TROUBLE IN THE NORTH SEA.

Press, Volume LXIV, Issue 13161, 7 July 1908, Page 8

TROUBLE IN THE NORTH SEA.

There is no reason to fear serious consequence-, from tho trouble which has arisen in the North Sea, between the German naval officer., who aro engaged in fisheries protection work and the British trawlers. Similar friction "n.-.s occurred at different times between tiie fishermen of England and France nnd tho authorities of each country, and matters have been settled without _.isturbing tho friendly relations between the two Governments. The matter is

of interest, apart from its other .•_*- peets, from tlio fact that it involves a point of international law which never

seems to havo been definitely setUed— the limit of territorial waters. It is generally accepted that tho jurisdiction of a country extends for three miies from its shores, that distance being fixed by a great Admiralty judge, Lord Stowell. when he ruled that the limit was the range of a cannon shot from the shore. It is obvious that such a rule could only remain satisfactory as long as the range of artillery corresponded generally with the fixed limit. As soon as three miles ceased to be ihe limit of effective cannonading, tbe application of the rule clashed with the principle on which, it was founded. With incessant improvements in artillery, the three-mile limit has long been regarded by many authorities as too narrow. More than forty years ago the Government of the United States suggested that it should bo increased to five miles; th© Spanish law some years ago declared the limit to be six miles, and Belgian jurists in their text books on international law havo adopted the same distance. A Bill that was before the Norwegian Parliament a few weeks ago proposed that the limit of Norway's territorial waters should be four miles from the outermost skerries or reefs. All who are familiar with the peculiar conformation of the Norwegian coast will

recognise, as a recent writer remarks, that this is a very wide limit indeed. The suggestion that a State has the right to extend its territorial waters from time to time, at will, with tho increased rango of guns, will -probably never become recognised in its entirety as a point of international law, 6inc© in these days of long-distance artillery it would bo possible for both England and France to claim the entire width of tho English Channel, because each could cover it by gun-fire. As it happens, the three-mile limit is, so we are told, recognised in several conventions regarding fishery right* in the Channel and tho North Sea. It is true that many foreign jurists will not admit it to bo axiomatically correct, but that hardly matters so long as the terms of tho conventions aro obeyed by the signatories. It is curious, though, that a certain indefiniteness should prevail to this day over a point which has been at intervals for centuries tlio cause of friction between neighbouring countries. Even if it were settled there would', of course, be no guarantee that poaching within the proscribed limits would cease. There would always be men who, for the sake of raiding rich fishing-grounds, would risk confiscation of their gear, fine and imprisonment. History, it is true, records one instance in which such poaching was stopped, when King Jamos V. of Scotland, on some Dutchmen being caught fishing in the Firth of Forth, cut off their heads, pickled them in the barrels in which their owners had intended to pickle the Scottish herrings they caught, and sent them back to Holland. After this discouraging treatment the Dutch, we are informed, gave up fishing for herrings in Scottish waters. It is, on the whole, fortunate that 6uch deterrent methods are out of date.