Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T22:00:35.390Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The regime of navigation on international waterways; Part. I: The beneficiaries of the right of navigation*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2009

Béla Vitányi
Get access

Extract

The text of this paragraph is divided into two parts, each corresponding to the two kinds of obstacles which, at the time, stood in the way of the free exercise of navigation on the Rhine.

Type
Articles
Information
Netherlands Yearbook of International Law , Volume 5 , December 1974 , pp. 111 - 166
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1974

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. The term ‘international river’ (fleuve international) was introduced into international law by the French jurist Ed. Engelhardt in his book Du droit conventionnel des fleuves internationaux, 1879. It was quickly adopted and commonly used by writers, whilst the adjective “international” for waterways to which the regime of free navigation applied was not employed in treaties until the Peace Treaties of 1919–1920.

2. Martens, N.R., vol. 2 p. 1 et seq. English text in 1 B.F.S.P. p. 1038.

3. Martens, Supp. vol. 4 p. 36 et seq. English text in 2 B.F.S.P. p. 164.

4. Cf. Bacon, R., “British policy and the Regulation of European Rivers of International Concern”, 10 B.Y.I.L. (1929) pp. 158–170, at p. 163.Google Scholar

5. Dupuis, Ch., Le ministère de Talleyrand en 1814, vol. 1, 1919, p. 374.Google Scholar

6. Decision of 16 November 1792 of the Conseil exécutif provisoire de la République, in Moniteur universel of 22 November 1792.

7. Dupuis, op. cit, p. 377.

8. See the present author's article “La navigation fluviale dans la doctrine de droit natural”, 75 R.G.D.I.P. (1971) pp. 1060–1076.Google Scholar

9. Cf. Heffter, A.W., Das Europäische Völkerrecht der Gegenwart (7th ed., Berlin 1881) par. 77Google Scholar; Wurm, C.F., Fünf Briefe über die Freiheit der Flussschiffahrt (1858) p. 23Google Scholar; Caratheodory, Et., Du droit international concemant les grands cours d'eau (1861) p. 104Google Scholar; Hostie, J., “Le statut international du Rhin”, 28 Hague Recueil (1929) pp. 109–229 at p. 134Google Scholar; Siotto-Pintor, M.N., “Le régime international de l'Escaut”, 21 Hague Recueil (1928) pp. 285–369 at p. 303.Google Scholar

10. Winiarski, B., “Principes généraux du droit fluvial international”, 45 Hague Recueil (1933-III) pp. 79–217 at p. 163.Google Scholar

11. Hostie, op. cit. p. 136.

12. Op den, Hooff, Observations sur l'écrit allemand de la navigation du Rhin considérée dans ses rapports avec le Royaume des Pays Bas (1828) p. 36.Google Scholar

13. Rheinurkunden – Rijndocumenten – Documents rhénans [hereafter cited as “Doc. rhénans] vol. I (1918) pp. 56–59.Google Scholar

14. op. cit. p. 46.

15. Doc. rhénans, vol. I, pp. 61–63.

16. Ibid. pp. 59–60.

17. Cf. van den Bergh, Cremer, Disputatio historica iuris gentium continens novanrum legum de fluminium communium navigatione 1835 p. 35.Google Scholar

18. Doc. rhénans, vol. I, p. 60.

19. This meant the replacement of the central authority, of a ‘supranational’ character, envisaged in the Dalberg proposal, by a consultative committee. See Doc. rhénans, vol. I, p. 86. See also van Eijsinga, W.J.M., La Commission centrale pour la navigation du Rhin (1935) p. 15–16.Google Scholar

20. Doc. rhénans, vol. I, p. 96.

21. Ibid p. 124.

22. Martens, N.R., vol. 2, p. 379 et seq. English text in 2 B.F.S.P. p. 52 et seq.

23. Martens, N.R., vol. 12, pp. 312–313.

24. American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. 6 pp. 757–777.

25. Cf. Wurm, op. cit., p. 23; Engelhardt, Ed., “Histoiie de droit fluvial conventionnel”, Nouvelle Revue Historique de Droit Français et Etranger (1889) p. 35Google Scholar; Pillet, A., “Quel doit être le régime juridique des fleuves africans?”, 5 R.G.D.I.P. (1898) pp. 829–844 at p. 837Google Scholar; Fauchille, P., Traité de droit international public, vol. I part 2 (1925), p. 471Google Scholar; Siotto-Pintor, loc. cit. p. 308.

26. Hefter, op. cit. par. 77; Bluntschli, J.G., Le droit international codifié (translation by Lardy, , 4th ed., 1886)Google Scholar, notes to paragraph 314; Wheaton, H., Elements of International Law (8th. ed., by R.H. Dana Jr., 1866), sect. 197Google Scholar; de Ranitz, H., De Rijnvaartacte (1889) p. 19Google Scholar, who was of the opinion that the article, declaring the general freedom of navigation, lacked good faith. In his view the article was the most useless provision of the whole regulation. See, further, Rivier, A., Principes du droit des gens, vol. I (1896) p. 221Google Scholar; De Louter, J., Het stellig volkenrecht, vol. I (1919) p. 440Google Scholar; Chiesa, P.A., Le régime international du Rhin (1952) p. 16Google Scholar; Oppenheim's International Law, vol. I (8th.ed., by Lauterpacht, H. 1955) p. 467Google Scholar; Ferrier, Ch.-A., La liberté de navigation sur le Rhin de Bâle à la mer (1955) p. 17Google Scholar; Berber, E.J., Rivers in International Law (1959) p. 260Google Scholar; Verdross, A., Völkerrecht (4th.ed., 1959) p. 505Google Scholar; Nussbaum, A., A Concise History of the Law of Nations (2nd.ed., 1954) p. 186Google Scholar; Delbez, L., Les principes généraux de droit international public (3rd. ed., 1964) p. 221Google Scholar; Patry, A., “Le régime des cours d'eau internationaux”, 1 Canadian Yearbook of International Law (1963) pp. 172–212 at p. 182.Google Scholar

27. Not all those who held the view that the Paris Treaty in fact provided for freedom of navigation on rivers in favour of all flags, adopted the extensive interpretation of the provisions of the Vienna Act. Consequently those who perceived a contradiction between the declaration of principle in the Paris Treaty and its implementation in the Vienna Act came to the conclusion that the Congress of Vienna had distorted the true meaning of the declaration of Paris.

28. Ed. Engelhardt, op. cit. pp. 79–80; Pradier-Fodéré, P., Traité de droit international public européen et américain, vol. 2 (1886), No. 742Google Scholar; Orban, P., Etude de droit fluvial international (1895) pp. 101–103Google Scholar; Westlake, J., International Law, vol. I (2nd. ed., 1910) pp. 146 et seq.Google Scholar; van Eijsinga, W.J.M., “Les fleuves et canaux internationaux”, Bibliotheca Visseriana vol. 2 (1924) pp. 140–141Google Scholar; Fauchille, op. cit. p. 472; Kasana, , La navigation fluviale en droit international (1928) p. 36Google Scholar; Hostie, op. cit. pp. 138–141; Siotto-Pintor, op. cit. pp. 308–309; Winiarski, op. cit. pp. 165–166; De Leener, G., “Règies générales du droit des communications internationales”, 55 Hague Recueil (1936) pp. 1–84 at p. 34Google Scholar; François, J.P.A., Handboek van het Volkenrecht, vol. I (1949) p. 1014Google Scholar; Sibert, M., Traité de droit international public, vol. I (1951) p. 791Google Scholar; Guggenheim, P., Traité de droit international, vol. I (1953) p. 406Google Scholar; Scheuner, U., Questions juridiques relatives à la navigation du Rhin (1956) pp. 96 et seq.Google Scholar; Krüger, H., “Internationalisierte Flüsse”, in Wörterbuch des Völkerrechts (Schlochauer, , ed.), vol. 2 (1961) p. 137Google Scholar; Baxter, R.R., The Law of International Waterways (1964) p. 100Google Scholar; Fortuin, H., “Two Questions concerning Freedom of Navigation on International Rivers”, 16 N.T.I.R. (1969) pp. 257–281 at p. 263.Google Scholar

29. Cf. Bourquin, M., “L'humanisation du droit des gens”, in: La technique et les principes du droit public (Etudes à l'honneur de Georges Scelle) vol. I (1950) pp. 21–54 at p. 41.Google Scholar

29a. Cf. Vienna Congress Committee: “Every boatman shall carry the merchant flag of his own government”, Doc. rhénans, vol. I, p. 87.Google Scholar

30. Doc. rhénans, vol. I, p. 136. The “corporations” refer to boatmen's guilds rather than to present-day river transport enterprises.

30a. The treaties concerned were those of 3 May 1815 concluded by Russia with Austria and Poland relating to the (fourth) partition of Poland. See Martens, N.R., vol. 2, pp. 225 et seq., 236 et seq.

31. Op. cit. p. 97.

32. Op. cit. p. 145.

33. Cf. Op den Hooff, op. cit., pp. 114 et seq.; Wurm, op. cit, pp. 31 et seq.

34. Op. cit., p. 117. In his view, and with regard to the provisions decided on by the Congress of Vienna, “Es sollte die vollkommen freie Schifffahrt auf diesen conventionellen Flüssen nicht nur den Unterthanen der Uferstaaten sondern Allen ohne Unterschied gesichert sein …”, He complained that “Leider bleiben die Grundsätze des Congresses, deren Auslegung vom Anfang an in falsche Bahnen kam, lange Zeit hindurch ohne jede Sanction der Praxis, welche sie nur durch ihre Verwirklichung erhalten konnten”. He then continued: “Unter Benutzung der Doppeldeutigkeit des Ausdrucks ‘sous le rapport du commerce’, haben tatsächlich während der Verhandlungen, die zugleich mit dem Wiener Congress begannen und sich über einen Zeitraum von vierzig Jahren, bis zum Zusammentritt des Pariser Congresses von 1856 erstreckten, die zur Ausarbeitung der verschiedenen Stromgesetzgebungen in Gemässheit der angenommen Grundsätze bestimmten Commissionen es mit mehr oder minder Erfolg versucht, die Schifffahrt zu Gunsten der Uferstaaten einzuschränken”. See the chapter on “Das Stromgebietsrecht und die internationale Flussschifffahrt”, by Carathéodory, , in Handbuch des Völkerrechts (Holtzendorff, ed.), vol. 2 (1887) pp. 299 and 328.Google Scholar

35. Op. cit., note to par. 314.

36. 8 Annuaire (1885/1886) p. 277.

37. Cf. Ed. Engelhardt, op. cit., p. 81; Fauchille, op. cit. p. 523, Corthésy, , Etude de la convention de Barcelone sur le régime des voies navigables d'intérêt international (Paris, 1927), p. 25Google Scholar; Kasana, op. cit., p. 36.

38. Martens, N.R., vol. 5, pp. 714 et seq.; English text in 8 B.F.S.P. p. 953 et seq.

39. “The Navigation of the Elbe, from the point at which that River becomes navigable down to the open Sea, and vice versa (as well in ascending as in descending), shall be entirely free with respect to Commerce. The Coasting Trade [cabotage], however, which may be carried on between the States bordering on the River, shall be exclusively confined, along its whole course, to the respective Subjects of those States.”

40. Martens, N.R., vol. 6 part 1, pp. 301 et seq.; English text in Hertslet, , The Map of Europe by Treaty, vol. 1, p. 707 et seq. (no complete text).Google Scholar

41. Martens, N.R., vol. 9, pp. 252 et seq.

42. Reference should be made here to the Constitution of the German Customs Union (Zollverein) of 1833 and to the Anti Corn Law League in Britain, which came about as a result of the economic crisis of 1836–1837 and whose actions resulted in the abolition of import duties on wheat in 1846. This development reached its apogee with the conclusion of the commercial treaty of 23 January 1860 (“Cobden Treaty”) between France and Britain, based on almost total free trade. Martens, N.R.G., vol. 16 part 2, pp. 545 et seq.; English text in 11 Hertslet's Commercial Treaties p. 165 et seq.

43. According to Article lc of Annex XVI C of the Final Act, the freedom of navigation provided for for the Rhine was to be extended to the Scheldt. However, the factual situation was that Antwerp, being a maritime riverport, was at that time freely accessible to the ships of all nations, thus going beyond the then prevailing conception of freedom of navigation with regard to the Rhine. The secession of Belgium from the Netherlands in 1830 which caused ships coming from the high seas to pass through Dutch territory by passing the waters of a Duch river (the Western Scheldt) before reaching the port of Antwerp, necessitated the adaption of the regime of navigation on the Scheldt to the changed territorial situation.

44. Martens, N.R., vol. 11, pp. 330 et seq.; 18 B.F.S.P. p. 645.

45. “…Article IX regulates important matters, which do not simply relate to the conditions of separation between Belgium and Holland, but which are directly connected with some of the general Arrangements of the Treaty of Vienna, and which affect the rights conferred by that Treaty upon all commercial Nations.

The British Plenipotentiary then, in drawing up the alterations which he proposed in this Article, had the following objects in view: … 3dly. To protect the rights of other Nations from any attempt at constructive infringement…”. Martens, N.R., vol. 12, p. 487.

46. Martens, N.R., vol. 16 part 2, pp. 773 et seq.; Herslet, , The Map of Europe by Treaty vol. 2 p. 979 et seq.Google Scholar

47. Martens, N.R.G., vol. 3, pp. 613 et seq.; Herslet, , The Map of Europe by Treaty, vol. 2 p. 1029 et seq. (no complete text).Google Scholar

48. Martens, N.R.G., vol. 6, pp. 386 et seq.

49. “Der Transport von Personen und Gütern von der Nordsee nach jedem Elbuferplatze und von jedem Elbuferplatze nach der Nordsee steht den Schiffen aller Nationen zu”.

50. Martens, N.R.G., vol. 5, pp. 125 et seq.

51. Martens, N.R.G., vol. 14, pp. 525 et seq.; 38 B.F.S.P. p. 130.

52. Though the Po had become an Italian interior water as a result of the Zurich (1859) and Vienna (1866) peace treaties, the freedom of navigation in favour of other States was maintained. Cf. the statement of the Italian delegate at the Barcelona Conference: League of Nations Barcelona Conference, Verbatim Records and Texts relating to the Convention on the Regime of Navigable Waterways of International Concern and to the Declaration recognising the Right to a Flag of States having no Sea-Coast (1921) p. 76.Google Scholar

53. Doc. rhénans, vol. I, pp. 474–476.

54. Ibid., pp. 495–496.

55. Martens, N.R.G., vol. 1, p. 208 et seq.; Herslet, , The Map of Europe by Treaty, vol. 2, p. 1016 et seq.Google Scholar

56. “Les navires marchands autrichiens, ainsi que ceux de toute autre nation, ayant le droit de naviguer dans la Mer Noire, et qui est en paix avec la Russie pourront entrer librement dans les embouchures navigables du Danube”.

57. Martens, N.R.G., vol. 16 part 2, pp. 63 et seq.

58. “Zu der Schifffahrt aus einem der contrahirenden Staaten in den anderen sind gegenseitig nur die Unterthanen der contrahirenden Staaten berechtigt, doch soil fremden Schiffen, die in der Fahrt aus einem jenseits des Flussgebiets der contrahirenden Staaten gelegenen Orte, oder auf der Rückfahrt dahin begriffen sind, gestattet sein, auch Güter von dem einen dieser Staaten in dem andein zu veibringen”.

59. Martens, N.R.G., vol. 15, pp. 770 et seq.; English text in Major Peace Treaties of Modern History 1648–1967 (Israel, F.L., ed.), vol. 3 (1967) p. 947 et seq.Google Scholar

60. At the preparatory conference at Vienna in 1855 the Austrian delegation was against the application of the provisions of the peace treaty to the whole navigable route of the Danube, since “…qu'entre l'Autriche et la Bavière il y avait des stipulations spéciales sur la navigation de la partie supérieure de ce fleuve et qu'il ne s'agissait main tenant que de régler la navigation du Bas-Danube”… Martens, N.R.G., vol. 15, p. 649; 45 B.F.S.P., p. 68.

61. Hostie, op. cit, p. 151. See also: Siotto-Pintor, op.cit., p. 312.

62. Martens, N.R.G., 2nd series, vol. 10, p. 274.

63. Martens, N.R.G., vol. 16 part 2, pp. 75 et seq.

64. Martens, N.R.G., vol. 16 part 2, pp. 43–44.

65. Ibid., p. 47.

66. Ibid., p. 47.

67. Ibid., p. 48.

68. Ibid., pp. 45, 48.

69. According to van Eijsinga, though the Austrian position was correct from a strictly legal point of view, it was quite fortunate for the development of international river law that the other Powers sided with Britain, . “Les fleuves et canaux internationaux”, Bibliotheca Visseriana vol. 2 (1924) p. 144Google Scholar. In view of the historical facts, Scheuner's categorical contention that “during the whole course of the nineteenth century no doubt was raised as to the limitation which those words [viz. ‘in respect of commerce’] involved” (op. cit. p. 98) in unfounded.

69a. Sturdza, , Recueil des documents relatifs à la liberté de navigation du Danube, 1904, pp. 78 et seq.Google Scholar

70. Initially the rules on navigation on the Lower Danube were laid down in Title II of the Public Act of 2 November 1865: Martens, N.R.G., vol. 17, pp. 143 et seq. These rules were subsequently substituted by the Navigation Regulations for the Danube between Galatz and its mouth (“maritime Danube”), of 19 May 1881 (Martens, N.R.G., 2nd series, vol. 9, pp. 254 et seq.), and by the Regulation on Navigation and Police relating to the Danube between the Iron Gates and Braila, of 2 June 1882, according to Article 7 of the Treaty of London of 10 March 1883 (Martens, N.R.G., 2nd series, vol. 10, pp. 252 et seq.; 74 B.F.S.P. p. 20). The Regulation on Navigation and Police of 10 November 1911 (Martens, N.R.G., 3rd series, vol. 9, pp. 252 et seq.) constituted the last modification of the regime of the Danube before the First World War.

71. Martens, N.R.G. vol. 20, pp. 355 et seq.

72. Protocol 2 of the Commission. Révision de l'Acte de navigation du Rhin de 1831 (publication of the Central Commission for the Navigation of the Rhine, 1928), p. 133.

73. Ibid., p. 134.

74. In the circumstances it is not surprising that appraisals of the Treaty of Mannheim by contemporary jurists vary. Asser expressed doubts about the compatibility of the dualistic regime of the Rhine with the principles of the Act of Vienna, : Over de nieuwe Rijnvaart-Comventie (1869), p. 22Google Scholar. Rolin-Jacquemyns denied such compatibility: Revue de droit international et de législation comparée 1869 p. 152Google Scholar. Ed. Engelhardt expressed strong ciritcism of the discriminatory tendencies that characterized the Convention: op. cit, p. 102–105. On the other hand Ranitz saw the Treaty of Mannheim as the realization of the liberal spirit and thus basically different from its predecessor, the Convention of Mainz, op. cit., pp. 52 et seq.

75. During the negotiations the Netherlands representative had proposed the complete abolition of boatmen's licences. He recalled that “The boatmen's examinations have not in general lived up to expectations and they do not offer any sufficient guarantee of the capability or moral qualities of the licensee. As a general rule, commerce, which is principally concerned here, can look after its own interests better than any Government”.

The other delegates, however, could not agree with this liberal approach. In their view “If the present examination, which certainly does not offer every guarantee, were to be abolished, it would have to be on condition of the substitution therefor of the requirement of a certain period of practical experience, by reason in particular of the fact that the difficulties of navigating on the Rhine and the volume of traffic on that river make a profound knowledge of the waterway necessary”. Protocol I of the Commission. Révision de l'Acte de navigation du Rhine de 1831 (op. cit. in note 72) p. 108.Google Scholar

76. Cf. Hostie, op. cit., p. 154.

77. According to the Prussian aide-mémoire of 1867: “The provision in the 1831 Act that the vessel to be navigated must be specified in the licence conflicts with the treaty provisions governing other rivers, and involves a great number of useless formalities for boatmen. For so long as dues were levied on navigation on the Rhine and the flags of riparian States were not treated on a footing of equality, it was necessary to retain this provision. There is now no longer any reason whatsoever for restricting a boatman who has given sufficient evidence of his capacity to taking charge of only a given specific boat in the exercise of his calling”. Révision de l'Acte de navigation du Rhine de 1831 (op. cit. in note 72) p. 94.Google Scholar

78. Martens, N.R.G., 2nd series, vol. 10, p. 296.

79. Ibid. p. 263.

80. Ibid. p. 414.

81. Moore, J.B., Digest of International Law vol. I, p. 642–643.Google Scholar

82. Hyde, C.C., International Law, chiefly as interpreted and applied by the United States, vol. I, 2nd. ed., 1951. p. 530.Google Scholar

83. Op. cit. in note 26, p. 191.

84. Sosa-Rodriguez, C., Les fleuves de l'Amérique-latine et le droit des gens (1935), pp. 150–151Google Scholar. One is reminded of the attitude of the Argentine Government, which, on 22 July 1965, suspended the application of its agreement with Paraguay of 7 February 1964 concerning navigation on the Parana river. See 69 R.G.D.I.P. (1965) p. 1104.

85. Martens, N.R.G., 2nd series, vol. 29, pp. 581 et seq.

86. In the Faber case before the German-Venezuelan Mixed Claims Commission. For the texts concerning this case, see 10 R.I.A.A. pp. 438 et seq.

87. The American conception of sovereignty on rivers which is much more uncompromising than the European, was expounded by W. Griffin, counsel to the State Department, in his memorandum, in behalf of the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, and in connection with the Columbia River hearings, entitled Legal Aspects of the Use of Systems of International Waters, Sen. doc. No. 118, 85th Congr. 2d. Sess, p. 38.

88. Martens, N.R.G., 2nd series, vol. 10, pp. 366–384.

89. Martens, N.R.G., 2nd series, vol. 10, pp. 414 et seq.; Herslet's Commercial Treaties vol. 17 p. 62 et seq.Google Scholar

90. Martens, N.R.G., 2nd series, vol. 10 p. 212.

91. Martens, N.R.G., 2nd series, vol. 10, p. 264.

92. Martens, N.R.G., 3rd series, vol. 14, pp. 12 et seq., 8 L.N.T.S. p. 26 et seq.

93. The question of the validity of the Convention of St. Germain was raised in connexion with the decision of the Permanent Court of International Justice in the Oscar Chinn case, by judges van Eysinga and Schücking. In his individual opinion the former held that modification of the Berlin Act by only some of its Parties violated a basic principle of international law. Series A/B No. 63, p. 134. Judge Schücking considered the Convention of St. Germain void and without legal effect, since it had been concluded in contravention of the principles of and the express prohibition contained in the General Act of Berlin. Ibid., p. 149.

94. It suffices to refer to the declaration in Chapter VI of the General Act of the Conference of Berlin. This declaration laid down the conditions for new occupations on the coasts of the African continent to be considered effective, without any reference to the rights of the populations of the territories concerned. The resolution of the Institut de Droit International concerning the occupation of territory, adopted in 1888, merely included a recommendation to the authorities of the occupying Power to treat the native tribes in a humanitarian way. 10 Annuaire (1888/1889) p. 173.

95. Treaty of Versailles (Martens, N.R.G., 3rd. series, vol. 11, pp. 323 et seq., 112 B.F.S.P. p. 1; 13 A.J.I.L. (1919) Supp. p. 151 et seq); Treaty of St Germain (Martens, ibid., pp. 691 et seq; 112 B.F.S.P. p. 514); Treaty of Neuilly (Martens, N.R.G. 3rd. series, vol. 12, pp. 325 et seq.); Treaty of Trianon (Martens, ibid., pp. 423 et seq.; 113 B.F.S.P. p. 486).

96. The term “navigable waterway” in the Peace Treaties refers to a larger part of the river system than ‘stream’ or ‘river’, since it includes non-running waters, such as fresh water canals.

97. Martens, N.R.G., 3rd. series, vol. 13, pp. 504 et seq.

98. The modification of the Act of Mannheim evisaged in the Treaty of Versailles could not come into effect without the consent of the Netherlands, the only Party to the Convention that was not a signatory to the Treaty. For this reason it was stipulated in the last paragraph of Art 354 of the Treaty that the Allied and Associated Powers reserved to themselves the right to arrive at an understanding in this connection with Holland. Agreement on the conditions for Dutch assent was reached, and laid down in two Protocols, signed at Paris on 21 January 1921 and 29 March 1923. Martens, N.R.G. 3rd. series, vol. 12 pp. 603 et seq.

99. Trb. 1955 No. 161, pp. 65–69.

100. Article 1 (l) of the Police Regulations for the Navigation of the Rhine, adopted by the Central Commission in March 1954, defined the skipper as the master of a vessel or a raft. Stb. 1954 No. 376.

101. League of Nations Barcelona Conference. Verbatim Records and Texts relating to the Convention on the Regime of Navigable Waterways of International Concern and to the Declaration recognising the Right to a Flag of States having no Sea-Coast, (hereafter to be cited: Conf. on Navig. Waterways), 1921, p. 420–421.Google Scholar

102. Martens, N.R.G., 3rd. series, vol. 18, pp. 717 et seq.; 7 L.N.T.S. p. 35 et seq. The technique adopted was that the Conventions themselves only contain clauses of a formal character leaving the substantive rules to be set forth in annexed Statutes that form an integral part of the Convention. The Convention on the Regime of Waterways of International Concern is supplemented by an Additional Protocol on national waterways.

103. Article 5 deals with “the right of a riparian State of reserving, in the absence of any Convention or obligation to the contrary, for its own flag the transport of passengers and goods loaded at one port situated under its sovereignty or authority and inloaded at another port also situated under its sovereignty”. The other exception of the general rule, included in Article 17, deals with “vessels of war, vessels performing police or administrative functions, or, in general, exercising any kind of public authority.” The insertion of this latter exception was in fact superfluous. It is self-evident that the freedom of navigation on rivers as conceived in the Navigation Convention applies solely to merchant vessels.

104. League of Nations Barcelona Conference, Verbatim Reports and Texts relating to the Convention on Freedom of Transit (hereafter to be cited: Conf. on Transit), 1921, p. 291.Google Scholar

105. According to van Eijsinga's reasoning the idea contained in the Statute constituted “une restriction regrettable”. Les fleuves etc., p. 144. Baxter also remarks that: “… it extended the right of freedom of navigation only to signatories, in this respect derogating from a more general right of freedom of navigation established by a number of previous treaties.” Op. cit. p. 134.

106. Conf. on Transit, p. 293.

107. Conf. on Navig. Waterways p. 295.

108. Ibid. p. 298.

109. Conf. on Transit, p. 293.

110. Conf. on Navig. Waterways, p. 357.

111. Ibid., p. 193.

112. Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, Chile, Colombia, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, India, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway, New Zealand, Peru, Romania, Sweden, Thailand, Turkey and the United Kingdom (L.N.T.S. vol. 7 p. 35, vol. 11 p. 406, vol. 15 p. 306, vol. 69 p. 71, vol. 134 p. 393). Malta acceded to the Convention in 1966, and Nigeria acceded to the Convention and to the Statute in 1967 (U.N.T.S. vol. 592 p. 342 and vol. 609 p. 345), while India has denounced both in 1956 (230 U.N.T.S. p. 448).

113. Martens, N.R.G., 3rd series, vol. 12, pp. 606 et seq., 26 L.N.T.S. p. 173.

114. Martens, N.R.G., 3rd series, vol. 12, pp. 632 et seq., 26 L.N.T.S. p. 219.

115. This opposition was mainly due to the refusal of the Dutch Government to accept the tendency apparent in the draft to extend the powers of the Central Commission to practically the whole Dutch river system. See Telders, B.M., “Der Kampf um die neue Rheinschiffahrtsakte” (1934), Verzamelde Geschriften vol. 4 pp. 1Google Scholar et seq., and his “Aperçu des faits internationaux d'ordre juridique”, Annuaire Grotius (1937), p. 54.Google Scholar

116. Martens, N.R.G., 3rd series, vol. 36 part 3, pp. 769 et seq. Quotations are translated from the French text.

117. Text in: Martens, N.R.G., 3rd series, vol. 36, part 3, pp. 800–802; Documents on International Affairs (publ. under the ausp. of the Royal Institute of International Affairs) 1936, p. 285.Google Scholar

118. Mosler, H., “Die internationale Rechtslage der Rheinschiffahrt nach der deutschen Note vom 14. November 1936”, 52 Niemeyers Zeitschrift für internationales Recht (1937) pp. 144–158 at p. 151.Google Scholar

119. See for the notes concerned: Simeonov, , Die Donaufrage im Völkerrechtlichen Verkehr der europäischen Staaten (1943) pp. 162Google Scholar et seq. It is curious that a German author has recently attempted to excuse the attitude of the Nazi Government by arguing that an alleged right of self-preservation (Selbsterhaltungsrecht) entitles the State to terminate, by unilateral act, a treaty to which it is a Party if such treaty is no more in accordance with its vital interests. See Krzizanowski, P., “Die Rechtslage des Rhein-Main-Donau Verbindungsweges”, 14 Archiv des Völkerrechts (1969-1970) pp. 343–374 at pp. 357–358.Google Scholar

120. Martens, N.R.G., 3rd series, vol. 37 part 2, pp. 398 et seq.

121. The report of President Truman on the Potsdam Conference of 9 August 1945 contains the following: “One of the persistent causes for wars in the last two centuries has been the selfish control of the waterways of Europe. I mean the Danube, the Black Sea straits, the Rhine, the Kiel Canal and all the inland waterways of Europe which border on two or more states […] The United States proposed at Berlin that there be free and unrestricted navigation of these inland waterways. We think this is important to the future peace and security of the world. We proposed that regulations for such navigation be provided by international authorities. The function of these agencies would be to develop the use of the waterways and assure equal treatment on them for all nations. Membership in the agencies would include the United States, Great Britain, the Soviet Union and France, plus those states which border on the waterways. Our proposal was considered by the Conference and was referred to the Council of Foreign Ministers. There, the United States intends to press for its adoption”. Department of State Bulletin 12 August 1945, p. 212.Google Scholar

122. For a survey of the negotiations, see Gorove, S., Law and Politics of the Danube (1964), pp. 80–95.Google Scholar

123. U.N.T.S. vol. 41 p. 21 et seq. and p. 135 et seq.; vol. 42 p. 32 et seq.

124. For the proceedings of the Conference, see: Conférence danubienne Beograd 1948 (publication of the Yugoslav Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 1949).

125. 33 U.N.T.S. p. 181 et seq.

126. Conférence danubienne Beograd 1948 pp. 145–147.

127. 217 U.N.T.S. p. 223 et seq.

128. 351 U.N.T.S. p. 378.

129. 67 R.G.D.I.P. (1963) p. 361.

130. 2 European Yearbook (1956) p. 278.

131. For the texts of the notes, see Les Actes du Rhin (edited by the Central Commission for the Navigation of the Rhine), pp. 21–22. Switzerland subsequently acceded to the Allied agreement. See also: Müller, W., “Die Rechtsstellung der Schweiz in Bezug auf die revidierte Rheinṡchifffahrts-Akte vom 17. Oktober 1868”, 15 A.S.D.I. (1958) pp. 153–186 at p. 166Google Scholar; Schluckebier, U., Internationales Rheinschiffahrtsrecht (1965) p. 35.Google Scholar

132. “Die Bundesrepublik verpflichtet sich vom Zeitpunkt ihres Beitritts an, ebenso wie die jetztigen Miglieder, alle sich aus dem Mannheimer Abkommen vom 17. Oktober 1868 und aus dem seitdem vorgenommen Ånderungen ergebenden Rechte und Verpflichtungen auf sich zu nehmen”. Trb. 1955 No. 161 pp. 154–155.

133. Trb. 1964 No. 83.

134. Verträge der Bundesrepublik Deutschland vol. 11 (1959) pp. 34 et seqGoogle Scholar. The following quotation is a translation of the original French text.

135. Böhms, H., Die völkerrechtliche Stellung der Elbe unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Situation nach dem zweiten Weltkrieg (1959) pp. 120–121.Google Scholar

136. Nguyen Quoc, Dinh, “L'internationalisation du Mékong”, 8 A.F.D.I. (1962) pp. 91–115 at p. 108Google Scholar. Quite probably the treaty is still inoperative as a result of the wars which have been raging this part of the world.

137. 69 R.G.D.I.P. (1965) pp. 276 et seq. See also: Elias, T.O., “The Berlin Treaty and the River Niger Commission”, 57 A.J.I.L. (1963) pp. 873–882Google Scholar; Schreiber, M., “Vers un nouveau régime international du fleuve Niger”, 9 A.F.D.I. (1963) pp. 866–889.Google Scholar

138. André, J.C., “L'évolution du statut des fleuves internationaux d'Afrique noire”, 19 Revue juridique et politique, indépendance et coopération (1965) pp. 285–310.Google Scholar

139. 63 A.J.I.L. (1969) p. 875 et seq.

