Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

ship has been seized on the high seas, the sovereign whose flag has been violated waives his privilege, considering the offending ship to have acted with mala fides towards the other state with which he is in amity, and to have consequently forfeited any just claim to his protection.' He considers the revenue regulations of many states, authorizing visit and seizure beyond their waters, to be enforceable at the peril of such states, and to rest on the express or tacit permission of the states whose vessels may be seized.

"It may be said that the principle is settled that municipal seizures cannot be made, for any purpose, beyond territorial waters. It is also settled that the limit of these waters is, in the absence of treaty, the marine league or the cannon-shot."

Dana, note 108, Wheaton's Int. Law, § 179, pp. 259–260.

By Article V. of the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, February 2, 1848, it was provided that the boundary between the United States and Mexico should" commence in the Gulf of Mexico, three leagues from land, opposite the mouth of the Rio Grande."

This phrase is repeated in Article I. of the treaty of December 30, 1853, relating to the cession to the United States of the Mesilla Valley.

66

I have had the honor to receive your note of the 30th April last objecting, on behalf of the British Government, to that clause in the fifth article of the late treaty between Mexico and the United States by which it is declared that the boundary line between the two Republics shall commence in the Gulf of Mexico three leagues from land,' instead of one league from land, which you observe is acknowledged by international law and practice as the extent of territorial jurisdiction over the sea that washes the coasts of states.'

"In answer I have to state, that the stipulation in the treaty can only affect the rights of Mexico and the United States. If for their mutual convenience it has been deemed proper to enter into such an arrangement, third parties can have no just cause of complaint. The Government of the United States never intended by this stipulation to question the rights which Great Britain or any other power may possess under the law of nations.”

Mr. Buchanan, Sec. of State, to Mr. Crampton, British min., Aug. 19, 1848,
MS. Notes to Gr. Britain, VII. 185.

"I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of yesterday
and to return the despatch of Commodore H. H. Bell, which accom-
panied it. The stipulation in the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo by
which the boundary between the United States was begun in the
Gulf three leagues from land is still in force. It was intended, how-
ever, to regulate within those limits the rights and duties of the
parties to the instrument only. It could not affect the rights of any
other power under the law of nations. It seems that the peculiarity

of the clause adverted to attracted the notice of the British Government. A copy of the reply of this Department upon the subject is herewith enclosed." (Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Welles, Sec. of Navy, Sept. 3, 1863, 61 MS. Dom. Let. 499.)

"We have always understood and asserted that, pursuant to public law, no nation can rightfully claim jurisdiction at sea beyond a marine league from its coast.

"This opinion on our part has sometimes been said to be inconsistent with the facts that, by the laws of the United States, revenue cutters are authorized to board vessels anywhere within four leagues of their coasts, and that by the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, so called, between the United States and Mexico, of the 2d of February, 1848, the boundary line between the dominions of the parties begins in the Gulf of Mexico, three leagues from land.

“It is believed, however, that in carrying into effect the authority conferred by the act of Congress referred to, no vessel is boarded, if boarded at all, except such a one as, upon being hailed, may have answered that she was bound to a port of the United States. At all events, although the act of Congress was passed in the infancy of this Government, there is no known instance of any complaint on the

foreign Government of the trespass by a commander of a revenue cutter upon the rights of its flag under the law of nations. "In respect to the provision in the treaty with Mexico, it may be remarked that it was probably suggested by the passage in the act of Congress referred to, and designed for the same purpose, that of preventing smuggling. By turning to the files of your legation, you will find that Mr. Bankhead, in a note to Mr. Buchanan of the 30th of April, 1848, objected on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, to the provision in question. Mr. Buchanan, however, replied in a note of the 19th of August, in that year, that the stipulation could only affect the rights of Mexico and the United States, and was never intended to trench upon the rights of Great Britain, or of any other power under the law of nations."

Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Sir Edward Thornton, Brit. min., Jan. 22, 1875,
For. Rel. 1875, I. 649–650.

An attack by Mexican officials on merchant vessels of the United States, when distant more than three miles from the Mexican coast, on the ground of breach of revenue laws, is an international offense, which is not cured by a decree in favor of the assailants, collusively or corruptly maintained in a Mexican court.

Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Mr. Foster, Apr. 19, 1879, MS. Inst. Mex.
XIX. 570.

In 1889-1890, a correspondence took place between the United States and
Mexico in relation to the execution of Mexican criminal process on
the American schooner Robert Ruff, when, as the master of the

schooner alleged, she was nine miles from land. The Mexican Government, on the other hand, stated that the schooner was only two and a-half miles from the coast; that she had been farther out to sea, but had tacked and come inshore in order to meet a boat carrying a fugitive whom she was assisting to escape. (For. Rel. 1890, 620623, 629–631. See, also, For. Rel. 1889, 611-614.)

"I have received your No. 108 of the 29th of January ultimo, with its accompanying copy and translation of the note addressed to you on the 24th of that month by the minister of state, giving the results of the investigation ordered by the Spanish Government of the circumstances under which the American vessels Ethel A. Merritt, Eunice P. Newcomb, George Washington, and Hattie Haskell were fired upon and visited by Spanish gunboats, near the island of Cuba, in May, June, and July of last year. . . .

