1 See Draft Convention on the Law of the Sea, UN Doc. A/CONF.62/L.78 (1981), Arts. 74(1) and 83(1).

2 1 Grotius, H., De Jure belli ac pacis, bk. II, ch. III, pt. XVIII (Carnegie Endowment ed. of 1646, 1913)Google Scholar.

3 Grotius also stated that “si exaruisset flumen, imperii terminus maneret medietas alvei, qui proxime fuisset.” He did not clearly distinguish between “ad medietatem fluminis” and “medietas alvei.” See id., pt. XVII.

4 Pufendorf, S., De jure naturae et gentium, bk. IV, ch. V, §8 (Carnegie Endowment ed. of 1688, 1934)Google Scholar.

5 Pufendorf, S., Of the Law of Nature and Nations, bk. IV, ch. V, §8 (Oxford 1703)Google Scholar.

6 Pufendorf, S., Le Droit de la nature et des gens, bk. IV, ch. V, §8 (1712)Google Scholar.

7 See H. Grotius, supra note 2, at bk. II, ch. II, pt. IV; id., ch. III, pt. VII.

8 Adami, V., I Confinidi Stato nella legislazione internazionale 41 (1919)Google Scholar, translated as National Frontiers in Relation to International Law 40 (trans. T. T. Behrens 1927) [hereinafter pages in translation cited in brackets].

9 Id. at 44 [42].

10 Codice civil italiano, Art. 461 (1865).

11 Id., Art. 458.

12 Das allgemeine bürgerliche Gesetzbuch für das Kaisertum Oesterreich, Art. 407 (1811).

13 V. Adami, supra note 8, at 42 [40].

14 Ibid.

15 Id. at 39 [38].

16 For the text of the Treaty, see Recueil des traités de la Norvège 580–84 (1907). See also Strupp, , Der Streitfall zwischen Schweden und Norwegen , in 2 Das Werk vom Haag, Die gerichtlichen Entscheidungen 62–64 (ed. Schücking, W. 1917)Google Scholar.

17 van Bynkershoek, C., De dominio maris, ch. II, at 365 (1744)Google Scholar.

18 See 1 Emmerich de, Vattel, Le Droit des gens ou principes de la loi naturelle, bk. I, ch. XXIII, at 250–51 (1758)Google Scholar.

19 See Galiani, F., De’ Doveri de’ principi neutrali verso I principi guerregianti, E Di questi verso neutrali 432 (1782)Google Scholar.

20 See, e.g., The Twee Gebroeders, 165 Eng. Rep. 422 (Adm. 1800) (per Sir W. Scott); The Twee Gebroeders, id. at 485 (Adm. 1801) (per Sir W. Scott); The Anna, id. at 809 (Adm. 1805) (per Sir W. Scott); The Brig Anne, 1 Gallison (U.S. Circuit Ct. Rep.) 62 (1812) (per Story, J.).

21 See TS No. 112.

22 See, e.g., Fulton, T. W., The Sovereignty of the Sea 576 et seq. (1911)Google Scholar.

23 von Martens, G. F., The Law of Nations, bk. IV, ch. IV, sec. 4 (4th ed. trans. Cobbett, Wm., 1829)Google Scholar. See also by the same author: 1 Précis du droit des gens moderne de L’Europe, bk. II, ch. 1, sec. 40 (1801); Einleitung in das positive europäische Völkerrecht, bk. II, ch. I, sec. 34 (1796); 1 Primae lineae iuris gentium Europaearum Practici, bk. IV, ch. IV, sees. 109–10 (1785).

24 Most of the writers who proposed principles or rules on delimitation before World War II distinguished opposite and adjacent situations. The International Law Commission also recommended slightly different rules for each situation to the 1958 Geneva Conference on the Law of the Sea. [1955] 1 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n 253; [1956] id. at 300.

25 See Addendum 1, UN Doc. A/CN.4/71/Add.1, at 2, to the Information and Observations Submitted by Governments Regarding the Question of the Delimitation of the Territorial Sea of Two Adjacent States, UN Doc. A/CN.4/71 (1953).

