TABLE I.-National claims in adjacent seas-Continued

All "bays" within headlands; island and island groups and shoals connected with one another or mainland by lines not exceeding 12 mi.49 The subsoil and sea bed of Saudi Arabia's "coastal sea" areas of the Persian Gulf "are declared to appertain to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and to be subject to its jurisdiction and control" (by Royal Pronouncement, May 28, 1949; English trans., Amer. Journ. of Internatl. Law, Vol. 43, 1949, Suppl. pp. 156157).

TABLE I.-National claims in adjacent seas-Continued

TABLE I.-National claims in adjacent seas-Continued

3 mi. from coast and islands
(Reglamento de Capitanías y
de la Marina Mercante Na-
cional, 1940, Art. 4).
National sovereignty and juris-

diction asserted over the con-
tinental shelf, and over the
ocean within 200 mi. of main-
land and islands, to protect,
preserve, and utilize the re-
sources of all kinds, in or un-
der the ocean.82

*

For customs purposes, lawful to
board any ships within 4
leagues of the coast, if bound
to the United States (Act of
Mar. 2, 1799, I Stat. 648).84 85
* natural resources of
the subsoil and sea bed of the
continental shelf beneath the
high seas but contiguous to
the coasts of the United States
[regarded] as appertaining to
the United States, subject to
its jurisdiction and con-
trol." 86 87
Neutrality declaration, Aug. 7,
1914; 5 mi. from mainland and
islands, from visible outlying
shoals, and the fixed marks
that determine the limit of
the banks not visible.

10-mi. rule for bays.

TABLE I.-National claims in adjacent seas-Continued

1 For "Bases of Discussion" drawn up by the Preparatory Committee for the Conference for the Codification of International Law, The Hague, 1930, and for replies by governments, see League of Nations Publ. C. 74. M .39. 1929. V. (referred to in these notes as L. of N. 1929). (The "Bases of Discussion" were reproduced in Amer. Journ. of Internatl. Law, Vol. 24, 1930, Suppl. pp. 25-46.)

2 For record of viewpoints of delegations to the Codification Conference, as given informally at a session on April 3, see League of Nations Publ. C. 351 (b). M. 145 (b). 1930. V. (cited in text footnote 11; referred to in these notes as L. of N. 1930), pp. 123-125. (Reproduced in Amer. Journ. of Internatl. Law, Vol. 24, 1930, Suppl. pp. 253-257.) A convenient table summarizing these views is found in Hackworth, Digest of International Law (cited in text footnote 7), Vol. 1, pp. 628-629.

3 In addition to the publications cited in notes 1 and 2, the following authors and titles were used extensively in the compilation of this table: Henry G. Crocker: The Extent of the Marginal Sea, Washington, 1919; Philip C. Jessup: The Law of Territorial Waters and Maritime Jurisdiction, New York, 1927; William E. Masterson: Jurisdiction in Marginal Seas with Special Reference to Smuggling, New York, 1929; Christopher B. V. Meyer: The Extent of Jurisdiction in Coastal Waters, Leiden, 1937.

Laws and conventions cited in reply to the Preparatory Committee for the Codification Conference; see L. of N. 1929 (cited in note 1), p. 120.

Decree published in Bulgarian State Gazette, No. 243, Oct. 28, 1936.

Reply to the Preparatory Committee for the Codification Conference; see L. of N. 1929 (cited in note 1), p. 122. The reply adds: "In former times the breadth was frequently four nautical miles as, for instance, in the Royal Decree of February 22nd, 1812, which is still in force."

7 There are special provisions relating to Greenland which are not within the scope of the present study. The Royal Decree of February 22, 1812 (covering Denmark and Norway), although concerned with neutrality, is generally regarded as fixing the territorial-sea limit for Denmark-at one sea league (15 to a

degree of latitude) or 4 naut. mi. Denmark is a party to various Scandinavian treaties, etc., in which the 4-mi. limit prevails.

Finland and the U. S. S. R., bv peace treaty concluded at Dorpat, Oct. 14, 1920, Art. 3. Specific water boundary defined in certain waters; around islands belonging to Finland outside territorial waters proper the territorial sea is 3 naut. mi. wide.

10 The Convention for Suppression of Contraband in Alcoholic Goods, signed at Helsinki, Aug. 19, 1925, established as between the maritime states of the Baltic and Norway a zone of maximum 12 naut. mi. from the coast or the line connecting the outermost islands and skerries, applying to their national laws on contraband, to vessels that are obviously engaged in contraband traffic. The convention was ratified by Danzig, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Sweden, and the Soviet Union. See Meyer, op. cit. (in note 3), pp. 423-424.

11 See L. of N. 1929 (cited in note 1), p. 159.

12 Seaport customs ordinance, Nov. 3, 1937.

13 In reply to the Preparatory Committee for the Codification Conference, Germany favored "a further three nautical miles" for customs inspection and the policing of shipping; see L. of N. 1929 (cited in note 1), p. 110. At the session on Apr. 3, 1930, the German delegate simply favored the 3-mi. rule, together with an adjacent zone.

* *

14 At the Codification Conference the British delegate, on Apr. 3, 1930, stated: "The British Delegation firmly supports * a territorial belt of three miles without the exercise, as of right, of any powers by the Coastal State in the contiguous zone." See L. of N. 1930 (cited in note 2), p. 123.

15 Emergency law 230 (1936).

16 Law 4141, Mar. 26, 1913, on Passage and Stay of Merchant Vessels, and Policing of Ports and Harbors, in Time of War.

17 Iceland is especially concerned in obtaining international agreement to protection of its fishing (now being depleted by operations of fisheries of many nations).

