe seas called the adjoining or narrow seas, such as the Bristol Channel, St. Georges Channel, St. Patricks Channel, and the Irish Sea. These pretentions are not well founded. These waters like those of the Gulf of Lyons in the Mediterranean and the Gulf of Gascogne, Hudson Bay, etc., are a part of the high seas. It is generally admitted that gulfs and bays belong to the State whose land surrounds them when their width does not exceed 10 marine miles. $581, page 408.-In the seventeenth century Denmark claimed the exclusive right of fishing in the waters of Iceland and Greenland, which claims were rejected by other States. Several conflicts also arose between Great Britain and the United States with respect to fishing around Canada, as in the Bering Sea question. The question between Great Britain and France with respect to the Newfoundland fisheries does not involve the principle of the liberty of the seas. This is a question of a conventional international servitude. In the open sea the right of fishing belongs to all peoples. No State can unilaterally prescribe rules obligatory in the open sea upon any other than its own subjects. Nevertheless it is indispensable to assure to those plying this trade an effective protection in the security of their operations. International conventions have established certain rules with this result as their object.

§ 582.-.

Fishing in territorial waters, fixed at the radius of 3 geographic miles, is expressly and exclusively reserved to nationals. PradierFodéré characterizes this convention as powerless to bring about the suppression of abuses.

Analogous conventions have been concluded between States for the regulation of fishing in their territorial waters. (See the convention between France and Switzerland, Dec. 28, 1880, Mar. 12 and July 30, 1891, amended by convention of Dec. 27, 1899.)

BOUCHER: Institution au Droit Maritime. Paris, 1803.

Page 707, section 29, chapter 64.-When the ordinance speaks of a roadstead it means all anchorage places that are at some distance. from the coast, where vessels find the bottom, so that they can stay there at anchor; and they ordinarily anchor there when waiting for wind or tide to enter port or to set sail; the roadstead, as is said in line 1, section 13, ff., de fuminibus, est locus minime portuosus, sed in quo naves in salo esse et commorari queunt. But the formalities laid down on this subject should be observed, both as regards French and foreigners, so that if they fail therein they can not complain of being pursued.

VAN BYNKERSHOEK: De Dominio Maris. Leyden, 1744.1 Pages 363-365.-I should think, therefore, that the possession of a maritime belt ought to be regarded as extending just as far as it can be held in subjection to the mainland; for in that way, although it is not navigated perpetually, still the possession acquired by law is properly defended and maintained; for there can be no question that he possesses a thing continuously who so holds it that another can not hold it against his will. Hence we do not concede ownership of a maritime belt any farther out than it can be ruled from the land, and yet we do concede it that far; for there can be no reason for saying that the sea which is under some one man's command and control is any less his than a ditch in his territory.

What sort of power, however, is to be understood in order to have the sea subject to the mainland, is a matter hard to define, because of the danger of the logical sophism which the Greeks call Σopíty;; the smallest is not enough, and of course we do not require the greatest, but a power which can be perceived by the intellect rather than unfolded in words, as Julian 2 once said of such things as have no definite limit. Hence you may see that the early jurists who ventured to recognize dominion over a maritime belt wander about in great uncertainty in regulating its limits."

Some authorities extend it to a hundred miles, some to sixty: for both classes see Bodin, Selden, and, to add hini also, Pacius.5 Some extend it to a two days' voyage, as you may learn, if it is worth

1 This translation of a portion of Chapter 2 of the De dominio maris has been taken from a translation of the entire work made by Ralph Van Deman Magoffin from the original Latin text in Bynkershoek's Opera minora for publication by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in THE CLASSICS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.

2 Digest, 46, 3, 13.

De Republica, I, c. 10.

Mare Clausum, I, c. 22.

De dominio maris Hadriatici, page 22 of my copy.