Advertisement

Consequences of the Sovereingty Theory

  • J. F. Lycklama à Nijeholt

Abstract

The theory extending the authority of the sovereign state to the airspace above the territory, involves as a first consequence that, where the surface of the globe is without a sovereign master, the airspace overhead has no sovereign either. Thus, above the open sea and above land as yet unoccupied the space is free. Thus far there is no difficulty in applying the principle that the airspace belongs to the land beneath it. But there are many other cases where the application may be less simple, we mean those cases where the sovereignty of the groundstate is more or less limited. There the question may arise as to whether such limitations include the air-domain or not. We should say that as a rule it all depends on the meaning of the stipulations, though some general indications may be given on the matter.

Keywords

Neutral State Suez Canal Military Occupation Naval Force Strict Neutrality 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1).
    See for instance the treaties between France and Annam (6th Jane 1884) and between France and Tunis (12th May 1881; 8th June 1883).Google Scholar
  2. 1).
    Treaty of protectorate 6th June 1884.Google Scholar
  3. 1).
    Gen. Act of the Berlin Conf. 26th Febr. 1885, Art. 1–5.Google Scholar
  4. 2).
    Ibid. Chap. IV.Google Scholar
  5. 1).
    Const. U. S. A. Art. I, Sec. 10, par. 3.Google Scholar
  6. 1).
    De Lapradelle, Le droit de l’état sur la mer territoriale R. D. I. P. 1898, p. 2 64 Sohücking, Das Küstenmeer, 1897. Visser, De territoriale zee, Utrecht 1894.Google Scholar
  7. 1).
    Convention révisée pour la navigation du Rhin, 17 Oct. 1868, art. 34.Google Scholar
  8. 2).
    Treaty of Berlin. July 13th 1878, art. 52.Google Scholar
  9. 3).
    International Convention for securing the free navigation of the Suez Canal Oct, 29th. 1888.Google Scholar
  10. 1).
    Meurer. l. c., p. 33.Google Scholar
  11. 2).
    Collard. Weekblad van het Recht. 8840.Google Scholar
  12. 1).
    Bonfils. Manuel de droit intern. publ. 1908, p. 381. Perels. Das intern. öffentl. Seerecht der Gegenwart 1903, p. 61. Wheaton. Elements of International Law, (Atlay) 1904 p. 166. Lawrence. The Principles of International Law, 1906, p. 20t.Google Scholar
  13. 1).
    Calvo. Le droit intern. théorique et pratique I, p. 552; III, p. 337. Oppenheim, l. c., I., p. 318. Perels, l. c., p. 58.Google Scholar
  14. 1).
    Institut de droit intern. Annuaire XI, p. 402, XII, p. 262 XIV, p. 241. Pradier-Fodéré, Cours de droit diplomatique, 1881, II, p. 72. François Pietri, Etude critique sur la fiction d’exterritorialité, 1895. César Droin, L’exterritorialité des agents diplomatiques, 1895. Bonfils, l. c., p. 417. Pasquale Fiore, l. c., I, p. 466.Google Scholar
  15. 1).
    Fauchille, l. c., p. 25. Meili, Das Luftschiff im internen Recht und Völkerrecht 1908, p. 52. Mérignhac, Les lois et coutumes de la guerre sur terre, 1903. p. 379.Google Scholar
  16. 1).
    Fauchille, l. c., p. 25.Google Scholar
  17. 1).
    Convention respecting the rights and duties of neutral powers in naval war.Google Scholar
  18. 1).
    Compare p. 61.Google Scholar
  19. 2).
    Convention de Stockholm 1905.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1910

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. F. Lycklama à Nijeholt

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations