Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T08:18:28.221Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Communist China and the Law of the Sea

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2017

Tao Cheng
Tao Cheng*
Affiliation:
Trenton State College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The present study is a comment upon the official position of Communist China on various problems related to its internal waters, the territorial sea, and the high seas through an examination of laws, regulations, and international agreements as well as other official pronouncements. It is based primarily on China’s peacetime attitudes, although occasionally it has been necessary to take into account conditions of hostilities.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 63 , Issue 1 , January 1969 , pp. 47 - 73
Copyright
Copyright © The American Society of International Law 1969

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The text of the “Declaration on China's Territorial Sea” may be found in Peking Review, No. 28 (Sept. 9, 1958), p. 21.

2 McDougal, Myres S., and William T. Burke, The Public Order of the Oceans 630-642, especially at 636.

3 “Turning the Oceans into the Source of National Wealth: Chinese Academy of Sciences Convening the Conference on Works in Oceanography and Proposing Guidelines and Tasks,” Jen nun jih pao (The People's Daily), Jan. 18, 1959, p. 2.

4 Ibid.; also Survey of China Mainland Press (SCMP), No. 1548.

5 Ch'ing, Han-chang, and Li Pang-ling, “ The Problem of Increasing Fishery Production and the Direction in Processing,” Hsin hua yuh kan (New China Monthly), Vol.III (1951), No. 4, p. 855.

6 Kao, Shu-zi, “ The Recovery and Development of Aquatic Products Work,” ibid. 857.The author was the Aquatic Products Division Chief in the Ministry of Agriculture.

7 Art. 34 of the Common Program of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, adopted on Sept. 29, 1949. The full text of the Common Program may be found in Chung-hua jen-min kung-ho-kuo kai kuo wen hsien (Documents Concerning the Founding of the People's Republic of China) (Hong Kong: New Democratic Publishing Co.,1949). All translations are by the present author unless otherwise indicated.

8 It is not certain whether these conferences attended by officers of administrative agencies for aquatic products at all levels have been held annually. However, some results of those of 1950, 1951, and 1957 have been reported. See Kao, loc. cit.; note 10 below; and Jen min jih pao, Feb. 23, 1957, p. 1.

9 See Central People's Government, Ministry of Agriculture, ‘ ‘ Instructions Concerning Fishery Production,” issued on April 13, 1951, Chung yang tsai ching cheng tse fa ling hui pien (Collection of Laws and Regulations on Financial and Economic Policies of the Central Government), Vol. 3, pp. 859-860. The Directives of the State Council of March 29 and April 4, 1959, suggested, among others, that “ t h e deputy governors of the (coastal) provinces and the deputy mayor of the Municipality (of Shanghai) are to assume personal command over the catching, buying, and transporting work during the brisk season,” and that “fishing boats and fishermen who have made changes of employment must immediately return to the fishing business.” TT.S. Consulate General in Hong Kong, Survey of China Mainland Press (SCMP), No. 1998, p . 25. See also “Directive of the Chinese Communist Party Central Committee and State Council on Fishing During the Spring High-Water Period,” March 1, 1960, Joint Publications Research Service (JPES), No. 2215, pp. 16-17.

10 See Ministry of Agriculture,” The Summary Report of the Second National Aquatic Products Conference,” Chung yeng tsai ching cheng tse fa ling hui pien, Vol. 3, pp.861-865.

11 By 1962, important progress in fish-processing seems to have been made on the Choushan Islands, a major fishing ground of China off the coast of Chekiang Province. It was reported that the factories there could process over 50,000 tons of fish annually. See SCMP, No. 2721.

12 There have been many reports on China's fishery research activities. See note 4 above; it was reported by the Minister of Aquatic Products in 1960 that “ … 68 scientific research institutes and laboratories with 786 research fellows and 44 aquatic product vocational colleges and intermediate schools have been organized.” (Current Background, No. 624); see also “Scientists Investigate Eastern Fukien Fishing Ground,” SCMP, No. 2800; “Scientific Research Benefits Fishing in China,” ibid., No. 2682; and “Investigation Reveals Rich Aquatic Product Resources Around Shanghai,” ibid., No. 2852.