26 4 Stat. 708, 11 Martens Nouveau Recueil 713 [hereinafter cited as MNR].

27 3 G. Gidel, Le Droit international public de la mer 748 (1934).

28 34 Brit. Foreign & St. Papers 14 [hereinafter cited as BFSP].

29 57 id. at 1054; for the Japanese and Russian texts, see 1 Kyo, joyaku isan (Old Collection of Treaties) 521 (1945)Google Scholar.

30 Twiss, T., The Law of Nations 251 (1861)Google Scholar.

31 See Bluntschli, J., Das Moderne Völkerrecht der civilisirten Staten als Rechtsbuch Dargestellt, Art. 303 (1868)Google Scholar.

32 See Field, D., Outlines of an International Code 16 (1872)Google Scholar.

33 The thalweg principle was first adopted for the Rhine by the Peace Treaty of Luneville of Feb. 9, 1801. See 7 Martens Recueil de Traités 296 [hereinafter cited as MRT]. See also Kercea, N., Die Staatsgrenze in den Staatflüssen, passim (1916)Google Scholar; 3 Verzijl, J., International Law in Historical Perspective 537 et seq. (1970)Google Scholar [hereinafter cited as J. Verzijl, International Law]. The term “thalweg” is a German word composed of two separate words, “Thai,” a valley, and “Weg,” way, meaning the middle, the deepest or most navigable channel. Since this term had no English equivalent, it was often translated as “fairway,” “main channel,” “middle of the channel,” or “middle of the main stream.”

34 E.g., the phrase in the Peace Treaty between Great Britain, France, and Spain that was concluded, in 1763, “a line drawn along the middle of the river Mississippi from its source to the river Iberville,” was later interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in Iowa v. Illinois, 147 U.S. 1, 8 (1892), quoted in Louisiana v. Mississippi, 202 U.S. 1, 50 (1906), as meaning “along the middle of the channel of the river Mississippi.”

35 See note 28 supra and accompanying text.

36 See 1 Moore, J. B., History and Digest of the International Arbitrations to Which the United States Has Been a Party 230 (1898)Google Scholar.

37 See 1 Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1873, at XXV.

38 Tribunal, Alaska Boundary Protocols, Oral Arguments, with Index, Award of the Tribunal, and Opinions of Its Members, passim (1903). See also 98 BFSP 152; 96 id. at 84; 12 id. at 38. For comments, see, e.g., 202 U.S. at 53. See also Hodgins, T., The Alaskan Boundary Tribunal and International Law 7 (1904)Google Scholar.

39 See Atlas of Award, Alaskan Boundary Tribunal (Washington, D.C. 1904).

40 202 U.S. at 50.

41 Id. at 23.

42 Id. at 26.

43 70 BFSP 176–79; 4 Martens Nouveau Recueil Général, 2d ser., at 364 [hereinafter cited as MNRG 2d].

44 70 BFSP 1293.

45 3 Verzijl, J., International Law 538 Google Scholar et seq.

46 85 BFSP 58–60.

47 32 MNRG 2d at 59–61.

48 See the Grisbadarna arbitration, reprinted in 4 AJIL 226, 227–28 (1910).

49 TS No. 497.

50 D. Field, supra note 32, at 16; Imbart Latour, J., La Mer Territoriale 64 (1889)Google Scholar; 1 J. B. Moore, supra note 36, at 658; Perels, F., Manuel de droit Maritime International 46 (1884)Google Scholar; T. Twiss, supra note 30, at 251.

51 Institut de Droit International, 13 Annuaire 330 (1894).

52 International Law Association, Report of the 17th Conference Held at Brussels in 1895, at 105 (1896).

53 See G. Gidel, supra note 27, at 765.

54 202 U.S. at 29.

55 9 Stat. 922, TS No. 207.

56 73 BFSP 272.

57 33 Stat. 2234, TS No. 431; 38 Stat. 1893, TS No. 610.

58 See note 43 supra.

59 14 MNRG 2d at 77; 22 id. at 414.

60 For the text, see 22 id. at 291–93. See also Addendum 2, at 2, to Information and Observations Submitted by Governments, supra note 25 (France).

