Online Encyclopedia
Search over 40,000 articles from the original, classic Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition.
BERING SEA ARBITRATION
Online EncyclopediaEncyclopedia Home :: BEC-BER
del.icio.us it!
|
See also:BERING See also:SEA See also:ARBITRATION . The important See also:fishery dispute between See also:Great See also:Britain and the See also:United States, which was closed by this arbitration, arose in the following circumstances.
In the See also:year 1867 the United States See also:government had See also:purchased from See also:Russia all her territorial rights in See also:Alaska and the adjacent islands. The boundary between the two See also:powers, as laid down by the treaty for See also:purchase, was a See also:line See also:drawn from the See also:middle of Bering Strait See also:south-See also:west to a point midway between the Aleutian and Komandorski Islands dividing Bering Sea into two parts, of which the larger was on the See also:American See also:side of this line. This portion included the Pribiloff Islands, which are the See also:principal breeding-grounds of the See also:seals frequenting those seas. By certain acts of See also:congress, passed between 1868 and 1873, the killing of seals was prohibited upon the islands of the Pribiloff See also:group and in " the See also:waters adjacent thereto " except upon certain specified conditions. No See also:definition of the meaning of the words " adjacent waters " was given in the See also:act. In 187o the exclusive rights of killing seals upon these islands was leased by the United States to the Alaska Commercial See also:Company, upon conditions limiting the See also:numbers to be taken annually, and otherwise providing for their See also:protection. As See also:early as 1872 the operations of See also:foreign sealers attracted the See also:attention of the United States government, but any precautions then taken seem to have been directed against the See also:capture of seals on their way through the passages between the Aleutian Islands, and no claim to See also:jurisdiction beyond the three-mile limit appears to have been put forward. On the See also:lath of See also: They were condemned by the See also:district See also:judge on the See also:express ground that they had been sealing within the limits of Alaska territory. See also:Diplomatic representations followed, and an See also:order for See also:release was issued, but in 1887 further captures were made and were judicially supported upon the same grounds. The respective positions taken up by the two govern.ments in the controversy which ensued may be thus indicated. The United States claimed as a See also:matter of right an exclusive jurisdiction over the sealing See also:industry in Bering Sea; they also contended that the protection of the See also:fur See also:seal was, upon grounds both of morality and See also:interest, an See also:international See also:duty, and should be secured by international arrangement. The British government repudiated the claim of right, but were willing to negotiate upon the question of international regulation. Between 1887 and 18go negotiations were carried on between Russia, Great Britain and the United States with a view to a See also:joint See also:convention. Unfortunately the parties were unable to agree as to the principles upon which regulation should be based. The negotiations were wrecked upon the question of pelagic sealing. The only seal nurseries were upon the Pribiloff Islands, which belonged to the United States, and the Komandorski group, which be-longed to Russia. Consequently to prohibit pelagic sealing would have been to exclude See also:Canada from the industry. The United States, nevertheless, insisted that such See also:prohibition was indispensable on the grounds—(1) that pelagic scaling involved the destruction of breeding stock, because it was practically impossible to distinguish between the male and See also:female seal when in the See also:water; (2) that it was unnecessarily wasteful, inasmuch as a large proportion of the seals so killed were lost. On the other See also:hand, it was contended by Great Britain that in all known cases the extermination of seals had been the result of operations upon land, and had never been caused by sealing exclusively pelagic. The negotiations came to nothing, and the United States See also:fell back upon their claim of right. In See also:June 1890 it was reported that certain American revenue cutters had been ordered to proceed to Bering Sea. See also:Sir See also:Julian See also:Pauncefote, the British See also:ambassador at See also:Washington, having failed to obtain an assurance that British vessels would not be interfered with, laid a formal protest before the United States government.
Thereupon followed a diplomatic controversy, in the course of which the United States See also:developed the contentions which were afterwards laid before the tribunal of arbitration. The claim that Bering Sea was See also:mare clausum was abandoned, but it was asserted that Russia had formerly exercised therein rights of exclusive jurisdiction which had passed to the United States, and they relied inter alia upon the ukase of 1821, by which foreign vessels had been forbidden to approach within too See also:Italian See also:miles of the coasts of See also:Russian See also:America. It was pointed out by Great Britain that this ukase had been the subject of protest both by Great Britain and the United States, and that by See also:treaties similar in their terms, made between Russia and each of the protesting powers, Russia had agreed that their subjects should not he troubled or molested in navigating or fishing in any See also:part of the Pacific Ocean. The American answer was that the Pacific Ocean did not include Bering Sea. They also claimed an interest in the fur seals, involving the right to protect them outside the three-mile limit. In See also:August 1890 See also:Lord See also:Salisbury proposed that the question at issue should be submitted to arbitration. This was ultimately assented to by the secretary of See also:state, See also: The points submitted were as follows:—(r) What exclusive jurisdiction in the sea now known as Bering Sea, and what exclusive rights in the seal See also:fisheries therein, did Russia assert and exercise See also:prior to and up to the See also:time of the cession of Alaska to the United States? (2) How far were her claims of jurisdiction as to the seal fisheries recognized and conceded by Great Britain? (3) Was the See also:body of water now known as Bering Sea included in the phrase " Pacific Ocean," as used in the treaty of 1825 between Great Britain and Russia, and what rights, if any, in Bering Sea were held exclusively exercised by Russia after the said treaty? (4) Did not all the rights of Russia as to jurisdiction and as to the seal fisheries in Bering Sea east of the water boundary, in the treaty between the United States and Russia of the 3oth of
March 1867, pass unimpaired to the United States under that treaty? (5) Had the United States any and what right of protection over, or See also:property in, the fur seals frequenting the islands of Bering Sea when such seals are found outside the three-mile limit? In the event of a determination in favour of Great Britain the arbitrators were to determine what concurrent regulations were necessary for the preservation of the seals, and a joint See also:commission was to be appointed by the two powers to assist them in the investigation of the facts of seal See also:life. The question of See also:damages was reserved for further discussion, but either party was to be at See also:liberty to submit any question of fact to the arbitrators, and to ask for a finding thereon. The tribunal was to sit at See also:Paris. The treaty was approved by the See also:Senate on the 29th of March 1892, and ratified by the president on the 22nd of See also:April.
The United States appointed as arbitrator Mr See also: The British arbitrators were Lord See also:Hannen and Sir John See also:Thompson. The neutral arbitrators were the See also:baron de Courcel, the See also:marquis See also:Visconti Venosta, and Mr Gregers See also:Gram, appointed respectively by the president of the French Republic, the king of Italy, and the king of Norway and Sweden. The sittings of the tribunal began in February and ended in August 1893. The See also:main interest of the proceedings lies in the second of the two claims put forward on behalf of the United States. This claim cannot easily be stated in See also:language of precision; it is indicated rather than formulated in the last of the five points specially submitted by the treaty. But its See also:general See also:character may be gathered from the arguments addressed to the tribunal. It was suggested that the seals had some of the characteristics of the domestic animals, and could therefore be the subject of something in the nature of a right of property. They were so far amenable to human See also:control that it was possible to take their increase without destroying the stock. Sealing upon land was legitimate sealing; the United States being the owners of the land, the industry was a See also:trust vested in them for the benefit of mankind. On the other hand, pelagic sealing, being a method of promiscuous slaughter, was illegitimate; it was contra bonos mores and analogous to piracy. Consequently the United States claimed a right to restrain such practices, both as proprietors of the seals and as proprietors and trustees of the legitimate industry. It is obvious that such a right was a novelty hitherto unrecognized by any See also:system of See also:law. Mr J. C. See also:Carter, therefore, as counsel for the United States, submitted a theory of international See also:jurisprudence which was equally novel. He argued that the determination of the tribunal must be grounded upon " the principles of right," that " by the See also:rule or principle of right was meant a moral rule dictated by the general See also:standard of justice upon which civilized nations are agreed, that this international standard of justice is but another name for international law, that the particular recognized rules were but cases of the application of a more general rule, and that where the particular rules were silent the general rule applied." The See also:practical result of giving effect to this contention would be•that an international tribunal could make new law and apply it retrospectively. Mr Carter's contention was successfully combated by Sir See also: Additional information and CommentsThere are no comments yet for this article.
» Add information or comments to this article.
Please link directly to this article:
Highlight the code below, right click, and select "copy." Then paste it into your website, email, or other HTML. Site content, images, and layout Copyright © 2006 - Net Industries, worldwide. |
|
|
[back] BERING ISLAND |
[next] BERIOT, CHARLES AUGUSTE DE (18cn-187o) |