13 “Ching, Cheng, “ High Speed Development of our Country's Aquatic Products Industry,” Hsin hua pan yuh kan (New China Bi-Weekly), Vol. 177 (I960), p. 96. The author was Vice Minister of Aquatic Products. The reported annual production for 1957-1960 was 3.12; 4.06; 5.02; 5.80 million tons (U.N. Statistical Yearbook, 1965,p. 355).

14 Hsu Te-heng, Minister of Aquatic Products, stated in 1960 before the Second National People's Congress that: ” I n order to successfully fulfill the above-mentioned plan, efforts must be made to carry out better the following undertakings: ” ( 1 ) Launching of movements for promoting mechanization, semi-mechanization, automation, and semi-automation… . At present, most of the work connected with aquatic production is done by hand labor … since from now on we will be unable to rely solely on labor to increase output, we must … transform our production to mechanization … “ (Current Background, No. 624.)

15 SCMP, Nos. 2939, 2980 and 2846.

16 See note 94 below.

17 For the 1955 Agreement and related documents see JPES, No. 1029, pp. 36-42; and for the text of the 1963 Agreement see Current Background, No. 724.

18 SCMP, No. 2088.

19 Ibid., No. 1519.

20 The text of the Western Pacific Fisheries, Oceanology, and Limnology Researeh Cooperation Agreement, June 12, 1956, may be found in Hsin hua pan yuh kan, Vol. 87 (1956), pp. 60-61. Article 3 provides: ” T h e Commission, in performing the following functions shall adopt the following methods: to act through the agencies and organizations concerned of the contracting parties, or to act in cooperation with such agencies and organizations, or if necessary, to act alone. ” ( Hi ) to draw up necessary measures for protecting and increasing fishery resources in accordance with scientific data… . “ Taken together, Art. 3 seems to give the Commission more authority than the language of par. (iii) alone has suggested. The Commission has met annually since 1957, but no report on its work has ever been published. Outer Mongolia acceded to the Agreement in 1958 (SCMP, No. 1849, p. 39).

21 “Shipbuilding Progress During the Last Five Years,” SCMP, No. 1622, p. 4; and “Shanghai's Rapidly Expanding Shipbuilding Industry,” ibid., No. 2246, p. 28.

22 Li, Wei-chung, ‘ ‘ Ten Years of Rapid Development in Sea Transportation,'’ JPES, No. 21713. The author was the chief of the Administrative Bureau of Sea Transportation, Shanghai.

23 I t was reported that there were four main ocean shipping routes that linked China with various parts of the world. “At present [1958], the vessels navigating on the ocean shipping routes [to and from China] include those of the Soviet Union and the People's Democracies. A number of merchant ships belonging to capitalist countries are undertaking part of our sea transportation on the ocean shipping routes.” Chang, Yuan-kuang, “New China's Sea Transportation,” Extracts from China Mainland Magazines (ECMM), No. 133, p. 28.

24 See “ S t a t e Council's Decision Concerning Navigation Work for 1950,” Chung yang tsai ching cheng tse fa ling hui pien, Vol. 3, pp. 403-405. A number of other measures were also mentioned, such as the establishment of port authorities in various parts of the country and a state-owned steamship company, training of navigation and other personnel, etc.

25 See Sun, Tu, ‘ ‘ A Brilliant Decade of Harbor Construction in Our Country,'’ JPES, No. 2538, pp. 1-8; Chang, Yuan-kuang, loc. cit. 22-27; JPES, No. 2713, p. 36; SCMP, Nos. 3323, 2868, 2813, 2516, 2182, 1727. The seven major seaports are: Dairen, Chinwangtao, Tientsin, Tsingtao, Shanghai, Canton, and Chankiang.

