INTERNATIONAL COUOFJUSTfCE
PLEADINGS,ORAL ARGUMENTS,DOCUMENTS
THE MINQUIERS
AND ECREHOS CASE
(UNITED KINGDOMFRANCE)
VOLUME n
Oralarguments.-Documents.-Correspondence.-Indes
COUR INTERNATIONADEJUSTICE
MEMOIRES, PLAIDOIRIESET DOCUMENTS
AFFAIRE DES MINQUIERS
ET DES ECRÉHOUS
(ROYAUME-UNIIFRANCE)
VOLUME II
Proceduora-eDocumen-sCorrespond-IndexAl1 rights reserved by the
International Court of Justice
Tous droits réservés par la
Cour internationale de Justice Thi'svolume should be quoted as:
"I.C.J.Pleadings,The Minqttiers and Ecrehos Case
(Unite Kdingdom/France"
Le prCsent volilme doiêtrecitécomme suit :
iC. 1.1.Afti'moirAeaire des Minquiers edes Ecréhozds
(Hoyrzzinte-UailFrnîz>i)
Sales number
NO de vente :134 1THE MlNQUIERS AND ECREHOS CASE
(UNITED KINGDO/FRANCE)
AFFAIRE DES MINQUIERS ET
DES ÉCRÉHOUS
(ROYAUME-UN/FRANCE) INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
PLEADINGS, ORAL ARGUMENTS,DOCUMENTS
THE MINQUIERS
AND ECREHOS CASE
(UNITED KINGDO1FRANCE)
JUDGMENT NOVEMB17th, 1953 COURINTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE
MÉMOIRES, PLAIDOIRIES ET DOCUMENTS
AFFAIRE DES MINQUIERS
ET DES fi~~É~~~~
(ROYAUME-UNI FRAhTCE)
AR&TDU17NOVEMBR1953PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS PART II
ORAL ARGUMENTS.
PUBLIC SITTINGS
heldat the PeacPalace,The Hngzte,
/rom Septeder17th toOctober8thasd November 17tlzrg53,
the Vice-PresideM., Guerrero,presiding
DEUXIBRI EARTIE
PROCÉDURE ORALE
S~ANCES PUBLIQUES
knues au Palais de lPaix,La Haye,
du 17 sefltenzbau8 octobreetle 17novembre1953,
SOGSIa firésidencede M. Guerrero,Vice-PrésidentMINUTES OF THE SITTINGS HELD FROM
SEPTEMBER 17th TO OCTOBER 8th, AND
NOVEMBER 17th, 1953
YEAR 1953
Present : Vice-President GUERRERO, Acting Yresidenl ; Presidellt
Sir ARNOLD MCNAIR ; Jzidges ALVAREZB , ASDEVANTH , ACKWORTH,
~VINIARSKIK , LAESTADB , ADAWI,KEAD, HSU MO, LEVICARNEIRO,
ARMAND-UGO ;NDe;bzdyR- egistrarGARNIER-COIGNET.
FortheFrenchRepublic :
Professor André GROS,Legal Adviser ta the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs,
as Agewt ;
assistedby:
M. BUIINAYC , onseillerd'Ét;t
Admiral DURAND DE SAINT-FRON T
M. Prosper WEIL,Professar at theLaw Faculty ofGrenoble ;
M. Pierre DUPARCA , ssistant Kceper of Archives at the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs,
as ExpertAdvisers ;
Forthe UgtitedKingdom ojGreatBritain and Northcrnlreland :
Mr.R. S. 13.BEST , liirLegal Adviser to thForeign Office,
as Aged ;
assistedIi:
Sir Lionel HEALDQ , .C., M.P., Attorney-Genera;
Air. C. S. HARRISONO , .B.E., Attorney-General forthe Island of
Jersey ;
Mr. G. G.FITZMAURICE C,.M.G.,Legal Adviser, Foreign Offi;e
Professor E. C. S. $VADE, owning Professor of the Laas of Englantl
in the University of Cambridge;
Mr. D. H. N.JOHNSON, AssistantLegal ~dviser, Foreign Office,
asCozrrzsel
and by:
&Ir.J. D. LAMBERR Te,search Department, Foreign Office,
as Expert Adviser. PROCÈS-VERBAUX DES SÉANCES TENUES
DU 17 SEPTEMBRE AU 8 OCTOBRE ET
LE 17 NOVEMBRE 1953
Présents:M. GUERRERO ,ice-Présidentfaisant fonctionde Prési;ent
Sir ARNOLD MCNATR P,réside;tMM,ALVAREZB , ASDEVANH T, CK-
WORTH, WINIARSKIK , LAESTAD B,ADAWIR , EAD,Hsu MO,LEVICAR-
NEIRO, ARMAND-UGO jN~,g;s RI. GARNIER-COIGNG Eref,ier adjoint.
Sont également#re'se?st
Pour la Républiquefrançais:
M. le professeur AndréGROS, jurisconsultdu ministére des Affaires
étrangères,
enqualitifd'agen;
assistkpar:
M. BURNAY c,onseiller d'É;at
Amiral DURAND DE SAINT-FRON ;T
M.Prosper WEIL,professeur A la Facultéde droit de Grenobl;
M. Pierre DUPARCc,onservateur adjoint des archives du ministére
des Affairesétrangéres,
commeexperts ;
Pour le Royaume-Uni de ~rande-~reta~iieetd'Irlandedu Nord.
M.R. S. B. BEST,troisiéme jurisconsulte au Foreign Ofice,
enqualitéd'agent;
assisté pa:
Sir Lionel HEALD,Q. C., M. P., Attorney-Genera;
M. C. S. HARRISON O,. B. E., Attorney General pol'îlde Jersey;
AI. G. G. FITZMAURIC CE.hl.G., jurisconsuIte au Foreign Offi;e
M. lc professeur E. C. S. \VADE,titulaire de la chaire Downing
sur lesloisde l'Angleterre l'Universitéde Cambridge;
M. D. H. N. JOHNSON, jurisconsulte adjoint du Foreign Office,
comme conseil;
etpar :
M. J.D. LAMBERS Te,rvice des recherches du Foreign Office,
commeconseiZlerexpert.II SI~NG OF 17 IX 53
The VICE-PRESIDENT A,cting President in the case, opened the hear-
ing and stated that the Court was assembled to deal with the dispute
between the French Republic and the United Kingdom of GreatBritain
and Northern Ireland concerning sovereignty over the islets and rocks
of the Minquiersand Ecrehos. Proceedingç in this case were institiited
by a Special Agreement dated December zgth, 1950 w,hichwas notified
to the Court on December 6th, rg51. The written pleadings had been
frled within the tirne-lir fixedsby the Court and the case waç now
ready to be heard.
Two Members of the Court were not sitting to-day :Judges ZoriPik
and Sir Benegal Rau, who were prevented by the state of their health
from taking part in the present case. Furthermore, M. Golunsky had
resigned from the Court for reasons of health ; this resignation was
notified to theSecretary-General of the United Nations on July 27th,
1953.
The Vice-President, Acting Yresident, noted the presence in Court
of the Agents of both Parties with their CounseIand Experts, andstated
that pursuant to the agreement between the Parties,in accordance witli
Article 51of the Rules of Court, the Court would hear in the first place
the Agent of the Government of the United Kingdom. He requested
speakers to interrupt their speeches from time to time at convenient
intervals, for example every ten minutes, in order to allow the oral
translation to be made.
The Vice-President, Acting President, called upon the Agent of the
Government of the United ICingdom,
Mr. R. S.B. BESTrequested the Court to allow the Attorney-General
to open his Government's case.
The VICE-PRESIDENT A,cting President, called upon Sir Lionel HEALD,
who began the statement reproduced in the annex l.
(The Court adjourned from I p.m. to 4p.m.1
The Attorney-General, Sir Lionel HEALD,continued the statement
reproduced in the annex Z.
(The Court rose at6 p.m.)
(Signed) J. G. GUBRRERO,
. Vice-President.
(Signed) GARNIER-COIGNET,
Deputy-Registrar.
See pp. 19-53.
ii i> 33-45. Le VICE-PRÉSIDEN faisant fonctionde Président, ouvrant l'audience,
déclare que la Cour se réunit pour examiner le différend existant cntre
la RépubIique française et le Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne et
d'Irlande du Nord concernant la souveraineté sur les îloet rochers des
Minquiers et des Écréhous. Cette affaire a été introduite par un com-
romis daté du 29 décembre 1950 et notifiéà la Cour le GdécembreIgjX.
Ees piPccs de la procédure écriteont étédéposéesdans les delris impartis
par la Cour et l'affaire est maintenant en état.
Deux membres de laCour n'ont pas pris séanceaujourd'hui : il s'agit
de AI.Zoritié et sir Benegal Rau, qui sont empêchéspar leur état de
santé de prendre part à la présente affaire. D'autre partfil.Golunsky
a donriésa démission de membre de la Cour, pour raisons de santé ;
cette démission a éténotifiée au Secrétaire -énkral des Nations Unies
le 27juillet1953.
Le Vice-Président faisant fonction de Président constate la présence
devant la Cour des agents, conseilset experts des deux Gouvernements
et déclare que, suivant l'accord intervenu cntre les Parties conformé-
ment i. l'article51 du Réglcment, la Cour entendra cn premier lieu
l'agent du Gouvernement du Rovatime-Uni. Il prie les orateurs d'inter-
rompre de temps à autre leurs exposés,aux intervalles qui leur convien-
dront, par exemple to~tesles dix minutes, pour Ies traductions.
Le Vice-Président faisant fonction de Présidènt donne la parole à
Wf.l'agent du Royaume-Uni.
RI. R. S. B. BEST prie la Courde permettre à l'Attorney-General de
plaider le premier.
Le VICE-PRESIDEX aisant fonction de Prksident donne la parole à
sir LionelHEALD, qui prononce l'exposéreproduit en anncxe l.
(L'audienceest suspendue de rg heure à 16 heures.)
Sir Lionel HEALD ,ttorney-General. continue 1splaidoirie reproduite
en anncxe
(1,'audience estlevée a 18 lieures.)
Le Vice-Président,
(Sig~té)J. G. GUERRERO.
Le Greffier adjoint,
(Sig~zéG)ARNIER-COTCNET.
Vo"r 'p33-45. TENTH PUBLIC SITTING (18IX 53, 10.30 am.)
Present: [See sittingof September 17th.3
The VICE-PRESIDENT A,cting President. called upon the Attorney-
General, Counsel for the United Kingdom Government.
Sir Lionel HEALD concluded the statement reproduced i11the annex l.
(The Court adjourned from 12.50 p.m. to 4 p.rn.1
The VICE-PREÇIDENTA , cting President, called upon Mr. G. G.
Fitzmaurice.
Mr. FIT~MAURICE began the staternent reproduced in the annex *.
(The Court rose at 6.05p-m.)
(Sigj~aatt.]
ELEVENTH PUBLICSITTING (19 IX 53,10.3 a.rn.1
Present : [See sitting of September 17th.1
Tlie VICE-PKESIDENTA ,cting President, called upon hIr. G. G.
Fitzmaurice to continue his speech on behalf of the United Kingdom
Government.
Mr. FIT~~~AURIC coEntinued the statement reproduced in the annex
(The Court rose at rz.55p.m.)
[Sig?.tnlttres.]
TIVELFTH PUBLIC SITTIBG (21 rx 53,10.30 a.nz.)
. Pvcsent : [Scesitting of September 17th.)
The VICE-PRESIDENTA , cting President, called upon Mr. G. G.
Fitzmaurice, Counsel for the United Kingdom Government, to continue
his speech.
MI. FITZMAURIC cEoncluded the statement reproduced in the annex ".
The VICE-PRESIDENT A,ctingPresident, called upon Professor E. C.S.
1irade.
Professor \VADEbegan the statement reproduced in the annex 6.
(The Court adjourned from I p.m. to 4 p.m.)
Professor WADEcontinued the statement reproduced in the annex '.
(The Court rose at 6.3 j p.m.)
1See pp. 46-60.
,, ,, 61-72.
,, ri72-85
' ,. P.85-95.
,, a,9.5-101.
",. ,.101-114. DIXI~ME SÉANCE PUBLIQUE (18 rx 53, IO h.30)
Préselit: [170irséancedu 17septembre.]
Le VICE-PRESIDEN faisant fonction de Président donne la parolà
l'AttorneyGenera1, conseil du Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni.
Sir LionelHEALD termine l'exposéreproduit en annexe '.
{L'audience,suspendue à12 h. 50,est reprisà 16heures.)
Le VICE-PRESIDEN faisant fonction de Président donne la paroIà
Ri.G. G. Fitzmnurice.
M.FITZ~~AURIcC omEmence l'exposéreproduit en annexe *.
(L'audience est levéh 18h. 05.)
[Signatures.]
ONZIÈAIE SEANCE PUBLIQUE (19 IX 53, IO k. 30)
Préses~t spoir séancedu 17septembre.]
Le VICE-PRÉSIDEX fisant fonction de Président invite$1. G. G.
Fitzmaurice A continuer sa plaidoirie au nom du Gouvernement du
Koyazime-Uni.
. hl. FITZ~~AURcIo Cntinue l'exposéreproduien annexe
(L'audience est levéeà12 h. 55.)
[Signatures.]
DOUZI~AIE SÉANCE PUBLIQUE (21 XI 53, IO k.30)
Présents :[Voir séancedu 17 septembre.]
Je VICE-PRÉSIDEK fisant fonction de Président inviteM. G. G.
Fjtzmaurice, conseil du Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni, à continuer
sa plaidoirie.
M. FITZMAURtIeC rEine l'exposéreproduit en annexe4.
Le VICE-PRESIDEN faisant fonction de Président donne la parole au
professeurE. C. S. IVade.
Le professeur WADEcbmmence l'exposéreproduit en annexe
(L'audience, suspendueà 13 heures, est repriàe16heures.)
Le professeur \VADEcontinue l'esposéreproduit en annexe
(L'audience est levée 18h..35.) [Sig?zaluves.]
Voir pp46-th.
n u 61-72,
a n u 72-85.
h B n 996-101.
" Y 101-114 THIRTEENTH PUBLIC SITTING (22 IX 53, 10.30 a.m.)
Pvesent : [See sitting of September 17th.l
The VICE-PRESIDENT A,cting President, called upon Professor E. C.S.
Wade, Counsel for the United Kingdom Govemment.
Professor WADEcontinued the statement reproduced in the annex '.
(The Court adjourned from 12.50 p.m. to 4p.m.)
Professor \VADEcontinued the statement reproduced in the annex
(The Court rose at 6.15p.m.)
[Signatures. J
FOURTEENTH PUBLIC SITTING (23 rx53,10.3a 0.m.)
Present : [See sittingof September r7th.I
The VICE-PREÇIDENT A,cting President, cal~edupon Professor E. C.S.
iVade, Çounsel for the United Kingdom Government, to continue his
speech.
Professor WADEconcluded the statement reproduced in the annex a.
The VICE-PRESIDEST A,ctingPresident, called upon Mr. C. S. Harrison,
Attorney-General for the Island of Jersey.
Mr. HARRISON began the statement reproduced in the annex I.
(The Court adjourned from 1.10 p.m. to 4 p.m.)
&Ir. HARRISOX continued the statement reproduced in the annex
(The Court rose at 6.30 p.m.)
[Signatures .]
FIFTEENTH PUBLIC SITTING (24 IX 53, IO am.)
' Prese~z t [Seesitting ofSeptember I7th.l
The VICE-PRESIDENA T,cting Preçident, calIedupon Mr.C.S.Harrison,
Attorney-General for the Island of Jersey, Counsel for the United King-
dom Government, to continue hisspeech.
&Ir.C.S. HARRISON continued thestatement reproduced in the annex O.
1 See pp.114-126.
,, ., 126-139.
.. ,, 139-145.
,, ,, 146-153.
\..,. ,. 167-184. SEA~~C DESS. 22-24 IX 53
I3
TREIZIAME SÉANCE PUBLIQUE (22 IX53, IO A. 30)
Présents :[Voir séancedu 17 septembre.]
Le VICE-PRÉSIDEN faisant fonction de Prksident donne la parole au
professeur E. C. S. Wade, conseildu Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni.
Le professeur WADE continue l'exposéreproduit en annexe l.
(L'audience, suspendueà 12h. 50,est repriseà 16heures.)
Le professeurWADE continue l'exposéreproduit en annexe2.
(L'audience est levéà 18h. 15.)
[Signatures.]
QUATORZIBM S~~ANCEPUBLIQUE (23IX 53,IO la.0)
Présents: [Voirséancedu 17 septembre.]
Le VICE-PRÉSIDEN faisant fonction de Présideninvitele professeur
E. C. S. Wade, conseil du Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni, à continuer
sa plaidoirie.
Le professeur WADE termine I'exposéreproduit enannexe 3.
Le VICE-PRÉSIDESfT aisant fonction de Président donne la parole
à M. C.S. Harrison, Attorney-General pour I'üede Jersey.
M. HARRISOc Nommence l'exposéreproduit en annexe 4.
(L'audience, suspendue 13h. IO, est reprisà 16heures.)
M. HARRISON continue l'exposéreproduiten annexe
(L'audience est levéà 18h. 30.)
[Signatures.]
QUINZIGM EEANCE PUBLIQUE (24 IX 53, IO A.)
Présents: [Voir séancedu 17septembre.]
Le VICE-PR~SIDEN fTisant fonction de Président invite M. C. S.
Harrison, Attorney-General pour l'île de Jersey, conseidu Gouverne-
ment du Royaume-Uni, àcontinuer sa plaidoirie.
M. HARRISON continue I'exposéreproduit en annexe
.. l Voir ppiI4-126.
u » 126-139.
a D 1 139-145.
M r 146-153.
n i 167-184.14 SITTINGS OF.28-30 IX 53
(The Court adjoumed from I p.m, to 4 p.m.)
Mr.C. S.HARRISO concluded thestatement reproduced in the annex l.
(The Court rose at 5p.m.)
[Signatures.]
SIXTEENTH PUBL'C SITTING (zSIX 53, 10.30am.)
Present :[Seesitting of September 17th.j
The VICE-PRESIDEN ATc,ting President, called upon Profesçor André
Gros, Agent of the French Government, to begin his speech on behalf of
his Government.
Professor André GROS began the statement reproduced in the annex =.
(The Court adjourned irom 12.55 p.m. to 4 p.m.)
Professor André GROS continued the statement reproduced in the
annex
(TheCourt rose at 6.25 p.m.)
[Signatures.]
SEVENTEENTH PUBLIC SITTING (29IX 53,10.3 a0.m,)
Present : [Seesitting of September 17th.l
The VICE-PRESIDENT A,cting President, calIed upon the Agent of
the French Government to continue his speech on behalf of hisGovern- ,
ment.
RI. André GROS, Agent of the French Government, continued the
statement reproduced in the annex
(TheCourt adjourned from 1.10 p.m. to 4 p.m.)
M. André GROS,Agent of the French Government, continued the
staternent reproduced in theannex 5.
(TheCourt rose at 6 p.m.)
[Signatures.]
EIGHTEENTH PUBLIC SITTING (30IX 53,10.3a 0m.)
Present: [Seeçittiriof September 17th.3
The VICE-PRESIDENT ,cting President, called upon the Agent of
the French Government to continue his speech on behalf of his Govern-
-ent.
l Seepp. 184-189.
' ,, ,, 190-204.
.. ,, 204-219.
,, ,, 220-236.
.. ,, 236-248. (L'audience, suspendue à 13heures, est repriseà16heures.)
M.HARRISO ermine l'exposéreproduit en annexe l.
(L'audience est levéeà 17 heures.)
[Signatures.]
SEIZII~IE S~ANCE PUBLIQUE (28 IX 53, IO h. 30)
Prèsetzds:poir séance du 17 septembre.]
Le VICE-PRÉIIDENT faisant fonction de Président invite le professeur
AndréGros, agent du Gouvernement français, à commencer sa plaidoirie
au nom de son Gouvernement.
Le professeur GROScommence la plaidoirie reproduite en annexe l.
(L'audience, suspendue à 12 h. j, est reprise 16 heures.)
Le professeur GROS continue la plaidoirie reproduiten annexe 3.
(L'audience eçt levéeà 18 h.25.}
[Signnlz~res.]
DIX-SEPTIÈME SÉANCE PUBLIQUE (29 ix 3j, IO It.30)
Prisents :voir séancedu 17septembre.]
Le VICE-PRÉSIDENT faisant fonction de Président invite l'agent du
Gouvernement français à continuer sa plaidoirie au nom de son Gouver-
nement.
M. André GROS, agent du Gouvernement français, continue la plai-
doirie reproduite en annexe'.
(L'audience, suspendue A 13 h.IO, est reprisà 16 heures.)
M. André GROS,agent du Gouvernement français, continue la plai-
doirie reproduite en annexe=.
(L'audience est levéeà 18heures.)
[Signatures.]
DIX-HUITIÈME SÉAKCE PUBLIQUE (30 rx 53, IO A. 30)
Présents :[Voir séancedu 17 septembre.]
Le VICE-PRÉÇIDENT faisant fonctionde Président invite l'agent du
Gouvernement français à continuer sa plaidoirie au nom de son Gouver-
nement.
VoYr ip.Ig0-204-
P B 204-219-
220-236.
P n 236-248. hl. André GROS, Agent of the French Government, continued the
statement reproduced in the arinex l.
(TheCourt adjourned from r p.m. to 4p.rn.)
M. André GROS, Agent of the French Government, continued and
concluded the statement reproduced in the annex 2.
The VICE-PRESIDENA T,cting President, askethe Agent of the United
Kingdom ifhe intends to reply and, if so,when he willbe ready.
The AGENT OF THE UNITED KINGDO~d Ieclared that he would be
ready to reply on Friday, October 2nd.
The VICE-PREÇIDENT,Acting President, announced that the next
hearing would take place on Friday morning, October end, at10.30.
(The Court rose at 6 p.m.)
[Signatures.]
NINETEENTH PUBLIC SITTING (2 x 53, 10.30 am.)
Present: [See sitting of Septernber 17th, with the exception of Sir
Arnold McNair, President .]
The VICE-PREÇIDENT,Acting President, opened the hearing and
stated that the President of the Court, Sir ilrnold McNair, was slightly
indisposed and unable to sit.
The Vice-President, Acting President, requested the Agents of the
Parties at the end of the oralreply and rejoinder, either to confirm the
Submissions set out in the written Pleadings or to read the final Submis-
sions of theirGovernment. In the latter case, he requested them to
handto theRegistry a written textof their final Submissions.
The Vice-President, Acting President, called upon the Agent of the
United Kingdom Government, Mr. R. S. B. Best.
Mr. R. S.B. BESTstated that the oralreply of his Government would
be opened by the Attorney-General.
Sir LionelHEALD made the speech reproduced in the annex a.
The VICE-PRESIDEN Ac,tin Pgreçident, called upon Professor E. C.S.
Wade.
Professor WADEbegan the speech reproduced in the annex ".
(TheCourt adjourned from 1.10 to 4 p.m.)
Professor WADEcontinued the speech reproduced in the annex
(TheCourt rose at 5.55p.m.)
[Signatures.]
Sec pp.248-263.
J ,, ,,,277-288.
,. ,. 289-293,
i, ii 293-304- M. André GROS, agent du Gouvernement français, continue la plai-
doirie reproduite en annexe l.
(L'audience, suspendue à 13heures, est repriseà 16 heures.)
M. André GROS, agent du Gouvernement français, continue et termine
la plaidoirie reproduite en annexe2.
Le VICE-PRESIDEfN asant fonction de Président demande à l'agent
du Royaume-Uni s'il a l'intention de présenterune plaidoirie en réplique
et quand celle-ci sera prête.
L'AGENT DU ROYAUME-UN aInonce que la plaidoirie en réplique de
son Gouvernement sera prêtevendredi 2 octobre.
Le VICE-PRESIDENT faisant fonction de Président'annonce que la
prochaine audience auraliw vendredi matin, 2 octobre,à IO heures 30,
(L'audience est levéeà 18 heures.)
[Signatures.]
DIX-NEUVI~ME SEANCE PUBLIQUE (2 x 53, IO h. 30)
Présents : [Voir séancedu 17 septembre, A l'exception de sir Arnold
McNair, Préçident.]
En ouvrantla séance,le VICE-PRÉSIDEfN aisant fonction de Président
annonce que le Président de la Cour, sir Arnold NcNair, est retenu en
chambre par une légéreindisposition.
Le Vice-Président faisant fonction de Président prie les agents, quand
ils finiront leur plaidoirie en réplique, soit de confirmlesconclusions
énoncéesau cours de la procédure écrite, soit de donner lecture des
conclusions finaIesde leur Gouvernement. Dans ce dernier cas, il les prie
de remettre au Greffele texte écrit de ces conclusions finales.
Le Vice-Président faisant fonction de Président donne la parole à .
M. l'agent du Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni, BI.R. S. B. Best.
hl. R. S. B. BEST déclare que lJAttorney-General commencera la
répliqueorale au nom de son Gouvernement.
Sir Lionel HEALDprononce l'exposéreproduit en annexe 3.
Le VICE-PRÉSIDEfN asant fonction de Président donne la parole au
professeur E. C. S.Wade.
Le professeur WADE commence l'exposéreproduit en annexe '.
(L'audience, suspendue A 13.10, est repriseà 16 heures.)
Le professeur WADEcontinue l'exposéreproduit en annexe6.
(L'audience est levée A17 h. 55,)
[Signatures.]
lVoir pp. 248-263.
2 B 263-276.
a r L 277-288.
4 u n 289-293.
3 n > 293-304. TWENTIETH PUBLIC SITTING (3 x 53, 10.30 am.)
Present : [Seesitting of October znd.]
The VICE-PRESIDENA Tc,ting President, cailed upon Professor E. C. S.
Wade to continuehis speech on behalf of the United Kingdom Govern-
ment.
Professor WADE concluded the statement reproduced inthe annex l.
The VICE-PRESIDENcT alled upon hlr. C.S. Harrison.
Mr. HARRISON began the speech reproduced in the annex 2.
(The Court rose at I p.m.j
[Signatures.]
TWENTY-FIRST PUBLIC SITTING (5 x 53, 10.30 a.rn.1
Present: [See sitting of September 17th.I .
The VICE-PRESIDENT A,cting President, opened the hearing and
called upon the Attorney-General for the Island of Jersey to continue
hiç speech on behalf ofthe Government of the United Kingdom.
Mr.C.S. HARRISON continued the statement reproduced in the annex 9.
Judge Hsu hlo put to Mr. Harrison two questions reproduced in the
annex 4.
Mr.HARRISOg Nave the answersreproduced in the annex and conclud-
ed his statement
(The Court adjourned from Ip.m. to 4 p.m.)
The VICE-PRESIDENT A,cting President, called upon Mr. G. G.
Fitzmaurice, Counsel for the United Kingdom Government.
Mr. FITZMAURIb Cegan the speech reproduced in the annex O.
(The Court rose at6.10 p.m.)
[Signatures.]
TWENTY-SECOND PUBLIC SITTING (6 x 53,10.3 a0.m.)
Presed :[Seesitting of September i7th.l
The VICE-PRESIDENTA , cting President, called upon Mr. G. G.
Fitzmaurice, Counsel for the United Kingdom Government, to continue
his speech.
See pp. 304-312.
a J. 327-332.
a ii ii 332.343.
i* P. 343.
,s PP.343-316,
#> 8 .347-35'- VINGTI~ME SÉANCE PUBLIQUE (3 x 53, IO h.30)
Présents :voir séancedu z octobre.]
Le VICE-PR~SIDENT faisant fonction de Président donne la parole
au professeur E. C. S. Wade pour la continua!ion de sa plaidoirie au
nom du Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni.
Le professeur WADEtermine l'exposéreproduit en annexe '.
Le VICE-PRÉÇIDENT faisant fonction de ~r~sident donne la parole à
M.HARRISON.
RI. HARRISON commence l'exposéreproduit en annexe 2.
(L'audience est levéeà 13heures.)
[Signdures.]
VINGT-ET-UNIÈME S~ANCE PUBLIQUE (5 x 53, IO h. 30)
Présents :[Voir séancedu 17 septembre.]
. En ouvrant laséance,le VICE-PRESIDENfT aisant fonction dePrésident
donne la paroleà M.l'Attorney-General pour l'îlede Jersey pour la suite
de sa plaidoirie au nom du Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni.
M. C. S. HARRISON continue l'exposéreproduit en annexe 3.
M. Hsu Mo, juge, pose à M. Harrison les deux questions reproduites
en annexe '.
M.HARRISOd Nonne à cesquestions lesréponsesreproduites en annexe4
et termine sa plaidoiriB.
' (L'audience, suspendue à 13heures, est repriseà 16heures.)
Le VICE-PRÉSIDENf Taisant fonction de Président donne la parole A
M. G. G. Fitzmaurice.
M. FITZMAURIC cEmmence l'exposéreproduit en annexe '.
(L'audience est levée à18 h, IO.)
[Signattrres.]
VINGT-DEUXIÈME SÉANCE PUBLIQUE (6 x 53, IOh. 30)
Présents :voir séancedu 17 septembre.]
Le VICE-PRÉSIDENT faisant fonction de Président donne la parole
à M. G. G. Fitzmaurice, conseil du Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni,
pour la suite de sa plaidoirie.
.
lVoir pp. 304-312.
' W D 327-332.
a ' 332-343.
* * P. 343.
* PP- 343-346.
* 347-358. Mr. G. G. FITZMAURIC cEncluded the speech reproduced in the
annex &.At the end of his speech, he stated that he maintained the
conclusions put fonvard in the Memorial but that he wished to rnake
one or two small changes of wording and would therefore hand in a
written version to the Registry.
- .
(The Court rose at 12.40 p.m.)
[Signatures.]
TWENTY-THIRD PUBLIC SITTING (7 x53, 4 $.m.)
Presenf :[Seesitting of September r7th.l
The VICE-PRESIDEN ATct,ing President in this case, called upon the
Agent of the French Government.
Professor André GROS, Agent of the French Republic, began the oral
rejoinder reproduced in the annex e.
(The Court rosa at 6.30 p.rn.)
[Signa~ures.]
TWENTY-FOURTH PUBLIC SITTING (Sx 53,10.3a0 m.)
Present :[Secsitting of Sepiember 17th.1
The VICE-PRESIDENA Tc,ting President in this case, called upon the
Agent of the French Govemment.
Professor A. GROS continued the statement reproduced in the annex
(The Court adjourned from x.ro p.m. to 4 p.m.)
Professor A. GROSconcluded the oral rejoinder repraduced in the
annex '.At the end ofhis speech, he read the final Submissions of the
Government of the French Repùblic 6,of which he handed the written
text to the Registry.
The VICE-PRESIDEN ATc,ting President, asked both Agents to hold
themselves at the disposal of the Court in order that they might furnish
any further information which the Court might require from them and,
subject to that reservation, he declared the hearing closed. The Court
would now deliberate and in due course both Agents would be warned
of the date on which Judgment would be delivered in public session.
(The Courtrose at 6.35 p,m.)
(Signatures.J
l See pp.358-371.
' ,. ., 372-384-
.. ,, 386-402.
P. 3, 403-412-
' ,, ,, 411.412. M. G. G. FITZMAURICtE ermine l'exposéreproduit en annexe l. A la
finde son exposé,il annonce qu'il maintient les conclusions énoncées
dans le mémoire, mais qu'il désire en modifier légkrerneatle texte. Ii
remettra ce texte final au Greffe.
(L'audience estlevéeà 12 h.40)
[Signatures.]
VINGT-TROISIÈME SÉANCE PUBLIQUE (7 x 53, 16 h.)
Présents:voir séancedu 17 septembre.]
Le VICE-PRESTDEN fisant fonction de Président donne la parole A
l'agent du Gouvernement français.
M. André GROS, agent du Gouvernement de la République française,
commence la duplique orale reproduite en annexe *.
(L'audience est levéà 18 h. 30)
[Signatures.]
VINGT-QUATRIÈME SÉANCE PUBLIQUE (8 x 53, xoh. 30)
Présents:[Voir séancedu 17 septembre.]
Le VICE-PRÉSIDENfT aisant fonction de Président ouvre l'audience
et donne la parole rll'agent du Gouvernement français.
M.le professeur A, GROS continue la plaidoirie reproduite en annexe
(L'audience, interrompue à 13h. IO, est repriseA 16heures.)
M. le professeur A. GROS termine Ia duplique orale reproduiteen
annexe'. A la fin de son exposéil donne lecture des conclusions finales
du Gouvernement de la République française \ dont il a remis le texte
au Greffe.
Le VICE-PRESIDEN fTisant fonction de Président demande aux deux
agents de se tenià la disposition dla Cour afind'être enmesure de lui
founir tous renseignements additionnels qu'elle pourrait leur demander
et, sous cette réserve, il prononce la cibturdes débats. La Cour va
maintenant délibéreret les deux agents seront dûment avertisde la date
A laquelle l'arrêtsera rendu en audience publique.
(L'audience est levéeà 18 h.35.)
[Signatures.]
1Voir pp. 358-371.
3 D P 372-386.
i P 356-402.
" n i '$11-412.18 SITTING OF 17 XI 53
TWENTY-SIXTH PUBLIC SITTING (17 xt53,4.30 am.)
Present : The Presidend and the Judges present at the sittingof
September 17th ; M. GARNIER-COIGN DEeiu,ty-Registrar; Mr.G. G.
FITZMAURIC C.M, .G.,Legal Adviser of the Foreign Officeas Agent ;
Professor André GROS, Legal Adviser of the Ministry for Foreign
Mairs, as Agent.
The. VICE-PRESIDENT A,cting President, said that the Court was
sitting to deliver its Judgment in the Minquiers and Ecrehos case
between the French Republic and the United Kingdom ofGreat Brltain
and Northern Ireland, a case brought before the Court by means of a
SpecialAgreement concluded by the two Governments.
In accordance with Article58 of the Statute, the Agents both Parties
had been notified that the Judgment would be read atthat sitting. The
Acting President said that, upon receipt ofthe communication, the
United Kingdom Government had announced that its Agent, Mr. R. S.B.
Best, Third Legal Adviser of the .ForeignOffice,had died and that Mr.
G.G.Fitzmaurice, Legal Adviser ofthe Foreign Office,had been appoint-
ed to replace him. The Acting President expressed to Mr. Fitzmaurice
the condolencesof the Court which heasked him to convey to hisGovem-
ment and to the bereaved family.
Professor GROS, Agent of the French Government, associated himseif
with the President's words of sympathy.
Mr. F~~znr~u~rcte hanked the Court and the Agent of 'the French
Government and said that he would transmit their condolences to his
Government and ta Mr. Best's family.
The ACTING PRESIREK rTad the French text of the Judgment, of
which the English text was to beconsidered authoritativel.
The DEPUTY-REGISTR rAaR the English text of the operative part
of the Judgment.
The ACTING PRESIDENr Tead the Declaration of Judge Alvarez
annexed to the Siidgrnent and stated that Judges Basdevant and Levi
Carneiro had availed thernselves of the right to append to the Judg-
ment staternents of their individual opinions. However, they did not
propose to read them.
(TheCourt rose at 5.55 p.m.)
[Signatures.]
l SeeCourt'spublications, Repoofsjudgnu~ts,Advisory Opinionand Orders
1953,PP. 47-73.
Ibid., 73.
,, 4~~.74-84.
., . ,.85-109. VINGT-SIXIÈME SÉANCE PUBLIQUE (17 xr 53, 16 h. 30.)
Présents:Le Présideniet les,Juges présents à la séancedu 17septem-
bre ; RI. GARNIER-COICNEG T,refieradjoilzt M.G. G. FITZMAURICE,
C. M. G., jurisconsulte au Foreign Office, en qualitéd'agent; M. André
GROS, jurisconsulte du rninistére des Affaires étrangéres, en qualité
d'agent.
Le VICE-PRESIDENT faisant fonction de Président en cette affaire
annonce que la Cour est réuniepour prononcer son arrêten l'affaire des
Minquiers et des gcréhous, entre la République française et le Royaume-
Uni de Grande-Bretagne et d'Irlande du Nord, affaire portee devant
la Cour en vertu d'un compromis conclu entre les deux Gouvernements.
Le Vice-Président faisant fonction de Président rappelle que, confor-
mément à l'article 58 du Statut, les agents des Parties ont étéprévenus
qu'il serait donné lecture de cet arrêt au cours de l'audienIl.annonce
qu'au reçu de cette communication, le Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni
au Foreign Office,étaitdécédétet que.M..G.G. Fitzmaurice, jurisconsultete
de ce ministère, avait été désigné pour 1eremplacer. Le Vice-Président
faisant fonction de Président exprime àM.Fitzrnaurice les condoléances
de la Cour qu'il le prie de transmettàeson Gouvernement et àla famille
du défunt.
M. GROS ,gent du Gouvernement français, s'associe auxparoles de
sympathie qui viennent d'être exprimées par le Président.
bI. FITZMAURrIeC mEercie la Cour et l'agent'du Gouvernement français
et transmettra leurs condoléances à sonGouvernement et àla famille de
hl. Best.
Le VICE-PRESIDEN fTisant fonction de Président donne en français
lecture de l'arrêt dontle texte faisant foi serletexte anglais1.
Le GREFFIER ADJOINT donne Iecture du dispositif danletexte anglais.
Le VICE-PRESID Eaiant fonction de Président donne lecture dela
déclarationannexée àl'arrêtpar $1.Alvarez et annonce que MM.Basde-
vant et Levi Carneiro4 ont fait usage de leur droit de joindràl'arrét
les exposésde leur opinion individuelle. Ils ne désirentcependant pas en
donner Iecture.
(L'audience est levéA 17 h. 5j.)
[Signaltcres.J
Voir publications de laCour, RecueidesArrêtsAvis consultatiel Ordon-
nances,1953. pp. 47-73.
Ibzd., p. 73.
a 8 , pp74-84.
' ,D 85-109. ANNEX TO TBE MINUTES
ANNEXE AUX PROCÈS-VERBAUX
1. ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR LIONEL HEALD
(COUNSEL FOR THE COVERWMENT OF THE UNITED KINCDOM)
AT THE PUBLIC SITTINGS OF SEPTEMBER 17th AND 18th, 1953
hlr. Presidentand Members of the Court :
In presenting to you the case of Her Majesty's-Government upon the
question of the title to the Minquiers and the Ecréhous, 1 would like
firstto Say how much 1 appreciate the privilege of appeanng again
before the International Court of Justice.
1 need hardly tell yau, Mr. President, that the present case differs
greatly from that in which 1had the honour of addressing you last year,
both in subject-matter and in atmosphere-that was the Iranian case.
To-day Great Britain and France come before you am-in-am, as it
were, asking you to resolve our disputeWe are here, in factnot in any
spirit of bittemess or hostility, but as friends and good neighbours, both
of us declared supporters of the pnnciple of the international adjudica-
tion of disputes.
Before the case is over, I have no doubt that some shrewd blows will
have been exchanged between the represcntative advocates, but the
Court will not need tobe assured that these will betaken in good part
on both sides, and that, whatever your decision may be, it will be
loyaily accepted, and wil1not disturb the present excelIent relations
between Our two Governments.
as this, ifange, Rlr.President, from the old days, when sucha dispute
the spot and decided by force of arms, leading perhaps to a serious con-
flict. To-day a question of national sovereignty is by mutual consent the
subject of fair legal argument and thereafter of mature adjudicatioby
erninent jurists, as the result of the Special Agreement to which you
have referred, dated 29th December 1950. Progress may be slowtowards
the attainment of the noble ideal which inspired the building of this
place ;but the present reference must surely be acknowledged, even by
the cynics, not only as a tribute to the Court itself but also as a practical
contribution of lasting value to the cause of peace.
Apart from the symbolic aspect of the matter, to which 1have already .
referred, 1feeljustified in asking the Court to regard thiç as an important
case upon its own merits. Itiçtrue that the actuaI area of land in issue
is not very great. But, as youwiH hear later, the population of Jersey
attaches the deepest moral significance to the result of this case which,
if the French claim were to succeed, would mean the loss of something
much more preciousthan a mere group of islets-something which has
come to be regarded by Jersey men and women with pride and affection
as an integral part of their island heritage.
Mr. President, no advocate with any knowledge of the work of this
Court could fail to recognize with real gratitude the care andimpartiality
with which its members study the written proceedings inadvance of the 20 ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR L. HEALD (u.K.)-17 IX 53
oral hearing. I shall not therefore occupy your time with detailed refer-
ences to the pleadings, but, in view of the volume and complexity ivhich
they have inevitably assumed, 1 feel that it may be helpful tothe Court
if 1 make a general opening statement, summarizing the main points
wbich seem to us to arise from the documents, togethe rrith a brief'
indication of how we propose to deal with them. 1 use the word "indi-
cation" deliberately, because 1 do not myself feel qualified, in this com-
pany, ta discuss in detail many of the highly technical points that are
in dispute. For that purpose 1 have armed myself with the assistance of'
a team of experts, who are-1 have no doubt-well matched by those
accompnnyingmy Iearned frjend Professor Gros-not that 1suggest that
heis nearly as much in need of expert assistance as 1 am. I will mention
who my assistants are, and what they propose to deal ivith, in a few
moments ; but Grst may 1 inform the Court of the presence at rny side
of my very good friend and learned colleague, Rlr.Cecil Harrison, who
is Her Majesty's Attorney-General for the island of Jersey, and himself'
a Jerseyman. Apart from the practical value of Iiis collaboration, the
nature and history of his officeand the special and distinctive robe which
he wears are in themselves significant. For they emphasize, as he him-
self cm explain to you much better than 1,that, although this case is.
brought before you by Her hlajesty's Govemment in the United King-
dom, of which I have the honour to be a member, it is one particular-
part of Her Majesty's dominions that is directly affected-a small part
perhaps, but one which is nevertheless largely self-governing. For Jersey
. enjoys almost compIete autonomy, and it is from Jersey and not from
London that administrative control has long been exercised over the
very islets whose title is in issue,s proof of this,and of the reality of.
Jersey's independent status, I would like to refer you to the language of'
the officiaidocument which testified Jersey's agreement to the submis-
sion of the present dispute io the International Court :it was a Resolu-.
tian of the States of Jcrsey on the 14th September of the year 1948,and
it stated that the States, in the name of the Government of Jersey, had
taken into consideration a Resolution adopted at a joint meeting of'
certain Committees, and it stated this, that :
"The Cornmittees of Finance and of Harbours and Airport have.
the honour to inform the States that His Majesty's Government,.
following consultation with the Lieutenant Governor, the Bailiff,
the Law Officersof the Crown and the Cornmittees concerned, has.
sought, by negotiations through diplomatic channels, to obtain Jrom
the French Government an unequivocal acknowledgement of His.
Majesty's ~overeignty over the Minquiers and Ecréhous Islands.
The Committees regret to inform the States that these negotia-
tions have not been productive of the results hoped for.
Under these circumstances, His Majesty's Govemment recom-.
mends that the question of sovereignty should be referred to the.
International Court of Justice.
The Committees are in agreement with this recommendation.
and ask the concurrence of the States therein.
The States unanimously concurred in the recommendation of'
Wis Majesty's Government and requested their President to take:
the necessary action in the matter."
Signed by the Greffier des États. ORAL ARGUM OFESNR T.HE~D (u.K.)-17 IX 53 21
hlr. President, one can see at once from that document that the real
and the United Kingdom, as between France and Jersey, who çeeksFrance
to retain certain adjacent islets, which, as the evidencewillreally
show, the inhabitants of Jersey have for many generations thought
of and dealt with as part of themselves.
In view of theattitude taken upby Ouropponents in certain portions
of their pleadings,1 have felt it essential to leave no doubt on this.
point. 1 can testify from my own persona1 experience to the intensity
of the local feeling. 1 have twice visited Jersey since I was last here,
in order to qualify myself to present their case, and in particular to
ensure that 1 should correctly interpret the views of the population.
In September of Iast year 1 was fortunate in being able to sail round
the Minquiers and the Écrbhous in perfect weather and to land on
both those groups. I only wish the mernbers of the Court had been
able to go there also, not only to enjoy the beautifuI sunshine anda
scenery but alço because an actual view of the locus in quo iç al~vays
of such assistance, provided always of course that one is a good sailor.
Last week 1 was in Jersey again, and on this occasion 1 had the great
advantage and interesting experience of Qing over the whole of this
area and thus obtaining an intimate picture-more intimate perhaps
of hearingatheviews of Jersey menhaand women in al1 walks of life on
this subject, and 1 can assure you that they regard this matter before
the Court with great seriousness and real emotion. They do not profess
to understand the legal refinements of the pleadings: they look on
the matter in a very simple way-which may perhaps appear to the
Court as fundarnentally sound. They base themselves in the first
instance on the traditions handed down to them by their fathers and
grandfathers, according to which these islets have been for al1practical
purposes part of Jersey for hundreds ofyears past. They aIso rely
strongly on the fact that the Channel Islands themselves are unquestion-
ably, and have been for nearly a thousand years, possessions of the
British Crown. How, in these circumstances, Jersey men and women
ask, can it beseriously suggested that the Minquiers and the Écréhous
belong to France ?
In connection with this point of view of the Jerseyman, the Court
has no doubt exarnined with intereçt the French argument, and it may
have occurred to you that thiproves fatoo much. For you wili remem-
ber that the French argument relies very strongIy on such allegations as
that King Henry III of England did homage to the French King in the
were any validity in that argument, it would follow that the rest of the
Channel Islands-Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney, Sark and al1the others-
are al1French to-day. Indeed 1could not help wondenn as 1 read the
French Rejoinder whether, when we arrived before this fourt, I rhould
hear my learned fnend, Professor Gros, make an application to arnend
his pleadings so as to include a final daim to French sovereignty over
the whole of the Channel Islands,
Thismay be descnbed as a reductio ad absurdum,but if the French
argument does not have this effect, what does it really amount to 7
It is no doubt a strange historical circumstance tfar,from there
being any question of the British title to the Channel Islands being22 ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR L. HEALD (u.K.)-17 IX 53
based upon any British act of aggression, it resulted in fact from the
aggression which England suffered at the time of the Norman conquest
but the Court must remember that our opponents claim that the Dukeor-
of Norrnandy was a French baron. The fact remains-and its importance
for present purposes is surely this-that, since one must accept asa
legal fait accomfilithe British title to the Channel Islands, there is no
validity at al1in the comment which appears on page 687 of theFrench
Rejoinder (1quote) : "The most sober-minded person may view with
astonishment the fate of these islands, lying in a French bay, which have
become English because a French baron, a Duke of Normandy, con-
quered England in the year 1066." Indeed once it is conceded, asit
must be, that the British title to the Channel Islands has to be accepted
by everyone-whether sober-minded or otherwise-the French case
becomes unarguable, unless,unless itcan be shown that the title to the
Minquiers and the Écréhousis governed b some entirely different and
distinct consideration-a somewhat di cult proposition surely to
establish.
Jerseymen contend, and we support them strongly in this, that when
in the thirteenth century there was a division between continental
Normandy and the Islands, and King ohn of England retained the
Channel Islands, the Minquiers and the d créhouswerethen, and remain
ta-day, part of the possessions of the Crown along with the island of
Jersey. Unless that contention can be displaced, 1 think it must be
agreed that most of the detailed discussion in the pleadings becames
irrelevant. And when this single historical argument is supplemented
by the ovenvhelming evidence of continuous and effective possession,
particularly over the last hundred years and more, it isnot difficult to
understand the impatience of the average Jersey man or woman with
any lawyer who disputes their claim.
An interesting light on this aspect of the case is provided by the
Chausey group ofislets-which, as the Court wiiino doubt already be
aware, is close tr, Granville on the French coast. The Chausey group, as
everyone agrees, are French to-day, and it is therefore pertinent to ask
bnesKing Henry III in?the yeare1259,land, in fact, as late as the reign of
dng Henry VI1 of England in the year 1500, we find the Chausey
described in a Papal Bull, the Buli of Pope Alexander VI, as part of the
Channel Islands, and unquestionably at that tirne, ~'Bntiçh.I refer to
page 532 of the United Kingdom Reply, where the details of that Buil
WU be found. The Chausey group became French much later, as the
result of specificacts in the exercisof French sovereignty. And when
you find, in the case of the Minquiersand the Écréhous,not this process
of trançfer to France, but, on the contrary, the intensification of acts
and incidents of British sovereignty and character, preciseIy paralIeI to
those exercised by France in the case of the Chausey, the admitted title
of France to the Chausey becomes a very relevant point, not infavour
of the French claim but againstit.
The French legal advisers clearly appreciated the danger of this
argument and with characteristic quickness of thought they adopted
the offensive in their pleadinga by asserting that the Minquiers are
dependenciesofthe Chauseygroup. This, ofcourse,would be an excellent
point, iit could be established, butaU the evidence is tothe contrarfr ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR L.HEALD (u.K.)-17 IX 53 23
effect. It is summarized in the Reply of the United Kingdom Government
at pages531-53t2 o,which1 havealready referred. Finally, upon thispoint,
the actual behaviour of the French Government itself is sureIy quite
inconsistent with any relation of dependence between the Chausey groiip
and the Minquiers. In the case of the former, the Chausey, a number
of administrative and protective acts are on record, and if one sees the
Chausey from the air, one sees the concrete results in siich things as
jetties and buildings. The French have, in fact, done at the Chausey
exactly the same as Jersey has done at the Minquiers and Écréhous :
they have constructcd slipways, landing stages and so on. They have
also performed numerous other acts of sovereignty, no doubt. If the
Minquiers really are a dependency ofthe Chausey, as is alleged, how is it
that France has never extended to the Minquiers any ofthe adminis-
trative or governmental acts of which the Chausey provide such clear
evidence ? We see that where the French.admittedly do possess the
sovereignty, namely, at the Chausey, they behave accordingly. Then why
not at the Minquiers and the ficréhousif France hai the sovereignty?
And if that were not enough, how can one reconcile with the French
contention the fact thatprecisely thoçe acts, which have been performed
by France at the Chausey but not at the Minquiers or the Écréhous,
have been performed at the latter by Jersey? So 1 maintain that the
circumstances of theChausey, far from assiçting the French case, provide
a strong inferential argument againçt it.
As regards both the Minquiers and the Ecréhous, the Jerseyman
says it is a strange thing that, if the French Government ever had a
good title, it has done so little-infact nothing-to assist or maintain
that title. He finds sucha clairn put fonvard now, after al1these years
of neglect, contrary to a11the realities as he knows them. This is surely
also a perfectly sound objection in law. We are not concerned here
to-day with what \vas the position seven hundred years or even one
hundred years ago. What the Court has to decide, according to the
Compromis, is the position to-day. The words are : "Whether the
sovereignty belongsV-not whether the sovereignty "belonged" in the
past. If we were to take the French argument literally and ignore
everytiiing that has happened "after the dispute was bom", asthey
Say, we rnight fmd ourselves arguing quite easily that, despite what
happened in 1776. New York is still really a British colony. If one
is to-ignore everything which happens "after the dispute is born",
as the French Say, al1 the acts of the United States Congress, let aIone
those of Jefferson and Lafayette, must equally be ignored. We shall
deal with this argument of "critical dates" in detail later, but it is,
I think, relevant to mention it here, to show how manifestly absurd
iC would be to ignore the modem history of the Minquiers and the
Ecréhous. For, we contend, it is precisely by such evidence, and by
no other, that the recent acts of peaceful and effective possession
required by international tribunals can be established.
As regards the geographical aspect of the case,some members of
the Court rnight possibly have been moved by the French plea that
these two groups are situated very close to France. But aIIthe Channef
instance,riçractually nearer to the French mainland than are thefor
Minquiers. Moreover, the Minquiers are nearer to Jersey than they
are to the mainland of France, and they are actually further away ,
3£rom the mainland of France than Jersey itself is. If any member of
the Court should feel sympathy with this particular French plea,
however, I would ask him to remember what I said earlier, that the
entity actually affected by these proceedings is Jersey. Now, al1 these
islands are closer to Jersey than they are to the French mainland.
It iç certainly not Our view that geogaphical propinquity is in itselfiis.
a ground of title, and we should never think of putting fonvard a
claim to the Minquiers and the Écréhous on that ground alone. Al1
that we Say, and this is what 1 want to draw to the attention of the
Court, is that in so far as this consideratioisat al1relevant, it operates
just as much in our favour as it does in that of France, if not more so.
To conclude these introductory remarks, 1 would like to Say some-
thing about the actual facts as they exist to-day, in relation to the
disputed groups. The claims of both the parties are alike in this, that
they are founded on a clah of ancient right and title. But there the
resemblance ends. The United Kingdom claim is also founded on
Iong continued effective possession and control of the groups and on
the actual and concrete exercise of sovereignty in respect of thern.
France's claim is not so founded, and it would be no exaggeration
to Say that the French claim is founded on an aIIeged original title
and nothing else-for never at any time-at any time at d-has
France, as France, ever possessed these groups or exercised the least
control or authorit y over them except during certain temporary military
occupations. Indeed, French acts of savereignty in respect of them
are virtually non-existent. You wiilhear in greater detail £romMr. Har-
rison later about the present-day situation, but to dl outward appear-
ance, these içlands are purely British and nothing else. The groups,
as the Court is weU aware, do not consist of mere rocks and reefs,
though our opponents have at times suggested that they do. A glance
at the photographs comprising the Annex C series to Our Mernorial
shows the faliacy of this-and 1 am sure the Court will carefully study
these photographs, which, I venture to suggest, are of considerable
intereçt. The two groups are adminiçtered aspart of parishes situated
in Jersey. The houses on them, owned by Jersey residents and others,
are registered in Jersey. Rates and taxes in respect of thern are paid
to the Jersey authorities. The same authorities have carried out public
works on the islandç, such as the construction of sljpways and landing
stages,the establishment of custom-houses, and so on. AU this has
been in existence for a long time. With the single exception, to which
nlr.Hamson wiii refer in due course, of a hut for the protection of
mariners in stormy weather, the houses and buildings on both groups
aredl Jersey or English owned. They have been erected by Jerseymen
or by the authorities of Jersey. There are no French residents there
nor are there any French perçons registered as owners of property
on the groups. The law which is applied there is purely Jersey law.
If the rnernbersccauldpay a visit to these islets, as I myself havedone,
they would find that such officiaisasthey met would be Jersey officia$;
the residents they found there would be Jersey or English. It would
be the arms of Jersey that they would find on the Custorn-House, .
the British flag on the flagstaff, andso forth. If they asked any owner
of property where his property was registered, they would be told
"in Jersey". If they askedto whom he paid his rates and taxes in ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR L, HEALD (u.K.)-17 1x 53 25
respect of his property, they would be toId "to the Jersey authorities,
of course". If they asked when a French officialhad last visited either
of the groups, a Jerseyman would certainly answer : "Not within
living memory", or if he said "Never", it would probably not be very
far from the actual tnitli. They would also find much evidence, both
on the islets themselves and in Jersey, that this situation has been
in existence for a great many years, that it ha been in existence really
for centuries, and that the direct evidenceof it during the 1st century
and a half, or even longer, rvasabundant.
What better example, Mr. President, couId one have of the existence
and exercise of sovereignty ? The flagstaff, the execution of public
works, the imposition of local taxation, custom-houses, registration
of title to land, inquest on dead bodies, jurisdiction over criminal
ofThose being the actua! facts, the actual situationdineand relating to
these groups, the Court can well imagine the effect produced on the
rninds of the people of Jersey by this French claim, based as it ison
nothing more tangible or concrete than the claim of ancient right-
a highly technical claim, deriving from nothing more than an abstract
feudal title.
There is in fact absolutely no reality about this clai;and that is so
obvious to anyone who visits the islets that one cannot Iielp asking
perhaps-and 1 believe ithas been asked-what it is that has caused
this matter to be brought before the Court. Anyone ~vhoreads the diplo-
matic correspondence of the last 70 or 8o.years cannot faiI to be struck
by the fact that the claims, which France has at certain times put
forward, have remained paper claims, never followed up in any way.
As regards the Écréhous, no interchanges at al1 took place between the
parties after the year 1888, and very few about the Minquiers. Taken
in relation to the history of the case in the Middle,Ages and aftenvards,
and to the situation of fact in the islands which 1 have described, it
seems cIear that France, while not willing formally to abandon her
claim, was not prepared to assert it, or to ernbark on any attempt
actually to exercise sovereignty over the groups. We on the other hand
in Jersey were exercising sovereignty, and we had no doubt at al1about
our right so to do.
In Jersey, ashlr. Harrison will te11you, it never occurred to anyone
that these isIands were other than dependencies of Jersey and in every
respect British territory. Before the war there was no reason why the
case should ever come before an internation-a1 tribunal, because there
was really nodoubt about the position. It was really asan indirect reçult
of the war that this case has now come before the Court. During the
war, the Channel Islands were occupied by the Gerrnans, and Jersey
fishermen were forbidden to visit the Minquiers or the Ecréhous. When
the occupation ended, and natives of Jersey were for the first time in
five years able to go to these isIets, they found, especially at the Min-
quiers, that they were being fished by French fishermen in considerable
numbers. As Mr. Harrison will tell you and as appears from certain of
the affidavits of Jerseymen which have been reproduced in the annexes
to the written pleadings, this was something new-for in fact there was
very little French fishing at these islets before. 1 shodd perhaps have
mentioned that the mainland of France was liberated in 1944 but the
ejection of the Germans from the Channel Islands could not be effected26 ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR L.HEALD (u.K.)-17 IX 53
until May 1945 .t was only then that this new state of affairs at the
Minquiers and the Écréhous was discovered, and a difficult situation
naturaliy arose, as the Jersey fishermen's Iivelihood was being senously
afiected by this cornpetition. The United Kingdom Governmcnt there-
fore asked the Government of the French Republic to recognize and
admit the British title. But, as1said just aow, the Government of the
French Republic, while it had in practice, and indeed really for many
centuries, acquiesced in the Britis phossession of these islets-not on
paper, of course, but in substance-the Government of the Republic
was not willing formally to admit our claim, and therefore the upshot
ofthe matter was the submission of the dispute to this Court.
It is not easy to understand the attitude of the French authorities
in regard to these groups. For example, they have let pass not only
without protest, but without the slightest comment, acts of the most
public character-clear exercises of State. aythori,ty-carried out by
the Jersey authorities in the Minquiers and the Ecréhous-acts of a l
kind such as-one would think-no country genuinely possessed of
sovereignty over a temtory could possibly pass over in silence if done
by another country. The French explanation of this-fhat they could
not be expeçted to know everything that was going on in the islets-
is not very convincing. It is, in fact, significant, for surely a govern-
ment does know what goes-on in what it claims as its territory, so
near its coasts.
Again, we shall show later how considerable is the extent to which
there can be said to have been a veritableBriti~hcornmrcnityliving,
or owning property, on the Minquiers and the Ecréhous, registenng
in Jersey the title totheir property or dwellings on the islets, paying
their rates and taxes for them to the Jersey authorities, and submitting
themselves generally to Jersey law and jurisdiction : and, of course,
no such French community at any time. I would ask the Court to
consider how extraordinary has been the attitude of the Govcrnment
of the French Republic to this, comrnunity, if, as our opponents
maintain, the Minquiers and the Ecréhous are, and always have been,
French. If this were correct, it would rnean that this comrnunity has
been living or owning property on French soil for one hundred years
or more. Yet there is no evidence that any French official ever went
of the application of French laiv, there is no judgment of any Frenche
courts in respect of them, or of anything occurring in thcm or in
relation to them. If the houses and buildings concerned are on French
soil, in what registcr of property is theowrierçhip recorded ? To what
French authorities have their owners ever bcen responsible for them,
or for any taxes or rates due in respect of them ? If this is indeed
French territory, how can it be explained that propertyha been bought
and sold there in accordance with Jersey law, and registered in Jersey?
Mr. President, iis notsufficient to Saythat al1this happened because
the pcrsons concerned were Jerseymen, that it was based on some
persona1 consideration. We shall bring out this point very clearly
Iater and we can show clearly that the basis of all these acts was not
personal but territorial. But in any event, surely the merc fact that
al1 those concerned were Jerseymen, or English, is significant. If this
were French soil, dependent on the French mainland, as our apponents
clairn, why were tliey not Frenchmen ? Why were not at least some ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR L. HEALD (u.K.)-17 IX 53
27
of them French, at any rate ? Normdly, if a country has sovereignty
over a given piece of temtory. the persons, or most of them, or some
of them at least, in that territory or owning property in it, would be
expected to be nationals of that country and not of some other.
We say, therefore, that al1 these things on the Minquiers and the
Ecréhous were carried out in accordance with Jersey law because this
was the applicable law and no other law was applicable. 1 would
invite the attention of the Court to the liçt of perçons given in
Annex A 98 to the United Kingdom Memorial as owning dwellings,
buildings or other property on the Minquiers or the Écréhous. If the
French claim were to be admitted, those persons would suddenly find
that they were and always had been subject to French Iaw, that their
property was on French, not British, soil, that even to visit their own
property they would require a passport and would Iiave to conform
to French immigration, customs, and other regulations. In other wordç,
they would find themselves in a position totally at variance with fact
and reality, and I submit that this is an aspect of the matter to which
the Court cannot fail to give the most serious attention.
If 1 may give one concrete example, if the Court would look at the
photograph Annex C6, Part IV,Volume IV, of the Memorial, the Court
will see there a picture of a two-storied house at Blanc lle, owned by
hfajorR. J. B. Bolitho, a Jersey resident. Rlr. President, Major Bolitho
and his wife are here to-day in Court, having sailed here in their oivn
boat from Jersey in order to attend this case to which they and the other
inhabitants of Jersey attach so much importance. Major Bolitho's wife
enjoys the name of Lemprière, one of the best-known names in Jersey,
and her family have owned this land for many, many years past. So
there we find a concrete example of someone, a man and his ivife, the
wife belonging to an ancient family of Jersey, who, ifthis Court were to
decicle in accordance with the French claim, will suddenly find that al1
this time, without knowing it, they have been really for al1 practical
purposes living in France. Well, that seems to me a rather remarkable
situation.
