Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:28:15.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Regulation of Maritime Fisheries by Treaty

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2017

A. P. Daggett
A. P. Daggett*
Affiliation:
Bowdoin College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The conventional law regarding fishing rights has had a long and complicated development. Beginning before the concepts of international law as we know them were at all defined, it has played its part in shaping that law and in influencing its development. Many of the earliest fishing treaties were concerned with insuring freedom from molestation while fishing. From that time when the sea was a place of “war of everyone against everyone” the conventional law regarding fishing rights passed through the period of the struggle between the rival claims of mare clausum and mare liberum and played a part in the solution of that controversy. It likewise has been significant in the development of the idea of territorial waters as we know it today. It has helped determine both the limits assigned to and the rights enjoyed within those limits. In any future development of maritime law it will undoubtedly play its part.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 28 , Issue 4 , October 1934 , pp. 693 - 717
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1934

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 E.g., the early treaties between England and: Castile, Aug. 1,1351 (5 Rymer, Foedera, p. 717); Portugal, Oct. 20, 1353 (ibid., p. 763); France, June 27, 1403 (8 ibid., p. 305); and Burgundy, Mar. 10, 1407 (ibid., p. 469).

2 See T. W. Fulton, The Sovereignty of the Sea (London, 1911), for a detailed historical treatment of the question from the standpoint of the fisheries.

3 League of Nations Committee of Experts for the Progressive Codification of International Law. Questionnaire No. 2 with Report of Sub-Committee, M. Schücking, Rapporteur. This Journal, Spl. Supp., Vol. 20 (1926), pp. 62-147.

4 Questionnaire No. 7 with Report, M. José1 León Suárez, Rapporteur. Ibid., pp. 230-241.

5 Art. 11. Art. 2 is also important in this connection. Ibid., pp. 116, 119, 141, 143.

6 Ibid., pp. 239-240.

7 Questionnaire No. 7. Products of the Sea. Analysis of Replies. This Journal, Spl. Supp., Vol. 22 (1928), pp. 34-38.

8 Questionnaire No. 2. Analysis of Replies. Ibid., pp. 8-13.

9 Resolutions and Recommendations Adopted by the Assembly, Sept. 27,1927. Ibid., pp. 231-232.

10 This Journal, Supp., Vol. 24 (1930), p. 28.n

11 Ibid.

12 See the discussion, before the conference, in R. W. Hale, , “Territorial Waters as a Test of Codification,” this Journal, Vol. 24 (1930), pp. 65-68.Google Scholar

13 Ibid., Supp., pp. 239-247.

14 Ibid., p. 239.

15 Hale's phraseology.

16 In his report to the Committee of Experts, loc. cit., p. 240.

17 Division of Fish and Game of California, Fish Bulletin No. 15, The Commercial Fish Catch of California for the Years 1926 and 1927, p. 9.

18 Quoted by J. T. Jenkins, The Sea Fisheries (London, 1920), p. 13. The statement appeared originally in a paper read before the Royal Institution of Great Britain in 1912.

19 59th Annual Report of the Fisheries Branch, Dept. of Marine and Fisheries, Canada, pp. 20-21.

20 E.g., Treaties of Commerce and Navigation: Italy-Roumania, Feb. 25, 1930. Art. 28 (106 League of Nations Treaty Series [cited hereafter as LNTS], pp. 179,197); Netherlands- Turkey, July 25, 1928, Art. 13 (93 LNTS, pp. 279, 289); Greece-Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, Nov. 2, 1927, Art. 23 (91 LNTS, pp. 137, 153); Sweden-Turkey, Feb. 4, 1928, Art. 19 (88 LNTS, pp. 155, 165); Germany-Lithuania, Oct. 30, 1928, Art. 26 (89 LNTS, pp. 127, 162).

21 Sept. 23, 1910. Art. 13 (103 British and Foreign State Papers [cited hereafter as SP], pp. 434, 441, 446).

22 Dec. 9, 1923, Art. 14 (58 LNTS, pp. 285, 305).

23 Oct. 19, 1683 (4 F. Léonard, Recueil des traités de paix, etc.).

24 Dec. 2, 1856 (47 SP, p. 765).

25 Art. 22 (Ibid., p. 771).

26 Mar. 31,1859 (50 SP, p. 1006); Feb. 18,1886 (77 SP, p. 1073); Jan. 19,1888 (3 Martens, Nouveau recueil général de traités [cited hereafter as NRG], 3 sér., p. 253); Oct. 4, 1894 (7 Martens, NRG, 3 sér., p. 421); June 9, 1906 (Ibid., p. 422); April 6, 1908 (3 Martens, NRG, 3 sér., p. 256); Sept. 27,1913 (France, Bulletin des lots, 129 Nouveau série, No. 7002); June 2, 1924 (France, Journal officiel, June 4, 1926).

27 Nov. 15, 1831 (18 SP, p. 645).

28 April 19, 1839 (27 SP, p. 990).

29 Art. 9 of the former. Art. 9 of the annex of the latter. The regulations are found in a convention between Belgium and The Netherlands, May 20, 1843 (37 SP, pp. 1248, 1281).