"The wide contradiction between the several statements does not suffice to bring the position of three of the vessels at the time within the customary nautical league. This Government must adhere to the three-mile rule as the jurisdictional limit, and the cases of visitation without that line seem not to be excused or excusable under that rule. "This Government frankly and fully accepts the disclaimer of the Government of His Majesty that any intention of discourtesy existed in these proceedings. It insists, however, on the importance of a clear understanding of the jurisdictional limit. It insists likewise, on the distinction between the verification (according to the usual procedure of revenue cruisers), within a reasonable range of approach, of vessels seeking Spanish ports in the due pursuit of trade therewith, and the arrest by armed force, without the jurisdictional three-mile limit, of vessels not bound to Spanish ports. The considerations on these heads, advanced in my instruction to you of August 11, seem not to have attracted from His Majesty's Government the attention due to their precise bearing on at least three of the cases in hand under the express admissions of Mr. Elduayèn's note."

66

Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Mr. Fairchild, min. to Spain, No. 111, March 3, 1881, For. Rel. 1881, 1051.

(7) PROPOS: D EXTENSION OF TERRITORIAL ZONE.

$152.

Spain claims a maritime jurisdiction of six miles around the island of Cuba. In pressing this claim upon the consideration of the United States, Spain has used the argument that the modern improvement in gunnery renders the ancient limit of a marine league inadequate to the security of neutral states.

"When it was understood at Paris that an engagement was likely to come off before Cherbourg between the United States ship of war

Kearsarge and the pirate Alabama, the French Government remonstrated with both parties against firing within the actual reach of the shore by cannon balls fired from their vessels, on the ground that the effect of a collision near the coast would be painful to France.

"For these reasons I think that the subject may now be profitably discussed, but there are some preliminary considerations which it is deemed important to submit to Her Majesty's Government:

"First. That the United States, being a belligerent now, when the other maritime states are at peace, are entitled to all the advantages of the existing construction of maritime law, and cannot, without serious inconvenience, forego them.

"Secondly. That the United States, adhering in war, no less than when they were in the enjoyment of peace, to their traditional liberality towards neutral rights, are not unwilling to come to an understanding upon the novel question which has thus been raised in consequence of the improvement in gunnery.

"But, thirdly, it is manifestly proper and important that any such new construction of the maritime law as Great Britain suggests should be reduced to the form of a precise proposition, and then that it should receive, in some manner, by treaty or otherwise, reciprocal and obligatory acknowledgments from the principal maritime powers.

"Upon a careful examination of the note you have addressed to me, the suggestions of Her Majesty's Government seem to be expressed in too general terms to be made the basis of discussion. Suppose, by way of illustration, that the utmost range of cannon now is five miles, are Her Majesty's Government understood to propose that the marine boundary of neutral jurisdiction, which is now three miles from the coast, shall be extended two miles beyond the present limit? Again, if cannon shot are to be fired so as to fall not only not upon neutral land, but also not upon neutral waters, then, supposing the range of cannot shot to be five miles, are Her Majesty's Government to be understood as proposing that cannon shot shall not be fired within a distance of eight miles from the neutral territory?

66

Finally, shall measured distances be excluded altogether from the statement, and the proposition to be agreed upon be left to extend with the increased range of gunnery, or shall there be a pronounced limit of jurisdiction, whether five miles, eight miles, or any other measured limit?"

Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Burnley, British chargé, Sept. 16, 1864,
Dip. Cor. 1864, II. 708-709.

Field, in his Int. Code, 2nd ed. § 28, observes that, "inasmuch as cannon
shot can now be sent more than two leagues, it seems desirable to
extend the territorial limits accordingly."

Perels, Das Internationale öffentliche Seerecht der Gegenwart, § 13, says: "The extension of the line depends on the range of cannon shot at

the particular period. It is, however, at such period the same for
all coasts."

See, also, Rivier, Principes du Droit des Gens, I. 145; Bluntschli, § 302;
Heffter, § 75; Hall, Int. Law (4th ed.), 160.

At its meeting in Paris in 1894 the Institut de Droit International discussed the subject of territorial waters, and particularly the question whether the jurisdictional limits should be extended. It was generally agreed that such an extension should be made, but there were differences of opinion as to how far it should be carried and as to the principles on which it should be based. It was finally resolved that territorial waters should extend six marine miles (60 to the degree of latitude) from low-water mark for all purposes, and that in time of war the bordering neutral state might fix, either by a declaration of neutrality or by special notification, a neutral zone beyond the six miles as far as the range of cannon shot for all purposes of neutrality. It was also resolved that in bays the territorial zone should follow the sinuosities of the coast, except that it should be measured from a straight line across the bay at the place nearest the entrance where the distance from shore to shore first became contracted to twelve marine miles, unless usage had established a more extensive jurisdiction.

Institut de Droit International, Annuaire (1894–95), XIII. 329; Hall,
Int. law (4th ed.), 161.

"In conformity with your recent oral request, I have now the honor to make further response to your unofficial note of November 5th last, which was acknowledged on the 9th of the same month, by informing you that careful consideration would be given to the important inquiry therein made as to the views of the United States Government touching the expediency of settling by treaty among the interested powers the question of the extent of territorial jurisdiction over maritime waters.

"This Government would not be indisposed, should a sufficient number of maritime powers concur in the proposition, to take part in an endeavor to reach an accord having the force and effect of international law as well as of conventional regulation, by which the territorial jurisdiction of a State, bounded by the high seas, should henceforth extend six nautical miles from low-water mark, and at the same time providing that this six-mile limit shall also be that of the neutral maritime zone.

"I am unable, however, to express the views of this Government upon the subject more precisely at the present time, in view of the important consideration to be given to the question of the effect of such a modification of existing international and conventional law upon the jurisdictional boundaries of adjacent States and the applica

« PředchozíPokračovat »