The § 184. Already in 1850 Great Britain and the United States in the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty' of Washington had stipulated free navigation and neutralisation of a canal between the Pacific and the Atlantic Ocean proposed to be constructed by the way of the river St. Juan de Nicaragua and either or both of the lakes of Nicaragua and Managua. In 1881 the building of a canal through the Isthmus of Panama was taken in hand, but in 1888 the works were stopped in consequence of the financial collapse of the Company undertaking its construction. After this the United States came back to the old project of a canal by the way of the river St. Juan de Nicaragua. For the eventuality of the completion of this canal, Great Britain and the United States signed, on February 5, 1900, the Convention of Washington, which stipulated free navigation on and neutralisation of the proposed canal in analogy with the Convention of Constantinople, 1888, regarding the Suez Canal, but ratification was refused by the Senate of the United States. In the following year, however, on November 18, 1901, another treaty was signed and afterwards ratified. This so-called Hay-Pauncefote Treaty applies to a canal between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans by whatever route may be considered expedient, and its five articles are the following: Article I The High Contracting Parties agree that the present Treaty shall supersede the aforementioned Convention of April 19, 1850. See Martens, N.R.G. XV. p. 187. According to its article 8 this treaty was also to be applied to a proposed canal through the Isthmus of Panama. Article 2 It is agreed that the canal may be constructed under the auspices of the Government of the United States, either directly at its own cost, or by gift or loan of money to individuals or corporations, or through subscription to or purchase of stock or shares, and that, subject to the provisions of the present Treaty, the said Government shall have and enjoy all the rights incident to such construction, as well as the exclusive right of providing for the regulation and management of the canal. Article 3 The United States adopts, as the basis of the neutralisation of such ship canal, the following Rules, substantially as embodied in the Convention of Constantinople, signed October 29, 1888, for the free navigation of the Suez Canal, that is to say: 1. The canal shall be free and open to the vessels of commerce and of war of all nations observing these Rules, on terms of entire equality, so that there shall be no discrimination against any such nation, or its citizens or subjects, in respect of the conditions or charges of traffic, or otherwise. Such conditions and charges of traffic shall be just and equitable. 2. The canal shall never be blockaded, nor shall any right of war be exercised or any act of hostility be committed within it. The United States, however, shall be at liberty to maintain such military police along the canal as may be necessary to protect it against lawlessness and disorder. 3. Vessels of war of a belligerent shall not revictual nor take any stores in the canal except so far as may be strictly necessary; and the transit of such vessels through the canal shall be effected with the least possible delay in accordance with the regulations in force, and with only such intermission as may result from the necessities of the service. Prizes shall be in all respects subject to the same rules as vessels of war of belligerents. 4. No belligerent shall embark or disembark troops, munitions of war, or warlike materials in the canal, except in case of accidental hindrance of the transit, and in such case the transit shall be resumed with all possible despatch. 5. The provisions of this article shall apply to waters adjacent to the canal, within three marine miles of either end. Vessels of war of a belligerent shall not remain in such waters longer than twenty-four hours at any one time except in case of distress, and in such case shall depart as soon as possible; but a vessel of war of one belligerent shall not depart within twenty-four hours from the departure of a vessel of war of the other belligerent. 6. The plant, establishments, buildings, and all works necessary to the construction, maintenance, and operation of the canal shall be deemed to be part thereof, for the purposes of this Treaty, and in time of war, as in time of peace, shall enjoy complete immunity from attack or injury by belligerents, and from acts calculated to impair their usefulness as part of the canal. Article 4 It is agreed that no change of territorial sovereignty or of the international relations of the country or countries traversed by the before-mentioned canal shall affect the general principle of neutralisation or the obligation of the high contracting parties under the present Treaty. Article 5 The present Treaty shall be ratified by his Britannic Majesty and by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate thereof; and the ratifications shall be exchanged at Washington or at London at the earliest possible time within six months from the date hereof. In faith whereof the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed this Treaty and thereunto affixed their seals. Done in duplicate at Washington, the 18th day of On November 18, 1903, a treaty was concluded between the United States and the new Republic of Panama according to which Panama ceded to the United States the land required for the construction of a canal between Colon and Panama, and, further, the land on both sides of the canal to the extent of five miles on either side.1 VI MARITIME BELT Grotius, II. c. 3§ 13-Vattel, I. §§ 287-290-Hall, §§ 41-42-Westlake, Maritime tested. § 185. Maritime belt is that part of the sea which, State Proin contradistinction to the Open Sea, is under the peo sway of the riparian States. But no unanimity Belt conexists with regard to the nature of the sway of the riparian States. Many writers maintain that such sway is sovereignty, that the maritime belt is a part 1 See Martens, N. R. G. 2nd ser. xxxi. p. 599. of the territory of the riparian State, and that the territorial supremacy of the latter extends over its coast waters. Whereas it is nowadays universally recognised that the Open Sea cannot be State property, such part of the sea as makes the coast waters would, according to the opinion of these writers, actually be the State property of the riparian States, although foreign States have a right of innocent passage of their merchantmen through the coast waters. On the other hand, many writers of great authority emphatically deny the territorial character of the maritime belt and concede to the riparian States, in the interest of the safety of the coast, only certain powers of control, jurisdiction, police, and the like, but not sovereignty. This is surely erroneous, since the real facts of international life would seem to agree with the first-mentioned opinion only. Its supporters rightly maintain that the universally recognised fact of the exclusive right of the riparian State to appropriate the natural products of the sea in the coast waters, especially the use of the fishery therein, can coincide only with the territorial character of the maritime belt. The argument of their opponents that, if the belt is to be considered a part of State territory, every riparian State must have the right to sell and exchange its coast waters, can properly be met by the statement that territorial waters of all kinds are inalienable appurtenances of the riparian States. § 186. Be that as it may, the question arises how 1 Hall, p. 158. The question is treated with great clearness by Heilborn, System, pp. 37-57, and Schücking, pp. 14-20. 2 See above, $ 175. Bynkers hoek's (De Dominio Maris, c. 5) opinion that a riparian State can alienate its maritime belt without the coast itself, is at the present day untenable. |