ARGUMENT OF SIR WILLIAM EOBSON. 1675 



of mankind, to the good of individual States, and to the good of the 

 whole civilized community, that each State should be encouraged to 

 open its territory to other States, either for economic purposes, or for 

 purposes of general beneficial intercourse. I say they may do it, and 

 I say that the existing international law allows them to do it, without 

 danger. They may do it as sovereigns. They may put their terri- 

 tory, as sovereigns, under all kinds of obligations of the kind which 

 we have heard called real obligations. They may say : " You may 

 come to our territory and fish, or build railways, or build warehouses. 

 You may do all these things." I say that those are highly meri- 

 torious grants to make; that they must be made, and they are made, 

 without any consequence whatever of a character derogating from the 

 sovereignty of the States. That is my case. 



So that I accept the suggestion of the learned arbitrator that such 

 contracts can be made, I say they can be made, and ought to be 

 encouraged. No State ought to be deterred from limiting the exer- 

 cise of its own sovereignty in any of these respects. It ought not 

 to be deterred from doing it. And certainly it ought not to be 

 deterred from doing it by being afterwards informed that when it 

 has done it, without ever intending to touch or affect its sovereignty, 

 it has affected its sovereignty because of the view now put forward 

 with regard to international law in reference to servitudes. 



DR. DRAGO: Of course what I have said is only to suggest an 

 aspect of the question, to be taken into consideration. 



SIR W. ROBSON: Yes. I am obliged to the learned arbitrator for 

 that reference, because I think it helps me to lay stress upon the 

 importance of this Tribunal, in dealing with this great question, so 

 framing its judgment as not to allow of any discouragement to States 

 in making obligations inter se, which may open the territory of one 

 to the inhabitants of another without any detriment to the sover- 

 eignty of either. That, I think, is the thing we should all aim at. 

 And my own belief is that international law, as it is now constituted, 

 does that. International law, when it is thoroughly considered, as 

 it stands to-day, does allow a State to open its territory freely, to 

 limit the exercise of its own sovereign rights in certain particulars, 

 without any detriment to its other sovereign rights or its general 

 national sovereignty. That is, shortly, my case. 



The case for the United States is : " No ! If any State is incon- 

 siderate enough to open its territory to another by permanent treaty, 

 the moment it has done that, it has, without saying so, derogated 

 from, diminished its own general rights of government, within the 

 limits of its own boundaries." That, I say, is a very se'rious conse- 

 quence, and it is against that I am struggling in this argument, 

 which, I am afraid, is lengthening more than I had intended; al- 

 though I shall try to finish it to-day; because, after all, it is very 



