1 Crocker, H. G., The Extent of the Marginal Sea, 1919, •passim; The Elida, this Journal, Vol. 10 (1916), p. 916 Google Scholar; Fauchille, , Traits de Droit International Public, I, pt. 2, p. 126 Google Scholar; Schücking, , Dos Küstenmeer im internationalen Reehte , 1897; 1 Google Scholar, Nordisk Tidsskrift för International Ret, p. 276; this Journal, Vol. 20 (1926), Spl. Supl., pp. 70–79.

2 Reuterskiöld, C. A., Om folkrättslig gränsbestämning i vatten, Statsvetenskaplig Tidskrift, 1909, pp. 82 Google Scholar ff.; Lawrence, T. J., The Principles of International Law, sec. 72 Google Scholar.

3 Till frågan on gränsen för Sveriges territorialvatten, pp. 16, 23, 29.

4 Ibid., p. 23; Matzen, H., Den danske statsförfatningsret, 1, 4th ed., 1910 Google Scholar.

5 Although she continued to maintain the four-mile limit against the other Scandinavian states.

6 Article 3 of the Treaty of Dorpat of October 14, 1920, between Finland and Russia reads: “The extent of the territorial waters of the contracting Powers is four nautical miles from shore, or where there is an archipelago, from the farthest island or skerry rising above the level of the sea.”

7 U. S. For. Rel. 1905, p. 863.

8 Till frågan, pp. 35–40.

9 See, for example, Reuterskiöld, , Sveriges grundlagar, II, p. 368 Google Scholar.

10 Till frågan, p. 40.

11 As in the 1916 corrections of the 1912 edition of Handboken för marinen. Further discussion is contained in Flottans neutralitetsvakt, pp. 40 ff., and Svensk stais-och förvaltr-ningsrätt, 111 ca. p. 37 ff. See Torsten Gihl, Gränsen för Sveriges territorialvatten for an exception to the above-made statement.

12 Kun. Kungörehen of July 4, 1910.

13 Introduction to Staël von Holstein’s Kritiska Betraktelser.

14 Ingerslev’s speech to the Danish Folketinget. Till frågan, p. 68.

15 Communication of the Swedish Foreign Office to France, Feb. 8, 1870, following the K. Res. of Oct. 16, 1869.

16 Moore’s Digest, I, sec. 23, p. 63, contains the following words drawn from the 1876 ed. of Vattel, pp. 46 and 47 of Bk. 1: “that the law of nations requires every national government to use ‘due diligence’ to prevent the commission within its dominion of a wrong to another nation or its people”. Also ibid., II, pp. 4, 364, 365–367; Till frågan, pp. 91, 99, 103.

17 Ibid., pp. 12, 21, 43.

18 Halmstad brottmålsdomboken, Jan. 20, 1925; Rikets Göto, Hovrätt, 23 March, 1926; Kungl. Maj:ts utshg, Nov. 14, 1927. Till frågan.

19 The facts may be found in the Utdrag av brottmålsdomboken hållen vid Rådstuvurätten i Halmstad den W januari 1925. Also Kungl. Maj:ts utshg of Nov. 14, 1927.

20 Till frågan, pp. 90, 103, 110.

21 See the very interesting article of Arnold Raestad, Kodifikasjonskonferansen i Haag, in 1 Nord. Tids. for Int. Ret., pp. 251 ff.

22 Ibid., pp. 12, 13; Gihl, Part 1, Ch. 2.

23 This was denied by von Holstein in his brief before the courts in the Heinrich Augustin, but successfully disproved by the prosecution. Till frågan. On the Engeln and the Elsa Margareta, see Thyrén, , Den första väpnade neutraliteten, p. 46 Google Scholar, note 2.

24 Th. Boye, “Territorial Waters” report to 33d Conf. of Int. Law Assn., 1924. Raestad, Kongens strømme, pp. 244, 249. By the same author, De vaebnede neutralitetsforbund, p. 69.