61 V. Adami, note 8 supra, at 53 [50].

62 International Law Association, Report of the 25th Conference Held at Budapest, September 21st–26th, 1908, at 546–48 (1909).

63 See for the Grisbadarna Case (Norway v. Sweden), Bureau international de la Cour permanente D’Arbitrage, Recueil des Comptes rendus de la visite des lieux et des Protocoles des Séances du Tribunal arbitral, constitué en vertu de la Convention du 14 mars 1908, pour juger la question de la délimitation d’une certaine partie de la Frontière Maritime Entre La Norvège et la Suède 1 (1909); the award is reprinted in Hague Ct. Rep. (Scott) 487 (Perm. Ct. Arb. 1909), 11 R. Int’l Arb. Awards 155, translated into English in Hague Ct. Rep. (Scott) 121, 4 AJIL 226 (1910), Wilson, G. G., The Hague Arbitration Cases 102 (1915)Google Scholar. For commentaries, see Editorial Comment, 4 AJIL 186 (1910); Francois, , La Cour permanente d’Arbitrage, son origine, sa jurisprudence, son avenir , 87 Recueil des Cours 498 (1955 I)Google Scholar; Hammarskjöld, , Determinazione di frontiera , 5 Rivista di Diritto Internazionale 121 (1910)Google Scholar; Note, 17 Rev. Générale Droit Int’l Public 177 (1910); Strupp, supra note 16, at 47.

64 In the Peace Treaty of Roskilde of Feb. 26, 1658, the King of Denmark, then the King of Norway, ceded the Norwegian province of Bohuslan to Sweden, and this decision was later confirmed by the Treaty of Copenhagen of March 27, 1660. The results of the delimitation process between the commissioners of the two parties were stipulated in the Treaty of Oct. 26, 1661, together with an attached map. The original text was in Danish and Swedish. For the text, see note 16 supra; see also Strupp, supra note 16, at 62. For background information, see, e.g., Hammarskjold, supra note 63, at 121.

65 By virtue of the compromis of March 14, 1908 between Norway and Sweden, 102 BFSP 731, 2 MNRG 3d at 761, the tribunal of arbitration was composed of three members: Beichmann (Norway), Hammarskjöld (Sweden), and Leoff, the presiding judge (the Netherlands).

66 See the compromis, id., Art. III; for the English translation, see 4 AJIL at 226–27.

67 Hammarskjöld, supra note 63, at 121; see also Strupp, supra note 16, at 76.

68 4 AJIL at 230.

69 See Strupp, supra note 16, at 78.

70 Ibid.

71 4 AJIL at 234.

72 Id. at 235.

73 Id. at 232.

74 Id. at 231.

75 See Strupp, note 16 supra.

76 4 AJIL at 232.

77 Id. at 233.

78 Raestad, A., Kongens Strømme 361 (1912)Google Scholar.

79 See Strupp, supra note 16, at 124.

80 G. Gidel, supra note 27, at 769.

81 V. Adami, supra note 8, at [38].

82 See S. Pufendorf, supra note 4, bk. IV, ch. V, §8.

83 See note 66 supra and accompanying text.

84 95 BFSP 759–61.

85 In the Protocol signed in 1915, the British Government was nominated as arbitrator in accordance with the 1902 general Treaty of Arbitration. In the second Protocol of 1938, the parties selected Homer S. Cummings, the Attorney General of the United States. In the third Protocol signed in 1960, the parties decided to submit the case to the International Court of Justice. None of these Protocols were ratified for various reasons.

