Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

neutral air space above these territorial waters, for it would undoubtedly be easy for an air vessel to pass through this narrow stretch of neutral aerial space into the air space over the neutral territory itself. The coast line itself acts as a natural and impassable barrier to sea vessels, while the invisible aerial frontier offers no such actual check. But despite this difference as regards natural conditions belligerent air vessels might well be permitted to pass through this narrow neutral aerial zone just above the coastal waters themselves.

If you think for a moment of the aerial space above the neutral territory itself, you will see that the rule to be applied here should be very different. Probably future international law will completely prohibit any passage of belligerent air vessels through the air space above the neutral territory itself. Certainly the same reasons for the present rules that prohibit the passage of belligerent troops across the territory itself should apply equally to the passage of belligerent aerial craft through the air space above that territory.

Admitting, then, that belligerent aerial craft should probably, on principle, be allowed passage through neutral air space above the neutral territorial coastal belt of water, the further question arises as to whether belligerent air vessels should be permitted actually to enter neutral harbors for purposes of asylum. Should they be permitted thus to enter for purposes of revictualing and for carrying out necessary reparations? As the sea itself is a highway for all nations, these privileges accorded to belligerent sea war vessels in neutral ports certainly seem to be based upon sound sense. Although one can conceive of various differences in detail as between the entry of belligerent sea vessels and belligerent air vessels, nevertheless it would seem just to accord the same privileges to the one class of vessels as to the other. Undoubtedly difficulties would arise in carrying out this principle, and the matter will require the most serious attention of international lawyers. It will be necessary, for example, definitely to determine how long the air vessel should remain in the neutral port, and it will be necessary to insure the strict observance of impartiality on the part of the neutral State itself. (H. D. Hazeltine, The Law of the Air, pp. 136-140.)

French opinion in 1910.-The opening words of M. Millerand, the French minister of public works, on May 18, 1910, at the International Conference upon Aerial Navigation show the rapidity of change in subjects which engage international conferences. He said:

Messeurs, Huit mois ne se sont pas écoulés depuis que j'avais l'honneur, ici même, de clôturer les travaux de la première Conférence internationale sur la circulation des automobiles, et je

prends aujourd'hui la parole pour souhaiter la bienvenue, au nom du Gouvernement de la République, aux membres éminents de la premiére Conférence internationale de navigation aérienne. (37 Clunet. J. D. I. P., 987.)

The French Government presented to this conference a series of propositions as bases for discussion. These prescribed the method of determining the nationality and identity of the airship, for licensing aerial pilots, for general prohibition of the carriage of arms, explosives, photographic and radiotelegraphic apparatus; for general liability to local authorities; that military and police airships could cross the frontier only after permission, and that other public airships should be assimilated to private airships, though no airship should enjoy exterritoriality. The problems before this conference were not settled, and adjournment was taken to November, 1910, but at this time some powers were unwilling to participate, and adjournment sine die took place.

The propositions which had been presented to the Institute of International Law in April, 1910, were placed before this conference. That of M. Fauchille

said:

ART. 7. La circulation aérienne est libre. Néanmoins les États sous-jacent gardent les droits nécessaires à leur conservation, c'est-a-dire à leur propre sécurité et a celle des personnes et des biens de leurs habitants.

He also proposed in regard to airships that they be divided into public and private, and that the public airships might be military or civil. Each should have a nationality and identity, which should be made known. Airships might be excluded from certain zones, as from that of regions of fortifications, which regions should be made known. Navigation of the air above unoccupied territory and above the open sea was to be free. In international navigation dangerous articles and prohibited goods were not to be carried on airships. Acts on board the airship were to be within the jurisdiction of the State to which the airship belonged, while acts taking effect outside the airship are under jurisdiction of the

[blocks in formation]

State within which the airship may be when the act takes places. Public airships would, so far as possible, be exempt from local jurisdiction. (17 Revue Droit International Public, p. 163, Mars-Avril, 1910.)

M. von Bar also submitted a proposition to the institute which came before the conference. He considered airships under jurisdiction of their own State so long as they remained in the air, though liable to the territorial law for any act that might take effect outside the airship. When it is not clear whether the act is criminal or civil, the law of the State of the airship prevails. The propositions of MM. Fauchille and von Bar were in many other respects supplementary. Both show how the agreement upon principles of aerial jurisdiction is progressing.

The First International Juridical Conference for the Regulation of Aerial Navigation held at Verona, from May 31 to June 2, 1910, adopted resolutions looking to the approval of much of the work of the Paris International Conference on Aerial Navigation. It maintained that the method of establishing the nationality of airships should be clearly defined, inclining to the position that the nationality of the owner should determine the nationality of the airship, that the airship would be liable for damage caused by landing, and that landing places might be prescribed. The conference regarded the aerial space above the open sea and above unoccupied territory as free; the atmosphere above the territory and the marginal sea of a State as under the jurisdiction of the subjacent State. Within the aerial domain of the State and subject to the necessary police and like regulations the navigation of the air would be free. The aircraft with its persons and goods, save for police and like regulations, would be under jurisdiction of the State to which it belongs. (17 Ibid., p. 410.)

