82 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



thus impaired by international contract in 1818 and that a co-do- 



minium was created. 



For the purpose of such proof it is contended by the United States : 



(10.) That a concurrent right to co-operate in the making and en- 

 forcement of regulations is the only possible and proper security to 

 their inhabitants for the enjoyment of their liberties of fishery, and 

 that such a right must be held to be implied in the grant of those lib- 

 erties by the treaty under interpretation. 



The Tribunal is unable to accede to this claim on the ground of a 

 right so implied: 



(a.) Because every State has to execute the obligations incurred by 

 treaty honci fide, and is urged thereto by the ordinary sanctions of 

 international law in regard to observance of treaty obligations. 

 Such sanctions are, for instance, appeal to public opinion, publication 

 of correspondence, censure by Parliamentary vote, demand for arbi- 

 tration with the odium attendant on a refusal to arbitrate, rupture 

 of relations, reprisal, &c. But no reason has been shown why this 

 treaty, in this respect, should be considered as different from every 

 other treaty under which the right of a State to regulate the action 

 of foreigners admitted by it on its territory is recognised ; 



{h.) Because the exercise of such a right of consent by the United 

 States would predicate an abandonment of its independence in this 

 respect by Great Britain, and the recognition by the latter of a con- 

 current right of regulation in the United States. But the treaty 

 conveys only a liberty to take fish in common, and neither directly 

 nor indirectly conveys a joint right of regulation; 



(c.) Because the treaty does not convey a common right of fishery, 

 but a liberty to fish in common. This is evidenced by the attitude of 

 the United States Government in 1823, with respect to the relations 

 of Great Britain and France in regard to the fishery; 



{d.) Because if the consent of the United States were requisite for 

 the fishery a general veto would be accorded them, the full exercise of 

 which would be socially subversive and would lead to the consequence 

 of an unregulatable fishery ; 



{e.) Because the United States cannot by assent give legal force 

 and validity to British legislation ; 



(/.) Because the liberties to take fish in British territorial waters 

 and to dry and cure fish on land in British territory are in principle 

 on the same footing; but in practice a right of co-operation in the 

 elaboration and enforcement of regulations in regard to the latter 



liberty (drying and curing fish on land) is unrealisable. 



115 In any event, Great Britain, as the local sovereign, has the 



duty of preserving and protecting the fisheries. In so far as it 



is necessary for that purpose, Great Britain is not only entitled, but 



obliged, to provide for the protection and preservation of the 



