688 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE SEA 



have control over a larger space of water for the purpose 

 of regulating and preserving the fishery in it, the productive- 

 ness of sea fisheries being seriously threatened by the de- 

 structive methods of fishing which are commonly employed, 

 and in many places by the greatly increased number of fishing 

 vessels frequenting the grounds. 1 A still later writer, Oppen- 

 heim, has apparently much the same opinion, for he says 

 that although many states in municipal laws and inter- 

 national treaties still adhere to a breadth of one marine league, 

 the time will come when by common agreement of the states 

 concerned such breadth will be very much extended. 2 



While there is thus some diversity of opinion among 

 modern writers on the law of nations, both as to the 

 actual extent of territorial sea belonging to a state and in 

 respect to the principles which should govern its delimitation 

 in certain cases, there is all but universal acceptance of the 

 rule that in general the limit is determined by the range of 

 guns. Practically all authorities are agreed that this is the 

 historical basis of the demarcation, and the majority of 

 publicists, as Schmalz, Kltiber, Reddie, Ortolan, Hautefeuille, 

 Pistoye and Duverdy, Masse, Bluntschli, Pradier - Fodere, 

 Lawrence, Perels, Desjardins, De Martens, and Aschehoug, 

 adhere to it as the only true principle. This adherence to 

 Bynkershoek's doctrine logically implies that the range of 

 artillery at any particular period governs the extent of the 

 territorial sea at that period, and several authorities, as Ortolan, 

 Lawrence, Perels, Desjardins, and De Martens, accept this 

 view in its bare and absolute form, while others, though 



O 



willing to agree to it as proper and reasonable, think that 

 a mutual arrangement on the subject is first of all desirable 

 or necessary, or that it applies specially to questions of 

 neutrality. There are very few writers, on the other hand, who 

 are of opinion that the three-mile limit has become established 

 in international jurisprudence as the legal limit, notwithstand- 

 ing that it is the limit commonly adopted. Calvo and Phillimore 

 are the most important authorities who take this view, but 

 both think the extent is too small and ought logically to 

 be increased owing to the greater range of artillery, an 



1 A Treatise on Intertmtional Lav;, 4th edition, 1895, p. 160. 



2 International Law, i. 242 (1905). 