25 Kungl. Kun. Jfr. Thyrén, , Den första väpnade neutraliteten, p. 46 Google Scholar.

26 Sveriges Traktater, VIII, p. 227.

27 Gihl, pp. 111–114.

28 Kungl. brev till dess princip, 1758.

29 Kungl. Maj:ts instruction för flottans befdlhavare av den 28 maj. 1779.

30 Hemliga rådsprotokoli i flere slag av ärenden, 1777–1780. This was to be measured from proximate islands, reefs, or cliffs. Diplomaiiska aktstycken, 1779–1780.

31 Till frågan, pp. 13 ff.

32 See Raestad and Danica passim, ibid., 22.

33 Gihl, pp. 38 ff. I. Oppenheim, International Law, 2nd ed., p. 262, sec. 191; Annuaire, 13, p. 146.

34 Firrf. Saml., 1870. Till frågan, pp. 21, 41, 44, 48.

35 K. B.:s Göteborg memorial, Dec. 31, 1870.

36 Kommerskollegii skrivelse of this date; this Journal, Vol. 23 (1929), p. 261.

37 This part read, “anses ut dt havet sträcka sig era geografisk mil från land eller ytterst av havet översköljes.” Kungl. Kun., May 5, 1871.

38 Till frågan, pp. 12, 22.

39 Entscheidungm des Oberprisengerichts, 1915, No. 9.

40 Sweden did not ratify this convention. 73 British and Foreign State Papers (1881–1882).

41 Gihl, Pt. II, pp. 270–275.

42 This reads in part as follows: “Den från dansk sida påfordrade och i art. 1 föreslagna inskränkningen av det svenska fiskeområdet vid en del av den hållnäska kusten anser jag mig utan betäncklighet kunna tittstyrka. For närvarande bedrives icke något nämnvärt fiske av danskar i närheten av Hållands kust, och även om någon förändring i delta förhållande skulle komma all inträda lärer det vederlag, mer än uppväga den förmån, som i nyssnämnda avseendc skulle medgivas danska fiskare framför andra utländska undersdtar.” Ib., p. 114. Lewenhaupt, Recueil des traités, II, pp. 197 ff.

43 To the time of the war this document was as clear a statement of the Swedish claims as had appeared. The four-mile limit allowed of no disputes. Taken together with the Danish attitude in the 1882 convention, it can be stated without the slightest fear of contradiction that at least one state had specifically entered into agreements recognizing the time-honored practice of the four-mile limit, which it had once held itself, and which it had abandoned in 1874. Other European states had also in their practice, if not in so many diplomatic documents, respected the laws relative to this area. Gihl, pp. 270 ff.

44 K.K. den 25te oktober, 1907.

45 K.K., July 4, 1910. It is well to note that the decision in the North Atlantic Fisheries Case made a deep impression on these countries. Scott’s criticisms and Drago’s dissenting opinion were read with considerable interest, since they suggested to a certain degree the disapproval which Scandinavia felt for the findings of the court. Schücking, , Das Werk vow, Haag, II, pp. 141 Google Scholar ff., 489, 490.

46 Till frågan, pp. 46, 72; Sv. Förf. Saml., 1914, No. 107.

47 Till frågan, pp. 12, 21, 43; Sv. Förf. Sam., 1915, no. 460; Björksten, , Das Wassergebiet Finlands in Völkerrecktlicher Hinsickt, p. 59 Google Scholar.

48 Flottans neutralitetsvakt, p. 14.

49 Till frågan, pp. 16, 64.

50 The Swedish position can be drawn from pp. 40 and 49 ff. Flottans neutralitetsvakt of 1912.

51 Walter Schücking’s Utlåtande, Sept. 1, 1926; Elial Löfgren’s Utlåtande, Feb. 11, 1925; “Le régime scandinave des eaux littorales,” in the Revue de droit international, 1924, no. 6, pp. 630–679; “Die Schwedishe Seegränze” in the Zeitschrift für Völkerrecht, 1925.

52 Förelasningar i svensk stats—och förvaltningsrätt, 1919, III; U. D. och maristdben utg. översikten Fl. neutral’vakt, 1919.