On July 22, 1971, Argentina and Chile signed a compromise under which the British Government was appointed as arbitrator. The court of arbitration, set up by the British Government, was composed of five judges from among members of the International Court of Justice, who had been selected by both parties. Three written pleadings were submitted to the Court in 1973, 1974, and 1975, respectively. There were two consecutive rounds of oral pleadings in the fall of 1976. On February 18, 1977, the Court unanimously adopted its decision, giving the three disputed islands to Chile. This award was delivered to the parties on May 2, 1977. On January 25, 1978, Argentina declared that the decision was null and void for various reasons, including the argument that “the drawing of the maritime boundary carried out by the Court on the Chart annexed to the Award suffers from inexactitudes and technical errors that render it totally untrustworthy.”See Declaration of Nullity, attached to the Note Delivered by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Argentina to the Ambassador of Chile, Jan. 25, 1978, reprinted in Relaciones Chileno–argentinas: La Controversia del Canal Beagle, Algunos Documentos informativos 133, 139 (1978), translated into English in 17 ILM 739 (1978). See generally Relaciones chileno–argentinas, supra, at II–XII.

86 See Storni, , La Mer territoriale , in 2 International Law Association, Report of the 31st Conference Held at Buenos Aires, 24th August–30th August, 1922, at 99 (1923)Google Scholar.

87 See Guerra, J., Eaux territoriales dans les détroits peu larges; memorandum présenté à L’International Law Association (Conférence de Stockholm, 1924) 18 (1924)Google Scholar.

88 Id., passim.

89 See J. Bluntschli, supra note 31, Art. 301.

90 See J . Guerra, supra note 87, at 20, 27; see also Guerra, , Les Eaux territoriales dans les détroits, spécialement dans les détroits peu larges , 31 Rev. Générale Droit Int’l Public 232, 245 et seq. (1924)Google Scholar.

91 See J. Guerra, supra note 87, at 24–25, and Guerra, supra note 90, at 250–51.

92 In the 1973 Memorial to the ad hoc court of arbitration in Geneva, Argentina changed its earlier position, and in principle adopted the median line, equidistant between opposite coasts. The Memorial synthesized the “consistent and authoritative guide–lines” from a significant number of bilateral treaties and opinions of writers at the time of the controversial Boundary Treaty of 1881 as follows:

(a) Division of maritime jurisdictions (territorial waters) is achieved normally by means of the median line, equidistant from two opposite coasts. This solution simply expresses an incontestable general principle: the equality of states. t

(b) The rule governing the use of waters for navigation also arises from the same general principle. Thus where the rigorous application of a median line would deprive one or other of the two states of the use of waters necessary for navigation, there must be a deviation from the median line rule.

Memorial of the Argentine Republic I (Text), Argentine-Chilean Arbitration concerning the Region of the Beagle Channel 436 (1973).

Argentina requested that the Court decide that “the boundary-line between the respective maritime jurisdictions of the Argentine Republic and of the Republic of Chile from meridian 68°37′38.5″W. of Greenwich runs along the median line of the Beagle Channel, deviating from that line only where inflexions are necessary so that each country may always navigate in waters of its own.” Id, at 445.

Since the parties agreed on the median line principle, the Court explained the tracing of the boundary line as follows:

The Boundary-Line itself is the resultant of construction lines drawn between opposite, shore to shore, points, sometimes to or from straight baselines. It is in principle a median line, adjusted in certain relatively unimportant respects for reasons of local configuration or of better navigability for the Parties. Over the whole course, account has been taken of sandbanks, sittings etc. which would make a strict median-line unfair, as in the case of certain islets or rocks.

Republic of Chile, Controversy concerning the Beagle Channel Region, Award (Bilingual edition with additional notes and documents), para. 110, at 182, and Ann. IV, para. 4, at 350 (1977); the award is reprinted in English in 17 ILM 634 (1978).

93 G. Gidel, supra note 27, at 755–59.

94 See generally Report to the Council of the League of Nations on the Questions Which Appear Ripe for International Regulation by the Committee of Experts for the Progressive Codification of International Law, League of Nations Doc. C.196.M.70.1927.V.1, at 7 et seq.

95 Björksten, S. R., Das Wassergebiet Finnlands in völkerrechtlicher Hinsicht 93–98 (1925)Google Scholar.

96 25 Kokusaihō, Gaikō Zasshi (Journal of International Law and Diplomacy) 599, 608–09, 635–36 (1926)Google Scholar.

