pieces of land" or an arm of the sea inclosed between two bodies of land" (Littré), for everything is relative as regards the narrowness or the degree of contraction of an arm of the sea, and, moreover, if it separates two tracts of land but is limited to serving as a means of communication between the open sea and the territorial waters, it would no longer be a strait in the sense in which we are using the word.

If we tried to define it exactly it would therefore be necessary, besides the notion of "natural marine passage between two open seas," to see if there is a means of completing this definition as to the breadth and length of this arm of the sea that should be considered a strait and therefore subjected to the regulations contemplated for straits in regard to the use of submarine mines.

Now, if we consider the width of the natural marine passages that are considered as straits in usual geographical language, we see that these arms of the sea have the most variable widths, from a kilometer for the Little Belt and the Bosphorus, for example, up to 180 kilometers for the Strait of Korea between Korea and Japan.1 It is quite as difficult to give a precise rule for the length of straits; that is to say, to determine where a strait begins or ends, and consequently where the special status takes its rise and would be applicable to it as regards submarine mines.

As a consequence of what precedes, we believe that we should conclude that it is necessary to leave to practice and international conventions the care of settling what arms of the sea shall be considered as straits and what their extent, and to abstain carefully in the text of general regulations from any definition that is too precise. It will suffice to indicate that the status of straits is not applicable to interoceanic canals and that it only applies to marine passages between open seas.

This being admitted, and before taking up the question of the status of straits as regards submarine mines, it is still necessary to take into consideration the fact that a certain part of straits among those that are the most traveled are already controlled by

1 The following are the widths, in kilometers, of the principal straits according to a table published by the Interparliamentary Union during the past year: Sound, 5 kilometers; Great Belt, 12 k.; Little Belt, 1 k.; Pentland Firth, 10 k.; North Channel (Ireland-Scotland), 22 k.; St. Georges Channel (Ireland-Wales), 80 k.; Pas de Calais, 34 k.; Strait of Gibraltar, 13 k.; Strait of Messina, 3 k.; Strait of Bonifacio (Corsica-Sardinia), 12 k.; Dardanelles, 2 k.; Bosphorus, 1 k.; Strait of Kertch, 5 k.; Strait of Babel-Mandeb, 22 k.; Strait of Ormuz (Gulf of Persia), 60 k.; Strait of Palk (Ceylon), 50 k.; Strait of Malacca, 40 k.; Strait of Sunda (Java-Sumatra), 20 k.; Strait of Korea (Korea-Japan), 180 k.; Strait of Shimonoseki (Kiu-Shu-Nippon), 3 k.; Strait of Tsuruga (Nippon-Yesso), 20 k.; Strait of La Perouse (Yesso-Sakhalin), 40 k.; Strait of Torres (Australia-New Guinea), 160 k.; Strait of Magellan, 10 k.; Mona Passage (Porto Rico-Haiti), 120 k.; Windward Passage (Cuba-Haiti), 90 k.; Yucatan Channel, 210 k.; Strait of Florida, 120 k.; Strait of Cabot (Newfoundland-Cape Breton), 120 k.; Strait of Belle Isle (Newfoundland), 20 k.; Strait of Juan de Fuca (Vancouver Island), 15 k.

particular rules resulting from international agreements. Such is the case not only with the Dardenelles and the Bosphorus, which are the subject of general conventions,1 but with certain other straits that are the subject of particular conventions. It is evident that these conventions will remain in force notwithstanding the proclamation of certain general rules on the use of submarine mines, especially as these new rules impose stricter obligations upon the interested parties.

Subject to these several reservations, we can now study what general rules would be appropriately admitted into international law as regards the laying of submarine mines in straits which we confine ourselves to defining as "arms of the sea serving as a natural passage from one open sea to another open sea."

Is it necessary to assimilate in this matter the régime of straits to that of territorial waters to the extent to which the Institute and Peace Conference permitted the use of submarine mines? We consider such an assimilation as inadmissible and we even think that the régime of straits, as regards the parts of these arms of the sea that are contained within territorial waters, ought to be excepted in the general interest from the régime of those waters.

There is indeed a dominating general interest; it is that of universal commerce, and this applies as well to neutrals even for the defense of their neutrality as to belligerents.

This interest of universal commerce, which is that of the human race, requires that in straits pacific navigation be never stopped nor seriously hampered, and that consequently neither neutrals nor belligerents, even though littoral, may place submarine mines there.

Of course in formulating this principle we have not in view the purely temporary obstacles that might result from acts of war, such as a naval combat. We have here only to deal with submarine mines and in our opinion they ought to be absolutely prohibited in straits under any form at all in view of the permanent danger resulting therefrom in navigation, and consequently in universal

commerce.

We might, where needful, make an exception to this rule of prohibition as regards certain straits which have not the character of passages necessary to universal commerce. Such for example would be the case of St. George's Channel situated between two parts of the same country, which international navigation may avoid in going by way of the ocean by the North Sea. Moreover, the question arises whether these passages, and especially St. George's Channel, 80 kilometers wide, are true straits; but that is a question of fact

1 Treaty of London, July 13, 1841, of Paris of Mar. 30, 1856, and the Treaty of London of Mar. 13, 1871.

or convention that we have already renounced clearing up by a gen

eral rule.