30 July 14, 1878 (7 Olivart, Colección de los Iratados, p. 387); Dec. 12, 1883, Art. 23 (74 SP, p. 328); Oct. 2,1885 (77 SP, p. 1181); Mar. 27,1893, Art. 19 and Appendix 6 (85 SP, pp. 416, 420, 455); Sept. 27, 1893 (F. Lopez y Medina, Colección de tratados internacionales, ordenanzas, y reglamentos de pesca, p. 487).

31 Feb. 9/22, 1901 (30 Martens, NRG, 2 ser., p. 487); Oct. 16/29, 1907 (101 SP, p. 569).

32 Oct. 28, 1925 (54 LNTS, p. 231).

33 The text of the treaty, which was signed on Mar. 27, 1929, is given in 62d Annual Report of the Fisheries Branch, Dept. of Marine and Fisheries, Canada, p. 35. Regarding the movement for the treaty, see the annual reports and the Report of the Canadian-American Fisheries Conference, Ottawa, 1918, pp. 16-25.

34 A treaty of Oct. 24,1921, Art. 232 (116 LNTS, p. 5, 293), contained temporary measures and promised a permanent settlement.

35 The substance of this agreement is given in 12 Miltheilungen des deutsches Seefischereiverein, p. 61.

36 April 10, 1922 (10 LNTS, p. 73).

37 Ibid., pp. 253-259.

38 Jan. 25, 1926 (44 LNTS, p. 389).

39 Jan. 29, 1928 (89 LNTS, p. 309).

40 Sept. 20, 1922 (19 LNTS, p. 143).

41 July 14,1899 (104 SP, p. 912); April 23, 1902 (104 SP, p. 916); Oct. 5, 1907 (6 Martens, NRG, 3 sér., p. 586).

42 Denmark, Law respecting the rights of fishing in Danish territorial waters, April 8,1888 (19 Hertslet's Commercial Treaties [cited hereafter as HCT], p. 186).

43 Jan. 26, 1826, Art. 5, deals with fishing vessels driven into port by stress of weather (13 SP, p. 3); Aug. 2, 1839 (27 SP, p. 983); May 24, 1843 (31 SP, p. 165); June 23, 1843 (31 SP, p. 190); Dec. 1845 (8 Martens, NRG, 1 sér., p. 658); Nov. 11,1867 (57 SP, p. 8) [The legislation necessary for putting this convention into operation was never passed by France]; Sept. 29,1923 (21 LNTS, p. 137); Dec. 20, 1928 (86 LNTS, p. 429).

44 Jan. 18, 1908 (101 SP, p. 1059).

45 Dec. 27, 1878, Art. 18, and Final Protocol ad Arts. 17 and 18 (69 SP, pp. 1270, 1276, 1304); Dec. 6, 1891, the same articles (83 SP, pp. 588, 595, 655); May 11, 1884 (Imbart de Latour, La Mer Territoriale, p. 163); Feb. 11, 1906, Final Protocol ad Art. 19 (35 Martens NRG, 2 sér., pp. 30, 45, 84).

46 Sept. 14, 1921 (19 LNTS, p. 13). Extended, with some additional provisions, to include Fiume and Susak, July 20, 1925 (83 LNTS, p. 87).

47 For Canadian complaints regarding the American activities, see 43d Annual Report of the Fisheries Branch, Dept. of Marine and Fisheries, Canada, pp. 37, 165; and 45th Annual Report, p. 230.

48 See Division of Fish and Game of California, The Commercial Fish Catch of California for the Years 1926 and 1927; R. A. Coleman, Fisheries Prosecuted by California Fishermen in Mexican Waters, Appendix XIV to the report of the U. S. Commissioner of Fisheries for 1922.

49 The situation is discussed in the Report of the International Fisheries Commission Appointed under the Northern Pacific Halibut Treaty, Ottawa, 1928, Washington, 1930; in William F. Thompson's article “The Regulation of the Halibut Fisheries of the Pacific Coast of North America,” in 4 Journal du conseil permanent international pour l’exploration de la mer, pp. 145-161; and in the annual reports of the Fisheries Branch, Dept. of Marine and Fisheries of Canada.

50 June 24, 1901 (94 SP, p. 29).

51 Mar. 2,1923 (43 U. S. Stat, at L., p. 1841, this Journal, Supp., Vol. 19 (1925), p. 106); May 9, 1930 (47 U. S. Stat, at L., p. 1872; this Journal, Supp., Vol. 25 (1931), p. 188).

52 Dec. 23, 1925, Sec. III (44 U. S. Stat, at L., p. 2358).

53 The French rights were based on treaties between France and Great Britain: Mar. 31/ April 11, 1713, Art. 13 (1 De Clercq, Recueil des traités de la France [cited hereafter as De Clercq], p. 7); Feb. 10,1763, Arts. 5 and 6 (1 De Clercq, p. 89); Sept. 3,1783, Arts. 5 and 6 and accompanying declarations (1 De Clercq, p. 126); Mar. 27, 1802, Art. 15 (7 Martens, Recueil des principaux traités, p. 404); May 30,1814, Arts. 8 and 13 (1 SP, pt. I, p. 151); and Nov. 20, 1815, Art. 11, a confirmation of the preceding (3 SP, p. 280). These rights were materially altered by a convention of April 8, 1904, Arts. 1 and 2 (97 SP, p. 31). The American rights were based on treaties between the United States and Great Britain: Sept. 3,1783, Art. 3 (8 U. S. Stat, at L., p. 80); and Oct. 20,1818 (8 U. S. Stat, at L., p. 248). These rights were enlarged temporarily by treaties of June 5, 1854 (10 U. S. Stat, at L., p. 1089) effective 1855-1866; and May 8,1871, Arts. 18-25, 30, 32 and 33 (17 U. S. Stat, at L., p. 863) effective 1871-1885. The question of servitudes in connection with fishing rights, and especially in connection with these rights, is not discussed in this paper. For an excellent recent consideration of the problem see: Reid, H. D., International Servitudes in Law and Practice (Chicago, 1932), Chaps. VII, VIII and IX.

