DEBATED ISSUE

Evening Post, Volume CXVIII, Issue 50, 28 August 1934, Page 9

DEBATED ISSUE

THE THREE-MILE LIMIT

BY NO MEANS FAVOURED

NORWAY'S OBJECTIONS

The question of tlio seaward jurisdiction of maritime States is of considerable practical importance, since it involves national lights, such as defence, sanitary and Customs control, nnd the sea fisheries, writes Dr. J. Travis .Tonkins in the "A[anchcs.tor Guardian," when discussing the recent negotiations between Britain and Norway on the subject of territorial waters. It. has been recognised for centuries that maritime nations have certain rights over the seas adjoining their coasts, it is tho «pttent .seaward of such rights that has been and is tho subject of considerable difference of opinion. • The "threo-mile limit" was adopted mainly through the action and practice of the United States of America and Groat Britain since tho end of the eighteenth century, probably because the distance of three miles from tho shore was one which could bo more or less effectively controlled by the range of the guns then in existence. Earlier legal writers put forward claims for much greater jurisdiction. In particular with regard to bays, straits, and arms of the sen, the general usage from earliest times has included them within the jurisdiction of the .neighbouring nation. BRITISH CONVENTIONS. So far as tho British Government is concerned, some idea of the practice hitherto adopted may be derived from a consideration of the various conven--lions which have been entered into from time to time for the regulation 'and protection of the sea fisheries. These are tho Convention with Franco (if IS3P, embodied in, the Sea Fisheries Act of 1843; the Convention with France of 186S, repealing that of 1843; tho NotHi Sea Convention, embodied in the Sea Fisheries Act of 1S83; the Convention between the United Kingdom and Denmark for rogulating tho fisheries off the Faeroes and Iceland (1901); and tho Anglo-Soviet Treaty of 1924. Theso conventions and agreements are based on the idea of a threemile limit. Norway doelinod to bo a party to the Xorth Sea Convention of 1882, as she claimed a zono of territorial waters of not less than four marine miles. Other nations claim an even wider area. There is no unanimity of opinion as to the throe-mile limit, along nu open coast. Under the auspices of the League of Nations a committee of experts has been formed for the progressive codification of international law. In view of tho importanco of the question of the territorial seas, especially from tho standpoint of the fisheries, the Council and the Assembly of the League of Nations put this question down for the consideration of tho conference for the Codification of International Law which met at The Hague in March and April, 1930. NOT POSSIBLE. The Governments concerned wore iwice consulted, once by the committee of Experts and once by the special Preparatory Committee. It soon appeared at the Hague Conference that no agreement was possible on the extent of/ the territorial seas. At a subcommittee, meeting held in April, 1930, the following nations were unable to agree even to the three-mile limit- on an open coast: —Chile, Colombia, Spain, "Italy, Latvia, Persia, Portgual, Rumania, Turkey, Uruguay, Yugoslavia, and Brazil (who expressed themselves in favour of a six-mile limit), Iceland, Xorway, and Sweden (in favour of four miles). The fixing of the zone at three miles was opposed by all these countries, who maintained that there is no rule of law to this effect and that their national interests demanded tho recognition of a wider belt. The Norwegian contention is set forth in some detail in a report of the t'ommitteo of Experts to the Council of tho League of Nations in 1927. The Norwegian Government pointed out that from time immemorial Norway has claimed for her territorial sea a breadth which has never been loss than one geographical league (one-fifteenth of an equatorial degree, or 7420 metres). This limit was laid down by Eoyal decree in 1745 and 1756. Since then it has always been maintained fully, and is'therefore based on a usage of nearly two hundred years. Tho introduction of this limit was by no means an extension but rather a considerable restriction of the area over-which, till then, the kingdom of Norway had claimed to exercise jurisdiction. The Norwegians point out. that the three-mile limit was first laid down in 1818 in a treaty betweon the United .States and Great Britain in connection with tho fishery rights in the British possessions off the east coast of North America. Its subsequent adoption for fishery purposes in certain conventions by the British and sundry other Governments by no means confirms this distance as the universal limit for fishery rights, and still less as a limitfor territorial waters in general. This limit *has never been applied in Norway. Logically and without any derogation, Norwegian legislation has always been based on the ancient national limit consecrated by uninterrupted and undisputed usage. The considerable interests which are bound up with this limit preclude its abandonment in the future. It is of vital importance to Xorway, whose inhabitants are to so great an extent dependent, on the sea fisheries. As regards the tracing of the boundaries, the fiords and archipelagos so characteristic of the Norwegian coast make it impossible for Norway to trace a boundary for her territorial waters corresponding to the sinuosities of the coastline. The boundary has therefore been drawn at a distance of one geo-1 graphical league from the extreme edge | of the coast at low tide or from straight lines drawn" between the last, outlying inlets or rocks not constantly covered by'the sea. while outside the bays and fiords (which, from the- most ancient, limes have been regarded and claimed' in their entirety as internal Norwegian waters) the limit has boon moasurod from a line drawn between the two furthermost seaward ends of Ihe coast (mainland, isle, or islet). Norwegian law has always held from the earliest times the soaward boundaries as thus defined, and Norway is prepared to defend those, even should the breadth at thc_seaward end exceed the more or loss arbitrary maximum breadths which certain countries, with a less characteristic coastline, have recently established for special purposes in view of their own needs and for the protection of their own capitalists.