§ 243. From the conception of prescription, as above defined, it becomes apparent that no general rule can be laid down as regards the length of time and other circumstances which are necessary to create a title by prescription. Everything depends upon the merits of the individual case. As long as other Powers keep up protests and claims, the actual exercise of sovereignty is not undisturbed, nor is there the required general conviction that the present condition of things is in conformity with international order. But after such protests and claims, if any, cease to be repeated, the actual possession ceases to be disturbed, and thus under certain circumstances matters may gradually ripen into that condition which is in conformity with international order. The question, at what time and under what circumstances such a condition of things arises, is not one of law but of fact. The question, for instance, whether, although the three partitions of Poland were wrongful and unlawful acts, Prussia, Austria, and Russia have now a good title by prescription to hold territories which were formerly Polish must, I doubt not, be answered in the affirmative. For all the members of the Family of Nations have now silently acquiesced in the present condition of things, although as late as 1846 Great Britain and France protested against the annexation of the Republic of Cracow on the part of Austria. In spite of the fact that the Polish nation has not yet given up its hope of seeing a Polish State re-established on the former Polish territory, the general conviction among the members of the Family of Nations is that the present condition of things is in conformity with international order. When, to give another example, a State which originally held an island mala fide under the title by occupation, knowing well that this land had already been occupied by another State, has succeeded in keeping up its possession undisturbed for so long a time that the former possessor has ceased to protest and has silently dropped the claim, the conviction will be prevalent among the members of the Family of Nations that the present condition of things is in conformity with international order. These examples show why a certain number of years[472] cannot, once for all, be fixed to create the title by prescription. There are indeed immeasurable and imponderable circumstances and influences besides the mere run of time[473] at work to create the conviction on the part of the members of the Family of Nations that in the interest of stability of order the present possessor should be considered the rightful owner of a territory. And these circumstances and influences, which are of a political and historical character, differ so much in the different cases that the length of time necessary for prescription must likewise differ.

XVII LOSS OF STATE TERRITORY

Hall, § 34—Phillimore, I. §§ 284-295—Moore, I. §§ 89 and 90—Holtzendorff in Holtzendorff, II. pp. 274-279—Gareis, § 70—Liszt, § 10—Ullmann, § 101—Pradier-Fodéré, II. Nos. 850-852—Rivier, I. § 13—Fiore, II. No. 865—Martens, I. § 92.

§ 244. To the five modes of acquiring sovereignty over territory correspond five modes of losing it—namely, cession, dereliction, operation of nature, subjugation, prescription. But there is a sixth mode of losing territory—namely, revolt. No special details are necessary with regard to loss of territory through subjugation, prescription, and cession, except that it is of some importance to repeat here that the historical cases of pledging, leasing, and giving territory to another State to administer are in fact, although not in strict law, nothing else than cessions[474] of territory. But operation of nature, revolt, and dereliction must be specially discussed.

§ 245. Operation of nature as a mode of losing corresponds to accretion as a mode of acquiring territory. Just as through accretion a State may become enlarged, so it may become diminished through the disappearance of land and other operations of nature. And the loss of territory through operation of nature takes place ipso facto by such operation. Thus, if an island near the shore disappears through volcanic action, the extent of the maritime territorial belt of the respective littoral State is hereafter to be measured from the low-water mark of the shore of the continent, instead of from the shore of the former island. Thus, further, if through a piece of land being detached by the current of a river from one bank and carried over to the other bank, the river alters its course and covers now part of the land on the bank from which such piece became detached, the territory of one of the riparian States may decrease through the boundary line being ipso facto transferred to the present middle or mid-channel of the river.

§ 246. Revolt followed by secession is a mode of losing territory to which no mode of acquisition corresponds.[475] Revolt followed by secession has, as history teaches, frequently been a cause of loss of territory. Thus the Netherlands fell away from Spain in 1579, Belgium from the Netherlands in 1830, the United States of America from Great Britain in 1776, Brazil from Portugal in 1822, the former Spanish South American States from Spain in 1810, Greece from Turkey in 1830, Cuba from Spain in 1898, Panama from Colombia in 1903. The question at what time a loss of territory through revolt is consummated cannot be answered once for all, since no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down regarding the time when it can be said that a State broken off from another has established itself safely and permanently. The matter has, as will be remembered, been treated above (§ 74), in connection with recognition. It may well happen that, although such a seceded State is already recognised by a third Power, the mother country does not consider the territory to be lost and succeeds in reconquering it.