In thefirst instance, therefore, hlr. Presiden1maintain quite simply
that, although France claims sovereignty and, by insisting on that claim
in the face of al1 the realities, has compelled this dispute to be brought
before the Court, she has not in fact conducted herself in relation to the
islands as a country normally would do which possesses sovereignty.
The Jersey authorities, on the other hand, have, If you ask, for instance,
who constructed the necessary public works and facilities on theisIands,
again the answer is : the Jersey authorities. If you ask who has installed
and wlio keeps up the buoys, beacons, marks and other aids to the
navigation of the islands, the answer is the same. The French buoying
of the Minquiers, on wliich they rely, as we shallshow later, is outside
the reef or plateau, at a distance of more than threc miles from the
main islands, directed towards facilitating the entry of ships into St.
Ma10and Granville, and, in fnct, rather to keep shipping away from the
Minquiers than to facilitate the approach to it. Again, when you corne
to askywho has esercised the necessary jurisdiction in respect of offences,
who has held inquests and so on, the answer is equally : the authorities
and courts of Jersey. There isno trace of any evidence of such things
being cloneby any French authority. Equally one can Say this of espcndi-
ture. Considerable sums have been expended by the Jersey authorities : ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR L.HEALD (u.K.)-17 IX 53
28
none, so far as weknow, has ever been expended by France. Mr.Harrison
will give the details of this in due course: 1 shall not delay the Court
over them. It is, however, important to emphasize that claims to sover-
eignty cannot be divorced from responsibility for the territory claimed.
An affirmation of sovereignty involves a duty to carry outits obligations.
No one can doubt that it isby Jersey that these obligations and responsi-
bilities have, in fact, been carrieclout and discharged. France has not
been willing to make any forma1admission of the British claim, but she
has, nevertheless, been willing to allow the Jersey authorities to carry
out theresponsibilitiesand incur espenditure in connection with these
groups. 1 venture to suggest that these are points of significance. Deci-
sions of international tribunals, to which we shall later refer, showvery
clearIy the importance that has always becn attached to the question :
which party has demonstrated by its conduct its belief in the validity of
its claim, and has on that basis conducted itself after the manner of a
responsible sovereign authority ? . ,
Our opponents have, of course, naturally tried to discount and to
minimjze the significance of much that Jersey has done, principally,
I think, upon the ground-as 1 have already mentioned in passing-
that most of those acts are explicable on a basis of jurisdiction exercised
ratione @ersom over Jerseymen, not ratione soli .his argument, 1 sub-
mit, is misconceived. In the first place, it could not apply at ail to many
of the acts concerned, for example, the construction of public works
and facilities on the isletthe opening of cnstom-houses, and so on. For
these are clear acts 01sovereignty in any event.
As regards police and the exercisc of legal jurisdiction, thereisno
doubt at all-as iveshali suggest to the Court-that the basis is tem-
hearing from hlr. Hamson in due course, but also, 1suggest,h yasa matter
of generallegal principle.I willgire the Court one exampie-the holding
of inquesb on deceased perçons who might be found at the Minquiers
and the Ecréhous. The basis of this act could not be personal, for the
followingreasons. In the first place, the nationality of the deceased person
is,not officially established until the enquiry is held. Part of the object
of the enquiry, in fact, would be to ascertain the identity of the dead
person. Secondly, at the inquest no accused person is before the court,
for the other object of the enquiry is to ascertain how the deceased met
his death. It rnay have been accident, it may have been suicide: only
if the facts pointed to a crime ~vouldthe rnatter lead to a triaand that
would be quite a separate proceeding. Unquestionably, therefore, the
holding of an inquest on the finding of a dead body is an act of territorial
jurisdiction. Iis an enquiry carried outby authorities ofaterritory with
regard to something which has occurred in that territory, an adminis-
trative rather than a judicial act, carricd out as a measure of good
government. So far as 1 am aware, proceedings of thiç character are
never held except in respect of bodies which are found within the terri-
torial jurisdiction of the authority concerned. Can it be imagined that
the Jersey authorities would hold an inqucst on the death of a man in
France ? And, in fact, some of the deceased persons who have been
concemed in inquests in Jersey have, in fact, been Frenchmen whose
bodies have been found there, but the nationality of the deceaçed is
quite irrelevant. ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR L.HEALD (u.K.)-17 IX 53
29
Mr. President, a few moments ago, when 1was refen-ing to the actual
list of residents in houses on these islets, 1 mentioned that one of those
inhabitants and hiswife were present here andhad come here in order
to act as representatives of al1those who were interested in the matter,
and 1 notice that the interpreter, who serves us so weii and faithfully
in these matters, did not mention that fact. 1 think that it is perhaps
desirable that itshould be made quite clear when people have taken
the trouble to come here inorder to show the great local interest in the
matter.
1 now wish to Say one word with regard to this question of rating.
Rating, as the Court wiil probably know, is an expression used particu-
larly in English law in relation to the local taxation of property, as
opposed to the word "taxes" which is used in relation to the national
taxation. Towards the bottom of page 721 of the French Rejoinder, 1
find it stated(1quote) :
"As regards the rating of houses, these mesures were in Jersey
and did not give rise to any important or overt act in thetemtory
under dispute."
The implication here is that no act is an act of sovereignty in relation
to given territory unless it takcs place inside that territory. There is, so
far as 1am aware, no warrant for any such proposition. History abounds
in examples ofacts of sovereignty carried out by or from one temtory
in relation to another. Canone think of a clearer example of an assertion
of sovereignty than the levying of taxes on houses and property ? In
no country in the world, 1believe, do the authorities levy taxes on houses
and property which is not within their jurisdiction. For example, if an
Englishman owns property in France, it is the French authorities who
levy the rates and taxes on that property. It would be inconceivable
that the United Kingdorn authorities wouid think of doing so, and
therefore surely such mesures are the clearest possible evidence that
the authorities concerned have, or at least claim to have, authority over
the territory in question. The passage which 1 cited from the French
Rejoinder continues as follows (1 quote) :
"Actually they [that is to Say, the rating measures] only consti-
tute evidence of the existence on those reefs of the houses on which
the rates were levied."
But surely these measures are evidencc of much more than that : they
are evidence of sovereignty over the territory, otlierwise the measures
could never have been taken. For such rates are essentially a Ievy for
services which the local authorities render in respect of the property
concerned. The services are rendered in respect of houseç and property
would not be rendering any service if the house was in France, even ifs
it belonged to a Jerseyman. They would leave that to the French author-
ities,,who would also Ievy the rates. It is just because the Minquiers and
the Ecréhousare Jersey territory that such rates are Ievied. There is no
other possible basis in law or principle that 1 can understand.
I think it is helpful if 1 invite the Court to consider a little more
closely what are the implications of the French attitude in these sorts
of matters. There is no attempt to show why, if the islets were French,
and, as is maintained, dependencies of the French coast, there is no ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR L.HEALD (u.K.)-17 IX 53
30
attempt to show why the houses on them were not French, registered
in France according to French law and with these rates levied upon
them by the local authorities inreturn for services performed for the
inhabitants by those authorities. There is no suggestion. that I am
aware of, of anyinstance of the exercise of jurisdiction ratione soli on
the basis of French law. It is merely denied that it has been so exercised
on the basis of English or Jersey law, Now if this were to be correct it
could surely only lead ta the conclusion that there is or was no law
territoridy applicable to this land at ali-thathe land is land without
a jus soliN,ow is that a tenable proposition ? In the first instance it
implies that the groups are or were res ndius. That will be discussed
nextrit fails to provide for something which with such islands asthese is
surely an absolute essentid. It might not matter very much if some
remote atollin the Pacific, or rock in the Arctic sea, lacks any applicable
jws soli but such a situation cannot be admissible with regard to islands
close to the mainland of Europe and close to important sea traffic
routes. Suppose, for example, that someone who is neither French nor
British were to commit a crime on these islands. Neither country could
try hirn rationepersonce,and if, as is apparently contended, there is no
applicable jus soli, there would be no power to arrest him and send
him back to his own country. Obvioudy there must be a jus solii: t is
required by reason andnecessity. And if so, what is it ? It must be
English or Jersey. Further, we Say that in fact and in history the sole
evidence of the exercise of jurisdiction, of the ap lication of law, isof
the application of English or Jersey lawand for eat, wc suggest, there
is a very good and sufficient reason which is this : that a art from
visiting fishermen, al1the residents on both groups anda11t1 e owners
of property are andalways have been Jerseymen or Englishmen and
nearly al1 the habitations, practically al1 the habitations, have always
been Jersey or English built and owned, with their title deeds registered
be Jersey or English law. That really cornes to the application of thell
old tag res ipsa loquitur, for it is just what one would expect, if the
islands are British islands, dependencies of Jersey. In those circum-
stances there would be notliing surprising in finding that the residents
and property owners are English or Jerseymen. It is what one would
expect. What would be surprising would be to find this degree of English
and Jersey residence and the absence ofFrench residence, if the groups
were French. That would indeed require some explanation. The obvious
conclusion is surely the natural one. Jersey people live on the islets and
own houses there, and Jersey law applies, because the islets are British,
and because they are dependencies of Jersey.
MT.President, 1have now cornpleted what 1 wish to say about what
1 might call the setting and context of this case, and 1 hope that 1
have not detained the Court too long with that part of my address.
Next, 1 would iike to tellthe Court how we propose to present Our
argument. It seems to us that this case falls naturally into three
different parts. There is first the older, more historical part, the events
of the Midde Ages and of Iater years up to the eighteenth and nine-
teenth centuries-what 1 might call the "ancient times". Next there
i"recent times", leading up to the very point where the dispute was referred to the Court. But then there is a third and quite separate
section of the case-in our view quite irrelevant and quite unnecessary
-which anses entirely from the French contention that al1the events
which have occurred since a date in 1839, when a certain Fishery Con-
vention*was signed between the Parties, should be ignored and treated
as if they never took place at all. This has always seemed to us to be
a very extraordinary contention, especially when one rernembers the
slender foundation on which it is based-a simple provision about
fishing for oysters-something that seems to have nothing to do with
any question of sovereignty. \Ve are not ail of us assembled here to-
day to decide to which country these islets belonged in 1839, but to
decide to which country they belong fiow.That was the question put
to the Court by the Special Agreement or Compromis which submitted
this dispute to the Court. And it seems a strange thing that our French
friends should now really seek, in efiect, to put a severe limitation
uthey have referred to it.e Court to decide the very question which
' However, since our opponents have raised this curious issue, we
shall be obliged to deal with it. Our scheme of presentation of the
case wiIl be this. My own remaining observations will be of a general
character relating to the case as a whole, but in the course of them 1
shaii try to bring out certain further points of particular interest and
importance. But 1 shall also draw the attention of the Court to certain
legal considerations, which arise out of past decisions of international
tnbunals on questions of territorial sovereignty, decisions which, in
our view, are of special relevance to the present case. Mr. Fitzmaurice
wili then deal with the French contention about the year 183-that
is, what has been called the question of the "critical date". Here 1
ought to Say at once that of course we in no way dispute that in this,
as in every other case of a disputed clairn to temtory, there must be
some date which can be described as the "critical date", subsequent
to which no legal significance or effect would attach to acts which
might otherwise be relevant from the point of view of title. We, how-
ever, differ from our opponents radically as to what that date should
be in the present case. According to us, the proper date to take for
that purpose is the date of the signature of the Compromis-Decem-
ber 2gth, 1950 O.bviously, anything which has happened since that date
can be disregarded. But, according to Our opponents, the critical date
is August znd, 1839,the date of the signature of the 1839 Fishery Con-
vention, and our opponents appear to have made this differencebetween
the Parties a principal issue in the case. We do not so regard it, as 1
have already pointed out, and we Say that, in effect, it isquite incon-
sistent with the very terms of the Compromis which has brought the
matter before the Court. The Court does not need to be reminded
whom the sovereignty at present rests. And it wouId be a strangee in
thing if,at the same time, one has to read into that document some
implication that there is some temporal bar to the Court considering,
and that the Court must shut its eyes to, these most important events
which have occurred dunng the last hundred years. But that issue,
however irrelevant it may be, is certainly the first-as obviously,
logically, it precedes ail the others. We shail therefore deal with it
first, for that reason only, not because of what we think of its intrinsic32 ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR L. HEALD (u.K.)-17 1X 53
importance-and, as1 have said, Mr. Fitzmaurice will assume that
task on oiir behalf. Then, Mr+Preçident, next Professor Wade, who
is Professor of the Law5of England in the University of Cambridge
(and, 1 may Say, one of the most distinpished living British author-
ities on constitutional law), will deal with the Middle Ages and the
following period ; and then Mr. Harrison, the Attorney-General for
Jersey, as you know, wiil deal with more recent events. He will put
the particular point of view of Jersey, andhe wïUbe able to deal with
certain interesting and important legal points, and, as 1 havealready
said, he will be speaking on behalf of people whose own position will
be directIy affected by the outcome of the case.
It may be convenient if, at this point, 1 recall to the Court what
the basis of the United Kingdom claim is, as pleaded and asmaintained
by us. In the first place, we argue that the United Kingdom is entitled
to sovereignty over the groups-and 1 quote the actual words that
have been used: "by reason of having established the existence of
a root of title in ancient times, which is supported by effective pos-
session in recent times to be found in acts which manifest continuous
and peaceful display of sovereignty over the territories". Secondly,
and in the alternative, we argue that the United Kingdom is entitled
to sovereignty over the groups (1quote) "by reason ofhaving established
title by effective poçsession alone, such possession being found in acts
which manifest a continuous and peaceful display of sovereignty over
the territories".
Those are our daims. But there are certain points arising out of
them which 1must clarify beyond any possibility of misunderstanding.
To begin with, the expressions "ancient" and "recent", which 1 used
just now, were first used in theMernorial-they were used before there
was any question of the raising of the date of 1839.And our expressions
"ancient" and "recent" have no relation to the year 1839 at all. We
regard 1839as a date which haî no significance ai all in thedispute,
and the use of those words "ancient" and "recent" arose from the
consideration that this case was essentially one in which the claimç
of the respective Parties should be considered as a whole over the
entire period. The division of the history into ancient and modem
times is simply for the purpose of çonvenience in dealing with the
matter, particularly having regard to the separation of the subject
between two speakers. When we used the expressions in the Memorial,
we had in mind certain famous words of Judge Huber in the Island
of Palnzascase, which 1 am sure are familiar to members of the Court.
They are to be found on page go8 of the report in Volume 22 of the
American journal ofInbernationalLaw, and they are these (1 quote) :
"It is not necessary that the display of sovereignty should be
established as having begun at a precise epoch; itsufices that
it had existed at the critical period ....It is quite natural that
the establishment of sovereignty may be the outcome of a slow
evolution, of a progressive intensification of State control."
Havlng that passage in mind, and having regard also to the fact
that this case covers a period of over a thousand years, the expressions
"ancient" and 'Irecent"-however loose-seem to US to have the
right significanceand thereforeto be suitable for use in stating the case. The second point arising out of our basis of clairn which I should
'like to make clear beyond any possibility of misunderstanding is this.
1 have already said that we are not interested in the date of 1839,
1 now wish to emphasize that, when in the second, or alternative,
claim we refer to our title based on "effective possession alone", we
are again not limiting ourselves in any way by reference to the year
1839. The second claim covers the entire period just as much as the
6rst. It affirrns that there are acts of effective possession, spread over
the entire thousand years. In the second claim, therefore, we provide
for the possibility-though of course we deny that it is so-that at
some point in time the title to sovereignty may have been with France ;
but we contend that, even if that was so, the United Kingdom has
exercised effective possession over the groups for a sufficiently long
period to be entitled now to claim sovereignty over them. In that
respect, and in that done, does the second claim differ from the first,
which assertts hat the United Kingdom done has been sovereign
over the groups throughout the entire period.
The fact, therefore, Mr. President, that Professor Wade will deal
with the period broadly up till the end of the eighteenth century and
that Mr. Harrison will deal wjth the period broadly after 1800, does
not in any way mean that Professor Wade is dealing with the first
part of the claim and Mr. Harrison with the second. It will also be
partof Professor Wade's task to show that the United Kingdorn can
invoke an ancient title and has supported that ancient title by effective
But it will also. be part of Professor Wade's task-andby Mrthis is what
1 am concerned to emphasize lest there should be any misunderstanding
-it will also be part of Professor Wade's task to show that, even if
we could not establish the existence of a root of title in ancient times,
we could nevertheless prove that by the nineteenth century the United
Kingdom was entitled to sovereignty over the groups by reason of
effective possession alone. If that should be the case, Mr. Harrison.
will equally be able to show that the title hasbeen effectively main-
tained evcr since, just as he will also be able to show that the title
which we claim asbeing rooted in ancient right has been effectively
maintained.
[Public sittingofSeptember17th,1953a ,jternoon]
Mr. President, when the Court adjourned I had just stated how we
proposed to put our case before the Court and I had said that 1 myself
intended to deal with one or two of the fundamental questions. I begin
now with a rhetorical question:what does one do-what does a govern-
ment ordinarily do-when it is called upon to prove or to make good a
claim to possess, and be the sovereign over, certain territory ? The
answer, surely, is that you bring forward positive evidence of your
sovereignty, by showing how, and in what way, you have exercised it,
and still do esercise it. You may show how your title originated-but
you would never normally stop at that. You would show that you not
only had a title, but that you exercised it-and wereexercising it now-
at the very moment. That is how the existence of sovereignty is proved. ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR L. HEALD (u.K.)-17 IX 53
34
I ho e I can claim that this is just what the United Kingdom Govern-
ment R as done in its written pleadings. We claim an original root of
title in ancient times-but we have not rested on that. je have been
at pains to show that we have exercised this sovereignty and have
exercised it for a very long time. We have brought forward a great mass
of carefully documented and fully authenticated evidence, which not
only supports our claim to possess sovereignty, but also shows in very
considerable detail how we have exercised this sovereignty in concrete
fashion. In short, we have made a serious-and 1hope not unsuccessful
-attempt to prove Our case.
To what extent then have Our opponents demonstrated or tried to
demonstrate theirsovereignty ? To ascertain this, we must examine what
exactly the French case consists of. And I am bound to suggest that it
consists not of any real affirmative proof of French title, but much more
of an attack on the United Kingdom evidence, with a view to weakening
or destroying its value. It is in fact a negative case,1ashall show later
that it depends almost exclus~vely on establishing and rnaintaining a
presumption ofan original French sovereignty, which, it is said, must be
assumed still to exist. Yet, as the preamble of Article II of the Com-
title:the French Government paysr eaclipaservice to this proposition, but
then fails altogether to accept its implications. As we pointed out in
paragraph 182 of our Memorial, the fact that the United Kingdom put
in the first written pleading, andisopening the present oral hearing, in
no way makes us plaintiff, or France defendant. It creates no presump-
tion of French sovereignty to be displaced by us, nor does it relieve Our
opponents from the obligation to prove their own title. If indeed any
presumption could be said to exist in the matter, it would surely be in
favour of the United Kingdom, which is unquestionably actualky exer-
cising the sovereignty at the present time.
In any event, the fact that the French case takes the form essentially
of an attack on the United Kingdom evidence, emphasizes that al1the
positive evidence of title which the Parties are able to adduce cornes
from the British side. The Court cannot ignore the fact that practically
every originai document, practically all the evidence of the concrete
exercise of sovereignty, has been put inby us,
If the Court will look at the Annexes to the British Memorial, it will
find na less than about 75 of such documents and pieces of evidence in
the Annexes A 7-22 and A 79-140I. n the French Counter-Memorial,
where, if anywhere, one might have expecled ta find the positive evid-
ence of the French title, there is hardlyasingle original document, and
hardly any extracts from contemporary records, cxcept such as had
already been cited by us. The whole French Counter-Mernorial on its
historical side is simply an attempted refutation of the English case, not
a statement ofa French claim to the islets.
Similarly, the Court will findannexed to the United KingdomReply
more original documents or pieces of concrete evidence, and still more
are furnished in the volume of Additional Annexes ; whereas annexed
to the French Rejoinder there is nothing except some material relating
the Bay of Cotentin. This obviously can have a nodrjuridical relevance of
any kind to the question of titIe, and indeed, if it were reaIIy material,
would it surely not have made such a tardy appearance in the pleadings. ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR L.HEALD (u.K.)-17 IX 53 35
Now, as with the earlier periods, it is equally noticeable that virtually
ail the evidence of concrete exercise of sovereignty over the groups in
the last 150years cornesfrom the United Kingdom's side. To set against
this, the Government of the Republic can in the same period onlyinvoke
three acts, al1of them incidentally relating to the Minquiers alone. As
regards the Écréhous there are non?. These three acts relative to the
Minquiers are considered in detail in the United Kingdom Reply, para-
graphs 233-239 w,here it is shown why we contend that they are quite
insufficient to support the French claim. We shall go into this again
later ;1merely surnrnarize the facts now.
The French pleadings and their method of presentation of documents
consist of the allegation that modern acts are al1 automatically and
ipso facto without value because they occurred after 1839 (although,
in fact, even if it could be accepted that 1839 were the critical date,
some of the acts occurred before that date). Or else-this was an earlier
to the period 1869-~876wd , hen the dispute is said to have been "born"s
(though here again, even if that date could bc accepted, many of the
acts in question occurred before). Alternatively, the value of individual
acts is attacked upon the basis that most of them can be explained
as exercises of jurisdiction ratione persona rather than ratione soli.
In any case, the French position appears to be not only that the Gov-
ernrnent of the Republic need not show any manifestations of French
sovereignty .during this period, but that it is not even necessary
seriously to consider the United Kingdom acts. The general line taken
-1 quote from page 399 of the Counter-Memorial-is that the Govern-
ment of the Republic considers it(1 quote) : "..., unnecessary to
proceed to a detailed examination of the factuaI arguments brought
forward in the British Mernorial" in respect of the more recent periods.
But whatever Our opponents may Say, we cannot believe that the
Court will refuse to give this very important evidence the attention
and consideration it obviously merits. \Ve believe that no court would
care to give a decision in a case of this kind that took no account of
anything that had happened in the previous 114 years. Ive suggest,
moreover, that when the Court finds that the whole case, broadiy
looked at, consists of a process whereby one side furnishes al1or nearly
al1the positive evidence of title,and the other side produces practically
no counter-evidence, but merely criticizes the value of the other's
evidence, or seeks to write it off as beinga firiori irrelevant, there can
only be one deduction. Even if it were considered that not al1
the evidence produced on the British sideisconclusive, or even capable
of being questioned, and even if tliere can be said to be certain gaps
and lacun2 or unexplained factors, nevertheless, it is virtually the
only positive evidence that exists :there is a considerable quantity of
itand it all points one way.
If, therefore, the question which the Court has to determine is, as
we believe, which of the two countries ha the superior title, then we
venture to think that, taking the weight of the evidence as a whole,
there can only be one answer.
1 would like to give just one example of the French technique of
mere denial to which I have been referring ; others willemerge later.
For this instance 1 go back to the Middle Ageç. The Court will recollect
that the Abbot of Val-Richer, throggh his Prior on the gcréhous,36 ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR L, HEALD (u.K,)-17 IX 53
was summoned to appear, and did appear, before the King's Justices;
in Jersey on a writ of quo warranta, to answer in respect of certain.
matters affecting his priory. We have claimed this as constituting a.
clear exercise of sovereign jurisdiction over the Écréhous, and as'an,
acknowledgment of it on the part of the Prior, who wns not an English--
man-so that there could be no question here of any exercise of juris--
diction ratione persona. If, therefore, the Prior, or his syperior the
Abbot-equally not an Englishman-had considered the Ecréhous to~
be French territory, they must surely have refused to appear before.
an English court and would have regarded themselves as answerable,
only to a French court. On this basis we have argued that the outcome-
of the proceedlngs was irnmaterial. Whai counted was the clear exercise.
and admission of territorial jurisdiction. That the jurisdiction was in.
fact territorial admits of no doubt, since the subject-matter of the.
proceedings was a nght of property in land, and it is a universal:
principle of law, applicable then, as now, that jurisdiction in respect
of territorial rights can only be exercised by the courts of the country-
in which the land issituated or uncler whose sovereignty it cornes,
The point that I wish to make at this stage is that the French method. !
of dealing with this particular matter is sirnply to deny that the appear--
ance of the Prior before the King's courts in Jersey had any implication
that the Écréhous was English. Our opponents fumish no counter-.
courts,eorthat French courts everconcerned thernseIveswith the Ecrehous.
before any French court in respect of the Ecréhous, as the Prior didd
before the English court. Thus, the only positive evidenceof the ex-ercise-
of jurisdiction by any courts over the Ecréhousat that period is on the
part of the English courts, and of this fact the Court cannotfail to takea
due account. Broadly, it is the same thing al1along the line.
Mr. President, we naturally do not criticize our opponents for their.
failure to adduce positive evidence ofany actual French exercise of sov--
ereignty. They cannot make bricks without straw. But the significant fact
remains that this negative presentation of their case is the best that
they can dc-the only thing they can do in the absence of any positive-
evidence. Even if Ouropponents succeeded in discounting the significance-
of the British evidences of title, they would still, we suggest, not have.
eçtablished the title of France, because they have shown no instance in
which, in all the long history of these islands, France has ever actuaUy.
exercisedany sovereignty over, or in respect of, them. Yet the dispute-
has been submitted to the Court under the Compromis on the basis-
that in fact these islands must be under the sovereignty of one or other.
of the two couniries, Can there then be any doubt that they must be-
under the sovereignty of that one ofthem which can produce the greatest
weight of positive evidence in support of its claim ? And can there be-
any doubt, if the evidence islooked at as a whole, that the country which
can do this is the United Kingdom 7 We shaU show that so far as any
considerations based on history, geography, or contiguity are concemed,
we can at least match any title France can put fornard ;while, on the-
other hand, we can put forward an incornparably greater weight of-
evidence of the actual exercise of sovereignty far exceeding, particularly.
(but by no means exclusively) during the last century or two, anything.
Francecan addüce. ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR L.HEALD @.K.)-17 IX 53 37
1have insisted somewhat on this matter because, unleçs the evidence
were looked at as a whole, it would be very easy to corne to a conclusion
which woüld not accord with the facts or the realities of the situation.
The history of the case extends to over a thousand years if we take as
the starting point the year 933,at about which time William Longsword,
Duke of Normandy, extended his nile over the Channel Islands. It is
now 1953-one thousand and twenty years on. Much that has happened
in those thousand and twenty years may be obscure, there are certain
gaps and silences, there is room for dispute and argument, and the
medievalists may not always agree about the exact value or legal effect
of this or that act or factor. Rut al1 doubt and uncertainty vanishes
when we look at the case and the evidence as a whole, for then the
picture is one of Britishvereigiity definitely and continuously exercised
for many centuries and evidenced b numerous concrete acts.
May 1 now carry my analysis O rthe French case a stage further.
Careful consideration wiIl show not only that it is a negative case.
offering practically no evidence of French exercise of sovereignty, but
also that it is founded and depends on one single, simple and all-
embracing proposition, which really constitutes the entire French case.
This proposition isas follows. Our opponents Say that France originally
had the sovereignty, in the serise that it was vested in the Kings of
France asfeudal overlords of the Dukes of Normandy. (Whether that
view is correct or not,1 am not concerned at this moment to discuçs,
though, aswe shall show later, it is in fact dubious. However, 1 will
pass that over for the moment.) The next step in the French argument
is that soon after 1200 the Channel Islands became separated from
continental Normandy ; but, according to. the French thesis, the
sovereignty of the Kings of France over the Channel Islands auto- '
matically continued except to the extent to which the English were
or came to be in actual possession or control of any of the islands.
and control of certain of the islands such as Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney
and others, but, according to our opponents, we cannot show this
with regard to the Minquiers and Écréhous. Consequently, they Say,
the original French sovereignty over these two groups automatically
continued and still exists to-day.
Such is, fundamentally, the French argument, and on that basis
Our French friends, metaphoricall speaking, sit back and say that
there is no more for them-to do. I he bal1 is now in our court and it
is for us to prove out effective possession and control of ttwo groupa
in dispute. If we cannot do this, they say, France must be adjudged
sovereign, and therefore al1 that the Government of the Republic
has to do is to show that the evidence we can adduce of having exer-
cised, and of nolv exercising, the effective possession and control is,
for one reason or other, dubious, or valueless for the purpose of
establishing our sovereignty. If the Court wili look atpage 722 of the
French Rejoinder, and at the conclusion which appears asthe final
paragraph of Sub-Section 1, it will see that the French position is,
in effect, precisely as1 have suggested, narnely, it is said that the
United Kingdom is not entitled to invoke any acts perforrned çub-
sequent to 1839, and France is not under any necessity to do so,
but need only show that the United Kingdom acts are inadequate or
invalid.38 ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR L.HEALD (u.K.)-17 IX 53
It is literally true, therefore, that the Frenchcase begins and ends
with the Middle Ages. After that there isnothing. Even in the Middle
Ages what was there? Nothing but an abstractioa-nothing but a
bare feudal right devoid of any content or substance.
Now, Mr. Yresident, as I shall presently show, on the bais of
revious decisions of international tnbunals, the French attitude which
P have describcd is unsound, and the whole French thesis is based
upon a misconception. For international law requires something more
than ancient titles or abstract right. It is not enough that titles once
existed-even if in this case any such French tifle did exist. Inter-
national law requires that titles should be effectively kept uyso
that ia once subsisting title still existedino the absence of positive
authorities 1 shall cite show, even a perfect title could be lost by
simple inactivity, particuiarly when there isa competing claim in
the field.
Therefore we deny the validity of the French theory as to their
basis of title. But may I Say this at once that, even on the basis on
which our opponents put their case, we submit that the sovereignty
should unquestionably be adjudged to the United Kingdom, since we
consider that we can in fact discharge the burden of prmf which Our
opponents seek to put upon us. We can show elctive exercise of
sovereignty on our part over the Minquiers and Ecréhous, both in
ancient and in modern times, quite çuficient to displace any original
French title there may have been.
There is a further reason why we believe the basisof the French case
to be mistaken. It ignores realities, and relieç entireIyaonominal title
which, even ifit existed originally, was never translated into actuality
or corresponded with the true essence of the situation. It never included
any actual sovereign powers, nor were such powers ever actually exer-
cised by the French Crownin respect of the Channel Islands. It will be
seen, therefore, that the French claim to the original title asshadowy
and unsubstantial kind, based on a sort of abstract feudal right, and
that it has never been anything else. This supposed title was never
stnctly sowereigntyatall,but a species of sztaerainty,deriving from the
feudal overlordship of the Kings of France over the Dukes ofNormandy.
It was Duke William Longsword who actually extended his dominion
over the Channel Islands, who actually appropriated and, so to speak,
reduced them into possession ; and he did thjç on his own accoiint, not
asagent or on behalf ofthe French King. Par from it, as Professor Wade
wiil show you. There is also no proof, and good reason to doubt, that the
Channel Islands were ever included in the territories for whitheDukes
of Normandy did homage to the French Kings. In any case, the actual
rule over the islands remained with the Dukes. It was never exercised
by the KingsofFrance. Thus, even if nominal suzerainty became vested
in the Kings of France by virtue of their feudal overlordship over the
Dukes of Norrnandy, this was no more than a formality. There was no
effective exercisofsovereignty by the Xings of France over the islands.
The real sovereignty lay with the Dukes of Normandy, who were to all
intents and purposes independent princes ruling their own territor;and
if they choseto do hornage to the French Crown, it \vasas a matter of
courtesy or policy and not of compulsion, which the Carolingian and ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR L. HEALD (u.K.)-17 IX53 39
Capet Kings of the period would have been quite incapable of exercising
in respect of their powerful neighbours on the Coast. When Professor
Wade addresses you on the medieval history of this case, he will show
. how extremely precarious was the situation of the Carolingian and Capet
Kings after the breakir~gup of Charlemagne's Empire and how abstract
and unreal were the rights which they professed to exercise over such
independent principalities as Normandy, Brittany, Aquitaine and the
rest.
Thus, from the point of view of realities, we feel justified in clahning
that the real sovereignty over the islands Iay from the start in the Dukes
of Normandy in their own nght, and later, through thern, with the
English Crown. What occurred after 1200 was not, as the French
Rejoinder says, a dismemberment of French sovereignty. It was a dis-
memberrnent of Norman sovereignty, because King Philip II of France,
using as a pretext a dubious judgment of his feudal court, pronounced
against King John of England, and invaded and annexed continental
Normandy. This was strictly an act of aggression or at any rate of spoli-
ation, and the fact that it was not contrary to the rnorality of the
period should not blind us to its true character. This act was one of the
main causes of the constant contiicts between France and England in
the next 250years, during which Normandy repeatedly chan ed hands-
for, even though they were Kings of England, the Dukes OINormandy
did not readily accept the French appropriation of their ancient and
historic principality. However, they still had the Channel Islands, for
could assert by force of arms. He did not take the Channel Islands, and
no more then than at any other time before or since did France exercise
any sovereignty there.
Thus, what reaily occurred after 1200 was not a dismembement of
French sovereignty, which was indeed, if anything, expanded and added
to by the French acquisition of control ovecontinentalNormandy. What
really occurred was simply a separation ofthe effective possession and
control of the islands from the effective possessionand controlofconti-
nental Normandy. The Kings of England as Dukes ofNormandy then
ceased to exercise the effective sovereignty in continental Norrnandy,
and for the first time-and this we must insist on as a vital point-for
the firstime, the effectiveexerciseof sovereignty over even continental
Normandy passed to the Kings of France. But this did not occur in
respect of the islands. There, the effectiveexercise of sovereignty con-
tinued as it always had done, in the Dukes of Normandy and Kings of
England.
In short, Mr.President, itcornes to this :even assuming that France
can show an original ~bslracttitle going back to 936 when William
Longsword is said to have done hornage for the islands,we cm show an
original eflclive title thi-ough the Kings of England, as successors to the
Dukes of Normandy, going back still earlietathe time when Longsword
himself reduced insular Normandy into his own possessionand effectively
administered it. And the Dukes, or rather by then the Kings of England,
were still effectively administering the islands as an undivided whole
when the separation from continental Normandy took place. And in
any event, Mr. Yresident, 1 understand that the famous William Long-
sword was certainly not a Frenchman-I think he was a Norseman.
44O ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR L.HEALD (u.K.)-17 IX 53
In these circumstances it is not for the United Kingdom to establish
that England exercised, or rather continued to exercise, the possession
and control over the Minquiers and the Écréhous (though in fact we
can show that we did) :it is rather for France to show that we did not.
if any presumptiondis.valid, it is surely this, tasipart of the Channel
Islands over which the English Kingj exercised effective possession and
control before.raoo, the Minquiers and the Écréliouscontinued to be in
the same possession and control as they were in before the separation of
the islands from continental Nonnandy. What Our opponents have to
establish, therefore, is that the effective control of continentalNormandy
which the Kings of France established for the first time afte1200, was
exteqded to the Channel Islands, and inparticular to the Minquiers and
the Ecréhous ;and except to the extent to which they can establish this,
the presumption must be that the effective possession and control
remained where they were before, namely, in the Kings of England.
Now our opponents can show this with regard to only one part of the
Channel Islands, narneIy, eventually, the Chausey islets-and we shall
show that itwaç not until the eighteenth century that even this occurred
and that the French title to-day to the Chausey can onlybe justsed on
precisely the sarne basis of effective possession which we can show in
respect of the Minquiers and the Écréhous. But Our opponents cannot
show possession or control with regard to any other part of the Channel
Islands, for there is no shred of evidence in the Middle Ages, or later,
of any effectiev xeercise of soverejgnty by France over any part of the
islands, except-after a long time-as 1 said, the Chausey. (We will
deallater with the French contention that France exercised such sover-
eignty over the Écréhous through the Abbey of Val-Richer and show-
that tliat is wholly erroneous.)
1should like to make it clear that just now when 1 was refemng to
Wiiiiam Longsword, I said he was not a Frenchman, but a Norsemun,
not a Norman-a Viking, as 1 understand.
Now may 1 tlraw attention to a further point of great importance in
this case.1think 1have shown correctly that the French case is founded
on the presumption of French sovereignty derived from the original over-
lordship of the French Kings in respect of the Dukes of Norrnandy.
Now, even assuming that this overlordship couId have survived in
the Middle Ages about whichnds you willebe hearing in due course from.in
Professor Wade, it is nevertheless surely obvious that a feuda1overlord-
ship could not have survived the death of the feudal system itself, of
which it was a part. At some date which can be placed between 1400.
and 1500, or, in France, in the reign of King Louis XI (1461-148 t3),
feudal system began to corne to an end. Rights derived from feudal over-
lordship then-or soon after-necessarily lapsed, because the overlord-
ships themselves ceased to exist, presupposingas they did asystem that.
na longer existed. These rights could not therefore continue unless they
were placed on some new bais of title. This caiild be-could only be-
the effective exercisofsovereignty. In short, the notionai title of France
based on feudal nghts necessarily lapsed with the dernise of the feudal
systern, ifit had not already done so inother ways. From that time
onwards French sovereignty could only be admitted, if based in the
ordinary way on actuai possession and control, and France must show ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR L. HEALD (u.K.)-17 IX 53
4I
that she either had then exercised, or subsequently established, such
possession and control. This she haç never done, for, although possession
was taken of continental Normandy after 1204, no simiIar possession
waç ever taken of the Channel Islands, apart from a few periods of
temporary military occupation.
These considerations are, in our view, enough in themselves to destroy
the validity of the French argument that there still exists to-day a
presumption of French sovereignty arising from an original feudal over-
lordship, and that it is for us to displace this presumptionItis certainly
for us to establish Our own title by showing effective possession and
control,and the exercise of State authority. But it is equally for our
opponents to prove their title in the sarne way. There is no presurnption
of it-and this is what they have not done.
1 hope now to have shown the Court liat the French case depends
alrnost wholly on the claim that France had an original title, and on the
presumption of French sovereignty said to arise from that-since our
opponents have introduced practically no evidence of the actual exercise I
of sovereignty. I hope,however, that 1have alsoshown that thisalleged
original title was itseIf dubious, and at any rate is inoperative to-day
to support the French claim. 1 maintain that for four distinct reasons,
each of which can be stated in one phrase, namely, firstthat this title, ~
if it existed at ail, consisted of no more thannominal or abstract right ;
secondly, that it was never translated into the effective exercise of
sovereignty ; thirdly,that even the abstract right would have lapsed
with the passing of the feudal system and was not replaced by anything
else ; filzally, that thtitle, evcn if it once existcd, was not, and never
has been, kept up as international law requireç.
1 corne next to the question of the treatment of the Channel Islands
as an entity, and the question how far a reference to one of these islands
can be regarded as being also a reference to its dependent islands or
islets. This is indeed aery important question because, as we have seen,
the basic French theory involves denying to the Channel Islands the
status of a unit, whereas in fact they did constitute, aswe suggest, a
single undivided entity. Consequently, throughout this case, our oppo-
nents have been very concemed todeny that the Channel Islands consti-
tuted or could constitute an entity, or that references to a main island
rnust be deemed to include its dependencies. Furthermore, they have
constantly sought to argue that when in the past, in connection with
any act or holding by the English Crown, only certain parts of the
Channel Islands were mentioned by narne, this automatically involves
an inference that al1 these parts not so named must have been French
possessions.
In taking this line, our opponents have involved themselves in
serious contradictions. It is very noticeable that, when it happens to
suit the French argument to adopt the entity or dependency theory, .
they have no hesitation in doing so, while simultaneously denying its
validity so far as any United Kingdom daim is concerned. 1 give an
exarnple. For instance, Our opponents have arped in the French
Rejoinder, and indeed also in the Counter-Memorial, that, because the
Minquiers and the ficréhous are situated comparatively near the French
mainland, they fom a unit with that mainland, or are dependencies
of it. (At another time, incidentally, they claim that the Minquiers are
dependencies of the Chausey.) Consequently, our opponents claim, by42 ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR L.HEALD (O.K.)-17 IX53
reason of this alleged unity with, or dependence on, the French main-
Iand, that, when the Channel Islands became separated from contjnental
Norrnandy after 1204, the Minquiers and the Ecréhous remained, so
to speak, attached to continental Norrnandy. Now, if this argument
is vaIid, it is equally valid, for instance, as respectthe l?créhous in
relation to Jersey, since they arc even closer to Jersey than they are
to the French coast. That argument, moreover, overlooks the fact
tliat Alderney, the British character of which has nevebeen questioned,
is much closer to the French coast than the bIinquierç-it is, in fact,
about the same distance from it as the Ecréhous, and only a little
further away than the Chausey. If therefore the French contention
about the effects of proximity to the coast were correct, it ought to
follow that Alderney is French, or at any rate remained French after
the separation from continental Norrnandy. But of course such a claim .
would be manifestly incorrect, Again, to take another example of the
inconsiçtency of our opponents, the French Rejoinder states that in
the year 933, William Longsword received the Channel Islands as a
fief, and that in 936 he rendered homage for them to the French King.
We do not admit these statements to be strictly accurate, as Pro-
fessor Wade will explain later. The point 1want to make now is that
our opponents Say that it was as a fief that the Dulres of Normandy
supposedly received, and held, and did homage for the Channel Islands.
As 1 pointed out before, this is the very basis of their cIaim to the
Minquiers and Écréhous. There is no suggestion that separate homage
was done for these two groups. If France was overlord of the groups,
it was because they were part of the Channel Islands that France had
this position. If tlierefore it wasaasingle fief that the Channel Islands
were held by the Dukes of Norrnandy, it was equally as a single
undivided entity that they remained vested in the Englisli Crown when
cantinental Normandy was lost. But continental Normandy was al1
that was lost, so that the jslands continued to be in the effective
no ground whatever for saying that this unit became suddenly divided
or broken up into scveral parts merely by reason of the separation
from continental Normandy. All that happened after 1204 was that
possession of continental Normandy was taken by the Kings of France,
but this possessioii ivas not extended tr, the islands, which therefore,
as a whole and as an undivided entity, remained in English possession
and control. Only at a much later date did the Chausey pass into French
hands.
Another example of the same inconsistcncy in argument occurs
?ver the celebrated question of the grant by Piers des Préaux of the
Ecréhousto the Abbey of Val-Richer.Our opponents have no heçjtation
in pleading this grant in support of their claim, and indeed they make
it one of the principal bastions of their claim, though, as usual, the
evidence of this grant came £rom our side and was first produced in
the United Kingdom Memorial. The case will, of course, be discussed
in detail later by others. But the point 1 wish to draw attention to
now is this: tliat, in relying on the grant made by Piers des Préaux
ta the Abbey of Val-Ricber, our opponents conveniently ignore how
it was that Piers des Préaux waç in a position to make it. He was in
that position because he had himself received a grant from his own
o\+erlord,who was King John of England, and you will find the grant ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR L. HEALD (u,K,)-17 IX 53 43
in Annex A 7 to the United Kingdom Mernorial. It contains certain
very significant words. The Charter of Piers des Préaux in 1203,
Annex A 7 on page ,155 of Volume 1, reads as follows :
"....Know ye al1 that 1, having regard to the mercy of God,
have granted and given and by my present charter have confirmed
to God and to the church of st. Mary of Val-Richer and to the
rnonks there serving God, for the salvation of the sou1 of John,
illustrious kingof England, who gave me the islands ('quiinsulas
mihi dedit'),and for the sahation of the souls of myself and of
my father and mother and of al1 my ancestors, the island of
'Escrehou' in entirety, for the building there of a church....",
and so forth. The grant'was the grant of the islands of Jersey, and
Guernsey and Aldemey, and therefore the words qui insulas mihi
dedit are of the greatest importance, because it\vas,by reasan of the
grant to him of the islands of Jersey and Guernsey and Alderney,
that the donor or the grantor, Yiers des Préaux, u7as able to make
the grant of "Escrehou" itself, It was by reason of his tenure of Jersey
alone, which he had received, aç he there states, that he was able to
make a grant of the Ecréhous. Could there possibly be clearer evidence
that the Écréhouswere a dependency of Jersey ?Could there be clearer
evidence that references to Jersey were automatically understood to
include the Écréhous? This has to be admitted by Our opponents,
because it is solely on that basis that the gant to the Abbey of Val-
our opponents can utilize it in support of their case, as they seek tot
do, Naturaliy we do not agree that this grant to Val-Richer caused
the Écréhous to pass into French sovereignty, or that it was evidence
of French sovereignty. That is, of course, an entirely djfferecuestion.
The grant toa French abbey, we Say, could no more cause the l!créhous
to become French than the purchase by me to-day of a French islet
çomewhere, to build a house on, could cause the islet to becorne British.
But the point that 1 make now is this : that the grant to Val-Richet
cannot be invoked at alI, except upon the basis that the ÉcrShous
were a dependency of Jersey which, however, Our opponents sirnul-
taneously deny.
Further illustrations of the inconsistent character of our opponents'
attitude on these matters were given in paragrayhs IIS and para-
graphs 136 to 138ofour Reply. 1will only summarize them by saying :it
\vas there pointed out that treaties and other international agreements
which, in relation to England, only mentioned Jersey, Guernsey or
Alderney by name, had been cited by the Government of the Republic
in support of the view that, since the Ecréhous and the Ninquiers
were not mentioned by narne, this waç evidence that they were French
possessions. We have pointed out, however, that equally, in the very
same instruments, islands such as Sark, Herrn and Jethou were not
mentioned by name, yet there has never been any question of these
being anything but English. If the French contention were correct, .
there would also be an implication that these other islands, and not
only the Minquiers and the ficréhous, were French possessions.
These exampleç show that theattempt to deny the basic unity of the
Channel Islands can only lead to inconsistencies and contradictions.
This basic unity is a fact, and, as we pointed out with examples in ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR L. HEALD (u,K.)-17 IX 53
4-4
paragraph 1x8of OurReply, is constantly recognized by histonans and
in the medieva1 records. There is ais0 abundant proof of the use of a
variety of different terms for the purpose of denoting the Channel
Islands, and also of a practice of referring by name to one or more
particular islands in circumstances in which a reference to the whole
group isclearly intended.
Now al1this has a very decided bearing on the question of what was
the juridical position in relation to the Channel IsIands on the separa-
tion from continental Normandy, and on the French contention that
it is for the United Kingdom to establish affirmatively its possession and
control of each individual part of the Channel Islands.
Admittedly, mere geographical contiguity is not in itself a ground of
titie in the absence of effective possession and control. Yet, if it has any
relevance, it assists our claim at least as much asitdoes the French, for
both the Minquiers and the Écréhous are nearer to Jersey than the
French rnainland coast, and even the distance between the Minquiers
and Jersey is scarcely greater than that between the Minquiers and the
Chausey. We shall go more fully into geography later, add we shall
slioiv,that physically the Channel Islands, includrng the Minquiers and
the Ecréhous, do constitute a genuine, self-contained and separate
group. That is the physical side : politically it is the same. Where you
have a set ofislands constituting a single entity politically and juridically
by reason of their having been an undivided fief, then possession and
control of the group operates as a whole.
Now, 1IIr.President,apart from the general observations which 1have
made, 1shall leave the development of the medieval part of our case to '
Profcssor Wade, because it would really be an impertinence for me to
try and deal in advance with those mafters ~vhichhe is so very well
qualified to explain to you.1 would ask the Court to bear in mind in the
meantirne a point which Professor lirade will bnng out more fuUy,
narnely, that the French itandiing of the medieval aspects exhibits the
same fundamental tendency as their handling of the modem times-
that is to Say they seek to avoid the issue of effective possession and
control-the actuai exercise of sovereignty-State authority-by going
progressively further and further back to some date at which it can be
contended that France had sovereignty, and for all later periods either
to contend that there isa presumption of continued French sovereignty,
or else to rely on arguments designed to discredit orshut out evidence of
concrete British acts of sovereignty, while adducing no corresponding
United Kingdom sovereignty in modern times, Our opponents soughte of
to put the critical date at the period 1869-1876,when the dispute was
said to have been born, and later at 1839, the date of the first fishery
convention. Similarly, confronted with the fact that the United Kingdom
exercised the effectivesovereignty over the whole of the Channel Islands
from 1066and throughout the Middle Ages, Our opponents have gone
back to 936, when William Longsword of Normandy is said to have done
homage for the fief of the islands to the French King. 1 hope 1 have
shown that this is not enough, and that, if it ever was enough, it long
ago ceased to be so. It is but a studied (but of course highly skilled)
cvasion, or avoidance, of the vital issue of effective possession, and of
the actual exercise of State authority-which, in fact, the French Kings
never did themselves exercise. As 1said earher, any title based on feudal overlordship necessarily terminated with the demise of the feudal
system. It was never replaced by any other basis of title-for such other
basis could only be actual control, actual exercise of State authonty,
centuries or up to to-day on the part of any French administrative al1those
authority or any French tribunal in relation to the Minquiers or the
Écréhous. We can, and we have furnished the Court with al1 those
evidmces of the exercise ofState authority in which the French case is
so conspicuously Iacking.
May 1 now, before leaving this part of the case, try to summarize our
criticisrns of the French clairn in a fcwshort propositions :
First-the French claim depends almost entirely upon an alleged
root of title which was always shadowy and unsubstantial and which,
if it ever existed, had long since lapsed. This root of title-iit existed-
consisted of suzerainty rather than sovereignty as that concept isknown
to modem international law. This feudal suzerainty has never been
replaced by any fresh basis of title.
Secondty-there can in these circumstances be no presurnption of a
fundamental or historic French right which must therefore be regarded
as still subsisting.
Thirdly-the French title rnust accordingly be affirmatively estab-
lished by the ordinary process, that is to Say by showing that France has
actually exercised sovereign rights over the disputed islands, and that
State authority has been asserted sufficiently actively and sufficiently
continuously to create and maintain title. This iswhat the French case
has failed to do.
Fourthly-the French clairn faiIs in the field both of activity and of
continuity. This isitsgreat deficiency,and no onewho reads the pleadings
can fail to be stmck by the way the French case concerns itself with
attempting to refute the British case, rather than with affirmatively
showing concrete evidences of French title.
Fiftkly-there has consequently been a complete failure to manifest
that continuous display of State activity and authority which inter-
national law requires. No doubt the degree of activity and continuity
required depends upon the circumstances of each case, But, granted that
a slight degree might have sufficed if these islands had been unclaimed
by any other country, this cannot be so where there is an active com-
peting daim in the field.
Sixihly-and lastly-al this is in marked contrast to the United
effective exerciseof sovereignty back through the Kings of England, as
successors of the Dukes of Normandy, to William Longsword himself) ;
a clairn no less compelling physically and geographically ;and incom-
parably supenor as regards both the degree and continuity of the actual
State authority manifested. In short, Mr. President, can it not fairly be
said that it is only England that lias ever actually ruled these islands ?
Throughout history, even on her own showing, France has merely stood
in the wings of the theatre holding in her hand, as it were, the script
of a great piece that has never been acted. However great the actress-
and there is no greater than France-it is still neceçsary for her to play
the role ! This is what she has never done. [Public ssittinof Se$dember181h,Ig53w ,ning]
Mr. President and Members of the Court :
Against the general background of the case which 1 tried to sketch
for you yesterday, 1want this rnorning to highlight certain legalconsider-
ations and certain decisions of international tribunals. My colleagues
and 1shail, of course, where appropriate, cite authority on particuIar
points as we go along. But the precedents I want to discuss now relate
tothe case as a wholeandthey caver two questions of major importance.
These are :first, how should a tribunal called upon to decide between
two competing claimsto the sarneterritory, or island, or group of islands
-how should such a tribunal approach its task ? Secondly, what is it
necesçary to establish in order lo prove çovereignty over territory, in '
a case where there is a campeting claim in the field ?
First, as to the question of approach. 1 would like to make some very
general preiiminq remarks. Where a claim to territorial sovereignty
is involved, there are obviously several possible ways of proceeding. One
way, for instance-and this seems to be the way which appeals to the
French Government-would be to detemine that, at a certain date,
the title lay with one of the parties, and then to decide in favour of
that party, unless subsequently something positive has occurred to
deprive that party of its title and vest it in the other party. 1shall hope
to show that this particular method wouId be neither correct nor scien-
tific, because the doctrine now clearly established by international law
is that a title which existed at some pst time is not sufficient by itself
to constitule titleat a laterdate, udless ithas in the meantime been
supported and kept up by effective possession, and by actual exercise
of the sovereignty claimed. A mere negative in the sense that there is
no deprivation isnot enongh.
In our Memorial we adopted what was, 1 think, the natural niethod
of presenting Our case-at any rate, in an opening pIeading-narnely,
first, that we had an original title, deriving from the events of the Middle
Ages, and secondly, that it had always been kept up by the exerciseof
effective possession and control, articularly during the 1st century or
more. It does not, however, fo Plow that the Court must necessarily
consider the case period by period. Indeed, 1 shall show Iater that
according to the authorities it would be unsound to ernbark on any
historical comparison of the strength of the tivo coüntries' claims at
successive penods of time, and that the right method is to take each
country's claim asa whole and asit stands now, and then to decide
which isthe iveightier. Given that what ha been çubmitted to the Court
by the Compromis is the question whether the sovereignty over the
groups respectively belongs to-day to the United Kingdom or to the
French Republic, the Court might begin by reviewing the case from the
standpoint of to-day, and determine what the position appears to be
now, and which of the two countries is at present exercising the effective
sovereignty over the groups. If it appears that one of them iç in fact
doing so, and if it appears further that this exercise of sovereignty is not
in violation of any clear nght of the other Party, and that it has been
going on for an appreciable period, then we believe that the Court could,
on these grounds alone, declare the sovereignty to be vested in that Party, and need not attempt the difficult task of piercing the mists of
antiquity or delving into the mystenes of feudal tenures. This method
of approach finds very strong support from certain passages in the
famous Eastern Greedand case, decided by the Permanent Court of
International Justice in 1933, from which it appears that the Court
was prepared to uphold the Danish claim in that case on the basis of
evidence that was very recent, and almost on the bais of such evidence
alone.I quote from pages 63-64of the Officia1Report :
"Even if the period from 1921 to JuIy ~oth, 1931 s taken by
itself and without reference to the preceding periods, the con-
clusion reached by the Court is that during this time Denmatk
regarded herself as possessing sovereignty over ail Greenland and
displayed and exercised her sovereign rightsto an extent sufficient
to constitute a valid title to sovereignty. LVhen considered in
conjunction with the facts of the preceding periods, the case in
favour of Denmark is confirmed and strengthened."
And then later :
"It folIows from the above that the Court is satisfied that Den-
mark has succeeded in establishing her contention that at the
critical date, namely, July ~oth, 1931 ,he possessed a valid title
to the sovereignty over al1Greenland."
There is also a passage in Judge Huber's judgment in the Island of
Palmas case (to which 1 shdl refer again in more detail later) attri-
buting exactly the sarne kind of importance to the evidence of recent
events.
If, however, the Court should consider it necessary to determine
what was the position as it stood in the Middle Ages, there would seem
to be two possibiIities, although in practice they Iead to very similar
results. As 1 have said, we should deprecate an approach to thiscase
based on a stage by stage historical comparison of the strength of
the two countries' cases at successive periods. Nevertheless, it may be
that the Court will wish to make that cornpanson, and in that case
we ccrtainly do not fear it. In that case, one possibility is that the
Court will think that ai the close of the Middle Ages-say, about the
end of the fifteenth century-one of the Parties was defmitely exer-
cising the effective sovereignty over the groups, and appears to have
been the sovereign. But whether that Party is still the sovereign now
eigntye;eand, in order to determine this, the Court must look to morever-
recent events.
The other possibility would be that the Court might conçider the
position at the close of the Middle Ages to have been so obscure and
uncertain that it is unable to determine definitely which of the two
countnes was then the sovereign. The Court might also feel that, after
that date and up to the nineteenth century, there occurred a long
period the events of which throw relatively little new light on the title
of either Party. If the Court shouId hold that this was the situation,
then we suggest that no other course would be open to it than to have
regard to the position asit has developed in more recent times, and
in particular during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and todecide the case by determining which of thetwo countries on thewhole
exercised effective sovereignty during that period.
We believe that there is in fact no doubt at al1that the Middle Ages
closed with the effective sovereignty over the groups Iying with, and
exercised by, the English Crown, We do submit, however, that if there
is any doubt about the medieval position, or about where the title
lay at the end of the Middle Ages, the Court can only have regard
to more recent events, and on the basis of those events must award
the çovereignty to the United Kingdom, which alone has exercised it
effectivelyduring the last century and more.
However, as 1 said earlier, Our view is that the approach based on
a stage by stage cornparison of the position of the two countries at
successive periods is not the best one, and 1 want to suggest to the
Court another, and we think a better, method of approaching the
case. This question is of such importance that Ivefeel guidance on it
should be sought from some of the previous decisions of international
tribunals on title to territory. 1 propose therefore to examine-though
quite shortly-the method adopted in one of the rnost cdebrated and
also, as it happens, one of the most recent of these cases:namely, the
Island of Palmas case, decided in 1928 by Judge Huber, a former
President of the Permanent Court of International Justice, sitting as
arbitrator.
As the Court knows, the Island of Palmas case concerned a dispute
between the United States and the Netherlands over the sovereignty
of the Island of Palmas in the Pacific, and Judge Wuber fixed the
critical date at 1898,being the date of a treaty under which the United
States succeeded to the rights of Spain in respect of the island-if,
that is, Spain herself had any right~, which was the question in the
case. By the term "critical date" is meant the date by reference to
which-or rather, by reference to the legal and factual position existing
at which-the respective rights of the parties are to be determined.
In the Palmas case, as I say, thiç date was fixed at 1898, and each
side claimed that it was entitled ta sovereignty at that date. The
Netherlands claimed sovereignty by virtue sirnply of a display of
State authority, exercised since 1677 . he United States, as successor
to Spain, claimed sovereignty principally by virtue of the Spanish
discovery of the island in the sixteenth century, and this discovery,
it was argued, had created a title which was still intact and had nat
been Iost by 1898. The United States also claimed soverei nty on
the ground of the contiguity of the Island of Palmas to the Phi&ppines,
The Court will readily perceive that the French basis of claim in the
present case is not unlike what the United States basis was in the
Palmas case, and exhibits many of the same features ;whereas the
United Kingdom case here is more like that of the Netherlands in
the Palmas case.
The first point 1 want to draw attention to in the Palmas case is
Judge Huber's method of approach. He did not start by going back
to the earliest date mentioned in the case, or by comparing the titles
of the competing parties at that date, and then at each successive
moment in the time since. Nor did he adopt the opposite course of
working backwards fromthe criticaldate, again comparing the titles
of the competing parties at difierent dates as he went further and ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR L.HEALD (u.K.)-18 IX 53
49
iurther back. At first sight, it might seem that eitherof these methods
-would have been the correct one to adopt. Historically, that might
be so. But, on consideration, it appears that, legaliy, these methods
.would be stultifying. A true legal cornparison of the respective titles
.as a whole would not be possible. That, no doubt, is why Judge Huber
followed a method which, it would seem, is the only feasible legal
:method. Instead of working purely chronologically, either fonvards
.or backwards, he studied and analyzed first the one title by itself,
.and the other by itself, then the firstagain, comparing the two titles
not in terms of the moment, but in respect of their legal weight, taken
.as a whole over the whole period. Thus, he began by considering the
United States title based on discovery. He found this title to have
been good originally, but then he found that it had not been main-
.tained in accordance with the requirernents of international law as
that had evolved in the intervening period. He then considered the
'United States arguments based on other grounds, such as the contiguity
of the Island of Palmas to the Philippines, and he found them to be
.incorrect or insufficient. From this he passed to a consideration of
.the Netherlands title. This was based on the display of State authority
since 1677, and he found that ground of title to be sufficient. FinaUy,
he reverted to the United States claim again, saying (1 quote from
p. gro of the report in Volume 22 of the American Jofrrnalof Inter-
.national Law) :
"The conditions of acquisition of çobereignty by the Nether-
lands are therefore to be considered as fulfilled. It remains now
to be seen whether the United States as successors of Spain are
in a position to bring fonvard an equivalent or stronger title,
This is to be answered in the negative."
So, he concluded (and the reference is to the same page) (1 quote) : .
"The Netherlands titleof sovereignty, acquired by continuous
and peaceful display of State authority during a long period of
tirne going probably back beyond the year 1700, therefore holds
good."
If, as 1 venture to hope, the Court adopts the same general method
(of approach as did Judge Huber in the Palmas case, it will obviously
'be sirnply a matter of convenience whether the Court examines the
French claim first,or examines the United Kingdom daim first, so
long as each is examined as a whole, and the results-again as a whole
-are compared, and the decision given is in favour of whichever claim
is the stronger. 1 would venture to submit, however, tliat the Court
.may firiit simplest to examine the French case first, for reasons which
will, 1 think, appear sufficiently clearly as we develop our case and
.which will be strongly reinforced by Mr. Fitzmaurice's address, and
therefore 1 shall not enlarge upon that aspect of the matter now.
1 have tried to show that Our general method of approach has the
support of a great judge in the person of Judge Huber.
1corne now to the second broad question of law-what is it necessary
to establish in order to prove sovereignty over territory in a case where
there is a cornpeting claim ? Here again the Palmas case is relevant,
and 1 shall begin with that and then go on to the Eastern Greenland
case, to which 1 have already referred. May 1 just recall the relevant facts in the Palmas case. The Nether-
lands, it will be remembered, claimed the island by virtue of having
exercised authority from 1677 onwards. The United States, however,
claimed title on the ground that Spain had ceded the island to the
United States by the Treaty of Paris of 1898 ; and that Spain had
titlein 1898 and was, thcrefore, capable of ceding it to the United
States. According to the United States, Spain was entitled to sover-
eignty over Palmas in 1898 because she had discovered it in the six-
teenth century, and becaus~r so it ivas said-nothing had happened
since then "of a nature, in international law, to cause the acquired
title to disappear". Now il is not open to doubt that to-day, in the
twentieth century, bare discovery dues not in itaelf give an absolute
and final right to sovereignty. It gives nothing mare than what is
called an "inchoate right", that is, it "acts", as Oppenheim says, "as
a temporary bar to occupation by another State for such a pen'od as
is reasonably sufficient for effectively occupying the discovered tcrri-
tory". (1quote from Oppenheim's Inter~zationalLaw, 7th Ed., Volume
r,, p. 5ro.) Judge Huber, however, decided that he must estimate the
. effect of the Spanish discovery in the light of the law of the sixteenth
century. At page 883 of the Report in Volume 22 of the American
Journal O/ I~lernadional Law, Judge Huber is reported as having
said (1 quote) :
"A juridical fact must béappreciated in the light of the law
contemporary with it, and not of the law in force at the ,tirne
when a dispute in regard to it arises or falls to be settled."
