'File 82/17 I (F 90) A.P.O.C. Port of Basra and Shatt al-`Arab Water-way' [‎65r] (142/224)

^controlling all shipping, including Dutch vessels, within the estuary. As, however,
It inhere appears to be no doubt that the claim is based upon the falsification, by German
gal cartographers tor their own ends, of certain deeds of 1454, it is hardly suitable for
ise as a P^^dent. in any case, the matter has not yet been settled between the
llelf^wo Governments and the questions of principle involved have not been argued.
'esir|; I have examined, as far as possible, all agreements in Europe, Africa and
3eii| ^ mer . lca 11 m ^ v ^ llc ^ . a riv er forms an agreed boundary between States, and in
-tsf^ractically all treaties between civilised States where a navigable waterway has
otw )een acce P^ e( ^ as . € of territory, the thalweg of that waterway is given as the
: ictual boundary line. It is sometimes described as " the middle of'the stream " or
,^1 'he channel, but the result in any case is to divide more or less equally the
.. sovereignty over the stream between the two parties.
or 6. One important exception arises in Africa, where in an agreement between
^ -"ranee and Liberia, signed in Paris the _18th September, 1907, fixing the boundaries
between French West Africa and Liberia, the boundary line was fixed on the right
^ or Liberian) bank of the River Nuon, and on the right (or Liberian) bank of the
^iver Cavallez, France thus obtaining full control over both rivers. Navigation
■ights were retained for Liberian nationals in a subsequent article of the treaty.
m 7. The Anglo-German Agreement of the 1st July, 1890, regarding spheres of
nfluence in Africa, contains several instances of boundaries having been fixed on
■Wiianks of rivers. There is no reason given for this course, but as no question of
ictual sovereignty was involved the boundaries appear to have been intentionally
lomewhat loosely drawn, and, in any case, the freedom of transit, &c., on all the
Wliwaterways concerned was retained for both parties.
f ill 8. In African treaties between European Powers where a waterway of any
mportance is involved, the thalweg is laid down as the boundary line,
opp 9. Boundary agreements between South American States provide no exceptions
Hfljothe general rule, but I find that the original Mexican-United States Boundary
a^iCreaty of the 12th January, 1828, # described the boundary line as being on the western
porttpr Mexican) bank of the River Sabine and on the southern (or Mexican) bank of
he Red River, thus bringing the whole river in each case into United States territory,
following the war between the United States and Mexico, t Texas in the meantime
M laving revolted from Mexico and been received into the Union, a new boundary was
iefined in the Treaty of Peace of 1848. The Rio Grande del Norte was now made
-he dividing line in the east between the two nations, but the boundary was described
is being " up the middle of the river."
10. The only other exceptions I have been able to trace refer to streams having
io commercial value, or to cases where, in order to retain under a single jurisdiction
i town which has been built on both banks of a river, a small sector on the opposite
mnk has been given to one of the parties.
11. It is clear that, for the past century at least, the thalweg of a stream
jllividing two territories has been universally accepted as the actual boundary line,
|J|d the small number and the unimportance of the exceptions serve but to emphasise
-he general practice in this respect.
U H. JONES.
Foreign Office, October 26, 1928.
m
ol fit.
d*
* State Papers, vol. xix, p. 235.
if State Papers, vol. xxxvii, p. 567.