54 For a discussion of the part this played in the American views regarding the fishing rights see the Proceedings in the North Atlantic Coast Fisheries Arbitration, Washington, 1912,12 vols., passim, and especially The Case of the United States in Vol. 1, p. 7 ff., and the discussion in the Counter Case of Great Britain, in Vol. 7, p. 3 ff., and the Printed Argument of Great Britain, in Vol. 8, p. 7 ff. For similar factors influencing the claims regarding the French rights, see the correspondence of Lord Salisbury and M. Waddington in Correspondence respecting the Newfoundland Fisheries, 1884-1890, Parl. P. 1890 [c. 6044], lxxxi, 37, pp. 182 ff., 188 ff.

55 This is illustrated by the statistical tables given in R. H. Fiedler, Fishing Industries of the United States, 1931, which is Appendix II to Report of Commissioner of Fisheries for the Fiscal Year 1932. See especially “Landings by fishing vessels at the three principal New England ports by fishing grounds,” p. 206 ff. Similar tables are to be found in the reports for previous years.

56 July 15/28, 1907 (101 SP, p. 453); Jan. 20, 1925, Art. 3 (15 Martens, NRG, 3 sér., p. 323); and Jan. 23,1928 (80 LNTS, p. 341). A treaty settling disputes regarding the Japanese rights was signed Aug. 14, 1932 (New York Times, Aug. 15, 1932, p. 1, c. 2).

57 For recent disputes, see the index of the New York Times for February, March, and April, 1931; July, 1932; June and July, 1933; and February, March, and May, 1934.

58 Jan. 20, 1924, Art. 18 (44 LNTS, p. 359).

59 Nov. 24, 1926 (63 LNTS, p. 91).

60 July 14, 1906, Art. 25 (100 SP, p. 867).

61 France-Italy, Nov. 3,1881, accompanying declaration (8 Martens, NRG, 2 se>., pp. 525, 546).

62 The privileges gained by Greece were in Cyrenaica and Tripolitania; those of Egypt were in Italian territorial waters generally.

63 Of these, the right to purchase supplies, bait, etc., the so-called commercial privileges, are the most common. See the treaties cited below in note 124. Other rights are granted in a treaty between Great Britain-United States, Oct. 20, 1818 (8 U. S. Stat, at L., p. 248) ; and between Sweden-Norway-Russia, April 26/May 8, 1838, additional article, par. 9 (Recueil des traités de la Norvége, p. 538), referring to the Norwegian law of Sept. 13, 1830.

64 Belgium-Denmark-France-Germany-Great Britain-The Netherlands, May 6, 1882 (73 SP, p. 39).

65 The same states, Nov. 18,1887 (79 SP, p. 894). France did not ratify this convention.

66 The participants were Germany, Great Britain, Norway, The Netherlands, and Sweden. See 38 Vict., c. 18; 73 SP, p. 282, and p. 708; and 70 SP, p. 368, and p. 513.

67 Great Britain-Japan-Russia-United States, July 7, 1911 (37 U. S. Stat, at L., p. 1542).

68 Russia, edict, Sept. 4, 1821 (2 Fur Seal Arbitration. Proceedings of the Tribunal of Arbitration, Appendix, p. 16).

69 U. S. An Act to prevent the extermination of fur-bearing animals in Alaska, July 1, 1870 (16 U. S. Stat, at L., c. 189, pp. 180-182).

70 League of Nations, Economic Committee. Report to the Council of the work of the thirty-second session, June 14,1930. Publications of the League. 1930. II. 24, pp. 8-11. “Preliminary draft convention for the regulation of whaling.“

71 S. A. and H. S. Moore, , The History and Law of Fisheries (London, 1903), pp. 173-174.Google Scholar

72 Denmark-France-Great Britain-Italy-Japan-The Netherlands-Norway-Sweden-United States, Feb. 9, 1920, Art. 2 (2 LNTS, pt. I, p. 8).

73 Great Britain-Canada-Norway, Aug. 8/Nov. 5,1930 (24 Martens, NRG, 3 sér., p. 345).

74 Sept. 21/Oct. 2, 1751, Codicil I (Recueil des tratés de la Norvège, p. 584).

75 May 14/2,1826, Art. 7 (6 Martens, Nouveau recueil de trailis, p. 1014); Aug. 18/6, 1834 (Recueil des Iraitis de la Norvege, p. 536).

76 Oct. 21, 1922 (29 LNTS, p. 197).

77 Denmark-Norway, July 9, 1924 (120 SP, p. 238); Denmark-Great Britain, April 23/ June 4, 1925 (121 SP, p. 767); Denmark-France, Oct. 12/19, 1925 (122 SP, p. 385).

