1706 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



that is very material either one way or the other. Schmelzing calls 

 international servitudes : 



"Such one-sided services, permissions, or abstentions to which one 

 state binds itseli towards another without impairing its internal or 

 external sovereignty," 



A very important qualification 



" without prejudice to its possessions or domain, or its jural political 

 personality in general." 



Here I am at the date of 1819 ; and so far every one of these author- 

 ities that I have examined, and which Mr. Turner puts forward, is 

 in my favour. But Mr. Turner puts them forward because they deal 

 with the institution of servitudes, and talk of servitudes ; and 

 1032 he says this shows that the institution was in existence; 

 that people knew about it. It was in existence in Germany. 

 But the concept was a stranger in European law. There are 

 two writers, and two only, up to this date, among the authorities 

 that I mentioned because I am not dealing with others Wolf 

 and Von Martens, whom I cannot class as writers solely on Ger- 

 man constitutional law. I have an imperfect acquaintance with 

 their works, as I have not been able, in the time at my disposal, 

 to give adequate examination to, or obtain complete informa- 

 tion upon, these writers. Wolf refers to territorial servitudes, and 

 he says that they do not demand any special treatment, and 

 that the principles of the servitudes of private law may be anal- 

 ogously applied a very fallacious principle. Also, I think, he deals 

 with the case of a servitude which clearly is not German. I do not 

 know where he gets it from. He gives us an instance where one 

 nation takes possession of an unoccupied territory, and then leaves 

 it, and another nation comes and takes possession of that unoccu- 

 pied territory; then whatever property the first nation may h;:vc 

 left behind it, or whatever rights it may claim still to enjoy by 

 virtue of its antecedent sovereignty, they must be treated as a 

 servitude as against the second nation. I cannot imagine any such 

 case happening. I do not know of any cases where nations took the 

 trouble to conquer States and then leave them, with perhaps some 

 unconsidered articles behind them. It is an impracticable case, and 

 I do not see how any principle of servitudes could apply to it. 



Then, Von Martens speaks of servitudes, but he does not deal with 

 them from the point of view from which I am examining them, 

 namely, their immediate effect upon sovereignty, apart from agree- 

 ment. 



Those are all the authorities that this Tribunal has had down to 

 1818; all of them. And I do not know of one. with the possible 

 exception, as I say, of Martens, of whom I speak with diffidence, 

 because I am not thoroughly acquainted with his work, or Wolf. I 