Now the Iaiv of the sixteenth century was not cIear, but an arguable
hypothesis-and the one most favourable to the United States-was that
in the sixteenth century mere discovery did give an absolute right to
sovereignty. Judge Huber proceeded, therefore, tocoasider tIie case on
the basis of that hypothesis. Assuming, he said in effect, that Spain was
entitled to sovereigntyover Palmas in the sixteenth century, nevertlielesç
(1quote from the same page of the report) "the question arises whether
sovereigntyyet existed at the cntical date, i.e. the moment of conclusion
and coming into force of the Treaty of Paris". It was here that he
developed the principle usually known as the principle of the inter-
temporal law to the effect that (1again quote from the same page ofthe
same report) :
"The same principle which subjects the act creative of a right
to the law in force at the time the right arises, demands that the
existence of the rjght, in other words its continued manifestation,
shall follow the conditionsrequired by the evolution of law."
Further expanding this principle, Judge Huber said that, if a dispute
over sovereignty arkes, and the other party contends that it has actually
diçplayed sovereignty (p. 87j of the report) :
"itcannot be suficient [i.e. for the first party] to establish the title
by which territorial sovereignty was validly acquired at a certain
moment ;it must also be shown that the territorial sovereignty has
continued to exist and did existat the moment which for the decision
of the dispute must be considered as critical. This demonstration
consists in the actual display of State activities, such as belongs
only to the territorial sovereign." ORA ALRGUMENT OF SIR L. HEALD (u.K.)-18 IX 53 51
He alço said this, at the next page (p. 876of the report):
"The growing insistence with which international law, ever since
the middle of the eighteenth century, has demanded that the occu-
pation shall be effective would be inconceivable, if effectivenesswere
required only for the act of acquisition and not equalIy for the '
maintainance of the right."
Finally, on the same page, he said :
"International law, the structure of which is not based on any
as territorialgsovereignty, with bewhich almost al1 internationalch
relations are bound up, to the category of an abstract right, without
concrete manifestations."
The Court will see how relevant aU this is in view of Ourcontention
thatFrance never had anything but an abstract right in the present
case-if indeed she had even that-and, further, that this right is not
now suficient by itself, and that it has never been kept up by effective
possession and control.
Judge Huber equally found that Spain's original right (if it ever
existed) had not been the subject of any cantinued exercise in accord-
evoIved during the succeeding century. He found that, from the middle
of the eighteenth century onwards, whatever had been the situation l
previously, it was quite clear that bare discovery without effective
occupation no longer gave an absolute right to sovereignty. (Here, 1
urould interpolate, does an abstract feudal title give any better right
to-day, if that is al1 that there is?) Spain's title based on discovery,
therefore, had not been followed up b the necessary exercise of sover-
eignty. There had not, in short, been t$e necessary display of authority:
whereas, from 1677onwards, the NetherIands East India Company had
been in a contractual relationshipwith the native chiefs of Palmas. This
relationship made the native chiefs the agents of the Company, whose
acts (again having regard to the international law of that time) were to
be assimilated to the acts of the Netherlands State itself. At the very
time, therefore, when, above al!, manifestations of Spain's right and a
display of Spain's authority ought to have occurred, such manifestations
and display were not forthcoming. For that reason, quite apart from
any question of abandonment, Spain's rigth, if it ever had existed,
had laysed. Since Spain's title had lapsed through not having been
continuously manifested, Spain was eo i$so no Ionger entitled to
sovereignty; and, as Judge Huber proceeded to Say, on page 884 of
the report :
"and in so faras there is no sovereignty, the question of an abandon-
ment properly speaking of sovereignty by one State in order that
the sovereignty of another may take its place does not arise".
In short, if a State does not, on the facts, possess sovereignty, there
isno need to show that it abandoned it, for there was nothing to abandon.
This is our answer to France's daim that France never abandoncd her
sovereignty. She simply lost it-that is to Say, if she ever had it-and
she lost it by failure to exercise it-while another country did exercise it.
What concerns us here is the principle-applied in the Palmas case-52 ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR L. HEALD (u.K.)-18 IX 53
that, where you have a State claiming sovereignty to-day on the 'bais
of a title that may have been valid several hundred years ago, it is not
enough for that State sirnply to assert or invoke the original title and
nothing else. That title is subjcct to the law of events, in other words to
the inter-temporal law, with its requirement of continued manifestations
of sovereignty. Now "continued manifestation" is admittedly a relative
term. 1 am not suggesting3hat a title good in itselfwiil necessarily and.
always lapse for want of outward manifestation. But 1 do suggeçt that
when "continued manifestation" is actively. calied for, for example,
when title is challenged thraugh the display of State activities by.
another State, then there must either be "continued manifestation" or.
else the title will lapse. It is signifiant that Judge Huber never actually
found that Spain had "abandoned her title. "Abandonment" was in
fact never proved. But this was not necessaq. What Judge Huber-
found was not indeed that Spain had expressly "abandoned her title
but that she had in effect lost it because the Netheriandç, the State
relying on the display of State activities at the later date, had becorne.
sovereign over the island.
It isno lesssignificant that J'udgeHuber did not find itnecessary to
say at what precise moment in time the title passed from Spain to the.
Netherlands-as it must, in his view, have done at some time. On.
page go8 of the report he said :
"It isnotnecessaq that the display of [Netherlands] sovereignty
should be established as having begun at a precise epoch ;it suffices-
that it had existed at thc critical periad preceding the year 1898.
It is quite natural that the establishment of sovereignty may be
the outcome of a slow evoIution, of a progressive intensification of-
State control."
Now, if this is the test-the "progressive intensification of State con--
trol"-1 would submit that it is precisely fulfilled by the United King-
dom in the present case, whose action in relation to the disputed groups.
is perfectly described by this phrase. So faras France is concerned, on.
the other hand, the storg is one of the progressive loss of any control.
originally had, until finally none at al1remains.
Judge Huber, therefore, looking at the Palmas case as a whole,.
found that, though Spain had title to the island in the sixteenth
century, the Netherlands had title to it in the period jrnmedjately-
preceding the critical date. In adopting this approach, he clearly
accepted the proposition which had been put forward by the Nether--
lands Government in their pleadings. 1 quote £rom page 21 of the,
Netherlands Counter-Tilernorial in the case, where it was said :
"a title to territory is not a legal relation in international law.
whose existence and elements are a matter of one single moment
....the changed conceptions of law developing in later times.
cannot be ignored in judging the continued legal value of relations.
which, instead of being consummated and terminated at one
single moment, are of a permanent character".
That is a praposition which seems to us singularly well put, and which.
we have no hesitation in endorsing and commending to the attention.
of the Court. ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR L.HEALD (u.K.)-18 IX 53 53
May 1 now summarize the basic legal pnnciples wbich I suggest
are to be derived from Judge Huber's award and apply them to the
faThe first pnnciple which emerges is that to which 1 referred already,
namely, that the Court wili not attempt to make a stage by stage
cornparison of the strength of the titles of the two Parties at successive
periods, but will rather subrnit each title to an independent examination
mvering the whole period, and then balance the Iegal weight of one
title against the legal weight of the other.
The second principle which emerges from the Palmas case is the
principle of the inter-temporal law. As applied to this case, the principle
can be stated in this form :that, not only must claims to sovereignty
based on rnedieval feudal Iaw be examined in the iight of that law,
but al50 that any such claims, if put forward as stiU valid to-day,
must be examined in the light of international law as it has developed
during the intervening centuries and, in particular, in the light of
what international law, as it now stands, requires in order to con-
stitute a title to territory. Applyingthat principle to the present case,
we Say, quite simply, that the United Kingdom here had a good title
under medieval law and has effectively maintained it ever since.
We also Say that, even if France had the original title under medieval
law, this is not enough, unIess France has effectively maintained it-
particularly when even the original title is of a decidedly abstract
character. It is not enough to show a title that existed-if it did-
some seven or eight centuries ago, and thereafter simply to rely on
a presumed continuance of the title, when France has not in the
meantime maintained it by any concrete act or by any actual exercise
of sovereignty.
The United Kingdom, on the other hand, has actively performed
State functions-or, as Judge Wuber described it, "State activities"-
regarding the disputed groups continuously over a very long period,
to-day, such as entitIes it to be regarded as sovereign over them now.
It is not necessary for the United Kingdom to prove either aban-
donment by France of her original title (ifany), or the precise moment,
or epoch, at which.United Kingdom sovereignty began (if it was not
originally with us) : it is sufficient that the exercise and display of
concrete United Kingdom authority has long existed, and can be
demonstrated during the cntical later period,while France has never
displayed any such authority at au. In these simple propositions is
really contained the whole substance of the case-and ail these proposi-
tions have, as 1 hope 1 have shown, an incontrovertible legal basis
in the Palmas Award.
One consequence, at any rate, which does seem to emerge with
great clanty from the Palmas case, is this-that the Court should
not, 1respectfuiiy suggat, allow one of the Parties to assume a position
in which it argues, or appears to argue, that, because of sorne particular
event which occurred at some particular time in the past, it has finally
discharged the burden of proof so far as it is concerned;has established
a firima facietitle;and can view the rest of the proceedings as a mere
spectator cnticizing the other Party's efforts to displace this alleged
prima facie titl! If any Party were entitled to assume that position
in this case, it would be the United Kingdom, as a result of the fact54 ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR L.HEALD (u.K.)-18 IX 53
-which is beyond dispute-that it was the United Kingdom which
was actually exercising the rights, and indeed the duties, of a State
in regard to both the Minquiers and the Ecréhousat the time when
the dispute was referred to this Court, and indeed is exercising them
at the present moment, Nevertheless, the United Kingdom does not
claim for itself any such position. As regards Our opponents, on the
other hand, they do seern to appear to claim for themselves just that
position-for example on page 689 of the Rejoinder when they say (1
quote) : "the United Kingdom has no title to the sovereignty of the
Anglo-Norman islands Save that of long possession, which it musl
prot.e,i?zeachindividual case",and they underline the last phrase as
~fto irnplythat no such burden of proof can lie upon them. The impli-
cation of this is, of course, that the original title which Ouropponents
claim for France, by virtue of the feudal overlordship ofthe French
Kings, must be presumed automatically to have continued, and still
to exist to-day, except to the extent that the United Kingdom can
demonstrate actual and long-continued possession. But, as we have
seen, and shall seeagain, as a matter oflaw there isno such presumption.
It is not enough for such a title to have existed at one tirne;it must
also have been kept up by the necessary display of continuity. There
is no presumption of continuity-at any. rate none such as would
suffice by itseif to keep a title alive over several centurieç-in the
facOur opponents of course profess to admit this principle-for, after
having cited the homage which the Duke of h'ormandy is supposed
to have done to the French King in the year 936, covering the Channel
Islands, and after stating that this constituted the "original legal
link" between France and the disputed islets, the French Rejoinder
went on to add (1quote frum p. 689 of the Rejoinder) "asufficie pnt-
session in conformity therewith has been established". But of this
possession and of its continuity into modern times, no proof is given.
Indeed no further singl weord is said about it. Itisindeed a feature
of the French case, as we have seen, that it presents practically no
affirmative evidence of any actual use of, occupation of, or exercise of
juriçdiction over, the islands by France. It relies almost exclusively
on the play of supposed presumptions, said to arise from history and
contiguity. If necessary, Mr. President, we can invoke history and
contiguitp too, but we certainly have no need to rely on those con-
siderations alone-and we do not do so.
1 now cd1 the attention of the Court to the Eastern Greenlandcase,
decided by the Permanent Court of International Justice in 1933. 1hope
it willnot be considered impertinent i1Saythat, coming to this matter
as a comparative stramger, 1 find that judgment one of particular logic
and clarity. It began by laying down certain general principles, two of
which were as follows (1 quote from pp. 45-46 of the Officia1Report).
The first passage is as follo:s
"Before proceeding to consider in detail the evidence submitted
to the Court, it may be well to state that a claim to sovereignty
based not upon some particular act or title such as atreaty ofces-
sion but merely upon continued display of authorjty, involves two
elements each of which must be shown to exist ; the intentionand
will toact as sovereign,and some actual exercise or display of such
authority."56 ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR L. HEALD (u.K.)-18 IX 53
has claimed and exercised sovereign rights over Greenland as a
whole for a long time and has obtained thereby a valid title to
sovereignT tye.date ai ivhichsuch Danish sovereignfymust have
existed in order to render the Nomegian occupation invalid is the
date at which the occupation took place, viz. July ~oth, 1931.
The Danish daim is not founded upon any particular act of
occupation but it alleges-to use the phrase employed in the Palmas
Island decision of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, April 4th,
1928-atitIe 'founded on the peaceful and continuous display of
State authority over the island'. It is based upon the view that
Denmark now enjoys ail the rights which the King of Denmark and
Nonvay enjoyed over Greenland up till 1814. Both the existence
and the extent of these rightsmust therefore be considered, as weU
as the Danish clah to sovereignty since that date."
Essentially, therefore, the Danish daim rested upon a mot of title
establiçhed in ancient tirnes-1 refer to the ancient rights of the Norwe-
gian Crown of which Denmark was the successor-supported by effective
possession in recent times ;or altematively upon the ground of effective
possession alone. 1 need nat pause here to remind the Court that it is
precisely upon those two grounds that the United Kingdam puts for-
ward its claim to-day. The French claim, on the other hand, appears t~
rest solelyon an alleged rootof title, not supported, or hardly supported,
by aay effective possession or control.
Mr. Presidcnt, it is never sound jurisprudence to reason £rom the
facts of one case to those of another, and I would particularly likc to
disclaim any attempt to discover any trivial or artificial analogy between
the Eastern Greenlandcase and the present one. What matters, of course,
are the principles which are laiddown in the judgment to which I have
referred. But it is interesting to note that the Danish claim there began,
as does the United Kingdom claim to-day, with the feature of a root of
title denved from a union of territories;the Danish daim was subject
to a gap in the evidencebetween ancient and modcrn times, just as ours
is to some cxtent, though far less so than the French case ;and, finally,
the Danish daim, like the United Kingdom claim to-day, although
rooted in the past, was ofa steadily grorvingstrength, being particularly
strong in the recent period imrnediately preceding the reference of the
dispute to the Court. Now it is substantially this Danish claim in the
Eastcrn G~eenla?zd case which we have to consider ;and this claim, as
we have seen, rested at lest in part upon a title many centuries old.
But the Court was not ready to uphold Denmark's claim solely on the
ground of the evidence of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries,
together with a presumption of non-abandonment, It required the medi-
eval title to be supported by a continued manifestation of that title :
in other words, by what was referred to as"the peaceful and continuous
display of State authority", or, as we should Say norv, by "effective
possession inrecent times'.This is the principle in the light of which the
French claim, based on a presumption of the continuance of an ancient
nght, should, as I subrnit, be tested.
Having found that sovereignty existed during the thirteenth and the
fourteenth centuries, the Court, in the Eastern Greenlandcase, went on
to consider the position during the sixteenth and the seventeenth cen-
turies, when the evidence of the actual exercise of sovereignty was- slightest.As to this period, theCourt found that although, as they said,
"the tradition of the King's rights lived on" and the Kings of Denmark
and Norway enjoyed what they described as a "special positioii ....
derived from the sovereign rights which accrued" during the earlier
period, this was not really sovereignty, for during the period of the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, "the King's clairns arnounted
merely to pretensions .... for he had no permanent contact with the
country, he was exercising no authonty there ...."This, we suggest,
applying the Permanent Court's Iangiiage to the present case, constitutes
an almost exact description of France's position in regard to the Min-
quiers and the Gcréhous for the last seven or cight centuries at least.
France's claims arnounted only to pretensions, for she had no permanent
contact with the groups and exercised no authority there,
Now mark what followed in the Eastern GreenEand case. The reason
why the Court eventually found in favour of Denmark was that, despite
this gap during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, State activ-
ities had been resumed in the eighteenth century, from 1721 onwards,
,and had been particularly elrident:in very recent times. This is precisely
what we mairitain has not occurred in the case of France with the Min-
quiers and Ecréhous. On the other hand, and even assurning that
there was a gap in the British exercise of State activity after the end
of the Middle Ageç, there was a clear resurnption of that activity from
the latter part of the eighteenth century onwards, which has continued
with ever-increasing vigour and variety until to-day.
1 would also draw the speciaI attention of this Court to the fact
that, although the Permanent Court stated that, in the case of thinly
populated or unsettled territory, international tribunal5 had often
been "satisfied with very Littlein the way of the actual exescise oE
sovereign rights", this \vas qualified by an important reservation :
' "provided that the other State could not make out a superior claim".
This shows that the essential issue in this kind of case is not so much
"What has each party done ?", but "i2'hich haç done the most ?" It
is just conceivable that, sypposing France to have had an original
title to the Minquiers and Ecréhous, this might have simply continued
even without any concrete display of State authority, provided France
had been alone in the field-although we believe that both the Eastern
Greenland and the Palmas cases are against the view that, evcn m
that case, these rights would have continued indefinitely. Rut with
an actively competing claim in the field,over the whole period, any
such original rights were bound to suffer extinction unless supported
by effective possession and control, and by the active exercise of State
authority. The fact that the disputed groups are so close to France
only serves to emphasize this position ; for this fact made it incumbent
on France to assert lier sovereignty, if she clairned it. That is what
France has never done. Indeed, one really might say that it is fantastic
to consider the extent to which, and the length of tirne during which,
France has allowed England, and later the United Kingdom, to exer-
cise the actual authority over these groups, if çhe herself was realty
claiming sovereignty over them.
1 would like to draïv attention to one further point in the Eastern
Greenlandcase. It was there one of the pillars of the Nonvegian argu-
ment that, although Denrnark rnight. have proved her title in regard
to Western Greenland, slie had not proved it in regard to Greenland ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR L. HEALD (u.K.)-18 IX 53
5s
as a whole, or in particular to Eastern Greenland-and further that
there was no forma1proof of theacquisition of sovereigntyby Denmark
through any particular act at any particular time. Here 1 shall quote
a passage from page 374 of the Norwegian Counter-Memorial, with
which 1 shallcompare in a moment some of the language used in the
French pleadings. The French language of the Norwegian Counter-
Mernorial was as follows :
"Il convient de souligner qu'il incombe au Gouvernement
danois de prouver l'exactitude de son affirmation suivant laquelle
le Danemark aurait acquis au xviIrmc siècle la souveraineté sur
l'ensemble du Groënland. C'est également à lui de démontrer
à quel moment précis et au moyen de quels actes définis ladite
acquisition de souveraineté aurait lieu."
The Permanent Court rejected the entire Norwegian thesis, and, as
regards the geographical point, it saiù (1 quote from p. 49 of the
Official Report):
"This is a point as to which the burden of proof lies on Norway.
The geographical meaning of the word 'Greenland', ive. the name
which is habitually used in the maps to denomiriate the whole
island, must be regarded as the ordinary meaning of the word.
Ifit is alleged by one of the Parties that some unusual or exceptional
rneaning isto be attributed toit, it lies on thaParty to establish
its contention. In the opinion of the Court, Konvay has not
succeeded in establishing her contention,"
So one sees that the Court entirely rejected the Norwegian legal
approach on that point.
1 now quote the following passage from page 377 of the French
Counter-Mernorial in the present case (similar passages will bc found
in the Rejoinder) :
"Mais, comme on va le voir, laGrande-Bretagne n'a d'autre
titre qu'une longue possession sur des îles qui traditionnellement
faisaient partie du duchéde Normandie : c'est à elle qu'il incombe
de faire la preuve de sa possession pour chacune de ces îles."
We suggest, in the light of thEastern Greenland case, that this passage
from the French Counter-hlemorial puts the matter exactly the wrong
way round, and that they have in a surprising way ignored the very
important and celebrated judgrnent to which 1 have referred in the
Enstern Greenland case. In fact, in that case one would almost accuse
them (it was said in avery different connection) of having learnt nothing
and forgotten nothing. Once it is established that we were in possession
of the whole of the Channel Islands before 1204, when Pliilip II of
France annexed continental Normandy, the presumption is that we
went on being in possession of it, unless the contrary can be shown.
We do not have to proue a possession which we already had. Similarly,
if it can be shown that we were in possession of the major Channel
Islands (which our opponents do not deny), the natural presumption
js that, a fortior we,were in possession of the minor ones as well. If
the French can show that they took from us by force some of these,
our undoubted rightful possessions, or that they took them over in
some other way, well and good. This was the eventual position as ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR L. HEALD (u.K.)-18 IX 53 59
regards the Chausey group. But our opponents have dot shown, and
they cannot show, any similar taking over of the Minquiers or the
Jhréhous. In so far as presumptionç govern the matter, therefore,
the presumption would be that these groups-unquestionably in Our
rightful possession prior to ~zoq-continued to be so afterwards.
1 have gone into these points arising out of the Eastern Greenland
case in some detail, in the hope of showing how similar some of the
arguments we are now hearing from the French side are to those put
forward by Norway, and rejected by the Permanent Court, twenty
years ago.
Perhaps 1 might now brieAy summarize the principal conclusions
which can be dra~vn from this case. First, there waç the reaffirmation
by the Permanent Court of various principles adopted by Judge Huber,
such as that of examining the competing titles, not piecemeal, but
over the whole period, and of attributing especial weight to the later
period ; and, above all,there was the principle of the inter-temporal
law, according to which, although "a juridical fact must be appreciated
in the light of the law contemporary with it", it is also not sufficient
for one party to establish the title by which territorial sovereignty
was validly acquired at some past moment, but "it must also be
shown that the territorial sovereignty has continued to exist and did
exist at the moment which for the decision of the dispute must be
regarded as criticai".
Secondly, there was the emphasis placed by the Permanent Court on
the predominant Danish State activityduring the later period, without
which the medieval title would hardly have sufficed,in view of the
gap during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; and it would
certainly not have sufficed if there had been any competing claim. It
will be recollected that the Nonvegian proclamation of sovereignty was
not made untii 1931, and was based on the allegation that Eastern
Greenland \vas then res nirilizrThus the Permanent Court in effect held
that a medieval title, supported by effective possession in recent tirnes,
was a sufficient title under modern international law, but that, without
the evidence of effective possession in recent tirnes, such a title was
insufficient .
Thirdly, there was the statement by the Permanent Court to the
effect that iwas not necessary for Denmark to prove the actual exercise
of her sovereignty over the whole of Greenland, but that, ifDenmark
could prove the exercise of sovereignty over Greenland asa whole, it was
for Nonvay to show that this sovereignty did not extend over any
particular part of the territory.
hlr. President,I have now completed my survey of the two legal
authorities which, as 1suggest, wiil be helpful tothe Court in consider-
ation of this rnatter, and that brings me tothe end of the remarks which
1 wish to rnake. 1 would only like to add this with regard tothe law,
that 1 would respectfully suggest that this is a case which we are always
glad to find, inthe application of legal principles, where those legal
principles enable us to reach a result which is consistent with practical
realities and common sense. 1have emphasized to you in the earlier part
of my remarks the importance which is attached by Jersey to what has
actually happened during the last hundred years and more, and the
authorities which 1have referred to this morning and yesterday confirm
me, I think,in the submksion that, in the circumstanws of this case,it is quite wrong to say-as is said by my learned friend Professor Gros
-that one must ignorewhat has been happening duringthe last hundred
years :on the other hand, that is perhaps the most important and decisive
feature in the ~vholecase.
1 do not think it would be right for me to recapitulatein any waywhat
1 have said. 1 pointed out to the Court at the start that 1 myself could
nat claim the qualifications which would justify me in going into any
detail intechnical arguments, and 1 have therefore refrained from doing
so. But 1 am sure the Court would not draw from that the inference that
1am nui attaching importance to detailed technical questions. Far from
it.1am leaving those to my excellent collaborators who will now proceed
to address you, and 1 hope the Court will not think it out of place if 1
were to pay a tribute to those whose great industry and abilitjl haç
resulted in the collectioof the material inthis case. Whatever our other
disagreements may be, I am sure that Professor Gros will agree with
me that this is a remarkably docurnented case. That result could not
have been attained without great industry and great skill, and 1 hope
that the Court wiUbe as grateful as 1 certainly am to those who have
so patientIy assembled the material.
1 willnow ask my Iearned friend, Mr. -Fitzmaurice, to address you,
to be followed by Professor IVade and Mr. Hamson, and I am quite
sure that they, in their respective spheres of the case, wili give you a
most valuable and interesting detailed statement of the case of the
United Kingdom. 2. ORAL ARGUMENT OF Bir. FITZMAURICE
(COUNSEL FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM)
AT THE PUBLIC SITTINGSOF SEPTEMBER 18th TO ZIS~,1953
[Publi citting of Sefitemb18th,1953, afternoon]
Mr. President and hlembers of the Court :
Itfa& to me to cmy out the lest attractive part of the presentation
of the United Kingdom case. For instance, the medieval part, which
you will be told about later, contains details of great historic interest
and is full of picturesque and even romantic incidents, ina sense this
whole case has sprung from a romantic incident-the fact that King
John of England, in the year 1202, cast a covetous eye on Isabella of
Angoulème, the betrothed of orle of his vassals, and he married her.
And this was the direct pretext for the arrêt,r judgment, that led to
King Philip of France's appropriation of Normandy, and indirectly to
our presence here to-day. However, much as 1 should like to do so, 1
cannot enlarge on any of that. The part allotted ta me in this case is
about nothing more exciting than fish, or, strictly speaking, oysters.
Now oysters are good to eat, but not very inspiring matenal for legal
argument. Nevertheless, it is on these oysters that a large part of the
argument which I have to present to you turns. For it is my task to
deal with the question of the critical date in this case, and that question
depends largely on the construction of a provision about oysters in a
Fishery Convention concluded between the United Kingdom and France
in 1839. My task is to try and convince you that this Convention is
irrelevant to the present proceedings, and that the cntical date in this
case-that is to Say, the date in relation to which the question ofsover-
eignty over the Minquiers and the Écréhousshould be determined-is
not the date of this Fishery Convention concluded now 114years ago,
but that it is,,on the contrary, December zgth1950 ,he date on which
the Special Agreement or Compromis submitting the present dispute to
the Court was signed.
WeU, now, the first thing 1 should perhaps do is to indicate what 1
mean by the idea of a critical date. 1 think it can be defined by saying
that the critical date in a dispute about sovereignty over tenitisthe
existing at which-thewhmeritsofrthe parties' claims should be adjudged.ion
It isin fact, the date on which the situation is deemed to have become
crystallized or, as it were, in modernanguage, frozen. The acts of the
parties aftcr that date cannot alter the legal position, so as either to
improve or prejudice the clajm of either party. In the present case,
therefore, unless1 can convince the Court that the 1950 date is the
correct one, the respective claims of the Parties will, subject to one
point I shall mention much later, have tobe evaluated on the basis of
the position as it existed in 1839, and without reference to the events
that have occurred since. The Courtwiii have to ignore everything that
taok place between 1839 and 1950 . e believe, and we hope the Courtwill feel, that this would not be the right course, and that to acccept a
date su remote as r839 would involve a serious distortion of the main
issue involved in this case, narnely, to which of the two countries does
the sovereignty belong now. 1 shall try to show that, if the date 1839
were to be accepted, it might become very difficult for the Court togive
a definite answer to this question, which is the question put to the Court
in the Compromis.
Now at this point, and before 1 start to develop my argument, I
should like to recaU how this contention that 1839 is the cntical date
has corne to be put fonvard. It really started when our opponents, in
their Counter-Memonal, suddenly suggested that, because of the Fishery
Convention of 1639, both Parties were disqualified from clairning any
exclusive sovereignty over the disputed grou S.This seemed to us to be
an astonishing contention, because it seernec!so clearly contrary tu the
whole basis of the very Agreement-the Compromis-submitting the
matter to the Court, and also to be inconsistent with the basis of the
Fishery Agreement of 1951, which was drafted and ratified simulta-
neously with the Compromis as part ofone final anddefinitive settlement
of the whole question of the Minquiers and the Ecréhous-both of which
agreements the Parties had only just entered into.
1 shall hope to show that the present French contention-that 1839
is the critical date-is no less contrary to the basis of the Compromis
and of the 1951 Fisheq Agreement than was their former contention
about total disqualification. 'Io begin with, we believe that the Com-
promis not only contemplates a definite finding on the question of
sovereignty, but also contemplates that this finding will be arrived at
on the basis of the position as it is to-day, and not of the position as it
was or may have been in 1839. And here 1 think I must tell the Court
frankly-and 1 must also tell Our opponents-that we on the United
Kingdom side would never have agrced to submit this dispute to the
Court at al1on the basis that a11the evidence of the last 114 years was
to be ignored, and that the matter was to be decided in the light of the
position as it stood in 1839. Had such an idea been mentioned in the
irnmediate stop. And not only the negotiations for the Compromis, butan
also those for the Fishery Agreement. No~vit isno secret that itwaç the
Fishery Agreement to which our opponents attached importance, and
it is no secret that they would only agree to submit the question of
sovereignty to the Court if the Fishery Agreement was sirnultaneously
concluded. This Fishery Agreement finally settled the position of the old
1839Fishery Convention because it provided that this 1839Convention
should bqinterpreted as conferring equal fishery rights at the Minquiers
and the Ecréhous. We-in our innocence if 1 may so put it-imagined
that that was the end of the 1839Fishery Convention. Had we had any
inkling of the use which our opponents intended to make of this old
Convention when it came to the question of sovereignty,we would not
have ratified the Fishery Agreement and the Compromis without a
clear understanding that the sovereignty issue was to be decided on
the position as it stands now and not açit stuod in 1839.
Now the Fishery Agreement of 1951 is in force to-day. The Court
will remember what the effect of it is. Perhaps1 might just recapitulate
thal. Whatever the putcome of the present proceedings, fishery at the
Minquiers and the Ecréhous is common except that in certain limited ORAL ARGUMENT OP Mr.FITZMAURICE (u.K.)-18 IX 53
63
zones, whichever country is found by the Court to have the sovereignty
wili be entitled to grant exclusive fishery rights to its own nationals.
These zones are restricted to a belt of only one third or one half of a
mile round some four main islets or rocks which are specified.And, more-
over, the relevant provisions are so drawn as to aIlowfor the possibility
that the Court might findin favour of one Party as regards the gcrkhous,
and in favour of the other Party as regards the Minquiers-and they
are even drawn in such a way as to provide, as far as .the Minquiers iç
concerned, for the possibility that the Court might find that each Party
has sovereignty over a difierent part of the group. Pending the decision
of the Court, fishing is common over the whole area of the groups, and
this isin force now. Furthemore, even when the Court has rendered
its decision, fishingwillremaiîr.common over al1 parts of the groups
outside the limited specified zones. So it seems to us that our opponents
have had full satisfaction on the fishery question, and therefore-if 1
may put it so-it seems to us that they should be prepared to allow the
issue of sovereignty to be decided on its merits instead of on the unreal
and artificial basis that would be involved by treating 1839 as the
critical date.
IYell, as 1 said just now, Our opponents began by arguing that the
effectof the 1839 Convention was to disqualify the Parties entirely from
claimirtg any exclusive sovereignty. They appear now to have yielded
to the view that this would make nonsense of the Compromis and the
1951 Fishery Agreement. But-and 1 would ask the Court to note this-
they have re-introduced the sarne argument in another form. They agree
that the Parties are not disqualified now, but they Say that by reason
of the 1839 Convention the Parties were disqualified between 1839 and
1950, because, by the Convention-according to our opponents-the
Parties undertook, or must be deemed to have undertaken, not toassert
any exclusive sovereignty. They have released themselves and each
other from that particular restriction now, but, since-according to our
opponents-the restriction still existed up to 1950, the Parties-or at
any rate the United Kingdom-may not invoke in stipport of their
'daims anything that occurred during this rather lengthy period of 112
1eam sure, how extremely convenient this theory is from the Frenche at once,
point af view. It allows France to claim the exclusive sovereignty now,
yet shuts out the whole of the evidence of the last century, duringwhich
-according to our contention-France can show practically no exercise
of sovereignty over the disputed groups, whereas the United Kingdom
can show a great deal.
A further point of some interest about the French theory, to which 1
draw attention, isthat itapparently applies unilaterally-to the United
Kingdom only, and not to France. \ive, it seems, may not support Our
claims by reference to anything which happened after 1839.But France,
for some unexplained rcason, is permitted to do so, if one rnay judge
from the way Our opponents put their final Conclusionson page 729 of
the Rejoinder. The relevant parts-if 1 may read them-are as foiiows:
first (1 quote):
"that ....the titles relied on by the United Kingdom Government
and in particular that acts of possession undertaken since 1839f value,
cannot be invoked against France" ;64 ORAL ARGUMENT OF Mr. FITZMAURICE (u.K.)-18 IX 53
secondly,
"that the titles and acts relied on by France involve the recognition
of her sovereignty over the Minquiers and the Ecrehos".
Urell, the Court will note that it is apparently only acts of possession
undertaken by the United Kingdom after 1839that cannot be invoked ;
because the second of those two passages contains no corresponding
limitation asregards post-1639 ncts of France. Yet, ofcourse, ifthe 1839
Convention excludes the post-1839 acts, it ought to do so equally for
both Parties. And 1would ask the Court to note here that our opponents
do in fact invoke certain post-1839 acts in support of France's claim
to the Minquiers. These acts are, in our view, inadequatc to support
France's claim, but the point 1 make now js that our opponents do
invoke thern,whilesimuitaneously rnaintaining that nothing that occurred
since 1839 can validly be put fanvard. And they even invoke such
matters as the project for a hydro-electricaI dam in the Bay of Cotentin,
which can have nothing to do with the question of sovereignty-and,
rnoreover, in so far as it has taken shape at all, it seems to have done
so after the dispute was submittedto the Court, and therefore subsequent
to the very latest point at which any act of the Parties could affect the
Iegal situation.
But the difficulties in the French argument which 1 have discussed
so far are as nothing compared to those we corne to if we examine
this argument a little more closely.
Let us begin, if the Court wiil, by recailing exactly what the theory
of the critical date involves. It means that, whatever was the position
at the date detepined to be the critical date, such is still the position
now. Whatever were the rights of the Parties then, those are still
itehasgit now, or is deemed to have it. If neither had it,verthentyneither
of joint régime, or condominium, then that régimeis still deemed to sort
exist and to govern the rights of the Parties to-day. The whole point,
the whole raison d'kjre,of the critical daterule is,in effect, that tirne'
is deemed to stop at that date. Nothing that happens aftenvards
can operate to change the situation that then existed. Whatever that
situation was, it is deemed in Iaw stiLIto exist ; and the rightç of the
Parties are governed by it.
Now bearing that in rnind, it foliows that if the Minquiers and the
Écréhous are to be exclusively French now, as our opponents claim,
then they must have been exclusively French in 1839 ; for only on
that basis conld they still be exclusively French to-day. The Court, 1
think, wiil see at once that that must be so, because, if 1839 is the
critical date, then the groups cannot have becomeFrench since 1839 ;
that is the whole point of the rule, so that if they are French now-
as our opponents claim-then it must be because they were exclusively
French in 1839.
So far sa good. We start with the .proposition that, according to
Our opponents, the groups were necessarily French in 1839 ; othenvise
they cannot be so now. Our opponents cannot Say that the groups
were res neclliusin 1839, or else were under the joint sovereignty of
the ttvo countries, for then they would be the same to-day-if 1839
is the critical date, ORAL ARGUMENT OF &Ir.FITZMAURICE (u.x.)-18 IX 53
65
On the other hand, the French argument that 1839 isthe critical
date, depends entirely, as the Court knows, upon the aiieg-ed effect
of Article 3 of the 1839 Fishery Convention. 1 shall try to show the
Court that this Article 3 couId not have had the effect our opponents
Say it did, if the disputed groups were at that time under the exclusive
sovereignty of either of the two countries-whether France or the
United Kingdom. 1shall try to show that the French argument about
the effect of Article3 requires, or at any rate is only plausible on the
basis, that the groups were not under the exclusive sovereignty of
either Party in 1839, but were then either res nulLius or under some
sort of joint régime.And if 1 am right, that will place Our opponents
in a dilemma. Because, on the one hand-if 1839 isthe critical date-
the only basis on which the groups can be exclusively French stili
to-day is that they belonged exclusively to France in 1839. But, on
the other hand, 1 shall hope to show that, if the groups did belong
exclusively to France in 1839, Article 3 cannot have had the effect
suggested and therefore 1839 cannot be the critical date, because it
depends entirely on the supposed effect of Article 3 whether 1839 was
the critical date. In short,one view as to the status of the groups in
1839is required in order to establish the existence of exclusive French
sovereignty to-day if 1839 reaily was the critical date ; but another,
and an opposite, view as to the status of the groups at that time is
required in order to establish that 1839 was the critical date: and
so there is an inherent contradiction at the very heart of the French
thesis.
This essential contradiction is still more clearly seen if we ask what
was the régimeor status for the disputed groups set up by Article 3
of the 1839Convention, ifthatfirovisionhadthe egectwhich oztr@#orzents
suggest. This is something our opponents have never really told us,
but since the argument is that Article 3 precluded either Party from
asserting any exclztsivesovereignty, it seems to follow that the groups
must have become res nuZlius, or else have passed under some form
of our opponents is correct. But if so, and if 1839 is .the critical date,
well, then, the groups must in law still be in that situation to-day ;
for the whole theory of the critical date, as 1 was saying, operates
to prevent, or to rule out consideration of, subsequent changes of
status. So I think the Court !vil1see that the French thesis about
1839 as the critical date tends inevitably towards a position in which
the sovereignty could be adjudged to neither country excIusively.
But that would be contrary to the whole basis of the Compromis and
the Iggr Fishery Agreement. 1 do not need to recapitulate to the
Court the provisions of those two agreements, which the Court is
familiar with, and we diçcussed that rnatter fully in Our Reply, in
connection with the original French argument about disqualification :
and the Court will remember, for instance, that in connection with
the 1951 Fishery Agreement we pointed out how clearly many of its
provisions contemplated quite definitely that there would be a finding
on sovereignty in favour of one or the other country.
This leads me to draw attention to an ambiguity in the French
critical date argument. When Our opponents say that the critica1,date
is the date of the 1839 Convention, do they refer to the moment
immediately before the Convention took effect, or to the moment atwhich it did take effect ? 1 suspect that the moment, to which they
are secking to go back, is the moment before the Convention took
effect-the sfatzrsqwoante. But 1 would ask the Court :is that per-
missible ? We think not, for the only basis for going back to 1839 at
al1 is the supposed effect of this Convention. To go back to before
the Convention would be to,shut out and exclude the Convention
itself-the very act which, according to the French theory, causes
1839 to be the critical date. It would be to revert to a moment at
which the Convention itself did not exist, and at which, therefore,
there existed no basis for taking 1839 as the critical date. The whole
argument of our opponents is that the Convention shut out, or .
neutralized, the effect of al1subsequent acts as supporting either Party's
claim to exclusive sovereignty. But the Convention cannot have shut
out or neutralized itself, and Our opponents must be prepared to
accept the logical consequences of their own argument. If 1839 is the
critical date, it is because of the Convention. The critical moment,
therefore, must be the moment of the Convention, for if that is excluded
the Convention itself is excluded, and with it al1 basis for placing
the critical date at 1839. The point of departure, therefore, must be
the Convention and the situation it created. Now, what was that
situation ? According to out opponents, the effect of the Convention
or could, assert or establish any exclusive sovereigntyover the disputed
groups. Whether these groups then became res nullzus, or passed
under some form of condominium (according to the French theory),
we do not know, because this is one of several things about which
Our opponents have been careful never to commit themselves. But
it must have been one or the other, because these are the only alter-
natives to the exclosive sovereignty of one of the Parties, which the
French theory denies. IVeli, now, if the position is that in consequence
of this Convention the groups became Tes nrrttiztsor passed under
some form of joint sovereignty, and if 1839 is the critical date, well,
then, since no change of status can take place after the critical date,
the groups must stilI be res nullitcs, or under the joint sovereignty
of the Parties. Yet our opponents clairn that the groups are exclusively
French to-day.
So 1 think the Court wiUsee from this that 1 am justified, not onIyin
saying that the French thcory about 1839involves an inherent contra-
diction, but also that it daes tend towards a position, if it waç correct,
in which the Court would not be able to do what the Campromis asks
it to do and what the Fishery Agreement of.rg51 clearly contemplates,
namely, to say whicfi of the two countries the sovereignty now belongs
to, on the basis that it does belong to one or the other of them.
Now it isobviously impossible that the existence of the conflicts and
uncertainties in the French tttesis to which 1 have drawn attention can
have escaped the notice of our opponents, who number amongst them
some of the most intefigent minds, and some of the most acute jurists,
to be found anywhere. We may be sure tliat they would never have put
forward a theory so fuli of holes-if 1 may so put it-if they had not
felt under some compelling'necessity to do so, and we can hardly doubt
thatthe reason why our opponents are so anxious toestablish the period
1839as that of the critical date lies in the very great disparity between
the number and weight of the manifestations of United Kingdom OUI. ARGUhIENT OF Mr.FITZMAURICE @.K.)-18 IX 53
67
sovereignty over the disputed groups during the last century or so,
as compared with the almost total absence of any such manifestations
on the part of France. But Imention that not to reiterate an invidious
comparison but simply to make a cautionary remark, because 1 do not
want the Court to suppose for a moment that, because we contest 1839
as the critical date, this means that we base Our claims solely, or ia
sense even chiefly, on the events that occurred between 1839 and 1950.
We do regard those events as very important, and we do not see how
the Court could give a decision in this case without taking thern into
account. But it is as a culmination of a processthat has been going on
for centuries that we view these events, not as a sudden or isolated
phenomenon. We relyon these events as evidencing and demonstrating
our sovereign position. We do not think we need to rely on these recent
events as creating that position, though, on the other hand, we think
that thcse events are quite enough to give us the exclusive sovereignty
to-day, even if for any reason we did not have it in1839.1just wanted
to make our position on that matter cleat.
Now, reverting to the question of what is the critical date, 1might
perhaps at this point remind the Court that previously, in their Counter-
Mernorial, our opponents ar ed in favour of a different cntical date,
namely, the period 186~-18~rbecause the dispute was said to have had
its birth then. In paragraphs 194-205 and 221-230 of Our Reply, we
examined this argument, and showed-1 hope-that it would not be
equitable, or even technically correct, to take this period of 1869-1876
as being the critical date. However,1shall not Say any more about that
just at present, since Our opponents have now put fonvard 1639 as the
cntical date-and the scheme of the rest of myaddress will be as follows.:
I shall next offer the Court certain remarks about the theory of the
critical date as a legal doctrine and 1 shall then try to show that, in
the lightof these doctrinal considerations,1839 is not acceptable as the
critical datein the present dispute-partly for reasons of an a priori
character, and partly because the particular interpretationof the 1839
Convention on which the whole French argument depends is, in our
view, erroneous. And that will, ocourse b,ethe main part of my speech.
1shall then show-though Ishallbeïrerybrief about that-that the period
1869-1876 is equally inacceptable as the critical date. Fina1shaii try
to sIiow that the acceptance of a certaidate as the critical date, what-
ever it is, does notipso facto rule out al1 consideration of subse uent
events. It des out, of course, as1 have said, the possibilityO? any
subsequent change of status. Subsequent events cannot operate to
change or affect the position as it stood at the critical date. But they
may nevertheless throw light on what that position in fact was. They
may be evidence. The events of a subsequent period are often evidence
of the state of affairs at earlier period, an1 shaUconclude my obser-
vations with certain remarks on that topic.
NOW,if the Court \Yi1bear with me while 1 offer certain theoretical
considerations,wtiichI put forward not by way of attempting to instruct
the Court-which is far better instructed in these matters thaI am-
but because these considerations, theoretical though they are, are neces-
sary to the presentation of our point of vie1should really like to make
one or two remarks as to what the object of establishing a critical date
in disputesover territory is. The fundamental objects,1think, to ensure
that the dispute is determined on the basis that seems most just and ORAL ARGUMENT OF hlr.FITZhfAURICE (u.K.)-18 IX 53 69
between two countries, they decide to settle itby international adjudica-
tion, the critical date would in principle be the date on which they
agreed to submit the dispute to a tribunal. However, there may be
cases where the critical date should nevertheless be some other date,
for the conception of a critical date is intended to do justice to the real
merits of each country's case, and for that reason it must not be put
too early or too late. Now one object of the critical date is to prevent
some step taken after the issue has been definitely joined, but when of
the party in question is rejecting or evading a settlement, for instance,
refusing to go to arbitration.Because unless that were so, a party might
reject a proposal for arbitration or othermeans of settlement, and then,
after taking various steps to improve its position, it might then express
wiiiingness to go to arbitration, and in that type of case, it would
obviously be most unfair to the other party, which had al1 along been
willing to accept arbitration, to make the critical date the date of even-
tua1 submission to a tribunal. And probabl , in such a case, the date
ought to be that on which arbitration wus Zrst proposed. Of course al1
these cases must necessarily depend on their own circurnstances.
So much for not putting the critical date too late. But equally, if not
more important, is it not to put the critical date too early, thereby
shutting out acts of the parties that were carried out at a time when
each of them was perfectly entitled to take any legitimate steps in the
assertion or prosecution of its claim. Just as putting the critical date
too late may favour the party which has rejected an earlier proposal
for adjudication, by enabling it in the meantime unilaterally to improve
its position ;so putting the critical date too early favours the party
which has put fonvard a claim in a general way, but has not pursued it,
or has only pursued it in a desultory or intermittent way, without
attempting to bring the matter to a head, or to prosecute its claim by
seeking international adjudication. To put the critical date too early
would be to place a premium on the making of paper claims which the
country concerned need not then follow up or insist upon, because it
would be secure in the knowledge that the mere making of the claim
would operate to freeze the legal position and to shut out or nullify the
value ofa11subsequent acts of the other party.
Mr. President, 1 have made these various observations about the
theory of the critical date in order to show how important the choice
of that date is, and what serious injusticemay result if it is not selected
with the most careful regard to al1 the factors involved.
Now, as regards the suggestion that the cntical date in the present .
case should be that of the 1839 Convention, may 1 observe in the
first place that it would prima faciebe a very unusual and remarkable
thing to find this date set as early as over xooyears pnor to the time
at which the issue is submitted to an international court. There would,
of course, be nothing theoretically impossible in that, but 1 do suggest
that such a position would have to be established beyond the possi-
bility of reasonable doubt, as being correct and necessary.
Now, how do Our opponents try to establish this proposition 7 As
we know, they apparently suggest that, in the year 1839, the two.
countries-France and the United Kingdom-agreed, or in effect they
agreed, that they wpuld not claim any exclusive sovereignty over the
Alinquiers and the Ecréhous and that this being so, then even if they70 ORAL ARGUMENT OF nfr. FITZMAURICE {u.K.)-18 IX 53
have subsequently changed their mindç, and have now decided that
they may put forward such claims and that they wjll take the matter
before an international, tribunalnevertheless they cannot invoke in
support of their respective claims anything which occurred between
the date on which they are supposed to have agreed not to make any
exclusive claim, and the date on which they subsequently rescinded
this supyosed agreement.
Even if one were prepared to admit the theoretical basis of this
argument, it would at least be neccssary to establish that an agreement
having the effect suggested did exist between the two countries. The
French argument is one which ubviously could only be applied in a
case where itwas ahsolutely clear that there did. exist between the
Parties an agreement definitely involving or implying a mutual under-
taking not to claim sovereignty. And itivould have to be shown that,
b this agreement, the Parties intended to deal with the question
OY sovereignty, and that they really intended to forego making any
claim ; or elseit would have to be shown that such a renunciation
was a necessary consequence and implication of the agreement. And
it is precisely there that we have alwayç experienced such difficulty
in following the French argument, for we have never been able tu
sec how Our opponents derive an agreement about not claiming çover-
eignty from a provision about oyster fishery rights-nor, 1 think,
have Our opponents made any reaHy serious attenipt to explain how
this cornes about. In these circumstances, I do submit to the Court
that, when a concrete issue about sovereignty arises in ~gjo, there
would be an element of great unreality-of extreme artificiality-in
going back more than a hundred years and determining the rights
of the Parties as they may be held to have stood in 1839, even if that
proposition were free from other objections, and I shaii hope to show
presently that it is not.
1 now pass on to a number of serious objections of an a priori
character to the French thesis. Certain of these we pointed out in
all, the arguments we advanced in our Reply against the Frenchr nearly
contention that the effect of the 1839 Convention was to disqualify
the Parties from claiming any exclusive sovereignty at all, even to-day,
are equally applicable to the French contention about the critical
date, which is, as 1 have said, merely the same contention advanced
for a different purpose and in another form. And indeed, as 1 hope
1 may have shown, it tends towards the sarne result-that the sover-
eignty could not definitely be adjudged to either Party..
Now the first objection of an a priori character to the French thesis
is one to which we drew pointed attention in Our Reply, but which
our opponents have entirely ignored in their Rejoinder. This is the
question of what is the legal régime that iç sueposed to have been
brought into existence for the Minquiers and the Ecréhousby Article 3
of the 1839 Convention, assuming the Article has the meaning which
our opponents contend for. That is something which they have never
satisfactorilv explained-or, indeed. exolained at all. Some réeime
preçumablfcarnê into being or existed betkeen 1839and 1950 ,ccoruding
to their view: but what ? There are statements in the French deadines
about the groups being placed (or left) by the Parties in theAcomm&
sea (or in theircornmon sea), but nowhere is it stated what was the ORAL ARGUMENT OF Mr. FITZMAURICE (u.K.)-18 IX 53 71
rate non-temtorial sea, or sornething else. Nor is it explained whatny
is the legal nature of the régimethat the,existence of this "common
sea" entailed for the Minquiers and the Ecréhous, or why groups of
fairly substantial above-water islets, such as these, should be considered
to be part of this "comrnon sea" at all. It is indeed rernarked at one
place in the French Rejoinder, on page 727, that a sort ofAnglo-French
mare nostrum was established, but it is not explained what this reaIly
involved. And 1 think al1 these questions are really either studiously
avoided in the French pleadings, or else they are circumvented by
the use of general language. But unless a satisfactory answer can be
given to them, 1 su gest to the Court that the French thesis based
on Article 3 ofthe 183~ Convention should be rejected on that ground
alone-because if, indeed, Article 3 did bring into existence some
çpecial régimefor the areas it related to, this must nevertheless have
been a régime known to international law, and capable of definition
and classification according to ordinary international law concepts.
Well, then, we ask, what was this régime ? In our Reply (1 would
refer the Court to paras. 26 to 34) we pointed out that it could only
be one of two things, always assuming, of course, that the French
interpretation of Article 3 was correct. We pointed out that either
the groups must, during the period subsequent to 1839 and up to
to-day, have been res nullius,or they must have been under some
sort of condominium : that isto Say, they must either have belonged
to neither Party, or else to both jointly. And we pointed out that
it must have been one or the other of these aIternatives because, since
the groups evidently did not belong to any third country, then unless
they were either rts nultius or under the joint sovereignty of both
the Parties, they must have belonged exclusively to one Party: but
that, of course, was exactly what Article 3 is supposed to exchde,
according to the French contention. Perhaps 1 might mention that
by res nullius I of course mean a position in which the groups, though
capable of appropriation in sovereignty, were not so appropnated
and were therefore legaily open to appropriation by any country that
rnight take the necessary steps to that end-except,of course, according
to our opponents, France and the United Kingdom.
.Well, then, in our Reply we examined these two hypotheses of res
nullius and condominium (1would refer the Court again to paras. 26-34
and aIso to paras. 35-42 ofthe Reply), and we pointed'out that each of
these hypotheses involved almost insuperable difficulties or irnprob-
abilities. With regard tothe resnullius hypothesis, we find it impossible
to believe that our opponents would seriously suggest that the groups
had this statu5 between 1839and 1950 ,ny more than they had before
1839,if only because it would be in conflict with the whole bais of the
present French claim to exclusive sovereignty.
In addition, the suggestion that these groups might have been res
nuElincisn this period is, given their geographical situation, impractical
and contrary to probability, if we consider what is involved.ariisland
isresnullius, as I said, this means that it is legaiiy susceptible of occupa-
tion by any other country at any time. WeH,no more in 1839than now,
or in the intervening penod, could France or the United Kingdom have
tolerated asituation in which these islands were-even ifonly theoreti-
cally-open to occupation by any third'country which cared to take the
6 72 ORAL ARGUMENT OF hlr.FITZMAURICE (u.K.)-19 IX 53
necessary ste s to establish itselfthere. Can it be supposed that the
Parties inteniedfa régimein which they were precluded frorn asserting
their sovereignty, but any other country could? It is impossible to
suppose it : and, moreover, these groups, situated as they are, near to
and entries of bays and ports, they obviously must be susceptibleexitsto
some form of definite legal régimeand control ;they cannot, they could
not have been, during this period, resnullius.
[Public sitting of Sepfembe19th. 1953m ,orning]
Mr. President, it ma assist the Court if 1 Say that, although 1 shall
not quite be able to Xnish my addreu this morning. 1 shvll finish it
during the first hou on Monday, including the translation, and Professor
Wade wiUthen be able to start his address.
hlr. President and Memhers of the Court, you willremember that when
1 broke off the last night 1 was dealing with certain what 1 called a
firiouidiûïculties in the French thesis concerning the year 1839 and 1
had posed the question what was the régimefor the Minquiers and the
Ecréhouswhich was supposed to have corne into being as the result of
Article 3 ofthe Convention, ifthe French theory was correct,and I had
pointed out that ifyou excluded, as that theory does exclude, the pos-
sibility that either country 'alone had the sovereignty, then there were
only two possibIe hypotheses, one of them being that neither country
had the sovereignty and that the groups were res nullius, or else the
a other possibility was that there waajoint sovereignty-a condominium,
and I had dedt with the possibility of the groups being resnullius and
1tnedto show that that possibility ought to be excluded because it \vas
such a very improbable one and not at al1in accordance with the facts.
So then we tum to the other hypothesis-that of jointsovereignty-
opponents rvoulduçeriously maintain ithat the groups could have beenur
resnullius duringallthe period between 1839and 1950o ,ne must assume
that they regard, or would Say that the groups were under some form
ofcondominium ;and on the whole that dues seem to bethe French view,
in so far as our opponents deal with the matter at all. For instanceon
page 726 of the Rejoinder, we find it stated (quotation: "It is not eaçy
to say what ideas were actually held by either Party in regard to the
legal status of this intermediate zone." Well, it certainlyes not seem
easy for our French friends to Say, because they are really trying-aç 1
shall hope to show-to maintain two statuses for these groups at that
time ;and on the same page the French Kejoinder goes on to suggest
thst the "men of 1839" recognized the true nature of the intermediate
zone and defined itsstatus realistically (the1quote again), "regarding
it asinterior waters of the Bay of Cotentin which were being fished
jointly and hand in hand by both Parties, who regulated the fishing
together". Well, they may have been regulating the fishing hand in
hand, but were they regulating, or even purporting to regulate, the
swereignly ? That is the whole question, and it is this question which
seems to us to be begged-or assumed-by the entire French argument
about the 1839 Convention. ORAL ARGUMENT OF blrFITZMAURICE (u.K.)-19 IX 53 73
hloreover, the suggestion in the passage 1 have just read is that the
waters concerned were not even territorial waters, but interior waters ;
and in a further passage it is suggested by implication that they were
not, and are not, high seas ; and it is state(1 quote again) :"The free
sea, the truly free sea, only opens out to the North and West of the
outer islands...."(that would be, of the outer Channel Islands). And
similarly, on page727,we have this passage :"In the present case it [that
is to Say,mare commune]must be understood as meaning 'mare nostrum'."
Now, these are obviously suggestions that the waters concemed have,
or had, the status of interior or national waters, under the joint sover-
eignty of the two Parties. But I wouId ask the Court to consider the
difficultieof thisthesis,and I shall hope to show that the whole idea
of a joint sovereignty of this kind is every bit as difficult to accept, though
for different reasons, as the theory res nullius.
To begin with, Mr. President, the French suggestions turning on
mare nostrum and the view that the waters concerned are interna1
or national must be rejected at once. Even if we confine ourselves to
the region lying between the island of Jersey and the French coast
to the South and East (though in reality the Convention as a whole
appLied to a much wider area-indeed, to the whole sea area between
France and England-but even if we do confine ourselves to the
narrower region), there is no doubt at al1 that a considerable part of
it, according tothe,principles of international law recognized by both
sides, consists of high seas, that is to Say, of waters situated beyond
the three-mile limit which both sides apply, drawn from the low-water
mark along the coasts of the mainland and islands. Ifthe French thesis
were correct, France and the United Kingdom would be in the position
of seeking to assert an exclusive sovereignty or jurisdiction over areas
of the high seas £rom which they could, on that basis, exclude the
fishing vessels of other countries, or in which they could exercise
jurisdiction over those and other foreign vessels. Well, whether such
an idea was ever in the mind of any French Government, 1 do not
know, but 1 do know that it was not at that time, and is not now,
in the mind of any United Kingdom Government. We would at al1
times have rejected the idea, both before and since 1839, that areas
of the high seas outside territorial waters-that is, lying, for instance,
between Jersey and the Minquiers, or elsewhere in the zone-are even
partially under Our sovereignty or jurisdiction, or are under any kind
of Anglo-French condominium : and in support of what 1 say I would
like to cite the letter dated February zEth, 1825, from Canning, as
British Foreign Secretary, to the Prince de Polignac, which is given
as Annex I to the French Counter-3Iemorial. And if the Court will
look at the Iast part of that letter (which1 wiIl not read), starting at
thebottom of page 407and continuing on pages 408 and 409 ofthe French
Counter-hlemonal, it wilisee that Canning made precisely the points
which 1 have been making ; he drew attention to the fact that, while
France and Great Britain could, in theory, rnake an arrangement
&terse, binding upon themselves, they could not thereby possibly
bind or affectthe position of third parties, who would certainly retain
aU their fishery rights in the areas, which, according to international
law, did not consist either of interior or of territorial waters. Weil,
now, that shows what was the British view, at any rate, not very
.long before the period of the 1839 Convention ; and this rnakes it74 ORAL ARGUhIENT OF &Ir. FITZMAURICE (u.K.)-19 IX 53
very improbable that any British negotiator in 1839 would have been
intending to create a mare nostrum common to the two countries.
For these reasons, we think that the notion of interior waters and
mare nostrum covering the whole of this area must necessarily be
rejected. However, there could in theory be a condominium over any
actual islands in the area and over the territorial sea round thern.
But the insuperable difficuity which this hypothesis encounters is
that there is absolutely no evidence of the existence of any such
condominiuni, or of it ever having existed, or of the exercise at any
tirne-of any joint sovereignty by the Parties over the Minquierç and
the Ecréhous.If such a thing existed, then there must also have existed, -
in however rudimentary a form, some elements of the rnachinery of
a joint,administration, but in fact there mas and there js absolutely
nothing of the kind, and there never has been. Yet it would be com-
pletely uncharacteristic of a condominium, as known to ordinary
international practice, forone to exiçtwjthout there being any arrange-
ments between the CO-domini for the method of its exercise. Certainly
condominiums do exist in the world, and indeed there is actually an
Anglo-French condominium in another part of the world-1 think 1
am right in saying in the New Hebrides-and that condominium,
which has existed for a considerable number of years, works very well,'
but it does so because there are definite and detailed arrangements
and agreements for exercising it.
Nor is it possible, we think, seriously to contend, as I fdcy the
Government of the Republic has tended to do at times, that these
machinery is necessary i:tonquote a phrase from the French Rejoinder
sown with reefs". These groups are regularly visited by fishermen and,
other persons ; there are houses and buildings on them-the Court has
already heard about al1that. But some kind of jurisdiction for thern must
exist. Suppose, for instance, that an offence of some sort is committed
on the islands-as, indeed, has happened-who exercises jurisdiction
over the accused ? Well, doubtless our opponents would Say that the
principle rationepersonamust be applied, and if the accused is a French-
man, he would be tried by a French court according to French law, and
if an Englishman or a Jerseyman, according to English or Jersey law,
by an English or Jersey court. But then, what happens if the accused
is a Belgian or a Dutchman ? There are many other possibilities. For
instance, how is the sale and transfer of property on the islands to be
effected: what law applies ? It would not be suficient to say that the
law and the foms to be applied would be governed by the nationality
of the owner, for this would mean that dif£erent pieces of ground on the
same isiand, or even thevery same piecesof ground or housesat different
times, would be under different or more than one legai régime. And,
again, it would leave undetermined the question of the position of nation-
ds of third cou~itrieçwho might own, or corne to own, property on
the islands. The pnnciple rationepersona does not work really, and the
tmth is that matters of immovable property are never governed by
personal law but by the territoriaiaw of the place where the property
is situated. And, in short, the Minquiers and the Écréhous,during this
period between 1839 and 1950 which Pam discussing, must have had a
territorial lawNow what was fhat territorial la? We, of course, assert ORAL ARGUMENT OF >Ir.FITZJIAURICE (u.K.)-19 IX 53 75
that it was and is British or Jersey, and there is no doubt at al1that the
various perçons, who have or have had dwellings or other buildings on
the islands, have always regarded their property and their position with
reference to ia being govemed by EngIish or Jersey law. But the point
1want to make in the immediate context of this speech is that, whether.
it wasBritish or French, itmust have been one orthe other : it could not
- have been Anglo-French, or at least, it could only be so if definitearrange-
ments to that effect had been worked out and agreed upon, whereas
in fact none exist or have existed.
