Erratum

DOIhttp://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1952.tb00244.x
Published date01 July 1952
Date01 July 1952
JULY
1962
NOTES
OF
CASES
377
tcrritorial belt, for, as Sir Arnold McNair pointed out,
it
becomes
somcwhat hypothetical to conccive
of
any “principle
or
rule of
law which allows a widcr belt
of
territorial waters to a country
possessing a mountainous coast, such as Norway, than it does to
one possessing a flat coast, such as the Netherlands’’
(p.
171).
Not only does the judgment not assist in finally delimiting territorial
limits, but
if
gencrally applied
it
will make confusion more con-
founded and territorial waters will vary from coast to coast. The
decision is in line with the modern tcndency-somcwhat strange
in an age which expresses belief in international co-operation and
inter-dependence-to whittle down thc principle
of
the freedom
of
the seas in favour
of
coastal Statcs,
a
principle which is already
constantly asserted in connection with the continental shelf and
rights to the resources of the sea, the seabed and its subsoil (see
the writer’s
The Continental Shelf
(1951)
4
Current
Legal
Problems,
p.
54,
at
pp.
71
et
seq.).
If
the matter is lcft to go
uncontrollcd the assertion in the Individual Opinion of Judge
Alvarez, with all that
it
implies, may well become true
:
every State
is cntitlcd, in accordance with the general principles
of
the law
of nations now in existence, to determine not only the breadth
of
her territorial sea, but also the manner in which it is to be
reckoned
(p.
153).
This
trend towards subjectivity is not, unfortunately, confined
to problems concerning territorial sovereignty. The decisioq lends
iurther weight
to
Dr.
Schwarzenbcrger’s comment that
the
synop
sis of majority and dissenting opinions in any single case before the
court provokes a
.
. .
disturbing reflection. By the choice of the
appropriate major premises and methods
of
treaty interpretation,
every single case might have been decided in the opposite way
(Zoc. cit.,
p.
31).
Should this tendency become too marked, the
court may well find itself the chief sufferer from its somewhat
quixotic expositions of international law.
L.
C.
GREEN.
Erratum
In the note’on
Common Mistake,” pp.
220
et
seq.,
the reference at
p.
229,
line
12
from the bottom of the page should be to section
6,
not to section
7,
of the Sale of Goods Act. The words “to the
knowledge of the sellcr
in lines
9
and
8
from the bottom should be
rcplaccd by
without the knowlcdge of the seller.” We are obliged
to
Mr.
A.
M. I-Ionorb, of Queen’s Collcgc, Oxford, for drawing
our
attention to this regrettable
error.
Editorial Committee.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT