CHAPTER IV.

THE MODERN PRACTICE OF STATES AND THE OPINIONS OF RECENT PUBLICISTS.

Apparent discrepancy between general practice and the opinions of publicists--No state has formally defined the extent of its territorial sea--Practice in Germany--Denmark--Two limits enforced--Russia--The White Sea--France--Belgium--Netherlands--Austria-Hungary--Italy--Greece--British Colonies--Japan--United States of America--Chile--Argentina--Uruguay--Three-mile limit generally adopted for fisheries--Exceptions in four European states--Spain and Portugal claim six miles--Repudiated by British Government--Discontent in Spain and Portugal--Norway and Sweden--Special Scandinavian limits--Fjords reserved--Vestfjord--Varangerfjord--Discussion of Norwegian limit--Rejection of three-mile boundary--Recent Norwegian laws--The three-mile limit is an Anglo-American doctrine--Opinions of modern publicists--Calvo, Bluntschli, Phillimore, Halleck, Lawrence, Bishop, Woolsey, Dana, Twiss, Fiore, Pradiere-Fodéré, Perels, Ferguson, Desjardins, Kleen, Aschehoug, de Martens, Hall, Oppenheim--The limit under the Law of Nations is the range of guns--Declarations of the International Law Association and the Institut de Droit International--Three miles insufficient--Six miles proposed for fisheries, &c--The zone or line of respect for neutrality to be declared by each state 650