Regime of the Territorial Sea – Information and...

Document:- A/CN.4/71 and Add.1 & 2

Regime of the Territorial Sea – Information and Observations Submitted by Regarding the Question of the Delimitation of the Territorial Sea of two Adjacent States

Topic: Law of the sea - régime of the territorial sea

Extract from the Yearbook of the International Law Commission:- 1953 , vol. II

Downloaded from the web site of the International Law Commission (http://www.un.org/law/ilc/index.htm)

Copyright © United Nations

Regime of the territorial sea 79

maniere injustifide la superficie des eaux interieures, etreportent par trop vers le large la limite exterieure de lamer territoriale.

5. Dans les cas oil les « lignes de base droites » sontpermises, l'fitat cdtier sera tenu de publier le tracd adoptsd'une maniere suffisante.

6. Le Comite est oppose a l'Etablissement de touteliaison entre la longueur des «lignes de base droites » etl'etendue de la mer territoriale.

Comment faut-il fixer la limite exterieure de la merterritoriale, lorsque celle-ci aurait une largeur de T milles ?

La limite exterieure de la mer territoriale est constitutepar la ligne dont tous les points sont a une distance deT milles du point le plus proche de la ligne de base. Getteligne est form£e par une serie continuelle d'arcs de cerclequi s'entrecoupent, et qui sont traces avec un rayon deT milles, ayant leurs centres a tous les points de la lignede base. La limite exterieure de la mer territoriale estcomposed des arcs de cercle les plus avancds dans la mer.(Cette mEthode a deja ete utilisde avant 1930, mais lesdefinitions donndes parfois comme « enveloppe des arcsde cercle », paraissent etre frEquemment mal comprises.)

VI

Comment faut-il determiner la frontiere internationaleentre deux pays dont les cdtes se trouvent vis-a-vis l'unede l'autre a une distance de moins de 2 T milles ?

La frontiere entre deux Etats dont les c6tes sont situeesen face l'une de l'autre a une distance de moins de 2 Tmilles devrait Stre comme regie generate la ligne medianedont chaque point est Equidistant des deux cdtes. Touteile doit etre prise en consideration lors de l'etablissementde cette ligne, a moins que les Etats adjacents n'en aientdecide autrement d'un commun accord. De meme, lesfonds affleurants a basse mer, situes a moins de T millesd'un seul Etat, devraient etre pris en consideration ; parcontre, les fonds de ce genre qui ne sont pas soumis k unesouverainete dEterminEe et qui se trouvent a moins deT milles de l'un et l'autre fitat ne devraient pas entrer enligne de compte lors de l'Etablissement de la ligne mEdiane.II peut toutefois y avoir des raisons spEciales, telles que

des interSts de navigation ou de peche, ecartant la fron-tiere de la ligne mddiane. La ligne devrait etre tracee surles cartes en service a grande echelle, surtout lorsqu'unepartie quelconque de l'etendue d'eau est etroite et rela-tivement tortueuse.

VII

Comment faut-il determiner la delimitation des mersterritoriales de deux Etats adjacents ? Est-ce que celapeut se faire par :

A. Le prolongement de la frontiere de terre ?B. Une ligne perpendiculaire a la cdte a l'endroit ou la

frontiere entre les deux territoires atteint la mer ?C. Le tracE d'une ligne perpendiculaire partant du

point mentionnE sous B suivant la direction gEnErale dela ligne de c6te ?

D. Une ligne me'diane ? Si oui, comment faut-il tracercette ligne ?

Dans quelle mesure faut-il tenir compte de la presencedes lies, des seches, ainsi que des chenaux navigables ?

1. Apres une discussion approfondie le ComitE a dEclarEque la frontiere (latErale) entre les mers territoriales res-pectives de deux Etats adjacents, la oil elle n'a pas dEjaete fixee d'une autre maniere, devrait etre traced selon leprincipe d'equidistance de la cfite de part et d'autre de1'aboutissement de la frontiere.

2. Dans certains cas, cette methods ne permettra pasd'aboutir a une solution Equitable, laquelle devra alorsetre recherchEe dans des negotiations.

Observation sur VI et VII

Le Comite s'est efforcd de trouver des formules pourtracer les frontieres internationales dans les mers territo-riales qui pourraient en meme temps servir pour delimiterles frontieres respectives de «plateau continental» concer-nant les Etats devant les cfites desquelles s'dtendplateau. ce

Observation ginirale

Le Comite tient a souligner que le tracd des limitesexterieures de toute « zone contigue » devra se baser surla meme ligne que celui des limites de la mer territoriale.

DOCUMENT A/CN.4/71 AND ADD.1-2Information and observations submitted by Governments regarding the question

of the delimitation of the territorial sea of two adjacent States

[Original: English-French-Spanish][12 May 1953]

TABLE OF CONTENTSPage

NOTE BY THE SECRETARY-GENERAL 80

COMMUNICATIONS FROM GOVERNMENTS 80

1. Belgium 802. Burma 82

80 Yearbook of the International Law Commission, Vol. II

Page3. Denmark 824. Dominican Republic 825. El Salvador 826. Netherlands 827. Norway 838. United Kingdom 849. United States 85

10. Yugoslavia 87

Note by the Secretary-General

1. The International Law Commission, in connexionwith its work on the topic of the regime of the terri-torial sea, at its fourth session in 1952 decided torequest the Governments to furnish the Commissionwith information on their practice regarding the deli-mitation of the territorial sea of two adjacent States,and to submit any observations which they mightwish to make in that respect (Report of the Commissioncovering the work of its fourth session, Official Recordsof the General Assembly, Seventh Session, SupplementNo. 9 (A/2163); also in Yearbook of the InternationalLaw Commission, 1952, vol. II, p. 68. para. 39).

2. In pursuance of this decision, the Secretary-General, by a circular letter dated 13 November 1952,communicated the request of the Commission to theGovernments of all Members of the United Nations.

3. By 12 May 1953, the Secretary-General hadreceived information or observations from ten Govern-ments, namely Belgium, Burma, Denmark, DominicanRepublic, El Salvador, Netherlands, Norway, UnitedKingdom, United States and Yugoslavia.

4. The texts of these communications are repro-duced in the present document. Replies received after12 May 1953 will be reproduced as addenda hereto.

Communications from Governments

1. BELGIUM

Note. The following statement by the Government ofBelgium was transmitted by a note verbale dated 1 March1953, from the Permanent Delegation of Belgium to theUnited Nations. The original text is in French. En-closed with the note verbale was also a pamphlet entitled« La revision des traitis de 1839. Pourparlers de Paris.Nigociations des clauses fluviales et iconomiques», contain-ing the text of a speech delivered, in 1920, in the Chambredes Reprisentants par Mr. Segers, Ministre d'lStat, on thequestion of Wielingen Sound. The pamphlet is not repro-duced here but will be held at the disposal of the Commis-sion.