78 Great Britain-United States, Sept. 3, 1783, Art. 3 (8 U. S. Stat, at L., p. 80).

79 Great Britain-Spain, Oct. 28, 1790, Art. 3 (1 SP, pt. I, p. 663).

80 April 5/17, 1824, Art. 1 (8 U. S. Stat, at L., p. 302).

81 Feb. 28/16, 1825, Art. 1 (12 SP, p. 38).

82 “It is therefore prohibited to all foreign vessels not only to land on the coasts and islands belonging to Russia as stated above, but also to approach them within less than a hundred Italian miles.” Russia, edict, Sept. 4, 1821, Art. 2. See note 68.

83 Oct. 20, 1818 (8 U. S. Stat, at L., p. 248).

84 Ibid., Art. 1. “And the United States hereby renounce, forever, any liberty heretofore enjoyed or claimed by the inhabitants thereof, to take, dry, or cure fish, on or within three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors, of His Britannic Majesty's dominions in America, not included within the above-mentioned limits.“

85 Aug. 2,1839, Art. 9 (27 SP, pp. 983, 988); May 24, 1843, Art. 2 (31 SP, p. 165); Nov. 11, 1867, Art. 1 (57 SP, p. 8).

86 These were informal agreements and their terms were made known through notices issued by the British Board of Trade, November, 1868 (14 HCT, p. 1055); December, 1874 (14 HCT, p. 1057); July, 1880 (15 HCT, p. 209).

87 May 6, 1882, Art. 2 (73 SP, p. 39).

88 June 24, 1901, Art. 2 (94 SP, p. 29).

89 See Correspondence respecting the Conference at the Hague and the Convention of the 6th May, 1882, relative to the Police of the Fisheries in the North Sea, Parl. P. 1882 [c. 3238], lxxii, 459. Note especially Sir H. Rumbold to Earl Granville, March 16, 1882, p. 145 ff.

90 Temporary Fisheries Agreement, May 22, 1930 (Great Britain, Treaty Series No. 22 [1930]).

91 July 14, 1899, Art. 1 (104 SP, p. 912).

92 Oct. 2,1885, Art. 2 (77 SP, p. 1181). The treaty also permitted the enforcement of certain types of regulations within a distance of twelve miles. Art. 3.

93 March 27,1893, Appendix 6, Art. 2 (85 SP, pp. 416,455). The third article was similar to that of the 1885 agreement.

94 Dec. 27, 1878, Final Protocol ad Arts. 17 and 18 (69 SP, pp. 1270,1304); Dec. 6, 1891, Annex 3 ad Arts. 17 and 18 (83 SP, pp. 588, 655); Feb. 11, 1906, Final Protocol ad Arts. 18 and 19 (35 Martens, NRG, 2 sér., pp. 30, 83).

95 Sept. 14, 1921, Art. 2 (19 LNTS, pp. 13, 41).

96 Art. 25, ibid., p. 51.

97 Reprinted in this Journal, Supp., Vol. 24 (1930), pp. 239-247.

98 Art. 3, par. 2, and Art. 6.

99 This Journal, Spl. Supp., Vol. 20 (1926), pp. 62, 105.

100 Denmark-Sweden, July 14, 1899, Art. 3 (104 SP, p. 912); Great Britain-U. S. S. R., May 22, 1930, Art. 1 (Great Britain, Treaty Series No. 22 [1930]). The latter uses the phrase “will permit such boats to navigate and anchor in all waters contiguous to the northern coasts of the U. S. S. R.“

101 Finland-U. S. S. R., Oct. 21, 1922, Art. 3 (29 LNTS, pp. 197, 207).

102 France-Great Britain, Nov. 16,1686, Art. 5 (1 SP, pt. I, p. 423); North Sea Convention, May 6, 1882, Art. 2, par. 3 (73 SP, p. 39); Denmark-Great Britain, June 24, 1901, Art. 2, par. 3 (94 SP, p. 29).

103 In all those cited, except the seventeenth century agreement and the British treaty with Soviet Russia.

104 E.g., the Anglo-French channel treaties: Aug. 2,1839, Art. 8 (27 SP, pp. 983, 987); May 24,1843, Art. 85 (31 SP, pp. 165,187); Nov. 11, 1867, Art. 32 (57 SP, pp. 8, 22). The Portuguese- Spanish treaties: Oct. 2, 1885, Art. 6 (77 SP, p. 1181); March 27, 1893, Appendix 6, Art. 6 (85 SP, pp. 416, 456). The Finnish-Russian convention regarding the Gulf of Finland, Sept. 20,1922, Art. 7 (19 LNTS, pp. 143,152). The Anglo-American treaty of Oct. 20, 1818, Art. 1 [the renunciatory clause], (8 U. S. Stat, at L., p. 248).

105 1 Proceedings in the North Atlantic Coast Fisheries Arbitration, p. 91.

