AWARD OF THE TRIBUNAL 509 



3°. The United States also contend that the term " bays of His Britannic Majesty's 

 Dominions" in the renunciatory clause must be read as including only those bays 

 which were under the territorial sovereignty of Great Britain. 



But the Tribunal is unable to accept this contention: 



(a) Because the description of the coast on which the fishery is to be exercised by 

 the inhabitants of the United States is expressed throughout the Treaty of 1818 in 

 geographical terms and not by reference to political control; the Treaty describes the 

 coast as contained between capes; 



(6) Because to express the political concept of dominion as equivalent to sovereignty, 

 the word "dominion" in the singular would have been an adequate term and not 

 "dominions" in the plural; this latter term having a recognized and well settled mean- 

 ing as descriptive of those portions of the Earth which owe political allegiance to His 

 Majesty; e.g. "His Britannic Majesty's Dominions beyond the Seas." 



4°. It has been further contended by the United States that the renunciation applies 

 only to bays six miles or less in width "inter fauces terrae," those bays only being 

 territorial bays, because the three mile rule is, as shown by this Treaty, a principle of 

 international law applicable to coasts and should be strictly and systematically applied 

 to bays. 



But the Tribunal is unable to agree with this contention: 



(a) Because admittedly the geographical character of a bay contains conditions 

 which concern the interests of the territorial sovereign to a more intimate and impor- 

 tant extent than do those connected with the open coast. Thus conditions of national 

 and territorial integrity, of defense, of commerce and of industry are all vitally con- 

 cerned with the control of the bays penetrating the national coast line. This interest 

 varies, speaking generally in proportion to the penetration inland of the bay; but as 

 no principle of international law recognizes any specified relation between the con- 

 cavity of the bay and the requirements for control by the territorial sovereignty, this 

 Tribunal is unable to qualify by the application of any new principle its interpretation 

 of the Treaty of 1818 as excluding bays in general from the strict and systematic 

 application of the three mile rule; nor can this Tribunal take cognizance in this con- 

 nection of other principles concerning the territorial sovereignty over bays such as ten 

 mile or twelve mile limits of exclusion based on international acts subsequent to the 

 treaty of 1818 and relating to coasts of a different configuration and conditions of a 

 different character; 



(b) Because the opinion of jurists and publicists quoted in the proceedings conduce 

 to the opinion that speaking generally the three mile rule should not be strictly and 

 systematically applied to bays; 



(c) Because the treaties referring to these coasts, antedating the treaty of 1818, 

 made special provisions as to bays, such as the Treaties of 1686 and 1713 between 

 Great Britain and France, and especially the Treaty of 1778 between the 

 United States and France. Likewise Jay's Treaty of 1794 Art. 25, distinguished 

 bays from the space "within cannon-shot of the coast" in regard to the right of seizure 

 in times of war. If the proposed treaty of 1806 and the treaty of 1818 contained no 

 disposition to that effect, the explanation may be found in the fact that the first ex- 

 tended the marginal belt to five miles, and also in the circumstance that the American 

 proposition of 1818 in that respect was not limited to "bays," but extended to "cham- 

 bers formed by headlands" and to "five marine miles from a right line from one head- 

 land to another," a proposition which in the times of the Napoleonic wars would have 

 affected to a very large extent the operations of the British navy; 