La Commission du droit international, a sa quatriemesession, apres examen de l'article 13 du projet sur leregime de la mer territoriale (A/CN. 4/53), a decidede prier les gouvernements de lui fournir des rensei-gnements sur leur pratique de la delimitation de lamer territoriale de deux Etats adjacents et de lui

communiquer toutes observations qu'ils jugeraientutiles (A/2163, par. 39).

L'article 13 du projet (A/CN.4/53) etait libelldcomme suit (p. 38) :

« La delimitation de la mer territoriale de deuxEtats adjacents est generalement constitute parune ligne dont a chaque point les distances jusqu'aupoint le plus proche des c6tes des deux Etats sontegales. »

Dans le projet de convention elabore par la Confe-rence pour la codification du droit international en1930 a La Haye, la question de la delimitation entreEtats voisins n'avait pas ete prevue.

La pratique beige a deja ete precisee dans la lettrede la Belgique du 19 decembre 1928 a la Societe desNations (Cf. Conference pour la codification du droitinternational — Bases de discussion, T. II Eauxterritoriales — Societe des Nations, document C. 74.M. 39.1929. V., p. 120).

II y est dit :« La limite entre les mers territoriales contigues

de deux pays voisins doit e"tre tracee par une per-pendiculaire a la c&te, a l'extremite de la frontiereterrestre, ce trace donnant seul aux Etats unemer territoriale correspondant aux besoins de ladefense de leurs cdtes respectives. »

Le systeme de la ligne perpendiculaire a une courtesection du littoral (au point oil la frontiere terres-tre atteint celui-ci) a ete adopte par la sentence du23/10/1909 de la Cour permanente d'arbitrage sur lesfrontieres maritimes entre la Norvege et la Suede(Cf. A/CN.4/SR.171, par. 8).

M. Hudson, membre americain de la Commissiondu droit international, a marque sa preference pourla perpendiculaire sur la direction generale du littoral.

La Commission elle-mSme a demande au rapporteurspecial de revoir la question en tenant compte de lasuggestion suivante (A/CN. 4/SR. 172, par. 61) :

« 1. La delimitation de la mer territoriale dedeux Etats adjacents doit Stre faite en tenant comptedes principes generaux suivants :

« a) Lorsque la configuration de la c&te le permet,la limite est une ligne perpendiculaire a la directiongenerale de la cdte, tiree a proximite du point oula frontiere terrestre entre les deux Etats rejointla mer.


« b) Lorsque la configuration de la c6te exigequ'une autre ligne soit tracee, la limite est une lignedont tous les points sont equidistants du point leplus proche de la ligne c6tiere de chacun des deuxEtats.

« 2. Les limites de la mer territoriale de deuxfitats adjacents sont fixees par voie d'accord entreces fitats, faute de quoi les parties sont tenues derecourir a 1'arbitrage pour l'etablissement de ceslimites. »Le Gouvernement beige peut se rallier a cette sug-

gestion.II n'est pas inutile de rappeler ici que le projet du

rapporteur special contient l'article 12 libelle commesuit :

«1. Si un fleuve se jette dans la mer sans estuaire,les eaux du fleuve constituent des eaux interieuresjusqu'a une ligne tiree a travers 1'embouchure sui-vant la direction generate de la cdte, quelle que soitsa largeur.

« 2. Si le fleuve se jette dans la mer par un estuaire,les regies applicables aux baies s'appliquent a cetestuaire. »L'article 6 du projet, concernant les baies, reprend

le systeme de delimitation de la baie qui avait etepropose par la sous-commission de la Commission IIa la Conference de La Haye en 1930, notamment dela ligne droite tiree en travers de 1'ouverture de labaie avec un maximum de 10 milles.

C'est le systeme applique" dans les Pays-Bas al'Escaut dont l'ouverture maximum atteintles lOmilles.

C'est d'ailleurs le systeme qui a e"te elabli par laConvention de La Haye du 6 mai 1882 pour reglerla police de la pe"che dans la Mer du Nord en dehorsdes eaux territoriales (art. 2, alin. 2).

De la discussion de la Commission du droit inter-national sur l'article 6, il semble pouvoir etre concluque dans son ensemble cette commission n'etait pasfavorable a la regie des 10 milles. Le rapporteur ades lors ete charge de poursuivre son etude a ce sujeten tenant compte notamment de la suggestion sui-vante, qui avait ete faite par le delegue de la Syrie(A/CN. 4/SR. 172, par. 46 et 60) :

« Si l'ouverture de la baie est plus du double dela largeur de la mer territoriale, cette ligne sera tireedans la partie la plus rapprochee de l'entree, aupremier point ou l'ouverture n'excedera pas ledouble de la largeur de la mer territoriale. »La Belgique pourrait accepter cette suggestion.Le rapporteur, M. Francois, ayant a plusieurs

reprises souleve la question de l'embouchure de l'Escauta propos de la discussion de l'article 13, il semble utilede ne pas passer sous silence la question des Wielingen,

Rappelons d'abord qu'a la Conference de codifi-cation du droit international a La Haye en 1930,cette question n'a pas ete discutee a propos de ladelimitation de la mer territoriale entre fitats voisins,cette derniere question elle-meme n'ayant pas faitl'objet de propositions.

Le questionnaire etabli par le Comite preparatoirea cette conference portait, au point I relatif au carac-

tere et au contenu des droits sur les eaux territorialesentre autres, la question suivante :

« On peut se demander si, dans cette zone, le droitde l'fitat riverain peut 6tre limite ou exclu par lesdroits particuliers d'un autre fitat. La preventiona de semblables droits particuliers est-elle formuleepar quelque fitat ? Dans quelle mesure et sur quellebase ? Est-elle reconnue par d'autres fitats ? »

La reponse du Gouvernement de la Belgique du19 decembre 1928 ne mentionne que les attenuationsimposees a la souverainete au point de vue du balisage,du pilotage et de la conservation des passes ainsi quede la peche sur l'Escaut occidental prevues au Traitede 1839.

La reponse du Gouvernement hollandais etait faitedans les termes suivants (lettre du 7 decembre 1928,Societe des Nations, document C. 74. M. 39. 1929.V,p. 176) :

« La souverainete de l'fitat riverain dans unepartie de la bande de mer baignant ses cfites peutetre limitee ou exclue par les droits speciaux d'unautre fitat. Ce cas peut se presenter dans les regionslimitrophes. De pareils droits ont ete invoquespar les Pays-Bas sur les passes des Wielingen, surla double base de droits historiques et du fait qu'ils'agit ici de la principale embouchure de l'Escaut.D'autre part, l'Allemagne a fait valoir des pre-tentions sur les eaux territoriales neerlandaises al'embouchure de la riviere Ems. Dans le cas desWielingen, ces droits sont contestes par la Belgiquetandis que les preventions allemandes sont contesteespar les Pays-Bas. »

La question des Wielingen ne se pose des lors pasdans le cadre de la discussion de la limitation de lamer territoriale entre fitats adjacents, mais bien danscelui du concept de la souverainete sur cette zone dela mer.

A cet egard, il y a lieu de se referer aux commen-taires du rapport de la Commission II a la Conferencede La Haye en 1930. On y lit que les limitations al'exercice de la souverainete ne doivent etre que cellesprevues dans la Convention qui etablit le regime dela mer territoriale ainsi que dans d'autres regies dudroit international.

De la discussion a la Deuxieme Commission a LaHaye aussi bien que de celle de la Commission du droitinternational a Geneve, il semble resulter que la limi-tation essentielle dans l'exercice de la souverainetequi est unanimement admise est celle du passageinoffensif des navires etrangers.

On a tout de meme estime devoir mettre l'accentsur ce que cette souverainete n'etait pas absolue.La definition telle qu'elle est proposee 1 n'en restepas moins vague. Quelles sont en effet les limitationsqui « d'apres le droit international » peuvent etreapportees a l'exercice de la souverainete ? N'est-cepas « laisser grande ouverte sur le droit internationalnon codifie » la partie qui pourra faire exception au

1 Le texte admis par la Commission est redig6 commesuit : « La souverainete sur cette zone est exerc6e parl'fitat riverain dans les conditions fixers par le presentreglement et par le droit international. »


principe des pouvoirs que Ton aurait reconnus a l'Etatcdtier ? (Rolin, a la seance du 19 mars 1930 de laDeuxieme Commission a La Haye).

En tout etat de cause, il n'a pas ete question ni en1930 ni en 1932 lors de la discussion du concept de lasouverainete, des droits particuliers qu'un pays pre-tendrait faire valoir dans la mer territoriale d'un Etatvoisin. L'argument historique ainsi que celui du faitde l'embouchure principale de l'Escaut, dont fontetat les Pays-Bas, ont ete refutes par le Gouvernementbeige.

2. BURMA

Note. The reply of the Government of Burma iscontained in the following letter, dated 11 February 1953,from the Foreign Office of Burma.

Concerning the question of the delimitation of theterritorial sea of two adjacent States, I have the honourto say that inasmuch as Burma was, up till 4th January1948, part of the British Empire, no regulations werenecessary for delimiting the territorial sea in the upperpart of the Bay of Bengal. However, according to theBritish Admiralty Chart No 216b, the Bay of Bengal,Sayer Island to Loughborough Island, the delimitationof the territorial sea between Burma and Siam is theline which follows the centre of the Pakchan river andthereafter out to sea, that is to say, the line which is acontinuation of the land frontier between the twocountries. The Union of Burma has not as yet, sinceindependence, prescribed any regulations for the deli-mitation of the territorial sea but is strongly in favourof adopting the continuation of the land frontiers in thenorth as well as in the south for purposes of delimitingthe territorial sea between Burma and Pakistan, andBurma and Siam respectively.

3. DENMARK

Note. The reply of the Government of Denmark iscontained in the following note verbale, dated 26 March1953.

The Permanent Delegate of Denmark to the UnitedNations presents his compliments and has the honourto inform the Secretary-General of the United Nations— in accordance with the Secretary-General's requestin note No LEG 292/2/06 of November 13, 1952 con-cerning the question of delimitation of the territorialwaters of two adjacent States — that the question asfar as Denmark is concerned has been solved throughdeclarations concluded with Germany and Sweden.Two copies of each of these declarations published onDecember 21, 1923 and February 22, 1932 respectivelyas well as maps of the " Sund ", " Flensborg fjord "and " Lister dyb " are annexed.*

It will be seen from these documents and maps thatin principle the median line has been followed — excep-tions having only been made in cases where the interestsof the States concerned with regard to navigation andfishing have warranted another basis of delimitation.

Not reproduced in this document.

4. DOMINICAN REPUBLIC

Note. The reply of the Government of the DominicanRepublic is contained in the following letter, dated3 March 1953, from the Department of State for ExternalRelations. The original text is in Spanish.

Tengo el honor de avisar recibo de la comunicacionN» LEG 292/2/06 del 13 de noviembre de 1952 delDepartamento Juridico, por medio de la cual se solicitaal Gobierno su opinion en cuanto al problema de deli-mitar el mar territorial entre dos Estados limitrofes.

En respuesta, honrome asimismo en informar alSefior Secretario General que el Gobierno Dominicanoestima que ser,a dif.cil establecer una regla fija paradelimitar el mar territorial entre dos o mas Estadoslimitrofes y que la solution del problema podr.a serbuscado por medio de tratados entre las Partes intere-sadas a la luz de las situaciones especiales que existanen cada caso.

4. EL SALVADOR

Note. The reply of the Government of El Salvador iscontained in the following letter, dated 10 December 1952,from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The original textis in Spanish.

Me es muy grato anunciarle el recibo de su apreciablecomunicacion LEG 292/2/06, de fecha 13 de noviembreproximo anterior, sobre la cuesti^n de la delimitationdel mar territorial, con la que tuvo la fineza de enviarmeimportante information sobre dicho asunto.

Al agradecer su gentileza de proporcionarme dichainformation, le manifiesto que esta Cancillena estaestudiando el informe de la Comisi^n de Derecho Inter-national sobre el trabajo de la cuarta sesiun, al igualque los otros anexos, para hacer las observaciones delcaso.

Por ahora considero conveniente hacer de su dignoconocimiento el texto del articulo 7 de la ConstitutionPoLtica vigente de El Salvador, que ha de determinarel punto de vista salvadoreno sobre el asunto del marterritorial. Dice asi :

« Articulo 7. El territorio de la Repiiblica dentrode sus actuates Lmites es irreductible ; comprende elmar adyacente hasta la distancia de doscientas millasmarinas contadas desde la Lnea de la mas baja marea,y abarca el espacio aereo, el subsuelo y el zdcalocontinental correspondientes.

Lo previsto en el inciso anterior no afecta lalibertad de navegacion conforme los principios acep-tados por el Derecho International.

El Golfo de Fonseca es una bahia historica sujetaa un regimen especial. »

6. NETHERLANDS

Note. The reply of the Government of the Netherlandsis contained in the following letter, dated 8 May 1953,from the Permanent Delegation of the Netherlands tothe United Nations.

I have the honour to refer to your letter of Novem-ber 13, 1952 (LEG 292/2/06) and to submit, on behalf


of the Netherlands Government the following observa-tions on the delimitation of the territorial sea of twoadjacent States:

The boundary-line in the South (Belgian frontier)follows first the direction of the land frontier — whichmakes very little difference from the perpendicularline on the general direction of the coast — until itreaches the Wielingen, the principal navigation chan-nel of the river Scheldt. Sovereign rights in the whole" Wielingen " are claimed by the Netherlands on histo-ric grounds, this being also the principal outlet ofthe river Scheldt. This means that according to theNetherlands view the boundary line runs for some dis-tance in a Westerly direction parallel to the Belgiancoast, because the Wielingen forms a navigation channelthrough the shallow territorial sea before the Nether-lands-Belgian coast, and parallel to that coast.

