'Muscat Dhows Arbitration. In the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague. Grant of the French Flag to Muscat Dhows. The case on behalf of the Government of His Britannic Majesty.' [‎30r] (68/208)

21
RIGHTS OF POLICE AND JURISDICTION
IN TERRITORIAL WATERS.
It is not easy to see what bearing this question
has upon the point submitted for decision in this
Arbitration, but as it is very fully discussed in the
French " Contre-Memoire," His Majesty's Govern
ment think it right to make some observations
upon it.
Perusal of the French u Contre-Memoire " dis
closes a tendency to confusion between three very
distinct questions :—
1. The " droit de visite," or right of search on
the high seas;
2. The police powers of territorial Sovereigns
in their own waters ; and
3. The extent to which a Power can exercise
supervision or jurisdiction over its own vessels
in the waters of another Power by permission
of that Power.
The question of the " droit de visite" has
only an incidental bearing upon the present
controversy. It is well known to all students of
international law that France, for many years,
whether from national sentiment, as suggested in
the " Contre-Memoire," or from particular theories
Centre- of international law, has been resolutely opposed
Mdmoire,'- p. 54. ^ g rail ^ n g any other Power the right to search
vessels carrying the French flag on the high seas^
" Coutre- ail( j that the naval instructions of 1867"* mark
Memoire," p. 113. , ^
the utmost limit of French concessions to brreat
Britain on this point. Other Powers which have
taken the French view have, by adherence to the
Brussels Act, assented to the search of certain
vessels under their flag found in the Indian
Ocean, and to that extent have granted the " droit
de visite."
It is asserted that British officers have On
occasion shown an excess of zeal or have gone
beyond the instructions of 1867. Whether they
" Contue- have done so is wholly immaterial to the
^5-149%6 P 0-163. P resent case, and His Majesty's Government
do not think it necessary to discuss each case in
detail, and are content to point out that Article 13
pf the instructions indicates the remedy to be
pursued.
* Described by a clerical error as of 1887 in the British
Case.