Seal Fisheries Pacific France, Germany, and Holland. This treaty 1 was, however, not ratified until 1894, and France did not ratify it at all. It contains the following stipulations: 2 It is interdicted to sell spirituous drinks to persons on board fishing vessels, who are prohibited from buying them (Article 2). Bumboats, which wish to sell provisions to fishermen, must be licensed by their flag State and must fly a white flag 3 with the letter S in black in the middle (Article 3). The special cruisers of the Powers which supervise the fisheries in the North Sea 4 are likewise competent to supervise the treaty stipulations concerning bumboats; they have the right to ask for the production of the proper licence, and, if need be, to arrest the vessel (Article 7). But arrested vessels must always be brought into a harbour of their flag State, by the courts of which all contraventions are to be tried (Articles 5, 7, 8). § 284. In 1886 a conflict arose between Great Britain and the United States through the seizure and confiscation of British-Columbian vessels which had hunted seals in the Behring Sea outside the American territorial belt, infringing regulations made by the United States concerning seal fishing in that sea. Great Britain and the United States concluded an arbitration treaty concerning this conflict in 1892, according to which the arbitrators were not only to settle the dispute itself, but also (Article 7) determine what concurrent regulations outside the jurisdictional limits of the respective Govern 1 See Martens, N.R.G., 2nd Ser. 3 This flag was agreed upon in the The Treaty of Peace with Germany provides (as in the case of the North Sea Fisheries Convention) that rights of inspection and police over fishing boats belonging to Allied Powers are to be exercised solely by ships belonging to those Powers (Articles 285 and 272). 5 See Martens, N.R.G., 2nd Ser. xviii. p. 587. ments are necessary' in the interest of the preservation of the seals. The Arbitration Tribunal, which gave its award at Paris in 1893, called upon both parties to forbid their subjects to kill seals within a zone of sixty miles around the Pribiloff Islands; to kill seals at all between May 1 and July 31 each year; to engage in sealing with nets, firearms and explosives, or in other than specially licensed sailing vessels. Both parties in 1894 carried out this task; 2 other maritime Powers were asked by the United States to submit voluntarily to the regulations made for the parties by the arbitrators, but only Italy 3 agreed to this. Experience showed that the provisions made by the Arbitration Tribunal were insufficient to prevent the extinction of seals. The United States therefore invited Great Britain, Russia, and Japan to a Pelagic Seal Conference at Washington in 1911, where there was signed, on July 7, 1911, a convention 4 'respecting Measures for the Preservation and Protection of the Fur Seals in the North Pacific Ocean.' By this convention seal fishing in the open sea is entirely prohibited in the North Pacific Ocean north of the thirtieth parallel of north latitude-an area including the Behring and Kamschatka Seas and the Seas of Okhotsk and Japan. It is likewise prohibited to kill, capture, or pursue sea otters beyond three miles from the shore of territory belonging to the signatory Powers, which have to keep special cruisers to enforce these prohibitions. Sealing 1 See Martens, N. R.G., 2nd Ser. xxi. p. 439. The award is discussed by Barclay in R.I., xxv. (1893), p. 417, and Engelhardt in R.I., xxvi. (1894), p. 386, and R.G., v. (1898), pp. 193 and 347. See also Tillier, Les Pêcheries de Phoques de la Mer de Behring (1906), and Balch, L'Évolution de l'Arbitrage international (1908), pp. 70-91. 'See the Behring Sea Award Act, 1894 (57 Vict. c. 2), and Seal Fisheries (North Pacific) Act, 1895 (58 & 59 Vict. c. 21). See Martens, N. R. G., 2nd Ser. xxii. p. 624. See Martens, N.R.G., 3rd Ser. v. p. 720, and Treaty Ser. (1912), No. 2. Great Britain and the United States had already, on February 7, 1911, concluded a treaty concerning the same matter; see Martens, N.R.G., 3rd Ser. v. p. 717, and Treaty Ser. (1911), No. 25. See also below, § 593 (2). Fisheries around Islands and Iceland. is not prohibited within the territorial waters of the signatory Powers, but arrangements are made to hand over a fixed proportion of the catch taken on certain islands by subjects of the State exercising sovereignty thereon to agents of other parties to the convention. The convention is to remain in force for fifteen years from December 15, 1911, and thereafter until terminated by twelve months' written notice. In Great Britain Parliament passed the Seal Fisheries (North Pacific) Act, 1912, to carry out its provisions.1 § 285. For the purpose of regulating the fisheries the Faröe outside territorial waters around the Faröe Islands and Iceland, Great Britain and Denmark signed on June 24, 1901, the Convention of London,2 whose