53 Handboken för marinen, 1912. Förf. saml., 1916.

54 U.D.:s utlåtande, 22 maj. 1925. Sv. Förf. Saml., 1925, no. 467.

55 Stockholm, 1925.

56 1 Nord. Tids for Int. Ret., pp. 276 ff.

57 “Eo potestatem terrae extendi, qvosque tormenia exphduntur,” and “terrae dominium finitur, ubi finitur armorum vis.” Bynkershoek, , De dominio maris, Chs. 2–4, 9 Google Scholar; Questiones juris publici, Book I, Ch. 8.

58 See Vattel, , Le droit des gens (1758), Book I, Ch. 23, 279–289 Google Scholar.

59 Raestad, , Kongens strømme, pp. 288 Google Scholar ff.

60 The Fagemes, Law Eeports, Probate, [1927] 311.

61 The conditions laid down in this letter were in some respects quite hazy, and show that Swedish law had not yet crystallized into anything except the general proposition that ships coming in from the ocean were to be followed and watched within this area, which was considered to be Swedish “dominium.”

62 Odhner, C. T., Sveriges politiska historia under Gustav III:s regering, II, pp. 67 Google Scholar ff.

63 The Fagernes.

64 Jessup, P. C., The Law of Territorial Waters and Maritime Jurisdiction, pp. 38–39 Google Scholar.

65 This Journal, Vol. 20 (1926), Spl. Supl., pp. 70–79; Till frågan, pp. 11–12.

66 Art. 19, Act 208, May 31, 1922.

67 British Pari. Papers, Misc. No. 8, 1917.

68 This Journal, Vol. 20 (1926), p. 72.

69 U. S. v. Rodgers, 150 U. S. 249; Iowa v. Ill., 147 U. S. 1; Ill. Cent. R. R. v. Ill., 146 U. S. 387; Schuyler, American Diplomacy, pp. 317–318; Adami, National Frontiers in Relation to International Law.

70 For the compromis, see Wilson, The Hague Arbitration Cases, p. 102.

71 The Fagernes.

72 I Nord. Tids. for Int. Ret., p. 267.

73 Gihl, Pt. II, Ch. 5, on jurisdiction; Wilson, International Law, pp. 99–103.

74 International Law, 1922, I, p. 258. Many citations are possible, but an excerpt from Strupp, , Grundzüge des positiven Völkerrechts, 2, 1922, p. 75 Google Scholar, is sufficient.

“Doch haben sich—bei besonders starken Schwankungen der Wissenschaft—feste Reglen auch hier nicht entwickelt und es sind selbst Buckten von einer Ausdehnung der Öffnung von 30, 49 (letztere Öffnung besitzt die von England als territorial bezeichnete Miramichi Bai in Canada) und mehr Seemeilen (Hudson-Bai; englische Auffassung) namentlich von England (die sog. “Kings Chambers”) und Amerika für nattonale Gewässer erklärt warden. Hierbei hat man vielfach mit dem Begriff der historischen Gewässer operiert, worunter man solche verstand, deren nationals Eigenschaft seit mehr ah 100 Jahren behauptet warden ist (so das Institut für Völkerrecht).”

75 Aktstycken av Utrikesdepartementet, pp. 17, 33 ff.

76 Till frågan, passim. Jfr. Nytt Juridiskt arkiv 1927, Pt. 1, pp. 592 ff.

77 The Fagernes.

78 The ten-mile jurisdiction, which constituted the basis for Dr. Drago’s famous dissent in the North Atlantic Fisheries Case (this Journal, Vol. 4 (1910), p. 988), has had many applications. Some of these may be listed. They are the Anglo-French agreement of Aug. 2, 1839; the French regulation of May 24, 1843; the Franco-English agreement of Nov. 11, 1867; the Nov., 1868, and the Dee., 1874 promulgations of Great Britain relative to the Fisheries Convention between England and Germany; the above-named North Seas Convention; the June 24, 1901, convention between Denmark and Great Britain; and the various instances given by Dr. Drago in his dissent. The ten-mile principle is not new. It has been followed by many states for some time. Some have adhered to it consistently, but most of them have not. Sweden, while she has at times applied it, has refused to admit that it is a part of her practice. Till frågan, pp. 63, 106 ff.