§ 247. Dereliction as a mode of losing corresponds to occupation as a mode of acquiring territory. Dereliction frees a territory from the sovereignty of the present owner State. Dereliction is effected through the owner State's complete abandonment of the territory with the intention of withdrawing from it for ever, thus relinquishing sovereignty over it. Just as occupation[476] requires, first, the actual taking into possession (corpus) of territory and, secondly, the intention (animus) to acquire sovereignty over it, so dereliction requires, first, actual abandonment of a territory, and, secondly, the intention to give up sovereignty over it. Actual abandonment alone does not involve dereliction as long as it must be presumed that the owner has the will and ability to retake possession of the territory. Thus, for instance, if the rising of natives forces a State to withdraw from a territory, such territory is not derelict as long as the former possessor is able and makes efforts to retake possession. It is only when a territory is really derelict that any State may acquire it through occupation.[477] History knows of several such cases. But very often, when such occupation of derelict territory occurs, the former owner protests and tries to prevent the new occupier from acquiring it. The cases of the island of Santa Lucia and of the Delagoa Bay may be quoted as illustrations:—

(a) In 1639 Santa Lucia, one of the Antilles Islands, was occupied by England, but in the following year the English settlers were massacred by the natives. No attempt was made by England to retake the island, and France, considering it no man's land, took possession of it in 1650. In 1664 an English force under Lord Willoughby attacked the French, drove them into the mountains, and held the island until 1667, when the English withdrew and the French returned from the mountains. No further step was made by England to retake the island, but she nevertheless asserted for many years to come that she had not abandoned it sine spe redeundi, and that, therefore, France in 1650 had no right to consider it no man's land. Finally, however, England resigned her claims by the Peace Treaty of Paris of 1763.[478]

(b) In 1823 England occupied, in consequence of a so-called cession from native chiefs, a piece of territory at Delagoa Bay, which Portugal claimed as part of the territory owned by her at the bay, maintaining that the chiefs concerned were rebels. The dispute was not settled until 1875, when the case was submitted to the arbitration of the President of France. The award was given in favour of Portugal, since the interruption of the Portuguese occupation in 1823 was not to be considered as abandonment of a territory over which Portugal had exercised sovereignty for nearly three hundred years.[479]

CHAPTER II THE OPEN SEA

I RISE OF THE FREEDOM OF THE OPEN SEA

Grotius, II. c. 2, § 3—Pufendorf, IV. c. 5, § 5—Vattel, I. §§ 279-286—Hall, § 40—Westlake, I. pp. 161-162—Phillimore, I. §§ 172-179—Taylor, §§ 242-246—Walker, Science, pp. 163-171—Wheaton, §§ 186-187—Hartmann, § 64—Heffter, § 73—Stoerk in Holtzendorff, II. pp. 483-490—Bonfils, Nos. 573-576—Despagnet, No. 401—Pradier-Fodéré, II. Nos. 871-874—Nys, II. pp. 132-139—Mérignhac, II. pp. 498-505—Calvo, I. §§ 347-352—Fiore, II. Nos. 718-726—Martens, I. § 97—Perels, § 4—Azuni, "Diritto maritimo" (1796), 1, c. I. Article III.—Cauchy, "Le droit maritime international considéré dans ses origines," 2 vols. (1862)—Nys, "Les origines du droit international" (1894), pp. 377-388—Castel, "Du principe de la liberté des mers" (1900), pp. 1-15—Fulton, "The Sovereignty of the Seas" (1911), pp. 1-56.

§ 248. In antiquity and the first half of the Middle Ages navigation on the Open Sea was free to everybody. According to Ulpianus,[480] the sea is open to everybody by nature, and, according to Celsus,[481] the sea, like the air, is common to all mankind. Since no Law of Nations in the modern sense of the term existed during antiquity and the greater part of the Middle Ages, no importance is to be attached to the pronouncement of Antoninus Pius, Roman Emperor from 138 to 161:—"Being[482] the Emperor of the world, I am consequently the law of the sea." Nor is it of importance that the Emperors of the old German Empire, who were considered to be the successors of the Roman Emperors, styled themselves among other titles "King of the Ocean." Real claims to sovereignty over parts of the Open Sea begin, however, to be made in the second half of the Middle Ages. And there is no doubt whatever that at the time when the modern Law of Nations gradually rose it was the conviction of the States that they could extend their sovereignty over certain parts of the Open Sea. Thus, the Republic of Venice was recognised as the Sovereign over the Adriatic Sea, and the Republic of Genoa as the Sovereign of the Ligurian Sea. Portugal claimed sovereignty over the whole of the Indian Ocean and of the Atlantic south of Morocco, Spain over the Pacific and the Gulf of Mexico, both Portugal and Spain basing their claims on two Papal Bulls promulgated by Alexander VI. in 1493, which divided the new world between these Powers. Sweden and Denmark claimed sovereignty over the Baltic, Great Britain over the Narrow Seas, the North Sea, and the Atlantic from the North Cape to Cape Finisterre.