26 Chang, Yuan-kuang, loc. cit. 25 ff.

27 As will be seen later, for example, the 1952 Regulation Concerning Japanese Ships Destined for China raised some highly interesting questions. See pp. 67, 71.

28 Li, Choh-ming, Economic Development of Communist China 179, note 30.

29 This trend was reversed after the 1958 “great leap forward” and the withdrawal of Soviet technicians and economic aid in 1960. See Harry Schwartz's comment on the recently published “An Economic Profile of Mainland China,” by the Joint Economic Committee of Congress (New York Times, March 7, 1967, p. 7).

30 See SCMP, No. 1800, p. 19; No. 2246, p. 27; and No. 1905, pp. 19-20.

31 Ibid ., No. 1707, p. 19.

32 Jen min shu tse (People's Handbook), 1965, p. 604.

33 An article “Discussing the Question of the Width of the Territorial Sea “ by Wei Wen-han was published in Fa hsueh pan yuh kan (The Study of Law Bi-Weekly) on June 1, 1957, Union Research Service, Vol. 8, No. 29 (Sept. 6, 1957), pp. 352-360.

34 See ‘ ‘ Ta Kun Pao Comment on U.S. Intervention in Indonesia's Territorial Waters Decision” (New China News Agency-English, Peking, Jan. 19, 1958), SCMP, No. 1696, p. 31.

35 SCMP, No. 1640, p. 2.

36 Ibid., No. 1681, p. 1. Communist China made a reservation to the effect that the rules will not be applicable to her non-powered vessels.

37 For the test of the Sino-Soviet Treaty of Commerce and Navigation, April 23, 1958, see SCMP, No. 1760, pp. 29-33; China-Albania, Feb. 2, 1961, Chung hua jen min kungho kuo fa kuei hui pien (Collection of Laws and Regulations of the People's Republic of China), Vol. 12, pp. 54-59; China-East Germany, Feb. 9, 1960, ibid., Vol. 11, pp. 114-119; China-North Korea, Nov. 5, 1962, ibid., Vol. 13, pp. 88-93; and China-North Viet-Nam, Dec. 5, 1962, ibid., 93-97. For text of the Sino-Soviet Consular Treaty, June 23, 1959, see ibid., Vol. 10, pp. 224-230; China-East Germany, Jan. 27, 1959, ibid., 218- 224; and China-Czechoslovakia, May 7, 1960, ibid., Vol. 12, pp. 49-54.

38 See United Nations, International Law Commission (I.L.C.), 1956 Yearbook (A/CN.4/8EE. A/1956), 2 vols., especially Vol. 2, pp. 265-266; Acts of the Conference for the Codification of International Law, Minutes of the Second Committee, Territorial Waters (League of Nations Pub. No. C.351(b).1930.V.); and United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Official Records, 1960 (U.N. Doc. No. A/Conf. 19/8).

39 See United Nations Legislative Series, Laws and Regulations on the Regime of the Territorial Sea (U.N.L.S., Territorial Sea) (U. N. Doc. No. ST/LEG/SER.B/6) (1957), pp. 1-59. See also Colombos, C. John, The International Law of the Sea 81-87 (4th ed., 1959).

