« PreviousContinue »
(c) Straits : Danish Sounds, Dardanelles.
(d) Canals : Suez, Panama, Nicaraguan, Corinth, Kiel. 53. THE THREE-MILE LIMIT. 54. FISHERIES.
(a) Deep sea.
(c) Bering Sea.
(a) By marriage.
(e) Incomplete naturalization.
(1) Emigration laws.
(4) Protection of subjects.
(12) Freedom of speech and worship.
(a) Diplomatic agents.
(1) Penal matters.
(2) Civil matters.
(a) Persons liable.
§ 45. Jurisdiction in General Jurisdiction is the right to exercise state authority, and for the purposes of international law may be classified as, (a) territorial or land jurisdiction, (6) fluvial and maritime, and (c) jurisdiction over persons.
§ 46. Territorial Domain and Jurisdiction
The word “ territory” is sometimes used as equivalent to domain or dominion or to an expression covering the sphere of state control. Territory is also used in the stricter sense of the land area over which a state exercises its powers. In this stricter sense, territorial jurisdiction refers to the exercise of state authority over the land within its boundaries and those things which appertain to the land. The growing international importance of railroads, telegraph, and other modern means of communication has introduced new topics not considered in early treatises, and these are still under discussion.
The fundamental law of territorial jurisdiction is that a state has within its boundaries absolute and exclusive jurisdiction over all the land and those things which appertain thereto. Certain exemptions are specially provided in international law to which all states are considered as giving express or tacit consent. In other respects than those mentioned under exemptions, the state may, as sovereign, exercise its authority at discretion within the sphere it has set for itself. The state has, as against all other states, an exclusive title to all property within its territorial jurisdiction. As regards its own subjects, it has the paramount title which is recognized in the right of eminent domain, or the right to appropriate private property when necessary for public use. A state may also in its corporate capacity hold absolute ownership in property, as in its forts, arsenals, ships, etc.
The state also has the right to enforce a lien on the land and what appertains to it in the form of taxes.
§ 47. Method of Acquisition The method of acquisition of territorial jurisdiction is a subject which has received much attention in international law, particularly because of the remarkable expansion of the territorial area of states within the modern period of international law since 1648.
The methods commonly considered are: (1) discovery, (2) occupation, (3.) conquest, (4) cession, (5) prescription, (6) accretion.
(a) In the early period of European expansion through discovery, the doctrine that title to land hitherto unknown vested in the state whose subject discovered the land was current. Gross abuse of this doctrine led to the modification that discovery without occupation did not constitute a valid title. As the field of discovery has grown less, the importance of a definition of occupation has decreased.
(6) Occupation is held to begin at the time of effective application of state authority, and strictly continues only during the exercise of such authority. In fact, however, the title by occupation is held to extend to the adjacent unoccupied territory to which the state might potentially extend the exercise of its authority, or where it may from time to time exercise its authority in an undisputed manner. Title by occupation extends as a rule to that area, not under the jurisdiction of another state, which is necessary for the safety of the occupied area or is naturally dependent upon it, as to the territory drained by a river of which a given state holds the mouth.
The “Hinterland Doctrine,” brought forth during the latter years of the nineteenth century, advances the idea that no such limits as above shall bound the area which can be claimed on ground of occupation, but that coast settlements give a prima facie title to the unexplored interior.
While the uncivilized peoples living within an area to which a civilized state claimed jurisdiction by virtue of occupancy were often unjustly treated, they however “were admitted to be the rightful occupants of the soil, with a legal as well as just claim to retain possession of it, and to use it according to their own discretion, though not to dispose of the soil of their own will, except to the government claiming the right of preëmption. ... The United States adopted the same principle, and their exclusive right to extinguish the Indian title by purchase or conquest, and to grant the soil, and exercise such a degree of sovereignty as circumstances required, has never been questioned.”1
(c) Conquest in the technical sense of the status of a territory which has come permanently under the jurisdiction of the enemy is distinct from military occupation, which is a simple fact supported by force.
Military occupation may pass into conquest (1) by actual occupation for a long period, with intention on the part of the occupier to continue the possession for an indefinite period, provided there has not been a continued and material effort upon the part of the former holder to regain possession. If, after a reason
13 Kent Com., 379, 380; 1 Gould and Tucker, 484.