The boundary line between the Netherlands andGermany in the North follows a straight line betweenthe point where the land frontier reaches the coastand the river Ems, in a direction indicated by article 41of the Treaty of Meppen of 1824 between the Nether-lands and Hannover: . . . From this point (on the coast,where the land boundary reaches the " Dollard ") theboundary line runs through the Dollard to the riverEms, in direction North, 8° 9.5' West — being this themedian line between due North and North by East asset out by the compass according to the covenant ofthe year 1723, for which year the Western deviationfrom the true North has been fixed at 13° 47' by mutualagreement.

This boundary line through the Dollard shall remainfor all times, even when the river Aa (the " Thalweg "of which constitutes the land frontier between theNetherlands and Hannover, see art. 36 in fine) mightchange its present course.

From the point, where this line ends in the river Ems(what should be the " Thalweg " of the river Ems aswas customary in 1824) the boundary line is, accordingto the Netherlands view, following the " Thalweg " ofthe principal navigation channel (the first part ofwhich is called the " oostfriese Gaatje ") and outflowof the river Ems into the high sea.

It should be added that these delimitations areboth meeting opposition, in the case of the "Wielingen "from the Belgian, and in the case of the Ems from theGerman Government, the first denying the applica-bility of historical claims to the " Wielingen ", the latterasserting a historical claim to the whole mouth ofthe river Ems, which claim is founded on possessioncontested by the Netherlands Government.

The Western boundary of Surinam has been settledas follows in a draft treaty between the Netherlandsand the United Kingdom, the ratification of which hasbeen interrupted by the last war:

" The boundary between the territorial waters ofSurinam and British Guiana is formed by the pro-longation seawards of the line drawn on a bearingof 10 East of the true North of the landmark referredto in article 1 (2) above."

In the same period the boundary with FrenchGuiana (Cayenne) has been agreed upon between theNetherlands and France as follows:

" At the mouth of the river the line of the frontieruntil it reaches the sea is formed by the 'Thalweg' ofthe deepest uninterrupted channel leading to thesea."

The deviation from the " Thalweg" principle asregards the Western boundary of Surinam (with BritishGuiana) has been made necessary by the fact thatduring the last century the land frontier follows theWestern bank of the river Corantyne which therebyhas to be considered as Netherlands inland water.Therefore, the " Thalweg " principle could not applyto the delimitation in the territorial sea adjoining theneighbouring countries.

In the Netherlands territories in the Pacific up tillnow no frontiers in territorial waters have actuallybeen drawn.

7. NORWAY

Note. The reply of the Government of Norway iscontained in the following letter, dated 13 February 1953,from the Permanent Delegation of Norway to the UnitedNations.

I have the honour to refer to your letter of the 13thNovember 1952 (LEG 292/2/06) and to submit, onbehalf of the Norwegian Government, the followingobservations in regard to the question of the delimita-tion of the territorial sea of two adjacent States:

The Norwegian authorities have with great interestacquainted themselves with article 13 of the draftRegulations regarding the Territorial Sea [A/CN.4/53]submitted to the Fourth Session of the InternationalLaw Commission by Professor Francois, and dealingwith the delimitation of the territorial sea of two adja-cent States. In their opinion this draft (article 13)could be used as a basis for further consideration of thematter, provided that the word " coastline " is under-stood to mean " the base lines from which the territo-rial sea of the two adjacent States is delimited ". Thephysical coastline is, in the opinion of the Norwegianauthorities, not suited to be used as the basis fordrawing the dividing line in cases where the coastlineis cut into by the sea to the same extent as that ofNorway.

I avail myself of this opportunity to furnish youwith the following information with regard to thedelimitation of the territorial sea of Norway and theneighbouring States:

1. The territorial sea of Norway and Sweden wasdelimited by the arbitration award (judgement) of the23rd October 1909 (The Grisebaa Award). Therelevant parts of the award read as follows:

" The Tribunal decides and pronounces: That themaritime boundary between Norway and Sweden,. . . is fixed as follows: . . . From point XX a straightline is drawn in a direction of west 19 degrees south,which line passes midway between the Grisbadarnaand the Skjottegrunde south and extends in thesame direction until it reaches the high sea."Point XX means the point where the boundary

between the two countries reaches the joint Norwegian-Swedish base line point.


With regard to the principle which was put intoeffect, the statement of reasons of the award reads asfollows:

" . . . the delimitation should be made today bytracing a line perpendicularly to the general directionof the coast, while taking into account the necessityof indicating the boundary in a clear and unmis-takable manner, thus facilitating its observationby the interested parties as far as possible. And

" Whereas, in order to ascertain what is thisdirection we must take equally into account thedirection of the coast situated on both sides of theboundary. And.

"Whereas, the general direction of the coast,according to the expert and conscientious survey ofthe Tribunal, swerves about 20 degrees westwardfrom due north, and therefore the perpendicular lineshould run toward the west to about 20 degrees tothe south."It is thus quite clear that the dividing line was drawn

perpendicular on the general direction of the coast, andProfessor Francois must therefore have erred when hestates in his " Report on the Regime of the TerritorialSea " (A/CN.4/53, p. 32) that the dividing line wasdrawn perpendicular on the coast " at the point atwhich the frontier between the two territories reachesthe sea."

Attention was drawn to this fact by Mr. Hudson atthe fourth session of the International Law Commission.

It was due to special reasons that the dividing linein the award was in fact drawn in direction West,19» South and not 20° South.

2. With regard to the delimitation of the territorialsea of Norway and the Soviet Union, the followingshould be noted:

In the Norwegian-Russian border treaty of 1826 theborder line between the two countries was not drawnfurther than up to the point where " Grense Jakobselv "reaches the sea. No dividing line between the territo-rial sea was drawn, it not being customary to do so inborder treaties at that time, if particular reasons didnot require it to be done.

During the Norwegian-Finnish border negotiationsafter the first World War the question was, however,raised and in 1931 agreement was reached on a concreteproposal for the drawing of the dividing line betweenthe territorial sea of the two countries. The proposal,subject to some drafting changes, was incorporated inan additional protocol to the " Protocol on the Boun-dary Survey between Norway and Finland in 1925."The Additional Protocol was signed in Helsingfors onthe 12th of September 1931, and the boundary wassubsequently marked in accordance with this protocolduring the period from the 12th to the 22nd of June1939.

No new formal provisions concerning the dividingline between the territorial sea have been made inrelation to the Soviet Union after it took possession ofthe most northern districts of Finland as a consequenceof the last war.

8. UNITED KINGDOM

Note. The following statement by the Government ofthe United Kingdom was transmitted by a letter dated

29 April 1953, from the Permanent Delegation of theUnited Kingdom to the United Nations.

1. Her Majesty's Government have carefully consid-ered the request of the International Law Commissionthat they should furnish the Commission with informa-tion on their practice and submit any observationsthey might wish to make in regard to the delimitationof the territorial sea of adjacent States.

