Maritime far into the sea those waters extend which are coast Breadth of waters and are therefore under the sway of the Belt. riparian State. Here, too, no unanimity exists upon either the starting line of the belt on the coast or the breadth itself of the belt from such starting line. (1) Whereas the starting line is sometimes drawn along high-water mark, many writers draw it along low-water mark. Others draw it along the depths where the waters cease to be navigable; others again along those depths where coast batteries can still be erected, and so on. But the number of those who draw it along low-water mark is increasing. The Institute of International Law2 has voted in favour of this starting line, and many treaties stipulate the same. (2) With regard to the breadth of the maritime belt various opinions have in former times been held, and very exorbitant claims have been advanced by different States. And although Bynkershoek's rule that terrae potestas finitur ubi finitur armorum vis is now generally recognised by theory and practice, and consequently a belt of such breadth is considered under the sway of the riparian State as is within effective range of the shore batteries, there is still no unanimity on account of the fact that such range is day by day increasing. Since at the end of the eighteenth century the range of artillery was about three miles, or one marine league, that distance became generally recognised as the breadth of the maritime belt. But no sooner was a common doctrine originated than the range of projectiles increased with the manufacture of heavier guns. And although many States in Municipal Laws and International * See Annuaire, XIII. p. 329. R See Schücking, p. 13. VOL. 1. Treaties still adhere to a breadth of one marine league, the time will come when by a common agreement of the States such breadth will be very much extended.1 As regards Great Britain, the Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act2 of 1878 (41 and 42 Vict. c. 73) specially recognises the extent of the territorial maritime belt as three miles, or one marine league, measured from the low-water mark of the coast. $187. Theory and practice agree that the riparian Cabotage, State can exclusively reserve the fishery within the Maritime maritime belt 3 for its own subjects, whether fish or pearls or amber or other products of the sea are within the in consideration. Fisheries, Police, and Ceremonials Belt. 13 It is likewise agreed that the riparian State can, in the absence of special treaties to the contrary, exclude foreign vessels from navigation and trade along the coast, the so-called cabotage, and reserve this cabotage exclusively for its own vessels. Again, it is agreed that the riparian State exclusively exercises police and control within its maritime belt in the interest of its custom-house duties, the secrecy of its coast fortifications, and the like. Thus foreign vessels can be ordered to take certain routes and to avoid others. And it is, lastly, agreed that the riparian State can make laws and regulations regarding maritime ceremonials to be observed by such foreign merchantmen as enter its territorial maritime belt. § 188. Although the maritime belt is a portion of 1 The Institute of International Law has voted in favour of six miles, or two marine leagues, as the breadth of the belt. See Annuaire, XIII. p. 328. 2 See above, § 25, and Maine, p. 39. All treaties stipulate for the purpose of fishery a three miles tion the territory of the riparian State and therefore Navigaunder the absolute territorial supremacy of such within the State, the belt is nevertheless, according to the Belt. practice of all the States, open to merchantmen of all nations for inoffensive navigation, cabotage excepted. And it is the common conviction that every State has by customary International Law the right to demand that in time of peace its merchantmen may inoffensively pass through the territorial maritime belt of every other State. Such right is correctly said to be a consequence of the freedom of the Open Sea, for without this right navigation on the Open Sea by vessels of all nations would in fact be an impossibility. And it is a consequence of this right that no State can levy tolls for the mere passage of foreign vessels through its maritime belt. Although the riparian State may spend a considerable amount of money for the erection and maintenance of lighthouses and other facilities for safe navigation within its maritime belt, it cannot make merely passing foreign vessels pay for such outlays. It is only when foreign ships cast anchor within the belt or enter a port that they can be made to pay dues and tolls by the riparian State. Some writers 2 maintain that all nations have the right of inoffensive passage for their merchantmen by usage only, and not by the customary Law of Nations, and that, consequently, in strict law a riparian State can prevent such passage. They are certainly mistaken. An attempt on the part of a riparian State to prevent free navigation through the maritime belt in time of peace would meet with stern opposition on the part of all other States. But a right of foreign States for their men-of-war to pass unhindered through the maritime belt is See above, § 142. 2 Kluber, § 76; Pradier-Fodéré, II. No. 628. Juris diction not generally recognised. Although many writers assert the existence of such a right, many others emphatically deny it. As a rule, however, in practice no State actually opposes in time of peace the passage of foreign men-of-war and other public vessels through its maritime belt. And it may safely be stated, first, that a usage has grown up by which such passage, if in every way inoffensive and without danger, shall not be denied in time of peace; and secondly, that it is now a customary rule of International Law that the right of passage through such parts of the maritime belt as form part of the highways for international traffic cannot be denied to foreign men-of-war.1 § 189. That the riparian State has exclusive within the jurisdiction within the belt as regards mere matters Maritime of police and control is universally recognised. Belt. f Thus it can exclude foreign pilots, can make customhouse arrangements, sanitary regulations, laws concerning stranded vessels and goods, and the like. It is further agreed that foreign merchantmen casting anchor within the belt or entering a port, fall at once and ipso facto under the jurisdiction of the riparian State. But it is a moot-point whether such foreign vessels as do not stay but merely pass through the belt are for the time being under this jurisdiction. It is for this reason that the British Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act of 1878 (41 & 42 Vict. c. 73), which claims such jurisdiction, has called forth protests from many writers.2 The controversy itself can be decided by the practice of the 1 See below, § 449. 2 See Perels, pp. 69-77. The Institute of International Law, which at its meeting at Paris in 1894 adopted a body of eleven rules regarding the maritime belt, gulfs, bays, and straits, voted against the jurisdiction of a riparian State over foreign vessels merely passing through the belt. (See Annuaire XIII. p. 328.) States only. The British Act quoted, the basis of which is, in my opinion, sound and reasonable, is a powerful factor in initiating such a practice; but as yet no common practice of the States can be said to exist. Revenue § 190. Different from the territorial maritime belt Zone for is the zone of the Open Sea, over which a riparian and SaniState extends the operation of its revenue and tary Laws. sanitary laws. The fact is that Great Britain and the United States, as well as other States, possess revenue and sanitary laws which impose certain duties not only on their own but also on such foreign vessels bound to one of their ports as are approaching, but not yet within, their territorial maritime belt.1 Twiss and Phillimore agree that in strict law these Municipal Laws have no basis, since every State is by the Law of Nations prevented from extending its jurisdiction over the Open Sea, and that it is only the Comity of Nations which admits tacitly the operation of such Municipal Laws as long as foreign States do not object, and provided that no measure is taken within the territorial maritime belt of another nation. I doubt not that in time special arrangements will be made as regards this point through a universal international convention. But I believe that, since Municipal Laws of the above kind have been in existence for more than a hundred years and have not been opposed by other States, a customary rule of the Law of Nations may be said to exist which allows riparian States in the interest of their revenue and sanitary laws to impose certain 1 See, for instance, the British so-called Hovering Acts, 9 Geo. II. c. 35 and 24 Geo. III. c. 47. The matter is treated by Taylor, § 248; Twiss, I. §190; Phillimore, I. §198; Halleck, I. p. 157; Stoerk in |