Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T16:08:17.193Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Three-Mile Limit

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 May 2017

Thomas Baty
Thomas Baty*
Affiliation:
Associate of the Institute of International Law
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

After any close inquiry into the present authority of the rule of the threemile limitof territorial waters, the candid observer will probabjy come to the conclusion that therule, while not infrequently attacked in theory, is supreme in practice. Diplomatists seldom or never question it; professors occasionally do. In the actual conduct of affairs,it is seldom challenged, and never successfully so. It must be premised that in what follows there is left out of account altogether the question of bays and gulfs. This is a different and more difficult question which can best be treated separately.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 22 , Issue 3 , July 1928 , pp. 503 - 537
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1928

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Wheaton's International Law, note on § 108.

2 Observations on Dr. memorandum, Schiicking's for the League o f Nations Committee of Experts. Special Supplement to this Journal, Vol. 20 (1926), p. 120 et seg.Google Scholar

3 This Journal, Vol. 17 (1923), p. 89.

4 Droit International, §356.

5 International Law, §198.

6 Leading Cases on International Law, 4th ed. by Bellot, , p. 144 Google Scholar.

7 Territoriale La Mer, 1889, p. 134.

8 The Sovereignty of the Seas.

9 In his monograph Territoriale La Mer, 1913, p. 180. See also Raestad, R. G. D. I. P., 1912, p. 598, “La Portee du Canon.”

10 North Atlantic Fisheries Arbitration (Dissent from Award), I, pp. 104, 109.

11 British oral Argument, p. 480.

12 Letters to the Times.

13 This Journal, Vol. 6 (1912), p. 409. See also ibid., Vol. 7 (1913), p. 546.

14 See Judge de Ryckere in Le Droit Maritime.

15 R. G. D. I. P., 1898, pp. 264, 309.

16 See Raestad, op. cit., p. 60, note.

17 Appendix to U. S. Case, Fur Seal Arbitration, p. 250.

18 See Affirmations of the Three-Mile Rule, paragraphs nos. 10, 11, and 18, below, pp. 520-521.

19 See Revue de Droit International, 1903, p. 83.

20 See below, Contradiction soft he Three-Mile Rule, paragraph no. 1, below, p. 532.

21 British Oral Argument, 80.

22 See also pp. 298, 300, 383.

23 At p. 322. See also p. 552.

24 Ut infra., 89.

25 I. e., only by civility and consideration. , Mr. Fish's statement in his letter of Jan. 22, 1875 Google Scholar, to Sir Thornton, E. entirely confirms this. See below, Contradictions , paragraph no. 2, below, p. 533 Google Scholar.

26 See Fulton, The Sovereignty of the Seas, p. 667. But cf. Boyé's assertion that France failed to secure any express acknowledgment from Spain cjf her right to fish up to three miles. IV, No. 32, bdow, p. 536.

27 See the scanty and inconclusive material, as collected by Boyé, Judge, 33rd Report of the International Law Association (Stockholm Conference, 1624), at pp. 306, 307, 310 Google Scholar, et seg.

28 Coral fisheries in France and Italy have been asserted to be subject to similar regulation far out at sea. But Visconti-Venosta, Marquis , in the Fur Seal Arbitration, took occasion to say that such Italian legislation was only binding on Italian subjects. (Fur Seal Arbitration Proceedings, Oral Argument of Messrs. Carter and Coudert, p. 300.)Google Scholar

29 Professor AngellJ. B., in the Forum, November, 1889.

30 Other high authorities take the third view. See this Journal, Vol. 6 (1912), p. 409.

31 Law Rep. 2 Exch. Div. 63.

32 See no. 1, above, p. 510.

33 International Studies, p. 183

34 See below, Contbadictions, p. 532.

35 The rule (if it arose in this way at all) probably arose in relation to neutral obligations in harbors. Captures could not be made within reach of the guns which were, or might be, mounted there. See the English case (1760), quoted by Fulton (Sovereignty of the Seas, p. 577), where a French prize was released, as taken in a port belonging to the King of Spain “within reach of his cannon.” The treaty between Morocco and the United States, in 1785, limits the neutral protection to “ la portée du canon des chateaux,” i. e., actual guns in position. And some treaties of the period expressly declare that i t does not matter whether guns are actually in position or not. (France-Tunis, May 25, 1795.)