Therefore it seems to us that the condominium theory must equally
be rejected,as well as that ofres~tulliusWe have a position in which it
cannot be true to Say that during this long period the islands were either
ownerless or jointly owned. And so 1 corne to the conclusion which 1
venture to submit to the Court must be drawn from al1 this : if Article 3
of the 1839 Convention had the effect in relation to the Minquiers and
theÉcréhous which ouropponents contend ithad, this musthave resulted,
as we have seen, in these two groups either being or becoming res
nullius, orbeing under an Anglo-French condominium, for, according
to the French thesis, the groups were not under any exclusive British
régime,nor under an exclusive French régime.If, however, on exarnina-
tion, it proves,as we contend, that the groups could not have become
or been either res nulliusor a condominium, and quite obviously never
were either of those things, then surely it must follow inescapably that
the French'contention about Article3 of the Convention-which Ieads
to these contradictory results-must itself be wrong.
Al1 these difficulties, Blr. President, about what-according to the
French thesis-\vas the legal régime of the groups in consequence of.
the 1839 Convention, apply with equal force to the possibility that in1
the period before 1839 these groups were either res nulliuo sr jointiy
owned-and thiç leads me to the nest objection of ana prioricharacter
to the French thesis about the critical date to which 1 would like to
draw attention. The Court will not have failed to notice that our oppo-'
nents are really trying simultaneously to ascribe two çtatuses to the
groups in 1839. On the one hand the whole French historicacase is that
the groups were originally French ; that they remained so ; that they
were so in 1839 ; and that they are so now. But, when it cames to the
1839 Convention, then we are tolp, on page 726 of the Rejoinder, thatthe
status of the groups was indeterminate and that the men of 1839 were
content to leave it so-which irnplies that they were not definitely under
French sovereignty in 1839. Well, 1 ask, which was it ? The groups,
cannot both have been and not have been French in 1839. The matter
is important, because really the whole French contention about Article 3
and the critical date Ieads toan impasse. In paragraphs 37-40 and 62
of our Reply, we gave what 1 think were cogent reasons for the view'
that it is not really credible that, if one of the Parties had the sovereignty
over the islands at the time, this Party would have been ready to place
the islands under Article 3, if lhat Article had the meaning and eflect
whichthe Gooer~zmeno tfthe Reptiblic has said lhaitdidhave. Now, it is
perhaps conceivable that the country having sovereignty might have
been willing to place these groups under the régimeof Article 3, if that
provision involved no more than a common oyster iishery right, which
of course we contend is the onjy acceptable interpretation of the Article.
But, according to the French contention, it involved far more than that. ORAL ARGUMENT OF hlr. FITZMAURICE (u.K.)-19 IX 53
76
It involved a common general right of fishery, and even a renunciation
of the right of exclusive sovereignty. And, on that basis we Say that it
is not credible that a country powssing, or believing itself to possess,
the exclusive sovereignty, would have been wiiling to part with or share
its rights in that way.
Here we can perhaps usefuily compare the case of the recent 1951
Fishery Agreement. Under thiA sgreement, the Parties did indeed agree .
on a common fishery régime in certain areas cornprising the Minquiers
and the Écréhous, and, indeed, expressly applying to those groups ;but
they did so in the knowledge-and expressly in contemplation of the
fact-that the question of sovereignty was reserved, and would be
decided as a separate issue, and that the Fishery Agreement would in
no way prejudice their clajms to exclusive sovereignty. They had no
intention in 1951a ,ny more than we Say they could have had in 1839,
of committing themselves on the question of soztareigntyby a mere
fishery clause. Common fisheries are one thing :territorial sovereignty
and its renunciation is quite another. And so, therefore, what happened
in rgçr is the exact opposite of what our opponents say happened in
1839. In rggr rights of sovereignty were clearly reserved, tvhereas in
1839a ,ccording to our opponents, they were renounced, or-what cornes
to the same thing-the right to assert the sovereignty was renounced.
And I would like to stress that point because, as1 have said, the French
thesis that 1839is the critical date requires that the groups should have
been French in 1839 ifthey are to be held to be 'stillFrench now. Rut
equally the French thesis that 1839is the critical date would involve I
that France must deliberately have renounced the exclusive sovereignty
by placing the groups under a régime precluding the exclusive sover- .
therefore that the French interpretation of thiss sArticle 3 leads tunda
hlghly improbable-unlessay, the groups wererrres nulliusor jointly owneds
before the date of the 1839Convention ;but it is equally improbable,
and can hardly be true, that they were then res nulliusor jointly owned
-and in any case, if they were, then they would (if 1839 is still the
critical date) have to be regarded as being still in that condition now.
But Ouropponents clairn that they are exclusively French now. It seems,
therefore, to be a masç of contradictions! And 1siibmjt that reason and
credibility can only be restored if the whole French contention about
Article 3 and the critical date is not correct at au, and that seems to us
to be the obvious conclusion, because this contention reaily destroys
itself by the very process that has to be gone through in order, so to
speak, to set it up.
Before I pass on, Mr. President, to another part of rny argument,
1 would like to pursue just a little further the point1 was making just
now so that our position on it can be entirely clear to the Court, because
1 believe that our opponents are really trying to maintain two contrary
propositions, both of which are nevertheless necessary to their position.
1 suggestthat what my friendProfessor Gros would really Like toargue,
if he could, would be something like this. Perceiving the difficulties of
maintaining the French theory about the effect of Article 3, if in 1839
one of the Parties had the exclusive sovereignty, 1 think he would like
to begin by saying that the groups were then under some rather vague
indeteminate régime,and that the Parties in effect agreed to leave them ORAL ARGUMENT OF hlr. FITZMAURICE (u.K.)-19 IX 53 77
in that situation, and for that reason he would arg-uethat 1839 is the
critical date. That ismore orless,as 1understand it, the Frenchargument,
But then 1 think Professor Gros would perceive that he was in this
dilemma, that if the status of the groups in 1839 was uncertain, and if
they did not then belong exclusively to either country and if 1839is
the critical date, then they cannot be regarded as belonging exclusively
to either country now, but in fact the French contention is that they
do belong exclusively to France now. So on that point 1 feel that Pro-
fessor Gros would like to reverse his argument and Say that the groups
were exciusively French in 1839 aIsa. Well now, I feel that there must
Our opponents cannot plead one staius for the groups in 1839 in ordert
to establish that 1839 is the critical date, but then plead another status
for the groups in 1839in order to establish that 1839,being the critical
date, the groups must be regarded as French to-day.
Here 1 would again, and for the last time, make the point that, if
1839 isthe critical date, it is solely on accouof the 1839 Convention
that it is so. Therefore it is the régimeestablished by the Convention
that governs the rights of the Parties to-day if 1839is the critical date.
Our opponents cannot, for the purpose of setting up that date as the
critical one, invoke the régimewhich they Say was established by the
Convention, and then Say that, when it comes to determining the rights
of the Parties, that is not to be decided by reference to the conventional
régime, but by reference to the pre-conventional position. For the
moment the Convention is excluded, there is no longer any basis for
regarding 1839 as the critical date at ail, and evenifone goes back to
the pre-conventional régime, Ouropponents seem uncertain what it was.
Moreover, again, theirargument would require that this pre-conventional
régimeshould both have been exclusively French, but should also have
been sorne kind of indeterminaie régime.
Well, 1 believe that the Court will feel that a theory which gives
rise to so many contradictions should not be accepted, especiaüy since,
if it leads anywhere, it leads towards a position in which neither Party
could be held to have the exclusive sovereignty at this present day.
At Ieast 1 can claim, 1 think, that the French theory is open to so
many a priori objections that it should not be accepted, unless it could
be shown quite conclusively to be based on a rnanifestly necessary
interpretation of the relevant instruments. That, however, is far from
being the case, and 1 propose next to pass on and make a few obser-
vations about the terms of the 1839 Convention itself.
The Court will rernember that in our Reply we put fonvard two
main points as to the interpretation of Article 3. In the first place,
the Ecréhous at al1th:either because, as dependencies of Jersey, these
groups came under Article 2,or else because, as British possessions,
it was Article 9 of the Convention that was applicable to them. Our
second main contention was that, even if Article 3 did apply to the
pups, it did so only in a purely fishery sense-an oyster fishery
sense at that-and that it had none of the implications about sover-
eignty which our opponents suggested. Of these two arguments the
second is, of course, incomparably the more important, and it is the
one on which we chiefly rely. The r839 Convention is admittedly very
obscure, and, as Our opponents themselves have stressed, not verywell drafted. Some of its provisions are in a sense conflicting. It rnay
therefore be very dificult to say with any certains exactly what the
sphere of application of Article 3 was. Our principal contention is
that, whatever territory or waters it did apply to, it meant no more
than it actually said,and had no implications be ond such as would
be the normal and necessary result of a provision or a common oyster
fishery, which would certainly not include any renunciation of sover-
eign rights.
We have therefore been tempted not to go any further into the
question of what territory or waters Article 3 actually did apply to.
On the other hand, in re-reading the diplornatic correspondence, we
have been stmck at the insistencewith which successive United Kingdom
Governments denied that Article 3 had any application to the Min-
quiers and the Écréhous. The position of these United Kingdom
fishery rights she had. It was a denial that France had any specialy
fishery rights in these groups, and this deniai was based precisely on
the view that it was not Article 3 that applied to the groups, but
Articles 2 or g, because they were British possessions. Now, even
making every allowance for the traditional conception of "perfidious
Albion", it would be, 1 think, unlike the average United Kin dom
Government to put forward ernphatic and persistent denials or this
kind unless they at least believed them to be correct, whether in fact
they were so or not, and 1 think we must assume that the view in
question was genuinely held. If so, there must have been some reason
for it. It seems worth while considering, therefore, what the sphere
of application of this provision really was. I shall, therefore, begin
by going into that question a little, but I wili ask the Court to bear
in mind that, whiie we do not believe that Article 3 was ever really
intended to apply to these groups as such, we equaily say-and indeed
it is Our principal position-that it does not teally matter very much
for the present purposes whether Article 3 did or did not apply to
them, since the provision in question cannot possibly have had the
meaning which Our opponents attributed to it.
The Court will remember what the general scheme of the 1839
Convention was. Article I established a line off the Frenccoast within
which oyster fishing was reserved to French fishermen. This line partly
coincided with the French territorial water limit and it partly ran
inside that lirnit and it partly ran outside-it was an ad hoc line.
Article 2 gave an exclusive right of oyster fishery to British subjects
in a zone of three miles radius round Jersey. Article 3 provided that
the oyster fishery between these respective exclusive lirniisshould
of fishing to each country within three miles of its own coastç orghts
islands. And itwill be one of my main confentions that our opponents
have always failed to relate this Article g correctly to Article 3.
Now, the French argument in regard to the effect of the 1839 Con-
vention is baçed on certain assumptions as to the localities to which
Article 3 applied, which do not appear to be justified by the actual
terrns of the Convention, and, for this reason, the two countries have
always been at cross purposes about the effect of this Convention.
To put it shortly, our opponents in fact simply take a region on the
map-the geographical area between Jersey and the French coast, outside the limits laid down by Articles ,Iand 2-and they Say that
everything, and any territory in that area, automatically cornes under
Article 3, irrespective of its status. Rut for that view there is no real
warrant. It ignores the fact that if any territory in the area, such
as an island, was in fact British or French in 1839, then, even though
situated in this area, that particular island would, firima jacie, have
been subject to the régimeof Article g of the Convention, not Article 3. r
Now, to this our opponents may reply by pointing to the fact that,
under Article z of the Convention, the waters round Jersey were
separately specified as reserved exclusively to British fishermen. They
rnay therefore say that, if it was intended to exclude the Minquiers
and the Ccréhous from the operation of Article 3, these would have
we appreciate tliis point, but we believe it toJbesbased onWeal,miscon-
ception as to the true purpose for the insertion of Article z relating
to Jersey. Obviously this provision was in no way required in order
to reserve the Jersey fishenes to Jersey fishermen-for that went
without saying. Also, the Jersey fisheries would in any case have
been so reserved by virtue of Article g, because Jersey was unquestion-
ab1 a British isIand. Article 2-as we explained in paragraph 51 and
in ?ootnote I on page 455 of OurReply-Article 2 was put in to balance
Article I and to indicate the other end, so to speak, of the general
area mentioned by Article 3. But it did not follow that the common
oyster fishery régimeof Article 3 automaticaily applied to every island
situated between Jersey and the French coast, merely because the
island \vas in the area covered by Article 3. It would of course apply
to the non-territorial waters in the area, and to any unclairned islets
in it that were res nulliztsand beelongedto neither country, and it
would apply to any reefs, rocks or banks not physically capable of
appropriation. That was, in .fnct, its true sphere of application. But
prima facie such a provision would not apply to any islands in the
area which definitely belonged to one of the two countries. In the
case of islands in that position, the normal rule of international law
would have operated to reserve the fisheries to the country having
sovereignty, unless the contrary were specified, and that would require
to be done in clear language, for the presumption would be against it,
particularly in the present case, in view of Article g,which in terms
reserved to each Party the fisheries off its own coasts and islands.
New-and this is an important point which 1 would like to emphasize
-it is noticeable that Article 9 was expressly made subject to Articlx.
Why 7 Why was that ? Because Article I created certain areas witltin
French waters where oyster fishing was to be common, and therefore
France's exclusive rights off that parofher coaçt had to be read subject
to that. Now, a similar reservation ought therefore to have been made
to apply to any areas which were underthat theiexclusive sovereignty ofed
either country-because othcrwise there would have been an obvious
conAict between Articles 9 and 3.One provision would have made the
oyster fishery common, but under the other it could have been clairned
that oyster fishing was-as part of fishing in general-reserved exclu-
sively to the temtonal sovereign. Therefore there would have been this
conflict if Artic3ehad included any territory under the exclusive sover-
eignty of one of the Parties. So it seems to us that the fact that Article g80 ORAL ARGUMENT OF Mr. FITZMAURICE (u.K.)-19 IX 53
made no reservation in favour of Article 3, which it did in favour of
Article 1, that in our view suggests strongly that Article 3 was not
intended to apply to any islands in the Article 3 area that belonged to
either Party-the régimeof Article 3 was not intended to apply even
though the island might be in the Article 3 area, and this Article only
applied to uncIaimed isIands or rocks, banks, reefs and the gcneral sea
situated in the area.
This, therefore, Mr. President, is why we have contended that to Say
that Article 3 applied to the Minquiers and the Ecréhous becausethey
were situated in this geographical area, is to put the cart before the
horse. You rnust first determine the status of the groups before you can
say whether the régimeof Article 3 applied to them. You must first
determine whether they belonged to one or other of the two countries,
or not. It is therefore, we think, incorrect to Saythat it is Article 3 which
reguiates the status of these groups. The truth is the other way round.
It is the status of the groups which regulates the appIication of the
Article-which reguldes the question whether Article 3 apples to them
or not. In order to determine their status you must, of course, look out-
side the Convention. The Convention neither says nor implies what their
status was-for it did not deal with any question of status. And you
have to determine that statu5 in the first place before you can really
say whether it was Article g that applied to these groups, or Article 3.
These are the reasons why we maintain that the-régime of Article 3
would not have applied to the Minquiers and the Ecréhous if they had
belonged to one or other of the two Parties, asboth countries now assert
that thcy did. We say that they were British then, and the French Say
that they were French. In that case it is Articgethat would have applied
to them, and the Article 3 régimewould only have applied if the groups
had belonged to neither country or had been uiider some forrn of joint
régime.Since, however, they clearly were not under any form of joint
régime and-for reasons 1 have fuliy explained-cannot have been
supposed to have been ownerless at this tirne, to have becn res nu~~ius,
the simple, the obvious and-it seems to us-the inevitable conclusion
is that Article 3 did not apply to them at al]. And it isunquestionably
in the nineteenth century and later denied that the Article had anyts
appIn paragraphs 49-51and in paragraph 62 (a) of our Reply, Mr. Presi-
dent, we drew attention to certain other considerations which supported
this view, but as they are ofa rather technical character I shall content
myself with this reference, and shall not discuss them here. 1 do, how-
ever, want to Saysornething more about the textof, and the negotiations
for, the later 1867 Convention, which we believe to have great inter-
pretative significance so far as the earlier 1839text is concerned, although
for certain special reasons not implying dissatisfaction by either Party
with its text (as we explained in paragraph 54 of Our Reply), the 1867
Convention was never actually brought into force.
The Court will recollect that in Our Reply we suggested that the
effect of Articl3 of the 1839 Convention was reaily probably decIaratory
rather than actually constitutive of rights, since, according to the view
we had put forward, it applied to areas where both Parties would in
any case have had the right tufish, because its true sphere of application
was-for the various reasons I have given-fishery on the open seas ORAL ARGUMENT OF MI. FITZMAURICE (u.K.)-19 IX 53 81
(that is, the non-territorial sea), or round unclaimed islets, or on unclaim-
.able rocks, reefs or banks. And we aIso pointed out in our Reply that
.Article3 was confined to the oyster fishery for the simple reason that
the whole controversy that led to the 1839 Convention was about that
fishery ; this was what its Parties were interested in in that region. In
.support of this view-that the Article could be regarded as strictly
superfluous, though it rnight have a declaratory or regulative value-
we cited thetext of this lat1867 Convention, from which this provision,
this Article3, was designedly omitted as superAuous ; and we cited the
.records of the negotiations which led up to it. Our opponents have
challenged this interpretation, but we have not found the attempt made
in their Kejoinder to counter Our argument based on the 1867Convention
to be at dl convincing.
Now the Cou. requested us to furnish it with the minutes of these
1867 negotiations, and we have accordingly deposited with the Kegistrar
a certified copy of al1the minutes of the negotiations which we have in -
our archives, and there is a pnnt of them numbered Annex A 172 in
the volume of Additional Annexes. We think that anyone who rcads
these minutescannot faito be struck by the way in which the proposition
that Article 3, and certain other provisions of the 1839 Convention,
should be suppressed as superfluous, was accepted withou tthe slightest
demur by the Commissioners on both sides, who consisted of experts
from the respective Foreign Offices and Ministries of Marine.
Now it appears that the rnatterwas first referredtoa sub-cornmittee,
+hich prepared a series of articles containing ail that the sub-cornmittee
thought it desirable to retain of the 1839 Convention, and of the regu-
lations of 1843, which had been made under Article II of the.1839
Convention. The report of this sub-committee, which was in French and
is reproduced in the French text, will be found at page647 of the volume
of Additional Annexes, and this report seems to have come up at the
meeting of the main Commission held an Friday, January 4th. 1867.
And according to the minutes of this meeting (if the Court will look at
p. 646 of the print), the suggestion that the articles drafteby the sub-
committee should be adopted, came primarily from the Frelach side.
M. de Champeaux, on behalf of the French Commissioners, conducted
the discussions, and in the minutes, after a statement that the sub-
committee had proposed a new Article I founded on Articles g and IO
of the 1839 Convention, we find the folIowing passages which 1 will read
rapidly because 3iembers of the Court wiIl be able to read them in the
volume of Annexes :
"Mr. de Champeaux resumed the reading of the proposed Articles
-No. 2 of the new set to be identical with ArtiIlof the Convention
settling the fishinlimits in the Bay of Granville-
The original chart signed in r839 was produced and the Commis-
sioners decided that it was not expedient to make any alteration
in the boundaries-
Article2 of the Convention is no longer required being embodied
in the new Article No. I",
that is exactly Our contention.: the original Article about fishery round
Jersey was supcrfluous-
"Article 3 forthe same reason may be suppressed, being treated
of more fully in Article 16 of the regulations-"82 ORAL ARGUMEXT OF Mr. FITZlIXURICE (U.K.)-19 IX 53
1 shall come to Article 16 presently :
"Article 4 should be done away with in consequence of the im-
possibility of carrying it 'out. .
Article 5 is treated of in Article 6 of the regulations, the word
marked being inserted therein-
Article 6 will be embodied in the above-mentioned .Article-
Article 7 may be abolished as useless-
Article 8 rnay be dispensed with for the present, the question
being treated' of when Article 85 of the regulations is under con-
sideration.
Articles g andIO have aIready been embodied in the new Article I.
Articles II and 12 are no longer required."
There is much more in the same vein, showing that the whole object
of the Commissioners was simplification and the omission of superfluous
provisions. Itistherefore quite certain, 1think, that this Article 3 would
not have been dropped from the 1867 text, unless it had been regarded
as either unnecessary or compIeteIy covered by other provisions.
In further support of this view. 1 would invite the attention of the
Court to pages 651-65o 6f the 1867minutes, as given in the volume of
Additional Annexes. The discussion in these pages indicates two things,
or even three :firçt, that when the negotiators spoke of the "cornmon
seau, they were referring not to a sort of mare rtostrumbut to the high
seas, in the sense ofthe non-tenilorial se;secondly, that the distinction
which they constantly drew was between the territorial ses, in which
each Party would regulate the fisheries in its own waters, and the non-
derrilorialsea, or the seas outside territorial lirnits, in which fisheries
would be regulated in accordance with the provisions of the Convention,
and only in these non-territorial seas; and, thirdly, that, apart from
these special oyster fishery limits off the French coast in the Bay of
Cancale, established by Article I of the 1867 text, as ofthe 1839 text,
what the Parties were interested in was not so much fishery limits as
the regulationofthe condud ofthe fisheries, eçpecially on tseas outside
territorial waters. And that isevident from the great bulk of the articles
of both Conventions, for most of them were concerned with regulation.
not lirnits.
In these connections, 1 would invite the attention of the Court to
paragraph 57 Ce) on pages 459-460of our Reply. We there made some
observations on thé significance ofArticle XVI of the 1843 Regulations
(the text of those Regulations willbe found in Annex A 145,on p. 579
of the United Kingdom Keply). This, the Court will remember, was the
provision in the lightof which, as I havejust read out, the1867 Commis-
sioners thought Article3 of the 1839 Convention to be superfluous. The
Court will rernember that M. de Champeaux, in reading out these
Articles, or at any rate, the record of the minutes, says:
"Article 3 may for the same reason be suppressed, being treated
of more fülly in Article 16of the regulations-."
Therefore, it is obviouslya rnatter of considerabIe interest to see what
this Article XVI of the Rcgulations; in the light of which Article 3WELS
supposed to be superfluous, says. Well, what it says i:
"Trawl fishing may be carried on during aU seasons in the seaç
lying between-the fishery lirnits which have been fixed for the two
countries." ORAL ARGUMENT OF >Ir.FITZJIAURICE (u.K.)-19 IX 53 83 .
At first sight it would seern that that has,Iittle relationship to Arti-
cle 3, but neverthelessI think that that provision is significant for two
reasons. The first point is that, as we remarked in paragraph 57 (e) of
our Reply, this provision (in the light of which Articleas considered
supeduous) establishes no common fishery rights at al]. It merely
presumes the existence of common fisheries in certain seas which,1shall
show*in a moment, were high seas,not territorial seas; and, secondly, the
whole emphasiç of thiç Article XVI is on regulationTrawl fishing may
be camed on and during all seasons. Now that ma be contrasted with a
another Article of the 1843 Regulations, ArticleXE Vhich stipulafed
that the oyster fishery should only be open from September to April.
And it seerns that the combined effect of thoçe two provisions was
regarded as governing and cornpletely covering the question of the oyster
fishery and a common fishery in this area, and asrendering.Article 3
superfluous ;,and therefore in effect it really takes Artic3eout of the
1839 Convention as a provision which establishes a common fiçhery
in any limits, in any area or isIand, outside the high seas, or,Iahave
said, banks and rocks and so on which were not under the sovereignty
of either Party.
Clearly no implications about sovereignty could be dra& from purely
regulatory provisions of the kind such as ArticlesXVI orXLV of this
1843 text,and, as 1 Say, the significanceof al1that is that it is these
provisions which were in 1867 regarded as covering the whole ambit and
scope of the famous Article3.But even more significant is another point.
Trawl fishing, as opposed to dredging or line fishing, thetraw1 fishing
referred to in ArticleXVI, is something which is usually carried on at
sorne distance from the shore. This suggests very strongly that the
"Ses" referred to in ArticlXVI are high seas, not the territorial sea,
and this view is proved aimost conclusiveIy by two passages from the
minutes of the Commissioners' meeting. The first, which 1 will not
read, is onpage 647 of theprint oAnnex A 172,starting abouthalf-way
down with the words "Article 16is reserved for future consideration',
and continuing for about three paragraphs. But the second passage
occurs in the minutes of the meeting held by the Cornmissioners on
January 16th, 1867 (on p.652 of the pnnt) , and this passagesostriking
that 1 wiIl read it.
It says :
"The Convention [and it will be seen in a moment that they
are talkingof the 1839 Convention] was only binding on the two
nations in the open sea beyond the three-mileEimit, leaving it to
each to make such regulations as might be considered desirable
wilhin its own waters.-The English and French Governments
were therefore quite justified in making regulations within the
three-mile limit which were in ofipositionto the povisions of the
Conventionof 1839.-Moreover, therewas no difference of opinion
as regards the small oysters.-But the question then under con-
sideration was the sea common to both. [We shall see in a minute
what that common sea was.1-The English Commiçsioners thought
that the privilege of dredging al1 the year round, which is now
granted within the three-mile limit, should be extended io the
commonsea." [Underlining added.] ORAL ARGUMEXT OF Mt. FITZfiiAURICE (u.K.)-19 IX 53
84
Now, I ask the Court, could there be a clearer indication, first,
that the common sea meant the non-territorial sea-that is, the sea
outside the three-mile limit referred to in that quotati;and, secondly,
that it was only the position in this common-that is to Say, non-
territorial-seathatthe Parties werediscussing in relation to Article XVI
of the 1843 Regulations, and therefore in relation to Article 3 of the
1839 Convention, which disappeared because it was covered by
Article XVZ of the Regdations ; and therefore, thirdly, thatArticle 3
itself did not apply to any areas that were not non-territorial, and
consequently did not apply to the Minquiers and the Écréhous, which
both Parties assert to have been under the cxcluçive sovereignty of
one of them at that time, and the waters of which would consequently
have been territorial, not non-territorial
This 1867 text, therefore, Mr. President, and the negotiations that
led up to it in Our view very much support the proposition that
Articke 3 of the 1839 Convention did not apply to the Minquiers or-
latercrconvention-theOur 1951nenFishery iAgreement-whicht to aexpressly
provides, in effect, that Article 3 of the 1839 Convention is to be.
interpreted as applying to the groups. They may say that thiç is.
evidence that it did originaliy apply to the groups in 1839also. But
it might equaily be evidence of exactly the contyary. This old Con-.
vention was so obscure that it had to be re-interpreted in order to.
make sure that it applied to the Minquiers and the Ecréhous, eoelz-
for fishery purposes. But yet it is on the basis of this Convention that
our opponents ask the Court to hold that on the question of sovereignty.
aU the evidence of the last 1x4 years should be excluded. However,
if our opponents do make use of the 1951 Agreement to show that
Article 3 of the 1839 Convention applied to these groups, they must.
then concede the corollary of that argument-that the Convention.
only applied to the groups for purely fishery purposes, and in no way.
recluded claims to exclusive sovereigntyby the Parties-for the 1951
Fishery Agreement is precisely to that effect :so far frorn precludmg.
such claims, the common fishe régimeof that Agreement is established
expressly in contemplation O7 the fact that these daims exist and
wiU be made, and that one or other of the Parties will be declared to,
have the exclusive sovereignty over the areas where fishing is to be:
common. (And the Court will remernber that it is only within Iimited
zones tliat the Party declared to have sovereignty can grant exclusive.
fishery concessions : elsewhere the common position continues.) If
therefore the 1951 text can be used to show that, contrary to our-
view, Article 3 of the 1839Convention did apply to the groups, it .
is equally valid as evidence that it applied to them in a purely fishery-
sense, and without any of the implications or effect as to sovereignty-
which our opponents pretend.
In their Kejoinder, our opponents constantly accuse us of seeking
to deprive Article 3 of al1 meaning and effect. This is not so, as 1'
hope the Court wiii have seen. We merely attribute to it a different
regard them as giving it a greatly inflated meaning and effect, ewhichy-
its language cannot reasonably bear. We believe that Our interpretation
of Article 3 isquite adequate to give that provision a very definite
and fuii significance and effect. It applied ta a definite area of sea. ORAL ARGUMENT OF Mr. FITZhfAURICE (u.K.)-21 IX 53 85
and to any unclaimed territos. there might be in that area. The
Article, moreover, provided for definite rights, narnely, common oyster
fishery rights, and this involved a definite obligation, namely, not to
assert any exclusive oyster fishery right there. This being the position,
what juridical basis can there be for going any further, and giving
to this provision the fat-reaching significance for which Our opponents
contend ?
Here 1 would like to draw the attention of the Court to a cardinal
principle of interpretation which, 1 submit, ought to be applied in the
present case. The principle in question is this, that when suf3cient
and adequate effect can be given to a treaty provision by regarding
it as implying rights A and B, so to speak, it should not be interpreted
as also involving rights C and D, unless the language quite clearly
requires or implies this. It is no doubt proper that, in the application
of the principle ut res mugis valeat quam pereat, aU due effect shouId
they should be given that interpretatioa which will invest thern with
the fullest significance and effect. But this principIe cannot prnperly
be invoked so as to give a clause a greater significance and effect than
it can reasonably bear according to the natural and ordinary meaning
of its terms. This view was, I venture to suggest, affirmed by the
Court itself in the second phase of the Peace Treaties case, in which,
on page 229 of the Report, the Court discussed the scope of the tit
magis principle.
Now, it iç surely obvious-and here I finally leave the question
of what territory Article 3 of the 1839 Convention appiied to, and
confine myself to the question of what rights and obligations it irnplied
-it is surely obvious that Article 3can be given a perfectly adequate
and normal effect by reading it as involving what it actually specifies,
namely, certain common fishery rights-strictly oyster fishery rights ;
and as implying an obligation not to assert any exclusive right in
that respect. There is absolutely no need to go further than this in
order to give this clause its due effect, and therefore we submit that
it would not be justifiable to do so.
[Publi ittirtof Septcmber z~st,1953, morning]
Mr. President, hfembers of the Court, before I resume my argument
at the point where 1left off the otherday, 1would like to add a footnote
to something 1 was saying earlier. The Court will remember 1 argued
it was most improbable that Article 3,of the 1839Convention could have
applied to the Minquiers and the Ecréhous if these groups had been
under the sovereignty of either of the Parties, as of course both Parties
now claim that they were. 1 argued that, in these circumstances, it
would have been Article g which was applicable, and 1 tried to show
that, ina certain sense, Articl3 was strictly superfiuous, since it applied
to regions where the Parties would in any case both have had a right to
fish. Our Agent in this case, Mr, Best, has reminded me of a feature
which strongly supports this view and which also suggests what was
alrnost certainly the true explanation of why the Parties included this
apparently uuselessprovision. Thisfeature was the tendency of the fisher-
men onboth sides to clairn aquasi-propnetaryright, a sort of right almost86 ORAL ARGUMENT OF Mr. FITZMAURICE (u.K.)-21 IX 53
of private property, in oyster banks which they had discovered or which
they had cultivated, even though these banks lay outside the limit of
territorial waters and therefore in parts of the sea where legally no
exclusive right could be claimed. And here I would like to draw the
attention of the Court to certain passages in the Counter-Mernorial and
in the United Kingdom Reply.
To take the United Kingdom Reply first, at the bottom of page452
and the top of page 453 we drew attention to somecorrespondence which
had been given in the French Counter-Mernorial,correspondence between
the Prince de Polignac and hlr. Canning,'given as Annexes I and 3 to
the Counter-Mernorial, and also we referred there to a subsequent letter
of December 24th, 1825,frorn Sir Robert PeeI, as Home Secretary, to
the Minister then responsible for fishing in the United Kingdom and the
Channel Islands, and which was reproduced in Annex A 141. And then
we went on like this :"A study of these documents makes it ciear that
there were three main difficulties, arising frorn the peculiar character
of the oyster fishing industry." And the one 1 want to cite is the first:
"The French fishermen regarded themselves as entitled to an
exclusive right to fish certain oyster banks off the French coast
outçide the normal limits of French territorial waters. They consid-
ered that they had (as the French Counter-Memorial says, pp. 360-
363)'a quasi-propnetary nght in these banks, or rather in the
oyster beds on them, by reason of having cultivated them."
And I think perhaps it is worth looking at the French cointer-~emorial.
Citing from page 359 of the French text but reading the English transla-
tion, there is this passage:
"The French fishermen, at that time, regarded the oyster banks
as the fruit of their labours, or those of their forefathers in the
eighteenth century. They had cultivated the oysters and they
expected to reap what they had sown ...."
And then, on page 360 we have this :
"During this first stage, each Party was defending a standpoint
which was apparentiy simple. The British fishermen claimed the
right to dredge oysters wherever they were to be found. The French
fishermeh resisted this claim, wherever they had oysters to defend,
i.e. everywhere in the sea-area where they had cultivated oysters,
in the belief that they had thereby acquired an exclusive nght to
the harvest ."
Then finally, on page 364 :
"To realize this fact, iwas only necessary to recall that most of
the oyster-beds lying at a distance of two leagues from the French
coast [that is, outside the normal limits of territorial waters],
discovered during the last war between France and England byad been
Jersey fishermen, who had thus acquired an incontestable right to
their possession."
So it seems that the fishermen on both sides were apt, when they dis-
covered banks of oysters, to claim a sort of prior right to their use,
wherevei*those banks might be situated ;and therefore these passages ORAL ARGUMENT OF hlr.FITZMAURICE (u.x.)-21 IX 53 87
do sukgest very strongly that, although Article3 may have ken super-
fluous in the sense that it only applied, in our view, tothe non-territorial
sea and to banks, reefç and rocks not capablc of appropriation, it never-
theless hada definite use açemphasizing and marking the fact that no
exclusive right could be claimed in these regions outside temtorial
waters. But of courseifthere were any islets in the region actually under
the sovereignty of either Party, then the principle of exclusive fishery
rights would apply by virtue of Article9. And this interpretation also
goes far, we think, to explain why Article 3 was dropped in the 1867
text. By 1867 the respective fishermen had given up trying to assert
proprietary claims in banks outçide territorial waters. The positionhad
become çtabilized, and Article 3 could be dropped. 1 just wanted to
add what, it seems to me, iç a very illuminating footnote to what 1
said on Saturday.
I now resume where 1 left off. The Court wilt remember 1 had
pointed out that, according to the natural and normal meaning of its
termç, there \vas no warrant for reading into Article 3 the implications
about sovereignty involved by the French contention. 1 kad equally
tried to show that there was no ground for ascribing to the Parties
any intention whatever of dealing with .the question of sovereignty
or of deaiing with anything else but fisheries pure and simple, and
in particular the oyster fishery. If these views arc correct, it follows
that there is one ground, and one ground only, on \hich the French
contention could be justified, and that would be if it was in fnct
imposçible, as a matter of practice, for two countries to sharacommon
fishery in waters over which one of them had the exclusive sovereignty.
Mr. President, we, of course, can see no reason at al1 why the *
common fishery cannot be carried on in waters over which one of the
Parties has exclusive sovereignty, and in paragraph 76 and Annexes A
r48-150 of our Reply, we cited certain cases in ahich rights of fishery
had been, or were now, shared between countrieç in certain areas
which were under the exclusive savereignty a£ only one of the Parties,
showing that there is nothing unusual or impracticable in that situation.
Our opponents have attempted to discount the value of these examples
on the ground that, in the cases in question, there kvas no dispute
about the sovereignty over the areas concerned. We fail to see the
relevance of this, or inwhat way it makes any differenceto our argu-
ment. May I re-state Our argument because, in their Rejoinder, our
opponents have subjected it to a certain amount of distortion. Wh:it
we argued was that a provision about common fisheries is so far removed
from anything to do with sovereignty or implications about sovereignty
that it could only be regarded ashaving any bearitig on that question
if it could be shown that a common fishery right between two countries
is onZy exercjsable, as a practical matter, so long as neither of them
possesses orclaims any exclusive sovereignty over the area in question.
If, therefore, it can be shown that the exercise of common fishery
rights isperfectly compatible with the exercise by one of the Parties
of an exclusive sovereignty over the area, then it must foIlow that
no çuch implications wn properly be read into a common fishery
provision as Our opponents seek to read into Article 3.The examples
we gave demonstrated precisely that ; and in our view the force of88 ORAL ARGUMENT OF Mi. FITZMAURICE(u.K.)-21 IX 53
cases therelewass no dispute abouteakthe temtorialacsovereignty.ose
But may 1 ask the Court to observe that there was ,equally no
dispute about sovereignty over the Minquiers and the Ecréhous in
1839-so that, if this question of whether the sovereignty was in
dispute is matenal at aiiand even if it were the fact that Ourexamples
would only be relevant to a case where there was no dispute about
sovereignty, the Minquiers and the Ecréhous in 1839 were just such
a case. Consequently, the examples we gave are applicable to that
case and to the question of what the Parties intended by Article 3
of the Convention.
But more than that. Even if the sovereignty over the Minquiers and
the Écréhoushad been in dispute in 1839,the result would be no different
-for, if our opponents insist on being furnished with an example of
a common fishery right exercisable in an area the sovereignty over
which isin dispute, but without the right to daim exclusive territorial
sovereignty being in any way barred, then the rccent 1951 Fishery
Agreement affords preciseIy such an exampie, and in respect of these
very islands. Here is an actual case-andin relation to these very islands
and as between these same Parties-in which, the sovereignty being
in dispute, the Parties i~evertheless agree on comrnon fishery rights.
Moreover, they do this knowing that exclusive sovereignty wiLl be
adjudged by the Court to one or other of them over areas in which
fishing will all the same rernain common. Ive submit, Mr. President,
that this example is absolutely conclusive of our contention. How can
it, in the face of the example of the recent IgjI Fishery Agreement,
any longer be pretended that an agreement for cornmon fisheriesjs
incompatible with exclusive sovereignty, or precludes the assertion of?it
Equally misconceived, we think, is the French argument in their
Rejoinder, on pages 715-71 6rected to çhoivingthat Article 3 did not
create a servitude, and that the existence oa servitude must be proved
and cannot be presumed. It is immaterial, Mr. President, for present
purposes,whether you cal1fishery rights exercised by one country in the
waters of another country a "servitude" or not. We were not in Our
Reply, and we are not now, concerned to argue whether servitudes in
the stricttechnical sense of the term, as they were originally known to
Roman law, are also known ta international law. There can be no doubt
at al1that something analogous to them is known to international law.
In the celebrated case ivjth which the Court is familiar, of the North-
Atlantic Coast Fisheries, the tribunal declined to find that a United
States right offishery,existing in common with a British right of fishery
in certain waters under exclusive British sovereignty, was in the nature
of an actual servitude. But they did not on that account refuse to
recognize the existence of those United States fishery rights. On the
contrary, the whole arbitration took place on the basis that these rights
existed :the only question at issue was what exactly did they amount
to. There was no hint throughout the proceedings of any suggestion
that the comrnon fishery rights were inany way inconsistent with the
exercise of the exclusive British sovereignty, or that the latter in any
way prevented the due exercise ofthe common fishery rights. Sovereignty
was never in question. This therefore was againaclear case of a common
fishery right exercised in waters over which one af the Parties had the
exclusive sovereignty. ORAL ARGUMENT OF Mr. FITZMAURICE (u.K.)-21 IX 53 89
And what is more, Mr. President, in its award, the tribunal made a
very important pronouncement about the character of fishery rights.
1 quote from page 159 of the late James Brown Scott's Hague Court
Reports (that is the reports of cases for the most part heard by the
Permanent Court of Arbitration). Refemng to the relevant Anglo-
United States Treaty of 1818, under which the common fishery rights
existed, the tribunal said this:
"by the treaty of 1818one State grants a liberty to fish, which
is not a sovereign right, but a purely economic right, to the
inhabitants of another State."
That, we think, supports Our contention that when two countries
agree to exercise common fishery rights in certain waters, they are
agreeing about primarily economic rights, and not about rights of
sovereignty, and that such an agreement ought not to be read as
carrying implications about sovereignty, either positive or negative.
Mr. President, it is not difficult to think of other economic rights which
two countries might share in a sirnilar way, in some temtory or island
belonging to one of them. I wilI not trouble to give examples, but
they are easily thought of and indeed such situations exist in the
world at this tirne. Such an agreement about cornmon economic rights
of one form or another, for the use of a certain piece of territory or
island would merely result in an agreed limitation on the sovereignty
of the territorial sovereign, but not, of course, in any exclusion of
it. Our opponents, we think, have yet to demonstrate in what way
cornmon fisheries are exceptional or must involve the implications
. about sovereignty which they suggest.
Now, of course, we pointed out a great deal of al1this in Our Reply,
expecting-hoping-that in their Rejoinder our opponents would tell
us why and how the exercise of common fishery rights prevents any
exclusive territorial sovereignty. But we found in the Rejoinder only
an attempt to refute Our own arguments without any corresponding
attempt to explain the basic French thesiç, the validity of which
again seemed to us simply to be assumed. And 1 think it fair to say
asawewedid in the Counter-Mernorial. Iymaye sjust citeaocouple of them,
for instance, on page 727of the Rejoinder we find this remark :
"Moreover, to enable effect to be given to that Article [that
is, to Article 31, it is necessary, and it suffices, that the two
Parties should refrain from asserting cIaims of sovereignty against
one another."
But, hlr. President, 1.hope we have shown that, in order to give effect
to the Article, this is not at al1 necessary : it is only necessary that
the Parties should refrain from asserting exclusive fiskery claims
against each other.
Then there is a further passage on page 727 of the Rejoinder where,
after aIIeging that after 1839 "French fishermen continued to fish
these maritime areas jointly with the British fishermen", it is stated :
"That is the situation which would be upset [prejudiced] by
the establishment of the exclusive sovereignty of either nation."90 ORAL ARGUfiZENT OF Mr. FITZMAURICE(u.K.)-21 IS 53
But, if my argument is right, it would not be upset or prejudiced.
If the right of common fishery in fact exists, thcn the country having
or claiming the temtorial sovereignty must give effect to the common
fishery right. It must abide by the agreement and allow the fishermen
of the other country to fish in its waters. But it is not on that account
obliged to abdicate its sovereignty. In paragraph 78 of our Reply, to
which 1 invite the attention of the Court, we discussed the mechanics
of a common fishery in territory under the sovereignty of one of the
Parties, and showed that no practical difficulty existed. We showed
how it would and does work, and this is, we think, an important point.
Moreover, again, this is the very position established by the recent
Iggr ,Fishery Agreement.
This brings me, hIr. Presidcnt, ta tlie third main argument about
Article 3 which we put forward in our Keply ; namely, that the subse-
quent canduct of the Parties liad not been consistent with the French
interpretation of this provision. And herc 1 would like to invoke what 1
myself cailed "the principle of subsequent practice" in an article in which
1 ventured to nnalyze the jurisprudence of the Court on that subject
in the Briiisla Yea~Book O/ l~ller?zatio~tlaw for 1951 :1 mention it
only because on pages g and 20-22 of that article in the volume, there
will be found in convenientform a summary of it. The principle has been
applied by the Court in a nurnber of cases, and jnAnnex A 151 to our
Reply we gave some examples of that. Now, when considering that
principle of thelight wliich the subsequent practicof the partiesthrows
on the interpretation of a treaty provision, it is very materiül that
previous French Governrnents have expressly recognized the perfect
compatibility of exclus~veso.vereignty with the exercise of a common
and go of our Reply. This occurred on five or six separate occasions,9 l
ranging from 1886 to 1938. These admissions-they are more than
admissions, tliey are contentions adoptcd by France herseIf-are explicit
and striking. 1 will not read them, as they are set out in our lieply,
but in each case a dcfinite assertion of French sovereigntwas followed,
eitlier by a staternent that French sovereignty would not prejudice
British fisliery rights, or by a claim tliat, even if the sovereignty lay
ivith theUnited Kingdom, this could not prejudice French fishery rights.
These statements seem to us to constitute a very clear recognition of
two things on the part of previous French Governments : first, that
Article 3 of the Convention did not prcvent claims to exclusive,sover-
eignty over the idands, since France was actually asserting such a
claim ; and, secondly, that common fisheries could perfectly well be
carried on despite the possession of exclusive so\,ereignty by one of the
Parties, for Francewas actively maintaining that they should be, which-
ever side had the sovereignty.
This was equally the United Ringdom view, as expressed in the
diplornatic correspondence, and 1would refer for proof of this to para-
graphs 79, 80and 91 (b) of out Reply. Our opponents have cited in
their Rejoinder (on p. 717) a passage from the opinion of the Jersey Law
Officersof April zrst, 1887,which is given as Annex A 47 to the United
Kingdom Mernorial. Our opponents suggest that in this passage the
Jersey Law Officersadmitted and affirrned that the assertion of British
sovereignty was incompatible with common fishery rights for French
fishermen. Mr. President, a careful reading of the passage shows that ORAL ARGUMENT OF Mr. FITZJIAURICE (u.K.)-21 IX 53 91
the view put forwnrd by ouf opponents is a misinterpretation of what.
the Jersey Law Officers were saying on that occasion. It was not the
fiossibilitof the co-existence of exclusive sovereignty with cornmon
fishery rights that the Jersey Law Officers were denying. It was the
existence of the cornmon fishery rights themselves in the case of the
Minquiers and the Écréhous that thcy deniecl, because, in their view,
Article 3 of the 1839 Convention did not apply to the islands at aI1,
since they were British, and therefore it was Articles 2 or 9, not 3,
which applied to them. As the Court knows, throughout this period
the Parties were nt cross-purposes,because on the French side the view
taken was that Article 3 caused the Minquiers and the Écréhous to be
subject toa régimeof common fishery, whereas on the United Kingdom
side jtwas always denied that -4rticle 3 applied to the Minquiers and
the Ecréhous and therefore, for that reason, it was denied that there
were any cornmon fishery rights there-but never atany time uras there
any denial that common fishery rights and exclusive sovereignty could
CO-exist. And, indeed, more than one United Kingdom Government
clearly affirmed that there was no necessary incompatibility, This can.
be seen from the two United Kingdom notes given in Annexes A 40
and A 69 to our Memorial, and 1 would refer also to paragraphs 79 and
g~ (bJ of Our Reply.
WeIl, equally expIicit, as 1 have said, were the French admissions
and affirmations of the same thing. Wow, then, can the Government of
the Republic now revert once more to rnaintaining that, during this
period, Article 3 of the Convention constituted a bar to claims to exclu-
sive sovereignty ? Iis all very well for our opponents to try and expIain
this matter, to esplain their attitude-a little disingenuously, as we
think-by means of such statements as that which appears, for instance,
on page 7x9 of the Kejoinder.1 quote :
"The Government of the Republic does not deny that, in the
course of the intermittent negotiations, the French diplomatists
did not always base Article 3 on tlie same legal foundation" ;
and then again :
"At different times they held different views as to the legal
category to which the stntus of the intermediate zone most naturally
belonged."
Then they go on :
"But these are not matters of real importance."
For oiir part, Mr. President, we must insist that these are matters
of real importance, and that the attitude adopted by previous French
Governments during the period in question had a very definite legal
significance and effect. It is a question ofvo mutually exclusive propo-
sitions.1 believe it was the philosopher Spinoza who at one time said.
that one of the few certain things in this world is that a tree cannot.
both be and not be a tree. Equally, Article 3 of the 1839 Convention
cannot both make claims to exclusive sovereignty incompatible with
the exercise of a common fishery nght, and yet at the sarne time pennit
of claims to exclusive sovereignty becnuse there is in fnct no such
incompatibility, and both can be' exercised simultaneously. The one.92 ORAL ARGUhIENT OF Mr:FITZhlhURICE (u.K.)-21 IX 53
cannot both be and not be incompatible with the other ;and if one of
these positions is correct, the other cannotbe,and vice versa.
Nowin the notes to which I have ken referring, andin other diplomatic
notes, the Government of the Republic very definitely took its stand
on the second meaning, thnt there was no incompatibility, and on that
basis the Government of the Republic asserted France's claim to sover-
eignty whiie at the same time maintaining-quite correctly, of coarse-
that, whichever side had the sovereignty, this was no impediment to
the common fishery rights of both countries, which should continue.
Once this position had been taken up, it ceased-we think-to be
any longer open to a Government of the Republic to revert, as Our
opponents are now seeking to do, to the earlier argument about the
effect of Article 3. One does not, of course, want to tie down a govern-
ment in respect of its past pronouncements in too literal a sense. That
is in no way what 1have in mind to do. But the present case is rather
different, because what is involved is a question cafiacity and capacity
either exists or it does not exist. Like Spinoza's tree, it cannot both
be and not be. The present Frenchargument isthat, by reason of Article 3,
the Parties were disqualified alithis tirne from açserting any exclusive
sovereignty. Therefore, according to this argument, they had no capacity
ai that time to assert their sovereignty or to make a clairn. But putting
on the part of the country claiming that capacity duly exists. From thelief
moment, therefore, that any French Government put forward a claim
to sovereignty, it necessardy asserted its capacity todo so ; and, corre-
spondingly, it necessariiy admitted the similar capacity of the United
Kingdom. But if thic sapacity existed at that time, then it must always
have existed, and must indeed exist now, for Article 3 liad not, and has
not, changed, and nothing had or has occurred, either previously or
subsequently, to alter the situation,or to impose or re-impose on the
Parties any incapacity that was not originally there. A French Govem-
ment, having once admitted, and, indeed, based its claim on the view
that Article 3constituted no bar toa claim to sovereignty, our opponents
cannot now Say that such a bar existed after al1 during this period
and, in consequence, that aUthe events of this period must be excluded
from consideration of the present claims of the two countries to sover-
eignty.
France, in our view, has always been in this case more concerned
to deny the British daim than to assert its own, and I believe that
what really happened after the middle of the last century was that
the Governrnent of the Republic, being reluctant either to assert or
abandon its claims, hoped, by using Article 3 as a basis, to have the
question of sovereignty left in abeyance-perhaps quite a natural
hope. But, nevertheless, this hope being disappointed, since the United
Kingdom Governmeni-quite legitimately, we think-took a different
view, of the effcct of Article 3, this hope being disappointed, the
Government of the Republic saw that it must either assert a definite
claim or not do so, and it decided to do so-and of course it was
perfectly within its rights in taking that decision. But, having done
so, it could not subsequently Say that Article 3 created for the Parties
an obligation not to clairn, and it cannot sa r so now. This, however,
is what our opponents are saying in fact, or it is on the supposed
inability to assert or exercise any exclusive sovereignty in the period ORAL ARGUMENT OF >Ir,FITZMAURICE (u.K.)-PI IX 53 93
1839-19 h0at their argument that 1839 is the critical date is founded..
We can only conclude, therefore, that the attitude and actions of
neither Party subsequent to 1839 was consistent with the view of
the 1839 Convention now put fonvard, and that for this reaçon also
that view must be considered to be incorrect. or altematively that
ithas long since been abandoned by the Parties and cannot now be
revived.
hlr. President, this concludes Our argument directed to showing
that 1839 cannot be accepted as the cntical date in the present case.
1 shaü now Say a very few words about the original suggestion of our
opponents that the period round about 1870or 1880 should be taken
as the cntical date, because the dispute is said to. have been born
then. In Our Reply (in various passages between paragraphs 194and
zgo), we tried to show why this period could equaliy not be regarded
as the critical date. Applpng the principles I discussed earlier in my
present speech, the position is that, even if the dispute now before
the Court couId be said to have had its birth at that penod (1870 or
1880) more than at any other particular tirne, it is not the date of
birth, assuch, that counts. It is aIways a matter of great difficulty
to say exactly when a dispute is born. Disputes start with differences
of view. And, as 1 was saying, it is only when these crystallize into a
concrete issue that a dispute in the proper sense can be said to have
arisen, and in turn to give rise toa cntical date. It seems to us manifest
that the desultory interchanges which took place between the Parties
and in support of that view Ild notwould gilikertaeinvakecrithe statement
which Our opponents have thernselves made. I will simply take the
two statements which I read a moment ago in another connection.
1 quote from page 719 of the Rejoinder :
"The Governrnent of the Republic does not deny that, in the
course of the intermittent negotiations, the French diplomatists
did not aIways base Article 3 on the samc legal foundation."
i According, then, to our opponents, at that tirne it was not so much a
dispute but what might be called "~ourparlers",negotiations, discus-
sions, about the situation.
And then the other quotation from the sarne page :
"At different times they [that would be the Parties or the French
diplomatists] held difierent views as to the legal category to which
the status of the intermediate zone most naturally belonged."
So we see, Mr. President, that these differences of view had not corne
' to a head. They were not always even about the same things, for some-
times they were about sovereignty ,sometimes about fisheries and sorne-
times about a sort of mixture of the two. Then, as 1 was pointing out
the other day, there were very long gaps, which 1 will not recapitulate,
but in the case of the Écréhous certainly lasting for a prolonged number
of years until just before the date of the subrnission of this dispute to
the Court. In the case of the Minquiers, the gaps were less long but never-
. theless very considerable. And in ail those circumstances, hlr.President ,
it does seem to us fair and right to Say that this disputedid not crystal-
lize-did not really take the form of an actual dispute-until three or
four years ago when it was decided to submit the matter ta the Court. 94 ORAL AIIGUhIEST OF Mr. FITZLIAURICE (u.K.)-PI IX 53
We pointed out in Our Reply that merely putting forward a claim to
territory could not by itself operate to freeze the whole legal situation
into immobility for ever after, and automatically shut out the evidence,
or destroy the value,of al1subsequent events.
We suggest it was the same with the French protests of this period.
They could not by themselves-not being accompanied or followed by
proposais for arbitration Or other means of settlement-give rise to a
critical date. Mr. Harrison of Jersey, when he comes to address you,
willshow that the French protests of this penod ivere scarcely effectual,
in the circumstances, even tukeep France's claim to sovereignty alive.
But whether thnt was so or not, certainly these protestç did no more
than keep France's daim alive. They could not have given rise ta a
critical date, shutting outthe evidence af aii the events between about
1880 and the present time.
1 now corne to the final point 1 have to make on the subject of the
critical date. It ithis, that, even if some date such as 1839 or 1880
should be regarded as the critical date in this case, rather than 1950
or 1951 ,hen the dispute crystallized and was submitted to the Court-
and I hope 1 have convinced the Court that this is not so-but even if
it were so, it would not mean that the events subsequent to these dates
of 1839 or 1880o ,r whatever it rnight be, had no relevance to the issue
at all. WCreferred to this matter in paragraphs 223 and 224 of Our
Reply, and we showed that, although evidence of acts occurring after
the criticai date cannot be adduced directly in proof of title, they may
be receivable indirectly, because of the light they throw on events occur-
nng before the critical date, or on the position as it stood at that date.
We showed that in the IslaltdoJ Palrnas case, Judge Huber, while
fixing 1898 as the critical date, admitted evidence of certain things
occurring or existing between 1898and 1906, not as direct evidence of
title in themseives, but because of "the light they might throw on the
period imrnediately preceding". The principle involved is analogous and
very similar to "the principle of subsequent practice", to which I referred
a moment ago in another connection. Just aç the subsequent practice
of parties toa treaty, in relation to it, cannot alter the meaning of the
treaty, but may yet be evidence of what that meaning is, or of what
the parties had inmind in concluding it, so equally events occurring
. after the critical date in a dispute about terntory cannot operate to
alter the position as it stood at tbat date, but Inay nevertheless be
evidence of, and throw ligh otn,what that position was.
This principle is of great importance, we think, because normally
sovereignty over territory is not something that springs up ovemight.
It is a continuing process. At any given moment it has probabiy been
going on for some tirne. If the critical date in a given caisdetermined
to be the year X, and a number of years after X you find one of the
contestant5 exercising a sovereignty which has allthe signs of stability
and continuity, that in itself gives rise to a strong presumption that
this sovereignty has existed for some time and existed at the critical
date also.
Applying these principles to the present case, we should contend
that, even if the critical date were 1839or 1880, the fact that, imme-
diately subsequent to those dates, and right up to the present time,
you find the United Kingdom in sole effective possession and invoking
an ancient title and a long continuance of this possession ;that al1 ORAL ARGUMENT OF Mr. FITZMAURICE (u.K.}-PI IX 53 95
the normal manifestations of sovereignty during that period are carried
out from the British side, and none from the French ; that residents
and property owners on the islands act as if they were on British,
not French territory ; that Jersey law alone is applied-thesc and
many other factors create a virtually irresistible presurnption that
the islands were also British at the earlier dates.
For these reasons, evcn if the Court should hold some date earlier
than 1950 to be the critical date, we should contend that the later
evidence cannot properly be excluded entirely and that it proves the
existence of Our title on the earlicr date also, even if that title cannot
be established by events occurring at or beforc that date, as Professor
Wade, who will follow me, will show the Court that it can. But of
course my submission to the Court is that there isonly one correct
critical date in this case, namely, December zgth, 1950, when the
Parties signed the Compromis in virtue of which we are here to-day.
hlr. President; that concIudes my address, and Professor Wade will
follow me on the medieval history and later. 1 wonder, Mr. President,
if 1 might mention one point of proccdure befare 1leave the rostrum.
We are very anxious to finish Our presentation of the case if possible
by Wednesday and at the latest on Thursday morning. It might assist
us considerably to do that if the Court felt able to sit at IO instead
of 10.30during the nest two or three mornings. 1 merely make that
suggestion,Rlr. President, and naturally itisentireIy for you to dccide. 3. ORAL ARGUMENT OF PROFESSOR WADE
[Public sitlingof SePtember z~st,1953, morning]
Mr. President and Members of the Court, it is my special task to
address you on the origins of the United Kingdom title-or, if I may
so put it--of the Jersey title to the Minquiers and the Écréhous;
and to show how that title waç asserted throughout the Wddle Ages
and thereafter. 1 shall take the matter up ta about 1800-the end
of the eighteenth century. Mr. Harrison of Jersey, who will follow
which have occurred since 1800. 1 fear, Mr. President, that Mr. Fitz-ty
mausice may have raiscd some expectations in the rninds of some
Members of the Court that I was to deliver a sparkling account of .
thrilling events through the ages. There is no doubt that, in reading
the history books, the events are thrilling and at some times romantic,
but 1 fear it would be impossible for me, in subrnitting those events
to a somewhat close, critical historical analysis, to fulfil the rale which
Mr. Fitzmaurice predictcd.
First (and this will indeed be one of my principal tasks), I shall
try to show that France has failed to establish any original title to
the Channel Islands, and that we have shown an original title in the
Engiish Crown which hascontinued for about a thousand years, certainly
earlier than 1066-the date regarded as traditionalin England, through,
of course, the Duke of Normandy. But secondly 1 shall show-or hope
tethat, even if some sort of abstract feudal title can be postulated
in favour of France, France lost that title and a valid title on our
part has replaced that of France. Now, before 1 go any further-
because I fear that in the course of my remarks the international law
aspect rnay recede somewhat, at al1 events when 1 am dealing with
events of a thousand or more years agc-1 want to place before the
Court what I Say against the background of the Island O/ Palmas
and the Eastern Greenland cases. which Sir Lionel Heald gave the
Court in his opening speech, 1 will not, of course, repeat that analysis,
but I will just summarize in six short propositions the principles applied
in those two cases that seem, to me and my colleagues, to be relevant
to the present dispute.
First-that, in deciding bet~veentwo competing clairns to territory,
each country's claim and grounds of claim should be considered as a
whole, and the decision shouid be in favour of the country whose claim
is the weightier. If I rnay, Mr. President, I pause there to stress that
be examining a title by Our two countries stage by stage rather thanhall
Iooking at is as a whole.
And the second proposition was that it isnot enough to show that a
titleexisted at some point in the past : it must be shown stili to be in
existence on whatever date is determined to be the critical one. The Court is now well aware that our submission in that respect is the year
1950 thedate of the Compromis.
Thirdly, that there is no presumption of continued sovereignty-it
must be shown to have been actively kept up by a sufficient display
of State authority :international law does not recognize abstract titie
to territory devoid of concrete manifestations. My pcriad admittedly
will be less full than that of Mr. Harrison with regard to acts of concrete
manifestation. 1 think, however, that before 1 have finished, the Court
will agree that 1have put before them for their consideration a consider-
able volume of evidence.
Fourth-that the amount of State activity required for this purpose
will depend on the circurnstances, and that, while a comparatively slight
display may sufficein some cases, this will only be so if the other claimant
StFifth-that shwherea aeclaim is based on long continued effective pos-
session and control, it is not necessary to show that title was acquired
at any particular moment of time or under any particular formal act,
provided that it exists at the critical date.
Sixthly-that if one country is exercising or purporting to exercise
sovereignty over a temtor as a whole, andhas manifested that intention
by appropriate acts, it isLr the other clairnant to show that this sover-
eignty did not in fact extend to particular parts of the territory.
It is against the background of these principles that 1 now turn to
history, and to the events and circurnstances dating from the tenth
century that have a bearing on this case.
1shall divide my observations on history, Rlr. President, into sections.
Later 1 shall deal with documents specificaliy evidencing title to the
Minquiers and Écréhous. 1 shall begin on the history with the eventç
previous to 1204, this being the date when continental Normandy first 4
passed into French hands, and in connection with that period I shall
particularly consider the question of original title to the Channel Islands
as a whole. Next, I shall consider the penod from 1204to the end of
the Middle Ages (and perhaps a little bit beyond the traditional date,
1485) as it affected the Channel Islands generally and with special.
reference to the diplornatic acts or treaty instruments of the period that
arc relevant to the legal position of the islands:the Treaty of Lambeth,
in particular, in 1217, the Treaty of Paris or Abbeville (1shall be refer-
ring to it as the Treaty of Paris in the course of my speech-the place
of ratification rather than the place of signature), the Treaty of Calais
or Rretigny in 1360, and the Treaty of Troyes in 1420-the text of aii
those treaties is reproduced in the opening pages of the Appendix to
Our Mernorial-and also certain subsequent rninor instruments. I çhall
des1 only with eçsentials. 1 shall here again be considering the Channel
Islands as a whole, rather than the hlinquiers and the Écréhous as
individual groups; but 1 shall show that the presumption that they
were part of the Channel Islands and under English nile during the
plausible. At this point 1 shall state-it is at the end of the Middle Ages
-what seems to me to be the general legal position, and 1 shall show
that, apart from the specific evidence of English medieval rule over
the IIIinquiers and the Écréhous, there can be little doubt that France
did not possess sovereignty over them at the end of this period, and that
England did. After that, 1 shall consider specific evidence relating to the Minquiers
and the Écréhousseparately-as 1 have already said-and then 1sliall
bring the history of the Minquiers and the Ecréhous up to date, dorvn
to about 1800. In the last two parts ofmy speech 1 shall also deal with
a third group of islands, which the Court will have noticed crop up from
time to time in the written yleadings, the fles Chausey. I shail show
that the Chausey were unquestionably English in the Middle Ages and
later (in particular 1 shall be talking about 1500), and that they did
not become firmly French until the middie of the eighteenth centuiy.