Of course what we say above ought by no means to affect the right of littoral nations to fortify straits if they deem fit. That is a question absolutely distinct from the subject of this report.

In concluding the above considerations we think we may propose to the Institute the adoption of an article additional to the draft regulations on submarine mines. This article, which would take the place of Article 7 of the regulations, by the terms of which the question of the laying of mines in straits is reserved, would be worded as follows:

The laying of submarine mines is forbidden at any time, even in the territorial waters of straits; that is to say, in arms of the sea serving as natural marine passages from one open sea to another open sea.

BRUSSELS, July 10, 1912.

ED. ROLIN, Reporter.

(b) Observations of Mr. den Beer Poortugael.1

Mr. Secretary General.

THE HAGUE, July 29, 1912.

HONORED COLLEAGUE: Having to-day received the report of Mr. Edouard Rolin on the "The Status of Straits with especial regard to Submarine Mines," I hasten to request that the observations I have to make upon them, and which you will find below, be brought to the knowledge of the members and associates of the Institute, as I shall be unable to be present at the Christiania session.

I agree perfectly with the reporter: That the right of pacific nations should prevail over that of belligerents. Universal interest requires that for merchant vessels there be free passage of straits uniting open seas; but universal interest by no means requires that this free passage be extended to belligerent warships.

It seems to me to be absolutely necessary to combine two preponderating interests, two elementary rights: (1) The universal interest in this pacific free passage, and (2) the vital interest and sovereign right of preservation belonging to every State and constituting a natural and essential element of the law of nations.

If a State is prohibited from laying submarine mines even in its own territorial waters in a strait, if therefore it is forbidden to it to make use of all means at its disposal for its defense and selfpreservation, it is such a grave inroad upon its sovereign rights that it ought not to be attempted unless the other States, having the right and duty to guarantee the maintenance of the wise principles of the law of nations, give it in return an absolute guaranty that an adversary will not use this strait to the other's prejudice.

1 Annuaire, vol. 25, p. 429.

It is therefore necessary to prohibit at the same time that adversary from coming there with his warships; in other terms, these passages being universally necessary for the peaceful life of nations, should be declared neutral, i. e., inaccessible in time of war to warships of nations other than those in possession of the two coasts. And in order that this guaranty be not chimerical, an international fleet of neutral nations, organized and provided in advance, should cause this neutrality to be observed.

Still another observation:

Mr. Ed. Rolin, so it appears, does not like definitions. If one can do without them, so be it; but as for me I must aver that I like generalities less. When we have recourse to them in order to avoid the inconvenience of a definition, we risk being engulfed in Charybdis in trying to avoid Scylla.

In the opinion of Mr. Rolin, the laying of submarine mines should be prohibited in straits under any form whatsoever.

It is true that he adds: "We might, when needful, make an exception to this rule of prohibition as regards certain straits which have not the character of passages necessary to universal commerce." The honorable reporter mentions his examples, "St. George's Channel and the North Channel;" nevertheless in passing from this concession he further lessens its value by saying, "But that is a question of fact or of convention which we have already renounced clearing up by a general rule."

It seems to me that this is more than a question of fact, that a question of principle is involved, and that if we wish to lay down a general prohibitive rule, it is absolutely necessary that it does not impose more than is intended to be prohibited.

In the wording proposed for Article 7 of the regulations, no account is taken of the scruples and reservations of the reporter who himself thought it had gone too far.

I therefore take the liberty of proposing to remedy this omission by modifying Article 7, as follows:

"The laying of submarine mines is prohibited at all times even in the territorial waters of straits that form a passage necessary to merchant ships over the customary marine route from one open sea to another open sea.

"These straits shall enjoy absolute neutrality."

I will explain.

In addition to the straits enumerated in the interesting note to the remarkable report, there is a multitude of straits especially in archipelagoes. There are some under the sovereignty of Turkey, Greece, Japan, and the Netherlands. In our East Indies we have, for example, besides the Strait of Sunda (between Java and Sumatra) the following:

and several others between smaller islands in that archipelago.

In time of war the Netherlands, supposedly neutral, would, according to me, have to leave open for navigation the Strait of Sunda, the ordinary marine route, necessary but sufficient for merchant ships desiring to pass from the Indian Ocean to the China Sea; but they ought to have the right to close, in the need, the other passages in order to be able to fulfil their duties as a neutral State. It is impossible for naval forces to watch over all these straits extending for 500 geographical miles; and as these duties prescribe that they shall not tolerate passage across their territorial waters by belligerent warships, no other course is left them than to close to passage straits that are not strictly necessary for general commerce, by the use of submarine mines.

The same observation applies to archipelagoes under the sovereignty of other States.

The rules of international law should take them into account. DEN BEER POORTUGAEL.

THE HAGUE.

THE INTERNATIONAL LAW ASSOCIATION.

[The International Law Association, which was originally called the Association for the Reform and Codification of the Law of Nations, was founded at Brussels, in a conference held on the 10th, 11th, and 13th of October, 1873. While the object of its foundation was the reform and codification of the law of nations, it has directed its efforts primarily toward popularizing questions of international law by public discussion, in bringing to bear on their solution the suggestions of practical men, and in formulating recommendations likely to have practical effect. As a result of these discussions resolutions have been adopted, or model rules of law or practice have been drafted, which in some