140. Cf. Oppenheim's International Law, vol. 1 (8th ed. edited by Lauterpacht, H.) pp. 927–928Google Scholar; de Visscher, Ch., Théories et réaltiés en droit international public (2nd. ed., 1955) p. 324Google Scholar; Wengler, W., Völkerrecht, vol. 1 (1964) p. 255.Google Scholar

141. The Court was concerned with the meaning of the provision inserted in Article 1(4) of the Paris Peace Treaty of 20 November 1815, in favour of Switzerland. Text of the treaty in Martens, N.R. vol. 2, pp. 682 et seq.

142. Case of the Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex, Ser. A/B No. 46, pp. 147–148.

143. Rousseau, Ch., Droit international public, vol. I (1970), p. 187.Google Scholar

144. Op. cit. in n. 28, vol. 1, p. 102.

145. Delbez, L., “Le concept de l'internationalisation”, 71 R.G.D.I.P. (1967) pp. 5–62 at p. 35.Google Scholar

146. Harvard Law School, Research in International Law, Law of Treaties, 29 A.J.I.L. (1935) Suppl.Google Scholar

147. von Liszt, F., Le droit international (1927, transl. of Das, Völkenecht, 9th ed. 1913) p. 15.Google Scholar

148. Report of the International Law Commission covering the work of its sixteenth session, A/5809 p. 12; ILC Yearbook 1964-II p. 184.

149. “Das Stromgebietsrecht und die internationale Flussschifffahrt”, in Handbuch des Völkerrechts (Holtzendorff, ed.) vol. 2, 1887, p. 330.Google Scholar

150. 10 Annuaire (1887/1888), pp. 166 et seq.Google Scholar

151. Conf. on Navig. Waterways, p. 120.

152. Sørensen, M., “Principes de droit international public”, 101 Hague Recueil (1960) pp. 1–254 at p. 76.Google Scholar

153. de Visscher, Ch., “La codification du droit international”, 6 Hague Recueil (1925) pp. 329–453, at p. 375Google Scholar. See, with particular reference to the right of free navigation the same author's Problèmes d'interprétation judiciaire en droit international public (1963) p. 131.Google Scholar

154. Verdross, A., “Règles générales du droit international de la paix”, 30 Hague Recueil (1929) pp. 275–507, at p. 295.Google Scholar

155. Glaser, S., “Décolonisation et succession aux traités”, 74 R.G.D.I.P. (1970) pp. 906–921 at p. 917.Google Scholar

156. Reuter, P., “Principes de droit international public”, 103 Hague Recueil (1961) pp. 425–656 at p. 448.Google Scholar

157. North Sea Continental Shelf cases, I.C.J. Rep. 1969 p. 43.Google Scholar

158. Cf.W.Müller, op. cit. in n. 131 at. p. 176–177.

159. Finland, Norway, and Albania have ratified the Barcelona Convention and Statute, both based on the idea of free navigation of navigable waterways of international concern, as far as ships sailing under the flag of a State Party are concerned.

160. I.C.J. Reports, 1960, p. 40.

161. Braud, Ph., “Recherches sur l'Etat tiers en droit international public”, 72 R.G.D.I.P. (1968) pp. 17–96 at p. 33.Google Scholar

162. le Fur, L., “Règles générales du droit de la paix”, 54 Hague Recueil (1935) pp. 5–307, at p. 198.Google Scholar

163. Op. cit. at n. 7, p. 315.

164. In 35(1) Annuaire (1929 part 1) p. 420.Google Scholar

165. Op. cit. at n. 9, p. 159.

166. Kraus, H., Questions juridiques relatives à la navigation du Rhin (1956) p. 18.Google Scholar

167. Lederle, A., Das Recht der internationalen Gewässer (1920) p. 101.Google Scholar

168. In 37 Annuaire (1932) pp. 108–110.Google Scholar

169. Separate opinion in the Oscar Chinn case, Ser. A/B No. 63, p. 145.

170. Politis, N., “Le problème des limitations de la souveraineté et la théorie de l'abus des droits dans les rapports internationaux”, 6 Hague Recueil (1925) pp. 5–117, at p. 27.Google Scholar

171. 35(1) Annuaire (1929, part 1) p. 259.Google Scholar

172. Hostie, J., “Examen de quelques règles du droit international dans le domaine des communications et du transit, 40 Hague Recueil (1932) pp. 403–523, at p. 427.Google Scholar

173. 38 Annuaire (1934) pp. 713–719.

174. Basdevant, J., “Règles générates du droit de la paix”, 58 Hague Recueil (1935) pp. 475–691 at pp. 492–493.Google Scholar

175. Müller, W., “La liberté de la navigation rhénane est en danger”, Strom und See, December 1953 (Annex), p. 3.Google Scholar