fortification of the Panama Canal would affect its neutralisation. And in this respect it may be laid down that if the arguments adduced are in any way correct, the answer would necessarily be in the negative. Neutralisation, or in fact any other conception of International Law, cannot take away the right of self-defence, and, as a logical consequence, the erection of fortifications is not repugnant to the notion of neutralisation.

CHAPTER VII.

CONCLUSION.

It may be needful in an inquiry of this nature to trace in a single chapter the successive steps that have been traversed, so as to consider as a whole the entire structure, which may appear in its detached parts somewhat confused on account of its various details.

A recapitulation of the previous chapters reducing to concise statements the results of our inquiry would not only help us to attain precision and coherence, but also assist in showing the connection that exists between the different parts. On more than one occasion, however, when dealing with the application of certain principles or the interpretation of international treaties, diplomatic dispatches, or historical facts, the conclusions that seemed to follow logically from them have been immediately recorded. Nevertheless, it is deemed advisable to add an organised re-statement of the general conclusions that the premises separately adduced seem to warrant, but avoiding, as far as possible, the repetition of the arguments themselves. The scope of this chapter is, therefore, to present the whole logical fabric so as to contemplate it from a distance.

The policy of the United States towards the canal question has passed gradually but progressively from indifference to intense interest. Vital considerations connected with their extraordinary development have induced them, especially towards the later part of their career, to attempt to apply to the subject of interoceanic communication the flexible principles of their foreign policy which are supposed to rest on President Monroe's Message. It seemed for a moment that they were bent on acquiring an exclusive control of the canal, so that it should he managed and regulated as an integral part of their territory. But the general interests that other nations have in the question of transit, together with the return to a spirit of fairness, have finally led the North American Republic to recognise the tendencies of some modern rules of International Law that grant to all nations at all times the right of passage by what are considered to be the world's thoroughfares.

The whole history of the endeavours of certain powers to appropriate to themselves the exclusive benefit of using the maritime communication is sufficient in itself to demonstrate fully that the artificial route should be included in the domain of that law that regulates the intercourse of the general body of civilised nations. Indeed, no other course is possible in order to reconcile the conflicting interests that would necessarily spring from such a problem.

The question could not be dealt with by the territorial power alone on account of the special circumstances of the case, nor could it be assimilated to natural straits so as to make the general rules adopted for them applicable to it. The problem, it has been

ΙΟ

shown, is sui generis in its very nature, and special rules for the regulation of the transit had to be evolved.

In

The notion of neutralisation, therefore, has been thought to apply to such a case. But this conception as applied to states or parts of states is found to be different from the one that should be applied to a region where freedom of transit is to be attained. consequence of this fact the essential characteristics of the notion-freedom from hostilities-has been retained, and special conventional provisions have been added so as to insure the general purposes of the law.

In order to establish neutralisation, it is necessary that there should exist a general interest among the different nations of the globe with regard to a certain region. This interest has undoubtedly been shown to exist towards the Panama Canal. On account of this interest and because the Hay-Pauncefote treaty, although entered into by Great Britain and the United States only, embodies rules which have already gained universal acceptance and are just in themselves, it is submitted that the provisions contained in it have come to be of a law-making force. This international agreement is supported by the tacit understanding of all the other members of the family of nations—a fact that makes it binding on all states. Professor Westlake comments on this subject in the following manner: "To the system thus established for the Central American Canal of the future the express assent of the European States has not been invited. Their assent may be assumed from their own establishment of the same system in the old

world, and because the concurrence of the two great powers of North America must carry for that part of the new world something of the same authority which the concurrence of the great powers carries for the old, especially with relation to a waterway so vitally affecting the communication between the Atlantic and the Pacific coasts of each. We may treat the conditions, under which interoceanic canals can be made conducive to commerce and all peaceful development, as being henceforth an ascertained part of International Law."1

It has also been seen that the treaties in existence dealing with the position of the Panama Canal are entered into by the states more directly concerned, and contain the essential features of neutralisation.

One of such treaties (the Hay-Pauncefote) was framed avowedly taking the Convention of Constantinople as its model. It is hardly necessary to insist on the fact that there is a real analogy between the Panama and Suez Canals. And since the Suez Canal is undoubtedly a neutralised waterway, it necessarily follows that this legal status would be applied mutatis mutandis to the Panama Canal. It will be interesting to quote here the words of Doctor Lawrence, who argues that since Great Britain and the United States have embodied in the Hay-Pauncefote treaty "provisions already accepted with regard to the Suez Canal by the civilised world, it is exceedingly improbable that objections will be raised against the same provisions when applied to the only other canal of the like kind on the face of the earth." 2

1 International Law, Part 1, pp. 330, 331.

2 The Principles of International Law, 4th ed. 1910, p. 201.