These claims have been more or less successfully asserted for several hundreds of years. They were favoured by a number of different circumstances, such as the maintenance of an effective protection against piracy for instance. And numerous examples can be adduced which show that such claims have more or less been recognised. Thus, Frederick III., Emperor of Germany, had in 1478 to ask the permission of Venice for a transportation of corn from Apulia through the Adriatic Sea.[483] Thus, Great Britain in the seventeenth century compelled foreigners to take out an English licence for fishing in the North Sea; and when in 1636 the Dutch attempted to fish without such licence, they were attacked and compelled to pay £30,000 as the price for the indulgence.[484] Again, when Philip II. of Spain was in 1554 on his way to England to marry Queen Mary, the British Admiral, who met him in the "British Seas," fired on his ship for flying the Spanish flag. And the King of Denmark, when returning from a visit to James I. in 1606, was forced by a British captain, who met him off the mouth of the Thames, to strike the Danish flag.

§ 249. Maritime sovereignty found expression in maritime ceremonials at least. Such State as claimed sovereignty over a part of the Open Sea required foreign vessels navigating on that part to honour its flag[485] as a symbol of recognition of its sovereignty. So late as 1805 the British Admiralty Regulations contained an order[486] to the effect that "when any of His Majesty's ships shall meet with the ships of any foreign Power within His Majesty's Seas (which extend to Cape Finisterre), it is expected that the said foreign ships do strike their topsail and take in their flag, in acknowledgment of His Majesty's sovereignty in those seas; and if any do resist, all flag officers and commanders are to use their utmost endeavours to compel them thereto, and not suffer any dishonour to be done to His Majesty."

But apart from maritime ceremonials maritime sovereignty found expression in the levying of tolls from foreign ships, in the interdiction of fisheries to foreigners, and in the control or even the prohibition of foreign navigation. Thus, Portugal and Spain attempted, after the discovery of America, to keep foreign vessels altogether out of the seas over which they claimed sovereignty. The magnitude of this claim created an opposition to the very existence of such rights. English, French, and Dutch explorers and traders navigated on the Indian Ocean and the Pacific in spite of the Spanish and Portuguese interdictions. And when, in 1580, the Spanish ambassador Mendoza lodged a complaint with Queen Elizabeth against Drake for having made his famous voyage to the Pacific, Elizabeth answered that vessels of all nations could navigate on the Pacific, since the use of the sea and the air is common to all, and that no title to the ocean can belong to any nation, since neither nature nor regard for the public use permits any possession of the ocean.[487]

§ 250. Queen Elizabeth's attitude was the germ out of which grew gradually the present freedom of the Open Sea. Twenty-nine years after her answer to Mendoza, in 1609, appeared Grotius's short treatise[488] "Mare liberum." The intention of Grotius was to show that the Dutch had a right of navigation and commerce with the Indies in spite of the Portuguese interdictions. He contends that the sea cannot be State property, because it cannot really be taken into possession through occupation,[489] and that consequently the sea is by nature free from the sovereignty of any State.[490] The attack of Grotius was met by several authors of different nations. Gentilis defends Spanish and English claims in his "Advocatio Hispanica," which appeared in 1613. Likewise, in 1613 William Welwood defends the English claims in his book, "De dominio maris." John Selden wrote his "Mare Clausum sive de dominio maris" in 1618, but it was not printed until 1635. Sir John Burroughs published in 1653 his book, "The Sovereignty of the British Seas proved by Records, History, and the Municipal Laws of this Kingdom." And in defence of the claims of the Republic of Venice Paolo Sarpi published in 1676 his book "Del dominio del mare Adriatico." The most important of these books defending maritime sovereignty is that of Selden. King Charles I., by whose command Selden's "Mare Clausum" was printed in 1635, was so much impressed by it that he instructed in 1629 his ambassador in the Netherlands to complain of the audacity of Grotius and to request that the author of the "Mare liberum" should be punished.[491]

The general opposition to Grotius's bold attack on maritime sovereignty prevented his immediate victory. Too firmly established were the then recognised claims to sovereignty over certain parts of the Open Sea for the novel principle of the freedom of the sea to supplant them. Progress was made regarding one point only—namely, freedom of navigation of the sea. England had never pushed her claims so far as to attempt the prohibition of free navigation on the so-called British Seas. And although Venice succeeded in keeping up her control of navigation on the Adriatic till the middle of the seventeenth century, it may be said that in the second half of that century navigation on all parts of the Open Sea was practically free for vessels of all nations. But with regard to other points, claims to maritime sovereignty continued to be kept up. Thus the Netherlands had by article 4 of the Treaty of Westminster, 1674, to acknowledge that their vessels had to salute the British flag within the "British Seas" as a recognition of British maritime sovereignty.[492]

§ 251. In spite of opposition, the work of Grotius was not to be undone. All prominent writers of the eighteenth century take up again the case of the freedom of the Open Sea, making a distinction between the maritime belt which is to be considered under the sway of the littoral States, and, on the other hand, the High Seas, which are under no State's sovereignty. The leading author is Bynkershoek, whose standard work, "De dominio maris," appeared in 1702. Vattel, G. F. de Martens, Azuni, and others follow the lead. And although Great Britain upheld her claim to the salute due to her flag within the "British Seas" throughout the eighteenth and at the beginning of the nineteenth century, the principle of the freedom of the Open Sea became more and more vigorous with the growth of the navies of other States; and at the end of the first quarter of the nineteenth century this principle became universally recognised in theory and practice. Great Britain silently dropped her claim to the salute due to her flag, and with it her claim to maritime sovereignty, and became now a champion of the freedom of the Open Sea. When, in 1821, Russia, who was then still the owner of Alaska in North America, attempted to prohibit all foreign ships from approaching the shore of Alaska within one hundred Italian miles, Great Britain and the United States protested in the interest of the freedom of the Open Sea, and Russia dropped her claims in conventions concluded with the protesting Powers in 1824 and 1825. And when, after Russia had sold Alaska in 1867 to the United States, the latter made regulations regarding the killing of seals within Behring Sea, claiming thereby jurisdiction and control over a part of the Open Sea, a conflict arose in 1886 with Great Britain, which was settled by arbitration[493] in 1893 in favour of the freedom of the Open Sea.

II CONCEPTION OF THE OPEN SEA

Field, article 53—Westlake, I. p. 160—Moore, II. § 308—Rivier, I. pp. 234-235—Pradier-Fodéré, II. No. 868—Ullmann, § 101—Stoerk in Holtzendorff, II. p. 483.

§ 252. Open Sea or High Seas[494] is the coherent body of salt water all over the greater part of the globe, with the exception of the maritime belt and the territorial straits, gulfs, and bays, which are parts of the sea, but not parts of the Open Sea. Wherever there is a salt-water sea on the globe, it is part of the Open Sea, provided it is not isolated from, but coherent with, the general body of salt water extending over the globe, and provided that the salt water approach to it is navigable and open to vessels of all nations. The enclosure of a sea by the land of one and the same State does not matter, provided such a navigable connection of salt water as is open to vessels of all nations exists between such sea and the general body of salt water, even if that navigable connection itself be part of the territory of one or more littoral States. Whereas, therefore, the Dead Sea is Turkish and the Aral Sea is Russian territory, the Sea of Marmora is part of the Open Sea, although it is surrounded by Turkish land and although the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles are Turkish territorial straits, because these are now open to merchantmen of all nations. For the same reason the Black Sea[495] is now part of the Open Sea. On the other hand, the Sea of Azoff is not part of the Open Sea, but Russian territory, although there exists a navigable connection between it and the Black Sea. The reason is that this connection, the Strait of Kertch, is not according to the Law of Nations open to vessels of all nations, since the Sea of Azoff is less a sea than a mere gulf of the Black Sea.[496]