36 Raestad, Mer Territoriale, p. 131.

37 Raestad, Mer Territoriale, p. 133.

38 Boyé's, Judge Thorwald paper on “Territorial Waters, with Special Reference to Norwegian legislation,” which was presented to the Stockholm Conference of the International Law Association in 1924, contains a quantity of valuable and well-arranged material on this Lead. See Report of the 33rd Conference of the Association, p. 294 Google Scholar. Boyé shows that in Danish Royal Rescripts of 1745 (neutrality) and 1747 (fisheries), the limit of one mil (four nautical miles) had been established; but this, of course, could not bind foreign Powers.

39 Folio Decisions, IV, 143; Faculty Collection, No. 4j9, p. 104.

40 See the draft treaty, in Adams', J. Journal, Nov. 25, 1782; printed in North Atlantic Fisheries Arbitration, II, 219 Google Scholar.

41 Ibid., p. 24.

42 Ibid., p. 263.

43 Ibid., p. 264.

44 Ibid., pp. 265, 268, 269.

45 Oct. 20, 1818. Ibid., p. 306.

46 De Cussy, Causes Célèbres, II, p. 71.

47 G. Canning to S. Canning, Dec. 8, 1824. (Ut infra, p. 208.)

48 Opinions of Nov. 20, 1821, Dec. 26, 1821. Appendix to Case of the United States, Alaska Boundary Arbitration, p. 102.

49 Londonderry to Lieven, ibid., p. 104.

50 Memorandum by Wellington, Sept. 11, 1822,ibid., p. 108.

51 Page 121. Nesselrode to Lieven, June 26, 1823. These tortuous steps on the part of Russia strongly recall the verbal assurances given to Great Britain during the Japanese-Russian War with regard to the sinking of neutral ships, not abandoning the principle, but affecting to refrain from its exercise. See the writer's Britain and Sea Law, pp. 46, 10, 16 et passim.

52 See also Lieven to Canning in the same sense, Nov. 26, 1823 (ibid., p. 143); Canning to S. Canning, Dec. 8, 1829 (p. 208).

53 Fur Seal Arbitration Proceedings, British Case, p. 45.

54 See Fulton, Sovereignty of the Seas, p. 609.

55 See Halleck, International Law, I, vi, Sec. 13.

56 Fulton, p. 624.

57 See British Parliamentary Papers, United States, I (1893), p. 83 el seq.

58 Ibid., p. 87.

59 Fulton, p. 616.

60 Latour, p. 33. This note of 16 October is much misrepresented in many continental works. Bluntschli, Calvo, Bonfils, all represent it as embodying a proposal of Seward's. On the contrary, it is a criticism in the form of a questionnaire, formulated by Seward in scepticism of a British proposal. See the text in Moore, International Law Digest.

61 Fulton, p. 621. See Russell in Argument in Fur Seal Case.

62 Fur Seal Arbitration Proceedings, British Case, p. 77.

63 Fur Seal Arbitration Proceedings, British Case, p. 88.

64 Cited by Fulton, p. 656.

65 Fulton, p. 661.

66 But see Contradictions, infra, para. no. 21, p. 534. (Fulton, p. 661.)

67 North Atlantic Fisheries Arbitration, II, p. 609.

68 Fur Seal Arbitration, Appendix to British Case, p. 21.

69 Cited, T. J. Lawrence, Handbook, Sec. 107.

70 Clunet, 1875, Vol. 38.

71 Moore, International Law Digest, I, p. 717.

72 L. R. 2 Exch. Div., 63.

73 Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act, 91 and 92 Viet., Chapter 73.