106 Jan. 23, 1928, Annexed Final Protocol, Art. 5 (80 LNTS, pp. 341, 380).

107 E.g., Great Britain-United States, Oct. 20, 1818, Art. 1 (8 U. S. Stat, at L., p. 248).

108 Report of the American-Canadian Fisheries Conference, 1918, Foreign Relations, 1918, pp. 439, 473.

109 May 24,1843, Art. 85 (31 SP, pp. 165, 187). The convention of Jan. 26, 1826, Art. 5, recognized the right of shelter from “stress of weather” (13 SP, pp. 3, 8). The definition of 1843 is an amplification of that of Aug. 2, 1839, Art. 8 (27 SP, pp. 983, 987). It included a special provision regarding shelter for herring boats. The provisions of these regulations were closely followed by the Spanish-Portuguese treaties. (For citations see note 104.) They added a fourth circumstance, when it was absolutely necessary to gain the nearest port of the other Power for provisions. Substantially the same provisions appear in the informal Anglo-German agreements of November, 1868, Sec. 2 (14 HCT, p. 1055); December, 1874, Sec. 2 (14 HCT, p. 1057); and July, 1880, Sec. 2 (15 HCT, p. 209). Other conventions containing stipulations regarding shelter are: Finland-U. S. S. R., Sept. 20,1922, Art. 7 [Fishing rights denied. Shelter from “stress of weather, fog, ice, or other perils of the sea,“], (19 LNTS, pp. 144,152); Oct. 21,1922, Art. 3 [Fishing rights granted] (29 LNTS, pp. 197, 207); France-Great Britain, April 8, 1904, Art. 2 [At Newfoundland in connection with fishing rights], Art. 7 [At the lies de Los, “anchorage in all weathers.” Fishing rights not granted, but other privileges conferred, such as transshipment of goods, taking in provisions, drying of nets], (97 SP, p. 31); Germany-Great Britain, July 1,1890, Art. 12 [At Heligoland. Same as provisions regarding lies de Los] (82 SP, pp. 35, 47).

110 E.g., England-France, June 27, 1403 (8 Rymer, Foedera, p. 305); England-Burgundy, March 10, 1407 (8 ibid., p. 469); Aug. 4, 1446 (11 ibid., p. 140); Nov. 24, 1467 (11 ibid., p. 591); Feb. 24, 1496 (12 ibid., p. 578). Similar provisions are found in: Algeria-France, Sept. 29, 1628 (E. Rouard de Card, Traités de la France avec les pays de I'Afrique du nord, p. 20); July 7, 1640 (ibid., p. 22).

111 At the Falkland Islands. See: Goebel, , J. L., , The Struggle for the Falkland Islands (New Haven, 1927)Google Scholar; Reid, , H. D., , International Servitudes in Law and Practice (Chicago, 1932), pp. 67-68.Google Scholar

112 France-Great Britain, April 8, 1904, Arts. 1 and 2 (97 SP, p. 31).

113 E.g., the Anglo-American treaties provide: “The American Fishermen shall have liberty to dry and cure fish in any of the unsettled bays … ; but so soon as the same … shall be settled, it shall not be lawful … to dry or cure fish at such settlement, without a previous agreement for that purpose… .” Sept. 3,1783, Art. 3 (8 U. S. Stat, at L., p. 80). Similar conditions appear in: Oct. 20,1818, Art. 1 (loc. cit., p. 248); “provided that, in so doing, they do not interfere with the rights of private property, or with British fishermen, in the peaceable use of any part of the said coast in their occupancy for the same purpose.” June 5, 1854, Art. 1 (10 loc. oil., p. 1089); May 8, 1871, Art. 18 (17 loc. cit., p. 863).

114 Japan-U. S. S. R., Jan. 23, 1928 (80 LNTS, p. 341).

115 Oct. 21, 1922 (29 LNTS, p. 197).

116 Denmark-Norway, July 9, 1924 (120 SP, p. 238).

117 Denmark-France-Great Britain-Italy-Japan-The Netherlands-Norway-Sweden-United States, Feb. 9, 1920 (2 LNTS, pt. I, p. 7).

118 With its annexes the English text and the French translation occupy 80 LNTS, pp. 341-399.

119 From the British Case in 4 Proceedings in the North Atlantic Coast Fisheries Arbitration, p. 134.

120 Great Britain-Spain, Oct. 28, 1790, Art. 4 (1 SP, pt. I, p. 663); Russia-United States, April 5/17,1824, Art. 2 (8 U. S. Stat, at L., p. 302); Great Britain-Russia, Feb. 16/28,1825, Art. 2 (12 SP, p. 38); Morocco-Spain, Nov. 20,1861, Art. 59 (53 SP, pp. 1089,1106); Corea-Japan, July 25, 1883 Art. 41 (77 SP, pp. 404,413); Belgium-The Netherlands, May 20,1843, Art. 19 (37 SP, pp. 1248, 1281, 1284).

121 This point was argued before the court in the North Atlantic Coast Fisheries Arbitration. It was decided in accordance with the principle stated. 1 Proceedings in the North Atlantic Coast Fisheries Arbitration, p. 101. A similar question was considered by the Halifax Commission. 2 Documents and Proceedings of the Halifax Commission, 1877, p. 1585.

122 E.g., by a Canadian Order in Council of March 9, 1915, foreign fishing vessels were permitted to purchase supplies at any port in British Columbia. (Cong. Rec, 64th Cong., 1st Sess., Vol. 53, part 13, p. 13183.) The Danish laws of April 6, 1898, and Feb. 1, 1899, allowed trawling vessels to enter the territorial waters of Iceland and the Faroe Islands to obtain provisions of coal if their fishing gear was stowed away. (21 HCT, pp. 352-354).