40 See note 1 above.

41 On Sept. 5, 1958, the day after Radio Peking broadcast the Communist Declaration, a spokesman of the Department of State stated that “the United States Government has never recognized any twelve-mile territorial claims,” and that “our historic position on territorial waters, which I am told dates back to the time of Thomas Jefferson, has been the three-mile limit.” (New York Times, Sept. 5, 1958, p. 1, col. 6.) The principles which were regarded as the legal basis of the U. S. rejection were finally spelled out on Nov. 20, 1958, in an address by the Assistant Legal Adviser for Far Eastern Affairs, when he said that: ” In addition, the United States considers that international law recognizes only a 3-mile limit, that it is not possible for a country by unilateral action to take unto itself that which is the common property of all nations, and that this is, moreover, in violation of the universally accepted principle of the freedom of the high seas. The United States position finds support in the report of the United Nations International Law Commission wherein it is stated that ‘international law does not require states to recognize a breadth of the territorial sea beyond 3 miles.' “Further, a country is not free to choose whether its territorial sea will be measured from the low-water mark on the coast, which is the normal baselines, or whether it will use straight baselines connecting salient points or offshore islands. While Article 4 of the Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone adopted by the recent Geneva Conference on the Law of the Sea permits the establishment of straight baselines in localities where the coastline is deeply indented and cut into or if there is a fringe of islands along the coast in its immediate vicinity, it is clear that the Chinese coast along which the straight lines described in the statement of September 4 are drawn does not conform to the geographic conditions which are set forth in Article 4. There is even less legal basis for drawing straight baselines from outermost points on a group of islands and claiming waters thereby included as internal waters. Similar attempts by other countries to claim, as internal waters, large areas of high seas within groups of islands or archipelagoes have been protested by many countries. The straight baselines described in the statement of September 4, 1958, are accordingly regarded by the United States as completely arbitrary and without any basis in recognized international law . “ (U. S. Department of State, American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1958, p. 1198.) The British Government's objection to the Communist Chinese Declaration was first expressed by a spokesman for the Foreign Office on Sept. 6, 1958 (Time, Sept. 6, 1958, p. 6 f ) , and then contained in a note to the Government of Communist China (SCMP, No. 1871, p . 89).

42 As if to counter the effects of the rejections of the United States and Great Britain, the Soviet Government promptly declared, in a note to the Government of Communist China, that it ‘ ‘ fully respects the decision contained in the statement of the Government of the Chinese People's Republic,” and that “ t h e organizations concerned of the Soviet Union have already been instructed strictly to abide by the 12-nautical mile line of the territorial sea of the People's Republic of China” (SCMP, No. 1853, p . 41). For the statement of East Germany, see ibid., No. 1855, p. 50; and the Rumanian statement, ibid., No. 1868.

43 New York Times, Sept. 8, 1958, p. 1.

44 Ibid.

45 Similar arguments were put forward at the meetings of the International Law Commission; see, for example, 1952 I.L.C. Yearbook 153-159, 167.

46 For a critical review of this position see McDougal and Burke, op. cit. 489-499.

47 SCMP, No. 1851, p. 12. See also the Chinese reply to the British note of Sept. 13, 1958 (ibid., No. 1871, p. 89); “Interference in Iceland's Eight to Decide the Extent of Its Territorial Sea Cannot Be Tolerated” by the “Commentator” of People's Daily (Hsin hua pan yuh kan, “Vol. 140 (1958), p. 168); and Fu, Chu, Kuan yuh ngo kuo ti lin hai wen t ‘ i (Concerning the Problem of the Territorial Sea of Our Country) 14 (Peking, 1959).

48 Kou, Chi, “The Most Important Move in Protecting the Nation's Sovereignty,“ Cheng fa yen chiu (The Study of Political Science and Law), No. 5 (1958), p. 9. Since 1960, the number of states adhering to 3- or 4-mile limits has decreased while those adhering to 6- or 12-mile limits have increased (Bowett, D. W., The Law of the Sea 13 (1967)).

49 Kou, loc. cit.; also Liu, Tse-yung, “ A Major Step to Protect China's Sovereign Eights,” Peking Review, No. 29 (Sept. 16, 1958), p. 12; and NCNA, “China's Declaration on Territorial Sea Explained,” SCMP, No. 1851. If these articles had been written after 1960, the experience of the Second Geneva Conference on the Law of the Sea would have been mentioned too.

50 Art. 3 (2) states that “the Commission considers that international law does not permit an extension of the territorial sea beyond twelve miles.” (1956 I.L.C. Yearbook 256.) After citing Art. 3 (1) and (2), Liu Tse-yung explained that “ in other words, the Commission is of the opinion that a breadth of the territorial sea not exceeding 12 nautical miles is legitimate.” Loc. cit. 12.

