HISTORICAL EVOLUTION OF THE TERRITORIAL SEA 551 



journey, with those who argue for a narrow but undefined 

 space in the neighbouring sea. 



The celebrated Puffendorf, whose authority later was only 

 second to that of Grotius, dealt with the question in his great 

 work on the Law of Nature and Nations, and with even less 

 precision than Loccenius. 1 On the general question of the 

 appropriation of the sea he discarded the objection that its 

 fluidity rendered it incapable of possession, but held that it 

 would be morally impossible for one nation to possess the ocean. 

 He also set aside the moral objection in the absolute form in 

 which it was put forward by Grotius, that the use of the sea 

 was inexhaustible. On the contrary, he held with Selden and 

 Welwood that fisheries in the sea might be exhausted by 

 promiscuous use. " If all nations," he said, " should desire such 

 a right and liberty (of fishing) near the coasts of any particular 

 country, that country must be very much prejudiced in this 

 respect ; especially since it is very usual that some particular 

 kind of fish, or perhaps some more precious commodity, as 

 pearls, coral, amber, or the like, are to be found 'only in one 

 part of the sea, and that of no considerable extent. In this 

 case there is no reason why the bordering people should not 

 rather challenge to themselves this happiness of a wealthy shore 

 or sea, than those who are situated at a distance from it." 2 On 

 this ground, the right of exclusive fishing, and also for the 

 security and defence of the state, a nation was justified in 

 claiming dominion in the neighbouring sea. The extent of 

 this territorial sea, he says, cannot in general be accurately 

 determined ; but it is clear that he thought it might be very 

 considerable. We had the power to abridge others of the use 

 of the sea by forts on shore, in narrow creeks and straits, or by 

 armed fleets; but it would, he thought, show unreasonable 

 jealousy to claim "some hundreds of leagues." The true 

 bounds could only be discovered either from "the right of 

 possession " of a state, or from its treaties with its neighbours. 

 Gulfs, channels, or arms of the sea, on the other hand, were 

 "according to the regular course" supposed to belong to the 

 state which had possession of the shores. If the shores 

 belonged to several peoples, the sovereignty was distributed 

 to the middle line, unless treaties directed otherwise, or one 



1 De Jure Naturte et Gentium, 1672. a Lib. iv. c. v. s. vii. 