The twelve-mile limit is not so well known. It came to the attention of the world when the International Law Institute in 1894 adopted at Paris a resolution doubling the customary six-mile distance. In the Rebjansky Case it was definitely shown that Sweden did not accept this as any definite principle which she could follow. Ibid.

Neither of these was based on the principle of sight on which Swedish territorial waters are measured. They represent, rather, an attempt to arrive at a convenient method of definitely establishing the jurisdiction of a state over its bays and harbors, which to this very day is guided by no definite practice. Reuterskiöld, , Folkrätt, Part I, Ch. 4, sees. 14, 15, 16 Google Scholar.

79 This reads in the original “ I bukter och vikar & Sveriges kust, som ej hava en vidare mynning än 10 nautiska mil (18,520 meter) beräknas det yttre territorialvattnet i för detsamma gällande utsträckning från en linje dragen tvärs över buktens eller vikens mynning.”

80 Till frågan, p. 100. The thought is contained in a passage from Rivier, Prineipes du droit des gens, I, p. 154 (1896):

“Conformément a ce qui vient d’etre dit, les portions de mer, ou les mers, qu’en raison dt leur configuration on appette golfes, ou baies, sont territoriales lorsqu’elles sont environnées des terres d’un sevl État et que leur entrée est suffisamment étroite pour être commandée par les canons de la cdte. Mais du moment qu’il y a plusieurs Stats cdtiers, le golfe est mer libre, quelle que soti la largeur de son entrée. Le golfe, rneme entouré par un seul, État, est mer libre, si l’entrée est trop large pour être dominée de la côte. On admet assez généralment qu’il en est ainsi lorsque l’écartement des deux rives est de plus de dix milles marins.

“Les golfes territoriaux sont régis par les mêmes principes juridiques que les mers intérieures rum appelées golfes. La mer littorale commence où le golfe territorial finit.”

See also Fauchille, op. cit., I, pt. 2, pp. 373 ff., with notes. Also Föreläsningar i svensk stats-och förvaltningsrätt, 1919, III, p. 37. For the discussion of the Maja and the Trave in the Flottans nevtralitetsvakt, discussed in this same paragraph, see Till frågan, pp. 40, 49, 60. League of Nations Doc. C. 196, M. 70, 1927.

81 Published on Dec. 29, 1910. It reads in part as follows:

“I havsbukter och vikar bestämmes yttre sjögränsen, därest vattnets mynning är av större bredd (t. ex. Hanöbukten), på vanligt sätt genom en linje, som följer kusten, men därest bredden är mindre (t. ex. Skelderviken) på det sätt att vattnet anses såsom inre territorialvatten och kusthavet beräcknas sträcka sig på eljest stadgat avstånd därutanför, räknat från den räta linje, som tänkes förena de yttersta landspetsarna på båda sidor om bukten eller viken. Denna bredd är i några traktater bestämd till dubbelt kanonskotthåll eller högst 10 distansminuter; och har Folk-rättsinstitutet uttalat sig för 12 distansminuter, såvida ej en större bredd vore genom traktater eller urminnes hävd grundad, se Proj. Int. kusthavsregl. art. 3.” See also K.K. of May 5, 1871 and that of Dec. 20, 1912.

82 International Law, 3d ed., I, sec. 193.

83 This Journal, Spl. Supl., Vol. 23 (1929), pp. 261–2, 273; also Supplement to Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 25–46.

84 See cases of Trave and Maja cited above.

85 Till frågan, pp. 23, 24, 25, 31, 34, 42 ff., 57, 58, 59, 60 ff., 100, 103, 106. Also Gihl, Gränsen för, etc. passim.

86 Art. 12 of the Treaty of Dorpat between Finland and Russia shows the present position of Finland. It reads: “The contracting parties shall in principle favor the neutralization of the Gulf of Finland and the entire Baltic Sea, and undertake to cooperate for its realization.”

87 I Nord. Tids for Int. Ret., 251–279; this Joubnal, Vol. 24 (1930), pp. 674–694.