GENERAL ADOPTION OF THE THREE-MILE LIMIT 603 



The reasons for this opinion are the same as those advanced 

 by Hubner namely, that such areas form natural harbours 

 and anchorages, sheltering vessels from tempests: the vessels 

 are thus under the protection of the coasts, and consequently 

 of the sovereign of the coasts. The true boundary in such 

 cases Masse regards as the line joining the headlands, or 

 passing between the islands that may lie off the mouth, even 

 if the distance be greater than the range of guns, or than 

 what has been fixed by convention for an open coast. 



It is obvious from the above review of the opinions of 

 publicists in the first half of last century that no complete 

 agreement had been reached in theory or principle respecting 

 the extent of the territorial sea. Many of the writers held 

 to the opinions expressed by Puffendorf, Wolff, and Vattel, 

 which allowed a more or less wide and vague jurisdiction 

 in the neighbouring sea for the security of the state; and 

 most of them refer to the cannon -range limit as the one 

 usually adopted. Few, however, accept the three-mile boundary 

 as an alternative to the range of guns : most of the authors 

 indeed do not even mention it, and those who do, appear 

 to have been guided in the main by Lord Stowell's decisions. 

 On the other hand, the later of the French writers affirm 

 that the boundary of the territorial waters is determined by 

 the actual range of artillery from the shore at the time, 

 which is a virtual repudiation of the three-mile limitation. 

 Their view is summed up by Pistoye and Duverdy when 

 they say that the principle on which the appropriation of 

 the bordering sea rests serves also to determine its bounds 

 i.e., control and command from the shore. 



