'shore, or when persons other than the officers and crew of the vessel, are parties to the disturbance.

"Except as aforesaid, the local authorities shall confine themselves to the rendering of efficient aid to the consuls, when they may ask it in order to arrest and hold all persons, whose names are borne on the ship's articles, and whom they may deem it necessary to detain. Those persons shall be arrested at the sole request of the consuls addressed in writing to the local authorities and supported by an official extract from the register of the ship or the list of the crew, and shall be held, during the whole time of their stay in the port, at the disposal of the consuls. Their release shall be granted only at the request of the consuls, made in writing.

"The expenses of the arrest and detention of those persons shall be paid by the consals."

Similar provisions are contained in many other treaties.

The British Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act of 1878, however, claims that vessels simply passing through British marginal waters are liable to British law.51

(c) The nationality of a vessel is usually determined by the flag of the vessel. In time of peace, the nationality of a public vessel is determined by its flag, or in exceptional cases by the word of the commander. The nationality of a private vessel is usually that of its flag; but, in case of question, the vessel must have papers which establish its claims. These papers vary for different states, but usually include registry, muster roll, description, certificate of ownership, license, etc.

AERIAL JURISDICTION.

43. It is now recognized that the jurisdiction of a state includes the right to exercise authority in the atmosphere above the state domain.

The use of the atmosphere as a medium of communication and as a highway for airships, etc., has led to the recognition of the rights and duties of states in the atmosphere above their domain.

51 St. 41 & 42 Vict. c. 73.

When the atmosphere was first used as a highway in time of war, those thus using it were threatened with exceptionally severe treatment, as during the Franco-Prussian war of 1870 Bismarck regarded those crossing territory occupied by the Prussians as liable to treatment as spies. Similarly the Russian commander in the Far East during the Russo-Japanese war in 1904 declared he would regard newspaper correspondents using wireless telegraph apparatus as spies. Both these claims were regarded as extreme, and protests were entered. It was not denied, however, that the state would have some measure of jurisdiction in such cases. It was admitted that the use of the atmosphere above belligerent territory might be forbidden to balloons, or that those making use of the atmosphere above belligerent territory might become liable to treatment as prisoners of war. It was also admitted that the use of wireless telegraph in time of war might be regulated within the area of hostilities, and that belligerents might be forbidden the use of wireless telegraph apparatus within neutral jurisdiction. The Hague Convention Respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers provides:

"Article III. Belligerents are likewise forbidden to:

"(a) Erect on the territory of a neutral power a wireless telegraphy station or other apparatus for the purpose of communicating with belligerent forces on land or sea;

"(b) Use any installation of this kind established by them before the war on the territory of a neutral power for purely military purposes, and which has not been opened for the service of public messages," though a neutral is not called upon to forbid the use of its own or regular private system within its territory.

In time of peace, also, it has been admitted that a state should exercise jurisdiction over its aërial domain. Numerous reports of national and international commissions have shown. that this is necessary in order that systems of wireless telegraphy may not "be rendered absolutely useless by accident or by design."

In 1903 the states signing the protocol of the Preliminary Conference on Wireless Telegraphy at Berlin did not hestate to assume the right of aërial jurisdiction, and the larger

conference in 1906, proceeding on the same basis, prescribed more detailed regulations for the use of the atmosphere for radio-telegraphic purposes.

The Institute of International Law, at its session in September, 1906, maintained the right of a state to make rules for the use of its atmospheric domain by wireless telegraph.52

62 DISPOSITIONS PRÉLIMINAIRES.

Article Premier. L'air est libre. Les États n'ont sur lui, en temps de paix et en temps de guerre, que les droits nécessaires à leur conservation.

Art. 2. À défaut de dispositions spéciales, les règles applicables à la correspondance télégraphique ordinaire le sont à la correspondance télégraphique sans fil.

PREMIÈRE PARTIE.
État de Paix.

Art. 3. Chaque État a la faculté, dans la mesure nécessaire à sa sécurité, de s'opposer, au-dessus de son territoire et de ses eaux territoriales, et aussi haut qu'il sera utile, au passage d'ondes hertziennes, que celles-ci soient émises par un appareil d'État ou par un appareil privé placé à terre, à bord d'un navire ou d'un ballon.

Art. 4. Au cas d'interdiction de la correspondance par la télégraphie sans fil, le gouvernement devra aviser immédiatement les autres gouvernements de la défense qu'il édicte.

SECONDE PARTIE.
État de Guerre.

Art. 5. Les règles admises pour le temps de paix sont, en principe. applicables au temps de guerre.

