The Freedom of the Seas

Abstract

The Freedom of Seas. Considerable discussion as to meaning of the freedom of has followed reference by President Wilson to subject in two official communications. On January 22, in his address before senate in which he laid down conditions under which he considered it possible United States might cooperate with other nations in establishing an international authority to guarantee peace, President stated the freedom of seas is sine qua non of peace, equality and cooperation; and again in his inaugural address of March 5 he enumerates among principles in which we have been bred and which are the principles of a liberated mankind and which we shall stand for whether in war or in peace, that seas should be equally and safe for use of all peoples, under rules set up by common agreement and consent, and so far as practicable they should be accessible to all upon equal terms. The, fundamental distinction to be made in this connection is between freedom of seas in time of peace and again in time of war. International law recognizes two distinct sets of rules. In time of peace seas are already free. With internationalization of great rivers flowing through two or more states those highways of traffic are now open to world. The Danish Sound dues were abolished in 1857; Suez Canal was internationalized in 1888; and in similar fashion Panama Canal was by Hay-Pauncefote treaty of 1901 declared to be free and open to vessels of commerce and of war of all The Dardanelles, though closed to warships, are open to peaceful commerce of all nations. But in time of war situation is different. Here international law recognizes several ways in which freedom of seas may be denied to both belligerents and neutrals. In first place there is rule merchant vessels of a belligerent are subject to capture on high seas by other belligerent, private property of