50 ARGUMENT OF GREAT BRITAIN. 



(V.) That tlie analogy attempted to be traced by tlie 

 United States l;)etween the claims to protect seals in Beli- 

 ring Sea, and tlie principles applicable to coral reef's and 

 pearl-beds, is nnwarranted. 



(VI.) And, finally, that there is no complete or even 

 partial consent of nations to any such pretension as to 

 property in, and protection of, seals as set up by the 

 United States. 



I. 



EXTRA-TERRITORTAL LAWS OF A STATE HAVE NO APPLI- 

 CATION TO FOREIGNERS. 



It is submitted that, as well by international and con' 

 stitutional law as by the comTnon consent and practice of 

 nations, the laws of a State have no application to for- 

 eigners beyond the territorial limits of that State; 

 56 and that if they are declared to have an extra- 

 territorial application, it is limited to subjects of 

 that State who may fall within its provisions. 



The fundamental juinciple which governs the application 

 of laws is expressed in the maxim, extra territorium jus 

 dicenti impune non parctur. 



No general propositions are clearer than these. 



All persons are subject to the laws of a country in wliicb 

 tbey are. 



No person is subject to the laws of a country in which he 

 is not. 



The only exception is that subjects maybe legislated for 

 by their own Legislature, even though they are abroad, the 

 enforcement of any punishment being reserved till such 

 time as they return to their own country. 



These principles are of equal force on the high seas. 



In ships on the high seas, no one is subject to any juris- 

 diction but that of ills own country, or of the country to 

 which the ship belongs. The laws of other countries do 

 not bind him, and he may disregard them with imi)unity. 



II. 



THE LAWS OF GREAT BRITAIN HAVE NO EXTRA-TERRI- 

 TORIAL APPLICATION TO FOREIGNERS. 



It may be conclusively demonstrated that Great Britain 

 has incorporated this principle into her municipal law by 

 a long-established usage, and by a series of decisions of 

 her Courts. 

 L E. 2EX.D. ^^ ^^^S' ^'' Kcyii) Cockburn, 0. J., said: 



TNTiere the language of a Statute is general, and may include for- 

 eigners or not, the true canon of construction is to assume that the 

 Legislature has not so enacted as to violate the rights of other nations. 



see^ aiso^tiie This is the auswcr to the argument of the United States, 

 veiein," citeti"in bascd upou the words " any person" in British and Colonial 



clitJ.S"'"- Statutes. 



