ARGUMENT OF MR. ROOT loi 



"But the reasons which justify the sovereignty of the state beyond the 

 limits of its terrestrial territory are always the same. 



"Perels summarizes them in three principles: 



"First. The security of the adjacent state requires that it shall have 

 exclusive possession of its shores and that it may protect the approaches. 



"Second. The surveillance of vessels which enter, leave, or sojourn in 

 its territorial waters is imposed by the guaranty of efficient police and the 

 advancement of its political, commercial, and fiscal intereats. 



"Third. Finally, the exclusive enjoyment of the territorial waters, 

 e.g., for fishing and coastal trade, may be necessary to secure the existence 

 of coastal populations." 



The conclusions of the Institute of International Law at the 

 meeting of 1894 contain what is supposed to be a correct statement 

 of the relation of the state to this kind of right. The resolution 

 adopted there is as follows: 



"The state has a right of sovereignty over a zone of sea which washes 

 the shore, subject to the right of innocent passage reserved in Article 5. This 

 zone bears the name 'territorial sea.'" 



The President of the Tribunal will perhaps remember that in 

 the debate which took place at that meeting of the Institute of 

 International Law the original report of this resolution was a Kttle 

 broader, and it took the form " a state has the right of sovereignty," 

 and that was modified in the final resolution by substituting "a" 

 for "the," so that it read "has a right of sovereignty." 



Dr. Drago: I think a marginal breadth of six miles was recom- 

 mended. 



Senator Root: The Institute fixed upon a margin of six miles, 

 I think. 



Judge Gray: Recommended. 



Senator Root: Yes, recommended a margin of six miles. Of 

 course, I am referring to it with reference to the character of the 

 relation of the state to the zone, whatever it is. 



Dr. Drago: Was there not a difference mentioned in the dis- 

 cussion between the right of property on the marginal water and 

 tl^e imperiuro. over it or right of sovereignty, so that the state could 

 have the imperium but not the ownership ? 



