GENERAL ADOPTION OF THE THREE-MILE LIMIT 595 



ports of a country, has only been sanctioned in a few cases 

 by international treaties. It is now generally held to rest upon 

 another basis than the absolute rights possessed by a state 

 in its territorial waters proper ; although it is quite in agree- 

 ment with the principles laid down by the older publicists, 

 as Puffendorf, Vattel, and Von Martens, and by several recent 

 writers, as Latour, 1 that a nation is justified in exercising 

 jurisdiction in the sea as far as its security or interests render 

 it necessary. The current opinion is that such rights can 

 only be enforced against foreigners under the comity of nations 

 or by their tacit assent, as a matter of mutual convenience, and 

 in practice they are acquiesced in by other Powers. 2 But it is 

 important to observe that, as will be more apparent when we 

 come to deal with the exclusive right of fishing, maritime 

 nations find it necessary for the protection of their just inter- 

 ests to extend their jurisdiction beyond the somewhat narrow 

 boundary at present ordinarily assigned. 



The statement made above, that the true principle for deter- 

 mining the extent of the territorial sea on an open coast is the 

 range of guns from the shore, is borne out by an examination 

 of the writings of the accredited authorities on the law of 

 nations. A review of the opinions of the leading publicists 

 of the earlier part of last century shows that while the 

 majority accepted Bynkershoek's principle of cannon range, 

 comparatively few restricted it to the distance of three miles, 

 and many logically insisted that the extent must necessarily 

 vary with the improvements in artillery. Works of a purely 

 polemical nature may be passed over, such as those of the 

 worthless Barrere 3 and of Champagne. 4 They were inspired 

 by hatred of Great Britain and the desire of flattering Napoleon 

 rather than by love of the truth, and were written in order 

 to show that the British were the tyrants of the sea. Another 

 contemporary French author, of much superior merit, who 



1 Mer Territoriale, 222; and see pp. 551, 560, 564. 



2 Twiss, op. cit., 261-264; Phillimore, Commentaries, i. 236; Kent, loc. cit.; 

 Wheaton, loc. cit. ; Hall, loc. cit. The latter author states that they " repose on 

 an agreement which, though tacit, is universal," and that "no civilised country 

 encourages offences against the laws of a fpreign state when it sees that the laws 

 are just and necessary." 



3 De la Liberte des Mers, ou le Gouvcrnement Anglois devoile", 1798. 



4 La Mer Libre, La Mer Fermee, 1803. 



