QUESTION FIVE. 207 



seems to be no reason or authority for a limitation suggested by 

 Martens, " surtout en tant que ceux-ci ne passent pas la largeur 

 ordinaire des rivieres, ou la double portee du canon," or for the limi- 

 tation of Grotius which is of the vaguest character, " mare occupari 

 potuisse ab eo qui terras ad latus utrumque possideat, etiamsi aut 

 supra pateat ut sinus, aut supra et infra ut fretum, dummodo non 

 ita magna sit pars maris ut non cum terris comparata portio earum 

 videri possit." The real question, as Giinther truly remarks is, 

 whether it be within the physical competence of the nation, possess- 

 ing the circumjacent lands, to exclude other nations from the whole 

 portion of the sea so surrounded; or, as Martens declares in his 

 earliest, and in some respects best, treatise on International Law, 

 " Partes maris territorio ita natura vel arte inclusse ut exteri aditu 

 imped iri possint, gentis ejus sunt, cujus est territorium circumjacens." 

 To the same effect is the language of Vattel : " Tout ce que nous 

 avons dit des parties de la mer voisines des cotes, se dit plus particu- 

 lierement et a plus forte raison des rades, des baies et des detroits, 

 comme plus capables encore d'etre occupes, et plus importants a la 

 surete du pays. Mais je parle des baies et detroits de peu d'etendue, 

 et non de ces grands espaces de mer auxquels on donne quelquefois 

 ces noms, tels que la bale de Hudson, le detroit de Magellan, sur 

 lesquels 1'empire ne saurait s'etendre, et moins encore la propriete. 

 Une baie dont on peut defendre 1'entree, peut etre occupee et soumise 

 aux lois du souverain; il importe qu'elle le soit, puisque le pays 

 pourrait etre beaucoup plus aisement insulte en cet endroit que sur 

 des cotes ouvertes aux vents et a Fimpetuosite des flots.* 



Phillimore here clearly establishes as his opinion that 



The real question as Giinther truly remarks, is whether it be within 

 the physical competence of the nation possessing the circumjacent 

 lands, to exclude other nations from the whole portion of the sea so 

 surrounded. 



Phillimore, then, is certainly not an authority for the claim that all 

 bays, gulfs, and estuaries, whatever their width, belong to the 

 state possessing their shores. He makes the test, whether it be within 

 the physical competence of the nation possessing the surrounding 

 land, to exclude other nations. 



De Cussy: Phases et Causes Celebres du Droit Maritime des 

 Nations, published in 1856, vol. I, section 40, page 91, et seq : 



But the protection of the territory of a nation and its shore fishing, 

 which is the chief resource of the inhabitants of the coast region have 

 shown the necessity of recognizing a maritime territory, or, better 

 still, a territorial sea, belonging to every nation bordering on the 

 sea ; that is to say, some distance from the shore which might be con- 

 sidered as a continuation of the territory and over which the 

 state sovereignty of each maritime nation might extend. * * * 

 Although the extent of the property or sovereignty over the ter- 

 ritorial sea still appears to present some uncertainty, it does not exist 



a British Case, 284. 



