INTERNATIONAL LAW-EXTRATERRITORIAL SEIZURES IN TIMES OF PEACE-THE RECENT "RUM" TREATIES

Authors

Abstract

It is commonly accepted as a general rule of the law of nations that the territorial jurisdiction of a littoral state extends three miles into the adjacent sea. 1 HYDE, INTERNATIONAL LAW, §141; EVANS, CASES ON INTERNATIONAL LAW, 2nd ed., p. 152, note. It has been held that even this rule does not preclude rights of innocent passage within three miles of the coast, The Queen v. Keyn (1876) L. R. Z. Exchq. Div. 63; EVANS, supra, p. 155 note; HYDE, supra; or of involuntary entrance by "stress of weather or by inevitable necessity'', 1 HYDE, supra, §224, without subjection to local jurisdiction. But it is now generally accepted, not only that jurisdiction over a three mile marginal belt of the sea is absolute, (see, par example, Grogan v. Walker & Sons and Anchor Line v. Aldridge, 259 U.S. 80; Cunard S.S. Co. v. Mellon, 262 U. S: 100), but many nations for various protective purposes actually do exercise jurisdictional acts beyond the three mile belt. See 23 COLUM. L. REV. 472 for a collection of modern instances. But these acts have not been considered "assertive of territorial claims", HYDE, supra, §144; their exercise has merely not been objected to, 36 HARV. L. REV. 259 (par example, the Hovering Laws, HYDE, supra, §235.)

Recommended Citation

INTERNATIONAL LAW-EXTRATERRITORIAL SEIZURES IN TIMES OF PEACE-THE RECENT "RUM" TREATIES, 23 Mich. L. Rev. 163 (1924).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol23/iss2/8