§ 253. It is not necessary and not possible to particularise every portion of the Open Sea. It is sufficient to state instances which clearly indicate the extent of the Open Sea. To the Open Sea belong, of course, all the so-called oceans—namely, the Atlantic, Pacific, Indian, Arctic, and Antarctic. But the branches of the oceans, which go under special names, and, further, the branches of these branches, which again go under special names, belong likewise to the Open Sea. Examples of these branches are: the North Sea, the English Channel, and the Irish Sea; the Baltic Sea, the Gulf of Bothnia, the Gulf of Finland, the Kara Sea,[497] and the White Sea; the Mediterranean and the Ligurian, Tyrrhenian, Adriatic, Ionian, Marmora, and Black Seas; the Gulf of Guinea; the Mozambique Channel; the Arabian Sea and the Red Sea; the Bay of Bengal, the China Sea, the Gulf of Siam, and the Gulf of Tonking; the Eastern Sea, the Yellow Sea, the Sea of Japan, and the Sea of Okhotsk; the Behring Sea; the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea; Baffin's Bay.

It will be remembered that it is doubtful as regards many gulfs and bays whether they belong to the Open Sea or are territorial.[498]

III THE FREEDOM OF THE OPEN SEA

Hall, § 75—Westlake, I. pp. 160-166—Lawrence, § 100—Twiss, I. §§ 172-173—Moore, II. §§ 309-310—Taylor, § 242—Wheaton, § 187—Bluntschli, §§ 304-308—Heffter, § 94—Stoerk in Holtzendorff, II. pp. 483-498—Ullmann, § 101—Bonfils, Nos. 572-577—Pradier-Fodéré, II. Nos. 874-881—Rivier, I. § 17—Nys, II. pp. 140-166—Calvo, I. § 346—Fiore, II. Nos. 724, 727, and Code, Nos. 928-930—Martens, I. § 97—Perels, § 4—Testa, pp. 63-66—Ortolan, "Diplomatie de la mer" (1856), I. pp. 119-149—De Burgh, "Elements of Maritime International Law" (1868), pp. 1-24—Castel, "Du principe de la liberté des mers" (1900), pp. 37-80.

§ 254. The term "Freedom of the Open Sea" indicates the rule of the Law of Nations that the Open Sea is not and never can be under the sovereignty of any State whatever. Since, therefore, the Open Sea is not the territory of any State, no State has as a rule a right to exercise its legislation, administration, jurisdiction,[499] or police[500] over parts of the Open Sea. Since, further, the Open Sea can never be under the sovereignty of any State, no State has a right to acquire parts of the Open Sea through occupation,[501] for, as far as the acquisition of territory is concerned, the Open Sea is what Roman Law calls res extra commercium.[502] But although the Open Sea is not the territory of any State, it is nevertheless an object of the Law of Nations. The very fact alone of such a rule exempting the Open Sea from the sovereignty of any State whatever shows this. But there are other reasons. For if the Law of Nations were to content itself with the rule which excludes the Open Sea from possible State property, the consequence would be a condition of lawlessness and anarchy on the Open Sea. To obviate such lawlessness, customary International Law contains some rules which guarantee a certain legal order on the Open Sea in spite of the fact that it is not the territory of any State.

§ 255. This legal order is created through the co-operation of the Law of Nations and the Municipal Laws of such States as possess a maritime flag. The following rules of the Law of Nations are universally recognised, namely:—First, that every State which has a maritime flag must lay down rules according to which vessels can claim to sail under its flag, and must furnish such vessels with some official voucher authorising them to make use of its flag; secondly, that every State has a right to punish all such foreign vessels as sail under its flag without being authorised to do so; thirdly, that all vessels with their persons and goods are, whilst on the Open Sea, considered under the sway of the flag State; fourthly, that every State has a right to punish piracy on the Open Seas even if committed by foreigners, and that, with a view to the extinction of piracy, men-of-war of all nations can require all suspect vessels to show their flag.

These customary rules of International Law are, so to say, supplemented by Municipal Laws of the maritime States comprising provisions, first, regarding the conditions to be fulfilled by vessels for the purpose of being authorised to sail under their flags; secondly, regarding the details of jurisdiction over persons and goods on board vessels sailing under their flags; thirdly, concerning the order on board ship and the relations between the master, the crew, and the passengers; fourthly, concerning punishment of ships sailing without authorisation under their flags.

The fact that each maritime State has a right to legislate for its own vessels gives it a share in keeping up a certain order on the Open Sea. And such order has been turned into a more or less general order since the large maritime States have concurrently made more or less concordant laws for the conduct of their vessels on the Open Sea.