2. From an examination of their own practice (andof international practice generally) Her Majesty'sGovernment are satisfied that owing to the greatvariety of geographical conditions it is not possible orpractical to formulate in precise terms any technicalformula capable of universal application as a rule oflaw in this matter. This does not mean, however,that the matter is entirely unregulated by internationallaw. In the view of Her Majesty's Government thestarting point must be the following statement by theInternational Court of Justice in the Anglo-NorwegianFisheries case:

" The delimitation of sea areas has always aninternational aspect; it cannot be dependent merelyupon the will of the coastal State as expressed in itsmunicipal law. Although it is true that the act ofdelimitation is necessarily a unilateral act, becauseonly the coastal State is competent to undertake it,the validity of the delimitation with regard to otherStates depends upon international law."2

3. If, as Her Majesty's Government believe, theabove passage correctly states the fundamental prin-ciple of international law in regard to the delimitationof sea areas, it follows that a delimitation can never bedependent merely upon the will of a single coastalState or even, in the case of sea areas off the coasts ofadjacent States, of a group of States acting in concert.The validity of every delimitation vis-a-vis other Statesdepends upon international law. This does not,however, affect the practice whereby, in the case of seaareas off the coasts of adjacent States, the delimitationmay be carried out by agreement between the Statesconcerned. As in the case of land frontiers, thispractice has every advantage from the point of viewof convenience, but it is important to stress that, inthe case of maritime frontiers — unlike the land fron-tiers — the rights of a great many other nations maybe affected. Adjacent States may not, merely becausethey happen to be adjacent States acting in agreement,claim as their internal or territorial waters a greatertotal area of sea than could properly be claimed as aresult of the individual claims of the States concernedacting separately. Indeed, in some cases, the area ofsea which adjacent States can claim will be less thanif the whole coast in question belonged to a singleState, because — whereas, if the whole coast belongedto a single State and consisted of a bay, it might bepermissible for the State concerned to draw a base linefrom headland to headland across the bay — if thecoast in question belonged to two or more States, theseStates could not draw a base line across the bay, byvirtue of the fundamental principle that, even wherethe drawing of base lines is permissible, the base points

I.C.J. Reports 1951, p. 132.


from which the base lines are drawn must always be-actual points on the land territory of one and the sameState.

4. Where two adjacent States are unable to reachagreement or where, having reached agreement, theirdelimitation is not accepted by a third State, and dis-putes arise, Her Majesty's Government consider thatas a rule recourse should be had to judicial settlement.Such settlement should be according to internationallaw rather than ex aequo et bono. Even though theremay be no precise formula applicable (see paragraph 2above), there is no inherent difficulty in settling suchdisputes according to international law. Where thereis no appropriate treaty or rule of customary law, thetribunal should have recourse to first principles. Fore-most among these is the principle, which the Commis-sion has already recognized through the adoption of anamendment moved by Mr. Spiropoulos, that the free-dom of the coastal State in regard to the delimitationof its territorial sea " is limited by the principle offreedom of the seas ".8 " The principle of freedomof the seas", has been formulated as follows byProfessor Gidel :

" The dominant idea in the law of the sea is theidea that the lawful and normal use of the open seashall be free; any unnecessary restriction of thatfreedom must be avoided." *

Moreover, according to Calvo, all questions connectedwith the law of the sea

" . . . are directly related or necessarily lead to oneand the same fundamental principle, the principle ofthe freedom of the seas." °

In other words, no derogation from the freedom of theseas should be allowed except in so far as is necessaryfor the functioning and protection of the coastal Stateand is sanctioned by universal custom (e.g. the 3 milelimit) or by an historic title (e.g. the Norwegian 4 milelimit). In considering what derogations from theprinciple of the freedom of the seas are permissible,it should be remembered that history does not operateonly in the interests of the coastal State, but that, insome cases, the international community as a whole,or at any rate indicidual States, may have acquired avested right (droit acquis) to utilize certain areas ofsea for certain purposes (e.g. passage or fishing). Insuch cases, it is not permissible for a coastal State todeprive these other States of their vested rights, evenif its delimitation of its territorial sea is otherwise inaccordance with the rules of international law. Thisprinciple was stated by Judge Alvarez in his individualopinion in the Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries case, whenhe said that the right of a State to determine the extentof its territorial sea is subject to the provision that" it does not infringe rights acquired by other States,that it does no harm to general interests and does notconstitute an abus de droit ".*

3 169th meeting, paras. 17 and 26, Yearbook of theInternational Law Commission, 1952, vol. I, pp. 170-171.

4 Le droit international public de la mer (Paris, 1934),vol. I l l , p. 674.

5 Le droit international thiorique et pratique, 4th ed.(Paris, 1887), vol. I, section 384.

• I.C.J. Reports 1951, p. 150.

5. So far as information on the practice of States inregard to this matter is concerned, Her Majesty'sGovernment can add to the examples already referredto in the discussions of the Commission one of whichthe Commission may not yet be aware, namely, theStraits Settlements and Johore Territorial Waters(Agreement) Act, 1928.' This was an Act passed bythe Imperial Parliament to give effect to an agreementbetween the Governor of the (then) Colony of theStraits Settlements on behalf of His Majesty, and theSultan of the State and Territory of Johore, concerningthe boundary between the territorial waters of theSettlement (now Colony) of Singapore and those ofthe State and Territory of Johore.

6. Her Majesty's Government have already declaredtheir readiness to lend the services of an expert forthe purpose of advising the rapporteur of the Commis-sion in technical matters relating to the delimitationof the territorial sea of adjacent States — including,if desired, an explanation of the delimitation referredto in paragraph 5 above.

9. UNITED STATES

Note. The following statement by the Government ofthe United States was transmitted by a note verbale,dated 16 March 1953, from the Permanent Delegation ofthe United States to the United Nations.

The Government of the United States refers to therequest of the International Law Commission ofNovember 13, 1952, for information on its practiceconcerning the delimitation of the territorial sea oftwo adjacent States, and for any comments which itmay wish to make.

The seaward termini of the boundaries of the UnitedStates, Alaska, and the Canal Zone are ten in number.All five boundaries are trans-continental. Only oneof the boundary termini, that in Passamaquoddy Bay,has been extended to the high seas.

1. United States-Canada boundary:eastern terminus in Passamaquoddy Bay

The eastern terminus of the land boundary is at themouth of the St. Croix River, on Passamaquoddy Bay.Passamaquoddy Bay opens on the Bay of Fundy in theAtlantic Ocean. The water boundary runs throughPassamaquoddy Bay, to a point in the middle ofGrand Manan Channel and thence in the middle ofGrand Manan Channel to the high seas, as indicatedon the attached maps * (sheets numbered 15-18).

The location of this boundary, in furtherance ofthe provisions of article 2 of the Definitive Treaty ofPeace between the United States and Great Britainof September 3,1783 (8 Stat. 80), was determined by aseries of arbitrations and agreements beginning in 1798and terminating in 1925.

The section of the line which is relevant to the presentinquiry runs from T.P. (Turning Point) 13 to T.P. 15.The line from T.P. 13 to T.P. 14 was formally agreedupon in article 1 of the Treaty between the United

' 18 and 19 Geo. 5.c. 23.* Not reproduced in this document.