51 Wei, Wen-han, loo. cit. 352-360.

52 Ibid. 357. Since 1963, however, Canada, Great Britain, New Zealand, and the United States have established a 12-mile exclusive fishery limit along their coasts, and Wei, if writing now, might have cited these cases to support his argument. (Canada, “Announcement of Establishment of 12-Mile Fishing Zone,” June 4, 1963, 2 Int. Legal Materials 664-665 (1963); Great Britain, “Fishing Limits Act of 1964,” 3 ibid. 1067-1069 (1964); New Zealand, “Territorial Sea and Fishing Zone Act, 1965,” 5 ibid. 1-8, (1966); and United States, Act Establishing 12-Mile Fisheries Limit, Oct. 14, 1966, ibid. 1103; see also Department of State, “Statement on Proposed 12-Mile Fishery Zone, May 18, 1966,” ibid. 616.)

53 Loc. cit. 358.

54 Jessup, Philip C, The Law of Territorial Waters and Maritime Jurisdiction xxxiii(1927).

55 See the Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case, [1951] I.C.J. Rep. 128-134; Boggs, 8. W., “Delimitation of the Territorial Sea,” 24 A.J.I.L. 541-555 (1930); “Delimitation of Seaward Areas Under National Jurisdiction,” 45 ibid. 210-266 (1951); Colombos, op.cit. 98-103.

56 [1951] I.C.J. Rep. 133, 143.

57 See 1956 I.L.C. Yearbook 257; for the text of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, see United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Official Records, A/Conf.13/38, Vol. II, Plenary Sessions, pp. 132-135; see also 52 A.J.I.L. 834 (1958).

58 See note 1 above.

59 Liu, loc. cit. 13; Wei, loc. cit. 359-360; and Kou, loc. cit. 10. Kou also cited “the headland theory” used in the creation of the “King's Chambers” in England in 1604 as a precedent for the straight baseline method.

60 See the statement by the Assistant Legal Adviser for Far Eastern Affairs on Nov. 20, 1958, note 41 above.

61 On the broader question of the state's discretion in delimiting its territorial waters the I.C.J, laid down the general principle that “The delimitation of sea areas has always an international aspect; it cannot be dependent merely upon the will of the coastal state as expressed in its municipal law. Although it is true that the act of delimitation is necessarily a unilateral act, because only the coastal state is competent to undertake it, the validity of the delimitation with regard to other states depends upon international law.” (I.C.J., loc. cit. 132.)

62 The text of the 1935 Norwegian Decree may be found in U.N.L.8., Territorial Sea 35-36.

63 I.L.C., loc. cit. 268, par. 8.

64 Boggs, loc. cit. 543 (1930).

65 Ibid. 544.

66 See I.L.C., The Second Report of the Special Rapporteur for the Regime of the Territorial Sea (A/CN.4/61/Add.l and Corr.l).

67 Art. 6 of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone (see note 57 above).

68 1956 I.L.C. Yearbook (Vol. 2) 268.

69 Par. 2 (see p. 57 above).

70 Hsin hua pan yuh kan, Vol. 140 (1958), p. 58.

71 Ibid.; see also Fn, op. cit. 11-13; and Liu, loc. cit. 12

72 For a comprehensive survey of ‘ ‘ historic bays,'’ see TJ. N. Conf., 1958, op. cit. , Vol. I : Preparatory Documents, pp. 1-39.

73 Art. 7 (see note 57 above).

74 Hsin hua pan yuh kan, Vol. 140, p. 59.

75 Ibid.

76 Hsu, Immanuel C. T., China's Entrance into the Family of Nations 132-133 (1960).

77 Fu , Chu, op. cit. 16-18.

78 The text of the ‘ ‘ Regulations Concerning Passage of Foreign Non-Military Vessels Through Chiungchou Strait “ may be found in Hsin hua pan yuh kan, Vol. 237 (1964), pp. 41-42; for English translation, see SCMP, No. 3256, pp. 1-3.

