Volume I Part 29 (1/2)

[Footnote 310: As regards the utilisation of the flow of such lakes and seas, the same is valid as that concerning the utilisation of the flow of rivers; see above, -- 178_a_.]

[Footnote 311: See Stoffel, ”Die Fischerei-Verhaltnisse des Bodensees unter besonderer Berucksichtigung der an ihm bestehenden Hoheitsrechte”

(1906).]

[Footnote 312: But the Caspian Sea is almost entirely under Russian control through the two treaties of Gulistan (1813) and Tourkmantschai (1828). See Rivier, I. p. 144, and Phillimore, I. -- 205.]

[Sidenote: So-called International Lakes and Land-locked Seas.]

-- 180. In a.n.a.logy with so-called international rivers, such lakes and land-locked seas as are surrounded by the territories of several States and are at the same time navigable from the Open Sea, are called ”international lakes and land-locked seas.” However, although some writers[313] dissent, it must be emphasised that hitherto the Law of Nations has not recognised the principle of free navigation on such lakes and seas. The only case in which such free navigation is stipulated is that of the lakes within the Congo district.[314] But there is no doubt that in a near future this principle will be recognised, and practically all so-called international lakes and land-locked seas are actually open to merchantmen of all nations. Good examples of such international lakes and land-locked seas are the fore-named lakes of Huron, Erie, and Ontario.

[Footnote 313: See, for instance, Rivier, I. p. 230; Caratheodory in Holtzendorff, II. p. 378; Calvo, I. -- 301.]

[Footnote 314: Article 15 of the General Act of the Congo Conference.

(See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. X. p. 417.)]

[Sidenote: The Black Sea.]

-- 181. It is of interest to give some details regarding the Black Sea.

This is a land-locked sea which was undoubtedly wholly a part of Turkish territory as long as the enclosing land was Turkish only, and as long as the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles, the approach to the Black Sea, which are exclusively part of Turkish territory, were not open for merchantmen of all nations. But matters have changed through Russia, Roumania, and Bulgaria having become littoral States. It would be wrong to maintain that now the Black Sea belongs to the territories of the four States, for the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles, although belonging to Turkish territory, are nevertheless parts of the Mediterranean Sea, and are now open to merchantmen of all nations. The Black Sea is consequently now part of the Open Sea[315] and is not the property of any State. Article 11 of the Peace Treaty of Paris,[316] 1856, neutralised the Black Sea, declared it open to merchantmen of all nations, but interdicted it to men-of-war of the littoral as well as of other States, admitting only a few Turkish and Russian public vessels for the service of their coasts.

But although the neutralisation was stipulated ”formally and in perpetuity,” it lasted only till 1870. In that year, during the Franco-German War, Russia shook off the restrictions of the Treaty of Paris, and the Powers a.s.sembled at the Conference of London signed on March 13, 1871, the Treaty of London,[317] by which the neutralisation of the Black Sea and the exclusion of men-of-war therefrom were abolished. But the right of the Porte to forbid foreign men-of-war pa.s.sage through the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus[318] was upheld by that treaty, as was also free navigation for merchantmen of all nations on the Black Sea.

[Footnote 315: See below, -- 252.]

[Footnote 316: See Martens, N.R.G. XV. p. 775.]

[Footnote 317: See Martens, N.R.G. XVIII. p. 303.]

[Footnote 318: See below, -- 197.]

V

Ca.n.a.lS

Westlake, I. pp. 320-331--Lawrence, -- 90, and Essays, pp.

41-162--Phillimore, I. ---- 399 and 207--Moore, III. ---- 336-371--Caratheodory in Holtzendorff, II. pp. 386-405--Liszt, -- 27--Ullmann, -- 106--Bonfils, Nos. 511-515--Despagnet, No.

418--Merignhac, II. pp. 597-604--Pradier-Fodere, II. Nos.

658-660--Nys, I. pp. 475-495--Rivier, I. -- 16--Calvo, I. ---- 376-380--Fiore, Code, Nos. 983-987--Martens, II. -- 59--Sir Travers Twiss in R.I. VII. (1875), p. 682, XIV. (1882), p. 572, XVII.

(1885), p. 615--Holland, Studies, pp. 270-298--a.s.ser in R.I. XX.

(1888), p. 529--Bustamante in R.I. XXVII. (1895), p.

112--Rossignol, ”Le Ca.n.a.l de Suez” (1898)--Camand, ”etude sur le regime juridique du Ca.n.a.l de Suez” (1899)--Charles-Roux, ”L'Isthme et le ca.n.a.l de Suez” (1901)--Othalom, ”Der Suezka.n.a.l”

(1905)--Muller-Heymer, ”Der Panamaka.n.a.l in der Politik der Vereinigten Staaten” (1909)--Arias, ”The Panama Ca.n.a.l”

(1911)--Hains, Davis, Knapp, Wambough, Olney, and Kennedy in A.J.

III. (1909), pp. 354 and 885, IV. (1910), p. 314, V. (1911), pp.

298, 615, 620.

[Sidenote: Ca.n.a.ls State Property of Riparian States]