has numerous instances which have established the principles. Napoleon sold Louisiana to the United States in 1803, the Prince of Monaco made a sale to France in 1851, Russia sold Alaska to the United States in 1867, the Netherlands sold African colonies to Great Britain in 1872, Sweden sold the island of St. Barthélemy to France in 1877, the United States bought the Philippines in 1898. The fact of the sale is not a matter of international law, but is purely within the range of the public law of the countries concerned. The change of jurisdiction of the area gives rise to certain possible complications which may involve principles of international law, though generally the conditions of sale settle such questions. (4) Cession of jurisdiction over a given portion of territory as surety for the performance of a certain act, by lease, by annexation agreements, as payment of an indemnity or the like, are methods of acquiring temporary jurisdiction which frequently becomes permanent. By prescription, or long-con tinued possession. (e) Prescription, or the acquisition of territory by virtue of long-continued possession, is similar to prescription in public law as applied to the acquisition of property by persons. The recognition of this principle prevents many disputes over jurisdiction of territory which originally may have been acquired in a manner open to question, e.g. the holding of the territory by the states parties to the partition of Poland may through long-continued possession be valid by prescription if not by the original act. In regard to prescription, it should be observed that (1) it is a title valid only against other states. The inhabitants do not necessarily lose rights originally possessed. (2) This method avoids perpetual conflicts on ground of defect of original title. (3) Prescription may be considered as effective when other states have for a considerable time made no objection, threatening the exercise of jurisdiction by the state in possession. While some authors deny this right, it is generally admitted in fact, and by most of the leading authorities acknowledged in theory.1 (f) When land areas in the neighborhood of the boundary of a state are changed, territory may be acquired by accretion. (1) Land formed by alluvium or other cause near the coast of a state is held to belong to that state. Lord Stowell, in 1805, held that mud islands formed by alluvium from the Mis By accretion, of a state. sissippi River should for international law purposes be held as part of the United States territory.2 In general, alluvium becomes the property of the state to which it attaches, following the Roman law.3 (2) Where a river is the boundary, the rule is well established that islands formed on either side of the deepest channel belong to the state upon that side of the channel; an island formed mid-stream is divided by the old channel line. (3) When a river's channel is suddenly changed so as to be entirely within the territory of either state, the boundary line remains as before in the old channel. So also the boundary line of territory is not changed, even if the bed of a lake be changed.1 49. Qualified Territorial Jurisdiction Two degrees of qualified territorial jurisdiction are exercised in the protectorate and the sphere of influence. (a) The protecting state usually acquires the jurisdiction over all external affairs of the protected community, often including territorial waters, and assumes the direction of its international relations. A measure of jurisdiction of those internal affairs which may lead to international complications 1 See discussion in Hall, note 1, p. 120. The "Anna," 5 C. Rob., 373; Scott, 684. "Institutes," II, 1, 20. Cooley v. Golden, 52 Mo. App. 52; Scott, 129; Missouri v. Nebraska, 196 U. S. 23; Nebraska v. Missouri, 197 U. S. 577, In protectorates. is also generally assumed by the protecting state, e.g. treatment of foreigners in the protected territory, relations of protected subjects in foreign countries, use of flag, etc. The conditions of protected states vary greatly, hardly the same description holding for any two. It may be safe to say that (1) the protecting state cannot be held responsible for the establishment of any particular form of government; (2) a reasonable degree of security and justice must be maintained. As to what constitutes a “reasonable degree," the circumstances of each case must determine; then the protecting state is bound to afford such justice and security and (3) must be able to exercise within the protected area such powers as are necessary to meet its responsibilities. (b) The term "sphere of influence" has been used since the Berlin Conference, 1884-1885, to indicate a sort of attenuated protectorate in which the aim is to secure the rights without the obligations. First In a sphere of influence. applied to Africa in the partition of the unexplored interior among the European powers-Great Britain, Germany, France, Italy, Portugal-it has since been extended to other regions. This doctrine of mutual exclusion of each from the "spheres" of all the others cannot be held to bind any states not party to the agreement. The method of exercise of "influence," while varying, usually consists in making with the native chiefs treaties which convey privileges other than the cession of sovereignty. These privileges are often commercial, and may be with the state direct or agreements with some company to whom the state has delegated a portion of its authority, as in the African trade companies. The "spheres of influence," gradually with the growth of power of the influencing state and the necessity of protecting the "sphere," against other states, become less vague in their relations to the influencing state and merge into protectorates or some other more stable condition. This "sphere of influence" idea, as well as the "Hinterland Doctrine," can be of only temporary importance, owing to the limited area still open to occupation. It is maintained that within the "sphere" the influencing state has jurisdiction to the exclusion of another state, and that it has a right to occupy the territory later, if advisable. The influencing state disclaims all obligations possible.1 50. Maritime and Fluvial Jurisdiction Wheaton states as a general principle of maritime and fluvial jurisdiction: "Things of which the use is inexhaustible, such as the sea and running water, cannot be so appropriated as to exclude others from using these elements in any manner which does not occasion a loss or inconvenience to the proprietor.' "2 While the tendency of international policy is toward unrestricted freedom of river navigation, yet the principle as enunciated by Wheaton cannot be said to be established in practice. The American and Continental writers have generally favored the principle enunciated by Wheaton. English writers have contended against this position as a right, but admit that the principle is becoming established by numerous treaties and conventions. As to the sea, the principle may be said to be established. 51. Jurisdiction of Rivers The jurisdiction of rivers is a question which is not identical with the right of navigation of rivers, and may best be considered apart. The question of jurisdiction is one of general international principle, while the question of river 1 See Lawrence, 153, 161, 164–167; Reinsch, "World Politics," pp. 60, 113, 184. Wheat. D., § 193, p. 274. navigation is, in many instances, one of particular pro vision. The rivers fall under three classes: 1. Rivers which traverse only one state. 2. Rivers which traverse two or more states. 3. Rivers upon the opposite banks of which different states have jurisdiction. Rivers which (a) Rivers which traverse only one state are exclusively within the jurisdiction of that state. This traverse only jurisdiction may extend even to the forbidding of the use of a river to other states, and justifies the state in prescribing such regulations for its use as it may deem fit. one state. Rivers which traverse two (b) Rivers flowing through two or more states are for those parts within the boundaries of each state under its jurisdiction for the purposes of police, tolls, and general regulations. The right of absolute exor more states. clusion of the co-riparian states by any one of the states through which a river flows has been the subject of much discussion, and authorities of great weight can be found upholding either side. Rivers with under juris (c) When two states have jurisdiction upon opposite banks of a river, the jurisdiction of each state extends to the middle of the main channel or thalweg. Before the opposite banks Treaty of Luneville (Art. VI), 1801, it had been common to consider the limit of jurisdicdiction of two tion of the two states the middle of the river, a line much more difficult to determine, and more changeable than the channel line. The thalweg has been frequently confirmed as the accepted boundary where no conventions to the contrary existed.1 different states. Ed. Engelhardt, "Du régime conventionnel des fleuves internationaux,” Ch. II.; Scott, 129; 1 Moore, § 128. |