I shall show haw this creates a presumption that the Minquiers and the
Écréhouswere also English in the Middle Ages and after, and there was
no change in their position-the Minquiers and the Écrdhous-in the
eighteenth century or later, in contrast, of course, to the Chausey.
In discussing the case under these various sections-principally, the
situation before 1204, the effect of the treaty instruments, the specific
facts relating to each group and to the Chausey up to the early nine-
teenth century-1 shall try to establish three main propositions :
Fivst-that 'the original root of title, based on actual possession-
"seisin", to use the canternporary feudal tem-was vested in England,
not France ;
Second-that this tit. has always been maintained by the effective
exercise of sovereignty ;
Thiud-that even if, in the early Middle Ages, the original root of
title did lie with France, it was subsequently lost by various facts, such
as the operation of treaties and in particular the passing of the feudal
system which, asa matter of historical fact is well-known, did not
survive the Middle Ages, and bccause it wq never effectively exercised.
As regards the first proposition, which also depends very largely
on the events before 1204-the vesting of the original title in England
-we claimed in our Mernorial that the original root of title of the
English Crown to the whole of the Channel Islands can be traced back
to 1066when William, Duke of Normandy, became King of England.
In their Counter-hiemorial, Our apponents relied principally on the
contention that, by the arrdt or judgment of 1202, the rigl-its and
lands of the Duke of Normandy becarne forfeited to the Crown of
France, and thus the Crown of England lost its original title. In our
Reply, we showed that this arréfor judgment of 1202 was of dubious
validity-and ure showed it on a number of gronnds-and that fact
is dernonstrated by the controversy, the'very considernble controvcrsy,
that it lias given rise to among the historians of both countries, which
appears never to have been resolved. We also pointed out in our
Reply that the arrêw t as never executed as regards the Channel Islands.
In their Rejoinder, therefore, our opponents went still further back
in time, and to our contention that the English Crown had an original
title from 1066 on through the Dukes of Normandy, they replied that
argue, the original title lay with France.h Crown. Therefore, they
Now, obviously, this argument pre-supposes that the Channel Islands
were a part of the territory that the Dukes held-the Dukes of Nor-
mandy held-at least nominally, of the French Crawn, in the sense
that any homage they may have done for continental Normandy ipso
jacto covered the Channel Islands as weii. 1 shali try to show that
the probabilities are againsl this, and that at al1eventç it cannot beassumed to be true. The French Rejoinder states it baldly as a fact,
as if it were self-cvident, but mv submission js that itis not and that
the French give little or indeed no evidence in.support of that fact.
But nevt 1 shall hope to show that, even if it'be assurned that the
Channel Islands were comprised within the arnbit of the French over-
lordship, the character of that reIationship, overlordship, as it existed
between the French Crown and the Duke of Normandy, was not really
in the nature of sovereignty as tve understand it to-day-certainly
not as international law understands it.It was what historians cail
suzerainty, as is indeed admitted, if one turns to pages 691 and 692 of
the French text of the Rejoinder :tlïere you find the term "suzerain"
is actualIy used to describe the position of the French Kings. Now
this suzerainty was of a particularly. tenuous and shadowy kind. It
was, in fact, purely nominal, and particularly 50 at the time when
the Channel Islands passed into Norman hands and even more so
when William of Normandy conquered England. The Dukes were to
aU intents and purposeç independent sovereigns themselves, and Nor-
rnandy was a Kingdom in ail but name-or at any rate a principality,
and an independent one at that, in our view. A title rirising from
nothing but a relationship of that kind seems to us to be devoid of
substance-and anpvay, an insufficient foundation for a claim said
to be based on ancient rights and, moreover, to be subsisting after
more than a thousand years.
These are the points, Mr. President, that 1 shall try to establish.
First, the Dukes of Normandy probably never owed allegiance for
the Channel Islands and never intended to include them in the nominal
and rare hornage that they paid for their continental possessions to
French Kings. Sccondly, that any homage wbich they might have
.paid for these continental possessions and the Channel.Islands was
of a perfunctory nature, because they held and mled those possessions
aç virtually independent kings (rulers).
I must apologize, if I seem to discuss this aspect of the case at
some length, but I really have to do so because, in the Rejoinder,
the Government of the Republic have raised for the first time this .
question of a titIe based on homage supposed to have been done by
William Longsword to the French King in respect of the Channel
Islands as iar back as the year 936. Perhaps I should also spologize-
and more particularly perhaps to my learned friend Professor Gros-
if a professor of English law attempts to challenge the view put forward
by the Government of the Republic concerning the history of France.
To them 1 can only Say that this view of our opponents is by no means
universally shared, even by French historians. And, anyway, the
jmrnediate issue is not so much of French history as Norman history,
a subject on which we in England regard ourselves as having some
sort of cquivalent right to speak, especially as regards tlie period
under consideration. 1 need only mention a name that must be known
to many Members of the Court, if not to aii, Professor Powicke and
hiKow, what does the French Rejoinder Say about the position prior
vanous sentences from the Rejoinder. They are al1of thern taken from cite
page 686 of the French text-1 shall read-them in English, from page z 100 ORAL ARGUMENT OF PROF. {VADE (u.K.)-PI xx 53
of the English translation l,and make various comments in the course
of thiscitation. After that I shall give onr own version of what probably
happened before 1066.
Now the Rejoinder, after referring to the original title claimed by
the United Kingdom, based on the evenfs of 1066, proceeds (1am now
citing the actuai words):
"Against the title thus alleged by the United Kingdom Govern-
ment, the Governrnent of the Republiccan set up one which jsno
less impressive and which is of greater weight."
The French text says "non moinsillust etplus solide N"ow, "solid",
1 shall hope ta show, is exactly what this French title is not. The
Rejoinder goes on :
"It is, in fact, acknowledged that the Channel Islands were part
of the Kingdom of France in the eleventh century."
1 need hardly tell the Court that we do not acknowledge that and,
indeed,we do not know who doeç acknowledge it. Then, continuing the
citation:
"Before 1066, asaftenvards, Normandy waç a French province
which the Duke held of the King of France, his lord, to whom.
his homage and fealty were due."
Now that seems to us to be an unrealistic description of the relation-
ship between Normandy and France at that date ; but the real point,
of course, is that it begs the question whether the Channel Islands were
'part of Normandy for the purpose of that relationship of homage and
fealty. Normandy, as the name implies, was a Norse principality,
conquered by the Vikings of Scandinavia; they certainly owed na
fealtyto the French Kings, except such as they chose to acknowledge.
WCthen have in the Rejoinder :
"The principle behind this situation is to be found in the agree-.
ment concluded at Saint-Clair-sur-Epte in gIr betwcen Charles III
and Rollon. Rollon, however, then received only the region of the
Lower Seine, or Upper Norrnandy."
Now to Say Rollon "received" these territories is surely somewhat of.
a fiction. He had alrcady taken them ! What he agreed to do was to.
pay nominal homage for them. Here, however, we begin to see the
basic idea behind the French thesis. Rollon only "received" Uyper-
Normandy in 911, But because he had received a?zy territory, or rather,
acknowledged the French King as his overlord in respect of certain.
territories, it was to be presurned that France avas also overlord in
respect of other temtories which he or his successors might subsequently
acquire. Now that seems to me to be contrary to the whole theory of'
the feudal systern. Just because a man held certain lands of one lord,
it does not folio+ that he must hold al1his lands of the same lord :he
might hold other lands of another lord, or if he were a great magnate
like the Duke of Normandjr, he might hold lands of no one. Certainly.
nobody suggests that ifrilliam the Conqueror, when he came over to my.
country and conquered it, held England of anybody but in his own
right of conqiiest. The idea that because a man held certain lands of'
1 Eoglishtext not reproduced,a certain overlord, all subsequeiit acquisitions of his were automatically
added to those lands inrespect of which he did do fealty, and held of
the same overlord, is, 1 venture to Say, erroneous.
[Publi stting of Septemberant, 1953, afternoon]
Mr. President, 1 now continue my analysis of the French Rejoinder
on page 686 of the French text. The next observation is (1 quote) :
"It was his successor [that is, RoUo'ssuccessor], William Long-
sword,who at the tirne of his homage to the French King Raoul in
933 received the dioceses of Avranches and Coutances in fee as the
pnce of his submission. At the same time he received the Channel
Islands in fee."
1 shall show presently that the statement that William Longsword
received the Channel Islands from Raoul is open to doubt, and in my
submission tlie probabilities are against it.But what is interesting in
this particular statement is the suggestion that Longsword received
the dioceses of Avranches and Coutances as theprice of his szrbmission.
Longsivord received Avranches and Coutances not as the price of hk
submission-it is my contention-but as the price of not making any
In short, he was bought off. Any homage he did was purely nominal,s.
and it is an interesting fact that the French Kings appear to have corne
to Rouen to rcceive this homage, the inference being that they couId
not have got the Dukes to go to Paris.
I shall alsshow, with reference to the last passag erom the Rejoinder
-the one 1 have just read-that Avranches and Coutances were not
part of the poçsessions of Raoul at this time, but of those of the Dukes
of Brittany. We find perhaps a better estimate of the position in the
ordinary little history text books which are uçed in French schools. 1
have one here. It is used for intermediate courses : Histoire de France
in the series Cours Gaulhi~ et Deschamfis, Costrsmoyen et supérieur,
and it uses very different language from the Rejoinder. For instance,
it says (at p. 231-1shall translate as it is a very short passag:
"To stop the ravages of the Nomans, Charles the Simple yielded
to them Normandy."
The Rejoinder continues :'
"In 936 William Longsword did homage for the whole of Nor-
rnandy to the new King Louis IV d'outremer."
Here the underlying assumption is that the Channel Islands were part
of the "whole of Normandy", or at al1 events part of the territories
in respect of which Longsword did homage. 1 will leave my answer to
that unti1 1 can give the picture as we see it.
The Rejoinder then says (1quote again) :
"The British Keply ....would therefore appear to be incorrect
when it states that 'the Channel Islands themselves had been
incorporated by the Dukes of Normandy within their possessions
...when they began to extend their conquests towards the
West'."IO2 ORAL ARGUMENT OF PROF. WADE (u.K.)-21 IX 53
This statement in the United Kingdom RepIy is nevertheless Iiterally
correct. It was-it is our contention-the Dukes of Normandy and not
the French Kings who annexed the Channel Islands. And to speak of
an extension by the Dukes of their conquest is also correct, although
the Rejoinder goes on (1 quote again) :
"The word 'conquests' is legally inappropriate, and as to the
word 'possessions', it is ambiguous. It would be clearer and more
correct to Say that the Channel Islands themselves became added
to the other fiefswhich the Dukes of Normandy heldof the King ...."
There is, hlr. President, an engaging vagueness about this phrase "the
Channel Islands ....became added". Such things did not happen in
those days. The islandç did nol become added-they were taken- taken
by force,and by the Dukes. Moreover, it was almost certainly from
other Norse chieftains that they were taken, Norse chieftains who had
çettled in the jslands. They were quite Iiterally "conquests". But the
interesting featureof the passage from the Rcjoinder which 1 have just
theory-theat assumptions that any further territories annexed oracquired
by the Dukes automatically became part of the temtones they heId
from the French King, the point 1was trying to make tothe Court before
the adjournment. Our opponents do not deny that William's conquest
ofEngland was a "conquest". Why then was the conquest of the Channel
Islands not a conquest ? If the answer is that England was overseas,
I reply that the Channel Islands were overseas. It rnay be interesting
to the Court to hear-if not aIready within their knowledge-that it
is less far(a shorter distance) from Calais to Dover than it is from the.
nearest point on the French coast to Guernsey, and that the distance
between St. Ma10and Jersey is as great as that bet~veen Boulogne and
1;olkestone. Thus, to conquer the Channel Islands, something like a
major sea expedition was required, and can we not take it that at that
date only Norsemen could have achieveid t ?In other words, thjs was
an independent and persona1 conquest by the Dukes of Normandy, in
respect of which they probabiy owed no allegiance to anyone at aii.
People like the Norman Dukes dit not-one may perhaps infer-go
about acquiring territories for the benefit of other people. By their
canquest of the Channel Islands, they and they alone became the
supreme overlordç of the islands which they held from no one else.
After this, the Rejoinder concludes as follows (1 quote) :
"It is therefore not chailenged (nor is it open to challenge) that
in 1oG6t, he year in which the United Kingdom Governmenf çeeks
to found the basis of its claim, France was sovereign over the
Channel Islands."
I hope that the Court wiilsee that 1 have attempted successfully to
challenge this.
I have analyzed this important passage in the French Rejoinder at
some length, because reaLly the whole Frencli case depends upon it,
and 1 want to show on what unstable foundations it iç built.
Let me try, hlr. President, to put before the Court what we believe
the facts to have been. For what follows, apart fromwhat is to be
found in standard histories, my authonty is mainly Dupont, the French
historianof the Cotentin, who relies amongst others on Wace-a Jersey ORAL ARGUMENT OF PROF. WADE (u.K.)-21 1X 53 IO3
chronicler of the twelfth century, who, according to Dupont, gives in
his book, Romalt de Rou or Chrmicle O/ RoUo, details unknown else-
where. Dupont himself wrote in the second haIf of the last century.
Briefly, the French Rejoinder claims that the French King Raoul
possessed the Channel Islands or was their overlord, and that he gave
them in fee in 933 to the Norseman, William Longsword. This is doubt-
ful, for they were not mentioned in any agreement between him and
Longsword, and they appear to have been territories certainly outside
the physical control of the French Kings, gained by Norman Dukes,
as 1 have said, by force of arms from minor Norse leaders who had
themselves wrested thern from the Bretons. This, at al1 events, is our
conception of what happened. 1 fear 1 may appear to be giving some-
thing rather like a lecture on history, but1 find this method inevitable
in the circumstances.
Now these islands would not, according to the ideas of those days,
have been regarded by these Dukes as falling under the same head as
continental Normandy, for which they did pay an occasional and very
forma1 homage. They would have been regarded much morc in the way
that Duke William regarded his conquest of England-something falling
altogether outside his relationship to the French Crown. Though the
Channel Islands did remain attached by certain Iinks to Normandy,
they remained nevertheless an entity with many distinct characteristics,
whose nature 1 shall discuss-just as later England was attached by
certain links to Normandy. But thisdid not make her one with Xor-
mandy. The French view, on the other hand, in fact assumes as self-
evident that the islands were or became poIitically part of Normandy ;
whereaç in their politicat, religious and soctiesin the earlier centuries
of the Christianera they were,with the ancient confederations of.petty
states of Brittany, included in the Cotentin peninsula itself. Now it is
true that Brittany itself became, but only very loosely, part of the
empire of Charlemagne, who, during the latter half of the eighth century,
secured control of most of central and western Europe. But we are
talking about the tenth century, and on Charlemagne's death his Empire
broke up into three parts, with a weak line of Kings in the West whose
authority did not extend beyond a few provinces round Paris. Brittany
resumed its former complete independence, and its rulers even extended
their power eastward. Now, as authority for that I cite-I give my
first reference teDupont, Volilme-I, page 109, who tells us that the
Bretons were in 847 masters of the country as far east as Bayeux, that
is to Say, welI into the area of .Normandy. (Even now, .as the Court
kno~vs,the boundxies of Narmandy and Brittany are not far from the
Channel IsIands.) The Bretons-again to cite Dupont-profited by the
feebleness of the Frankish Kings who succeeded to Charlemagne's empire
in the West, and re-established their domination over the Cotentin.
In 867, some fifty years before the time we were discussing, Charles II,
known aç Charles the Rald, despairing of re-establishing his authority
in this region, gave the county of Coutances, that is, the area of the
Cotentin peninsula, to Salomon, a Breton. King. (Again citations from
the first volume of Dupont, references to the first volume of Dupont,
at pp. 1% and 1x7.)
The tnith seems to be that these Frankish Kings faced an even more
dangerous threat than that from the Bretons, namely, from the Norse-
men, who were invading Western Europe. One of those Norse chiefs,
8IO4 ORAL ARGUMENT OF PROF. \VADE (u.K.)-21 IX 53
the celebrated Rollo, who wrested Iands in the Lower Seine or Upper
Normandy from the next Charlcs-Charles the Simple-for which he
agreed in 911 to give a nominal homage to the agreement of St. Clair-
sur-Epte. These lands did not even include the Cotentin or the shores
stretching west, much less the Channel Idands. In these latter areas
other Nordic chiefs, independently of Rollo, had also carved out minor
kingdoms at the expense of the Bretons. And it was from the Breton
monarchs that the Norsemen won their possessions in the Channel
Islands. Rollo himself did try to extend his newly won kingdom in
eastern Normandy westward at the expense of his fellow invaders, but
failed.Hiç succeçsor, William Longsword, inherited this ambition, and,
in order to divert this Norsernan from easterly incursions against hiç
own kingdom, King Raoul of France in 933 is recorded as giving him
the territory (asDupont says)"situated on the maritime shores of the
Bretons", and which in Dupont's opinion can oiily mean the Cotentin .
and the neighbourhood of Avranches. Raoul, as we have just seen, had
but a doubtful theoretical rightto do this, since Charles the Bald had
already given the area to the King of Hrittany. However, as Dupont
remarks, Volume 1, pages 11s-119 (1 cite here) :
"It mattered Iittle, henceforth, whether the nominal master
was Frank or Breton ; the true rnaster was the King of the Sea"
[Le. the Norsemen].
Thus, as jar as any physical right to give the Channel Islands goes-
or went-tlie Kingof France had none ; indeed, this King, liimself
regarded as a usurper, could scarcely retain his own throne, and he
was prepared to promise anything to keep off the invading Norsemen.
So much for the picture to be dcrived from a study of that weil-knotvn
authority.
Now, Mr. President, it should 1 tliink be noted that there iç no
mention of the ChanneI Islands in this somewhat dubious cession of
the dioceses of Avranches and Coutances by Raoul as King of France
to William Longsivord, as implied in the French liejoinder. The land
offered, as far as the records tell us (these words are from Wace's
Romande Rozt) "lay in the Cotentin between Vire ancI the sea". There-
fore, it iç our contention that iiç conjecture to allege,as the French
Rejoinder does, that "at the same time he [William] received the
Channel Islands in fee". Indeed, it seemç intrinsically unlikely.The
historical in~plicatioare clear :the Channel Islands stood in physical
fact apart from the mainland ; in 933 they were still independent of
Frankish or Breton Kings, or even at that date of William Longsword,
who was still consolidating his hold on Normandy. They were at the
date 933 independent little kingdoms of other individual Norsemen,
whom Dupont picturesquely describes as "the Kings of the Sea".
From this historical account rnay I now make my first and one of
my principal points: namely, that we do not admit, and regard it
as unproved and as historically doubtful, that William Longçword
received tlie islands from Raoul. And if he did not, he did not do
homage for them. If Raoul, on the other hand, purported to give
them, they were not his to give, and no legal effect was produced.
It is in our view for the Government of the Rcpiiblic to discharge
the burden of proof in establishing their case on that. ORAL ARGUWENT.OF PROF. \VADE (u.K.)-SI IX53 105
In Iater years, indeed, the Norman Dukes, now consolidating their
power over the mainland, and becoming there more powerful than
the Kings of France themselves, did on their own initiative extend
their dominions to the Channel Islands as Dukes of Norrnandy. But,
as I have said, according to the prevailing ideas, they would have
regarded these islands as conquests of their own and not in the same
category as those mainland possessions conceded by Frankish Kings.
NOW let us look at the physical situation as we see it as it stood
at the Norman conquest in 1066, and it iç important that it should
be realized, for it is impossible othenvise correctly to estimate the
political situation. The French Kings, whatever their pretensions may
have been, only ruled (and even then ruled precariously) over a narrow
strip of territory between the Seine and the Loire. A strong Norman
Duke of Norse descent ruled over extensive possessions in continental
Norrnandy and ruled them as a sovereign, even before lie went over
to conquer England. Neither he nor his predecessors ever properly
speaking "reccived" any territories from the French King, since they
won rnost of them by conquest. Such as were technically conferred
by the Kings were conferred as the price of the Dukes refraining from
extending their conquests in the directionof Paris, thereby menacing
the French Icings. Foi- these territories the Dukes no doubt paid a
nominal homage which was no more than a formality. But the Dukes
certainly did not receive in a physical sense the Channel Islands from
the King. Tey took them from fellow Norsemen already in the islands,
There is no evidence that they ever did homage to the French King
for the islands, and therefore 1 suggeçt that 1 am entitled to açk :
why should there be any presumption of it ? Both the character of
the feudal system and the historical facts point to the contrary. These
Channel Islands became Iargely the Duke's own persona1 estates, or
fiefs, held directly of him as supreme overlord by the descendants of
the former Korse chiefs-tlie "Kings of the Sea", ~ho were his own
vassals-and some lands were later donated to the Church.
So much, Mr. President, for that point. 1 now corne to my second
main point. It isthis: assuming, for the sake of argument, that the
Channel Islands were comprised in the homage which the Dukes did
to the French Kings (this is the point I Say is dubious and there is
no ground for assuming it), wliat was the real character of this
relationship and what kind of "title" did it confer? We submit that
it was a purely technical or abstract titldevoid of any real substance.
1 have already compared the relative degrees of power between the
strong Dukes of Nonnandy and the weak Kings of France. ïhe
disparity, of course, became even more marked as far as Normandy
was concerned when the Dukes became the Kings of England. In
such circumstances any suzerainty the Kings of France may have
had in respect of the Channel Islands was purely nominal. It involved
no direct sovereign rights, nor were any ever exercised. The Diikes
were to aliintents and purposes independent sovereigns.
The position of the greüt principalities of France, such as the Duchies
of Xormandy, Brittany and Burgundy, the counties of Aquitaine and
Toulouse, can best be understood by considering such rnatters as the
control of foreign policy, the administration of justice, and so on.
There is no doubt at al1 that the Dukes of Nonnandy and the other
great French magnates conducted their own foreign policy in so far 106 ORAL ARGUhïEST OF PROF. WADE (u.K.)-21 IX 53
as it arose ; at al1 events, they treated directly with foreign princes
without any reference at al1 to the French Kings.
In the same principalities and elsewhere, the French Kings seem to
have exercised no direct powers. There was no central government in
Paris exercjsing authority outside the actual Royal domains, confined
largely to what was known as the fle de France and the Orléanais. In
the great principalities, everything-central government, taxation, and
the administration of justice-was carried out locally, without any
reference to Paris. It was not sovereignty the French Kings exercised
over these great magnates and their territories, it was feudal overlord-
ship, which is byno means the same thing, for hardly any political nghts
are involved where magnates are strong enough to establish their inde-
endence. As between Dukc and King in France, it amounted-this
feuclai suzerainty-to little more than recognition of a superior in rank.
The picture presentedby the Franceoftheday seems thereforeto resemble
a loose confederacy of independent principalities, united by ties of
blood, geography, to some extent language, and by feudal tie which
were often more social than political.
It might make a considerable practical difference how this feudal tie
arose-and it will not have escaped the attention of the Court that in
thcir pleadings the Govemment af the Republic have laid much stress
on the Norman Dukes suyposedly "receiving" certain territories of the
French King. And here, Mr. President, 1 ought to say a brief word about
how, under the feudal systern, as we understand it, this relationship of
lord and vassal might aise, because there were tivo distinctways-I do
not think this is controversial at all. Firstly, the lord might grant land
and the grantee then became his vassal, but, of course, only in respect
of that particular land.He might hold othcr territoryof another lord-
or some territor he might hold of no one, because he was the supreme
ovcrlord himsel r.And this was particularly the case on the Continent.
Now in England, William the Conqueror did establish the position that
al1 land not held of anyone else was deemed to be held of the King-
but tliis was never the casc in Europe. It was, so to speak, that William
(ifone may put it this way), having learned his lcsson on the Continent,
was deterrnined to establish his centra1 controI when he cametoEngland.
Now it is doubtful whether the Channel Islands were ever even directly
granted by the French Kings to the Dukes, because-as 1have tried to
show-they never had them to grant. Sa much for the feudamlethod of
creating this tieby grant.
The second method, which is very relevant here, was known as"com-
mendation". A man might "commend" himself to an overlord, acknow-
ledge hirnself to be his vassal. And this is what seems to have happened
between Nomandy and France, though there is no evidence that the
process covered the Channel Islands-and, indeed, there are a number
of reasons for thinking it did not. But even if itdid caver the ChanneI
Islands, it meant no more than it did in Normandy. And perhaps 1 ma?
be allowed to quote from an English history book this time :Rlaitland s
Constitutioîtal Historyof England, which is a standard wark in Our
Universities and has been for many years. We find the following passage
at page 154 :the actual yrint 1 have taken it from was made in 1920-
, it is thesame in the originaledition. This isrvhathe sayç regarding the
pre-1066 position (1quote) : ORAL ARGUMENT OF PROF. WADE (u.K.)-SI IX 53 107
"Also it is to be remembered that this is the time when the North-
men subdued Normandy-the Norman Duke became the vassal of
the King of the French ...by commendation-Duke Richard of
Normandy commended himself to Hugh, Duke of the French, whose
descendants became Kings. But the King's power in Normandy wûs
hardly more than nominal."
That certainly seems to suggest a purely forma1 relationship between
the Duke and the King. And on the same page he says (a little before the
passage 1have read-tliis is hlaitland of whorn I am speaking) :
*"~his, it is to be remembered, is the time when the great Frank
Empire went to pieces-the central authority became little more
than a name-the effective courts were the courts of the great
proprietors."
And this seems equally to be orthodox according to French history
books. 1 have another of these small books of a slightly less elementary
character than the one I cited from earlier this afternoon by the sarne
author, M. Aymard, a former Inspecter of Schools of the French
Ministry of Education. Of course, I do not claim any special authonty
for this work (Histoire de France, in the Cours Gautlzieret Deschamps,
Cours sufiéri$r~r)b,ut presurnably French children, like English children,
are taught primarily the orthodox view. On page 73 we find this
(perhaps I may be allowed to. translate into English) :
"The lastCarolirigian King was replaced in 987 by Hugh Capet,
Duke of the h.de France. The authority of the first Capet Kings
was only recognized in thc small Royal domain around Paris ;
the remainder of the Kingdom belonged to the great vassals of
the King."
And again, a page or two earlier, on page 70 :
"The Kingdom of the Capets extended over some sixty of our
preçent-day departments. Rut Hugh Capet was only 'a seigneur
among seigneurs' [perhaps I might put it, an equal among equals]
and his authority was only real, effective, over the Royal estate
-that is to çay, the country included betwcen Noyon and Orléans,
as big as three depnrtments, which came to him from his ancestors
[threeout of the whole sixty,that is]. TheKingdom was parcelled
out into Duchies and Counties belonging to the seigneurs vaasals
of the King, but in reality independents."
Well, at al1 events, that seems to agree with our view that the
suzerainty of the Capets-unquestionably only nominal at that time-
cannot be asufficient clairn for France to be sovereign over the Channel
Islands, or any part of thcm on the basis of an ancient right or onginai
title-to Say nothing of the fact that this purely feudal title, if it
existed at all,carried with it no right to exercise sovereign rights in
the Channel Islands and none have ever been exercised by France-
leaving aside, of course, short periods of military occupation. in time
of war.
One might perhaps surnmarize the whole matter by saying that in
the Middle Ages, and especially the early hfiddle Ages, there was a
reaIm of France, in tliesensc of a country of France, but no real 108 ORAL ARGUMENT OF PROF. WADE (u.K,)-21 IX 53
Kingdom of France. Or else there werc a nurnber of kingdoms or
principalities within a kingdom. The persona1 domain of the French
King was in reality only one of several kingdoms. He was a firimus
in te^pares, but he had none of the powers of a King outsidc his own
somewhat narrow domain.
The next period-which wc can examine very shortly-is that between
1066, theNorman conquest of England, and 1204, the loss by the King
of England of continental Norrnandy. So fas as we know, in that period
no one challenges the position of the Channel Islands. It so happens,
however, that the dealings of King John of England with Piers des
Préaux over the Channel Islands in 1200-that is four yeass before
the loss of continental Normandy by the English Crown-afford a very
good illustration ofthe shadowy, or may I say non-existent, character
of tlie supposed overlordship of the French Crown over the Channel
Islands. (This, rnay1 make it clear, is not the matter of the Abbey of
Val-Richer,which figures so prominently in the pleadings. 1 shall corne
to that presently.) Tiic charters of King John which appear as Annexes
A 8 and A g to the United Kingdom Memonal (pp. Ij6-157) show that
the English Kings-in thiç case the prticular king, King John-in
rnaking their grants in respect of the Channel Islands, acted as rulers
independent of any overlordship claimed by the French Kings. That
isto say, thischarter of the 12th January 1200 and the Confirmation
which is the second document of the two Annexes, show John to have
been exercising the unfettered right to make the grant as partof his
Royal dominions, or to use a more conternporary word, "demesnes",
in England or overseas-in this case the Channel Islands, irrespective
of any claim to homage (if such were ever claimed) by the French King.
And this document produced herc relevant to this dispute inot without
its earlier precedents. For example,in connection with Channel Islands'
matters, in 1134K,ing Henry 1 of England, in a charter to the Bishop
of Koiren and others relating to the Channel Islands ofAlderney, des-
cribes himself simply as King of England. In this document he describes
himself "John, by the grace of God, etc."-a term used to-day, of
course, by tlicQueens and Kings of rny country. In regard to John's
charter of 1200 to Piers des Préaux, 1 also would likc to draw the
attention of the Court that itwas enrolled quite normally, not through
the Norman Chancery but in theEnglish King's Chancery in England.
The unreal character of any overlordship that might have been
claimed by the French Kings over the Channel Islands is shown in 1204,
when this same Piers made a recognition of the lord of whom he tteld
his lands-"un aveu de ses fiefs". Piers liad surrendered Rouen in 1204
to King Philip of France. It was by this surrender that Philip's conquest
-.of continentni Normandy was virtually compIeted. And for a short time
Fiers acknowledged himself to be a vassal of King Philip. But in the
"aveu de ses fiefs", Piers does not make any mention of the Channel
Islands. Now, must this not have been because Philip and Piers con-
sidered that Philip could only claim Pieras a vassal for the lands in the
mainland of Norrnandy of which Philip had obtained physical possession
as the result of conquest 7
Now, by 1206-two years later-Piers had reverted to the allegiance
of King John, who in that year restored to him his land in England,
Iands in the County of Hampshire, but announced in the same docurnent
(the document wiil be found inAnnex A II-it isa very short document, ORAL ARGUMI:NT OF PROF. WADE (u.Ic.)-21 IX 53 109
but a signficant one, p. 158 of the text), he announced at the same
time in the same document hisintention of dealing with the Channel
Islands at his own pleasure: "the lord King will restore to him his
land in England and do his [that is, the lord King's] pleasure concerning
the islands in accordance with the counsel" from two named persons.
Thus again John was exercising rights over the Channel Islands two
years after he had lost continental Normandy, which could only have
been those within the power of a sovereign, who had pliysical control
over them.
Here 1think it is worth noticing, Mr. President-for it is symptomatic
of this whole position-that after Piers des Préaux had forfeited his
Channel Islands lands (finally, as far as he was concerned, i1204), the
fief of the islands was, with Iwo exceptions,one of whichis significant,
retained by the King of England himself (John, Henry III and so
forth), and the islands were governed, not asa result of their having
been granted by feudal tenure to anybody, but by the appointment of
- an administrative officer or warden, an executive officer of the Crown
without any of the proprietary rights in the land which would result
fromhaving a grant of a fief.And we have si~bmitted a lisofthe wardens
for a period of175 years-they are to be found in Annex A 158 in the
"Additional Annexes" at page 622 (it is a long list of the wardens
and their dates). Now there can be no doubt, 1 think, looking at that
list,that that was a matter of deliberate policy. It was intended to
mark the detennination ofthe English Kings to keep the islands directly
attached to the Crown, and to emphasize their status as Royal depend-
encies. Now 1 said one of the two exceptions over that long series of
wardenships waç significant. Now that was the one when the grant of
the fief of the islands was made by King Henry III of EngIand in 1254
to his son, who in 1272 became King Edward 1. This is mentioned by
Dupont as another mark of the same intention. It is mentioned in
Volume II, pages 141 and 142. 1 rnay give further instances of this
later.
1 submit, therefore, Mr. President, that the position of the Channel
Islands at this time (that is, about the period of the quarrel between
King Philip of France and King John-in the next part of my speech
1 shall deal with that quarrel) was as follows : the Channel Islands
constituted an entity over which the English King exercised complete
and independent control untrammelled by even the most tenuous over-
lordship of the French Kings,It is, however, on this-ifImay be allowed
to cal1 it-"fiction" (that is the most appropriate word) of a supposed
overlordship, the actual existence of which so far this Court has no
evidence, that the whole of the French claim is founded.
Now 1 turn to the circumstances of the quarrel between King Philip
and King John, with the object of trying to show that these in no way
affected the independent status of the Channel Islands.
, 1 will not trouble the Court with going over again the ground as
regards the legal validity of the aïrét or judgment of1202. The United
Kingdom Reply, yaragraphs 108-112, shows a number of grounds
questioning the validity of the judgment, and we have cited there a
number of well-known historians, French historians and others, who
have expressed doubts about this judgment-and if 1 may get away
from the realm of doubt, 1think it seemç fairly certain that the continu-
ation of expressions of doubt about this judgment may well go on until110 ORAL ARGUMENT OF PROF. WADE (u.K.)-21 IX 53
doomsday. And 1 wili mention two points. The French Rejoinder
correctly states that the immediate cause of the quarrel was the mis-
behaviour of King John of England towards the Lusignan family (books
seem agreed on that). King John insisted on manying Isabelle of
Angoulême who was already betrothed to his vassal Hugh of Lusignan,
Comte de la Marche. And no doubt that was a very bad thing, but it
hardly seems a sufficient bais for the forfeiture of a whole duchy-
indeed, more than a duchy, for the judgment purports to pronounce
a forfeiture of al1the temtories of John in France.1s not the real answer
to this more probably that it is the resort so frequent in legal history
-1 expect of al1countries-the resort toa convenient Iegal pretext, in
this case a legal pretext, ta try and find a legal ground for ousting
John from France entirely ? 1 can indeed see many reasons why it was
very natural for a French King to prefer that the English Kings should
cease to possess any territory on the French side ofthe Channel. But
for that very reason the whole thing looks suspiciously like what we
would nowadays cal1 a "put-up job", preparatory to an act of force.
The fiction of legality was much prized in the Middle Ages. But that
did not alter the intrinsic character of the act.
At ail events, there doeç not seem to be any doiibt at al1 about what
a French historian of the eminence of Petit-Dutaillis thought about
it, and I would like, if 1 rnay, to read to the Court a translation of
an extract from an article by him in the Revue lazstriqz~afor 1924,
Volume 147, page 164. The translation is :
"The reasons for the quarrel between John and the Poitevins
Lords do not concern us ; but it is appropriate to note straight
away that if the account is exact, Philip Augustus desired to
fiefsof theKings of England, including Normandy. Norrnandy wash
the chief object ofhis covetousness : this was the richest of his
preys, and the Normand frontier was two days' march from Paris.
He therefore began a long discussion with John, which allowed him
to make Iiis preparations and to await favourable political circum-
stances ;when he had cited his adversary first of aU as a Count of
Aquitaine and not as Duke of Normandy, he changed his ground
with the lack of scruple which was customary to him and obtained
from his Court a general sentence which deprived John of al bis
French fiefs ;a sentence based, not on the special events in Poitou,
but on the refusals to pay hornage by John and his ancestors [the
datethat Petit-Dutaillis givesis April28th, 12021.When the sentence
had been passed, Philip began the war and invaded, not Aquitaine,
but Normandy, and we know that in an initial overwhelming cam-
paign he conquered al1the north-eut of this Duchy. He had played
his game well.He had no longer any necd henceforth to get entangled
in judicial arguments, in surnmonses and meetings of hiç Court.
The matter uras in the hands of the soldiers and indeed, the war
was not to come toan end until the Angevin Empire was destroyed :
the business laçted four years."
Al1that isthe text of the article inthe Reuue historiqzie.
Another point about the arrét of 1202 is that the matter did not arise
with respect to Normandy at all. Neither the Lusignan nor the Angou-
lêmedomains were in Norrnandy-we have just seen from the extract ORAL ARGUMENT OP PROF. WADE (u.K.)-SI IX 53 III
that the adversary was cited first as Count of Aquitaine. These domains
were in hquitaine, and it waç asCount of that territory that John was
tlieir overlord and was çumrnoned before King Philip's Court. That iç a
fact which can be taken frorn the French Rejoinder, page 695,alço. Any
forfeiture should therefore have been confined to Aquitaine. But that
would not have suited l'hilip. For one thing, he could not have much
hope of enforcing the jutlgment in Aquitaine, so far away, relatively, as
compared with Normandy. And so he proceeded to attack Normandy.
What ensued seems to have been a piece of spoliation, baçed on an
inadequate pretext. Now I have mentioned these points in connection
with the judgment because 1think they do help to bring out the estreme
vulnerability of the claim made in the French Rejoinder that what
occurred in relation to the Channel Islands was a dismemberment of
French sovereignty. As Sir Lionel Heald said the other day, it waç the
possessions of the Dukes of Normandy and of the English Kings as
Dukes of Normandy that were dismembered. But they were leftwith
the Channel Islands because Philip of France waç not physically able to
take them.
Indeed, 1 must lay emphasis on this point, becauçe it is relevant to
one of the fundamental French contentions in this case. This is that
there is a praumption of French sovereignty over the Channel Islands,
and it is for uofthe United Kingdom to establish our actuaI possession
of each idand separately. There is no doubt that we held and were in
pssession of al1the islands, including, of course, the Minquiers and the ,
Ecréhous before 1202. That Ras a situation of fact, and a situation of
fact ispresumed to continue unless and until it is shown to have changed.
Noiv, what \iras the only change 7 The only change that occurred after
1202 was that King Yhilip possessed himself of some of King John of
England's territories. Not of England, of course. Not of Aquitaine (that
was too far away), not of Poitou, not of Gaçcony.
Of what then ? Sirnply of continental Normandy. It was quite suffi-
cient, but it was dl. Therefore we contend that our opponents must
show that Pliilip or sorne subsequent French King took possession of
any of the Channel Islands as well aç continental Xorrnandy, and in
particular, they must show of course that Philip or 59me subsequent
French King took possession of the Minquiers and the Ecrélious.
The Kings of England being in possessiorr of all the Channel Islands
before 1202, which certainly then included the Ninquiers and the EcrS-
hous, it is for France to show that England subçequently lost possesçion
of any of the islands-which can only be done as regards the Chausey,
centuries later.
1will now conclude, Mr. President, what 1 have to say about the Judg-
ment of 1202, and 1 would ask the Court to note that the Judgrnent,
even iffully valid, coulcl not have given King Philip any rights over
the Channel Islands or any part of them-even theoretical rights-unless
Philip was overlord of those islands1 have been trying to show that that
iç-to put it at its lowest-intrinsically improbable, and certainly not
proved. Therefore, ifthat is correct, Yhiliphad no rightç in respect of
the islands unlesç-according to the standard of those days-he had
conquered them by force of arms. Rut he did not. In saying that, of
course 1 do not overlook the fact that after 1204 there was a very tem-
porary occupation. Even if 1am wrong, and Philip was the ultimate
overlord, the only thing that the Judgrnent of 1202 did was to entitleII2 ORALARGUMENT OF PROF. WADE (u.K.)-21 IX 53
Philip to possess himself of the Channel Idands if he could. And my
reason for making that assertion isthat feudal law required seisin, that
is, possession firmIy held. A judgment, a charter, a grant, might in
those days give a man a nght to possess himself of property or temtory
if he could, but he did not become the actual owner unless and until he
did possess himself of it. According to feudal theory, the Judgment of
1202, even if valid, did not give Philip seisin unless and until, and except
in so far as, it was actually executed by his going into feudal possession,
taking firm possession and seisin of the islands.
This seems to be proved by the fact that, although it applied theoret-
icaliy to al1 King John's possessions in France, the judgment remained
a complete dead-letter as regards Aquitaine, which continued in English
hands-though its precise extent varied with the fortunes of different
wars. And at aU events, Kings of England continued to be the rightful
and acknowledged Counts and Dukes of Aquitaine until the final loss
of Aquitaine by the English Crown in 1453.
Therefore, if the Judgment of 1202, alth'ough theoretically applicable
to Aquitaine (if validat all), had no legal effect on Aquitaine, because
itwas not executed there, equally it had no effect on the Channel Islands
(even if valid andapplicable to them-both points of course we deny)-
unless it was executed. Andwe know it was not. There was no "holding
fimly" these Channel Islands by the King of France.
Accordingly, I ask the Court to hold that it is not ,for the Unjted
Kingdom to show that the Kings of England retained possession of
the Minquiers and the kcréhous as part of the Channel Islands (though
presently I çhall show, infact, that wre did). Itis forthe Government 1
of the Republic to show that we did not-that France gained possession
of them, possession, sornething more than the occupation in the troubled
yeaThere is2a4further and most important effect of the Jud ment to
be noted, and that was that, according to feudal law, this 7orfeiture
definitely broke any feudal link that up to that tirne might have
existed bctween the French Kings and the Dukes of Normandy in
respect of the Channel Islands.. Now the link was broken by the
cornbined effect of the Judgrnent and of the events which followcd
it, for theçe events amounted (and 1 am going to cite for this again
Petit-Dutaillis' article to which 1 have already referred) to what in
feudal law waç known as a "défio-a mutuai defiance on the part of
the twa Kings. Kow, this is what the process was; 1 read from
page 178 of Petit-Dutaillis' article in theRmue historiqu:
"To sum up, in the ÿear 1202, before Arthur fell into his hands,
John was sentenced by the court of Philip Augustus to lose al1
Iiiç French fiefs. By this Judgment, the defiance and acts of
hostility that followed it, al1feudal ties between them were broken.
The Judgrnent was destined never to be completely camed out,
and in spite of the conquests of Philip Augustus and Louis VIII,
the Kings ofEngland remaining at war with the Kings of France
were to retain important domains on the Continent ;,but only
by the Treaty of Peace of 1259 were they to become liegemen
of the Kings of France. Jt was to the rupture o1202 that St. Louis
referred when he said that, in giving back certain territories to
Henry III, he was acquiring a vassal, and the words imputed ORAL ARGUMENT OF PROF. WADE (u.K.)-PI IX 53
II3
to St. Louis by tht: historian are these: 'lt seems to me that in
so doing 1shall do well if he renders me homage since he was not
otteof my men.' It isequally on account of the rupture of 1202
that Primat says in his article that before the Treaty of 1259
Gascony was not held of the King of France.
"We must concliide," says Petit-Dutaillis, "that in 1202 John
ccased to be justiciable on the part of the French Court. From
thencefonvard there remained simply two ICings in confrontation
with each other and disputing the domains of the Plantagencts,
a~id Philip Augustus had not further hold on his riva1 than
through war and tlie use of force."
So it will be seen from that extract that al1 feudal links betbveen the
French and English Kings were broken in 1202 in the period imme-
diately following it, anri were not re-established until the Treaty of
Paris in 1259. 1 shall, however, show that this latter Treaty only
re-establishedthe link-the feudal link-in respect of the English
King's possessions in Aquitaine, and that it did n~t in any way affect
the position of the Channel Islands aç possessions which the English
Crown held free of al1 overlordship on the part of the French Crown.
And in conclusion may I refer to two brief points. First, Philip
annexed continental Normandy in 1202 because of the weakness of
King John in his French domains. But even that conquest proved
precarious. Normandy was raided many tirnes subsequently, and as
late as the fifteenth centuryitwas held by the English for over 30 years
from 1419-145 I0w as not until the Treaty of Yicquigny in 1475-in
the reign of King Louis XI of France-that the attempts of the English
to recover their former French possessions finallyceased. But simul-
taneously, it seems, al1 French attempts to appropriate the Channel
Islands also ceased. There was never even a temporary military occu-
pation by France after that da&, at al1 events until we get to a short
episode-though a violent one-in the year 1781.
SecondIy, there is a very good reason to account for the fact that
the French Kings were riever able to appropriate the Channel Islands,
hard as they tried. It was not just a lucky chance. The English were
as a mle strongcr at sea. This in itself raises a strong presumption
that, if they held the main islands (Jersey,Gucrnsey, Alderney), then
they also held the lesser ones, includiiig the Minquiers and the Ecréhous.
For isit, may 1 ask the Court with their knowledge of the geogaphical
layoiit,a plausible supposition that the PouFer in possession of Jersey,
if stronger at sea, would have allowed another Power to be inoccupation
of the Minquiers and .particularly the Ecréhous, on Jersey's door-
step ? This factor of superior sea power is something that is insisted
on time after time, curiously not so much by the English as by .the
French histonans. For instance, Dupont, speaking of King John,
says (p.IO of the second volume) (this is the citation) :
"He uohn] had abandoned Normandy [that isthe mainland]
...Rut he had the good fortune to maintain over his enemy an
indisputable naval superionty."
Thus the same factor-sen power-which a little way back 1 tried to
show originally won the islands for the Duke of Normandy (though
not from the French who never had thern)-this same factor whichII4 ORAL ARGUMENT OF PROF. WADE (u.K.)-22 IX 53
onginally won the islands, that is, of course, the prowess of the Norse-
men, the Vikings ai sea-was also the factorthat kept them. And
rnay 1 draw the Court's attention to the fact that at no time has an
English foot asconqueror ever stepped on to any of the Channel
Islands. English ams defended the Channel Islands ; no English ams
ever appropriated them (at al1 events until the British forces came
back to free them in 1945) From Normandy they came to us, and asthe
last relic of the historic Duchy they remain to this day. In defending
them against the French (1 now go back to the thirteenth century),
we were keeping them not from, but for, theit nghtful owners-the
Norsemen who originally won them and their descendants in the
islands who stiII inhabit them at this present tirne:
That, Mr. Yresident, rnay perhaps be a convenient point for me
to break off if the 'Court is agreeable, becausc the next part of my
speech wili deal with the diplomatic acts and treaties of the period.
hIr. President, Members of the Court, 1 now pass to the diplomatic
acts or treaties of the period from 1204up to and a little beyond the
Treaty of Troyes in 1420. 1 shall try tu show that, by these treaties,
not only was de factoEnglish possession of the Channel Islands recog-
nized, but that it was also confirmed de jure, and in circurnstances
such that the Minquiers and the Écréhous could not possibly have
been excluded from the settlement. These treaties in effcct caused
the French Kings to lose any legal title to the Channel Islands (including
the two groups in question) that thcy ever Rad-though, of course,
it is Our contention,as the Court is aware, that thcy never; in a real
sense, did have a title to lose.
NOW,leading up to the firçt of these treaties, that of Lambeth, the
historical position (1 think this is not contested) was that King Philip
of France continued his attempts to wrest the Channel Islands from
King John of England for some years after 1204, after the loss of
continental Nomandy, but following on the English naval victones
at Dammc in 1213, and again off Sandwich on the English coast, in
1217, those attempts came to an end and there was no renewal for
120 years : so there is a period long enough-quite long enough-to
give us a title by long possession, if we needed one.
The French renunciation of their attempt on the Channel Islands
was put on record by the Treaty of Lambeth of 1217; that was signed
between Louis and King Henry III of England, who had just succeeded
King John. That Treaty has been discussed both in our Mernorial and
Our RepIy, but our opponents do not refer to it in their pleadings.
However, the position-yerhaps this is the reason why there is no
reference to the Treaty in the French pleadings-the position has
been recognized by two French historians. hZonsieur Havet, the well-
known French historian of the islands, on the first page of his book
Les Coursroyales des fles ?zormandes,says this-1 translate-:
"He [Philip Augustus] could not conquer the islandç of the
Cotentin, which remained in the hands of the King of England
and were thus separated in fact from Normandy." ORAL ARGUMENT OF PROF. WADE (u.K.)-22 IX 53 II5
Again, hlonsieur Besnier, a former Professor of Law in the University
of Caen, in an article in Revue historique, 13th volume in 1934, comments
on this Treaty of Lambeth and observes-to quote his words in trans-
lation-that the islands were "detached from Nomandy in fact in
1204, and in law by the Treaty of 1217". So much then for the Treaty
of Lambeth. Hefore 1 pass to the Treaty of Paris or Abbeville in 1259,
I would mention three significant acts by King Henry III of England,
on succeeding to King John. In 1226, this King proclaimed the
autoaomous date of the Channel Islands within his realm. The Court
will remember that Sir Lionel Heald placed considerable emphasis
upon the autonomy which, to this day, Jersey and Guernsey enjo
under United Kingdom administration. Well, going back to 122z
this proclamation of autonomy was made when King Henry IIIordered
his lord warden of the islands, one of the administrative officerson
the long list of wardens, to which 1 ventured to draw the Court's
attention yesterday, to observe the special local and ancient liberties
and customs. Then in 1254 was the significant exception to sppoint-
ments of lord wardens, an exception taking the form of an actual
grant by the King: this King granted the Channel Islands in fee to
hjs son Edward, who continued to hold them until and, indeed, three
years after, he himself became King Edward I of England. So, during
this considersble period-because he came to the throne in 1272 and
held the islands for three years longer-this considerable period of
21 years, the islandç were held by a man who was a future king and
subsequently King of England, combining the kingship dvring the
early part of his reign with the holding of the içlands under the grant
from his father. He was, indeed, in the same position as King John
put Piers by the grant of1200. And then again, in 1258, King Henry III
ordered the former warden of the isIands (because Prince Edward
was then in actual possession) to guard Guemsey and Jersey and
"the King's other islands". 1 mention those three events in Henry III's
reign to emphasize the status of the Channel Islands as an entity,
and an entity which fell within the possession of the Engliçh King.
One cannot consider thc question of the Minquiers and the Ecréhous
apart from that of the Channel Islands, of which thcy formed a part.
1now come, Mr. President, to the Treaty of Paris, the text of which
is to be found as Annex A I of the Annexes to the Rlemorial subrnitted
by my Government. And there are two articles reproduced on page 142-
the original text-and on page 142-the English translation-Article4
and Article 6, which 1 would invite the Court ta consider :and may I
at the outset, Mr. President, because 1 think it will assist the Court to
follow my argument, draw attention to a corrigendum which we have
submit ted to the Court in respect of the word line 5from the bottom of
the translated text on page 142. The word in the Treaty has becn trans-
lated as "beyond" : we have corrected Ourtranslation to "on this sidcof",
so the test now reads :"al1the land which he holds on this sidofthe sea
of England in fee", Louis being King of France, that, of course, means
land on the French side of the English Channel. That is the correction
to the translation of the words : "e de foLrzterreque illientde~aEu mer
dalzgl'en fiez".
Intheir Counter-Mernorial, at page379 and 380 of the French text, Our
opponents argue that Article 4 shows that the King of England owed
homage in respect of al! the islands belonging to the King of 1'rance.116 ORAL ARCUAIEXT OF PROF. WADE (u.K.)-22 IX 53
No doubt that point is stressed because they are anxious to establish
this because-and I refer to the citation 1 made earlier from Petit-
Dutaillis-the judgment of 1202 had broken the link betwcen King.
Phiiip and King John. This link, the Treaty of 1259, which we are now-
considering, re-established-but, Mr. President, it re-established it only
in respect of Aquitaine and the islands off Aquitaine {islands whicbcan
only be, of course, there, to the West of the Frenctoast)-not in respect
of the Channel Islands.
As I said just now, our opponentç argue that Article 4 of the Treaty-
provided that the King of England should do hornage for al1the islands.
hei held belonging to the King of France. These-this is the French
contention-comprise not only the oceanic islands off Aunis and Sain-.
tonge in the Bay of Biscay, but also those in the Channel.1 have shown,
1hope, in my speech yesterday, that it cannot plausibly be said that the-
Channel Islands at thiç stage-or, for that rnattcr, ever-belongcd to*
the King of France. But even if 1 am wrong in my contention, Article 4
does not help the French case, 1 submit, because Article 4 of this Treaty
of Paris says this: first, the Kin of France will give to the King of.
England certain possessions in the! aintonge and Charente areain South-
Western France. Secondly, the King of England is confirrned in his.
possession of Bardeaux, Bayonne, Gascony, and al1 the land which he.
(the King of England) holds on the French side of the English sea-
hence the correction in our translation-and also the islands if there.
are any such, uphich the King of England holds and which bclong to the.
realm of France. These lands he is to hold and the islands ofthe French
King as a peer ofFrance and Duke of Aquitaine.
But the islands here mentioned conld not, we submit, include the.
Chaiinel Islands, because the Article related only to Aquitaine, and the
only islands which were of the realm of France in that arca lie off Aunis
and Saintonge-in other words, are islands in the Ray of Biscay, west
of France, and not the Channel Islands to the North. And in support of'
that contention the King of England was to do homage for the islands.
as Duke ofAquitaine. It would have been a very different picture had
he to do homage for thesc islands unnamed as Duke of Normandy.
He was to do homage as 13uke of Aquitaine. And 1 do not think, Mr.
President, that itcould be serjorislcontended that the Channel Islands.
were appurtenant to, much less part and parce1 of, a Duchy which lay
in South-West France.
I nolv turn to the second article, Article6. This Article deals with
what the King ofEngland rerzozc~iceda,nd for which naturally lie was no.
longer to do homage. Tliis included-as the text makes clear-Kormandy,.
Anjou, Touraine, Maine, Poitou, and the islands if the King of France.
or his brothers hold any such. The actual translation from the original
is: "or in the islands, if any are held by us or by Our brother or by
others in our or their behalf...."This Article-it is our view-rein-
forces our contention that the Channel Islands were recognized as-
English. Had it been intended to include the Channel Islands in this
renunciation, it is almost certain they would have been çpecified by
name. But in any case, they could only pass to France under the wording
which I have just put before the Court, if they were actually held at
the tirneby the King of France or his brothers. l'et we know that in
1217, under the Treaty of Lambeth, that was not so and they were
acknowledged by the French King to be held by the English King. ORAL ARGUMENT OF PROF. WADE (u.K.)-22 IX 53
II7
Therefore itis not, Mr. President, in Our submission, for us to prove
that there was no change between 1217 and 1259. It is only if our
opponents can show there has been a change which cauçcd the
King of France to get possession of the Channel Islands or some
part of them, that they are entitled to rely on Article 6 to support
their claim to these two contested islands.In the absence of such proof,
the presumption, which 1 respectfully suggest the Court must draw
from the Article,, isthat al1 the Channel Islands, including the Min-
quiers and the Ecréhous, were in the same hands as they had been
during the whole period since the Treaty of Lambeth, and therefore
unaffected by Article 6, which only applied to islands held by King
Louis of France or his brothers in 1259.
To support my point, 1 turn to what appearç to be a concession to
this point of view in the French Counter-Memorial itself, for it states
on page 379 (of the French text) that the King of England owed homage
in respect of those [the islands, that is]in the Channel situated "on
this sideofthe English sca" (the French side ofthe English sea, that is).
But the King of England certainly could not owe homage forthe islands
and at the same time relinquish them. We, ofcourse, contend through-
out that he did not even owe homage for thcm-both for the historical
and legal reasons which 1put before the Court ycsterday, and because,
as 1 have already said once this morning, tliey were not situated in the
area covered by the Article, which provided that the King of England
was tohold certain lands of the King of France in Aquitaine, as Duke
of Aquitaine.
In short, any feuda1 link, which may have existed previously to
1202 between the French and the English Crowns in respect: of the
Channel Islands, and which was broken by the cornbined effect of the
judgment of that year and the "défi", was never re-established-
certainly not by the Treaty of Paris.
The confirmation of that view is given in Dupont, where he sums
up the effect of the Treaty of1259-1 read from page 15 of the second
volume :
"The separation of the islands received a finaland soIemn con-
secration: they were no longer attached to the Cotentin Cthat is,
the mainIa11d peninsula] except by an ecclesiastical link."
And this same historian-conside~ably further on in that volume at
page 16~-confirms that he has no doubt that this Treaty settled the
fate ofal1 the Channel Islands. Referring to the appointment of aLord
of the Tslands-Otes de Grandison-he refers to him as Lord of the
"islands of Jersey and of Guernsey and of adjacent islands", and, still
quoting his words, "that is of the wholc archipe!ago without exception",
including, of course, the Minquiers and the Ecréhous-not to forget
this time the Chausey as well.
From the Treaty of Paris of 12.59 until the outbreak of the Hundred
Years War in 1337, there were-so far as we have been able to find-
no attempts by tltc French to attack the Channel Islands. There were,
however, during this period several significant happenings which confirm
the fact that the minor islands of the Channel Islands group, particu-
larly the Ecréhous and the Chausey-and because of the Chausey,
a jortiorithe Minquiers, as lying betlveen Chausey and Jersey-were
in English hands. 1 wi1l postpone for the moment my examination of 118 ORAL ARGUMENT OF PROF. WADE (u.K.)-22 IX 53
the evidcnce of those happenings and corne to the Hundred Years ilar.
Rere, of course, there were French attacks directed towards the
islands, but once more the English command of the seaç-particularly
the victory ai Sluys in 1340 by the English fleet-prevailed-and the ,
French were expelled from their foothold on the islands, retaining one
gamson in Guernsey for a short period, and then that came to an end
in 1345 ,uite at the beginning of that long war. The naval superiority
of the English at this time seems clearly to have helped to preserve
the Channel Islands from the French. Dupont (again at p. 403of the
second volume) writes :
"....The English flag, ruler of the seas, protected them [that is,
the Channel Islands], and the misfortunes of France made their
security certain."
Now, when one cornes to 1360, there is the Treaty of Calais, or Bre-
tigny. The English still held the mastery of the çea, and 1 think that
any interpretation of this Treaty has to take this fact into account.
Now the only relevant article here is given on page 144 of the
Annexes to the United Kingdom hfemorial, and is Article 6. And by
this Article it was agreed that "the said King of England and his
successorsshall have and hold al1 the Islands adjacent to the lands,
countries and places above named, together with al1other Islands which
the said King of England now holds". Now, although it is perhaps
not clear from the reproduction of the text of Article6 alone, it is not
contestcd that Normandy was not one of the territories named in the
Treaty. But the King of England was to have and to hold al1the "other"
islands which he held at the time of the Treaty, and my contention is
that these islands undoubtedly included the Channel Islands.
I hope 1 have established that, a hundred years earlier, in 1259,
undoubtedly the King of England held the Channel Islands, and 1 have
just made the historical point that except very partially at the outset
of the Hundred Years War, the French did not hold even a corner of
the Channel Islands, and they lost that small foothold when they were
expelled from Castlc Carnet in Guemsey in 1345.
Now the French Reply challenges my Govemment to show that
theçe latter islands-that is the islands which the King of England
held at the time of the Treaty : "al1other Islands which the said
King of England now ho1ds"-included the Minquiers and the kcréhous.
But, Mr. President, is .that a reasonable or a plausible challenge, I
would açk the Court ? There can be no daubt, and indeed it isnot
. contested by the Governrnent of the Republic, that the Channel Islands
as a whole were then in English hands, fifteen years after the last
French foothold had disappeared in 1345. And there is another act
of the period to reinforce this if it be necessary : we cited in para-
graph 131 of out-Reply that a certain Edmund de Cheyne was confirrned
as Keeper of the Islands of Guernsey, Jersey, Sark and Alderney "and
the other islands adjacent thereto", including what we regard as an
irresistible presumption : al1 the islands. And having succeeded in
expelling the French from the major islands, is it conceivable that
England, having themastery of the seas,would have left minor islands
in sight of Jersey4ne literally at Jersey's doorstep, the Ecréhous
(the Minquiers are a little further off)-in the hands of the enemy ? ORAL ARGUMENT OF PROF. WADE (u.K.)-22 IX 53
119
Moreover, there are two penods, going back a bit; there is the
period 1204 to 12x7, and the period 1 have just been talking about:
the opening years of the Hundred Years \Var (1337 toabout 1345-1346)~
when the French had admittedlymade strenuous and prolonged attempts
to extend Philip's annexation of Normandy made in 1204 to the
Channel Islands, to complete,so to speak, his conquest.Now, if anything .
more than these ternporary 'occupations had been effectecl, is it con-
ceivable that there wouId be no evidence of establishment on a per-
manent basis? But so far as I am aware, Rlr. President, none has
been put before the Court in the pleadings by rny opponents, nor
have we found any evidence of French permanent occupation, and
from that 1 submit that the assumption is reiiiforced that the minor
islands like the major islands remained in English hands.
This Treaty of 1360, the Treaty of Calais, came at the end of a
period where France hnd suffered three defeats :the battles of Siuys,
Crécy, Poitiers, and what is perhaps equslly important, as,a result
of those defeats the French King, King John II, was a captive in
English hands. But it does seem to me that the military situation
does render it quite improbable-to put it even strqnger than that
an utter improbability-that the Minquiers and the Ecréhous shauld
have reinained in French hands given that military situation, with
Jersey and the rest of the islandç in English hands. So 1 invoke the
military situation in support of our iiiterpretation of the Treaty of
1360 as confirming the English possession of al1 the islaiids, without
exception. The truth is that the French case could be established-
but couldronly be established-by showing that thefate of the Minquiers
and the Ecréhous in the Hundred Years \Var was different from that
of al1 the ather islands, and that, Mr. President, in Our submission,
is contrary to al1 reason and probability.
The next dipiomatic instrument,Mr. Prcsident, isthe Treaty of Troyes
in 1420 (Annex A 3, pp. 144 onwards). The circurnstances about the time
of that Treaty were that in1413 Henry V of England revived the preten-
sions of his great-grandfatherEdward III of England, to the Crown of
France. In 1415 he made a landing in France, and won the victory of
Agincourt. A more serious invasion took place in1417 , hen his imme- .
diate objective was to secure continental Normandy. By 1419, the Duchy
was firmly in English hands, and there it remaincd until the French
victory at Formigny thirty years later. The French King, beset by the .