18 Dating to 1859, and reaffirmed in Liquor Act No. 33, Jan. 8, 1935.

19 Law No. 44, Apr. 5, 1948, regulates fisheries "within limits of the continental shelf," subject to treaty obligations.

20 Code of Navigation, Mar. 30, 1942, Art. 2, establishes 6-mi. limit and 20-mi. rule for bays. Italy has claimed different widths for specific purposes; in reply to the Preparatory Committee for the Codification Conference, Italy claimed 6 mi. of territorial sea "and special rights for a further six miles"; see L. of N. 1929 (cited in note 1), p. 167. Special claims include:

3 mi., in Italo-Turkish convention of Jan. 4, 1932, delimiting territorial waters of Castelrosso, and in fishing regulations for Libya, Mar. 27, 1913.

10 km. (5.4 naut. mi.), in customs law for Italian Somaliland, Art. 66.

10 mi., in transit and sojourn of merchant ships near coastal fortifications, law of June 16, 1912.

12 mi., in organization of Libyan customs, laws of Feb. 4, 1913, and Mar. 14, 1932.

21 See L. of N. 1929 (cited in note 1), p. 177.

22 Adopted for several treaties, including: North Sea Fisheries, 1882; United States-Netherlands convention, Aug. 21, 1924, smuggling intoxicating liquors; proclamations of neutrality, 1914 and 1939.

23 Neutrality proclamation, Sept. 1, 1939, Art. 1 (2).

24 Dates from Royal Decree of Feb. 22, 1812 (of Denmark), claiming one sea mile for customs purposes. Norway defines the "sea-mile" as 7420 meters, equivalent to 4 naut. mi. (of 1852 m.) plus 12 meters. Regarding the confusion between the "sea league" of 7408 meters and the "geographical league" of 7420 meters see Meyer, op. cit. (in note 3), p. 235, footnote 1.

25 For neutrality purposes Norway did not attempt to enforce its control beyond 3 naut. mi., because its 4-mi. claim was not recognized by some of the belligerent powers.

26 The manner of delimiting this base line is one of the points at issue in the United Kingdom-Norway fisheries case now pending in the World Court; see Amer. Journ. of Internatl. Law, Vol. 44, 1950, pp. 21–22. For a part of the base line see Fig. 1 in the writer's Amer. Journ. of Internatl. Law article cited in text footnote 4.

27 Presidential ordinance No. 789, Oct. 21, 1932.

28 No conclusive data seem to be available. Jessup, op. cit. (in note 3), p. 42, observes: "The striking fact is that like Russia she [Portugal] has found it impossible to sustain a claim which denies the three-mile limit as a rule of international law." In its reply to the Preparatory Committee for the Codification Conference, Portugal suggested an 18-mi. limit; see L. of N. 1929 (cited in note 1), pp. 183-184. And at the session on Apr. 3, 1930, the Portuguese delegation stated that "it desires a territorial belt of 12 mi. in width, but it is prepared to accept a belt of 6 mi. provided there is an adjacent zone also of 6 mi. in width"; see L. of N. 1930 (cited in note 2), p. 125.

29 Reply to the Preparatory Committee for the Codification Conference; see L. of N. 1929 (cited in note 1) p. 185. Rumania had limited its territorial waters to 3 mi., favored 6 mi.

30 Reported to be found consistently in Spanish legislation since Royal Decree of May 3, 1830. For purposes of neutrality Spain has customarily indicated 3 mi.

31 The delegate of Spain at the Codification Conference, on Apr. 3, 1930, declared: "* Delegation is in favour of six miles territorial water, together with an adjacent zone." (cited in note 2), p. 124.

• The Spanish See L. of N. 1930

32 See Jessup, op. cit. (in note 3), pp. 35-39. Only 3 mi was claimed for neutrality purposes during the World Wars.

33 A series of 14 hydrographic charts, most of them 1: 200,000 ([Kort över Sveriges maritima tullgräns] "Kartan utgiven jämlikt Kungl. Brev den 25 oktober 1935," Kungl. Sjökarteverket, Stockholm, 1935), shows the inner boundary of the territorial sea as a series of straight lines, and the outer limit 4 mi. seaward therefrom. The definitive work on delimitation of Swedish inland waters, is stated to be "Gränsen för Sveriges territorialvattens" by Professor Torsten Gihl (Statens Offentliga Utredningar, 1930).

34 On the complicated history of Russian claims to the territorial sea see Meyer, op. cit. (in note 3), pp. 235-262 and 424-430, especially pp. 427-430 and p. 425, footnote 3. In 1874 the Russian government stated that Russia always had recognized 3 mi. as the width of the territorial sea (p. 235); customs limit drawn at 12 mi. by act of Dec. 10 (23), 1909.

In general, it is stated by other authorities that the U. S. S. R. insists on the 12-mi. limit for its own territorial sea but claims the right for its vessels to approach within 3 mi. of the shores of other countries. 35 Law 876 of Nov. 28, 1948, published in Yugolav Official Gazette, Dec. 8, 1948.

36 The Government of Ceylon, since achieving Dominion status, continues to assert the claim previously made by the British Government with regard to the 3-mi. limit.

37 Revised Legislative Enactments of Ceylon, Chap. 168.

38 The Government of India in a letter of Dec. 15, 1928, associated itself with the reply of the British Government to a questionnaire of the League of Nations.

39 Territorial Sea and Maritime Belt Decree of 1939.

40 Law defining territorial waters and zone of supervision at sea, July 15, 1934, Chap. I, Art. 1. (French translation in A. de La Pradelle [Lapradelle?], Recueil Général Périodique et Critique, Année 1935, Part 6, p. 10.)

41 Regarding proposed legislation introduced May 19, 1949, claiming the "continental shelf" in the Persian Gulf see Amer. Journ. of Internatl. Law, Vol. 43, 1949, p. 791.