1994 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



The contention of the United States is that they have a libenim 

 veto of objecting to particular regulations. The contention of the 

 United States is that if you consider one of the British regulations 

 as contrary to the treaty, you may object to it, and then the matter 

 is at an end; Great Britain has no longer the power of enacting those 

 regulations. And the British contention now, as it stands, is that 

 Great Britain has a right to make the regulations. You have the 

 right to make diplomatic remonstrances, but if Great Britain will 

 not listen to these remonstrances the matter is again at an end. 

 Great Britain says: "We do not want your objections. We do not 

 consider you objections." 



According to the fourth article, the solution would be that either 

 this Court would propose some method of procedure to which 

 1207 both governments would accede, by their free-will they are 

 not obliged, at all, to accede to them ; it is a pure recommenda- 

 tion or if they do not accede, then both parties have bound them- 

 selves by article 4 to submit future contestations to the decision of 

 The Hague Tribunal in the summary procedure. 



Would it not seem that both parties would gain by this method? 



SENATOR ROOT : Precisely ; both parties would gain by this method. 

 But I beg the Tribunal to observe that it works both ways: If the 

 United States refuses its assent to proposed limitations, that can go 

 to the Tribunal just as much as if Great Britain on the other theory 

 imposed regulations to which the United States objected. 



THE PRESIDENT : I should think there would be no victorious party 

 and no vanquished party, in that case. 



SENATOR ROOT: If the line is drawn according to the American 

 contention, there is an assertion on one side that there ought to be 

 this regulation for the common benefit; there is a refusal to assent 

 to that on the other, and they go and get a determination. But, under 

 the British theory, that our grant is subject to their right of munici- 

 pal legislation, the exercise of their right in the first instance estab- 

 lishes the regulation. 



SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK: Do I understand you to say that if a 

 regulation is made, and if you object to it, then it would be the right 

 of the British Government to hale you before The Hague Tribunal, 

 under Section 4? 



SENATOR ROOT: Undoubtedly. 



SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK: Then it is the exercise of sovereignty 

 that made it? 



SENATOR ROOT : I do not quite get your question. 



SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK : Then do you not necessarily admit the 

 right of the British Government to make the regulation? 



SENATOR ROOT : No, 