Burgundians as well as the English, concluded with Henry the Treaty
of Troyes in 1420. NOWthe two relevant articles are Articles28 and 22.
By the Treaty, the King of France acknowledged the King of England
as heir tothe throne of France. Uy Article 28,the two realms, to be united
under the King of England on the death of thc French King, werc to
retain each their own laws and customs. Article 22 makes itclear that
continental Normandy was in Henry's liands ; it and the otlier French
territories which he, Henry, himself had conquered, were to fa11lvithin
the jurisdiction of France, when, under Article 28, he, Henry, or his
successor, came to the throne of France. Now this did not include the
Channel Islands, for the simple reason that Henry had not had to conquer
the Channel Islands, and Article 22 only refers to the other French
temtories which Henry hirnself had conqueredinaddition to continental
Normandy. They were iti his hands, in other words, al1the time. So there
is nothing in the French point (the Counter-Mernorial, pp.381-382 tat
9120 ORAL ARGUMEKT OF PROF. WADE (u.K.)-22 IX 53
the Channel Islands, by this Treaty, were to be attached to the realm
of France. They were not part ofHenry's conquests, for he dready held
them before he invaded continental Normandy. Nor can it be suggested
that hc intendcd to merge the Channel Islands with continental Nor-
mandy because, for a period continuously from 1415 until 1435 ,ohn,
Duke of Bedford, the King's brother, was Lord of these islands. In
1435 ,n his death, they carne hack to the English Crown and were re-
grantcd to another member of the Royal Family by the next English
King Henry VI ; and bath these grants were made by Letters Patent
issuing from the English Chancery. That is another examyle of the
practice of the English Kings from 1204 onwards to retain the Channel
Islands in their own posscssion, unlesthcy granted them out to membkrs
of tlic English Royal Family.
1 can deal, hlr. President, very briefly with the subsequent Anglo-
French treaties and instruments, ail of which left the status of the
Channel Islands unchanged. Al1the trcatiesand instruments are consid-
ered fully in paragraphs 136-13 of oirr Reply, and their feature is that
either they do not mention the Channel Islands at all, or where they do,
thcy only narne the principal islands. Two of them are commercial
documents of the seventeenth century and only name Guernsey and
Jersey, the principal centres oftrade with France at that tirne.But the
argument that certain instruments rcfcrred to the Channel Islands as
English, but only named somc of the islands, themajor ones, iswithout
bearing-in our view-on this dispute. It must be presumed that the
minor islands-the Ninquiers and the Écréhous-were regarded as
English. We pointed out in our Reply that, apart from the fact that so
oftcn mention is made in general terms of "other islands", the French
argument, if valiclin its application to the Minquiers and thc Écréhous,
would be equally valid ifapplied to Sark, Hem, Jethou and other
islets in tlic Channel Island group not actually riarned in these instm-
ments, al1 of which have always been English, and that fact has not
been questioned. So, no inference unfavaurable to the Englisli possession
of the Minquiers and the Ecrchous apycars capable of heing drawn from
thcse Iater instruments.
AIr.President, 1hope 1have noxvshown not only that England emerged
from the IIliddle Ages possessed of the Channel Islands defacto,but also
that tlieEnglislititle \vas confir~ned de jure by the relevant treaties.
1rcly in particular on the 'Trentyof Lambeth, the Trcaty of Paris and the
Treatp of Calais.Ifthe French Crotvn ever had any original title to the
islands, it\vaslostor renounced by these Treaties, though ive deny that
there was such a title at aH. If 1 am right, it is a position frorn which
our opponents cün only escape by contending-more than contending,
by showjng-tbat thesetwo quite small gronps were in some way distinct
from the other Channel Islands and were not covered by the Treaty
demonstration. 1 hope that 1 have sufficiently shown the utter irnplau-
sibility of any theory that would leave these two small groups outside
the general situation governing the Channel Islands as a wholc. But 1
shall, a little later,,adducesome positive evidence to show that the
Minquiers and the Ecréhous were unquestionably a part of tlie islands
and so a part of the realm of England.
Tt may be convenient, Mr. President, if at this point 1 summarize
the legal position which up to now I have been trying to establish. 1
thiiik the best and shortest way in which I can do that is to recite the ORAL ARGUnIEKT OF PROF, WADE (u.K.)-22 IX 53 121
six main propositions regarding the medieval position. Those are set
out in parügrsph IOG ofour Iceply :to tliatIshall add a seventh furtlier
proposition. ïhe substance of these propositions is as follo~:s
1. The original title of tEnglish Crown to the whole of the Channel
Islands can be traced back to 1066, when William, Duke of Normandy,
became King of Engla~~ricl.
II. The judgment of 1202, by' whicli King John of England was
condemned to forfeit al1 that he held of the French King, is an act the
legality of which has and can be challengeci and wliicli is so dubious that
it cannot be a satisfactory basisforthe French claim.
And to that çeconcl proposition, 1 wauld ndd that, if ever there was a
feudal link bet~veen the French Kings and the Dukes of Normandy in
respect of the Channel Islands, it was broken by tliis judgment and the
mutual defiance betweeii Philip and John, and was never re-established.
III.The situation of fact after 1204 was that the King of 1'rance
held continental Kormandy and the King of England held the Channel
Islands,
That -as not alterecl1 mention in passing, by temporary changes of
possessioii during tlie two periods of fighting tIwas just dealing with.
IV. This situation of fact was confirmed de jure by the Treaties of
1-ambetli, 1217, and reconfimed by the Treatieç of 1259 and 1360b ,y
which France lost aiiy titIe shehad.
V. The subsequent treaties and truces in no way nffected the legal
settlement made by the Treaties of 1259 and 1360.
VI. So itis for the Gqvern~nent of the French Republic to show that
the 3Tinquiers and the Ecréhous were nat included in the situation of
fact or in the Treaty settlement.
Now the sevcnth proposition, 1 would add, is this :
VII. Everi if Fraiice had an original title by right of feudal over-
lordship of the French Kings in respect of the Norman Dukes, and
even if ttiis titk was not lost by the treaty settlemcnts, it gradually
passed away with the passing of the feudnl system itself.
Now, no one denies that the original title which France claims waç
bound up with the existence of the feutlal syçtcm and the feudal
relationship of Duke and King. Ttcauld not have corne from anything
else, because the Frcnch Kings (going back to the begicnirig of my
story) of the tenth, eleventh and twelfth centuries never personally
possessed tlie islands-through their weakness. They never esercised
any direct authority there-and indeed, the whole French case is
that tliey need not have done so, bccause the feudal position and
feudal boncl was itsclf sufficient to give them the title. Well, then,
what becomes of this feudal bond, this abstract title, when there
passes away thcoughout Europe the feudal systern itself, when the
whole basis of tfie feudal relatioiishiphas gone ? One does not need
to fixa definite date for that, butit is admittedly an event now some
centuries old.
Now the reason why the French Kings, on the passing away of the
feudal system, were nevertheless able to claim sovereignty over most
\of continental France, was because they had extended their direct ORAL ARGUMENT OF PROF. WADE (u.K,)-22 IX 53
123
Islands by alleging that we cannot prove that the Chausey were English
in the Middle Ages, and asserting that they were in fact French towards
the endof the fiftheenth centuq. I propose to show that, in this medieval
period, the Chausey were certainly English. Later, in discussing the
claim niade by our opponents that the hlinquiers were a dependency
of Chausey, 1shaii show that the Chausey only firmly and finally became .
Frencli in the middle of the eighteenth century. Secondly, I shall contend
that if the Chausey-and 1 drnw the attention of the Court to tlieir
geographical position, the innermost group of islands practically at the .
base, the south-west base of the Cotentin peninsula and only about eight
or nine miles from the French town of Granville-that if this group,
if the Chausey, was English, thetl the inference that the more outlying
groups-and the next one to them and further out to sea isthe Min-
quiers-were also English, and, if that is so, then the inference that they
were English, is irresistible. 1 çay "if that is but, the map shows that
it is so.Or to put it this way, if we take tlie area between Chausey and
Jersey, the Minquiers is roughly half way betweeri. And is it likely, is
it plausible,that Jersey and the Chausey should both be Englisli, but
not the Minquiers, lying in between ?
Now, there are two pieces of evidence in the Middle Ageç which
canclusively place the Chausey within the realm ofEngland, and thereby
demonstrate the entity of the Channel Islands as a whole, the point 1
have throughout been endeavouring to stress. In the first place, tliere
is evidence of the records of an Asçize Court of tlie English King heldin
Jersey in 1309, when the King's Justices were sent from England to
hold the Court. From these proceedings (there is a reference to them
in para. 183 of our Reply), WC leam the following. The Abbot of Mont-
Saint-Michel had put forward a plea, not in this Jersey Court but in
the Court of the French King, that he could not be sued there in France
in respect of the Chausey, because those islands {the Chausey) were in
the fee of the King of England. This plea was upheld in the French
King's Court, and the plaintiff was non-suited. Accordingly, the Court
of the English King in Jersey placed the following on its records (and
we reproduced what 1 am now going to read in lootnote. I on p. 532
of our Reply). This is the record of the English Court derived from a
French source :
"A mernorandu~n is made concerning the Abbots ~sland of
Ciiausey, as to which the Abbot cannot deny that it is of the fee
oi the lord the King [this is the English Court, and the lord the
King, the King of England] and that this was allowed him in the
court of the King of France nt the suitof a certain rnerchant com-
plaining of him."
Here then is evidence from a French source,and on the basis of a decision
of a court ofthe King of France, that the Chausey were English in 1309,
That leads, 1 suggest, to the inference that al1 the islands in the Bay
of Cotentin were in the effective possession of the English Crown in the
fourteenth century.
And the second piecc of evidence : in the same century, 1337, the
Abbot of Mont-Saint-Michel declared that the Iles Chausey were "in
Regno Anglie" (in the Kingdom of England). And 1 give a translation
(the text 1s in Latin) from Cartulaire des fles Normandes, page 24.
It is this : ORAL ARGUMENT OF PROF. WADE (u.K.)-22 IX 53
125
çentury-two concrete pieces of evidence-clearly so in 1500, when
the Chausey were trarisferred to an English diocese by a document
of international validity. That will cover the period of the treaty
settlement of 1360, and in our view the same situation must prevail
in the earlier treaty settlement of 1259. 1 hope the Court will grant
me that, in these ~ircumstances, the probability that the Minquiers
(and indeed, the Ecréllous, though I shalt come to thern later), as
adjacent to the Chausey, were also English, and that this probability
is so great that any other hypothesis lacks reasonable plausibility.
The reason for the absence of more specific evidcnce about the
Minquiers (1 come at last to the Minquiers) is not kir to seek. We
know there was a priory-we just heard about the l'riory on Chausey.
We know too there was a priory on the Écrkhous. There was none on
the Minquiers. But the inference of English possession during the
Middle Ages of the Minquiers is none the less ovenvhelmingly strong,
and 1 now come to clear evidence of the same thing two hundrecI and
fifty years later.
I refer to the legal proceedings of a Manorial court held in Jersey
regarding wreck found in the Minquiers in 1615, 1616 and 1617 and
again in 1Gg2 (the extracts with regard to the first three proceedings
in the earlier part of the seventeenth century, are to be found in
Annes A 20, pp. 169 and 170, to the Mernorial). Our opponents tried
very hard to prove that this evidence has iio significance, but 1 shall
hope to show that al1 their objections are misconceived.At the lowest,
this evidence fias value as showing a definite connection betwecn
Jersey and the Minquiers at this time. And it is countered by nothing
that our opponents have produced of any record of a French court
dealing with the Minquiers-and this particular matter the finding
of wreck at the Minquiers.
Now, if 1 may take the 1615, 1616and 1617 cases first-those heard
in the hlanorial court of the Seigneur of Noirmont in Jersey-the
objections advanced in the Couilter-Mernorial (p. 398 of the French
test) were that there was no evidence that the wreck was adjudged
by the Court to the Seigneur, and that under Jersey law the Crown
was not entitled to the particular kind of wreck concerned. Therefore,
the procccdings, say our opponents, were no proof of the Crown's
sovereignty. 1 ask the Court to say that both these objections are
beside the point, because the object of citing this evidence is on the
ground of the finding ofthe wreck at the Minquiers and the removal
of it from the Minquit:rs, and 1 think that appears quite clearly in
the extracts from the Court Rolls which wc have given in this Annes.
Tlie finding of the wreck at the Minquiers is the point on which 1
desire to lay emphasis, and the removal of it from the Minquiers.
In short, it was becausc the hIinquie- werc part of Jersey and part
of the fief or Seigneurii: of Noirmont, that the proceedings took place
at all. It does not matter what the outcornc of these proceedings was
from that point of view, nor who was entitled to the wreck-the
Crown or the Seigneiir. In fact, as we pointed out in paragraph 187
of our Reply, the wreck was adjudged to the Seigncur-and it so
happens that the Seigneur was at that time the King of England,
because he held'at that time and until 1646 that particular Manor
in his own domain-in his own control. He then granted it out to126 ORAL ABGUMEh'T OF PROF. WADE (u.K.)-22 IX 53
the Jersey family of de Carteret.So as it happened the King of England
was awarded this wreck as Seigneur of Noirmont.
Accordingly, in their Rejoinder, Our opponents adrranced anuther
objection, because we had pointed out in our Reply what 1 have
just rnentioned. They advanced a new objection, and one to which
they have had constant and, I mightsay, habitua1 resort, in order
to den)? the significance ofmuch of our evidence-not merely on this
question. They advanced the theory that ttie proceedings about wreck
was çirnply an exerciçe of jurisdiction ratione persane .hey say,
contrary to what we Say, that it was not the finding of the ivreck at
the Minquiers-it was the fact that the finder was a tenant of the
Seigneur or his man that gave jiirisdiction and gave the Seigneur a
right to the sharc. There is no cvidence given to show that this was
the position under Jersey law at the time-which it was not-and
incidentally there is no evidence given, and there iç equally nothing
in Our Annex A 20 to show, that the finders of the wreck were in fact
men owing allegiance to the Seigneur of Noirmont. This idea that
the jurisdiction of a Manorial court was exercised vadione +ersow
is conclusively disproved by two considerations (again 1 refer to the
Annex). The matter is not put on the basis that the finders of the
tvreck werc Noirmont men-notbing is saidabout their çtatus in this
extract in Annex A 20. The Court will see that it merely gives the,
names of the men accarding to the evidence of the Provost : Grandin,
Grandin, Christin, Dumaresq (it does not say where they corne from)
are allegcd ....etc. It does not even give the place of residence, or
their paiish, a matter which is always of considerable importance
in the island of Jersey : tuwhich parish a man belongs. Furthemore,
the references to the Minquiers are not merely descriptive. They are
not simply recitations that the wreck was found at the Minquiers.
The gravamen of the matter was that the ivreck had been removed
from the Minquiers, not only found there, but removed-the expressions I
used are "carried off", "taken away". These proceedings, in short,
arose from the fact that someone had removed ivreck found on property
belonging to the Lord of the hlanor-and that property was tlie
Minquiers property of the Lord of the Manor.
[Public sittingof Seplember zznd, 1953 .flerlzoon]
Mr. President, Members of the Court :
Before the adjuurnment, I iws dealing with the three cases where
the Noinnont Manorial Court exercised jurisdiction over wreck found
at the Minquiers. 1 had disposed of one objection to the French theory
that thisjurisdiction was exercised rdz'olae$ersona. My second obj ec-
tion is this : it is totallÿ contrary-thistheory of ralione personre-to
all those feudal conceptsthat then seem to have regulated such matters
in Jersey, itiscontrary to English law,and jtiscontrary to Jersey 1aw
at the present tirne. It would abo lead to impossible resultinpractice,
as1 shal hope to show in a moment.
May 1first dispose of one point. Imight perhaps be thonght that the
ground of these Noirmont proceedings was not so much that the wreck
was joujtd at the Minquiers, but that it was brought i.ntoNoirmont128 ORAL ARGUAIENT OF PROF. WADE (u.K.)-22 ZX 53
impossible. The anchor was not landed at Noirmont, and the Seigneur
of Noirmont cnn therefore have had 110interest init on that account. 1
venture to suggest that itwas to deal with this case that the Government
of tlie Republic has invented itç principle thaa lord would bc entitled,
raiiane persona, to ivreck found by his tenant. That principle-if it
were iield-would indeed pravide an explanation of the case (the third
case) which would in no way involve any infercnce about title to the
Minquiers. But unfortunately for that argument, there isno evidence
whatever that such a principle e'cistedin the law of Jersey, and it
woulcilead to impossible rcsults, as we have seen. In short, the principle
of rationepersone does IIO~exist and itnever did. Hou,, then, may one
explain the concern of the Seigneur with an anchor found on the Min-
quiers and taken to St. Malo without ever having been brought to
Noirmont ? The simplest explanation is thatthe Minquiers was a part
of tlie fief of Noirmont. If this were so, then the Seigneur would be
entitled absolutely to the wreck found there. This explains not only
the case of the nnchor, but also the emphasis on the Minquiers as the
placc of finding in the other cases tliat 1 have been examining, and
also the fact thnt in those cases no mention is made- of wrecks being
divisible.
Thc only coiicrete argument which our opponents advance is the
fact that in 1692 (the case appears on the next two pages as Annex A 21,
pp. 170 and 171) the claiiiiai~t in respecof the wreck is tliLord of
Samarés appearing through Iiis mother, Deborah Dumaresq. But it is
our contention that our opponents have rnisconceived the nature of
tliese proceedings inthe Royal Court of Jersey. Itis quite clear frorthe
record in that case that the basis of Deborah Dumaresq's claim Ras
that the wreck originally cast on to the Minquiers had becn brought
to her son's fiefof Samarés in Jersey. I Say "brought". The word in
thc French text, the text of the actual record, is "apporté"-1 think
that is a better translation than "cast on". There is no suggestion at
al1 that Debornli's clainl inthis casewas based on a finding by Sarnarèç
men-men of Iicr son's manor.
A further suggestion is that the 1692 case is to be regarcled as an
esercise of war rights. This explanation offered by our opponents does
not stand up to examination, because there is not a vestige of a hint
in the procecdings that tliis Court was acting as a Court of l'rize or
that any question of \var rightswas involved. Tlic b:~sisof the proceedings
is purely and simply the finding of wreck. Had war rights been involved,
tlie whole wording would have been quite different.
1 contend, therefore, Mr. President, that ifI have established that
the Minquiers were in Reglto Anglie in the Middle Ages; and at least
uy to and after the Papal 13ulIof 1500 which transferred Chausey and
Jersey and al1 the otlier islarids of the Channel to thSee of tVinchester,
these cases of wreck show clearly that as late as 1700 approsimately
the Minquiers were still in Regno AîrgEie.
There I leave the Minquiers until 1 corne back to the eighteenth
century position.
Ifthere is rclatively little cvidence about the Minquiers, as such, in
the Middle Ages-though I hope I have shown no lack of presumptive
evidence of the strongest kind-there is, on the other hand, a consider-
able.amount of evidence relating to the Ecréhous, while at the same
time the presumptioii that they, like the Minquiers, were in Regwo ORAL ARGUMENT OF PROF. WADE' (u.K.)-22 IX53 IZ9
Angkie through the Middle Ageç iç no less strong-particularly having
r~gard to the special geographical relationships between Jersey and
Ecréhous which Blr. Harrison will demonstrate.
The first specific mention of the Ecréhous islets by name is to be
found in the Charter of 1203, given in Annex A 7,pages Ijj and 156,
same volume. By this Charter, I'iers des Pr6aux granted the Ecréhous
to the Abbey of Val-Richer in Normandy. Now this clearly establishes
that the Écréhous were an intcgral part of the Channel Islands at
that time, and particularly a dependency of Jersey-for, three years
earlier, in rzoo (this is the following document on the next page-
Annex A B), Piers des l'réaux ohtained his only right to make a grant
of the Ecréhous, and .that was the grant to him by King John of
EngIand of the "Islands of Jersey, and Guernsey, and of Alderney".
John granted Jersey, Guernsey and Alderney in the year 1290 to Piers
des Préaux, and Piers des Préaux out of that granted the Eciéhous-
wc say, as part of Jcisey-thrce years later. And l'icrs could only
have granted the Ecrélious because they were a part of the Channel
Islands as a part of Jersey, underneath whose shores they lie. Indeed,
this i~ implicitly admitted by our opponentç when they lay claim to
the Ecréhous through the Abbey of Val-Richer, for the only title
that the Abbey of Val-Richer could have was throiigh Piers, and
Piers had no title unless King John's grant to hirn included the Écré-
hous. In another way, the French daim seems to admit the same
point, for their argument is that by Piers' grant to the Abbey of the
Écréhous, they were taken out of the wkole ficfof the Channel Islands
and ceased to be part of it-that seems to me to be a clear admission
of the unity of the fief of the Channel Islands standing as a whole.
ifre maintain that these two Charters of John to Piers and of Piers
to Val-Kicher, constitutea significant proof of Our repeated contention
-disputecl by Our opponents-though 1 maintain that they make
use of it whcnit happens tosuit thern-our contention that the Channel
Islands were an entity in these early centuries, and an entity which
was often designated by such-vague phrases as "Les fies", ''I~aszcl~
de Gerneseye, Jerseye, Serk et Aurney", and so forth. Conversely,
these Chartcrç refute tlie argument of our opponents that there was
a caractère limitatif inthese designations. In actual fact, as Dupont
points out, the chroniclers of the medieval period sometirnes called
the ~vhole of the Channel Islaiids merely the "Island of Gucrnsey".
The grant of Piers to Val-Richer iç significant in this respect in yet
another way. Not only does it show-as 1 hope 1 have demonstrated
-that the Écréhous wcre part and parcel of the Channel Islands as
part of Jersey, but it shows that Piers himself intended that they
should continue to be ;ssociated with the islands, becaiise the grant
iri Annex A 7 shows that Pierç contemplated his men in theçe islands
upould make cndowments to the intended Priory on the Ecréhous.
"1 have fiirther granted [1 am reading from the translation] to the
afore-said monks whatever by my men of Jersey, and of Guernsey,
and of Alderney, having regard to charity, çhall be reasonably given
to thern." This isclear proof that the Ecréhous were, and were meant
to continue as part of the entity of the Channel Islands, and that its
Priory could expect support from the islanders, which, as the history,
of Jersey shows,was the case, and endowments in Jersey and elsewhere. ORAL ARGUMENT OF PROF. \VADE (u.K.)-22 IX 53
130
This also has a bearing on the French argument (which 1 will deal
with in a moment) that the effect of Piers' gant to Val-Richer was
to take the Écréhous out of the fief and attach the whole Ecréhous
oup to Val-Richer as part of continental Normandy, to change it
rom the Channel Islands ancltomake it pmt of Somandy ;so that
when, in the next year, 1204, Philip of France annexed Normandy
(this is the argument of my opponcnts) and became the immediate
overlord of the Abbey, he also became the averlord of the Ecréhous
and displaced King John, ~ho nevertheless rernained-so the argument
must be assumed to run-King of the rest of the Channel Islands by
virtiieof being King of England,
Piers des Préaux' grant to the Abbey of Val-Richer was a grant in
frankalrnoin, a species of feudal tenure. The feudal system rested upon
these tenures, that' is the holding of land in return for services to be
rendered to an overlord or seigneur. Theçe services, it is weii known,
could be of various kinds-miiitary, lay or ecclesiastical-frankalmoin
being an ecclesiastical form. They were rendered in actual kind or com-
muted for a money payment. This system, once it was extended beyond
a supenor tenant-beyond the first tenant of the lord mho held directly
from the overlord-was known as sub-infeudation. Tlie process may be
likened to a çeriesof links in a chain. There might intervene between
the overlord who first granted the land, and the ultimate tenant in posses-
sion of the land, a number of intermediate tenants. Now three results
follo~from this species of relationship. Firstly, each tenant would be
linked to a grantor immediately superior to himself. Secondly, no one
grantor could grant greater rights to his tenant thanhe himself possessed
against his superior. Perhaps theearliest manifestation of the well-known
legal doctrine nemo dut quodnon habet.Nor could a grantor by his grant
deçtroy the rights of his superior from whom he held the land in return
for services.These services then remained enforceable against the sub-
tenant-the holder of the land-unless the superior, by his own express
grant, gave them up-that supenor there being the original grantor or
overlord in the case in point.
.New, &Ir.President, rnay.1 apply these mleç to this grant of 1203
whereby Piers granted the Ecréhous to the Abbey of Val-Richer. We
are agreed tliat this referred t,o Maitre fle by reason of the remains of
the Priory on that içletofthe Ecréhousgroup. Now in 1200,John, whom
1 will describe as iinkIin the chain, as Duke of Normandy, granted the
islands of Jersey, Guernsey and Aldemey to Piers. Wis tenure urasof
the type requiring the rendering of military services. The services Piers
owed to John-Piers becomes link 2 in the chain-were the services of
three knights, that is,an obligation to provide arrns. Piers (link z) in
his turn granted the Écréhous to the Abbey of Val-Richer in frankal-
moin, or free alrns-about that 1 shaii speak Jater. So we have this
short chain-John linked to Piers and Piers linked to the Abbey of
Val-Richer. Now this grant to the Abbey of Val-Richer by Piers would
not free the land from the service which Pierç (liqkz) owed to King
John (Link1) in respect of his fief, of which the Ecréhous were part.
There may have been no apportionment of such services as Piersowed
to John. There may indeed have been no enforcement. But nothing that
Fiers could do could free the land which he granted to the Abbey of
,Val-Richerfrom the dues which Piers owed in respect of it to his grantor.
The chain of tenure was unbroken and John continued to be entitled ORAL ARCUNENT OF PROF. WADE (d.~.)-22 IX 53 131
.to the services burdening the land (not personal services) in whosoever
hands it was.
Now it is to avoid this concluçion of the continuity of the services
due ta the overlord that the Governrnent of the Republic has sought to
establish that, because the grant was in frankalmoin, or free alms '(an
ecclesiastical grant), these general rules did not apply. Now frankalrnoin
adrnittedly differed from any other form of tenure for this reason : that
in such a grant, the graiitor, ~vhether he was the first link in the cliain,
or the second link in the chain, reserved no temporal services to himself.
The services rendered took the form of an obligation to pray for the
persons named by the grantor. But, because those were the services
named, the land \vas not thereby freed from al1secular services. Itowed
no secuIar services to the actual grantor in frankalmoin (that is, the land
owed no secular services), butitdid owe, and continued to owe, services
due to hissuperior. It owed no services in this case to Piers, but it did
continue to owe services to his superior, John, King of England.
In support of this subn~ission,1would refer the Court toparagraph 147
of our licply, where there is reproduced the view of the forcmost English
legal historian, Mnitland-a passage from Volume I 'of his well-known
History of Englisli Law, written inassociation with Sir Frederick Pollock
(Vol. I,p. 144). 1 cite the following extract:
"Reside this, we constantly find religious houses taking land in
socage or fec larms nt rents, and at substatitial rents, and although
a gift in frankalmoin might proceed from the King, it could often
proceed from a mesne lord." [That is Ourcase here-Piers being the
Inesne lord.] Continuirig the citation : "In this case the mere gift
could not render the land free from al1seculnr service ; in the donor's .
hand it was burdened with such service ; aiid so burdened it passed
into the hands of the donee." [Or, if 1 müy apply it to the present
case, in Piers' hand it \vas burdened mith such service ; and so
burdened it passed into the hands of the Abbey of Val-Richer.]
In tlieir Counter-Mernorial, the French Governrnent advanced the view
tliat a gift in frankalmoin destroyed feudal tenure altogether. This,
however, is contrary to the view of the weil-known French historian,
Blum, who categorically states that frankalmoin always remained a
tenure. The point isadniitted now by rny opponents at the bottom of
page 697 of the text of their Rejoinder, where we read :"in fact, the
ûverlord retained his rights, for the grantor could not give greater rights
than he himself possessed".
hlr. President, to sum up, we see that the chain linking the land from
John to Piers and Piers to the Abbot remained unbroken. The Abbep
held the ficréhous through Piers, who retained the rest of the fief in
virtue of his holdin from the King of England, who was the lord of
the whole fief. The #,créhouç did not becorne French because the tenant
in possession was a French, or rathcr a Norman, subject.
1 shall now demonstrate, if 1 have not already done it, that our
opponents' proposition violates the feudal principles which Ihave been
trying to expound. First, the French thesis necessarily involves that
Piers, by granting the Écréhous to Val-Richer in frankalmoin, caused
Val-Richer to hold direct of John, because they admit that Piers could
not by any act of his deprive John of his right as supreme overlord-
the passage which 1 read a few moments ago. John therefore remained132 ORAL ARGUMENT OF PROF. WADE (u.K.)-22 IX 53
the overlord of the Écréhous. In ttiat case, someone must have held
them of John. But,who ? Not Piers, Sap Our opponents. Bÿ his act he
had removed the Ecréhous from the fief of the islands-they were no
longer part of his-FiersJ-holding. If not Picrs, then it must have been
Val-Richer. In short, Piers, by his act and without John's,consent, had
snbstituted a new tenant for himself in respect of the Ecréhous and
had created a new direct tenure between John and Val-Richer. That
would have violatcd feudal law, bath in Jersey and in England, at this
date : substitution instead of sub-infeudation.
Next, it would also be contrary to feudal law because it ~vould in
effect mean that Piers, without the consent of John, his overlord, had
freed the land from the burden of the services imposed on him-Pierç
-by John, by creating a new tenure betwccn John and someone else
free of those services as between John and the new tenant :that is
al! contrary, that is feudally an impossibility.
Our opponents can only escape from these difficulties by reverting
to their original theory, from which they withdrew ultimately in their
Kejoinder, that thegrant in frankalmoin created what was known aç an
allod, so that Val-Richer itself became the overlord holding of no one-
taking the land right out of the feudal system. But that would be
impossible, becauçe John, as suprerne overlord, could not be deprived
of his position and rights without his consent ; and manifestly on the
documents that consent was not given. The present French theory
leads to no lesç impossible a position,
Finally, and most important of all, the French theory seemsimpossible
to reconcile with yet another feudal principle that a tenant could not,
by any grant he himçelf made, deprive his superior lord of his rights.
But they think they have met this point in two ways. First thcy Say :
Oh ! John remained the overlord ; but Val-Richer, the Abbey, held
direct of Iiim and not through Piers. Secondly, they say that although
Val-Richer only did spiritual services, Piers went on being responsible
to John for temporal services, such as the provision of knight's services.
Therefore, they argue, al1 John's righis remained intact.
Now this theory conveniently ignores this fact : a superior lord's
rights were by no means confined to the ~articular services reservedby
the actual grant. There were other rights, attached as a matter of law
to al1 grants, the value of which depended on the holding rc~naining
intact and not being diminished by alienations : grants by the holder.
These were the rvell-known feudal rights-just to catalogue them by
namc and give one illustration-aids, reliefs, primer seisin, wardship,
rnarriagc and escheat.
Take reliefs as an illustration. When the tenant dicd, his hcir was
entitled to inherit, if the estate waç inheritable, but could be required
to pay a sum in the nature of a sort of succession duty on taking üp
the fallen estate-hence the term "relief" or "reJevi,rm" Irelevat heui-
dateîn).Any diminution in the size of the holding by previous alienation
would therefore have affected what the lord could hope to obtain by
way of a relief on inheritance, Sirnilarly, the nght of primer seisin
cnabled the lord to keep an heir out of his land for a year, or, in lieu,
receive a year's profit of the land-and that again depended on how
much lard there was inthe holding. Now this applied to Piers' holding
of the islands, forhe held of King John, and the islands he field were
a heritable estate. ORAL ARGUMENT OF PROF. WADE (u.K.)-22 IX 53 133
Now questions of reliefs and primer scisin were especially important
as regards an ecclesiastical foundation like an abbey, becaiise an
abbey never died-no questions of inheritance arise. Thus, any part
alienated in thc way tlie French theory suggests would nevcr have
fallen inby way of inheritance-there would have been no inhcritance.
charge in respect of the ficréhotis if this view were rigtit-and reliefs
in respect of this part of the fief would have been permanently lost
to the lord, to King John. To take perhaps a somewhat extravagant
illustration,suppose that Fiers, instead of granting Val-Richer the
ccréhous, had granted it the whole island of Jersey. Thcn, on Piers'
death and that of his succeeding heirs, the English Crown could,
according to the French theory (Jersey having ceased to be part of
the fief of the islands), only collect reliefs on the value of the Channel
Islands minus Jersey.
Now 1 thiqk, Mr. President, the Court will see therefore that a
grant of the Ecréhous by Piers, which would have had the effect our
opponents çuggest-takirig the Ecréhous right .out of the single fief
of the islands-would in principle havc involved a serious prejudice
to John:s feudal rights, even though he-John-remained overlord
of the Ecréhous in the hands of another tenant. The fact that the
Écréhous were, and are, of comparatively Iittlc value, is beside the
point for the purpose of this argument, for if the French theory is
correct, thén it would apply equally if Piers had granted a big unit
likc the whole of Jersey to Val-Richer in frankalmoin.
1 hope, hlr. Yresident, that 1 have shown that the French theory
leads to hopeIess contradictions and inconsistencies ; that it is wholly
ai variance with feudal law and tenure and therefore unacceptable.
Ttdoes not, indeed, even meet the point, which Our opponents them-
selves concede, that John's rights must not bc prejudiced. And may
1 draw the Court's attention in this conncction to the first part of
' the opinion of Professor Plucknett of London University :WC havc
submitted this asAnnex A 157 in the volume of Additional Annexes
-it is issucd çeparately and not bound up in the volume. This opinion,
by a scholar of international repute in law and hiçtory, is, as the Court
will see from the language, quitc objective and, indecd, is at pains
to do full justice to the French argument. The Court will see, however,
that it brings out the vital point that a tenant could only mnke a
grant in frankalmoin by way of sub-infeiidation, and not by way of
novation or assignment-or alienntion of part of his holding. Thus,
when Pierç made the grant to Val-Richer, he did not, and could not,
alienate the Ecréhous from the fiefofthe islands which he held irom
Johii, because without John's consent he could not alter the character
and extent of his holding-the holding he held from John-or substitute
for it a direct holding by the Abbey of Val-Richer from King John.
It follows ineluctably that Val-Richer held under this grant, and could
only hold, the Écréhous from and through Piers, and that Piers went
on holding from John as before. In other words, Piers could not eliminate
himself as the intermediate link in the chain of three links.The whole
French th,eory that King Philip of France acquired any special rights
over the Ecréhous because Val-Richcr was, or became, a French abbey
therefore seems to' fa11to the ground.
Professor Plucknett points out in the ninth paragraph of hi5 opinion
how wrong this whole theory is. The fact that Val-Richer was a ORAL ARGUMENT OF PROF. WADE (u.K.)-22 IX 53
-'34
.Norman Abbey wouid not give any rights to King Philip of France,
when he conquered Normandy, over the Abbe 's foreign holdings,
.rnerely because Philip had possessed himself of hormandy. Val-Richer
might hold lands in al1 sorts of countries, of al1 sorts of different lords
.and sovereigns, but Philipwould have had no rights of any kind over
those lands just because Val-Richer was Norman or French : nationality
.had nothing to do with it-the only question was of whom were the
lands held. Philipcould only clairn rights over land whicli Val-Richer
.held directlyor through an intermediary of hirnself, Philipand that
.was certainly not the case 111ththe Ecréhous.
Our opponents seem really to be aping that, because a French
.abbey was the immediate tcnant of the Ecréhous, therefore the Ecréhous
became French temtory ; but, of course, an this basis, Rlr. President,
.any landç Val-Richer ~night have held in England, or Germany, or
Spain, or wherc you will, would have become French to-the argument
ignores the distinction between private ownership of proyerty and
political sovereignty.French abbeys of that day, indeed, such as
Cluny-Norman abbeys too-Le Bec-held large estates in England
and elsewhere. It has never been suggested that this caused the political
.savercigiity ovcr thesc estates to become vested in the sovereign of
the abbey-the land where the abbey was situatcd-any more than
if 1 bought a piece of lanin France to-day, would itcease to be under
French sovereignty because 1 happen to be a British subject.
In short, France can claim no sovereign rights over the Ecréhous
through the Abbey of Val-Richer, for the Abbey itself cxcrciscd no
.sovereign rights there. It had nothing to transmit except its ecclel
siastical rights over the pnory.
I3ut I can offer tbc Court more definite-indeed, most definite-
proof tt~at the Ecréhous remained English, and that is affordedby the
proceedings known as the 9110warranto proceedings in r309 : we are
now coming to a period a hundred gears after Yiers' grant. Now these
were proceedings beforc a Royal Court sent from England and sitting
in jersey, as part of a general inquiry begun by Edward 1 and
.continued by lis successors throughout his realms, and a well-known
incident in English history. Subjects of the King who exercised any
privileges whiclioillythe King could grant (fraiichises and so forth)
.were required to show by what authority (hence the term quo warranto)
they had obtained these rights. And if the Court ~voulbe good enough
ta turn to the translation of the record of these proceedings-they
will find it at pages 158 and 159, Annex A 12 to our Mernorial-this
shows quite clearly (the translation) that the Abbot of Val-Richcr
was sumrnoned before the judges of King Edward II of England,
rsitting in Jersey, to show by what authonty he held the advowson
of the Priory of Ecréliaus andamiil and certain endowments in Jersey.
I dismiss for this purpose the endowments in Jersey, simply because
they were in Jersey and this Court is not concerned with the title
to Jersey. But I do rely on that part of the proceedings relating to
the advowson of the Écréhous-that is, a right of landed poperty-
the land being, in this case, the site of the Priory on the Ecréhous.
And may 1, Mr. President, say a word or two about this term
"advowson". It is the right of presentation to an ecclesiastical office
.or benefice in this case, of course, the right to present an ecclesiastic
.to the Priory on the ficréhous. But this right is not a personal one. ORAL ARGUMENT OF PROF. WADE (u.K.)-22 IX 53 135
It is, on the contrary, a right of property, a right of property in the
land it relates to :it is one of the curious features of our somewhat
arctiaic systeni of land law inErigland that tliis isa species of landed
property-so it was tlien and so it reniains. It is a right of property,
and only a court having territorial jurisdiction oves that land iscam-
petent to hear and adjudicate about the ownership of an advowson.
That court, as a matter of interest, was and still is the King's lay
courts and not the ecclesiastical courts. It was therefore in the exercise
of their ardinary jurisdiction that these Englisli judges, sent by their
King to Jersey in the carly part of the fourteenth century-to put
it in modern terms-lienrd the action relating to an advowson, along
with the other causes tliat they heard in a temporal court. That is
perfectly regular in so far as ICiiglishancl Jersey law nt the time was
concerncd. Since, so fai as thc ;~dvowson was concerned, the inquiry
related to a riglitofproperty in land, it waç quite immaterial whether
this right was hcld or claimed by an Englishman, a Jerseyman, or a
foreigncr. In this case it was actually Iield by a French subject, the
Abbot of Val-Richcr : ttiat ito say, an alien who held, landed property
with the advowson attached to it on tcrntory-the Ecréhous-wvithin
the jurisdiction of the King's courts exercising jurisdiction in Jersey.
The normal position in feudal law was that the tenant of the land
was also ,the ownes of the advoïvsciin. Hut the King's advisers, who
were rnaking this claim, presumably had evidently forgotten, or over-
looked, the grant of 106 years earlier by Piers to the Rbbey of Val-
Richer, and thcrefore they rcqoired tlie abbot to show how lie came
to hold the advowson. The Court may remember that Piers disappeared
from the picture and forfeited his rights in the Channel Islands only
one year after lie made tlie original grant in 1203. {Vhat l~appened
\vas that the King's advisers, frnding the Priory on the Ecréhous,
which was part of tlie King's own lands, clairned the right to present
to the ecclesiastical office, that is, the right to appoint the, Prior.
Now, the proof that this property-that is to say the Ecréhous,
held by the abbot-fell in the King of England's domains is demon-
strated by theçe facts. A challenge to the apparent owner of the
advowson to prove his right is made cigainsi the abbot. Thc abbot
is called upon to answer for the claim, and to justify his title in the
normal court, the King's Justices sitting in Jersey. The abbot sends
the Prior of the Ecréhous to representhirn asLs attorney (the document
Annex A 12 tells this story). In short, the French abbot admits the
jurisdiction of the Court. If the abbot had considered the Ecréhous
were not English, that they were within the reatm of a Fseiicli, or
any other, sovereign, surely he would have rcfused to nppear, iiistead
of ïvhicli he makes arrangements for liis rcpresentation there. He
sent his attorney. He could have sent his attorney and instructed him
to reply :"The Écréhous are French ;and if anyone wants to challenge
my right of advowson there, T will answer him in the French King's
Courts in Paris." We know that French abbots were quite capable
of doing this, because tlie Court inay remember the case I cited earlier
in connection with the Chausey, that that very thing occurred in the
course of thesc same proceedings in 1309 in another case, when the
abbot of the Aloiit St. Michel is recorded as having successfdy rejected
the junsdiction of a French Court in respect of liis Priory on the Iles
Chausey on the irery ground tliat the Chausey were in Regno Angllie.
1O ORAL ARGUMENT OF PROF. WADE (u.K.)-22 IX 53
136
If, therefore, the Abbot of Val-Richer really thought his Priory of
the Ecréhous was in Regtro Fra~icie,çurely fie u~ouldhave said so-
or refused to be represented. But he did not refuse to be represented,
and he did not give such an answer. The reason for that is surely
obvious. Both the abbot and ,the prior knew perfectiy well wl-iich
King was sovereign over the Ecréhous, so the abbot instructed his
prior to appear on his behalf in the Court of the English King.
Now 1 think Our opponents realize the force of this point, because
giring an answer.e Andt ton this slender, and asp1ishall hope to show,
incorrect allegation-and on that alone-they would seek to maintain
that the nbbot and his prior did not, therefore, beliethnt the Écréhous
fell under the King ofEnglarid's jurisdiction. 13utthevery fact tliat the
prior was sent by the abbot to the Court and took part in the proceed-
ings without protest \vas surely an admission that the abbot considered
liimself bound to answer-an admission of the jurisdiction of the King's
Courts over the 15créhous.His explanations (and there is never a hint
in them that he considered the Ecréhous to be French) actüally did
constitute an ansxver. He describes his "certain small rock" (thatisthe
site of his Priory) ; he speaks of his and his fellow priest's duties (1
quote from the document) to "celebrate forthe lord the King and his
progenitors" (that is, Edward II),to mainiain (as the document says)
"a light burning in that chape1 [of the Écréhous] so that mariners
crossing the sea by night by that light rnay aavoidthe perils otherocks
contiguous to.the Chapel".
Now our opponents Say that the Court did not pursue the rnatter,
and thereby seek to imply tiiat the Court itçelf did not consider that it
had jurisdiction.But it is my submission, Mr. President, that the Court
did pursue the matter, and 1 would draw the attention of the Court
to the last two sentences of the record in Annex A 12, which I will read
if 1may :
"And because that Prior faithfully shows tiiat the kbbot on
account of the poverty of tlint tenure doeç not wish to Excrt
himself for the same. Therefore it is pemitted to the çaid Prior .
to hold the premises as he holdç them as long as it shali please the
lord the King."
Iinvite the attention of the Court to that quotation.The Court is clearly
exercising jurisdiction ; it is, so to speak, giving judgment imposing a
condition. It is obvious, when one goes into the story, that the meagre
endowments of this Priory barely sufficed to rnaintain tlie Priory. The
abbot declined to stir liimsclf, as is stated. But the Court adjuclged the
acivowson and the endowments to the pnor representing the abbot, at
the King's pleasure. But, for the purposes of my argument, the actuaf
outcome of the proceedings is immaterial. Wliat is relevant is the fact
that the case was heard and decided at al1where it \vas-for tliat was
an assertion of jurisdiction in respect of laiidin territory under the
King of England's jurisdiction.
How theçe proceedings, apart from demonstrating that the abbot did
answer to the liing's Courts-if my contention is riglit-show that in
afurther way the prior-the spokesman of the abbot-himself believed
that thePrier- and the land on which it stood belonged to the English
King. New he stüted (this again is in the proceedings) that he and his ORAL ARGUMENT OF PROF. WADE (u.K.)--22 IX 53 137
fellow monks "always celebrate for the lord King and his progenitors".
This offering of Masses for King Edward II of Englnnd and his ancestors
cannot be dismissed (witli all.respect to thc suggestion in the French
Counter-Mernorial) as a desire to pray for any ChristiaIt\vas in accord-
ance with the original feudal obligation of the servicc of yrayer on
behalf of King John, which Piers had required 106 years carlier in his
grant to the abbot (that nppears from the Annex whicli has already
been before the Court this afternoon-d 7, p. 155)H.ere WC have then
clear evidence that this spiritual service, which linked the Ecréhous to
the fief of the Channel Islands, continueforover a.hundrcd years down
to 1309, when the prior and his cornpanions were still celebrating Masses .
for the reigning King of England, as well as for his ancestors.
Now al! this evidence, derived from the Rolls of the King's Court
in Jersey, in my submission conclusively supports the United Kingdom
staternent about the nature and effect of a grant in frankalmoin. It
shows itself that the gant in frankalmoin did not remove the Ecréhous
from the possession of the Kings of England. EqualIy that the King
of France did not obtain any riglit to them. Ancl finally it shows con-
clusively,1 venture to contend, that in 1309 the King of England was
exercising sovereignty over the Ecréhous in the most concrete manner.
Nis judgcç were functioning in respect of a right to property in land
situated thcre. And 1 would in this connection, again if 1 may, rcfer
the Court to the second part of the opinion of Professor Pliicknett.
I now pass to a further piece of evidence regarding the Ecrkhous,
which contributes proof that thesc islets were among the possessions
of the Kings of England. These are the Letters of Protcction dated
1337 given in Annex A 17 of the 3lemoriaI.1 want first, ifI may, to
clear away the misapyrehension raised by two passages put forwarrl by
our opponents (the seferences being in the Counter-Ncmorial, p. 392,
and the Kejoinder, page 699, French text)-misa~iprehension as to the
intention of Letters of Protection. Letters of Protection were granted
by English Kings both to deriizcns (that is to Say, nativesof English
territory) 3swell as to foreigners "during the King's plcasure". That
we have cxplained in paragraph 162 of our Reply. The originalFrench
contention in the Counter-Mernorial was that Letters of Protection
were only granted to forcigners, but they appear to have abandoned
that view in their Rejoinder. But the Rejoindcr does persist in atternpt-
ing to translate iadifferentway from the United Kingdom Governmcnt
these Letters of Protection and to reject the significanee placed by
us upon them. And there is a further point, the licjoindcr asserts on
page 699 (1 read frorn the English translation) :
"we have no knowledge of the precise terms of these Ictters. Tliey
are briefly mentioncd in the Patent Roll of Edward II,which is
merely a list of letters patent issued by the English Chancellery
under this simple heading: 'Prior de Acrehow de insula de Jersey'."
May 1 first, Mr. President, dispose of this latter assertion. The prccise
terms of these Letters of Protection are those given to the Prior of
Saint Clement's in Jersey, that is the document we rcproduced on
page 164 in the large type. 13ut instead of the Chancery clerk repeating
on the Patent Roll the same words which were in the individual
Letters of Protection actually given to each prior, hc merely, for the
sake of brevity, and as was cornmonplace with such clerks, recordcd ORAI. ARGUMENT OF PROF. WADE (u.K.)-22 IX 53
138
that "the persons underwritten have like royal letters of protection,
namely ....".Thus, if the statement that the clerk wrotc is correct,
we do know the precisc tems of the Letters of Protection given to the
Prior of the Écréhous. They arc as printed in the document: "The
Pno; [of not in this case St. Clement of the island of Jersey, but of
the Ecréhous of the islan df Jersey] hhaçthe King'sLetters ofProtection
for as long as itshall please the King." Now I would invite the Court,
if 1 Inay, to consider the question of the translation of these entries,
a translation which isdisputed by our opponents. I have already quoted
the actual text of the translation,substitutingthe Prior of the Ecréhous
for tlie Prior of St. Clemcnt.Now the nine other priors named (that is,
the persons undenvritten in the snrall print of A 17) included tlie Prior
of tlie Ecréhous of tlie island of Jersey. The Latin text (the Court will
observe), on page 164, uses the word "de" for each of the words
whicli, we have translated as "of", hotli in the casc of the main
bit of the actual text "Prior of St. Clement of the island of,JerseyW
and in each of the cases below-in particular the "Prior of the Ecréhous
of the island of Jersey". The contention of Our oppone~its is that the
second "de"-and only the second "de"-should be translated as
qzbantli (in respect of) or à cnrrsede (becausof)or "touching" or "con-
cerning". But if the medieval scribe \vas using "de" or "de" in the
Latin, to translate "of" in respect of the first and third cases in these
quotations, there appears to be no reason wliy lie should not use it to
translate the "of" in the second, despite the fact that this does not suit
out opponents. But the translation of "de" (or "de" rather) by "of" is
shown to be the correct one ifwe consider the othcr examples. Now if
1 may take first the case ofSt. Clement itself, tl-iistranslation of "de"
(the Latin "de") as the French Rejoinder asks us to do,"in respect of"
makes nonsense-"The Prior of St. Clement in respect of the island of
Jersey". But the fact is that St.Clement is situated in the island of
Jersey itself, and the translation of "de" by "of" makes good sense
and correctly interprets the "de". The same applics to the appellation
"Priory of Blanche-lande of the island of GuernseyH-that Priory is
in Guernsey. Several others of the nine are in tliis position. Equally,
the same meaning of "of" must be attribu!ed to the second use of the
Latin word "de" in the description of the "Ecréhous of [not 'as respects']
the isIand of Jersey". A further pieceof evidencte hat tliitranslation
is right is to be found iii the two descriptions in the smnll print-the
"Prior of Herm of the island of Guernsey" and "Prior of Lihou of the
islai~dqf Guernsey". Nom these are a very cloçe parallel ta the case
of the Ecréhous, because the Court will probably have observed from ~
looking at a map of this area that Lihou and Herm are hoth of
thern srnall içlands close to-separatecl hy a very narrow channel of
sea from Guernsey-and each of them is undoubtedly a dependency
of the islarid of Guernsey. As Herm and Liliou are rightly described
.s "of Guernsey" by this translation of "de" as "of", so are the
Ecriihous rightly dcscribed ris "of Jersey".
In conclusion, hlr. President, 1 would submit that the evidence of
English sovereignty over the Écréhous in the Middle Ages is over-
whelmingly strong. Wltat docs the French claim rest on ? Nothing
more-I would ask tlie Court to agree-nothing more but a completely
erroneous interpretation of the legal effect of a grant to a Norman ORAL ARGUMENT OF PROF. WADE (u.K,)-23 IX 53 139
Abbey and an interpretation not supported by any evidence of French
rule.
[Public silting of Sefidember2Jrd, 1953, morning]
1 corne back now, Mr. President and Members of the Court, to later
evidence conceming the Minquiers and the Ecréhous. But first 1 would
return to the earlier part of my speech regarding the Iles Chausey.
These islets are to-day French. But our opponents, - on no basis of
established fact, we conten- cIairn that the Minquiers areadependency
of the Chausey and therefore French also. This alleged depenclency
of the Minquiers on the IIes Chausey wilbe discussed Iater thk morning
by Mr. Harrison. But 1 shall Say something about the evidence of
the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries as to these islands, the
Chausey, and the alleged dependency of the &linquiers group on them.
I have already submitted to the Court the Papal Bull of Ijoo which
shows that at that time-that was the document which transferred
the islands, along with the other Channel Islands, by name, from the
diocese of Coutances to the diocese of Winchester in England-they
uTerean English possession. The French Rejoinder appears to admit
thisby its failure to produce evidence to the contrary, and the state-
ment (made on p. 701 of the French text) that-to quote from the
translation : "It is quite certain that in 1692 the Chausey Islands
were subject to the sovereignty of France ...."Now, it is tme that
sometirne during the latter half of the eighteenth century-1 shall
put the date later as 1764-the English Crown did allow the Chausey
finallyto pass into the hands of France. But it shouid be noted that,
for a long period prior to this, they were regarded by the French.
themselves as a very dubious possession. 1 say "by the French them-
selves", and cite in authority for thata book, cited by my opponents,
Comte de Gibon's book on Les flôs Chattsey et leur Histoire, where
one learns from page rog that the islands of Chausey were occupied l
by the Frcnch in 1549 on the outbrcak of war with England. The
word "occupied" may be taken, 1 submit, to corroborate my contention
that previous to this they were English. But this French occupation
during the seventeenth and the first haIf of the eighteenth century
seems to have been of a highly intermittent iiriture. After the British
naval victory of La Hogue in May 1692, for example, the English
again retook Chausey. 'That is the same year in which my opponents
have stated that it is quite certain in 1692 the islands were siibject
to the sovereignty of France. After 1713, at the conclusion of the
Treaty of Utrecht, the position of the islands was still open to doubt.
On this, Gibon, writing of the mid-eighteenth century, says (1 quote
from pp. 178 and 179) :
"Abandoned during certain periods of war, placed in a kind
of neutral position, which was equivocal and dangerous, they
[the fles Chausey] were finally attached to France by firstof al1
a timid and then, by energetic action."
Thus, even in the mid-eighteebth century, according to Gibon, the
Chausey were stiU not yet forrnally attached to France ; their de tact0
and of course their de jure position was still doubtful. Now the treaty ORAL ARGUMENT OF PROF. WADE (u.K.)-23 IX 53
140
which ended the Seven Years War (1756-176 doe)s not mention the
Chausey. Gibon asks the question : what waç to be their fate? when
dealing with that treaty ; to whom were they to go-to the French,
or to the British?At that time the authorities of the island of Jersey,
in 1762, sent reprcsentations to thc British Secretary of State to the
following effect, tha: "on the conclusion of peace, the fles Chausey
should be declared as previously part of His Rlajesty's, the King of
England's, domains". That is one of the documents which we have
submitted, in the Additional Annexes, as number A 161.But the Jersey
States, according to Gibon, ment even further, and in the next year,
1763. so Gibon states on page 238 of his work, jilrisdiction over the
Chausey was being esercised by the States in taking cognizance of a
crime committed there-in the Chausey. And, in a passage a little
earlier in the book at page 235, Gibon writes that there was :
"a veritable uncertainty [about the statuç of the islands] in the
minds of the French Ministers. It was only by a hait's breadth
that the islands were claimed by France. If Britain had spoken
in a more decided manner in 1763, the islands would have been
lost to France".
And then Gibon, on the ncxt page, rcproduces a letter of thc French
Minister, the Duc de Praslin, dated the 12th June 1763. (The Court
will see that a good deal of evidence is al1 centered round this end
of the Seven Years War.) And that letter from the French hlinister
states that the Chausey had been at al1 tirnes :
"sornewhat neglected by France, that they had been frequented
both by the French and by the British ...that they had become,
so to speak, neutral".
.But, as Gibon says a little further on, page 238, the English Court did
not realize this hesitating attitude on the part of the French central
authorities. It aIlowed a unique occasion to slip by-suggesting that
England could have had them by more vigorunder pressure from the local
Indeed, it appears to have been on1 E
French Council of State issuedlaaddecision. This decision is mentioned
by Gibon on page 242. The French Council of State issued a decision
that the iles Chausey should be treated as Normandy territory. Several
years later, moreover, some Jersey inhabitants were still disputing this
action of the French authorities in appropriating the islets. From al1
this, it can be taken as certain that the Minquiers, much nearer to
Jersey tlianto France, didnot pass intoFrench hands witli the Chausey
in 1764.
1 now turn to the claim in the French Rejoinder that the Minquiers
were a depcndency of the Chausey.
Now, eight years after the document, to which 1 have just referred,
in 1772, the French King's Council, in an arrêo tf the28th July, desig-
nated b name the isIets which were comprised in the Chausey group
which Lance now exercised authority over. The group was stated to
be fifty-threesmall islets, lying four leagueoff the coastsof Bnttany
and Normandy ,nd near Granville. There was no collecti mention
of the Minquiers in this arrét,the text of which can be found reproduced
by Gibon at pages 294and following. There was no collective mention ORAL ARGUMENT OF PROF. WADE (u.K.)-23 IX 53
X4I
of the Minquiers, nor was there any mention of any one of the individual
islets belonging to the Minquiers group. And yet, al1 fifty-three of the
Chausey islets were mentioned by name. If we turn to contemporary
maps, we find no indication that the Rlinquiers were attached to the
Chausey, and much less that the Minquiers were French. A French
map of 1757 by the Chevalier de Beaurain, Geographer in Ordinary to
the French King, gives an inset of the Chausey within a larger map of
the Channel. Presumably the Chausey are thus given because they were
claimed by France. But the inset does not include the Minquiers.
Thus we can Say that the Chausey became French in the latter part
of the eighteenth century, but not then or later the Minquiers. Rut even
in the case of the Chausey, during the Napoleonic \Vars, they were
abandoned by the French and accupied by the British. We have pro-
posals of 1803 and 1807 that British military engineers should survey
them with a view to fortifying them, and in 1810, General Don-the
then Lieutenant-Governor of Jersey-stationed boats, not only at the
Minquiers and the Écrélious, but at the Chausey,.for observing the
French coast. 1 have reierred, Rlr. President, to the map of 1757-we
have a copy here in the Court and can of course make it available to
the Court and Monsieur Gros, if requcsted to do so.
A significant event in this connection-1 was just mentioning the
position during the Napoleonic Wars-was that in 1802, when Napoleon
incorporated the Chausey into the Département de la Manche, there is
no mention of the Minquiers in the document of incorporation, accord-
ing to Gibon.
1 corne now to the evidence as to the Minquiers and the Écréhous
callectively during the seventecnth and cighteenth centuries. But first
may 1crnphasize that since the fate ofeven the Chausey was dubious
until the middle of the eighteenth century, and since England couId
occupy the Chausey because of her control of the sea as late as the
Napoleonic Wars (and we know that she occupied them in I~IO), there
can be little doubt that she was in possessioq during these years of the
Minquiers and-still closer to Jersey-the Ecréhous. No other hypo-
thesis seerns plausible any more during these centuries than during the
Middle Ages. And this prcsumption, during the yeriod 1am naw discuss-
ing, is supported by a iiumber of acts of jurisdiction exercisin regard
both to the Alinquiers and the Ecréhous.
There are in the first place acts of the Jersey State (the term "acts"
is not equivalent to "act ofParliament"-it is a term used in relation to
administrative decrees). The acts or decrees of the Jersey State are
designed (there are a number of them) to control exit from, and entry
into, the islets. The French Rejoinder would seeevidence in this merely
(to cite fromp. 701 oftheir text) "these islands were not under English
sovereignty", that they were "being put on the same footing as the
Chausey Islands". Now the first part of thisstatement that these islands
were not under English sovereignty is contradicted by one of these
Jersey acts-that dated the 26th January 1754, that is, ten years before
the islandç passed finaily to France-which is reproduced as number
A 160 of ourAdditional Annexes, pages 627and 628.The full text igiven
there,' anditstates in particular (1 translate) :
"That no vesse1or boat coming from the Kingdom of France will
be allowed to enter any harbour, nor to set ashore any passengers142 ORAL ARGUMENT OF PROF. WADE (u.K.)-23 IX 53
or merchandise in any place in this island [and that is Jersey]A
similar ban is placed in regard to the islands and rocks of the Chau-
sey,the Minquiers and the Ecréhous or adjacent rocks."
Here is an officia1decrec which'forbids French shipsto corne to the
Chausey, Marqués (that is translated, Minquiers), Icrehots (Ecréhous)
or adjaccnt rocks because of the plague then raging on thc Continent.
This Act is particularly rncntioned by Gibon i~ithe book which 1have
already cited, on page 224, with the comment that this was an indica-
tion that in1754 the Chausey, as well as the Minquiers, were among the
isles and islets claimed by Jersey, Other acts also exiçt wliich impose
control over boats coming from these islands-they had to be examined
by the constable of the parish (the cliief police officer of eacli parish in
Jersey) inwhich they were landed. The reason again is obvious. French
goods were being smuggled into these Jersey dependencies ancl then
camed into Jersey itself. Thus, any boat traveUing bctween Jersey and
the islands (the Ecréhous and the Minquiers and the Chausey) was
subjected to examination in Jersey, where stipervisian coulbe farmore-
easily exercised-though in çucceeding centuries, asthe Court may recall
from the opening speech, custom-fiouses were established by Jersey, both
in the Minquiers and on one of the içlands in the Écréhous group, and
are there to this clay1have indeed seen both of them myself.
Similarly, in times of war, boats travelling for fisto the Minquiers
and the ~créhous were subject to supervision in Jerseto make sure that
no fugitives were using these islets as a stepping stone to the continent.
There is an Act of1692 (a decree of the Jersey States), which tFrench
cite in their Counter-Meiriorialpage3g6and theirRcjainder at page701,
and we in our Keply at paragraph 179 ,ho\\ing that "those who go with
the real intentionat theprcsent time to gather vraicand to man boats"
(that isJerseymen pursuing legitimately their occupations ithe depend-
encies), were not stopped frorn going to the islets. Tliiç Decree 1692
was not an order forbidding English subjects-in particular, residents of
Jersey-to go to these islands, as ouropponentscontend in thoscpassages.
There iç a second category of decrees of the Jersey Statcs-or Par-
liament concerning defence of the islands-ivhich demonstrate that
both groups of islets werc regarded as Jersey dependencies. These are
naturally, in vicw of the events of that pcriod, particularly cornmon
in the last years of the eighteenth century and the opening years of
the nineteenth century. The authonties instituted patrols by Jersey-
men of the Mincluiers and of the kcréhous because at that tirne they
were considered as dependencies of Jersey, and, therefore, a periodic
supervision of them was considered neccssary. And they were used-
according to a dispatch from the Commanding Officer of His hlajesty's
Ship Merczkry in August 1804-as look-out posts by the British in
time of war.