79 [1949] I.C.J. Rep. 28.

80 Art. 16 (4).

81 See Arts. 1 and 2 of the Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone; Oda, Shigeru, International Control of Sea Resources 13 (1963), and note 1 at p. 44. Professor Colombos appears to hold a different view (Colombos, op. cit. 77-78). See also Bowett, D. W., The Law of the Sea 6-9 (1967). For laws and regulations of various nations, see U.N.L.S., Territorial Sea (1957).

82 Liu, loc. cit. 11.

83 MeDougal and Burke, op. cit. 174-304.

84 See note 1 above.

85 Liu, loc. cit. 13.

86 Ibid,.

87 See, for example, Art. VIII (2) of the Sino-Soviet Treaty of Commerce and Navigation, 1958 (SCMP, No. 1760, p. 32).

88 See p. 72 below.

89 Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, International Law 582-594 (8th ed., 1955). The most up-to-date rules of international law regarding the freedom of the high seas are to be found in the 1958 Geneva Convention on the High Seas (U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 13/L.53), Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas (U. N. Doc. A/CONF. 13/L.54), and Convention on the Continental Shelf (U. N. Doc. A/CONF. 13/L.55); reprinted in 52 A.J.I.L. 842-858 (1958).

90 Hsin hua pan yuh kan, Vol. 140, p. 58.

91 SCMP, No. 1744, p. 37. For different views on the subject, see Margolis, E., “The Hydrogen Bomb Experiments and International Law,” 64 Tale Law Rev. 629-647 (April-July, 1955); McDougal, M. S., and N. A. Schlei, “The Hydrogen Bomb Tests in Perspective: Lawful Measures for Security,” ibid. 648-710. The Communist press did not invoke the freedom of the high seas in protesting against the scheduled hydrogen bomb tests at Christmas Island in the Pacific by Great Britain in early 1957 (People's Daily, March 30, 1957, p. 1); nor has Communist China protested at all against the temporary suspension of navigation in the target area in the Pacific.

92 Current Background, No. 724, p. 1.

93 See Letter from the Delegation of the China Fishery Association to the Delegation of the Japan-China Fishery Council (ibid. 4).

94 See Annex to the “Temporary Regulations Concerning Motorized Trawler Fishing in East China Sea” issued by the Aquatic Products Control Board of East China Military-Political Commission on Dec. 16, 1950 (Hua tung chu tsai cheng ching chi fa ling hui pien [Collection of Laws and Regulations of the East China Area Regarding Financial and Economic Matters], Vol. II , pp. 1333-1337. On Aug. 18, 1957, the State Council issued a supplementary regulation concerning trawler fishing prohibited area which extended the area from North 29th Parallel to N. 27th Parallel (Jen min jih pao, Aug. 18, 1957, p. 4). It is not clear what it was intended to supplement because there is no other order of the State Council on the same matter available. However, the entire area was incorporated into the 1963 fishery agreement between the fishery organizations of China and Japan. It was stated that the sea area west of the line connecting the following points is motorized trawler fishing prohibited area:

95 Since Japan does not recognize the Communist Government in Peking, no official diplomatic relations are possible. However, private organizations have been used as a device for carrying on economic, cultural, and other relations between the two countries.

96 JPRS, No. 1029, p. 39.

97 SCMP, Nos. 1768, 1773, and 1786.

98 SCMP, No. 1786, p. 54.

99 Hsin hua pan yuh kan, Vol. 144 (1958), p. 61.

100 SCMP, No. 1792, pp. 40, 43.

101 gee note 93 above.

102 gee Letter from the Delegation of the Japan-China Fishery Council to the Delegation of the China Fishery Association, Nov. 9, 1963 (Current Background, No. 724, pp. 5-6).

