NORTH ATLANTIC FISHERIES DISPUTE 29 



conflicting or inconsistent expressions as have been exposed on either side 

 are suttieientlj' explained by their relations to ephemeral phases of a con- 

 troversy of almost secular duration, and should be held to be without 

 direct effect on the principal and present issues. 



Now with regard to the second contention involved in Question I, 

 as to whether tlie right of regulation can be reasonably exercised by 

 Great Britain without the consent of the United States: 



Considering that the recognition of a concurrent right of consent in 

 the United States would affect the independence of Great Britain, which 

 would become dependent on the Government of the United States for the 

 exercise of its sovereign right of regulation, and considering that such a 

 codominium would be contrary to the constitution of both sovereign 

 States ; the burden of proof is imposed on the United States to show that 

 the independence of Great Britain was thus impaired by international 

 contract in 1818 and that a co-dominiura 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 fish- 

 ery, and that such a right must be held to be implied in the 

 grant of those liberties by the Treaty under interpretation. 



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

 right so implied : 



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

 Treaty bona fide, and is urged thereto by the ordinary sanctions of Inter- 

 national law in regard to observance of Treaty obligations. Such sanc- 

 tions are, for instance, appeal to public opinion, publication of corres- 

 pondence, censure by Parliamentary vote, demand for arbitration with 

 the odium attendant on a refusal to arbitrate, rupture of relations, re- 

 prisal, etc. But no reason has been shown why this Treaty, in this 

 respect, should lie considered as different from every other Treaty under 

 which the right ol' a State to regulate the action of foreigners admitted 

 by it on its territory is recognized ; 



(b) Because the exercise of such a right of consent by the United 

 States would predicate an abandonment of its independence in this re- 

 spect by Great Britain, and the recognition by the latter of a concurrent 

 right of regulation in the United States. But the Treaty conveys only a 

 liberty to take fish in common, and neither directly nor indirectly con- 

 veys 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 