A signifiant act of the Jersey States relating to the Minquiers
was one that was pasçed in January 1779, About this time the Jersey
authorities took steps to inçtitute what would nowadays be called a
lifeboat service. They decided to take steps to asçist. mariners ship-
wrecked on the hlinquiers, which are a particularly dangerous group
of rocks and reefs, in addition to the two or three inhabitable islets
there. And the dccree which we reproduce as Additional Annex A 162
(the administrative act of a Jersey Cornmittee) shows the decision ORAL ARGUMENT OF PROF. WADE (u.K.)-23 IX 53 143
to hire the services of a Jerseyman, his crew and boat as a form of
lifeboat service to save people shipwrecked on the Minquiers. This
was obviously done because Jerscy considered that the Minquiers feU
within its jurisdiction, and thus steps should be taken to assist perçons
in distress there.
I ncxt draw the attention of the Court to a statement in Gallia
Christinna (Vol. XI, column 446).This work, which was compiled by
the French monks of St. Maurice, living in Normandy during the
eighteenth ccntury, and published in France by the Royal Press, states
in this volume, which appeared in 1759, that the ficréhous belonged
to the English : "Haec insula Anglorum nunc est sicut et illa." "This
island [that iç, Jersey] at the pres~nt time belongs to the English,
just asdoeç the other [that is, the Ecréhous]." So wrote thesc French
rnonks of the rnid-eiglitccnth ccntury.
1 now select an illustration-and it is my Jast one-of the exercise
. of active jurisdictias regards this particularEcréhous group. Thedocu-
ment is Annex A 159 (the same Additional Annexes, py. 625 and 626).
The text and the translation is given. It is an examination before
thc lieutenant bailiff of a French national-a fugitive from French
justice who sheltered at the Ecréhous-who was taken to Jersey and
examined there. The document shows that in 1706, a French citizen,
Martin DeshueIles, and his cornpanions fell fou1 of the French excise
authorities at Cérences in lower Normandy. There was a struggle,
and the three French excisemen ïvere killed. DeshueIles, to escape
from French jiirisdictio~i, finally toakboat to the Ecréhous, where
he was found by Jersoy fishermen visiting the island. The Jersey
fishermen took hirn for examination before the bailiff of Jersey, presum-
ably to explain his presence on the Ecréhous.,Deshuelles bad, there-
fore; Bed to territory outside France, to the Ecréhous, to escape the
consequences of the murder he had committed on French temtory.
He was,examined by the Jersey authorities to explain his presence
011the Ecréhous and to satisfy them that he was intending no harm
there. 'This, I contend, is an early exercise of modern jurisdictio~l by
Jersey in respect of the Écréhous and an exercise of jurisdiction, not
in this case over a Jerseyman, but over an alien. In some ways it can
be taken as parallel to what 1 submit wns a very clear and strong
instance of jurisdiction in relation to the ficréhous-the old dealings
in 1203 and 1309, with which 1 took up so much of the timc of the
Court yesterday.
1 cmphasizc this case of Nartin Deshuclles, Mr. President, for this
particular purpose. There was, some years later, in 1826, a similar
act of the exercise of jurisdiction, this time bqra Jersey Court over
a Jerseyman, in relation to events at the Ecréhous. In that year
George Romeril was prosecuted bcfore thc Royal Court of Jerscy ori
a charge of attempted murder (the Court may recall that tlicre are
references to that in our filernorial-our original document-at para-
graphs 136 and 202, and a record of the process is reproduccd in the
Annex to our Memorial-the big volume of the Annexes-as number
A 80). Now, ithas been contendcd by Our opponents that tliis prose-
cution and sirnilar acts of jurisdiction were exercised by Jersey as
persona1 jurisdiction over Jersey subjects. Now 1 tried in another
connection-in connection with the wreck of the Minquiers-to show
and to expose (if1 may so put it, Mr. President) the utter weaknessof this theory of jurisdiction being exerciçed ratione persolza. And
hlr. Harrison, who will follow me in a few minutes, will illustrate from
his own persona1 experience, as law officer of the Crown, how untenable
such a conception is, that of the jurisdiction being exercised ratione
personce, in relation to the past and preçent powers of the Jersey
Courts. 1 shall merely confine myself to refuting the conception by
pointing out that, in the case of Martin Dcshuelleç, this act of juris-
diction u7as exercised over a Frenchman found at the &créhous, and
that , thelefore, it was undoub tedly exercised ratione soli and no t
ratioltepersona. Similarly, 1 contend that the prosecution fpr man-
slaughter of George Rorneril was because of his act on the Ecréhous
and not because he was n Jerseyman-again an instance of exercise
of jurisdiction ratione soli..
air. President, 1 have come to the end of my survey. 1 will sum up
in a few brie€ sentences.
Looking back over the long centuries, we Say that it is most doubtful
if France can be said ever to have had the original title to the disputcd
jslets-at any rate in the sense that a court administering international
law can really regard as sovereignty. Only Normandy and England
have ever exercised any sovereignty over these groups within the period
which 1 have been dealing with. The true original title lay with them-
lay with Kormandy by a conquest of the islands'that no French hand
took any part in :with England by right of succession to what were
essentially persona1 acquisitions of the Dukeç of Normandy (subse-
quently Kings of England), and by righi of England haaring defended
and kept the islands for the islanders ever since.
If, however, France had the original titlc, it was soon lost-quite
early in this long period-by the breaking of the feudal link in1202-
that is, the combined effect of the abortive arrét of that year and the
défibetween Philip and John which resulteb ; by the operation uf the
subsequent treaties, or because, if there was anything left of it, being
pureIy based on a feuda1 conception, it passed away with the .~iassing
of the feudal system, because it was never replaced by active posçession.
Tlie evidence of English possession and rule in the Middle Ages and
after, both positive and presumptive, is very strong. French title in
the Middle Agesdepends on nothing but the abstract feudal conception.
Evidence of French rule does not exist.
The positive evidence is particularly strong in the case of the Écréhous
-and, 1 would add, the Chausey-by reason of the presence there of
the Priory, which has given us the documents of legal title which 1have
discussed at considerable length. But that is nat to be taken as any
evidence that, had there been a Priory on the Minquiers, we should not
have been able ta produce similar documents, similar evidence. After
1500, evidence is relatively scarce.But there is some evidence relating
to every century, rjght up to the end of the eighteenth century, after
which, as the Court will hear directly, the evidence becomes abundant.
AU this evidence of the intermediate penod, with which 1 have been
deaiing, shows that the English and Jersey connections were kept up.
There is no French evidence atal1 relating specificaliy to the Ecréhous
and the hlinquiers. Even the Chausey do not become finall French
until 1764.
I can claim, therefore-I would respectfully submit to the Court-
that 1 have made good my initial propositions, that England had the ORAL ARGUMENT OF PROF. WADE (u.K.)-23 IX 53 145
title originally anhas always kept up that title by a sufficient display
of actual exercise of sovereignty-and that France has not. In the
alternative,England accluired-has long since acquired-a title based
on the long-continued exercise of sovereignty. That title, on one or
other of these grounds, did exist in the Middle Ages : 1 have tried to
. show this rnorning that it exister1 right up to1800, and hlr. Hamson
will deal with from 1800 onwards ; and it does exist now.
In answer to this considerable and, 1 contend, weighty body of
United Kingdom evidence, the Governrnent ofthe Kepublic have brought
fonvard practically nothing positive in reply. They have been chiefly
content to place an uiifavourable construction, sometimes plausibly,
but always, 1 suggest erroneously, on evidence produced by the United
Kingdom. On the positive side they have been content to rely on a
dubious claim to an original title of a highly abstract feudal character,
and on a presumption of an autamatic continuance of that abstract
title evenin the absence of any concrete evidence that it has ever been
exercised by possession, or by the exercise of autttority.
Such an argument, I contend, is quite inadequate when weighed in
the balance to disprove the far more considerable, more weighty and
more concrete evidence which we have and which we shall place before
the Court. The Court, rnoreover, may find that this evidence, which
1have brought fomard over the long stretch of tiie centuries, is further
strengthened by wliat is now tobe put before you ; that evidence wliich,
the Court will see, continues with increasing tempo the same thread
and pattern as that which the Court has heard from me up to now.
1 have been examining the titles of the two countries at successive
periods. This, Mr. President1 hope the Court will nottake as indicating
that 1am in any way arguing iigainst the principle applied in the case
of the Isla~rdoPalmas. Indeed, 1support with conviction that principle ;
namely, that it isthe fuiictionofa court of international law to submit
each title to an independent examination covering the ~eiitoperiod of
the case, and tiien balance the legal weight of one title against thaof
the other.
The Government of the Unitecl Kingdorn and the States of Jersey
have nothing, hlr. President, to fear from such an examination. 4. ORAL ARGUMENT OF hZr. HAIXRISON
(COUNSEL FOR THE COVERNMENT OF THE UNITED XINGDOM)
AT THE PUBLIC SITCINCS OF SEPTEMBER 23rd AND 24th, 1953
[Publicsitting01 September 23rd,1953, morning]
Mr. President and Mernbers of the Court :
1 venture to thilik that there is no need for me to introduce myself
to you because 1 feelthat that has already been done very kindly by
Sir Lionel Heald, by Rlr. Fitzrnaunce and by Professor liade-very
kindly, and, if1 may Say so, not inadequately. lt will by now be clear
to the Court that 1 represent the island of Jersey, and that it is Jersey,
which is immediately and directly affected by these proceedings. Although
I am a member of the Bar of England, I enjop the pnvilege of appearing
here to-day, because I am a Jerseyman and because 1 have the honour
to be the present holder of theoffice of Her Majesty's Attorney-GeneraI
for the island of Jersey. 1 am to-day pleading a Jersey cause and 1 am
therefore robed at this moment exactly as 1 am when 1appear in the
Royal Court of Jersey.
1 have every reason to believe that tliis is the first occasion on whicli a
Jersey lawyer has appeared in this Court, or indeed in any Court of inter-
national jurisdiction. venture therefore to think that 1am to-day creat-
ing a precedent which will be regarded as of very grcat significance and
importarice in the history of the island of Jersey. That tbouhlr.Yresi-
dent, only serves to enhance the very high sense of honour which 1
denve from the fact of appearing in, and pleading before, this Court.
My task to-day is two-fold:first, to presento the Court the distinc-
tively Jersey point of view, and to furnish it wiahnumber of local facts
such as would be particularly within the knowledge ofa Jerseyman like
mysclf ; and, sccondly, to address the Court about the British administra-
tion ofthe hlinquiers and the Écréhous in cornparntively receiit times-
but by "recent" 1 do not mean just yesterday. "liecent" is a relative
terrn. In relation to the wiiole history of this case, eï7en 150 yeaago
is "recent". Yet it is also, in itsallong period of time. It is about the
events of thiss$n of 150 years that 1want to tell the Court.
1 propose, Blr.President, to divide my speech into the following parts.
First,1 want to say a few words about the Channel Islands as a \hole,
and their relation to the English Crolvn. Secondly, 1 shall tell the Court
something about the island of Jersey, in whose iiame and on whose
behalf, as I have indicated, 1 have the honour to appear hcre today.
Thirdly, 1 shall describe the geography of the hlinquiers and the Ecré-
hous, and show how directly related pliysicaliy they are to Jersey.
Fourthly, 1 shall describe thehumnn links which exist, and kvhich have
for the pastoiiehundred and fiftyyears existed, between Jersey and the
Minquiers and the Ecréhous ; and 1 shall erldeavour to explain to the
Court why this case is so important to us in Jersey. Fifthly,1 shall
consider the public acts of administration performed by the Jersey
authoriti end the French objections to the evidcntial value of those ORAL ARG,UMERT OF Mr. HARRISON (u.K.)-23 IX 53
147
acts, and1shall consider liow far there areany similar French actç during
the period with which 1 am dealing. Sixthly, and finally, 1 sliall deal
shortly with the hydro-electric projects referredtoin the French Rejoinder
for the installation of tidal power plants in the Bay of Mont St. Michel
and in the regionof the Minquiers archipelago.
I open the first part of my speech, Rlr. President, by reminding the
Court that we maintain that the origin of the titlof the English Crown
lo the Channel Islands-of wllicli we regard tlie Minquiers and tlre
Écréhous asan integral part-lies in events as far back as 1066 ,hen
iVilliam, Duke of Kormandy, became King of England. From that year
right down to the present time, barring a few insignificant interruptions,
the Channel Islands as a whole have becn possessions of the Englisli
Crown, dthough to tliis day there are some Jerseymen who also think
of our Sovereign as the Dilkor, asat present, the Duchessof h'ormandy.
1 refcrred justnow to "the Channel Islands as a whole". By that 1
rneant to a&rm a factthat our opponents seek ta dispute, namely, the
fact that the Channel Islands are now, as tliey were in the Middle Ages,
a self-coiitained entity, physically distinct from continental Normandy.
Inseeking to cast doubt upon this fact, our opponents, on page 687 of
tlieir Rejoinder, twicc refer to theChannel Islands (1qiiote)"lyin, 'na
French bay". 1 should like to ask : wlint is this French bay-what are
its limits ?Only ina iTeryloose sense of the word "bayH-as for instance
when one talks of a curvature in an estended coast line, such as the Bay
of Biscay or tlie13ayof Bengal-do the C1i:~nnclIslands lie within a bay
at au. They do not, in the legal or juridical sense, lie within any bay,
for they donot lieiriflaticesterr~rnmin the proper sense of those words.
They really lie in the Englisli Channe(lu Matzcke),and tliat is why thcy
are caiied the Channel Islands or, as sometirnes in French, las iles de lo
Manche. A Ray ofVauville, yes.-A Bay of Nont St. Michel, yes.A Bay
of St. I3rieuc, yes. Al1 these are genuine bnys :dong the French coast,
and tfiey are clearly to be seen oii the chart which the Court mil1find
at Annex R I to our &lemorial.But, by coritrast, if you stand on Plein-
mont Point on the west Coast of Guernsey, or at the Corbièrc on the
wcst coast of Jersey, it is tlic full force of the Atlantic Ocean meets
you, it is not the waters oa bay, and the I;rench coast is well and truly
out of sight.Indeed, the nearest point on the mainlnnd of Brittany
(the Sillon de Talber, 1 believeis as much as 36 miles from Pleinmont
Point in Guernsey aiid 37 miles frorn La Corbière in Jcrsey. The only
basis on which the Cliannel Islands as a whole could be said to lie witliin
anything even approaching n bay, in the sense of iqztefcitccesicrrarz~rn,
would be if the extremities were Cap de la Hague at tlie nortiiern tip
of the Cotentin peninsula and the Porsl Rocks in Brittany. The line
between these extremities urould beas much as 130 miles long, and even
then Alderney and the Caquets and part of Guernsey woiild still lie
outside it. No line can be drawii from one headland (orisland) to another
in France lvhich will include on the 1;rcncliside of the line al1the Channel
Islands. This goes to show how incorrect it is to speak of the Channel
Islands as lying within a bay, be it Frencli or Anglo-French.
1now return, Mr. President, to the point about the Channel Islands
being an entity. They are certairily an entity geographically. If you
stand on a high point on the island of Hem, wiiich is rougkly in the
centre of thegroup, on a quite ordinaryday, you can see clearly al1the
main islands of that group :Jethou just below you to tlie South-West, 148 ORAL ARGUMENT OF MI. HARRISON (u.K.)-23 IX 53
Guernsey to the West, Sark and Jersey to the South-East, hlderney to
the Yorth-East. It is true that on a clear day you can see the French
coast as well, but to the East, not to the South or West, and 1 do not
think itcan be disputed that, if you have a group of islands, and if, from
the centre of that grotip on an ordinnry day, you can see al1 the main
islands of that group, tliat group of islands can fairly be called an entity.
The Channel Islands are also an entity politically, or if you like,
historically. The.l:rench Rejoindérsays, at page687 (1quote), "the Anglo-
Noman islands are Norman by nature and English merely as the resuit
of the operation of history". It is,of course, true that the islands are
Norman by origittaIttiaugh it would be truer to say tliat thcyare Norsa
by origin. Certainly thcy are not French. But whatever their origin, it
is a fact that history has performed its task of anglicization fully and
completely.
The Court will no doubt have noticed that I pronounced the names
of thc reefs rather difierently from Sir Lionel Neald, blr. Fitzmaurice and
Professor IYadc. They spoke of them as the Minquiers [ié]and Ecréhous
[é-kré-ou].I pronounce the names inthe rnanner in which 1Iiave always
heard them pronounced in Jersey : hlinquiers [min-kiz] and EcrChous
[ckre-hos]. I have known them to be pronounced thus al1 rny life,and
this,1 think, nffords n very clear example of the pcculiarity that, in
Jersey, many of the Nonrian place names and family nnmes have become
cornpletely anglicized in their pronunciatioii.
Ko visitor to any of the islands to-day cnn doubt their thoroughly
Englisli cliaractcr, Itis true, Mr. Prcsident, that many of our customs
and laws and institutions are of Norman origin, but the same is true
of England itsclf. It is true also that many Channel Islanders still speak
a diaicct of ITreiicl-i,and that French is still the officiallangunge, though
it is fast yieldiiig to Eriglish in everyday use ; it is true that Jersey, in
particiilar, has Inany close ties with France, though nowadays it is Inore
witIi Brittany tlian with Normandy, because we arc happy to employ
. niany Breton labourers on Our farms. 13utsiibstantially our tics of senti-
ment, as we11 as of commerce, are with England. For us, France is, as
it isfor the English themselves, "the Continent", urhile England is for
us the "mainland", indicatirig, I think, sometliing that is spiritually and
sentimentally nearer.
In this conncction, 1 cannot, I think, do better than to quote the
following figures relating to Jersey for,the year 1952, which I have
obtaincd from the cornlietent local officiaThey are figuresofimports :
Imports from the United Kingdom 205,784 tons
,, ,, other foreign countries 6,625 ,,
Passenger arrivals from the Uniteci Kingdom 264,704
,, ,, ,, France 33,865
It is signifi~ant that there is a regular daily service by passenger
steamer from Southampton or Weymouth to Guernsey and Jersey
throughout the year, whereas the passenger service between Jersey
and France, that is through the port of Si. Male, operates only once
a week throughout the year. As regards scheduled services of aircraft, I
there are on an average throughurit the year apyroximately three
times as many daily services between Jersey and the United Kingdom ORAL ARGUMENT OF hlrHARR~SON (u.K.)-23 IX 53 149
as there are between Jersey and Frnnce. In short, our main connections
are with Englarid.
During the Geman occupation of the Channel Islands from 1940
to 1945 , e were, of course, very largely dependent upon Frnnce for
our supplies of foodstuffs and othcr esscntials of life; and we who
were in the islands during that unhappy period will never ccase to
remember with gratitude the help we rcceived from French sources
in those dark days. Rut it cannot be disputed, Mr. President, that
under normal conditions almost al1 the imports into the islands and
a very high percentage indeed of the passenger traffic to the islands
come from the United Kingdom.
Perhaps-although 1 have pot yet come to the point of dealing
with the Minquiers and the Ecréhous as such-my rcfcrence to the
German occupation makes this the convenient place to say that doring
the occupation all communication from Jersey with the &linguiers
and the Écréhous was forbidden, but immcdiately after the liberation
of the .Channel Islands-which was not until May 1945-officia1 visits
to both the groups were made from Jersey. The Court will find the
detailsin Annexes A ~oo and A 131 to the United Kingdom Mernorial.
And there is also, in thc book of Annexes C, a photo taken on that
occasion-the occ,uion of the first official visit to the Minquiers after
the liberation of Jerseyin May 1945 .mentioncd the f:ict that officia1
visits were made ta the two groups of islands very soon after the
liberation, as showing that we, in Jersey, had no doubt at al1 that
thesc groups were part of the Channel Islands and also administrativcly
a part of Jersey.
Administratively, the Çhanhel Islands, though a geographicnl entity,
are to-day divided between the bailiwicks of Guernsey and Jersey.
The bailiwick of Guernsey consists of'the islands of Griernsey, Herm,
Jethou, Sark and Alderney, as well as the islets that are deperidcncies
of the above, such as Lihou of£ Guernscy, Brecquou off Snrk and.
Burhou off Alderney. This goes to show, 1 think, that the term bailiwick
is not necessarily confined to one single island, but term camprising
a number of islands and islets spread over quite a considerabtc area.
The other bailiwick, that of Jersey, consists not only of the island
of Jersey itself, but also of the Mjnquiersand the Ecréhous-at any
rate Jerseymen have always thought so.
1 now come, hIr.President, to the second part of my speech in which
1 wish to tell the Court tiomething about the island of Jersey itself.
There isno irrelevancy here, for, aftcr all,Zipdicated a few moments
ago, it is oiir claim that the Minquiers and the Ecréhous are administra-
tively part of Jersey. First, thas,to its constitution. This is explained
in some detail in paragraphs59 to 66of the United Kingdom hlemorial,
and there is therefore, 1 think, no need for me to Say much about it.
Riit 1 would like to sayafew words about the States of Jersey.
Tlie administrative aiithority of the States is exercised tlirough
Cornmittees of its members electedby, and responsible to, the.Assembly
of the States,Two of these Cornmittees, that is to say, the Harbours
and Airport Committee as it is now known (it was formerly the Pierç
and Harbours Committee) and the Finance Committee are directly
concerned with the Minquiers and the Ecréhous, the former because it
is reçponsible for fisherics, the establishment and maintenance of slip-
ways, shore installations, buoys and beacons, and generally all matters ORAL ARGUMENT OF hIr. HARRISON (u.K.)-23 IX 53
T5O
relating to shipping and navigation : the latter because it is the Customs
Authority.
The island is subject to the legislative supremacy of the Unitcd
Kingdoni Parliament, but that supremacy is exercised only in relation
to matters of imperial interest, such as defence or nntionality. ln all .
other matters, the States initiate and pass their otvn legislation, subject
anly to the aliproval of the Crown in Cauncil. Jersey, thcrcfore, as the
Court wiil see, enjoys a large measure of autonomy. It is for that reason
that we Jcrsepen look upon this case as being primarily ours rattier
than that of the United Kingdom. It is,true that tlie sovereignty of
Her Majesty over the Minquiers and the Ecréhous is at stake, but from
aur own local point of view the question before the Court is whether
or not Jersey should lose some of her dependencies. For theçe reasons,
Jerscy has bcen closely associated with al1 ttic negotiations and othcr
acts leading up to the present ~iroceedings, and, as the Court heard
from sir LioneI HeaId the other day, the States of Je~ey gave tlrcir
formal concurrence inthe submission of this matter to the Court.
During the nineteenth century there was an important ship-building
industry in the island, chiefly of ships for the Kewfoundland fishing
industry, in which vessels operating from Jersey used to play a consider-
able part. Side by side with this foreign tracle was the local fishing
industry, in \$,hich,of course, was included that carricd on at the Min-
quiers and the Ecréhous. There is already much matcrial bcfore the
Court to sllow how important this industry was, but it may bc of assiçt-
ance to the Court ta hear something about it from the iiys of one who
kas lived very close to it, as 1 have done. It will, however, be more
convenient to defer doing this until aftcr 1 have said somethiiig about
the gcography of the groiips, and shown their physical reIationship to
Jerscy.
In the consideration of this matter of the gcography of thc groiips,
their physical relationship to Jersey, which, as 1 indicated earlier,wiII
form the third part of my address, 1 will begin with the Minquiers.
As shown in Our hlemorial (the relevant paragraphs are numbers 8-12),
the Minquiers arc a widely scattered group of islets and rocks lyng on
a sunken plateau or reef, of which the only two that are habitable are
Xaîtresçe fle and Les Rlaisons. Maîtresse fle is zoo yards by 50 yards,
and contains a slipway, a custom-house, a house known as the Bailiff's
house, a first-aid buildii~g and a flagstaff, al1 constructed oradaptcd,
and majntained, by the States of Jersey-clear acts, 1 submit, of
administration, and therefore manifestations of sovereignty. 1 hope
the Court will find it convenient to refer to the photographs given at
Annexes C 7-10 to Dur Mcrnorial. 1 have here, in addition, a composite
photo of the Maîtresse fle, and 1will hand in a copy of this, as of certain l
furthcr exhibits which 1 shall mention presently, to the Rcgistrar, so
that it can be circulated to the Members of the Court when convenient.
I shall also, of course, hand a copy of each exhibit to my friend
Professor Gros.
On lliaîtresseîle there are,in addition to the buildings that 1 have
mentioned, and as this photograph shows, a number of huts and
houses built by Jerseymen ; rnany of them are now, as the result of
the German occupation-because the Gemans occupied the Rljnqiiiers
as well as other places-in some disrepair ; and this photograph, which
was taken in 1945, shows clearly that state of disrepair. In additionto tlie huts tliat .I ha\-e mentioiied, built l1y Jerscyrnen, tliere is also
a iiut specinlly hirilt for ,Jersey tishcrrneii by the Stntcs of Jcrsey.
Maîtresse jlc is 11.5 sea i~iilcs from La Rocque Point, the nenrest
point in Jersey ; it is rj sea miles frorn Pointe du Meinga, the nearest
poiiit on the mainlaiid of France. It is truc that the Chauseys are only
8.5 sc:~iniles from B1:rîtresselie, but, if the 3lemhcrs of the Court will
look at the chart which fornis -4rines H I to tlie United Kingdom
Memarial, thcy \vil1 sec,I thitik, that if one considers the Channel
Islaiids as ;I whole, startiiig with tlic Cascliiets :incl Aldcrney at the
top as it were, and comirig dowii througli Gueriiscy, Hcrrn, Jethou
and Sark to Jersey, it is the channel betweeri the Jlinqiiicrs and the
Chausey (nanied the Eutrie de ln Béroulc), rnthcr than tlie channel
betwecii Jersq and the Miiiquiei-s, whicli forms the natiiral line of
di\.isioii betweeri the Channel Islands and France. This no doubt partly
accoiints for the fact tfiat the Chausey in the cightecnth ceritury firially
passed into the hands of ttic French. It cannot possibly he said of
the Miiiqiiiers that tliey are clependencies of the French caast, situatcd
3s they are 19 miles from Granville and 19 miles from St. hlalo. The
distancc betwcen tlic Minquiers and Jersey (9.8 miles) is less than
the distance betmceil .Jersey liiid Srirk (wliich isten rind a half miles) ;
it is less thari that between -Jersey and Giicrnsey (~j rniles) and itis
less than thnt betwccn Guernsey and rilclerney (u7hich is 16 miles).
1 aril awarc, hIr. Presidct-it, that it is the Frerich claim that the
3Iiiiqiiiers arc dependencies, not of tlie Frciich coast as siich, hiit of
the Cliaiisey. The Minqiiicrs rire, however, a very much larger group
iiitotal aren than the Lhriiisey, aiid I shall liopc to show presently
that there is iio ground of ail? kiiid, liistorical or gcogralihical, for
the stiggestion that they are cie~ieiidencics of tlic Chriuse:. 1 ~nust
confcss that the silggcstion, made in the French Coiinter-Xemorial,
that thc Miiiclitiers were a clcpendency of the ÎICS Chauscy came to
me as something entirely iiew and certaiiily somcthing vcry novel.
To the best of my knowledgc, Father de Cihon, the recognized modem
riuthority on tlic subjcct of tlie Chaiisey isl:~iids, iicver advanced srich
a claitn. Indecd, iri his lrork, to which Professor IlTade haç already
referred, Les fies Chazrsty et leur Misfoire (second edition, 193j, at
p. roq), referring to the building of the fortress oii the flcs Qiausey
by Henry II of Francc, whicli is mentioned on page 39s of the French
Counter-Mernorial, and again on page 701 of the Kejoinder, he says
(i traiislate):
"The Plcs Chaiisey miist not be allowcd to sufjcr the same Eate
as the rest of the Anglo-Korman islarids."
"Il ne fallait pas Iaisser les îles Chauscy siiivrc le sort di1 rcste
des îles anglo-nornirindcs."
lt seems to inc that this can only be intcrpretcd as mcaning that
Father de Gibori regarded the Chaiisey as being esceptional, in that
they aloiie of the Channel Islands were not under l3ritish sovereignty.
Tt is, incidentally, rather curioiis that, on page 683, the French
Rejoirider, dealing with the Cliausey, uses Ianguage sstrongly rerniniçcent
of that of P&rc dc Gibon. 1 quote from thc English translation, at
the bottom of page 3' of the translation :
English text not rcproducccl. "In fact, the natural whole here in question was cornpletelp
integrated in a Iegai whole only in the beginning, in ancient timcs,
when a tinified sovereignty applied to the Norman Coast aiid
to the archipelago in the Sorrnan bay of the Cotentin. .4t the ,
present time the Chausey islartds do not fotm a part of the
secondary wholc and rcmain undcr the original sovereignty.
Their fate has been different from that of the remainder of
the archipelago, escept perhaps for a short period."
Thnt last sentence, Mr. President, if 1 may quote it in French,
reads as follows :
"Elles n'ont pas suivi le sort du reste de l'archipel, si ce n'est
peut-être pour une courte période."
The words "le reste de I'archipeI" .miist, I suggest, fiavc the same
meaning as the words "le reste des iles anglo-normandes" used hy
Père de Gibon. Clearly, our opponents, like Père dc Gibon, regard
the Chausey as being differcnt from the rest of the archipelago. Aiid
they are indeed different inthis :that they alone now belong to France.
It is interesting, too,to note that Père de Gibon is not the only
French writer to take this view.
Camille Vallaux, then Professor of Geography nt the Nnvy College
in Paris, in his book L'Archipel de la Manche (1913), names the various
islands ofthe Chanqel Islands,and mentions arnongst thcm both the
Minquiers and the Ecréhoiis. He then procceds (1 quotc from p. 5 of
the book, which, of course, iç at the disyositioil of the Court, and
translate) :
"Thcse islands [that is,the Channel Lslands], with the exception
of the Chausey, belong to England. They have been English for
more than 700 years. Tlieir destinies separatedthem from France
in 1204, when Philip Augustus, following the murdcr of Arthur
of Brittany by John Lackland [that is to Say, King John of
EngIand], confiscated the Duchy of Norrnandy and reunitcd it
to his crolvn. The islands continued to acknowledge the authority
of John tacklsnd and France forgot thcm. They remained subjcct
to the EnglisliKing."
And Maurice Perrot in his Deux Expidittons insulaires françaises
(Paris, 1929)-a book in which he deals with two insular cxpeditions,
one which lie refers to as theSurprise de Jersey en 1781 and the Prise
de Capri en 1808. That book, which has a preface by Jfonsicur le
GénéralGouraud, contains the followingpassage at page 15 (1translate) :
"Iiithe same year [that is to Say, in17651 the Council [of the
King of France] gave permission to the hospital of Saint-Helier
to takc from the island stone for the construction of itsbuildings.
Finally, in 1766, they built a chape1 there for the zoo workers
working in the extraction of granite. This method, which did not
affirm our rights with impressiveness, but which, however, marked
well an effective taking of posscssion, had happy resull at the time
and latcr, for our rights were not contested, and of al1 the group of
anglo-norman islands the Chausey alonc remained French."
"de tout le groupe des îles anglo-normandes, seules les îles Chausey
sont restées françaises". ORAI, ;IKGUMENT OF 31rI-IAKKISOS (u.K.)-23 IX j3 153
Naurice Per~ot was writing of the yenr 1765 or 1/66, that is to Sap
irfter the year 17G4 in which we admit, as 1:'rofessorWade showed
this morning, that the Chausey .passecl firmly into the harids of the
French, But although we have admitted tiiat they then passed firmly
into the hands of tfie French, it is noteworthy frnm the passage I
have just quoted that the French tfiemselves wcre by rio means satisfied
that they hnd passed firinly into their Iiands, and it is clear that their
~iosscssion of the Chausep, thcy eveii thcii, in 1765, regarded as
prccariouç. The ivriter concludes:
"de tout legroiipe des iles anglo-normnnrles, seliles les îles Chausey
sont restées françaises".
i s;tida few minutes aGo that 1 had ncver previouslj~ Iieard of tlie
Frencti claini that the &l\;~incluirserc dependencies of thc Chausey.
1 caii, however, rcrtdily sec, in the light of the statcrnents of French
historians that1 have just cluoted, why the Government of the Republic
should wish to cleirn thi:~n as de~iendeiicies of the Chausey, for if the
CIiausey are-as tliese historiaiis clcnrly say they are-esceptional
in that they alo~ic of ttie ilerruglo-nomandes belonged to Fraiice,
tlien clearly the oiily Ix~sis on which Fraiice could l-ic rtwarded
sovereignty over the hlirirluiers \vould be if tliey were dependencies
of the Iles Chausey. Rut that bnsis woiild not in any sensc cover the
I<crétious.
Another point, Nt- .rcsident, occurs to mc in relation to the claim
that the Jliricluiers are dependencies of the Chausey.
As the Court will reniernber, Articlc I of the Convention of 1839,
of which much has already been said, laid down certain lines for the
purpose of (1 quote) "defining the limits betwcen which and the French
shore the oyster fishery shdl be reserved exclusivelg to french [sic]
subjectç". Included within the limits thus defined werc the Chausej~.
but not the 3linqiiiers. 1 should have thought that if tlie French
Government had regrirded the Minquiers as dependencies of the Chausejr,
they would have been very carefiil to sec that the Minquiers were
included with the Chausey on the French sidc of the linc. The çame
observation applies in respect of the 1867 riegotiations,when an
identical linc was adopted-and also ris regards the Agreement of
1928 referred to in parngraph 68 of our 3lcmona1, again affirming
ilte same linc.
1 corne noiv, Mr. l'resident. to the geography of the Écrehous. 7'he
Court will find the yhysical and topograpkical details set out in
paragraph" 50 7 of the United Kingdom Mernorial, and they will
also find solne photograylis in Aimexes C 1-6 and C 12. In addition,
1 have here a surveyor's coloured drawing which rnay iiiterest the
Court. 4 copy of tliisI sliall give to the Registry.
Tlie Ecréhous coi~sist of three main islets and about twcnty ahove
water rocks. 'The group stretches for about four niiles. Maître lle,
the largest, is 300 yards by 150 yards [here and in the following
passage Mr. Harrison accompanied his rernarks by pointing to appro-
priate spots on the clrawing and on the pliotograyhs which Iie displayedl.54 ORAL ARGü.\II:ST OF >Ir. HAKKISOS (u.K.)-23 IS 53
to the Court]. On it stand tlie ruins of the old yriory, niid tliere is
now a modern slipway and a beacoii (botli built bthe States of Jersey),
as well as a hoiise. About joû yards to the North of hlaitre Ilettiough
alinost joiried to it at low water, tliere is llarriiotiére. Marmotière
lias on it a custom-liouse, a slipway, and a Aagstnff, al1 erected or
adapted and rnaintaiiied by the States of Jersey, as well as fourteen
huts, al1 owned by jerseymen. Joined again to Alarmotière at low
tide is I3Ianc Ile, on which the Court wiII see tlic Iiousc owned by
Najor I3olith0, to whom Sir 1.io1iei Heald referred tlie other day
(hlajor Holitho, as 1 tliiiik Sir Lionel said, is the husbarid of a former
Miss Leinprière, a member of one of Jersey's oldest and inost distin-
giiished families).
Kow, of the rocks of the ficréhous group, tlie one which isnerirest
to Jersey is Grande Kousse, and this is 3.9 seri niiles from La Coupe
l'oint, the extreme north-east point of Jcrsey. 'Hie rock which is
ncarcst to the mainlarid of 1;rance.i~ Bouvet, whicli is 6.6 sea rniles
frorn Cap de Carteret. Xaitre île, the largest islet-as I have said-
is 4.95 sea.miles froiti 1-a Coupe Point in Jersey ; it is 7.3 sea iniles
froni-Cap de Carteret in Fcitice. Tliese figures sliow, 1 submit , tliat
tlieEcréfiousare substantialIy nearer to jersey than they are to France.
4'he figures are ;il1 tlie more çtrikiiig if one co~is,iclersthc rocks tliat
are furtliestaway respectil-elp. Of tlie entire Ecréhous group, the
rock which is furthest from Jersey is Bou~.et, and it isj.6 sea rniles
from La Coupc Point. 13iit tlierock furthest awnj7 from the mainland
of France, Grande liausse, is as niucli as 8.G sea miles frorri Cap de
Carteret, the nearest point oii the 1;rench coast. Bot merely indi{-idiial
rocks, but the roup as a wliole is substantially nearer to jersey tlian
to Prarice. Iri act, if you walk along the iiortli coast of Jersey you
wilI find that this coast is protected and slieltered fronl ttie full force
of the sea by a scries of rocks. starting with Les Pierres des 1,esq (the
Paternosters) to the North-IVcst, Les Dirouilles to tlie Nortli, and the
Ecréhous to tfic North-East. Here 1 woulcj ask the Court to look at
the aerial yhotographs ofJersey and of the Ecréhous which I lia\-e here.
There are four of these photograplis. The firstof them is a general
view of tfie island of Jersey, which trust the Court will findinteresting.
'Thesecond shows the Ecréhous in relation to the nearest point inJersey,
1-aCoupe Point. The third shows the Ecréhous in relation to the nearest
point oii the mainland of France, Capde Carteret. Arrd the foiirtli ia
coinposite photograph showitig the Ecréhous in relation to La Coupe
l'aint in Jersey and in relation to Cap de Carteret iii France. 1 think I
should perhaps tell thc Court that-or rather draw the atterition of the
Court to certain white specks or flecks on this coml~ositc ~ihotograph.
1he really white specks ivhich arc to be seen near the Ecréhousare other
rocks of the groiip, but there are soine very symmctrical white flecks
wliich arc to be seen on the French side ofthe Ecréhous-those, 1 have
to tell the Court, are not rocks, they are mere faults in thephatograyh,
diie to defects iiithe camera. The Ilcmbers of the Corrrtcarz, I think,
confim that this is.so from the charts.
Only two miles of sea seyarate Grande Rousse in .the Écréhous from
Les Burons, the nearest above water rock in Les Dirouilles. Frirther-
more, Grande Kousse in the Gcrébousis less than three miles from soli,
a drying rock in the Ditouilles, which is in turn less thnn three miles fro~n
the maiilland of Jersey. The effect of this is that, eifone nieasurcs the ORAL ARGUMENT 01; .\Ir. WARRISOX (~.~.)-23 IX 53
1jj
territorial watersof ttic niaiilland of Jersey accordiiig to the very çtrict
principles follo~vcdby the United Kingdom, Grande Rousse in ttieEcré-
hous group is actually yithin tlie territorial watersof the mainlancl of
Jersey. So that, if the Ecrélious wei-eawardec! to France, it would not
niean giving France a tnere res ~zzillior no man's Inilcl; it would mcan
act~ially detaching \vl~at is unr~uestionably a part of Jersey itself nrld
giving it to Fraiice.
'kiken togethcr. Les Pierres des Lcsq (the l'ateriiosters), Les I)irouilles
and the Ecréhotis form :in almost continuuus chain of rocks protecting
the riortliercoast of Jersey.I'iiÿsicallyand geograpi-iicallythese rocks
can be considercd as one with the inninlancl of Jersey, so tliat it is tiiey
which really constitute the itortliern coastline of Jersey.
1 tlow Iiass,&Ir.Presidei~t, to the foiii-th part of my spcech-tfie
human aspect of thismatter. 1 shallstart with fishing. At a very eariy
age 1 went witli my parents to live atLa Rocque, a village atthe south-
enstern corner of the island. 1 have iived in that neighbourhood ever
since. 1 remember well how, in the carly days of my residence there,
iicarly evcry Inan in the viliage was a fishcrman and how they used,
~rllof thein, togo regularly to the hlinrluicrs to fiçh. They uscd to çail
to the Minquiers every Alonday morning diiring the season ; sornetimes,
because of Iack of wind, having tio engincs in the boats in those dayç,
tlicy used to row. Thcy uçed to stnÿ there till the Friday, wiicn tlicy
returned with their catch, for their mives to tnkc it to the market in
Si. Welier on the Saturdap inorning. Many of them iiscd to spend thc
Satiirday evenirig in the local iiin, and most of thein went on theSunday
to the local chapel, wliich 1 myself rised to attend. Tliey were all, or
nearly ail, of them known io me persoiially,and they were, if 1may say
so, n fine breed of men. 1 cnn remember inost vividly the gloom which
was cast over the village in September 1916, ivhen a boat retiirning
from the Minquiers was lost in a çtorm.
1have knowii nearly al1my life Pliilip JofirLe Clcrcq, Frank Gallichan
and Erncst Gallichan, whose affidavit is çet out in .Aniies -4 139 to the
United Kingdom Mernorial, :ind in whicti refcrence is made to the
tragcdy of Septcmber 1916. Rlany of the other factç set oi~t in this
affidavit are within my own persona1 knowledge.
?.
1he Court will have observed that thesc three men state tliat they
-cnch of them king iiow hctween 60 riiid G5ycars of age-bcgan to
fiçliat the Minqiiiers wjth their fathers assoon aç they left school. And
thc brothcrs Gallichan speak of their great-graridfather having fished
tiierc. Tlicy refer also othcr nien wlio werc fishing therc over a hundrccl
years ago : and, on the basis of tliis elridence and of some furtlier
elridence to which 1 shall refer iii a moment, al1 of which is,amply
contirrned by al1 that 1 inj~sclfhave ever known or Iiczird, 1 ttiiiik it
miist be bcyond dispute that the fishemen of 'La Rocque fished at the
Minquiers regularly throughout thc nineteenth century and right op
to ttie foiirth decade of the preseiit centiiry.
'The further cvidence of which 1 spoke a moment ago is to be found
iiia case which was hertrd in the Koynl Cotirt of Jersey on the 28th h'lay
1811 ;itis recorded in Annes A 164 in the United Kingdom votume of
Additional Annexes. It was an action broiight by Édouard La Rougetel,
Eicolas De Ste. Croix, Jean Le Vesconte, Charles Le Veçconte, Jean
Filleiil, Thomas Touzcl, Pliilip Mourant, Hugh Rlallet, Jean Mourant
and Philip Jorirneaus. (The Court inag- perhaps have noticed thatpronouiice sonic of tliose nariics in ttic French way and otliers in the
English way :1 pronouiice tlicni, in fact, Mr. Presidcnt, iri exactly the
way in ivhich we pronounce them in Jersey to-day.) Iii thcir statement
of claiin, the plnintiffs said that in tlie month of Mnrch 1810they fiad
goiie "civecdes bateaux uz~t rochcrs a$fiellés Marquois d~irs l'intelztion
d'y fuire EnPéc1te"-thcy had gone witli hoats to tlie rocks called tlie
Marquais, ïvi-itlithe intentioioffishiiig there-rind that tliey had found
a ship wrecked there with no one atioard. Havirig procccded, witli the
assistaiice of 0th mcn whom they had ciigaged for the purpose, to
save the ship's gear aiid a part of the cargo, they clairned salvage from
the owner of the ship and the owiiers of the cargo. I shall refer to tlii~
case agnin in aiiother coniiection.
But the facts that 1 have stated show tthat at lcast ten .jerseyinen
went to fish at the Minquiers in the tnonth of Marc11of tlie year 1810.
'I'lie surriames of tiiesc men arc al1 iiames with wtiich 1 Iiave 1)ccri
familiar since Iny childhood : bearers of ncarly al1 of therri have been
personally known to irie as residents of La Roccliic, and 1 think it
reasonatrlc to suggest that thc ten plaintiffs in this case, licard iri the
Royal Court of Jersey in May 1811, were iii fact al11-a Rocqiic fisherineii.
The fact that among them was orie Jean Le Vesconte is, I thirik,
prirticulnrly interesting. The Court will rcrnemher tliat one of the
Aniieses (A 132) to tlic Uriited Kiiigdom .Mernorial is tiic affirlavit
of Major Kpbot, Vice-President of tlie Sociité.ersiuise. ln it lie says
tliat on the 7th .July ~gzS, wliile ciigaged in archaeological researclies
:kt the Minquiers, fie iiotecl and sketchecl two sets of initilils ciit in
the rock. The photograpliic reproduction of Iiis sketch, wtiich is giveri
ns Aiines C 19 to the Rlemorial, shows that one of tliesc sets of iiiitials
wns "JLVC", with tlic date "1792". We lirive s~iggested, in p;ir;i-
graph ~liG(b) of the hlemorial, that tliese initials woiild bc ttie nor.iiial
Jersey abbreviation of "J. Le Vescoiitc" (spelled "v~scos~~"), anci
thnt tliis cuttitig was tlie work of a Inan of that riaine, a Jerseynian
and a practised craftsinaii, wlio wns eiigaged iri tlie rluarrying <.il)ci-a-
tions wtiich arc knowii to have bccii carrictl out on ~~aitrcsse IIc rit
tlie A!iiiquiers in 1792. It tiow seems reasonable to suggest furtlier
tliat tliisman u7as of tlie sanie family as ttic Jeaii Le Vcscontc wlio
was onc of the ylaintiffs in tiic action heard by tlie Roy:iI Coiirt of
Jersey on tlie zSth May ~SII and a forebear of Jerscynieii wlio t~car
tli.t nanie to-c1:iy. Yerliaps, iiicleed, tic was tlie yime man.
lhe riffidavit of Philip Johri 1-e Clcrcq, Frank Gallichan and Eriicst
Gallichan, to wliich I have referred, goes oii to say tliat tlie deporierits
never Iieard from tlieir fathers or froin any of thc other La Roccllie
fisliermen that tticir fisliirig \lad bccii in atiy wüyf interfercri witli bj
Frcnch fishermeii, aiid that tlicy (the clepoiicnts) ncver sa\\any serious
fisliingat the Mi~iquiers by French fis~iermcii until about 1030. It was
only tlit:ii, witli the introductionof inotor-eiigincs for fishing hoats,
that tlic ITrencli begnii to do ariy serions fishing nt tlie Minquiers.
This statement, 1 may add. is confirmed hy the ;iffidavit of
Mr. William Smythe Le Masiirier, a Solicitor of tlie Royal Court of
Jersey, which is set out iii Annes i\ ~og to tlic Mernorial. In tliat
affidavit he says tliat lie first startedïlisiting the Minquiers iii 1917,
aiid he goes on : .
"üp to tlie outbicak of war, we very seldorn sawr atiy 1:rericli
fisliernien within the outer lirnits of tlie reef, ancl the first as far as 1 am a\rrarc who regularly fished there ancf tliis for the yurpose
of liiie fishiiig for whiting only \vas a Mons. Viot from Cancale
who begnn in 1937 or 193s."
Tlie Court will alsn see in thesc nfficlrivits refcrenccs to. the declinc
iri Jersey fishing ;kt the Minquiers broiight about by recent Frencli
competitioii. The economic effect of this on the liveliliood of Jersey-
men ~vould have been even more serions than it tias, but for the cori-
sic1eral)lc developmerit of agriculture anrl market gardeiiing tliat hris
takcn place in Jersey since the first warld war. Nevertheless, tlie
fishing-particularly at the Minquiers-contiriries to be a most
important poteiitial factor in our economy.
.4nother reason for the ~ireseiit clecrcase of fishing aithe Miriquiers
by Jerseyrncn lies in the fact that during tfie German occupation of
tlic island from 1940 to 1945, jersey fisliermen were prohibitcd fro~n
going to tlie Minquiers. \Yhen, after the liberation of the island, they
wei-e able ta take up fisliing again, they found that fishermeii frorn
the Cotentin coast-and it will be remembercd that that part of France
was liberatcd in Junc or July 1944, thnt is to s:iy, ten montlis or so
bcfore Jerscy-thosc fisliermeri frornthe Cotentiii coast were opcratiiig
at tlie Alinquiers iiisuch a matiiier as to crcate cornpetition whicli
the Jersey fisliermen, with their more lirnitctl rcsources, werc unable
to mect.
1 tiirn now, $11. Presideiit, to fishirig at tllc Écrclious. In tliat
conncction we have referred, in priragrripli 146 of oui- Memorinl, to
t-l~c worli of Liei~tcnant l3ailiff Jean I'oingdcstre, dated 1652, and
entitled Caesarea or a Discuzrrse O! the IslairdO/ Jersey, in \ilhich tliere
appears the following :
"The small Islot of Ekerlio [Ecri:lious] Iind anciently a srnaIl
Priory belonging to Jersey, endowecl froiiitherice ; the Kuines
whereof remnine to this d;ly; whicti serue in rainy weather for
a shelter to sucl-i as goe tlicitlicr to f~skor fetch \'rait ...."
Tliere is tlierefore evidencc of fisliing b!- Jerseymen nt the Écréhous
as far back as 1682.
J niyself an1 uiiable tu spe;ik i~f fisliiiig at tlie kcr~iious witli tlic
ssuie degrcc of personal knowledge ris I can of the blincluiers. 'l'he
Ecréhous area has aln9ays been fished priiicipally by men from KozeI-
a i~illage on the tiorth-i:ast coast of Jcrsey, tlint, is to say :it soinc
distance-judged by Jersey st:iiidnrds-frorri wliere 1 live. 1. caniiot
clairn to have knowii Inany Rozel fishernien as 1 Iinve knoun L:i Rocque
fisliermen, biit 1ilriknow, and have known for sorne yem, Joe Thomas
fiecquet, wliose nffidavit is set ciiit in :inries il 106 to our Meiriorial.
In ttiat afficla\.it, lie says that Iiis father ancl his grandfather spent
a11their lives, as hc liimrelf has.done-lie is still fishing :~tthe Ecrchous
-tliey yent al1 tfieir ]ives, and Iic has spent a11liis life, as a fishermaii
nt the EcrBious. His granclfathcr, he says, must ha\-e starter1 fishing
there before rSjo, but lie- has al\i*ays understood that there were
Jerseymeil fishing :it the Ecrétious before his grandfather's 'itiie. It
is, in fact, more thaii ~~robable that Jcrseymen fishecl the Ecréhous
regularly at least froni the beginniiig of the nineteenth centtiry.
-4nnes C II to otir Meiiiiirial gives a photograpti of the ruins of aIi
old Stone tiut on wliich arc to be secii ttie tigiires "18zo". Thosc ruiiis1 ORAL ARGUlIEiLT OF 11".HARRISOS (u.K.)-23 IS 53 '
staïid on that point of thc surveyor's sketch. -iHere Jlr. Harrisoii
pointed this out on the sketcli displayed before tlic Court.] Aç I have
said, they are clearly to be seeii in the photograph reproduced :is.
Annex C 11. Aiid we have rcferred furthes to the letter froni ttie Vis-
couiit of Jersey to the Lieutenant Govcrnor of the island, datecl the
14th May 1S46,set out iii Annex A 101, \vhich speaks of a house beirlg
built at tlie Ecréhous by ri Jerseyinail iii about rSzG, aiid to Iiiits
bvhich Jersey people had there before ttie t~irth of tiie ivornari referred
to in this letter, wlio miist'ha1.e beeii at lcast miclclle aged in 1846.
Becquet's afidavit aiso ~ho\ss that not iintil rccerltly kvas thcre
aiiy Frencli fishiiig at the Ecréhoiis.
Apart nlso from the cliiestioti of fishii~g, the AIiiiquiers and thc
ficréhous were of iriterest from tlie point of vieiv of the gathering of
seaweed for use as a fertilizer of the soi1 anri as fuel.
We havc referred, in pi~ragrapli144 of the blenlori;~lto thc survey
of the islands of Jersey, Gucrnsey, .Alderney, Sercq aiid Coast of Fraricc,
made by Capt. Martin \frtiite of thc Royal Havy, soine time bet\veeii
1812 and 182s. On a chart oi the ficréhous which he drew al soine
time before 1923, oii whicli he showccl huts on 13laiic Ile, Marrnotibre
and Maître Île, he wrote :
"There arc j or 6 Iiutson tlic llaitreIske[sic], Btabout turice
that niimber on the Blarmotier, belonging to Iriliabitarits of Jersey,
who occasionally resort thereto during the Fiçhing 8r Vraching
kathering of seairrecd] seasons. These latter \vil1 also afford
occasional shclter to sinall I3onts & their crcws, against tlie
inclemency of the IVeatlier, in wliich case they siiould hc beaclicd
SI hove up. There iç however neither Fuel, sustenancc or Fresh
water (escept rain \vater in F.ca~ities of rocks) on either."
Similarly, on a cliartof tlie Ilinquiers wliich he drew at about tlie
sanie time, he wrote-1 refcr to paragraph 169 of the United liingdom
Mcmorial :
"tiierc is aIlut built on tlic Island for the occasional protection
.of the Fishermcn aiid Vraciiers [gatherers of seaiveedj -,ho freqiient
the place for the purpose of obtaining the Cotiger, Ormur (Oreille
de Mcr) -Lobsters ~vliicliherc aboiincl iri great profusioii".
The Court wiil find Captain White's chart, on which the Bfinqiiiers
are clearly marked as British, as our Annex R 9. In Aniles A 138 tlic
Court will find a sketch by Captain White of the Maitresse SIC showiiig
the existence of buildings as long ago as about rSrg,
Further evideiice of the fact that Jerseymen frequentetl the Min-
quiers in the early days of the nineteenth century for the purpose of
gathering seaweed is to be iound in the Kolls of the Ropal Court of
Jersey, A case regarding thc salvage of a ship wrecked at the Minquiers
was heard by that Court on the 3rd October 1817 (tlie details are given
in Annex A 165 in the United Kingciorn volume of Aclclitlonal Annexes).
Tlie plaintiffs werc Fraiicis Laffoley,Jean Sclous atid Jean Jean, and
they, in their statement of claim, stated that, 011 Monday, the
14th April 1817, they went to tlie Minquiers "coiiper du vraicH-to
cut vrac. ORAL ARGGJIEXT OF Jir. HAKRISO'I (u.K.)-23 IS 33 I59
I refer to this case Iiere, Alr. I'resideiit, for the purpose of showing
that Jerseymcn resortecl to the illinquiers in tlie early years of the
iiineteeiitli centuryto cut seawecd-just as 1 referred earlier to the
case heart.by the Royal Court of Jersey on the 28th May 1811-with
the object of showing that La Rocque fishermeii were at tliat time
fisliing at the BIinquiers. Xow, wlietlicr or not tlie lieriring of thesc
cases by the Koyal Court of Jersey constituted in itsclf an assertion
ofsovereig~ity, tliese cases have tlieir place, irny submissio~i, as part
of the ge!leral picture cifthe rcIationsliip of Jersey to tlie Jfincluiers
and thc 15crélioiisThcy are cle;ir cvidetice that the atitlioritofsthe
island thougfit tlieir jurisdictioii embraced the 3linquiers. These cases
arc in fact analogous to the cases of ïvreck considerecl carlier-and
i.eierreci to by I'rofessor Wacie-which occurred in 1615, TGIU ancl
1G17, ancl in 1692. This seems nlso to liave bcen tlie I'rench vie\r7if
we may jiidge from thc statenient of tlie French Minister of Marine
two years later than the case of 1817 to which 1 have just rcferred-
that is to say iii 1819-and wliicli is given in Annex A 25 anci in
rclatioiio whicli Anncses B 4 aiid B j are of importalice. That state-
incnt of tlic I:rciich JIinister of Jlarine, as 1 say, is giï7en in Annex
A 2j, and iil it Iic speaks of the Minqiiiers as British-"possérlces par
IJ.Ai-igleterre". Since tliis statemewas made in a lctter written hy
tlic Freiicfi $Iinister of Marine to the French Foreign Jfinister, subse-
cluently officially cornmunicatecl bythe l;rcndi Ambassrtdor iri Londoii
to Lord Castlereagh (see Annes A 24), wc feel entitled to rely or1 it
aç a definite recognitionof British sovcreignty over the .liinqtiiers.
May I a150at this point draw the attention of the Court to the docu-
rncnt filed as Annes -4 166 iri the volume of Additional Annexes-
iii~mely, the lettcrfrom ttic Lieutenant Bailiff of Jersey to the Lieute-
natit Governor of Jersey iii 1821, Apart from throwing an interesting
liglit on the coritempor;iry situation iii regard to the oyster fistiery
as a whoIe, this letter stiowç cluite clearly thnt whercas Jerseymeri
lintl been accustomed to fish from time immemorial, and witliout ariy
restriction in peace time, the gerieral area between Jersey aiid the
coast of Frnncc, the activities of the French fishermcn had always
becn confined to the nrea insidc-that isto say on tlic Frencli side
of-a line drawn betweeii St. Ma10 and Granville ; that is to say, ïvell
away from, and much cioser to, the mainland thaii the Minquiers.
1 corne iicst to tli~ matter of the Jersey liouses and liutments on the
Minquiers and tlie Ecrélious. It, was, we contend, tlie Jerseymen, wliu
ïïcrit to the -iIincluiersaiîcl the Ecréhoto fish aiirl gather seaweed and
ïvho built the I-iiitsthat are mentioned in various documerits quoted in
tlic United Kingclom Mernorial. No suc11hut, clpart from the liut of
refuge erected by Marin Marie in 1939(wliich is referredtoiti the afidavit
of Air.Le Jfasurier at Annes A ~og), has ever been built by a Frencli-
niari, and the oiily real attenipt in tliat direction maby n Fre~lchmnn
wns that bp M. Lc Rous on Maîtresse Ple at the Minquiers, in 1929,
wliich was specdily abaiicioned on representatioris being made lir?the
Government of the United Kingdom.
It will perhaps be argued by nur opponents tliat the builcliiig of
houses or Iiuts on a piece of land does not constitute evidence of sover-
eignty. ?'O that 1would reply that it does at least imply a very strong
helief on tfie part of the huilders tfiat sovereignty belongs to the I'ower
of whicli thcy are subjects ; wfiile the representations iiiade by tliatYower agninst the unauthorized atteinpt of anational of another Power
to build on the island isquite definitely an assertion ofsovereign riglits.
1 çhaI1 now try to explain to tlie Court thc interest inthis matter of
tlie people who Iinve inkeritcd or aciluired properties on the islets, and
who have always believed in perfectly good faith that they had an
absolute right, as Jerseymen and British subjects, to those propertieç-
properties which ihey had acquired and which they Iteld under Jersey
law. Most oftlie details of wliaI 1ia1.eta Say caii be foiininttie Unitcd
Kingdom Alcmorial, but it is my t;isk, on behalf of tlie islandersof
Jersey, tn wliom al1 this means so much, and whose Gise 1 ani putting
lierc, to einphasize tlie huni:~n aspects of the inattcr. 13ehind it ;il1Iics
no1 merely an intcrcsting leel or Iiistorical cluestioii. There is also tlie
liurnan question of people, actual people, wtio liave properties on these
islcts-admittedly, for the niost part, only siiiall hiits or cottages, but
iievertheless propertics-miang of wliich thcy and tlicir ancestors hri\-c
hcld for very many years in the fait11that thcy arc part of Jersey. 'l'hese
people, wlio have speiit inoney buying or coristructing or reconstructing
these cottages, Iiavc done so in the faith thnt the islets were possessions
of the Crown of England, oii nahichthe subjects of thc Crown coiild enjoy
rights,of owiiershiy as fulland coni~lete as tliey could enjoy in jersey.
'These peode have fisl-iedtlierc regularly over generations, and Iin1.e
sold their Asfi in Jersey. the nzitural market ; and ctreri aparfrom that,
tliereis tlic question of thc rights wliich thcse people honestly believe
tliemselves to have acquired.
Some of the yropcrties tiarrc beerr in the lintids of the snrne fnm~lics
for very inany years. For esample, one, at lcast, of tliose whicli are
now ow~led by Lt. Col. 1i.C.Robin, tit the Ecréhous (the Court will
finclthe refcreiicc to it ithe afidavi tfMi- .urzer, Annex A gS),w;is
formerly owiied tiy Colonel Robin's materna1 great-grandfatlier, tlie
Rt:v. \\'. Lemprière, Seigneur of Kozcl. The Iiouses at the bcrélious.
referred to in Mr. '17urzer'asffidavitas being owned liy J. 'S.Becquet
and J. C. kcquet, formerly belonged to thc latter's grandfnther, aricl.
jiist as there are houses at the Minquiers to-day owned by tlic heirs of
't'. Galliclian, deceascdC. Marie and C. Hamon (1 rcfer agaiii to Annes
A $&-the affidavit of Mr. Furzer), so there werc in 1888(.4nriex il129)
lioiises owned by Tliornas Gallichan, YliilippeGallichaii,Elias Callichnii,
I3lins Gallichan, Juiir., Cienient Gallicl~aii, .Jolin Marie. Cliarlcs Hamon
;~iicClément Hatnon.
There is,thereforc, hIr. Presiderit, a long Iiistpsy of owncrshiy of
properties. botli nt the Miiicluiers and at the Ecrélious, bu jersey
fatiiiiies.
Now Iiere I wonld refcr to the contentioii of tlie Government of tlie
I7cpublic (at p. 400 of the Couaiter-Memonal) that-1 quote :
"....e\.e~iiftliere were Britisli houses on the disputed rocks, tlic I
existence of private property would notsufficeto decide tlie questioi~ I
of tlie sovereigntybof the disputed territories". !
Yow, even if this were whollp true, 1would submit that tlie position
is vastly differe~it where the existence of such houses is coupled witli
a lorigcoritinued esercise (if administration by .the country of whicli
the owners of the houses are subjects. 1 shall cleal withthe various acts
of :ldministration in the nest part of my speech. but 1 would wish to
eriiphasize here that these people, who were eye-witiiesses of acts of162 CiRAL'AKGü~IENT OF Mi..t1ARRISOS (u.K.)-23 IS 33
govcriis, niid iiiclecd:coiistitutes, liis ownership. it is by reasoii of Frcnch
lan~that 11o\?-nsliis prolierty. [Vithout it he \voulclnot owii it.
30~7, le' me, Mr. Presiclent, a~iply these yrinciples to thc Minquiers
and the Ecréhous:These Jerseymen are not just squatters, staking
oiit claims in virgin territory. \jrhen me say tliat the? oivn hoiises,
WC meari that they arc owners according to law. lIThat law ? 1s it
I'rei-ichlaw ?No. French law-like Frencti ridministration-is unki~own
in thesc islands. It is iinder jersey laïv tliat thcse perçons own their
property, under leases from the Crown or under contracts of sale,
;LIIduly registercd mitli the title deeds, witii trie appro~~rinteJersey
riutliority : and tiere 1 woulcl. refcr thc Court to Anncses A 89-93
and 116-122.
