exception until the year 1857. From time immemorial, Denmark had not allowed foreign vessels the passage through the two Belts and the Sound, a narrow strait which divides Denmark from Sweden and connects the Kattegat with the Baltic, without payment of a toll, the so-called Sound Dues. Whereas in former centuries these dues were not opposed, they were not considered any longer admissible as soon as the principle of free navigation on the sea became generally recognised, but Denmark nevertheless insisted upon the dues. In 1857, however, an arrangement 2 was completed between the maritime Powers of Europe and Denmark by which the Sound Dues were abolished against a heavy indemnity paid by the signatory States to Denmark. And in the same year the United States entered into a convention 3 with Denmark for the free passage of their vessels, and likewise paid an indemnity. With these dues has disappeared the last witness of former times when free navigation on the sea was not universally recognised. phorus danelles. §197. The Bosphorus and Dardanelles, the two The BosTurkish territorial straits which connect the Black and DarSea with the Mediterranean, must be specially mentioned.4 So long as the Black Sea was entirely enclosed by Turkish territory and was therefore a portion of this territory, Turkey could exclude foreign vessels from the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles altogether, unless prevented by special treaties. But when in the eighteenth century Russia became a See the details, which have historical interest only, in Twiss, I. § 188; Phillimore, I. § 189; Wharton, I. § 29; and Scherer, Der Sundzoll (1845). The Treaty of Copenhagen of March 14, 1857. (See Martens, N.R.G. XVI. 2nd part, p. 345.) 3 Convention of Washington of April 11, 1857. (See Martens, N.R.G. XVII. Ist part, p. 210.) 4 See Holland, The European Concert in the Eastern Question, p. 225, and Perels, p. 29. riparian State of the Black Sea and the latter, therefore, ceased to be entirely a territorial sea, Turkey, by several treaties with foreign Powers, conceded free navigation through the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles to foreign merchantmen. But she always upheld the rule that foreign men-of-war should be excluded from these straits. And by article of the Convention of London of July 10, 1841, between Turkey, Great Britain, Austria, France, Prussia, and Russia, this rule was once for all accepted. Article 10 of the Peace Treaty of Paris of 1856 and the Convention No. I annexed to this treaty, and, further, article 2 of the Treaty of London, 1871, again confirm the rule, and all those Powers which were not parties to these treaties submit nevertheless to it.1 According to the Treaty of London of 1871, however, the Porte can open the straits in time of peace to the men-of-war of friendly and allied Powers for the purpose, if necessary, of securing the execution of the stipulations of the Peace Treaty of Paris of 1856. On the whole, the rule has in practice always been upheld by Turkey. Foreign light public vessels in the service of foreign diplomatic envoys at Constantinople can be admitted by the provisions of the Peace Treaty of Paris of 1856. And on several occasions when Turkey has admitted a foreign man-ofwar carrying a foreign monarch on a visit to Constantinople, there has been no opposition by the Powers. But when in 1902 Turkey allowed four Russian torpedo destroyers to pass through the Black Sea on the condition that these vessels should be disarmed and sail under the Russian commercial flag, The United States, although she actually acquiesces in the exclusion of her men-of-war, seems not to consider herself bound by the Convention of London, to which she is not a party. (See Wharton, I. § 29.) * See Perels, p. 30. Great Britain protested and declared that she reserved the right to demand similar privileges for her men-of-war should occasion arise. As far as I know, however, no other Power has joined Great Britain in this protest. IX BOUNDARIES OF STATE TERRITORY Grotius, II. c. 3, § 18-Vattel, I. § 266-Hall, § 38—Westlake, I. pp. 141-142-Twiss, I. §§ 147-148-Taylor, § 251-Bluntschli, §§ 296302--Hartmann, § 59-Heffter, § 66-Holtzendorff in Holtzendorff, II. pp. 232-239-Gareis, § 19-Liszt, § 9-Ullmann, § 80-Bonfils, Nos. 486-489-Despagnet, No. 387-Pradier-Fodéré, II. Nos. 759777-Nys, I. pp. 413-422-Rivier, I. § 11-Calvo, I. §§ 343-352Fiore, II. Nos. 799-806-Martens, I. § 89. and Arti Bounda ries. § 198. Boundaries of State territory are the imagi- Natural nary lines on the