States and Great Britain fixing the Boundary Line inPassamaquoddy Bay of May 21, 1910:

" . . . Beginning at the aforesaid point lying betweenTreat island and Friar Head, thence

" (1) South 8° 29' 57" West true, for a distanceof 1152.6 meters; thence

" (2) South 8° 29' 34" Esat, 759.7 meters; thence" (3) South 23° 56' 25" East, 1156.4 meters; thence" (4) South 0° 23' 14" West, 1040.0 meters;

thence" (5) South 28° 04' 26" East, 1607.2 meters;thence" (6) South 81° 48' 45" East, 2616.8 meters to a

point on the line which runs approximately North 40°East true, and which joins Sail Rock, off WestWuoddy Head Light, and the southernmost rocklying off the southeastern point of the southernextremity of Campobello Island; thence

" (7) South 47° East 5100 meters to the middle ofGrand Manan Channel..." 36 Stat. 2477,2478 (italicsadded).It was subsequently found that the intended termi-

nus in Grand Manan Channel, T.P. 14, was less thanthree marine miles from land of both the UnitedStates (Sail Rock, near West Quoddy Head) andCanada (Grand Manan Island), thereby leaving asmall zone of waters of controvertible jurisdictionbetween the terminus of the boundary and the highseas. Hence the boundary was extended by theCommissioners South 34° 42' West for a distance of2,383 meters through Grand Manan Channel to T.P. 15,a point which, according to the information of thisGovernment, was determined as the point of intersec-tion of the arcs of circles of three nautical miles radiusdrawn from the shores of the two countries. Thisextension of the boundary was formally agreed uponin article 3 of the Treaty between the United Statesand Great Britain in respect of the Boundary betweenthe United States and Canada of February 24, 1925:

" Whereas the Treaty concluded on May 21, 1910,between the United States and Great Britain, definedthe international boundary line between the UnitedStates and the Dominion of Canada from a pointin Passamaquoddy Bay lying between Treat Islandand Friar Head to the middle of Grand MananChannel and provided that the location of the lineso defined should be laid down and marked by theCommissioners appointed under the Treaty ofApril 11,1908;

" And whereas it has been found by the surveysexecuted pursuant to the said Treaty of May 21,1910that the terminus of the boundary line defined bysaid Treaty at the middle of Grand Manan Channel isless than three nautical miles distant both from theshore line of Grand Manan Island in the Dominionof Canada and from the shore line of the State ofMaine in the United States, and that there is a smallzone of waters of controvertible jurisdiction inGrand Manan Channel between said terminus andthe High Seas;

" The Contracting Parties, in order completelyto define the boundary line between the UnitedStates and the Dominion of Canada in the GrandManan Channel, hereby agree that an additional courseshall be extended from the terminus of the boundary line

defined by the said Treaty of May 21, 1910, south42° 34' west, for a distance of two thousand threehundred eighty-three (2,383) meters, through themiddle of Grand Manan Channel, to the High Seas."44 Stat. 2102 (italics added).

2. United States-Canada boundary:western terminus in the Pacific Ocean

Provision for the extension of the boundary from-the 49th parallel to the Pacific Ocean was made in theConvention between the United States and GreatBritain relating to the Canadian International Boun-dary of April 11, 1908. Article VIII provided thatan unspecified number of straight lines, to be deter-mined by the two Boundary Commissioners, shouldconstitute the boundary through Haro Channel and"Fuca's Straits" to the Pacific Ocean:

" . . . The line so defined and laid down shall betaken and deemed to be the international boundary,as defined and established by treaty provisions andthe proceedings thereunder as aforesaid, from theforty-ninth parallel of north latitude along themiddle of the channel which separates Vancouver'sIsland from the mainland and the middle of HaroChannel and of Fuca's Straits to the Pacific Ocean."35 Stat. 2003, 2013.The terminus on the Pacific Ocean was determined

by the Commissioners as a point midway betweenBonilla Point on Vancouver Island and TatooshIsland Lighthouse in the State of Washington, butthe boundary was not extended three nautical milesfrom this terminus to the high seas.

3. Alaska-Canada boundary:northern terminus, in the Arctic Ocean

Provision was made for the establishment of theAlaska-Canada boundary along the 141st meridianof west longitude " in its prolongation as far as theFrozen Ocean " in article I of the Convention betweenthe United States and Great Britain of April 2, 1906(34 Stat. 2948). The northern terminus of the 141stmeridian boundary at " Demarcation Point" wasestablished by the Boundary Commissioners on theArctic Ocean shore. The boundary, however, was notextended to the high seas in the Arctic Ocean.

4. Alaska-Canada boundary:southern terminus, in Dixon Entrance

The boundary defined by the decision of the AlaskanBoundary Tribunal of October 20, 1903 (Malloy,Treaties of the United States, Vol. I, pp. 792-794) did notpurport to establish the seaward terminus of thesoutheast Alaska-Canada boundary at the high seasand no provision was subsequently made to extend theboundary in Dixon Entrance to the high seas.

5. United States-Mexico boundary:eastern terminus, in the Gulf of Mexico

The eastern terminus of the Mexican boundary wasdefined in article V of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgobetween the United States and Mexico of February 2,1848:


" The boundary line between the two Republicsshall commence in the Gulf of Mexico, three leaguesfrom land, opposite the mouth of the Rio Grande,otherwise called Rio Bravo del Norte, or oppositethe mouth of its deepest branch, if it should havemore than one branch emptying directly into thesea. . ." (18 Stat. 492, 494).The terminus at the mouth of the Rio Grande was

(established by the International Boundary Commission.Neither the location of the terminus in the high seas•nor the general direction of the line have been deter-mined by agreement between the United States andMexico.

6. United States-Mexico boundary:western terminus, in the Pacific Ocean

This boundary terminus, according to article V ofthe Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, is a point on thePacific Ocean " one marine league due south of thesouthernmost point of the Port of San Diego, accordingto the plan of said port, made in the year 1782 byDon Juan Pantoja..." (18 Stat. 492, 493, 494.)

The terminus on the Pacific Ocean was establishedby the International Boundary Commission but noprovision was made to extend the boundary from itscoastal terminus out to the high seas.

7-10. Canal Zone-Panama boundary termini

Article III of the Convention between the UnitedStates and Panama of November 18, 1903 provides,}n part:

" The Republic of Panama grants to the UnitedStates in perpetuity the use, occupation and controlof a zone of land and land under water for theconstruction, maintenance, operation, sanitation andprotection of said Canal of the width of ten milesextending to the distance of five miles on each sideof the center line of the route of the Canal to beconstructed; the said zone beginning in the CaribbeanSea three marine miles from mean low water markand extending to and across the Isthmus of Panamainto the Pacific Ocean to a distance of three marinemiles from mean low water mark with the provisothat the cities of Panama and Colon and the harborsadjacent to said cities, which are included withinthe boundaries of the zone above described, shallnot be included within this grant. . ." (33 Stat.2234-5.)