Subcommittees of the Comité Juridique International de l'Aviation in considering a "Code de l'Air" arrived at different conclusions in 1910. The French subcommittee agreed upon the following:

ARTICLE 1er. La circulation aérienne est libre. Néanmoins les États conservent les droits nécessaires à leur defense, c'est-à-dire à leur propre sécurité et à celle des personnes et des biens de leurs habitants.

ART. 2. L'espace demeure absolument libre au-dessus de la pleine mer et des territoires inhabités.

The German committee proposed two projects, 7 members approving the first and 14 approving the second.

PROJET NO. 1.-L'espace au-dessus de la haute mer et des territoires n'appartenant à personne est libre. L'espace situé audessus du territoire d'un Etat, y compris les mers côtières, est à envisager comme une partie du territoire de cet État.

PROJET NO. 2.-L'espace au-dessus de la haute mer et des territoires n'appartenant à personne est libre. L'espace situé audessus du territoire d'un État (y compris les mers côtières) est à envisager comme une partie du territoire de cet État. Aucun État, cependant, ne doit, en temps de paix, interdire le passage inoffensif aux aérostats etrangers. Les événements qui se passent sur un aérostat étranger dans l'espace au-dessus, du territoire d'un autre État et qui n'intéressent pas celui-ci sont jugés d après le droit de l'État auquel l'aérostat appartient. Juridique Internationale Aèrienne 1ere Année, pp. 75–76.)

(Revue

The Comité Juridique International de l'Aviation at meetings in April and May, 1910, considered the French and German propositions and agreed upon the following:

ARTICLE PREMIER.-La circulation aérienne est libre. Les États n'ont sur l'espace situé au-dessus de leur territoire, y compris les mer côtières, que les droits nécessaires pour garantir la sécurité et l'exercice des droits privés. (Ibid., p. 144.)

If the dominion of the air is in the subjacent State, this rule would establish a servitude in the air, as is the case in the general servitude in marginal seas which allows innocent passage.

The secretary of the Verona congress in 1910, Prof. Arnaldo de Valles, in an article in the July-August number, 1910, of the Revue Juridique Internationale de la Locomotion Aérienne, said:

1. La théorie de la domanialité publique de l'espace aérien est la plus conforme au régime juridique et économique actuel, soit dans le droit national, soit dans le droit international.

2. Cette théorie donne une raison scientifique au droit de police l'État et à l'exclusion des aérostats militaires des autres nations;

conclusions auxquelles on arrive dans la théorie de liberté seulement par voie empirique.

3. Une théorie de la domanialité de l'espace aérien ne restreint pas la vraie liberté qui consiste dans le droit de circulation. (Ibid., p. 208.)

National regulations.-International aerial navigation has already become a subject of domestic administrative regulation. The French minister of the interior issued a circular to the local officials on March 12, 1909, prescribing a method of action in case of landing of foreign balloons within their respective territorial divisions:

12 MARS, 1909.

MONSIEUR LE PRÉFET: La fréquence des atterrissages de ballons étrangers en France a amené le gouvernement à s'occuper de cette question. Il a été reconnu que ces ballons étaient soumis au payement des droits de douane et il a été décidé en conséquence qu'il y avait lieu en pareil cas, de prendre les mesures suivantes: chaque fois qu'un ballon étranger descendra sur le territoire français, les maires, commissaires de police ou commissaires spéciaux devront vous en informer et prévenir sans retard les agents du service des douanes, s'il en existe dans le lieu d'atterrissage, ou, à leur défaut, les agents des contributions indirectes, afin d'assurer la perception des droits de douane. Le ballon devra être retenu jusqu'au payement des droits. D'autre part, les aéronautes seront tenus de décliner leur nom, prénoms, qualité et domicile. Si ce sont des militaires, ils devront indiquer le grade qu'ils occupent dans l'armée ainsi que le corps ou les services auquel ils appartiennent. En outre, les maires et les commissaires de police devront s'assurer que l'ascension a été entreprise dans un but purement scientifique et que les aéronautes ne sont livrés à aucune investigation préjudiciable à la sécurité nationale. Vous aurez soin de me transmettre ces renseignements par la voie télégraphique en m'avisant de l'atterrissage du ballon. Je vous prie de porter à la connaissance de MM. les sous-préfets, maires et commissaires de police les présentes instructions dont vous voudrez bien m'accuser réception.

Le Président du Conseil, ministre de l'intérieur,

G. CLEMENCEAU.

In 1909 also the opinion in Denmark seemed to be that a German balloon had no right to establish in Denmark a station from which to proceed to the North Pole, and it was maintained that a state had the right to forbid airships access to any part of its territory if it judged such access prejudicial to the national interests. (16

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »