which secured radiotelegraphic, or wireless, communication between coast stations and ships at sea, was signed by all the States represented at the conference. But it did not secure similar communication between one ship at sea and another; and the Additional Convention, which did provide for the interchange of communications by all ships at sea possessing wireless installations without regard to the particular system employed, did not obtain the signature of Great Britain and five other Powers. This was a matter of great regret on account of the importance of wireless communication in cases of distress. For instance, it was possible for the following case,1 to which the delegate of the United States drew the attention of the Berlin Conference, to occur again when a ship belonging to a State which had not signed the Additional Convention was involved. The American steamer Lebanon had received orders to search the Atlantic for a wrecked vessel which offered great danger to navigation. The Lebanon came within communicating reach of the liner Vaderland, and inquired by wireless telegraphy whether the Vaderland had seen the wreck. The Vaderland refused to reply to this question, on the ground that she was not permitted to enter into communication with a ship provided with a wireless apparatus other than the Marconi. the Wire Confer London. § 2876. Better results were, however, obtained by Results of the International Conference on Wireless Telegraphy less Telewhich met in London in 1912, and was attended by graphy representatives of thirty Powers: Great Britain, Ger- ence of many, the United States of America, Argentina, AustriaHungary, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chili, Denmark, Egypt, Spain, France, Tunis, Greece, Italy, Japan, Morocco, Monaco, Norway, Holland, Persia, Portugal, Roumania, Russia, San Marino, Siam, Sweden, Turkey, VOL. I. 1 See Hazeltine, The Law of the Air (1911), p. 101. 2 F and Uruguay. All these Powers signed, on July 5, 1912, the International Radiotelegraphic Convention 1 which took the place of the two Berlin conventions of 1906. The most important of its stipulations are the following: After distinguishing between a coast station, i.e. any radiotelegraphic station established on dry land, or on board any ship permanently anchored, and utilised for the exchange of correspondence of ships at sea, and a ship station, i.e. any radiotelegraphic station established on board a ship other than a permanently anchored ship, the convention provides that such coast stations and ship stations as are open for the service of public correspondence between the land and ships at sea, and likewise ship stations among themselves, must exchange radiotelegrams reciprocally without distinction based upon the radiotelegraphic system adopted. Each contracting party undertakes to ensure a rapid exchange of messages between the coast stations and its telegraph system. All radiotelegraph stations are bound to accept and answer calls of distress from whatever quarter, to give them absolute priority, and to take such action with regard to them as may be The service regulations accompanying the convention are of equal validity; and both they, and the convention, are subject to modification at periodical conferences, each conference fixing the time and place of the succeeding conference.2 The International Telegraph Office at Berne 3 is to collect, co-ordinate, and publish information of every kind relating to radiotelegraphy, to investigate suggested amendments to the convention or the service regulations, and, in general, to undertake necessary. 1 Treaty Ser. (1913), No. 10. 2 1917 was fixed as the time, and Washington as the place, for the next conference; but owing to the World War it did not take place. 3 See below, §§ 464 and 582. administrative work in the interests of international radiotelegraphy.1 On the initiative of the British Government, the conference adopted unanimously a resolution in favour of the principle of compulsory equipment of certain classes of ships with wireless telegraph installations, with a view to preventing disasters at sea and rendering assistance in cases of distress. IX THE SUBSOIL BENEATH THE SEA BED Rules Subsoil the Sea § 287c. The subsoil beneath the bed of the open sea Five requires special consideration, on account of coal or other mines, tunnels, and the like. For the answer to ing the the question whether mines and tunnels can be driven beneath into that subsoil at all, and, if so, whether they can be Bed. under the territorial supremacy of a particular State, depends entirely upon the character in law of such subsoil. If the subsoil beneath the bed of the open sea stood in the same relation to the open sea as the subsoil beneath the territory of a State stands to that territory, all rules concerning the open sea would necessarily have to be applied to the subsoil beneath its bed, and no part of this subsoil could ever come under the territorial supremacy of any State. It is, however, submitted 3 that it would not be rational to consider the subsoil beneath the bed of the open sea as an inseparable appurtenance of the open sea, just as the sub 1 By the Treaty of Peace with Germany (Article 284), the High Contracting Parties are to apply this convention, in so far as concerns them, on condition that Germany fulfils the provisional regulations indicated to her by the Allied and Associated Powers. If this convention is replaced by a new convention within five years of the coming into See above, §§ 173, 175. 3 See Oppenheim in Z. V., ii. (1908), p. 11. soil beneath the territorial land and water is an appurtenance of such territory. The rationale of the open sea being free and for ever excluded from occupation on the part of any State is that it is an international highway, which connects distant lands, and thereby secures freedom of communication, and especially of commerce, between States separated by the sea.1 There is no reason whatever for extending this freedom of the open sea to the subsoil beneath its bed. On the contrary, there are practical reasons-taking into consideration the building of mines, tunnels, and the like-which compel recognition of the fact that this subsoil can be acquired through occupation. The following five rules recommend themselves : (1) The subsoil beneath the bed of the open sea is no man's land, and it can be acquired on the part of a littoral State through occupation, starting from the subsoil beneath the bed of the territorial maritime belt. (2) This occupation takes place ipso facto by a tunnel or a mine being driven from the shore through the subsoil of the maritime belt into the subsoil of the open sea. (3) This occupation of the subsoil of the open sea can be extended up to the boundary line of the subsoil of the territorial maritime belt of another State, for no State has an exclusive claim to occupy such part of the subsoil of the open sea as is adjacent to the subsoil of its territorial maritime belt. (4) An occupation of the subsoil beneath the bed of the open sea for a purpose which would endanger the freedom of the open sea is inadmissible. (5) It is likewise inadmissible to make such arrangements in a part of the subsoil beneath the open sea which has previously been occupied for a legitimate 1 See above, § 259. purpose as would indirectly endanger the freedom of the open sea. If these five rules are correct, there is nothing to prevent coal and other mines which are being exploited on the shore of a littoral State from being extended into the subsoil beneath the open sea up to the boundary line of the subsoil beneath the territorial maritime belt of another State. Further, a tunnel which might be built between two parts of the same State separated by the open sea-for instance, between Ireland and Scotland-would fall entirely under the territorial supremacy of the State concerned. On the other hand, for a tunnel between two different States separated by the open sea-as, for instance, the proposed Gibraltar tunnel between the Spanish coast and either Tangier or Ceuta special arrangements would have to be made by treaty concerning the territorial supremacy over that part of the tunnel which runs under the bed of the open sea. proposed § 287d. Since there is as yet no submarine tunnel in The existence, it is of interest to give some details concern-Channel ing the project of a Channel Tunnel1 between Dover Tunnel. and Calais, and the preliminary arrangements between France and England concerning it. Already some years before the Franco-German War the possibility of such a tunnel was discussed, but it was not until 1874 that the first preliminary steps were taken. The subsoil of the Channel was geologically explored, plans were worked out, and a shaft of more than a mile long was tentatively bored from the English shore. In 1876 an international commission, appointed by the English and French Governments, and comprising three French and three English members, made a report on the con 1 See Oppenheim in Z. V., ii. (1908), pp. 1-16; Robin in R. G., xv. (1908), pp. 50-77; Liszt, § 26; and Colombos, Le Tunnel sous la Manche et le Droit |