INTERNATIONAL REGULATIONS OF FISHERIES ON THE HIGH SEAS. 139 
herein, the marine league had its origin in the range of cannon, which deter- 
mines the distance over which a nation is able to exercise jurisdiction from 
the shore. As the efficiency of cannon has greatly increased, and is now con- 
siderably more than 3 miles, it is urged that the width of the maritime belt 
should increase correspondingly. In recent years most of the writers on inter- 
national law have expressed views favorable to this extension. 
As written by Oppenheim, one of the most recent and likewise interesting 
of all writers on international jurisprudence: ‘‘ Although many states, in munici- 
pal laws and international treaties, still adhere to a breadth of one marine 
league, the time will come when by a common agreement of the states such 
breadth will be very much extended.” @ 
The learned editor of the 1904 edition of Hall’s International Law 
expresses the view that ‘‘it is desirable for a state to have control over a larger 
space of water for the purpose of regulating and preserving the fisheries, the 
productiveness of sea fisheries being seriously threatened by the destructive 
methods of fishing which are commonly employed.” ? 
The extension of the marginal belt was discussed by the Institut de Droit 
International at its meeting in Paris in 1904. The general opinion was that 
such an extension was desirable, and it was agreed nemine contradicente to 
recommend an increase to 6 miles, after the proposal to extend it to 10 miles 
had been rejected by 25 votes against 10.° 
In view, however, of the approval which the 3-mile margin has received 
in international conventions, legislative bodies, and judicial tribunals, the 
indefiniteness of centuries ago has become the vested rights of to-day, the once 
plastic cement which the workmen molded has now become so set and solidi- 
fied with the passage of time that it is useless to discuss an extension of the 
distance of exclusive jurisdiction without absolute international agreement. 
It can not be denied that such an extension would be vigorously opposed by 
some influential interests. The trawl fishermen of Great Britain, for instance, 
would unquestionably object to it, and for very practical reasons. [Exclusive 
of the White Sea and the Baltic, the, trawling area outside the 3-mile limit of 
northern and western Europe approximates 450,000 square miles. An exten- 
sion of the marginal beit 6 miles would place 81,000 square miles of this area 
within the territorial jurisdiction of continental countries, and an extension 
of 4 miles farther would exclude British fishermen from 135,000 square miles 
of the best trawling grounds, an area nearly equal to that of the North Sea. 
As the British trawling fleet greatly exceeds that of all the continental coun- 
tries, the fishermen of Great Britain would have much to lose and nothing to 
gain by the extension. On this side of the Atlantic acceptance of the exten- 
@ Oppenheim, International Law, London, 1905, vol. 1, sec. 186. 
b Page 152. 
¢ Institut de Droit International, Annuaire (1894-1895), t. XIII, p. 290, 328-331. 
