96 CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 



BIGHT OF A STATE OVER THE OPEN SEA ADJOINING ITS COAST. 



UNINDENTED COASTS. 



It is undoubted law that a State has territorial sovereignty over 

 a belt of sea adjoining its coast, subject to the right of passage by 

 the commercial vessels of other nations. The extent of this belt 

 was not definitely fixed by international law at the time the treaty 

 was entered into, and though a width of 3 miles has since become 

 generally accepted as the minimum limit of the waters over which 

 sovereignty may be exercised, there is not even now universal agree- 

 ment on the point. Wider claims are put forward by some nations 

 and by some writers, and the Institute of International Law in 1894 

 unanimously agreed to recommend 6 miles as the maximum. It is 

 not necessary, however, to discuss this question on the present occa- 

 sion : it has no bearing on the subject now under discussion, namely, 

 the extent of the bays referred to in the last clause of article one of 

 the treaty. 



BIGHT OVEB ENCLOSED WATEBS 

 BAYS. 



It is also undoubted law that a State can exercise sovereignty over 

 certain portions of the sea enclosed within its territory by headlands 

 or promontories. 



But different considerations apply in the case of enclosed waters 

 from those which affect the open sea. The possession of head- 

 lands gives a greater power of control over waters contained 

 109 within them than there can be over the open sea. and the safety 

 of a State necessitates more extended dominion over the bays 

 and gulfs enclosed by its territories than over open waters. Moreover, 

 the interest of other nations in bays and gulfs is not so direct if, as 

 i<- commonly the case, they lie off the ocean highways. For these 

 reasons the 3-mile rule has never been applied to enclosed waters, nor 

 has any defined limit been generally accepted in regard to them. It 

 is true that the understanding of nations has imposed some restric- 

 tions on the exercise of sovereignty over these waters, and that States 

 do not now assert claims, such as were common in former times, over 

 waters, which from their size or configuration can not be effectively 

 controlled, or which from their situation can not be fairly held to be 

 the exclusive propertj' of any one State. But these restrictions must 

 depend on the particular circumstances of each case; they have never 

 become formulated in any rule of general application. There was 

 therefore no definite meaning which could have been assigned in 1818 

 to the term " bays in His Majesty's dominions " unless it were the 

 meaning which His Majesty's Government contends should be put 