The boundaries of the Canal Zone were furtherdefined in article I of the Boundary Convention con-cluded September 2, 1914:

" It is agreed that the boundary lines of the zoneof land of ten miles in width described in article II ofthe said Canal Treaty shall remain as defined andestablished by the agreement of June the 15th, 1904,above mentioned, and subsequently located on theground and monumented as shown by exhibit 'A'accompanying this Convention, with the modifica-tions hereinafter set out in respect to the cities ofPanama and Colon and their adjacent harbors."(38 Stat. 1893, 1894, 1895)

None of the four Canal Zone-Panama boundarytermini in the high seas have been established.

Comments

This Government believes that it would be difficultto derive general rules or conclusions from a practicewhich shows only one actual case of delimitation ofterritorial sea with an adjacent State — the case of theeastern terminus of the United States-Canada boundary.

10. YUGOSLAVIA

Note. The reply of the Government of Yugoslavia iscontained in the following letter, dated 3 March 1953,from the Permanent Delegation of Yugoslavia to theUnited Nations.

Reference is being made to your communicationLEG 292/2/06 of 13 November 1952, concerning thearticle 13 of the " Draft Regulation " (A/CN.4/53)dealing with the question of the delimitation of theterritorial sea of two adjacent States, discussed by theInternational Law Commission at its fourth session.

With regard to the article 13 of the aforementioneddraft, I wish to inform you that the Government ofthe Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia has nocomments since it is fully in agreement with the prin-ciple laid out therein.

11. SWEDENDOCUMENT A/CN. 4/71/ADD.l

Note. Reproduced below is the text of a letter dated7 May 1953 from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Swedento the Secretary-General containing the information andobservations submitted by the Swedish Government.

En reponse a la lettre du 13 novembre 1952 (LEG292/2/06), oil le Secretaire general adjoint, charge duDepartement juridique, a demande, sur la requite dela Commission du droit international, les renseignementsque pouvait donner et les observations que pouvaitpresenter le Gouvernement suedois sur la question dela delimitation des eaux territoriales de deux Etatsadjacents, question traitee dans l'article 13 du projetde regies concernant les eaux territoriales, soumis parle rapporteur special, le Gouvernement suedois al'honneur de communiquer ce qui suit.

La frontiere entre la Suede et la Finlande est etabliepar le Traite de paix de Fredrikshamn du 17 septembre1809, par l'Acte de demarcation des frontieres du 20 no-vembre 1910 et par un certain nombre de descriptionstopographiques successives. En ce qui concerne lafrontiere maritime, il ressort desdits documents quecette frontiere, apres avoir traverse l'archipel situeau sud de l'embouchure de la riviere de Tornea, seprolonge a travers le milieu du golfe de Botnie et de lamer d'Aland, ou elle coupe en deux le rocher nomineMarket et se perd, en passant entre certaines iles sue-doises et finlandaises enumerees, dans la mer Baltique.Ces dispositions doivent sans doute etre interpretersde telle sorte que la frontiere entre les regions d'eauxrespectives de ces deux pays, aussi loin que s'etendentles eaux territoriales desdits pays, est constitute parune ligne mediane tracee par rapport aux cdtes.

La frontiere entre la Suede et la Norvege est etabliepar un traite du 26 octobre 1661 qui, en ce qui concernela frontiere maritime, a ete interprete et complete par


la sentence arbitrate rendue a La Haye le 23 octobre1909 dans 1'affaire des Grisbadarna. En ce qui concernela frontiere traced entre les eaux territoriales des Etatsrespectifs en dehors de l'archipel, la decision du tribunalest ainsi concue :

« Du point XX une ligne droite est tracee dans unedirection ouest, 19 degres au sud, laquelle ligne passeau milieu entre les Grisbadarna et le Skjottegrundsud et se prolonge dans la mSme direction jusqu'ace qu'elle ait atteint la mer libre. »II faut cependant ajouter que le point de vue de

principe du tribunal relativement a la methode aemployer pour le trace de frontiere a ete expose dansles considerants suivants :

« Considerant que, par suite, la ligne automatiquede partage de 1658 doit etre determined, ou — ce quien d'autres termes est exactement la mSme chose —le partage d'aujourd'hui doit etre fait en tracant uneligne perpendiculairement a la direction generale dela c6te, tout en tenant compte de la necessity d'indi-quer la frontiere d'une maniere claire et indubitableet d'en faciliter, autant que possible, l'observationde la part des interesses ;

« Considerant que, pour savoir quelle est cettedirection, il faut, d'une maniere egale, tenir comptede la direction de la cdte situee des deux cdtes de lafronti^re ;

« Considerant que la direction generale de la c6te,d'apres l'expertise consciencieuse du tribunal, declinedu vrai nord d'environ 20 degrds vers l'ouest;

« Que, par consequent, la ligne perpendiculairedoit se diriger vers l'ouest, a environ 20 degres ausud; »

La dissidence insignifiante sur le principe ainsidetermine qu'impliquerait la ligne frontiere etablie parle tribunal dans ce cas concret dependait de circons-tances speciales.

II faut remarquer que le tribunal considerait qu'ilentrait dans ses fonctions de reconstruire une frontierequi avait ete automatiquement etablie par le Traitede paix de 1658. Le Gouvernement suedois estime cepen-dant que la methode pour le trace de frontiere, adopteeen principe par le tribunal, a savoir employer uneligne tracee perpendiculairement a la direction gene-rale de la cdte, est preferable a celle qui a ete proposeepar le rapporteur special de la Commission du droitinternational, a savoir que la frontiere doit &tre consti-tuee par une ligne dont tous les points sont equidis-tants du point le plus proche de la ligne cdtiere dechacun des deux Etats, m6thode qui parait devoirsoulever certaines difficultes lorsqu'il s'agit d'une c6tequi est fortement decouple d'indentations et d'echan-crures et qui presente de nombreuses anfractuositessous forme de pointes, iles, etc.

II est notoire que la frontiere entre les eaux territo-riales de deux Etats est souvent etablie par des traitesou des sentences arbitrales, quelquefois peut-etre aussipar un droit coutumier de date ancienne. II fautconside"rer qu'il est de toute evidence qu'une conven-tion generale future concernant les eaux territorialesne doit pas avoir d'influence sur les frontieres qui sontdeja fixers de la sorte. Cette regie doit aussi s'appliqueraux frontieres dans le cas de d^troits qui sdparent deuxEtats. Les dispositions de la convention relative aux

frontieres entre deux Etats ne doivent done &tre appli-quees que in dubio. Une clause a cet effet devrait,pour plus de precision, etre insere"e dans la convention.

Le Gouvernement suedois veut saisir cette occasionpour rectifier certaines donnees erronees concernantles eaux territoriales de la Suede, que contient le rap-port du rapporteur special en date du 4 avril 1952:concernant le regime des eaux territoriales.

II y est dit que l'etendue des eaux territoriales sue-doises est de 4 milles marins, mais pour la neutralitede 3 milles et pour la peche (dans les eaux frontieres.entre la Suede et le Danemark) de 3 minutes-latitude.