123 Great Britain-United States, [Newfoundland] Modus Vivendi, Feb. 15, 1888 (79 SP, p. 272); France-Great Britain, [Newfoundland] April 8, 1904, Art. 2 (97 SP, p. 31); Treaty regarding Spitzbergen, Feb. 9, 1920, Art. 3 (2 LNTS, pt. I, p. 7; this Journal, Supp., Vol. 18 (1924), p. 201); Denmark-Germany, April 10, 1922, annexed Agreement regarding the Flensburg Fjord, Art. 2 (10 LNTS, pp. 73, 255); Japan-U. S. S. R., Jan. 23, 1928, Final Protocol, Sec. 2, par. 3 (80 LNTS, pp. 341, 378).

124 Great Britain-United States, [Canada] Modus Vivendi, Feb. 15, 1888 (79 SP, p. 272); Canada-United States, concurrent action, Feb. 21/Mar. 8, 1918 (Foreign Relations, 1918, pp. 452-453); Denmark-Sweden, Dec. 29, 1913, Art. 1, par. 2 (12 Martens, NRG, 3 ser., p. 112); Portugal-Spain, Oct. 2, 1885, Arts. 6 and 7 [only when forced in] (77 SP, p. 1181), and Mar. 27,1893, annexed regulations, Arts. 6 and 7 [only when forced in] (85 SP, pp. 416,456); Germany-Great Britain, July 1, 1890, Art. 12 [Heligoland] (82 SP, pp. 35,47); France-Great Britain, April 8, 1904, Art. 7 [lies de Los] (97 SP, pp. 31, 34); Hawaiian Islands, United States, Dec. 20, 1849, Art. 7 (9 U. S. Stat, at L., p. 977); Peru-United States, July 26, 1851, Art. 12 (10 U. S. Stat, at L., p. 926); the same, July 4,1857 (11 U. S. Stat, at L., p. 725); and Hawaiian Islands-Norway, July 1, 1852, Art. 7 (Becueil des traiUs de la Norvége, p. 275).

125 Argument of the Honorable Elihu Root, ed. James Brown Scott, World Peace Foundation, 1912, p. lvii.

126 Belgium-Denmark-France-Germany-Great Britain-The Netherlands, May 6, 1882 (73 SP, p. 39).

127 Provisions which are substantially the same as those in the North Sea Treaty are found in the treaties between: Denmark-Great Britain, June 24, 1901, Arts. 5-13 (94 SP, p. 29); Portugal-Spain, Mar. 27, 1893, Appendix 6, Sec. II (85 SP, pp. 416, 457), and Oct. 2, 1885, Sec. II (77 SP, pp. 1181, 1184); France-Great Britain, May 24, 1843, Arts. 6-15 (31 SP, p. 165), and Nov. 11, 1867, Arts. 4-9 (57 SP, p. 8).

128 Similar provisions regarding the identification of fishing vessels are found in the agreements between: Germany-Lithuania, Jan. 29, 1928, Arts. 5 and 6 (89 LNTS, pp. 309, 325); Germany-Denmark, Jan. 25, 1926, Sees. II and III (44 LNTS, pp. 389, 403); Finland- U. S. S. R., Oct. 21, 1922, Art. 6 (29 LNTS, pp. 197, 208); Italy-Serb-Croat-Slovene State, Sept. 14, 1921, Chap. IV (19 LNTS, pp. 13, 53); Denmark-Sweden, July 14, 1899, Art. 9 (104 SP, p. 912); France-Spain, Feb. 18, 1886 [concerning the fishery in the Bidassoa], Art. 1 (77 SP, p. 1073); Belgium-Netherlands, May 20, 1843 [concerning the fishery in the Scheldt], Arts. 4-7 (37 SP, pp. 1248, 1281).

129 Question One submitted to the Hague Tribunal dealt with the regulation of the fish eries. See the compromis, Jan. 27,1909, Art. 1 (36 U. S. Stat, at L., p. 2141); the argument (Proceedings in the North Atlantic Coast Fisheries Arbitration, Washington, 1912,12 vols., passim); the decision of the court (1 ibid., pp. 73-88); and the subsequent agreement, July 20, 1912, Art. 1 (37 U. S. Stat, at L., p. 1634; this JOUBNAL, Supp., Vol. 7 (1913), p. 42). For the provision in regard to the French rights, see the convention of April 8,1904, Art. 2 (97 SP, p. 31).

130 E.g., the Adriatic agreements between Italy and, first, Austria-Hungary (see note 45) and, later, the Serb-Croat-Slovene State (Arts. 14 and 25; see note 46); the Flensburg Fjord (Art. 3) and Bredegrund (Art. 3) agreements (see notes 36 and 37); the Anglo-French convention of April 8,1904, Art. 2 (97 SP, p. 31); Belgium-Netherlands, May 20,1843, annexed regulations, Arts. 11 and 12 (37 SP, pp. 1248,1283); Great Britain-Tunis, July 19,1875, Art. 9 (66 SP, p. 93); Portugal-Spain, July 14, 1878, Art. 1 (7 Olivart, Colección de los tratados, p. 387); Corea-Japan, Oct. 31, 1908, Art. 2 (101 SP, p. 1032); Albania-Italy, Jan. 20, 1924, Art. 18 (44 LNTS, pp. 359, 369); and Germany-Lithuania, Jan. 29,1928, Art. 10 (89 LNTS, pp. 309, 327).