stipulations are for the most part literally the same as those of the North Sea Fisheries Convention, concluded at the Hague in 1882.3 The additional article of this Convention of London stipulates that any other State whose subjects fish around the Faroe Islands and Iceland may accede to it. VII TELEGRAPH CABLES IN THE OPEN SEA Bonfils, No. 583-Despagnet, No. 401-Pradier-Fodéré, v. No. 2548Mérignhac, ii. p. 532—Nys, ii. pp. 210-211-Rivier, i. pp. 244 and 386 -Fiore, ii. No. 822, and Code, Nos. 1139-1142-Stoerk in Holtzendorfi, ii. pp. 507-508-Liszt, § 29-Ullmann, §§ 103 and 147-Lauterbach, Die Beschädigung unterseeischer Telegraphenkabel (1889)—Landois, Zur Lehre vom völkerrechtlichen Schutz der submarinen Telegraphenkabel (1894)— Jouhannaud, Les Câbles sous-marins (1904)--Renault in R.I., xii. (1880), p. 251, xv. (1883), p. 17. See also the literature quoted below, vol. ii., at the commencement of § 214. 1 2 & 3 Geo. v. c. 10. 2 See Martens, N.R.G., 2nd Ser. xxxiii. (1906), p. 268. Cables in § 286. It is a consequence of the freedom of the open Telegraph sea that no State can prevent another from laying the Open telegraph and telephone cables in any part of the open mitted. sea, whereas no State need allow this within its territorial maritime belt. As numerous submarine cables have been laid, the question as to their protection arose. Already in 1869 the United States proposed an international convention for this purpose, but the matter dropped in consequence of the outbreak of the FrancoGerman war. The Institute of International Law took up the matter in 18791 and recommended an international agreement. In 1882 France invited the Powers to an international conference at Paris for the purpose of regulating the protection of submarine cables. This conference met in October 1882, again in October 1883, and produced the International Convention for the Protection of Submarine Telegraph Cables, which was signed at Paris on March 14, 1884,2 by Great Britain, Argentina, Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Denmark, San Domingo, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Holland, Italy, Persia, Portugal, Roumania, Russia, Salvador, Serbia, Spain, SwedenNorway, Turkey, the United States, and Uruguay. Colombia and Persia did not ratify. Japan acceded later. § 287. Its principal provisions are as follows: Sea per Interna tional Sub (1) Intentional or culpably negligent breaking or Protecdamaging of a cable in the open sea is to be punished tion of by all the signatory Powers,3 except in the case of such marine damage having been caused in the effort of self-preserva- Cables. tion (Article 2). (2) Ships within sight of buoys indicating cables which are being laid, or which are damaged, must keep at least a quarter of a nautical mile distant (Article 6). 1 See Annuaire, iii. pp. 351-394. See Martens, N.R.G., 2nd Ser. xi. p. 281. 3 See the Submarine Telegraph Act, 1886 (48 & 49 Vict. c. 49). Telegraph (3) For dealing with infractions of the interdictions and injunctions of the treaty the courts of the flag State of the infringing vessel are exclusively competent (Article 8). (4) Men-of-war of all signatory Powers have a right to stop and verify the nationality of merchantmen of all nations which are suspected of having infringed the regulations of the treaty (Article 10). (5) All stipulations are made for the time of peace only, and in no wise restrict the action of belligerents during time of war.1 Unsatis Results of VIII WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY ON THE OPEN SEA Bonfils, No. 5311-Despagnet, 433 quater-Liszt, § 29-Ullmann, § 147— Meili, Die drahtlose Telegraphie, etc. (1908)-Schneeli, Drahtlose Telegraphie und Völkerrecht (1908)—Landsberg, Die drahtlose Telegraphie (1909)—Kausen, Die drahtlose Telegraphie im Völkerrecht (1910)— Thurn, Die Funkentelegraphie im Recht (1913)—Devaux, La Télégraphie sans fil (1914)-Loewengard, Die internationale Radiotelegraphie im internationalen Recht (1915)-Rolland in R.G., xiii. (1906), pp. 58-92 -Fauchille in Annuaire, xxi. (1906), pp. 76-87-Meurer and Boidin in R.G., xvi. (1909), pp. 76 and 261. § 287a. To secure wireless communication 2 between factory the ships of all nations at sea, and between them the Wire- and the land, a largely attended conference met at Berlin in 1906, and produced two conventions, namely, an International Radiotelegraphic Convention and an Additional Convention. The former, less Tele graphy Confer ence of Berlin. 1 See below, vol. ii. § 214, and Article 54 of the Hague rules concerning land warfare, which enacts: 'Submarine cables connecting a territory occupied with a neutral territory shall not be seized or destroyed except in the case of absolute necessity. They also must be restored and indemnities for them regulated at the peace.' 2 See above, § 174, and below, §§ 464 and 582 (4). * See Martens, N.R.G., 3rd Ser. iii. p. 147; Treaty Ser. (1909), No. 8. See Martens, N.R.G., 3rd Ser. iii. p. 158. |