103 Wei, loc. cit. 360.

104 59 Stat. 885. The Australian Fisheries Act, 1952-53, might have been a better precedent (TT.N.L.S., Territorial Sea 421-422). The recent establishment of 12-mile fishing limits by Great Britain and the United States would have been cited as precedents for extending their authority in fisheries beyond their territorial limit (see p. 56, and note 52 above).

105 See SCMP, Nos. 1519 and 2088.

106 Current Background, No. 724, pp. 1-2, 7-15.

107 For discussions on this matter, see McDougal and Burke, op. cit. 565, 575-577; Jessup, op. cit. 75-115; and I.L.C., op. cit. 294-295.

108 Seikei Gakha, Shintei Chuka Jinmin Kyowakoku Geiko Shiryo Soran 747 (Hitotsubashi Shoten, 1960).

109 Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, op. cit. 594-595; and McDougal and Burke, op. cit. 1008-1016.

110 Ibid. 1028-1051; and I.L.C., op. cit. 278-279.

111 SCMP, No. 1760, p . 32.

112 Art. II of “ The Temporary Regulations Concerning the Issuance of the Certificate of Nationality of Vessels” (Seikei Gakha, op. cit. 735).

113 For a discussion on bays see p. 60, notes 72, 73 above; the quotation is from Art. 5 of the Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone.

114 Ibid.

115 McDougal and Burke, op. cit. 89-174.

116 Ibid. 103-109.

117 Art. I (2) of “Regulations of the People's Republic of China Governing Foreign Vessels Entering and Leaving P o r t s , “ March 14, 1957 (hereafter, the 1957 Regulations) (Chung hua jen min kung ho kuo fa kui hui pien, Vol. 5, p. 208).

118 Art. II (ibid.).

119 Art. IV of the “Regulations Governing Foreign Ships on Bordering Rivers,” April 19, 1966 (hereafter, the 1966 Regulations) (JPRS, No. 36202, pp. 98-101, at p. 99).

120 Ibid

121 Ibid. 98; also Art. 5 of the 1957 Regulations (see note 117 above).

122 Art. VI of the 1966 Regulations (see note 119 above); also Art. IV of the Regulations Concerning Japanese Vessels Destined for China (see note 108).

123 Art. X of the 1952 Regulations.

124 Art. VII of the 1957 Regulations; and Art. V III of the 1966 Regulations.

125 Art. X of the 1957 Regulations; and Art. XI of the 1966 Regulations.

126 Brierly-Waldock, The Law of Nations 223-226 (6th ed., 1963).

127 Ni's book was reviewed by Professor Hungdah Chiu in 14 A. J. Comp. Law 346- 348 (1965-1966).

128 Ni, Cheng-ao, op. cit. 42-44.

129 Chung hua jen min kung ho kuo fa kui hui pien, Vol. 10, p. 335.

130 Art. 17 (see note 37 above).

131 See the interpretation of a similar clause in the TJ.S.-Belgian Consular Treaty of 1880 in Wildenhus’ Case, 120 U.S. 1.

132 Art. XIII (see note 108 above).

133 P.C.I.J., 1927, Series A, No. 10.

134 Great Britain, Foreign Office, 159 British and Foreign State Papers 358-364 (1952); 53 A.J.I.L. 536 (1959).

135 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 13/L.53. For the reasons for the adoption of this provision see I.L.C. 's comment on Art. 35 of the Articles Concerning the Law of the Sea (same asArt. 11 of the Geneva Convention on the High Seas) in 1956 I.L.C. Yearbook (Vol. 2)311.

136 Great Britain, Foreign Office, op. cit. 358-364; 53 A.J.I.L. 532 (1959); see also Art. 20 of the Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone for the limitations on the claim by a coastal state to civil jurisdiction in its territorial sea.

137 Chung hua jen min kung ho kuo fa kui hui pien, Vol. 10, p. 335.

138 Ibid.

139 Ni, Cheng-ao, op. cit. 91.