Art. 6. Sur la haute mer, dans la zone qui correspond à la sphère d'action de leurs opérations militaires, les belligérants peuvent empêcher les émissions d'ondes, même par un sujet neutre.

Art. 7. Ne sont pas considérés comme espions de guerre mais doivent être traités comme prisonniers de guerre, s'ils sont capturés, les individus qui, malgré la défense du belligérant, se livrent à la transmission ou à la réception des dépêches par télégraphie sans fil entre les diverses parties d'une armée ou d'un territoire belligérant. Il doit en être autrement si la correspondance est faite sous de faux prétextes. Les porteurs des dépêches transmises par la télégraphie sans fil sont assimilés à des espions lorsqu'ils emploient la dissimulation ou la ruse.

Les navires et les ballons neutres qui, par leurs communications avec l'ennemi, peuvent être considérés comme s'étant mis à son service, pourront être confisqués ainsi que leurs dépêches et leurs appareils. Les sujets, navires et ballons neutres, s'il n'est pas établi que leur correspondance était destinée à fournir à l'adversaire des ren

The provision in the Constitution of the United States vesting in Congress the power to regulate commerce has already been held to extend to the regulation of the carriage of telegraphic messages in the case of Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Texas.3 The regulation of the transmission of wireless telegraphic messages has in recent years often been shown to be most necessary, particularly for the preservation of life and property upon the sea.

The aërial jurisdiction is thus held to reside in the state having the jurisdiction over the land and water below.

The regulations in regard to the use of wireless telegraphy on the high seas have also shown a tendency on the part of states to assume a control of the atmosphere above the high seas similar to that assumed over the high seas in establishing other regulations generally advantageous.

The exact limits of aërial jurisdiction are not yet determined. The Institute of International Law in 1906 enunciated the principle, "The air is free," and limited the rights of the states in the air to such as were necessary to self-preservation, whether in peace or war. If this is interpreted in the strict sense, it would correspond to the rights of a state upon the high seas. It is evident, from the physical relationship of the atmosphere to the earth below, that the analogy does not hold in all respects. A ship, becoming disabled upon the high seas and sinking, might bring no risk to the life and property of the state nearest which it might at the time be sailing. A ship, becoming disabled in the air and sinking to the earth below, would bring danger to the life and property of the state

seignements relatifs à la conduite des hostilités, pourront être écartés de la zone d'opérations et leurs appareils saisis et séquestrés.

Art. 8. L'État neutre n'est pas obligé de s'opposer au passage audessus de son territoire d'ondes hertziennes destinées à un pays en guerre.

Art. 9. L'État neutre a le droit et le devoir de fermer ou de prendre sous son administration l'établissement d'un État belligérant qu'il avait autorisé à fonctionner sur son territoire.

Art. 10. Toute interdiction de communiquer par la télégraphie sans fil, formulée par les belligérants, doit être immédiatement notifiée par eux aux gouvernements neutres.

21 Annuarie de l'Institut, p. 327.

53 105 U. S. 460, 26 L. Ed. 1067.

above which it might at the time be passing. It is probable that for the control of aërial navigation somewhat different regulations may be necessary than for the regulation of wireless telegraphy, which the Institute of International Law had particularly under consideration in 1906.

55

It would certainly be difficult to maintain that, in a contiguous area not within the jurisdiction of any state, a state would have no right of jurisdiction, though an act within this area might bring to the state serious consequences. What these rights are may be inferred from analogy to rights of jurisdiction already accepted. Nys, after mentioning that the development of the principles of maritime jurisdiction follows the fundamental principles of land jurisdiction, says that, "to the extent that 'the conquest of the air' is made and ‘aërial navigation' progresses, the principles of 'aërial law' will be derived from the fundamental principles of maritime law." 5 The extension of the principles of maritime law may not always be sufficient. Certain writers, following this analogy, would limit the qualified jurisdiction of the air to the actual range. of projectiles from the surface of the earth. There is to be remembered in this proposition that, while the place of departure of the projectile from the earth may be known, unless some special form of projectile is used, its return to the earth's surface may be dangerous, and also that the projectile sent from the earth's surface is acting against the force of gravity, while one dropped from a distance above is acting with the force of gravity. Some would deny the free use of the air within 5,000 feet of the earth's surface to the public ships of foreign states. Others would admit free use in time of peace, subject to police regulations, but extend the restraint in time of war. 57

541 Nys, Le droit international, p. 524.

55 Meurer, Luftschiffartsrecht, p. 5.

56 Fauchille, 19 Annuaire de l'Institut de Droit International, p. 34. 57 Merignhac, Lois et Coutumes de la Guerre sur Terre, p. 196; Scholz, Drahtlose Telegraphie und Neutralität, p. 19.