punish pirates. And the vessels of all nations, whether men-of-war, other public vessels, or merchantmen,1 can on the open sea 2 chase, attack, and seize the pirate, and bring him home for trial and punishment by the courts of their own country.3 This punishment may, by the Law of Nations, be capital. But it need not be, the Municipal Law of the different States being competent to order any less severe punishment. Nor does the Law of Nations make it a duty for every maritime State to punish all pirates.4 In former times it was said to be a customary rule of International Law that pirates could at once after seizure be hanged or drowned by the captor. But this cannot now be upheld, although some writers assert that it is still the law. It would seem that the captor may execute pirates on the spot only when he is not able to bring them safely into a port for trial; but Municipal Law may, of course, interdict such execution. non mutat § 279. The question as to the property in the seized Pirata piratical vessels, and the goods thereon, has been the dom subject of much controversy. During the seventeenth nium. century, the practice of several States conceded such vessel and goods to the captor as a premium. But during the eighteenth century, the rule pirata non mutat dominium became more and more recognised. Nowadays the conviction would seem to be general that 1 A few writers (Gareis in Holtzendorff, ii. p. 575; Liszt, § 26; Ullmann, § 104; Stiel, op. cit., p. 51) maintain, however, that men-of-war only have the power to seize the pirate. 2 If a pirate is chased on the open sea and flees into the territorial maritime belt, the pursuers may follow, attack, and arrest the pirate there; but they must give him up to the authorities of the littoral State. That men-of-war of all nations have, with a view to ensuring the safety of traffic, the power of verify ing the flags of suspicious merchant- Thus, according to the German Piracy according ship and goods must be restored to their owners and may be conceded to the captor only when their real ownership cannot be ascertained. In the first case, however, a certain percentage of the value is very often conceded to the captor as a premium and an equivalent for his expenses (so-called droit de recousse).1 Thus, according to English law,2 a salvage of 12 per cent. is to be paid to the captor of the pirate. § 280. Piracy, according to the Law of Nations, which to Muni has been defined above (§ 272), must not be confounded cipal Law. with the conception of piracy according to the different Municipal Laws.3 The several States may confine themselves to punishing as piracy fewer acts of violence than those which the Law of Nations defines as piracy. On the other hand, they may punish their own subjects as pirates for a much wider range of acts. Thus, for instance, according to the Criminal Law of England,a every British subject is, inter alia, deemed to be a pirate who gives aid or comfort upon the sea to the King's enemies during a war, or who transports slaves on the high seas. However, since a State cannot enforce its Municipal Laws on the open sea against others than its own subjects, it cannot treat foreigners on the open sea as pirates, unless they are pirates according to the Law of Nations. Thus, when in 1858, before the abolition of slavery in America, British men-of-war molested American vessels suspected of carrying slaves, the United States rightly complained.5 1 See details regarding the question as to the piratical vessels and goods in Pradier-Fodéré, v. Nos. 2496-2499. See § 5 of the 'Act to repeal an Act of the Sixth Year of King George the Fourth, for encouraging the Capture or Destruction of Piratical Ships, etc.' (13 & 14 Vict. c. 26). * See Calvo, §§ 488-492; Lawrence, § 103; Pradier-Fodéré, v. Nos. 2501 and 2502. See Stephen, Digest of the Criminal Law, Articles 104-117. See Wharton, iii. § 327, pp. 142 and 143; Taylor, § 190; Moore, ii. § 310, pp. 941-946. VI FISHERIES IN THE OPEN SEA Grotius, ii. c. 2, § 3—Vattel, i. § 282-Hall, § 27-Lawrence, §§ 86 and 91Phillimore, i. §§ 189-195-Twiss, i. § 185-Taylor, §§ 249-250-Wharton, iii. §§ 300-308-Wheaton, §§ 167-171-Moore, i. §§ 169-173-Bluntschli, § 307-Stoerk in Holtzendorff, ii. pp. 504-507-Gareis, § 62—-Liszt, § 35 --Ullmann, § 103-Bonfils, Nos. 581-582, 595-Despagnet, Nos. 411-413 —Mérignhac, ii. p. 531—Pradier-Fodéré, v. Nos. 2446-2458–Rivier, i. pp. 243-244-Nys, ii. pp. 205-209-Calvo, i. §§ 357-364-Fiore, ii. Nos. 728-729, and Code, Nos. 1000-1004-Martens, i. § 98-Perels, § 20-Hall, Foreign Powers and Jurisdiction (1894), § 107-David, La Pêche maritime au Point de Vue international (1897)-Fulton, The Sovereignty of the Seas (1911), pp. 57-534. in the § 281. Whereas the fisheries in the territorial mari- Fisheries time belt can be reserved by the littoral State for its Open Sea own subjects, it is an inference from the freedom of the free to all open sea that the fisheries thereon are open1 to vessels 1 Denmark, silently, by fishing regulations of 1872, dropped her claim to an exclusive right of fisheries within twenty miles of the coast of Iceland; see Hall, § 40. Russia promulgated, in 1911, a statute forbidding the fisheries to foreign vessels within twelve miles of the shore of the White Sea, but the Powers protested against this encroachment upon the freedom of the open sea. The A case of a particular kind would seem to be the pearl fishery off Ceylon, which extends to a distance of twenty miles from the shore, and for which regulations exist which are enforced against foreign as well as British subjects. claim on which these regulations are based is one to the products of certain submerged portions of land which have been treated from time immemorial by the successive rulers of the island as subject of property and jurisdiction.' See Hall, Foreign Powers and Jurisdiction (1894), p. 243, n. 1. See also Westlake, i. p. 190, who says: 'The case of the pearl fishery is peculiar, the pearls being obtained from the sea bottom by divers, so that it has a physical connection with the Nations. Fisheries in the North Sea. of all nations. Since, however, vessels remain whilst on the open sea under the jurisdiction of their flag State, every State possessing a maritime flag can legislate for the exercise of fisheries by its own vessels on the open sea; and it can by an international agreement renounce its fishing rights on certain parts of the open sea, and can accordingly interdict its vessels from fishing there. So if it is advisable to restrict and regulate the fisheries on some parts of the open sea, the Powers can do this through international treaties. Such treaties have been concluded-first, with regard to the fisheries in the North Sea and the suppression of the liquor trade among the fishing vessels there; secondly, with regard to the seal fisheries in the North Pacific Ocean; thirdly, with regard to the fisheries around the Faröe Islands and Iceland. § 282. For the purpose of regulating the fisheries in the North Sea, an international conference took place at the Hague in 1881 and again in 1882, at which Great Britain, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Holland, and Sweden-Norway were represented, and on May 6, 1882, the International Convention for the Regulation of the Police of the Fisheries in the North Sea outside the Territorial Waters1 was signed by the representatives of all these States, Sweden-Norway excepted, to which the option of joining later on was given. This treaty contains the following stipulations: 2 (1) All the fishing vessels of the signatory Powers States, No. 4 (1893), Behring Sea p. 203. 1 Martens, N.R.G., 2nd Ser. ix. p. 556. 2 The matter is exhaustively treated by Rykere, Le Régime légal de la Pêche maritime dans la Mer du Nord (1901). To carry out the obligations undertaken by her in the North Sea Fisheries Convention, Great Britain enacted The North Sea Fisheries Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 22). must be registered, and the registers have to be exchanged (Article 5). Every vessel has to bear visibly in white colour on black ground her number, name, and harbour, and an official voucher of her nationality (Articles 6-13). (2) To avoid conflicts between the different fishing vessels, very minute rules are provided (Articles 14-25). (3) Special cruisers of the signatory Powers supervise their fishing vessels engaged in the fisheries (Article 26). All these cruisers1 are competent to verify all contraventions (other than those expressly excepted) committed by the fishing vessels of all the signatory Powers (Articles 2728). For that purpose they have the right of visit, search, and arrest, and may compromise trifling matters on the spot (Articles 29 and 33). But an arrested fishing vessel is to be brought into a harbour of her flag State, and handed over to the authorities there (Article 30); and all contraventions are to be tried by the courts of the State to which the contravening vessels belong (Article 36). in the § 283. Connected with the regulation of the fisheries Bumboats is the abolition of the liquor trade among the fishing North vessels in the North Sea. Since serious quarrels and Sea. difficulties were caused through bumboats and floating grog-shops selling intoxicating liquors to the fishermen, an international conference took place at the Hague in 1886, where the signatory Powers of the North Sea Fisheries Convention were represented. On November 16, 1887, the International Convention concerning the Abolition of the Liquor Traffic among the Fishermen in the North Sea was signed by the representatives of these Powers-namely, Great Britain, Belgium, Denmark, But it is provided by the Treaty of Peace with Germany, by which the High Contracting Parties agree to apply this convention in so far as concerns them as from the coming into force of that treaty, that all rights of inspection and police over |