131 E.g., same-as-other nations treatment is provided for in: Finland-TJ. S. S. R., Oct. 21, 1922, Art. 9 (29 LNTS, pp. 197, 209); in regard to certain minor matters: Japan-Russia, July 15/28, 1907, Art. 11 (101 SP, p. 453), and Jan. 23, 1928, Arts. 10 and 11 (80 LNTS, p. 341). E.g., national treatment is provided for in: France-Spain, Jan. 2,1768, Art. 3 (1 De Clercq, p. 95); Egypt-Italy, July 14,1906, Art. 25 (100 SP, pp. 867,876); Finland-U. S. S. R., Oct. 21,1922, Arts. 1 and 4 (29 LNTS, pp. 197, 206 ff); Greece-Italy, Nov. 24, 1926, Arts. 1 and 2 (63 LNTS, p. 91); Japan-Russia, July 15/28,1907, Arts. 7, 9, and 10 (101 SP, p. 453), and Jan. 23, 1928, Arts. 7, 10, and 14 (80 LNTS, p. 341). In some of these agreements the principle is given only a limited application.

132 E.g., fishing is restricted according to the season, the dimensions of the catch, and the methods of fishing employed in the Franco-Spanish agreements regarding the Bidassoa (see note 26); in the Russo-Roumanian agreements regarding the Danube and Pruth (see note 31); certain methods of fishing are prohibited in the Spanish-Portuguese agreements regarding the coastal fisheries (Arts. 3 and 25 in the agreements of Oct. 2,1885, and Mar. 27, 1893 —see note 30); the use of certain methods of fishing and their use at certain seasons is regulated in the Serb-Croat-Slovene-Italian agreement regarding the Adriatic, Sept. 14, 1921, Arts. 4-6, 10, 15-20, 28 (19 LNTS, pp. 13, 43); fishing is restricted according to the season, the methods of fishing employed, and the dimensions of the catch in the Dano-Swedish agreements of July 14,1899, Art. 2, and Oct. 5,1907 (see note 41),; fishing methods are regulated in the German-Lithuanian agreement regarding the Kurische Haff, Jan. 29, 1928, Annex A (89 LNTS, pp. 309, 331 ff); fishing methods used by the Germans in fishing on the Bredegrund are restricted in the agreement with Denmark of April 10,1922, Annexed Agreement (10), Art. 3 (10 LNTS, pp. 73, 259); fishing is restricted according to the season, the methods of fishing employed, and the dimensions of the catch in the Dano-German agreement regarding the Flensburg Fjord of Jan. 25, 1926 (44 LNTS, p. 389).

133 Regulations which apply primarily to the high seas are neither so numerous nor so de tailed: the size of mesh and fittings of nets (Arts. 16-23, 28, 37, 41-43), the season for oyster fishing (Art. 45), and the size of the oysters taken (Art. 48), were regulated in the Franco- British agreement regarding the channel fisheries of May 24, 1843, the oyster fishing was to have been regulated by the agreement of Nov. 11, 1867 (Art. 11), and was regulated by the agreement of Sept. 29, 1923 (see note 43); pelagic sealing in the waters of the North Pacific was regulated by a convention between Great Britain, Japan, Russia, and the United States, July 7, 1911 (37 U. S. Stat, at L., p. 1542; this Journal, Supp., Vol. 5 (1911), p. 267).; a closed season for halibut is established in the American-Canadian conventions of Mar. 2, 1923, and May 9, 1930 (see note 51). In the latter, provision was made for possible regulation of a more extensive nature; plaice and flounder fishing in the Baltic is regulated in regard to methods and localities of fishing, the seasons, and the dimensions of the catch in the agreement between Denmark, Danzig, Germany, Poland, and Sweden, Dec. 17, 1929 (115 LNTS, p. 93).

134 May 24, 1843 (31 SP, p. 165).

135 See Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the Sea Fisheries of the United Kingdom, Vol. I, p. lxxiv. Parl. P. 1866 (3596), xvii, 571.

136 No day was ever fixed by the French and British Governments in accordance with Art. 39 for the coming into operation of the convention. See 31 & 32 Vict., c. 45, and the Notification regarding the Delay in Carrying out the Fishery Convention with France of November 11, 1867, Feb. 6, 1869 (65 SP, p. 1218).

137 E.g., Italy-Serb-Croat-Slovene State, Sept. 14, 1921, Chap. VI [Scientific Committee for Physico-biological Research in the Adriatic], Chap. VII [Permanent Fisheries Commission], (19 LNTS, p. 13 ff.); Germany-U. S. S. R., Oct. 12, 1925, Agreement IV, Art. 13 [provides for a joint scientific inquiry into the biology of useful fish], (53 LNTS, pp. 7, 133); Mexico-United States, Dec. 23, 1925, Sec. III (44 U. S. Stat, at L., p. 2358; this Journal, Supp., Vol. 20 (1926), p. 110). In this connection there should be mentioned such quasipublic organizations as Le conseil permanent international pour V exploration de la mer, which, with governmental coöperation, carries on scientific investigations regarding fisheries, particularly those of the North Sea, and the North American Council on Fishery Investigations.

