Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 16.pdf/103

 02

the two great sovereignties of Great Britain nized uniform distance of three marine miles and the United States, as trustees of the na from the low-water mark of the tidal sea, tional honor, political justice, and good determines where the Ocean begins. And faith of their respective nations, had agreed as the majority of the Tribunal holds that to appoint to the Tribunal. . . . tidal bays and inlets, being "sinuosities of the coasts," are "ocean" within the Treaty With such prejudiced and therefore dis qualified colleagues it was judicially, politi expression "ten marine leagues from the cally, and humanly impossible that impartial Ocean;" then their low-water mark should justice could be administered, or the recog also determine where the Tribunal's "ocean" nized doctrines of International Law could begins. be given effect to. And it would have been But the mouths of tidal rivers are also appropriate that a diplomatic protest should "sinuosities of the coast;" and the influent have been made against appointments which sea in such tidal rivers has also its low-water dishonored the real impartiality of Tri-; mark, which should similarly determine bunals of International Arbitration, and the where they become "ocean" according to breach of the Treaty contract to refer the in the above decision. Yet International Law, ternational dispute to "impartial jurists of because the channels of bays, inlets, and rivers are filled to the ocean's tidal level, repute." . . . Questions five and six formulated the classes them under the generic term of main crux of the dispute; whether the inter "arms of the sea," and considers them in national boundary line crossed the bays and regard to sovereignty as if they were land. inlets indenting this "coast of the continent." But the action in the influent sea in perpet The fifth question asked: "Was it the in ually, or occasionally (as in the case of shoals tention and meaning of said Convention of of strands), submerging their lands, pre 1825 that there should remain in the exclu cludes them, it is submitted, apart from au sive possession of Russia a continuous thority, from being imported into the defini fringe, or strip, of coast on the mainland, not tion "Ocean;" as that term is understood in exceeding ю marine leagues in width, sepa International Law. rating the British possessions from the bays, Then as to the seventh question: "What ports, inlets, havens, and waters of the are the mountains situated parallel to the coast?" The British originally proposed the Ocean?" The sixth question was only to become seaward base of the mountains as the boun necessary in case the fifth was answered in dary line. Russia objected, because the mountains might slope directly to the ocean, the negative; and as to the bays and inlets and practically give them no foothold on the it asked: "Was it the intention and meaning of the said Convention that, where the main coast, and asked that the line should be oin the land coast is indented by deep inlets forming summit of "the mountains bordering on the part of the territorial waters of Russia, the coast." This was considered in the treaty width of the lisière was to be measured (a) by the words "the summit of the mountains from, the line of the general direction of the situated parallel to the coast." But the ma mainland coast; or (b) from the line separat jority of the tribunal has adopted a line ing the waters of the Ocean from the terri which, at a number of points, rests on moun torial waters of Russia; or (c) from the heads tains lying far inland from the coast, and separated from it by nearer mountains, which of the aforesaid inlets?" In considering these questions, it should come more within the words of the treaty as be borne in mind—in addition to other "situated parallel to the coast," than those points, hereinafter referred to—that a recog selected by the tribunal.