Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 16.pdf/658

 Some Questions of International Law. century. In the course of the nineteenth century the rule of the marine league ap pears to have completely supplanted the principle upon which it was originally based and, instead of being extended to meet the demands of new modern guns of ever-in creasing range, it remained always the same until it is now as fixed and unal terable as the laws of the Medes and the Persians in spite of the protests of publicists and the efforts of statesmen.1 There can be no doubt but that an extension of the three mile limit for all territorial purposes would be highly desirable. The marine league no longer satisfies the demands of modern re quirements of defense. An extension to n.eet these requirements is certainly favored by an ever-increasing majority of modern publicists and has been strongly recom mended by the Institute of International • Law.2 1 The majority of modern publicists appear to favor an extension of the three-mile limit, but some of them do not seem clearly to distinguish between the «resent three-mile rule and the prin ciple upon which it was originally based. Amongst those who may be cited as favoring an extension of the present rule or as holding that Bynkershoek's principle is, or ought to be, the ruleof In ternational Law, are Beuntschli, §302: Fiore. §788; Calvo, L, §356; P. Fodere, IL, §§6.îoff: Hautefouille, L, 89, 239; Ortolan,!.. с. 8: Heffter, §75; Rivier. I., Liv. III., c. i, §10; Phillimore, Pt. III., c. 8; Hall. §41; Taylor, §247. In 1806 the American Government attempted to obtain a recognition of a six-mile limit from England, but refused to acknowledge the validity of a claim of six miles made by Spain to the coast of Cuba in 1863. But in the following year (1864) Sec. Seward proposed a zone of five miles to the British Legation at Washington. The. British Government has, however, always in sisted upon the three-mile limit. The three-mile limit has the sanction of a con siderable number of State and International Acts or Conventions, e. g., the Russian Prize Rules of 1869. the British Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act of 1878. the North Sea Fisheries Convention of 1882. the Convention of Constantinople relat ing to the Suez Canal of 1889. For list of trea ties, see Calvo, I., p. 479. "The Institute of International Law. at its Paris session in 1894, after an exhaustive discus sion of this question, gave a decisive majority (there was no division of opinion as to the de sirability of extending the three-mile limit) in

603

It is highly desirable that these questions and many others, more particularly those relating to neutrality, contraband, and naval warfare, be discussed and, if possible, set tled, by an International Congress or Con ference before or soon after the close of the present war while the interest in such ques tions is still keen and the memory of its events fresh and vivid. In respect to the questions immediately under discussion in this paper, it may be said that any claims for damages which may arise should be referred to arbitration, preferably to the Hague Tri bunal;3 but to wait until injury has actually resulted to neutral individuals or to neutral property before laying down the rule to be followed in such cases would not seem to be the part of wisdom or sound policy. Precau tions should be taken in time and any evil consequences which might follow upon un certainty as to the rule ought to be averted, if possible. In respect to the laying of sub marine mines, the very least that neutral States have a right to demand is that these highly dangerous explosives be restricted to territorial or belligerent waters; or if they are placed upon the high seas for any purpose whatsoever, that they be anchored in such a way that they can not possibly become a menace to neutral vessels. In all such cases neutrals should receive due notice and the mines should be carefully removed after the special purpose for which they have. been placed there has been fulfilled. favor of a zone of six marine miles for all terri torial purposes and of permitting neutral States to extend it still farther in time of war for the purpose of defending its neutrality against a belli gerent Power, provided the range of cannon was not exceeded. The maritime Powers were rec ommended to hold an International Congress for the purpose of adopting these and other rules but no such Congress has ever been held. See Annuaire de l'Institut de Droit International for 1894-95, PP. 281-331. 1 The Hague Tribunal is an international court for the decision of actual disputes between na tions. It has power to declare law, but not to legislate in the ordinary sense.