97 Draft Convention on Territorial Waters, Text and Comment, 23 AJIL, Spec. Supp. 281 (1929).

98 Id. at 275.

99 Memorandum by Mr. Schücking, in Report of the Sub-Committee of the Committee of Experts for the Progressive Codification of International Law, League of Nations Doc. C.44.M.21.1926.V.10, at 33, reprinted in Report to the Council of the League of Nations, supra note 94, at 59 [hereinafter pages in reprinted report cited in brackets].

100 Id. at 16 [42].

101 Observations by Mr. de Magalhacs, id. at 40 [65–66].

102 Observations by Mr. Wickersham, id. at 46 [71].

103 Draft Convention Amended by Mr. Schücking in Consequence of the Discussion in the Committee of Experts, id. at 47 [72].

104 The 13 states that expressly supported the median line principle were Australia, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Great Britain, India, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Romania, South Africa, and Sweden. See General Observations Submitted by Certain Governments, in Bases of Discussion for the Conference for the Codification of International Law Drawn up by the Preparatory Committee, League of Nations Doc. C.74.M.39.1929.V.2, at 10–59.

105 Id. at 59–60.

106 Minutes of the Second Committee (Territorial Waters), in 3 Acts of the Conference for the Codification of International Law, League of Nations Doc. C.351(b).M.145(b).1930.V.16, at 116–17.

107 Id. at 17.

108 The proposals by the rapporteur and the Danish and Swedish delegations in the Legal Sub-Committee were not printed in the Acts of the Conference. The French text cited by G. Gidel, supra note 27, at 758 & n.1, reads: “[la ligne de démarcation] . . . est celle qui résulte des accords conclus ou à conclure, soit, à leur défaut, des autres règies du droit international.”

109 See Draft Reports on the Work of the Second Sub–Committee, 3 Acts of the Conference, supra note 106, Ann. III, at 208. See also Compromise-Proposal of the French Delegation, id. at 220.

110 See Case Concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), [1982] ICJ Rep. 3, paras. 92–95.

111 See text and sources cited at note 57 supra.

112 Fiore, P., Le Droit international codifié et sa sanction juridique 502 (1911)Google Scholar, translated as International Law Codified and Its Legal Sanction 419–20 (trans. Borchard, E. M. 1918)Google Scholar.

113 106 BFSP 1001.

114 Id. at 974.

115 114 id. at 421.

116 35 Stat. 2003, TS No. 497; 36 Stat. 2477, TS No. 551; 44 Stat. 2102, TS No. 720.

117 2 LNTS 241.

118 19 id. at 183, 194.

119 Straits Settlements and Johore Territorial Waters (Agreement) Act, 1928, 18 & 19 Geo. 5, c. 23, Art. 1.

120 This is the author’s translation from the French text. See Protocole de délimitation de la frontière serbe-croate-slovène-albanaise (July 1926), quoted in P. Lapradelle, La Frontière 216 & n.1 (1928); see also G. Gidel, supra note 27, at 768 & n.1.

121 Belgian letter of Dec. 19, 1928, reprinted in Bases of Discussion, supra note 104.

122 French letter of Aug. 2, 1953, reprinted in Addendum 2, at 1, to Information and Observations Submitted by Governments, supra note 25.

123 30 LNTS 49, 61.

124 135 BFSP 629.

125 Id. at 474.

126 See Information and Observations Submitted by Governments, supra note 25, at 9.

127 This is the author’s translation from the French text. See G. Gidel, supra note 27, at 768–71.

128 Ibid.

129 See American Institute of International Law, Codification of Public International Law, Project on the Territorial Sea, Arts. V, XIV (1933).

130 See note 34 supra and accompanying text.

131 Wisconsin v. Michigan, 295 U.S. 455, 462 (1935).

132 Compiled Reports of the International Waterways Commission, 1905–1913, at 578 (Ottawa 1913).

133 Boggs, , Problems of Water-Boundary Definition: Median Line and International Boundaries Through Territorial Waters , 27 Geographical Rev. 445, 447–48 (1937 Google Scholar.

134 Wisconsin v. Michigan, 295 U.S. at 461.

135 This is the author’s translation from the German text. See F. Münch, , Die technischen Fragen des Küstenmeers 156 (1934)Google Scholar.

136 This correct approach by Münch to the median line principle probably influenced Boggs. See Boggs, supra note 133, at 447.

137 F. Münch, supra note 135, at 162–63.

138 See G. Gidel, supra note 27, at 770–71 n.3.

139 Id. at 768.

140 See Boggs, supra note 133, at 447.

141 Boggs, , Delimitation of Seaward Areas Under National Jurisdiction , 45 AJIL 240, 258 n.30 (1951)Google Scholar; see also Wisconsin v. Michigan, 295 U.S. at 462; Wisconsin v. Michigan, 297 U.S. 547 (1936).

142 Michigan v. Wisconsin, 272 U.S. 398 (1926).

143 See Boggs, supra note 133, at 448.

144 Id. at 448–49.

145 In laying down such a line on the chart, according to Boggs,

it is necessary to discover points which lie on the line by trial and error but as regards any point in the lake, in order to find on which side of the median-line boundary it lies, it is necessary only to swing a compass from that point on the chart to opposite shores of the lake or river in order to ascertain which shore is the nearer and, therefore, on which side of the boundary the point is situated.

Id. at 449.

146 Id. at 452–55.

147 See notes 4–6 supra and accompanying text.

148 4 AJIL at 232.

149 G. Gidel, supra note 27, at 768–71.

150 Louisiana v. Mississippi, 202 U.S. at 23, 49.

151 Id. at 26.

152 The traditional water boundary between Belgium and the Netherlands follows first the direction of the land boundary—which is hardly at all different from the perpendicular line in the general direction of the coast—until it reaches the Wielingen, the principal channel of navigation of the River Scheldt. Sovereign rights in the whole “Wielingen” have been claimed by the Netherlands on historic grounds. The Netherlands asserted that the boundary line should be pushed off to some distance in a westerly direction parallel to the Belgian coast, because the Wielingen forms a principal navigational channel parallel to the coast, while Belgium maintained that the boundary between the contiguous territorial seas of two neighboring countries should lie along a line perpendicular to the coast. See Information and Observations Submitted by Governments, supra note 25, at 7, 11; see also, e.g., de Hoon, H., L’Escaut et son Embouchure: Le Différend des Wielingen (1927)Google Scholar; de Visscher, & Ganshof, , Le Différend des Wielingen , Rev. Droit Int’l & Legis. Comp., 3d ser., No. 1, at 293, 328 (1920)Google Scholar.

153 It is ironic that the Netherlands, while on the one hand asserting historic rights in the Wielingen against Belgium, on the other hand had to deny a historic claim to the mouth of the River Ems by Germany. The water boundary line between Germany and the Netherlands follows a straight line in a direction indicated by Article 41 of the Treaty of Meppen of 1824. From the point where the line ends, the Netherlands asserted that the boundary line should follow the thalweg of the principal navigation channel and outflow of the River Ems into the open sea, while Germany claimed most of the estuaries on the basis of historic title except for the area in the Dollard that had been previously agreed upon. See Information and Observations Submitted by Governments, supra note 25, at 11.

154 Boggs noted the difficulties in determining how to treat islands when delimiting the territorial sea between states in accordance with the median or equidistance line principle. He separated coasts into three categories: first, the general trend of the coast, as mentioned in the Grisbadarna award; second, straight lines drawn from point to point along the coast and from outer points of the most seaward islands, like the Norwegian straight baseline system; third, lines drawn from each of the nearest base points from which the median or equidistance line is calculated. The last one was proposed by the United States at the Codification Conference of International Law in 1930, on the grounds that it is the only one that can meet the interest of navigators, and that only one median line can be drawn from such base points. However, Boggs later observed that “historic waters” and “skjaergard” should be exceptions to the American position. See Boggs, , Delimitation of the Territorial Sea , 24 AJIL 541, 543, 544, 555 (1930)Google Scholar.

155 See J. Guerra, supra note 87, at 27.

156 This is the author’s translation from the German text. See F. Münch, supra note 135, at 165.

157 See Boggs, supra note 133, at 455–56.