surface of the earth which separate ficial the territory of one State from that of another, or from unappropriated territory, or from the Open Sea. The course of the boundary lines may or may not be indicated by boundary signs. These signs may be natural or artificial, and one speaks, therefore, of natural in contradistinction to artificial boundaries. Natural boundaries may consist of water, a range of rocks or mountains, deserts, forests, and the like. Artificial boundaries are such signs as have been purposely put up to indicate the way of the imaginary boundary-line. They may consist of posts, stones, bars, walls,' trenches, roads, canals, buoys in water, and the like. It must, however, be borne in mind that the distinction between artificial and and the Chinese Wall may also be cited as an example. The Romans of antiquity very often constructed boundary walls, Boundary natural boundaries is not sharp, in so far as some natural boundaries can be artificially created. Thus a forest may be planted, and a desert may be created, as was the frequent practice of the Romans of antiquity for the purpose of marking the frontier. § 199. Natural boundaries consisting of water must be specially discussed on account of the different kinds of boundary waters. Such kinds are rivers, lakes, land-locked seas, and the maritime belt. (1) Boundary rivers are such rivers as separate two different States from each other.1 If such river is not navigable, the imaginary boundary line runs down the middle of the river, following all turnings of the border line of both banks of the river. On the other hand, in a navigable river the boundary line runs through the middle of the so-called Thalweg, that is, the mid-channel of the river. It is, thirdly, possible that the boundary line is the border line of the river, so that the whole bed belongs to one of the riparian States only. But this is an exception created by treaty or by the fact that a State has occupied the lands on one side of a river at a time prior to the occupation of the lands on the other side by some other State.3 And it must be remembered that, since a river sometimes changes more or less its course, the boundary line running through the middle or the Thalweg or along the border-line is thereby also altered.4 This case is not to be confounded with the other, in which a river runs through the lands of two different States. In this latter case the boundary line runs across the river. 2 See above, § 175. 3 See Twiss, I. §§ 147 and 148, and Westlake, I. p. 142. * In case a bridge is built over a boundary river, the boundary line runs, failing special treaty arrangements, through the middle of the bridge. As regards the boundary lines running through islands rising in boundary rivers and through the abandoned beds of such rivers, see below, §§ 234 and 235. (2) Boundary lakes and land-locked seas are such as separate the lands of two or more different States from each other. The boundary line runs through the middle of these lakes and seas, but as a rule special treaties portion off such lakes and seas between riparian States.1 (3) The boundary line of the maritime belt is, according to details given above (§ 186), uncertain, since no unanimity prevails with regard to the width of the belt. It is, however, certain that the boundary line runs not nearer to the shore than three miles, or one marine league, from the low-water mark. (4) In a narrow strait separating the lands of two different States the boundary line runs either through the middle or through the mid-channel,2 unless special treaties make different arrangements. Moun § 200. Boundary mountains or hills are such Boundary natural elevations from the common level of the tains. ground as separate the territories of two or more States from each other. Failing special treaty arrangements, the boundary line runs on the mountain ridge along with the watershed. But it is quite possible that boundary mountains belong wholly to one of the States which they separate.3 Disputes. §201. Boundary lines are, for many reasons, of Boundary such vital importance that disputes relating thereto are inevitably very frequent and have often led to war. During the nineteenth century, however, a tendency began to prevail to settle such disputes peaceably. The simplest way in which this can be done is always by a boundary treaty, provided the parties can come to terms. In other cases arbitration can settle the matter, as, for instance, in the and above, § 194. 1 See above, § 179. 2 See Twiss, I. §§ 183 and 184, See Fiore, II. No. 800. |