138 Canada-United States, March 2, 1923, and May 9, 1930. See note 51.

139 See note 49.

140 Art. 3. Acting under these powers, the commission has drawn up new regulations. U. S. Daily, Jan. 11, 1933, p. 6.

141 Belgium-Netherlands, May 20,1843, Annexed Regulations—Fisheries and Commerce in Fish, Art. 20 (37 SP, pp. 1248,1281, 1284); Denmark-Sweden, July 14, 1899, Protocol (104 SP, p. 915); Roumania-Russia, Oct. 16/29, 1907, Art. 13 (101 SP, p. 569); the same, Feb. 9/22,1901, Art. 12 (30 Martens, NRG, 2 sér., p. 487); Great Britain-United States, April 11, 1908, Art. 3 (35 U. S. Stat, at L., p. 2000; this Journal, Supp., Vol. 2 (1908), p. 322); Italy- Serb-Croat-Slovene State, Sept. 14, 1921, Chap. V (19 LNTS, p. 13); Finland-U. S. S. R., Oct. 21, 1922, Art. 8 (29 LNTS, pp. 197, 208); Germany-Lithuania, Jan. 29, 1928, Art. 2 (89 LNTS, p. 309).

142 France-Spain, March 31, 1859, Art. 15 ff. [This provides for special officers. The arrangement was continued in later agreements. See note 26], (50 SP, p. 1006); Denmark Germany, April 10, 1922, Agreement regarding common fishery rights in the Flensburg Fjord, Art. 5 [Permission to examine suspected offenders within that part of the territorial waters of the other country where the nationals of both countries are entitled to carry on fishing], (10 LNTS, pp. 73, 255); Germany-Lithuania, Jan. 29, 1928, Art. 8 [Permits pursuit within the jurisdiction of the other state in order to establish the identity of the offenders], (89 LNTS, p. 309). Former fishery agreements between Japan and Corea made special provisions consistent with the special privileges enjoyed by the former. See the agreements of: July 27, 1883 (74 SP, p. 151); Nov. 12, 1889, Art. 11 (81 SP, p. 261); Oct. 31,1908 (101 SP, p. 1032).

143 France-Spain, March 31,1859, Art. 26 (50 SP, p. 1006. This provision was repeated in later agreements. See note 26); Portugal-Spain, Oct. 2, 1885, Art. 8 (77 SP, p. 1181); Portugal-Spain, Mar. 27,1893, Appendix No. 6, Art. 8 (85 SP, pp. 416,455,457); Denmark- Germany, April 10, 1922, Agreement regarding common fishery rights in the Flensburg Fjord, Art. 5 (10 LNTS, pp. 73, 255); Germany-Lithuania, Jan. 29,1928, Art. 9 (89 LNTS, pp. 309, 326).

144 France-Great Britain, May 24,1843, Arts. 63-65 (31 SP, pp. 165,179); Convention for regulating the North Sea Fisheries, May 6,1882, Arts. 26-30 (73 SP, pp. 39, 45); Portugal- Spain, Oct. 2,1885, Art. 27 (77 SP, pp. 1181,1187); Convention respecting the liquor traffic among fishermen in the North Sea, Nov. 16,1887, Arts. 5-7 (79 SP, p. 894); Great Britain- United States, June 15,1891, Art. 3 [Fur-seal modus vivendi], (1 Malloy, p. 743); the same, April 18,1892, Art. 3 (27 U. S. Stat, at L., p. 952); Portugal-Spain, Mar. 27,1893, Appendix No. 6, Art. 27 (85 SP, pp. 416, 455, 459); Russia-United States, May 4/April 22,1894, Arts. 2 and 3 [Fur-seal agreement], (28 U. S. Stat, at L., p. 1202); Denmark-Great Britain, June 24, 1901, Arts. 26-37 (94 SP, p. 29); Great Britain-United States, Feb. 7,1911, Art. 1 [Fur-seal treaty], (37 U. S. Stat, at L., p. 1538; this JOUBNAL, Supp., Vol. 6 (1912), p. 162); Great Britain-Japan-Russia-United States, July 7, 1911, Art. 1 (37 U. S. Stat, at L., p. 1542; this Journal, Supp., Vol. 5 (1911), p. 267); Canada-United States, Mar. 2, 1923, Art. 2, and May 9,1930, Art. 2 (see note 51). See also: Denmark-Sweden, July 14,1899, Art. 8 (Violations outside territorial waters to be punished in the country to which the boat of the guilty party belongs), (104 SP, p. 912); Finland-U. S. S. R., Sept. 20,1922, Art. 6 (Any claims for compensation in consequence of infractions of the convention may be brought before the courts of the state in which the accused party is resident), (19 LNTS, pp. 143, 151).

145 Belgium-Great Britain, May 2,1891 (18 Martens, NRG, 2 sér., p. 179); Great Britain- The Netherlands, April 26, 1902 (95 SP, p. 107).

146 France-Great Britain, May 24,1843, Art. 66 (31 SP, p. 165); Convention for regulating the North Sea Fisheries, May 6, 1882, Art. 33 (73 SP, p. 39); Portugal-Spain, Oct. 2, 1885,Art. 28 (77 SP, p. 1181); the same, Mar. 27, 1893, Appendix No. 6, Art. 28 (85 SP, pp. 416, 455, 459); Denmark-Great Britain, June 24, 1901, Art. 33 (94 SP, p. 29).