74 Fulton, p. 658.

75 Fulton, p. 659.

76 Fulton, p. 666.

77 Cited in Fur Seal Arbitration Proceedings, British Case.

78 Fur Seal Arbitration, Appendix to British Case, III, p. 46. (Lansdowne to Stanhope, Nov. 27, 1886.)

79 Printed in Moore's International Law Digest, I, p. 718.

80 See also letter, same to Knutsford Lord , April 9, 1888. Ibid., p. 222, p.217.

81 See also letter of Sept. 9, where Tupper speaks of “the three-mile or territorial limit.” Ibid., p. 368.

82 Ibid., p. 333.

83 See Alaska Boundary Tribunal, American Counter Case, pp. 151, 154, 159, 160, 162.

84 Fulton, p. 643. Hansard, Parliamentary Debates, Vol. 337, col. 975.

85 Fulton, p. 658.

86 Fulton, p. 658.

87 Report on Seal Fishery, Nov. 19. Fur Seal Arbitration Proceedings, Appendix to British Case, III, p. 667.

88 See Fur Seal Arbitration Proceedings, I, p. 78.

89 Fur Seal Arbitration Proceedings, British Case, p. 98.

90 Fulton, p. 660.

91 Fulton, p. 647.

92 Fulton, p. 642. The same ruling was, somewhat curiously, given in the case of the Eddystone (an inhabited, if artificial, island), and the Bell Rock, off the coasts of Devonshire and Forfarshire, respectively.

93 The Times, March 24, 1908, p. 5.

94 Fulton, p. 680.

95 Fulton, p. 732. Hansard, Parliamentary Debates, Vol. 170, col. 1383.

96 Case of Mortensen v. Peters. 14 Scots Law Times, 227: 8 F. 93.

97 Argument for United States, Alaska Arbitration, p. 15.

98 24th Annual Report, National Sea Fisheries Protective Association, 1905, p. 7; cited, Fulton p. 667.

99 33rd Report, International Law Association, 1924, p. 294.

100 The Elida, Clunet, 1916, p. 626.

101 The Heina, R. G. D. I. P., 1917, p. 10, Jurisprudence. Norwegian ship captured off St. Thomas in the West Indies.

102 Grogan v. Walker, 259 U. S. Reports, 80; Cunard S. S. Co. v. Mellon, 262, ibid., 100.

103 See treaty, British, May 22, 1924, cited in Supplement to this Journal, XVIII, 127, 128; and cf. p. 301 Google Scholar.

104 The Grace & Ruby (1922), 283Federal Reporter, 475, 478; The Henry L. Marshall (1922), 286 Federal Reporter, 260, 292, Fed. R. 486; United States v. Ford (1925), 3 F. (2nd) 643; U. S. v. Bengochea (1922), 279 Fed. 537. As Dickinson says, the invocation of the dubious principle of Church v. Hubbart was not necessary to any of these decisions.

105 See The Frances Louise (1924), 1 F. (2nd) 1004 (Mass. District Court); but of. The Panama (1925), 6 F. (2nd) 326 (S. Texas D. C.).

106 International Law, I, 276, §198.

107 See his Wheaton, p. 258, n.

108 La Mer Territoriale, 33.

109 Church v. Hubbart, 2 Cranch, 187.

110 Fur Seal Arbitration, U. S. Case, Appendix, Vol. I, p. 250.

111 De Cussy, Phases et causes célèbres, I, 92, 249.

112 Fulton, p. 653.

113 Holland, International Studies, p. 183.

114 Fulton, p. 605.

115 Fulton, p. 608.

116 See Fur Seal Case, British Oral Argument, 477.

117 Fulton, p. 657.

118 Decree of Oct. 16. Fulton, p. 671. An unnamed foreign government is said by Fulton to have been induced to waive its protests against this boundary, p. 678.

119 Fulton, p. 674.

120 Fulton, p. 676.

121 Sed vide supra, III, 32, p. 523, and infra, IV, 38, p. 537.

122 Oral Argument Great Britain, p. 362.

123 Fulton, p. 666.

124 And see supra, III, 64, (g), p. 527.

125 See also British Parliamentary Papers (1893), Russia, Nos. 1, 3.

126 Fulton, p. 661.

127 Boyé, , 33rd Report of International Law Association. (1924 Conference), p. 295 Google Scholar, citing La Chambre des Di-putts. Questions icrites adressis aux ministres du 1 juin au 12juillet, 1910, pp. 47, 49.

128 22. 0. D. I. P., 1916, Documents, 11.