En realite le Gouvernement suedois n'a jamais aban-donne son point de vue de principe qui comporte quesa frontiere de neutralite s'etend jusqu'a 4 millesmarins de la cdte, bien que la Suede fut forcee pendantles deux guerres mondiales, sous une contrainte irresis-tible de se borner a revendiquer la neutralite jusqu'a unedistance de 3 milles marins de la cdte.

Dans un traite conclu le 31 decembre 1932 entre laSuede et le Danemark, la Suede a autorise, en vue de lareciprocite, les ressortissants danois a pecher dans unezone restreinte jusqu'a 3 milles marins de la cdte sue-doise. Mais, pour les ressortissants d'autres pays, lalimite de la zone de peche est, dans cette.zone aussi,de 4 milles marins, limite de la zone de peche quis'applique egalement aux ressortissants danois sur lesautres parties de la cdte suedoise.

La limite de la zone de pdche de la Suede et la limitedes eaux territoriales laquelle s'etend jusqu'a unedistance de 4 milles marins de la cdte (le terme « cdte »comprenant les limites extremes des indentations etautres eaux int&ieures) coincident.

La limite des eaux territoriales suedoises est ainsitracee, dans tous les cas, a une distance de 4 millesmarins de la cdte. Le Gouvernement suedois eprouvedu reste certains doutes sur le bien-fonde et l'opportu-nite de limites territoriales diff erentes a differences fins.

Le Gouvernement suedois serait reconnaissant devoir l'attention des gouvernements, qui ont recu lerapport du rapporteur special en date du 4 avril 1952,attiree sur la rectification faite plus haut.

12. FRANCE

DOCUMENT A/CN. 4/71/ADD.2

Note. Reproduced below is the text of a letter dated2 August 1953 from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs ofFrance to the Secretary-General, containing the informa-tion and observations submitted by the French Govern-ment.

Par lettre du 13 novembre 1952 (LEG 292/2/06),vous avez bien voulu me faire savoir que la Commissiondu droit international a examine, au cours de saquatrieme session, la question de la delimitation de lamer territoriale de deux Etats adjacents.

Vous m'avez demande a ce popros de vous delinirla position du Gouvernement francais sur les proposi-tions de la Commission et vous faire part des observa-tions que le rapport final appelle de ma part.

J'ai l'honneur de vous faire savoir qu'en ce quiconcerne la delimitation des eaux territoriales metropo-litaines, la pratique suivie par le Gouvernement fran-


cais n'obelt pas a des regies uniformes, etant etroite-ment determinee par les conditions geographiques,•elles-mSmes essentiellement variables suivant la naturedu milieu maritime considere et la configuration de la•c6te.

a) En ce qui concerne la frontiere franco-beige,aucune decision particuliere n'a determine la ligne deseparation des eaux territoriales entre les deux Etats.Mais l'Administration des douanes admet, pour sazone de surveillance, que cette separation est realiseepar une ligne prolongeant en mer la direction generalede la frontiere. La delimitation ainsi admise ne lese•aucun inter^t, du fait que les cdtes francaises et beigesadjacentes sont rectilignes et que la frontiere est per-pendiculaire a la cdte.

b) Relativement a la frontiere franco-espagnole, ily a lieu de distinguer :

1. La determination de la frontiere maritime franco-espagnole de l'Atlantique est precisee par la Conventionfranco-espagnole du 18 fevrier 1889, laquelle indiqueles droits de peche respectifs des ressortissants des deuxEtats dans le cours principal de la Bidassoa et dans lazone neutre de la rade du Figuier. II s'agit done icid'une convention particuliere entre deux Etats adja-cents — mais dont l'objet est limite a la pe"che.

2. Pour la frontiere franco-espagnole de la Mediter-ranee, e'est la grotte de la Cova Foradada qui fixe lademarcation a terre par l'application de l'acte dedelimitation du 11 juillet 1868. La frontiere qui setermine a cette grotte arrive sur mer en oblique. Lalimite des eaux territoriales ne peut done equitablement£tre le prolongement de la direction generale de lafrontiere terrestre. Aussi, et etant donne que la cdtefranco-espagnole est orientee nord-sud, la limite deseaux territoriales qui a ete adoptee en pratique par lesagents embarques des douanes comme par ceux del'inscription maritime est celle du parallele passantpar la grotte susvisee. Un piquet blanc materialise aterre le point exact ou passe ce parallele.

c) S'agissant enfin de la frontiere franco-italienne,un projet de convention concernant la delimitationdes seules eaux reservees a la pSche dans la baie deMenton a ete conclu au debut de 1892. Mais il n'a e"te"ratifte par aucun des deux gouvernements et, de cechef, n'est jamais entre" en vigueur.

Quant a la delimitation des eaux reservees a la pSchenationale des ressortissants de chaque Etat entre laCorse et la Sardaigne, elle a ete" precise^ par une conven-tion du 18 Janvier 1908.

La delimitation des eaux territoriales dans les terri-toires d'outre-mer n'appelle aucune observation parti-culiere. La seule difficulty qui aurait pu se presentervise le cas ou les ilots de Doumerrah et de Souabia(C6te franchise des Somalis) n'auraient pas appartenua la France. La caducite" du traite" franco-italien du7 Janvier 1935, concernant le reglement des interStsdes deux Etats en Afrique — qui avait consacre lacession desdits ilots a l'ltalie, mais qui n'est pas entr6en vigueur du fait que son application e"tait subordon-nee a la conclusion d'un traite reglementant la situationdes ressortissants italiens en Tunisie, laquelle n'estjamais intervenue — a leve en l'occurrence I'hypothesed'un eventuel conflit de delimitation.

La position du Gouvernement francais a l'egard duprobleme general souleve par la Commission du droitinternational peut des lors Stre aisement deduite desconsiderations qui precedent.

fitant donne l'extreme variete que peut presenternon seulement la topographie des cfites a la frontierede deux fitats adjacents, mais aussi le trace meme decelle-ci, il semble preferable de renvoyer la delimitationdes eaux territoriales de ces fitats a des conventionsparticulieres. L'exemple de la France revele en effetqu'aucune des trois methodes preconisees par la Com-mission du droit international n'a fait l'objet d'uneapplication systematique puisque, si la delimitationdes eaux territoriales entre la France et la Belgiqueobeit au principe d'une ligne prolongeant en mer ladirection gen^rale de la frontiere terrestre, cette for-mule a ete 6cartee dans les relations franco-espagnolespour la delimitation de la frontiere mediterraneenne enraison des donnees topographiques locales.

Si toutefois la Commission du droit internationalestimait indispensable un choix entre les trois defini-tions proposees, le Gouvernement fran^ais estime quela delimitation par une ligne dont tous les points sontequidistants du point le plus proche de la ligne cfitierede chacun des deux Etats adjacents devrait Stre rete-nue comme etant de nature a donner la meilleuresolution dans le plus grand nombre de cas.

Regime of the Territorial Sea – Information and...

Documents

Transcript of Regime of the Territorial Sea – Information and...