..lgaiii, when these properties change hands-that is to Say, rire
iiought and solcl-it is Jersey law that applies, ancl the retluirenients
of Jersey law tliat have to be complied \vith. Property law is esscntially
territorial and iiot personal. It is the Inw applicable in the territory
and to al1propertp in it, irrespective of the nationality of the interested
~arties. if, thcrcfore, iila given tcrritory, or oii an islrind,yoii find
a ccrtaiii law regulariy appliecl to propertp, aiid in respect of trans-
actions rclating to such property, and if you find that no other law
is applicd, it is, 1 snbmit, an inescapablc conclusion that the law in
question is the territorial law of the land, and therefore that the
sovereignty is vested iri the cortntry tvtiose larv it is.
The riationality of the owiier lias nothing to clo with the character
of the land law of the country. For iiistance, it would lx absurd to
argile that the land law of France is only French becausc the pcolile
who owii land in France are inostly French ; that it is only thcir
personal Iaw that is being applicd. The land law of France is French
hecausc France i? Frcnch soi1 :and it is, 1 subniit, becaiisc the Nin-
quiers and the Ecréhoris are Jersey soi1 that the land L:iwof Jersey
is applicable to them.
Now al1 this is iiot oiily thc position irnder geiieral international
Inw. It is alsothe position under Jersey law. \lie have adcliiced aflîdnvit
cvidence from the appropriate authority in Jersey which liroves that
transactions resliccting property and houses on the Minquiers and
tlie Ecrélious corild not legally have hcen carried out iinder .Jersey
law, iinless the positioii was-nlso undcr Jerscy law-that the islctc
were part of the bailiwick of Jersey. 1 refer here to the afki~lavit
(Annex 1j6 to the United Kingdom Kepiy) of >Ir. Le Couteur, who
is the Judicial Greffier (Kegistrar) of thc Royal Court of Jersey. He
says : "the titlc to ull veal propsrty situate wilhin the limits O/ the
jiirisdictionof the Royal Court O/ the said island passes by matter of
record". Deeds relating to prolierty so situate-and only to siich
property-must, in order to have valiclity, be passed before thc 12oynl
Court of the island of Jersey arid subsccluently registercd and sealed
with the officialseai of the bailiwick. The Court lvilrilotice that tlie
words "dépe?idunce de cette iLe"-"dependency of Pthis is1and"-or
"dé$endant de Eri$~rozssc de St. Martin 012cette.;le"-"dcpeiiding upon
the pariçh of St. Martin in ttiis is1and"-constantly recur in these
deeds. This is as tnie of the earlier deeds as, for instance, a decd of
1sS4 relating to the Ecréhous (again 1 refer the Court to Anriex A S6),
and a deed of 1896 relating to tlie Ilinquiers (Annex A 118) : it isas
tnie of those earlier deeds as it is of the later tleeds, for esample, one of 1947 relatiiig to the Écréhous (Aiines A 931, or one of 1937 relatirig
to the Minquiers (Aiines ri 132). The reason why tliese words reciir,
wliether the deeds be old or recent, is that the deeds would not be
legnlly registrable iiithe Kegistry of Deedç ai the island of Jerscy
unless they related to "real property situate within the lirnits of the
jurisdiction of the Royal Coiirt of thc said island".
Ttie evidcnce of Mr. 1-e Coutcur's affidavit and of these dccds is
therefore, in my stibrnissiori, decisiire that, from the point of vien of
Jersey Law,the islets arc part of tlic bailiwick.Ive clairn tliat ivhiir-t
you have private parties acting :irid contrncting in respect of ttieir
Iancl and ho~iseson tlie islets, over ü period of more tlian eighty years,
on tlie basis that tlie islets are part of the bailiivick of Jersey, and
wlieii you Ii:ive,over tlie snrne period, public authorities registerinp
tille-cleeds aiid validnting such contracts on the same basis,whicli iç
necessarily n territorial, not a personal basis, you have evidenc~ of
the existence of sovereignty. You also have evidence of a constaiit
tratlitioii arirl a conviction on tlie part of tlie individuals concerned,
to wtiich the Court, as an iritcriiational tribunal, wil1,am convinced,
attach veTy grcat wcight. It is impossible to suppose tliat any of those
concerned, wlietlicr private perçons or the 'Jersey authorities, can
have been doing tliese things-some of tliem earlier iti time tlian the
earliest forrnal Frcncli claim-espresslp for.the purpose of foundiiig
and providing evidcricc of some future Britisli ctaim. Obvioiisly thcy
did tliem ns ,211ordinary part of their daily lives and duties. Our people,
Mi.. Presiderit, are simple people, ancl the Court will, I am sure, acquit
botli tl-iern nncl our :iutiiorities of aiiy Mactii:~velliaii intentions.
Perhaps before 1 pass on to the nest part of my speech I might give
a furttier illustration of the same tliing,relating to n differerlt type
of 1)roperty If tiic Court will look at Annex A 87 to the Jlemorial,
if will see tliat on the ~3rd April 1872, Pliilippe I'inel ("Le Roi des
Ecréhous", to ivhoni 1 shall refer again Inter), complying with the
provisions of the Seri'Fisheries Act, 1868-riri Act of the 1';irliameiit
of LVestrniiister applyiiig to Jcrsey-caused to be registcred as:ifistiing
boat the cutter Johu I~elongingto-I quote-"Rozel, Ecrelios Rocks".
1 ask, wtiat Iiad he, niid whnt had tlie re~is-ering -fficer, in iniiid iii
doing' this ?
I'llilippe lJinel is clcad. But otiiers like him arc alive to-day, owning
boats, owiiing. liouses on tlie Minquiers and the Ecrélious ancl fishiiig
there. These are the people 1 have the honour to reliresent here. It is
they who, from time irnmemorial; have lield their property undcr
Jerscy law, nri what tliey regard as ttie soi1of tlieir own coiintry, who
wotild be tlic most directly ancl imrnediately affecteci by any fiizdiiig
that the islets were otlier tliaii British and. part of the bailiwick of
Jersey.
So fnr,Xi- P.resideiit,1have ~nairilydiscusscd the position as it exists
to-day. 1 want now to glance back over the last one Iiundred and fifty
years. 1 shall claim that the long standing connection between Jersey
and tlic two disputed groups, of which there is such ample evidence, is
also evidence of sovereignty, when coupled with two other factors-
one negative, the other positive-the negative factor being the total
absence of any corres~ionding evidence of French connection with or
acts relating to the groups, the poçitivc factor being thc administrative,
governrnental and othcr acts of piiblic aiithority carricd out on our side. 1 begii~ with tlie evidenccs of early activity on the Ninquicrs. Even
bcfore 1800, the British Government quarried large quantities ol stone
at tlie Maitresse fle. This quarrying Ied to protestsby Jersey fishermen,
whu complained that, if it wcre continucd, it would lcave un~irotected
the anchorage at the south-east of the islct, and aiiy huts which hnd been
built, or iviiicmight be in course ofbuilding, oiiit.As n result of these
revrescntations, the quarrying was stoplied.
I'his information iscontaincd in the record of a meeting of the Piers
and Warboiirs Cornmittee of the States of Jersey, held on Maîtresse ]le
at the 3Tintluiers in August 1888. The test of the Act.of the Cornmittee
is given as Annes 129 to the Uiiited Iiingdom Mernorial. Our opponents
may sa];thst the statcrnents of fact contained in tliis Act of August1888
regarding events whicli had takcn place seventg or morc years earlier
shoiild not be regardcd as havirig much weight. ! siibmit thrit this would
not l-ica fair criticisin. In a small comrnunity such as ,Jersey, mrich of
tlic local tiistory takcsthe form of oral tradition passcd un from father
tci son.XIany oi the families,likc the Galiichans, the Lc \'escontes, the
I,abcys and the Cornishs, who owned ~iroperty at the Alinquiers in 1888,
httd made their litring hy fishing regularly therc for gears. Indeed, the
fisherman iiamed Ilnmon, who Ied the protesta against the qiiarrying
at the beginniiig of the centurÿ, was in virtual certainty an ancestor of
the Charles Hamon or the Clement Hamon, fils Philippe, who owned
property tliere in ISSS and as lriteas 1903, as will be sccn from the list
of lsroperty owners at the Minquiers given in Annex A 134. There is a
Hamon still owning a hut on 3Iaitresse Ple to thisday, as is shown in
paragraph II1 (16)of Bir. Furzer's affidavit (Annes X 98).
Nr. Prcsidcnt, I liave just referred yoii to Annexes A 98, A 129 and
h r34 A comparisoii of these documents throws an interesting light Fin
the permancrice of the Jersey settlement of the 3fintliiiers. It \nIbe
seeri that some of the families, wliohaire worked arid owned propertythere,
sricii as-to take three examl~les-tlic Gallichans, tlie Hamons and the
Maries, halle done so for at least a hundred yeai-S. Therc is, of course,
further evidence of Jersey settlement rit the Minquiers since the begin-
ning of the iiineteenth century, such as that contained in the survcy of
Captain Martin White, to wliich I have referred. There is also further
evidence in the Clian~ielPilot of 1870, and in tfie Pzlolc [lela iVfunche
of ~Sïj.,pxticulars of bath of which are giveii in paragraph 167of Our
Mernorial.
Ail this evidence goes to sliotv quite çonclusively, in tny subinission,
tliat therc has been wliat might well be described as a permanent Jersey
settlement of thé Minquiers for upwards of :Lhundred and fifty pars.
Turning now in the evidencc of early activity at the Ecréhous, we
find a substantially similar situation.
I 1ial.espoken, Mr. Presidcrit, in rcferring to the Minquiers, of stone
being quarried there for the purpose of building Fort Regent in Jersey.
I should like now to deal with the probability that stone was rluarried
in the Ecréhous for biiilding houses in the parishcs of 'l'rinity and St.
Martin which face the islets. May 1 draw the attention of the Court to
-4ciditional Annes I\ rï7,wliich prints tlie afida~-it of13r.Illourant,an
Oxford geologist-incidentally a schoolfellowof mine-who has made a
yarticular study of the geology of the Channe1,lslands. Dr. Mourant's
conclusions are, brieAy, that the rock of the Ecréhous reef (which is
similar to that of the Paternosters and the nirouiiles) isof a character- OH.4L .4RGUMElr'T OF 31rHARRISON (IJ.K.)-33 IS 53 165
istic pale coioured granite-giieiss containing white mica, which is
distinguisliable front that attlicrest of thc Channel Islands aiid the
Cotentin. Now, says Dr. Mourant, thij particular form of stone is found
in riumerorls buildings in the parishes oSt.Martin and Trinity, thoiigh
not anywhere else in Jersey. One of thcse, hesa s, lias a gatc post dated
rozj ; ri second dates from 1731, and the \va Y1 of a tliird from1715.
There is therefor~-it would appear-a virtual certainty that stone was
quari-ied at the 1Sct-éhouby Jersey inliabitants froninvery iinrly tiirie.
'I'heii-WCIiavc the evidence of Captain Martin \VIijte, who waç at
Naître Ile in May 18x3. His chart, completed betiveeii that year ?nd
1823, sliows huts or houscs oii riIl tlte three main islets-Blanc Ile,
Jl;~rrnotiére, and Maître 11e-about eighteen in all. One of tliese,of
wliich thc ruins, bearing the rlatc1620, are still to Lie seen on TSlaiic
Pie (1 ha\-c alreacly referred to it), is said to be that in whicli Philippe
Piiiel, to whoni I rhall refer agriin, rtnd his wife, liiled coiitiiiuously all
the year round for se\wal decades during tlie second half of the nine-
tcciith century.
:\s ai the Minquiers, certain fainilirs, for esamyle the Becqiiets and
the I<lampieds, Iiaue, aswiU bc seen-froliiMr. J. T. Becquet's affidnvit
(given as.4nnex A 106) ,ived at the Ecréhousand gained their livelihood
thcre for more than a hundred years. Philippe Pincl, as is shown iri
paragrriph r50 of our Mernorial, livcd there continuousjy for forty
ycars, ancl becarne popularlÿ known as the King of the Ecréhous. Tt
is interesting, incidentallto note that a Frenchman, Charles Frémine,
considered Philippe Pinel to be n figurc of sufficient iniportance to form
the subject of thc pamphlet entitled Le Roi d8s Écrelrorts.
Iffurthcr evideqce were needed to show that therc was a jersey
settlement nt the Ecréhous diiring the ninetesnth ceiitiiry, it may bc
found, as 1 have rilready reminded thc Court, in the letter, dnted 1846.
of fiIr. Le Couteur, the Viscounj of Jersey, froin which it appears that
Jerseymen had houses at the Ecrélioüs from tlie earliest years of the
nineteenth century,
1 do not think itneccssary to describe in detail tlie continued exist-
ence of the Ecréhous comrnunity during tfic nineteentli century. I
yould refer you agilin, Mr. President, to the conveyance of land at the
Ecréhous, given as Anncx A 91, in 1863, by hIr. Gallichanto RZr. Lc
Bailly; I \i7ouldrefer yoii to the statemeiit madein 1876 by Mr. (aftcr-
wards Sir) Robert Pipon Afarett, thcri ilttoriiey-General, and later
Eailiff, of Jersey, tliat Jerseymen had occupied the Ecréfious from timc
immemorial (that is, -4nncs A 36) ;I would refer you also to theopinion
of the Jersey Law Officers Mr. (later Sir) IVilliam Venal-ilesVernon and
&Ir. (later Sir) Nilgrove Turner, rendered in rH67 and given as Annes
A47, in which they state (1 quote from p. 257) :
1Ilrom time immcmorial, Jersey SsIiermen have obtained an
abunclaiit supyly of fis11from tlic Ecréhos ancl Jlincjuiers, and
have made these localities their home during tlie fishing season ;
and it is an undeniable fact that tlie Freiich Iinve iiever posscssed
any scttlement on either group of islets."'66 ORAI. :\KGU3IEXT OF 31r. HAKRISOS (~.~.)-23 IS 53
Duriiig thc present century, therc have, naturally, 'been a number
of transactions affecting yropcrty on the tlireeprincipal islets, and
particulars of those are giveniiparagraphs 140 and 141 ofour blcmorial.
Here thy, Jlr.President, we have amplc cvidence of a connection
{rith the 13créhouç, as tvitli the Miiiquiers, on the part of a Jersey
coiiii~iunityfor upwarclsof n century and a half. The Jerscymeri WILO
have lived riiicl worked or1 both these groups Iirivcalways done so
on the basis tliat they were living on British territory and that thcy
were subject to British-and in pnrticular to Jersey-la\\*,aricl 1 linve
already clescribcd ho\\. tfiis operatcd. Memurial. The Minqiijers are and, according to local tradition, have
always been, treated for administrative purposes as being within the
Jersey parish of Grouville, and the constable of that parish is resyonsible
for the maintenance of law and order there.This is Jersey law. Property
at the Minquiers is assessed for rates in the same parish. Examples of
rating scheduleç are given at Annexes A IIO to I13.The sole reason why
these are for reccnt yeûrs only,is that the older records were destroyed
in 1941.
As regards tlie Écréliouç, 1 would refer the Court to pages $3 and
79 of our Mernorial for similar evideitce of parochial nuthnrit (tlie
Écréhous are, according to Jersey law, part of the parisli of StRPartiii),
and of the levying of rates and the holding of iriquests, and 1 refer
the Court to Annexes A SI-83, and A Sq and 65. tVe attach iniportancc
to this rnatter of rates and inquests. We have alreacly pointed out
that the authorities of a country do not iiomally levy property taxes
on pioperty outside their jurisdiction.
Then as regards inquests. -4sSir Lionel Hcald told the Court, an
inquest under Englisli and under Jersey law is essentially an act of
territorial jurisdiction. It is the act whereby the authoriofea country
enquire into the causeof a clcath occurring in their territory anwithin
their jurisdiction. They do not conduct such an encluiry as regards
deaths taking place in another couritry. Certainly the Jersey authoritics
do not,aiid here 1would refer the Court to Annes .4 Ij5 to tlie Wnitctl
Kingdom Reply, in wiiich is set out the affidavit of AIrII.V. Renest,
Sergent de Justice and acting Viscourit of Jersey. He shows quite
clearly that wliat confers jurisdictio~i to liold an inquest under Jersey
law is simply tlie finding afcorpse within the territory of the bailiwick
of Jersey. It is on thntbasis and that alone, that inqueçts Ilrive been
held 011deaths occurring on tlic Minquiers and/or the Ecréhous.
The Court irrillfind,in -4nnexeç 168-17o1 f our additional Volume,
four furtlier casesof inquests held in Jersey on bodies found at the
Minquiers or the Ecréhous-the last cas) being apparently that of
a French sailor found drowned near the Ecréhoiis.
1 now pass, Mr. President, to the fifth part of my speech, in whicli
1 shalI deal with the public acts of administration performcd on or
relative to the Minquiers and the Ecréhous during the last century
and a half-which, in our view, constitute both clear exercises of
sovereignty, and evidences of its existenc1.shall consider tlieobjections
advanced by QUr opponents to the vdue of this evidence, and I shall
then compare with it the acts which Our opponents put forward as
evidencc of their own claim.
Now as regards the evidence of our own acts, this is fully setout
and diçcussecl in the United Kingdom Alemorial and in the numerous
. annexes to it. I do not intencl, therefore, to go over this evidence in
detail.1 will only Say of the acts which we daim to bc acts of terri-
torial administrationand therefore of sovereignty-such as the exercise
of customs authority, the placing of buoys, the erectioii of beacoiis,
the construction of slipways and other officia1 buildings, officia[ visits
-and, in general, al1 the acts clescribed in our written pleadings,
which are, in my submission, quite definitely acts of government-
1will only Say that these acts (most of which passed without notice
or comment from the French authorities, and nothing similar to which
liascorne from the French side)-1 will only say that they were al1 ORAL AKCU31EST OF >Ir.HARRISOS (u.K.)-24 IS 53 169
donc in tlieortlitiary course of riorm:il ad~ninistrntion. They were
nothing more than tfie acts which any governinent, believing itself
to be sovereign over a certain territory, would carryout in the discharge
of tlie usual govel-nmerital rcsponsibilitics. Such acts are tberefore,
1 submit, clear evidcnce of the existence of sovereigiity. Tliese acts,
1would ask tlic Court to note, arc not spectactilar. 'Fliere is no Aourisli
of trrimpets, thcre are iio cere~nonies, proclainations or rnaiiifestos :
just tlie littlc orclinary cveryday routine acts of aclmiriistration and
governmeiit. But, 3fr. I'resiclent, it is preciselq- in tlieir insignificance,
in tlieir very orclinnriness, that tlieii. significancc lies, wyou corne
toask-as the Court will ask-who is it, who isacting and has acted
as sovereign and beliaved :ls a sovereigii would do ?
Now we contend that these acts, wliich are çtated in detail in para-
graphs 138, 139, 142, 161, 162, 163 and 165 of our Mernorial, supported
by niimerous rinileses-and 1 cite in particiilar AnnexesA 94 to IOO and
A 123 to 131-these acts represent a very large body of evidence, not
only of the administration of these groups on a basis of sovcreignty, but
alsoof State intercst in and concern regarcliiig theand the people using
them-the provision of facilities at public espeiise and so on. Annexes
. qg alidA 126, for instaiice, list some thirty occasions on ivliich officia1
visits were made to one or other of the groups in a period o50 to 60 years
-and this, of coiirse, is in addition to visits officiaiin the ordinary
coiirse of tlieir duties ;for instance. in connection witli jnqiiests, the
exercisc of customs authority, and, of coiirse, the carrying out of the
variouç works-the construction of slipways, thc placirig of beacons, and
so on. Our opponents caiinot deny the existence of this large volume of
evidence, and the. have been unable to produce any cornparabie evidence
;itall.
Noiv all that kvas going an iii the groiipç inthe xvay of the exercise
of Jersey sovereignty !vasperfectly wcll-known to everyone : no attempt
was made to coiicenl aiiytliing. Tlie United Kiiigdom Government, of
course, knew about it. The Governinciit of the Republic, even if it did not
react as any narinal government possessing sovereignty over the area
concerned would have rione, certainly kric~vribout it. Orif idid not, it
ougfit to Iiave known abolit it, aiid it musthave known aboutit ifit hacl
had the sovereignty over the regioii. Moreaver, the governments of other
countries kiiew about it. Alostof the iliest European countries, for cxain-
ple, have a consular representative inJersey, and no doubt these repre-
sentritives report occasionally to tlieir home governments about whnt
goes on in Jersey and wliat xveregard as itscleperidencies. .
Itwas, no doubt, because al1 that \vas going on in the groups was
generally well-kiiown thnt they were shown on a number of atlnses as
I3ritisli1do not intend, of course, 3Ir. President, to refer tany British
atlases, because the Court might not regard them as havingaiiy particular
significancc iithe circumstances. Rrit 1do subrnit that itis ratlier signif-
icant tliat a neutral and impartial atlas of the high technical merit of
Stieler's Htrltd-Atlapublished inLeipzig, sho-.vçboth groups (alonguith
the rcçt of the Channel Islands) as 13ritish.We Iiave submitted as Addi-
tional Annexes B IO and B II photostat eiilargements of two maps from
this atlas, both of mhicli clearly indicate both groups as British. More-
over, 1 think it is rather significant thatone of these maps is from the
1905 eclitiori and the other is from the193211g3 e4ition. Thus the idea
that the groiips were British does not seem tu have beenone tliat occurred ORAL ARGUAIEST OF >Ir.HARR1SO.i (u.K.)-24 IX 53
170
to a single editor of Stieler as a mcre guess. It is reason;ible to assumc,
- 1 thinl, that tlic editor of each edition must have satisiicd himself ttiat
the inrlication othe groups as British correspondecI with the facts.And
1 submit-that tliis eviclence of tlie gcneral notoricty of tlic situation is
eiidencc i~liicli tlic Coiimay, aiicl indecd should, takc iiito account.
Xlr. Presidcnt, 1 corne now to the various grounds on which our
opponeiits have souglit to argue that the iiurnerous facts suhmitted by
ttic United Kingdom Govemrnent in these proceeding arc not evidence
of the esercisc of sovereignty ovcr the Minquiers aiid the Écréhous,
aiid do iiot açsist oiir claini.Thcy put forward three main points :
first, that, as regards the acts in question (arid T qriote now from
1).721 of the Kejoindcr) :
"ail that werc of ail)rcal signiticariccwere the subject af protests
hy the Goveriiment of the Kepublic, and that tiiosc in regard
to wliich no reprcsentations were inade were matters of little
conscqiieiice" ;
secondly, they say, thc construction of slipways and the erection of
beacons and placing of biioys can be explained in terms of the 1839
Convention jthough ifthis is true it must apply equally to the French
acts of buoying and beaconing which arc invokcd in support of the
French titlr, without nny suggestion that thcy are to be accounted
for by thc 1839 Convention) ; thirdly, thcy Say, aU the acts of juris-
diction carried out by Jersey Courts and ;tuthorities c;in be riccounted
for ralione persona: and not vatiolte soli.
1 willdeal with these in turn. As to the first, ttie question of French
protests, and thcir legal cffcct, there are two implications in the
sentcnccs 1 have quoted from tlie French Rejoinder that wc do iiot
admit. This said tliat France hnd protcsted zigainst al1 theUnited
Kingdoni acts that rvere of any real significance and that the rest were
ntntters of little corisequencc. ln tlie next se~itcnce, after citing two
allcged acts of lcgislative character against whicli Fraiice protcsted in
1876 and 1883, the Iicjoinder continues :
"'Tlicse acts arc the orily acts of aiiy real importaricc, as con-
stituting an irnplied but çufficientlyunmistakable assertion by the
United Kingdoiii of its allegcd sovereignty."
Kow quite apa1.tfrom tlic hct that the Frcnch protest k~gaiiiattlic two
acts thcy rnention wcrc ilotmade oii the hasis of sny I;reiich claim to
sovereignty, but only on a daim to fisliery riglits,WC canitot agrce
that trie othcr mattcr-s, ;~gaiitst wfiich therc \vas 110 protest, werc
1n:itters of little consequence. 011 ttie contrai-y, tliese were, asI said
a while ago, precisely the ordinaru, everj-day routine acts of admiiiis-
tration of wliicli tl-ic exercisc of sovereigiity is inadc up. It is just
because tllere is nothing spectacular about ttiem tliat they are of sucli
signific;iiice iii the present connectioo. If the Court would wish to
sec in convenieiit form wliat is tlic character of tliesc various acts
supposcdly of littlc conseqiience, niay 1 refer it to paragraph ZOO on
page jjS of our Kepljr, ivhert. a long list is giveri of various acts
or catcgories of acts wliich cncouiitered iio protcst or commeiit froiil
tiie Governrnent of the Iiepublic. Ttie Court can juclgefor itself wlietlier
tiiey are of iittle conseyuence or not. The Court \vil1 see incidentall!.
tlirit they include sucli public and ol~viousmanifestations of sovcreigiitg ORAL ARGUAIENT 01;Iitr. HARRISON (u.K.)-24 IS j3
172
against a non-esistent Jersq. draft lail:wliich. it \vas said, wo,uld have
the effect of prohibiting French fislienrien from going to the Ecrdhous.
Neitliei of tlicse protests, 1~~ouldask ttic Court j1:irticularly to ilowas
based on a claim of French sovereignJv,but rather on the siipposed esist-
ence of Frencli fishing rights at the Ecréhciusundcr the 1S39 Convention,
and it isclear from the letters that pacsed between Freiich officials-
between French officials-:it ttiis tiine, and whicli are set uut iii
Annes A46, that they knew quite wellof tlie British claitn tosovereignty.
?'liecorrespondence which resulted from these protests-protests nbotit
fisheries only-erentually led, in 18813t,othe Government of the Kel,iihlic
ptting forward, fur thc first tinie, ;i claim tcisovereignty ovesbthe
Ecrèlious (1 rcfer to Armes A 41). This claitn was answcred on belialf
of tlie United Kingdom Government by the thcri Foreign Secretary,
Lord Salisbury, in a note dnted the 27th October TSS~(which is Aniiex
A 43). Lord Salisbury's note was ans~vered by tlic Frencli hinbassados,
Monsieur ivaddington, iii a note dated the 26th January rSSS (Annes
A 4, which re-affirriied the 1:reiich daim in general terrns. This note
rcceived onlÿ a formal acknowlcdgnient, and thus the lnst word rernaiiied
with the Governiilcnt of the Republic. 13ut, Mr-.I'resiclerit, it was very
liternl tlej-last worcl, forfrorn that d;iy uiitil after tiiçrecent war-
a period of 60 years-iiot another thing \vas snid on either side about
the Ecréhous. Yet even a cursory reading of the United Kingdom blenio-
rialand its Aiinexes i\:jshow tlic estent of tl~c 13ritiskininnifest;itions of
sovereigntj. oi-er tlie I<crélioiisditring ttlong perioti.
Tlierefore I ask tlic Court : were tliese French protests regarding the
Écréfiouseffectua1 protests ? \lie çubrnit tliat they ivere iint, and thnt
wiirite\rer value or effect rliey niight hn1.ehad Ii:is long since evapornted
and beeii lost.
Kow let us consider the [:i.eiich protests reprdi~ig tlie XIinquiers.
Tliere were only threc. The first was in ISSSand arose out of an official
visit to tilt: Mii~quiersof thc Cornmittee of Piers and H~trbours of tlie
States of Jersey. Lord Salisburj~, then Hritisti Foreign Secrctary, replied
to tliis protest in a note (Annes A 54) in whichtlicquestion of sovereigiity
wns discussed and thc Hritisli chirri \vas asserted. Ko repty was rcceived
to this note, and no fiirtlier protest &vas tnade ngainst Jersey officiiil
visits to tlie Minquiers. Yet there were inany 1-isits.Not al1of thcm Iiai,e
been recorded, but thc certificnte of >Ir.Bois, tlie Greffierof thc States
of tfie islarid of Jersey (at Aiines A 12S), listsno less than sel-eritceii
such visits.
'I'hesecond 1:renciiprotest (Annes A jg)occurrcd in 1902 aiid conceriied
the erectiorr ofa Aagstaffat .the 3Iinqiiiers and the hoistiriof the ISritish
flag. After an eschange of diplornatic corres~ioriclencewliich continued
for two or tlirec yecirs,the ,United Kingdorn Goverriiiiciit finallysent
the Go\-cniiiient of the Repirblic a long memoraridiim. the tcst of tïliiclz
is at Aniies A 69, asserting the British title to sovereignty, but offering
certain fisltery rightsNo reply iras rccei\.ed beyorid a forrnal ackno\+*ledg-
nient .
Finally, after a period of tliirty years during wliich tlte I4ritish ndmi-
~iistration of the group continued undisturbed, the Covernment of the
Rej~ublic sent a riote to the Unitecl Ilingdorn Goï~ernrnent iri 1937
(Annex A 76). But an exarnination of tliis note shows tliütthe Govern-
ment of the Republic were again concerned primarily witti the fisfiery
question-thougii a vesy perfirrictory rcser\-ationof Fr-ericlisot.ereignty t'as made three months later (Annes A 77). Replying to tiiese notes on
July rsth, 1938 (Aiinex A 78), the United Kingdoni Government gave
assurances about the fisheries but re-affirmed British sovereignty in
esplicit terrns. So this note no reply was received. Taking these three
occasions, tliereforc, 1888, 1902 ancl 1937, upon whicli the Governiiient
of the Republic protested about the Minquiers, one is ngnin struck by
their perfunctorÿ character. In eacli casa detailed or esplicit statement
or affirmation of the United Iiingdo~ii claitn met with no reply. Fraiice
was unwilling to abandon hei. own claim, but was not williiig effectively
to assert it, or to refute the Britisli claim. She was interested almost
entirelp in tlie fishery question, as the 1937 incident shows. In tlie
irnmediately prececling year, 1936, tlie xvreckage ofa crashecl aircraft,
the "Cloud of Iona", kvas washed up at tlie Minquiers, but it mas the
Jersey authorities, in combination with the British Air Ministry, who
iiivestigated this accident on tlie spot-iwas not the French authorities.
There are certain other features of the 1937 cschangcs which are
of particular interest. The main points to which the French note in
Arines A 76 drew attention were, first, the fnct that the Rritish flag
was Iioisted on the Minquiers flag staff every tiine a French ship
approached ; and sccondly that a ciistom-liouse bearing the arms of
jersey had been constructcd. The fitst of these objections, 1 suggest,
, was almost an admission tliat the Minquiers werc under permanent
British occuliation on a hasis of sovereignty. The United Kingdom
Reply (Annes A 78) pointed out, however, that works in connection
with buoying and beaconing, the enlargement of the Ianding stage,
and so on, had been in progrcss for some tiine and that the workmcn
were in the Iiabitof signallirig to passing vessels messages for trans-
missioii to Jersey ;this, perliaps, it was suggested. accounted for atiy
increased showing of fiags. 'Tlic cpisode demonstrates, however, Iiow
littlethe Frcnch autlioritiesreally knew of the situation oil the
Minquiers.
+4nd the other point about the custom-house bcaring ttie arms of
jcrscy indicates the sarnc thing, for this biiilding whicli. according
to the French note in Annex A 76, had been recently built (édifié
récznrment),had in fact been oyened as far bsck as 1909. It was nlso
not eupresslÿ built for that piirposc. As Aniiex A I16 to olir hlernorial
shows, it was acquired for the purpose by purchase from a Mr. Le
Clercq by thc Assembly of Governor, Bailiff and Jurats (the ciistoms
authorities) of Jersey. l'his \vas poiiited out in the United Kingdom
notc inAnnes A 78, and the Governinent of tlie Reliublic were reminded
that there was nothing new about the position ai the hiinquiers.
But an even better illustration .of the same want of vigilarice on
tlie part of thc Frciich authorities is-to bz found in the fact tliat a
custom-houçe \vas opened on the Ecréhous as far back as 1884
(hnnes A 86 to tlic Aleinorial). biit iio French comment on that \vas,
or evcr lias heen, received.
Ili tlie ligltt of tticsc facts, 1 think tlie Court \vil1 know how to
nppreciate at its truc value the rather naive remark that appears on
page 722 of the Frencli Kejoinder (Icltiotc) :
"....in 1937 the Go\-erniiicnt of the Republic did.in fact protest
agxinst tlic only acts wliicii werc of an unniistakable character :
the ciistom bvliich had growti itpof hoisting the British flag on the hlinqiiicrs when a French ship was p~issing, and thc crection
of a customs 'station', bcaring tlie arms of Jersey".
Of coiirse, our opponents tinve an esplariation of thcsc inaccuracies
and inadequacies. It is to tie fouad on prigc 722 of tti~ Rejoinder, and
reads as follows :
"It [the Governmcrit of the ltepublic, that is to say] could
not be ex~iected to keep the United Kingdom C;overnnicnt con-
tinually under surveillance aiid to rnitltiply rcmonstrances iïi
rcgard to acts ~vhicti Iiad already been contested in princilile."
This is an unclerstandable attitude, Mr. Prcsidciit, ),ct it ainounts
to a virtual adrnission ttiat the French protests werc no iriorc than
paper ~~rotests-that France wns neither able hcrself to esercise
sovereignty, nor in a position effectively to challciige the United
Kingdom cxercise of it. 1 think 1 can affirm that it would have been
impossible that ~Iipwayç could have bceii constryctcd, and custom-
houses tstüblishcc!, on either the hliiicluiers or the Ecrchous b+Y~IICE,
uithout considcrable comment from Jersey.
May I give some illustrations, on the other hand, of the vigilancc
pf thc Jersey :iutlioritics ? 1 refcr tiieii tirst to tlic hliniitcs of the
meeting at the ùlii~quiersof the Jersey Piers and Harbours Comiiiittee
given at Alines A 129. 'The occasion of thistneeting was ;in eiicluiry
from the hydrograplier of the Britisli -4drniralty wtiethcr tlie sailing
directioiis in the ChanizclPilo relating to tiic Xincliiiers were ;iccurate.
It so happeneci that, at the time of thc inecting, two Frencli iiydro-
graphers were at- the Miiiqiiiers niakiiig observationson thc tidcs and
currents in the rieighbourhood. It is interesting to note what is saici
about these two Frerichmen. It is stated iri the hliniites ttiat tlicy
had rentcd a housc for several rnortths,and this rnrist have been from
a Jersey man sincc there wcre no French hoiises on the isla~id. C1earl~-
the Jersey authorities knew al1 about this very minor incident.
Again, what h:ippe~iswlicn another Frencliman ap~>e;irt.d,biit not untii
some forty years later, that is tsav in1929 ? Afonsie~trLe Iious began
to build a liut on Alaitressc fle. He Iiad only buallow Stone wall about
eighteeii inches ,liigh, wlicn he desisted, as it woulrl appear from the
affidavit ofMr. Edouard de l,aclur~iiie,editoof Les ClzroitipiirieJcvsey
(atAnnex A 1371 ,n the instructions of his own Govcrnment, following
otl the United Kingdom note of July 26th, 1929,givcn at Annes h 7j.
Then again in 1939, when the so-called 3f:irinMarie began to crect a
wooden hut of refuge on Maîtresse fle, the matter was at once reportcd
to the Lieutenant Governor of Jersey (affidavit of MrW. S. Le Miisurier,
Annes A IO^),arid the only reason ivhy the United Kingdom Govern-
ment did not protcst against this trespass by a French nationalwas thnt
it took place in the-summer of1939, the year in which war was dcclared,
when our two Governments had more serious preoccuyations.
The only other French acts that we know of arc the.hydrographic
surveys of 1831 and IS~S, and the biioying of the Channel to the South-
West of the Minquiers-and in paragraphs 233-239 of our Keply we
showed that these actswere either of siich n character as not to affect
orprejudice British çovereignty, or clse that British rights in rcsliect of
them had been fully reservcd in diplornatic notes addressed to tlie French
Ambassador in London. 9KAL ARGUMEiL'TOF 31r. HARKISOS (u.K.)-24 IX 53 175
This vigilaiit attitude on the part of the Britisli authorities, wliich wxs
fully corisor~ant with their clairn to hc tlie sovereign Power in the Min-
quiers aiid the ficréhous, should be contrasted with tlie lack of notice
on the part of the Frencli authorities of so many significaiit British acts
svhich were clear assertions or exe~cises of sovereign riglits. yet France
Iias for riiaiiy pcars mairitainecl cicarecr consul in Jersey. lt is difficult
to believe that France czin maiiitain n consul in Jersey, and yet not Ir>e
well awace of the Jersey attitude arid position regarding the 3liiiquiers
;~iidtlie I<créhoiisand wcll awarc of inost of the salient facts.
To coiiciudc on this rnatter of 1)rotests-or the lack of tltem-we are
far from suggestiiig that the rights of a governmcnt rire lost bccause it
fails to protest xt c17erysirigle occiirrencc that might affect them. But it
is ;Lmattcr of circiirn~tnrices ancl degree. ln thc prcserit case we siibn~it
that, as regards the Ecréhous, thcre was what amountcd very ncarly to
ac<luiesceiice ori tlie partof thc Governrnent of tlic Kep~iblic. Since the
(late of the laçt French commuiiication ;itiout tlic Ecréhoiis in 1888, ;L
~~criotlof65 .cars up to to-day, no single Frcnch visit, act of sovercignty
or manifestation of right Iias beeii showri to have occurred in respect of
thc Ecréhuus, wliile British acts, as Lhave shown, have occurred coii-
tiniiously, and they wcrc iinmistakahle zissertions aiid cxercises of solr-
ercignty. As regards thc Minquiers, there were three wiclely spaced asser-
tioiisor rcservations of tlie French claiin. In eacli case areply asserting
the Rritisli clairn \vas apparently acceptcd, and the inatter was not
pwsued. 'Taken in relation to the absciice of aiiy French State sctivitÿ
at the Minquiers, couyled with the continuous British activities, we sub-
mit that there \vas virtual acquicsceiice hy the Govcrnment of the Rej~iii)-
lic in regard to the Mincliiiers also.
If 1 Inay ventlirc to Sap so without iiitendiiig niip offctlce, 1 siiggcst
tiiat during this pcriod tlie Government oi the Kepublic were l~dopting
tlic very attitutlc of Iiavirig it botti ways, \vhicIi in paragraph 35 (d) of
oiir Rcply we poiiited out was iriattmissible. 'rliey were unwillirig to
atxindon tlieir clairn, but ïvere ctlually unwilling effectively to assert
it. Their main object \vas simpty to tlcny the British ciaim. 'l'his is
\~ividly illustraterl,1thiiik, by ttie incident discussed in paragralili 113
of our lllcmorial :iiicin hnnes -4 71-wrlicn Frnncc offcrcd to reriouilcc
riny Freiicli claini to tlic Crozet islands if the United Kingdom woril<l
agree to treat tlic 3Ii1lrluiers as res ~c~r!liitsB.ut, while maintaining n
riominnl clztim to tlic Minquiers and the EcrEhous, the Frcncki authrtcitics
\iere coiitcnt to allow tlie Jersey authorities to discliarge a11tlie re-
s~~oiisibilitics in connection with the actministration of tliese groups,
;iiitl to inc~ir tlic cspenses of the iiistallation aiid upkccp of slip~vays,
I>iioys,marks, heacons ancl other works from whicli navigation in gcriernl
could beiiefit. Thissort of attitudc has been, I thirtk, very aptly commci-it-
cd on by IJrofessor Lautcrpacht in the following passage from an article
iii ttieBritish,Yeur Book of I~ztcrizationuLaw for rgjo, pages 395-396,
wliich, thoiigh on the subject of the sovcreignty over submariiic areas
(the continental slielfj, is iievertlieless perfcctly applicable to the prescnt
point. I will read tliis passage, >Ir. Presidcrit :
"....tl~c far-reaching effect of tlie failure to protest is not a mere
artificiality of the Iaw. Itis ailesseiitinl retliiiremerit of çtability-
a rccluiremerit eveii rnore important in the international tlian in
otlier sphercs ; itisa ~irecept of fair dcaliiig innsmucli as it prevciits States froni playing fast and loose with ituatioris aflecting others ;
and it is in accordance with equity inasrnuch as it protects a State
from the contingeiicy of incurring responsibilities and expensc,
in reliancc on tlic apparent acqujescence of others, and beirig
subsequently coiifronted with a challenge on the part of those
very -States."
I will now p:iss, AIr. Yresidcrit, tothe ricst ohjection offci-cdhy tlic
Government of tlie Republic to tlic evidcritiril value of ttie 13ritish acts
of sovereignty, which is intimately coiinected with wliat 1 Iiave just
been saying. On pxge 721 of the Frencli Rejoirider therc :ippear the
following twa p:issages.
Thc first :
"The siçnificancc of the buoying and liglitiiig of ille 3Iinquiei-s
aiid the Ecréhos etluals, but does not exceed, tliat of similar work
carricd out by the Frcncli in ttiose waters."
I ïvould pause here to ask "wliat rvatecs?" Tlicre is no Frenctt buoying
or lighting at al1 in the waters of tlie Ecréhous-there never lias beei-i;
and there is iioiic within tlirce iniles of nny main islet or permaneiitl~*
uncovered rock of the hlinquiers, or within ttie reefs or plateau of the
Minquiers itself-a rnatter I shall deal witli more fiilly later. I pass on
to the seconcl passage. This reatls :
"The works unclertaken to facilitatc landing on sornc riiftlic
islets are sufficiently accounted for by the uncoiitested fact ttiat,
under the Convention of 1839, the fishemen of botli iiations had
access to the islets in dispute, so the Frencli Goveriiment had iio
reason to abject to improvements of this kin~i which might assist
the fisherrneii in their work and give them greater safety."
Really, Mr. I'resident, this. passage ratlier takes one's breritli auTay.
Not only is it a perfect illustration of tlic attitude 1 was referriiig to
just noïv, by which France as it were sits back and allows Jersey to
unciertake al1tlie responsibility and espense in relation to thcse islands,
but tlie pretensioii that there was no iieed for any French protest iri
the circumstances is wl-iollymiçconceivecl. 1 submit thnt tliere was il1
fact every rcason for France to object to these Jersey works if Fraiics
clclifnesovereignty-there lies the ivhole pointIJ7heiithe French positiori
was tlint the groups were French territory, there was surely every
reasori to protest-r nt least say something. 1s it usual for one country
to allow the authorities of aiiotlier country to land on itç territory,
construct slipways, ercct beacons and so fortli witliout çaying a word
about it ?
The groiintl given in the Rejoiiider for tliis strange view is (1 quote)
"thc~uncontestcd fact" of French fishery rigtitsnt the Minquiers aiid
the Ecréhous. Rut our opponents know perfectly well, and the Govern-
ment of thc Republic knew perfectly wekl theii, that tliis fact was
by no means uncontestcd, On the contrary, as thc diplornatic corre-
sporidence from start ,to finish amply demonstrates, it was consisteiitly
maintained on the United Kingdom side that Article 3 of the 1839
Convention had no application to the Minquiers or the Écréhous.
Hiit in any case, even assuming the esistence of equal fishing rigfits,
this would havc no real bearing on the point. Zt is rcally sornewlint 0H:iL AHGUlIENT OF llr.HARRISON (u.K.)-24 IS 53
178
tiiis buoy witli thosc connected witli thc beacons aiid tlie light-
boat" ; and
"It is shuwri by tlic foregoii~g tliat Surederi hacl rio duubt ;is
to lier rights over ttie Grisbac1;irna and tliat slic clid iiot hesitatc
to incur the espenses inciiinbciit on the on-i-iierand Iiossessor of
these banks cireri to tli csteiit ofa considerablc srim of money."
Sow, &Ir. l'resideiit, if, in tliese passages, you wcre to rcatl Jersey
for Swetlcti, antl I'rarice for Barwa)., and ilyou adclcd a rcfcrerice tc)
tlic Jersey constructiori of slilxvays aiid landiiig stages aiid attier \i-orks,
aiid to tlic fact fli:~t ttieri: lins iicver beeii alzy Frencli hiioyirig or
bcaconing at thc licréhous nt all, aiicl that at tlie Minquiers al1 tiic
huoying ancl bcaconing withiii the reef is cloiie by jersey-tlie Freiicli
installatioiisbeing outsidc in the approadics to St. Jiaio micl Gran-
ville-thcii 1submit to tlic Court tiiat you woiild have an exact parrtliel
with the Grisbadarnn casc, the principles of rïkiicli:trc in ciIIrcspccts
applicahlc.
1 pass on riest to the third ancl last main objectioii ad\-anced by orir
opponents for the purpose of dciiying thrit tlic \,arious ;icts of tltc Jersey
aiithorities constitute an assertion and exercise of soverei~ii rights in
respect of the Minquiers and the IScréhous.'Pliis ohjcction is stated oii
1~1ge 402 of the Corinter-hleiiiorial ;~sfollows :
".... In al1 tlieçe rriatters [that is to Say, the liolding of ii-iquests,
the excrcise of penal jurisdictiori, etc.], the Jersey authorities were
esercising a persona1 jurisdicfion over ttieir otvn subjects wlio Iind
sailed to the Minquiers or the Ecrékous, just as tliey would Iiave doiie
had they returned froili a 1-oÿnge oii the open sea. 'l'lie Kritisli
Mernoria1 does not adduce aizy irctof jurisdiction ~xrfornied ai tlie
nctu~il places in qucstion ~171iicl\ivould Iia\,e iiivol\+ed territorid
jurisdictinn."
In sliort, tlie allegation is that Jersey jurisdictio~i lias beeii esercise~I
rtitinize personceand not ratin~ sreliO.ur ariswer to this contention is set
cirit in parc~graphs zoS to213 of tiie United Kiiigdoin Reply, and in tlic
afidavits of Mr. Iltiret Aubin, foriner Attorney-General for Jersey, uf
>Ir. Benest, Sergent de Justice ancl Acting Viscount of Jersey, aiid of
Mi. 1.,e Coittcur, tlie Judicial Greffier of Jersey, whicii are givcii rcspcct-
ivcly as Annexes A I53, lj5 a~~dIj6 to the kcply. 7'hescafid;i~~itsshoitr.
I submit, tlecisi\.ely, a iiiatter ofJersey Inw, that the AIintluiers, and
equaLly tlie Ecréhoiis, arc witliin tlie bailiwick of Jersey, and that tlie
holding of iiiquestç, the esercise of criniiiiiil jiirisi.ljction ;irid similar
matters, rirecarricd out on thaf basis and tliat basis aione-for jersey
law pcriiiits rio other.Thcy arc tlierelore unc~uestionabl~~csercises uf
territori;il arid iiot personal juriçdictioT.siibmit thrit, in these circuili-
stances, the fact tliasome of these iicts could, i~tidercertain legiil systeiiis,
or as a rnattcr of gencral inter1iation:il law, be carried out ratiolto pevso~cta,
is irrelevant, forthe Jersey jurisdiction v-as in fact exercised on a terri-
torial basis. 1belie\.e, for instancetliat,uiider the Frciich systeni, juris-
diction cati often bc exercised ovcr persoris of I'reiich natinriality iii
respect of tkings done by them wiiile abroad. Hiitin Jersey tlie basis of
jurisdiction is purely territorial : there is no persoiial elenient.
'I'his,1submit, disposes ofour oliponeiits' argument. But i must also
;isk wl~at it isthey mean to suggest by thc pllrase iri the 1insç:lgefrorii ORAL ;\KGUJIEN?. 01' .\Ir. IIAKKISOS (u.K,)-24 IS 53 179
tlicir Couriter-3leinori:tl whicli i read just nasv, in wkiiclithesay ttiatwe
lia\re not adduceci "aiiy act of jiirisdictioii yerfornlcd at the actual lilaces
in questioii wliicli would lia\.c in\rol\*etlterritorial jiirisdiction"Do orir
opportents meaii by this tliat we coulcl only said to esercise a terri-
torial j~irisclictiriiiover tlie 31iiic~ui~rsntid tlic I'lcrChuv~ciestahlislicd
coiirtsari the ?iliriqiiiers andthe Ecrhlioiis tlicinselves ? Do the 17rericlt
riiairitai:iset of cil4 aiid crinii~ial coiirts on tlie Chaiisey, anrl ori ewry
little islet off tlie 17rencltcoast ? 1 slioiild be irery sur~i~scclto fiild tliat
ttiey did. 'l'l-ievcriitc of cuiirt:Lriiiitter of :iclrniniçtratiïe çoii\-erii;rice
biit thc cliarncter of the jui.isdictiori escrcisecl by thosc courts clws
not depend on tlie 1oc:ition of the coiirt itself, but on the nature of the
proceedings.
1would noua like to.coiisidcr a little ruorc closelysume of the cases iii
wliich criniinal jiirisdiction, ~rrliich\ve sa\\,as;in assertion of territorial
jurisdiction, lias been eserciscd in respect of ttiese groups. Tlie first case
1take is tliat of the prosecution of George Koineril in 1826, to wliicli we
nttacli considerahle iiiiportancc.
'Ilierc :ire set niit in Annes .i80 two estrncts fro~n tlie liolls of the
I<oyil Coiirt of lersey sliowing that 12oii!erilw:ischarged by His Majesty's
httoniey-Generril \vit11Iiaving, nt tlie IScrélious,on the 26th Alay 1826,
riiilde :in :~ttetnpf on ttie life ofJohn McGras by stiooting nt liim with a
firearin loacled witl~ po~rdcr and sliot. 'l'lieclatc was, :LSI lia\-e said, tlic
26th 31;1>. 1826, and tlie Go\.ernnient of tlie Kepublic are unrible to
coirntcr tliishy in\.okiiig the allegecl critical date of 1839. Al1t1i:lt they
caii say by ~üy of reply, tlierefore,is (11.399 of their Countcr-klernoriril):
"I3iit,if tlie Court of Jersey dealt xiith acts coininittetl on tlicireefs
of tiic EcrCtious, it could only do sii because the partics coiicernecl
were 13ritisli. On tlie otlierhancl, the I'reiich Go\lcrnrnciit knows of
no case in which that coiirt has rlealt \vitli disputes hetween the
nuiiicrous 1;rencIi fishernien vrtio h;~i.e alnr:iys frerliieriterl the
islaricls,"
'fhese tu-Ostateri~erits, 1thiiik, cal1 for comiiient, becausc ttiey reveal
iriELstriking inaiincr tlie iveakiiess of tlie Frencti position. It rnust srrrely
be a niatter of coiisidernhle significance thnt tlie Royal Coiirt of Jersey
\v;is, in 1826 ,sercisiiig crimirial jurisdiction in respect of acts taliirig
place ori the EçrChous, when ttiis is coupled with ttic fact ttiat under
Jersey law tliis jr!risdiction could ?lofhave bccn escrcisecl, cl-en tliougli
tlie parties before the Court wcre Jerseymen, iiiiless tiie act had occurred
oii, so to speal;, Jersey tcrritory. Tliis is tlie point whicli the 1;rcncti ohjcc-
tion in iio way clisposes of.
As regards the stateiiient thnt the I'rencli Gover~iinent kiio\vs of iio
c:ise in which ttic Court i~fJcrsej- h;isdealt rr*ithdisputes I~etween tlie
!iulnerous lirericli fislicriiicn wlio have nlways ireqaerited tlie islands, tlic
assumptioiis of fact Iiere madc reyrcsent a çonsiderrtblc esxgi;er:ition.
Wliere is the e\.idence of tliese riiimeruuç disputes-and, if there were
ctispiites,as the 1;rericli stntcincnt iniplies, how werc tlicy iii fact dealt
with ? \\'ere the- brouglit beforc I;rcnch courts ? And where is the
e\.idence of ttiat ? This rnetliod of ttttacking the significance of the
evitlence iii sul~ptirt of ciur c1;iirrithxt wc psoduceisinadetliiate, because
OUT oppoi~ents produce iio e~.idencc of thcir ourn. Tliey produce rio
e\.idence to shpw that aiLjfFrench court has ever dealt witli niry case
arisiiig :it the Ecréhous or the Minqiliers. \Ve :it least cnn sliri\v that the Jersey courts lia\-e clealt mitli 'such cases-:incltliat they have been
dving so for a long time.
'l.)iis position undei- Jersey laiv is \,ery ancient, :ind to mc, as Her
. JInjesty's Omcer in Jersey charged with the prosecution of oflenders,
the French stntemcnt regarding the Konlerilcase, tlqt if tlie Court of
Jersey dealt with acts committed on the reefs of the Ecréhous, it coiild
only do sci bccause the parties concerned were British, is ;istonishiiig.
1 have already mentioned tlic affidavit of >Ir. C. \V. Diiret Autin,
mv imrnecliate predecessor in office. In that affidavit (Annex -4 153).
he rcfers to the Constitutions of King John, wfiich themselves are
set outiliexteitsoin Annes -4 1j4. It iç true that the original of these
Constitiitiuns has Ixen lost, but they are estant in aii lntlricst of his
soli, Henry III,~vl-iichrecites and confims thern. They are, moreover,
regnrcled by al1 true Jerseymen as sacrcd. Hu tliese Coiistitulions,
King John constitiitedtwelvc coroners sworn (jzrvntos)to keep the
yleas aiid rights pertaining to the Croivn. Tliese ti~elïre-1 am qnoting
froni tlie test submittcd on pagc 603 oi volumc 1:
"....are to judge toiichirig al1 cases iri the said Island, howsoever
nrising, escept Cases that are too difficult, as when anj7 shall be
latvfiilly convicted, as n Traitor, of having departed from his
1-oyalty to thc Lord the King, or of having laid violent hands
upon the Ninisters of the Lord the King wlicn exercjsing tlicir
Office in a lawful manncr".
The jurisdictionthus conferrecl upon the Court does iiot, says Nr. Duret
, .Auliin, estend to causes arising outside the bajliwick, aiid therefore
the Royal Court of Jersey has iio jurisdiction in the matter of a
crimiilal offence committed outside the bailiwick, eïren though that
offeiice bc committcd by a British. subject domiciled or ordinarily
resident ivithin the bailiwick. 1 have mysclf, Mr. President, bcen a
Law Officer of the Cro\~n in Jcrsep for 17 years. 1 was previously,
fur eleven ycars, a rnember of the Jersey Bar, practising in the Koyal
Coiirt of Jersey. 1 may perhaps, thcrefore, be permitted to Say that
1 am in cornplete agreement with >Ir. Duret Aubin as to the extent
aiid limits of the jurisdictiori of the Royal Court of Jersey.. As the
Officerof the Crown chargcd with the prosecution of offenders, it is
to me quite unthinkable that 1 should institute criminal proceedings
against anybody for an offence committed outsidc the bailiwick or,
iiidced, that any ofmy predecessors in ofice couId ever have donc so.
Xow, it so happens, Mr. President, that evidence is ltvailable as
to the opinion on this matter of thc man who, in 1826, was Attorney-
Gciieral of Jersey, and responsible for the prosecution of George
Komeril. 'l'hat man was hZr. (later Sir) Thomas Le Breton, who, having
practised as an Advocate in the Royal Court of Jersey from the year
~Srz, was nppointed Attorney-Gencral in 1823 and held that office
iintil 1848, when he was appointed I3ailiff of jersey.
Commissioners were aypoiiited by Her Late Majesty Quceii Victoria,
in 1846, to cnquire into the state of the criminal iaw in the Channel
Islands, and among those who were in due course examined by the
Commissianers was Nr. Le Breton. The lieport of the Commissioners
\vas publishcd in 1847, and the following is an extract from the
Minrrtes of Evidence taken before the Commissioners (p. 221), being
one of the questions put to and the answer given by Mr. 'Thomas Le
Breton on the 17th September 1846: ORAL ..ZKGU)IEHT OF >Ir. HAKKISOS (u.I.;.)-7I4N 53 181
"Question 2j3j. iVhat do yoii consider to be the usual juris,
diction of the Island 7 Answer : 1 should thiilk, ifa crime were
committed in the bays or creeks of the Island, or upon any srnaIl
rock or island which had alyags been consiclercd as forming part
of this IsI:ind, such as tlie Ecrého."
Ur. Le Breton was not the only Jersey lawyer of standing of that
periad to hold the same opinion. A Iurther Commission was appointed
by 1-Ier Late hlajesty Queen Victoria in 1859, its mission beiiig "to
inquire into the civil, municipal and ecclcsiastical laws of the island
of lersey". The Report of the Commissioners, together with the Minutes
of the evidence taken before them, was publiçhed iii 1861, and incliided
in the evidence, on pages 6j to 70, \vas that of 3fr. Mugh Godfray,
the senior solicito(écrivain)of the Royal Court of Jersey.The following
is an estract from the hlinutcs of Evidencc. &Ir. Godfray was asked
by Sir John Awdry, the Chairman of the Commissioners, how far'
and in what directions Jersey jurisdiction extended. 3Ir. Godfray's
nnswer was :
8....al1rotind. lt i: geilerally understood that the islands called
the 3Iinquais. the Ecréhoç, the Birouilles, and the Paternosters
are depenclencies of Jersey, and, thercfore, that the jurisdiction
of the court extends to those limits. Ihave known cases arising
at places irithin the limits1 have deçcribed, brought hefore the
coiirt as i\dmiralty cases."
The nest question and answcr was :
. "1Go7. Are any of thosc islaiidî inhabited, or did those cases
arise from a merely accidental landing there by fif?çhermcnr other .
perçons ? Xnswer : Upon the blinquais and the Ecréhris there rire
severnl houses which belong to sonie of the inhabitants of this
island, wherc .they resort to fish and for vraic."
Here, then, Nr,. President, is evidcnce to show tfiat, in 1846 and
1859, eminent Jersey lawyers were giving it as their opinion to Commis-
sions appointed by their Sovereign tliat tlie Minquiers and the Ecréhous
were dependencies of jersey.
'The case of George Komeril is ~ot the oiily one of a prosecution in
Jersey for an offence comniittetl oii tlie &créhou~.Pliilippe Pinel himseIf,
in spite of his esalted titleLE Roi des Ecré~zous w,as,as Anne.: A 173
in our additional volurne shows, prcsented before the Jersey Police
Court (Cozrr porlr la rifiressiorr des moi~zdrdélit s) the 23rd July
1881, by the constable of the paris11of St. 'rIartin, on a charge of having,
on the ~3rd Jurie 1881, "grassi&rernentinsulté, sansla moindre provo-
\-ation, Henry Charles Bertrain, Ecr., sous-agent des Iinpots [sic],
celui-ci Ctant siir les devoirs de sa chargeau Blanccl île, un des îlots
des EcrBhos appartenant et cldpendnnt de la paroisse dc St. Martin"
-Le. "of having, on the 23rd june 1881, grossly insulted, withoiit the
slightest provocation, Henry Charles Bertram, the Sub-Agent of the
Impôts [that is to Say, the Ciistoms Officer], whilst the latter was in
the discharge of Iiisdutics, Rlancq Île, one of the is1etsof the Ecréhous,
belonging to and dependent on the Parish of St. Alartin". Hc \vas fined
one pouncl sterling, with the alternative of four days' imprisonment. Again. oii the zznd Februar'; 1913, Frank Billot (as will be seeri froiii
Annes t\ 17j) was preseiited before the Royal Court of Jersey on an
indictnient chargiiig liim with liri~ring, during the mont11 of January
1913, broken into the house occiipied by Regirialci Raoul Lemprière.
the Seigtieur of Izozel. He was cliarged with larceny froin that hoiise
of a quantity of foodstuffs. liner1 and otlicr effects ;'lie pleaded "Kat
Guilty" ; he was committed for trial at tlie Crimin:il Assize, where lie
was found guilty zirid W;LS senteiicerl to sis rnontlis' iinpi-isoninent witli
liard Iritiour.
Xgairi, or1 tlic8th October rgzr (Aiirics :\ 176)~ tii'oriieri,George
Francis I,eïrée,alias Gcorgc Hiieliii, and Cliarles Henry hliller, wcre
presented before the Koyül Court of jersey on ari indictrneiit charging
tliern with Iiavii~ç, duririg the night uf tlie Sthlgtli Septeiriber.rgzr,
stolen a boat froni its nioorings in 13ouley I3ay-waliicti is one of tiie bays
o~ithc riorth coast of ttic island of Jersey-ari? witli li;i\ring, oii tlie
folloiving ~iight, bruken iiito tlic housc at the EcrCIious beloriging to
the Custoiiis .4uthority, and witli having stolen certain provisions fro~ii
that housc. They pleaded "Giiilty", and they \r.ei-erespecti\~ely seiitcriced
to iiii~rrtonths' and fi\.e ~iiontlis' inilirisonmerit with liard labour.
Iii additioii to tlicscases, Mr. President, thcre are t~voothers wliicli
fiarc recently becn brought to rny notice riiidwliich 1 thitik will be of
iiitcrcst to the Court. l'lic first of tlieskvas the crise in jirhich Charles
13lanipied. who was alniost certainly n Rozel fisherman and one of
those refcrred to in tlie affida\,it of >Ir. J. T. Becquet (reliroduced as
Arines A 106), w:içpreseiited before tlie I'olice Court on tlic Ijth Uecem-
ber 1883, charged witli Iiaving, or1 tlie ~Gtti Novembcr 1883, being
then at the Ecrélious, insulted Henry C. 1:ertrarii-by calling liirra
"dainiied liar" ;tnda "bloody liar". The Court will renienil~cr, iiicitlen-
tally, tli:it it w:is thiç saine Mr. I3ertrain, Sub-.4g,eofttlie Impbtç, wiio
lincl aroust:d the ire of I'liilippc Pinel (roi des Ecrkhous) iri 1881. We
do not of course know wtiat it w:is that tlius provoked the111to wrath,
but it is not difficult to tliink tifa reason. Itis at any rntc clear that
there wis dcgree of vigilarice n\.er the Ecrélious in tliose dayç in
relatioii to custonis, aricl 1 rno~iltircniind the Court ttiat "thoçe clays"
wcre 1881 and ISSJ, before tlie date on wliich tlic Frencli first made
a forinal claim to sox-ereignty oixr the Ecriilious. rlliart froin its bcnring
on the cliic.stioriof jurisdictioii, I.his caiç,1 think, intercsting in that
the taiiguage attributed to the nccuscd wris.if I itiay say so, good lionest
Englisli aiid nat quitc the laiigiiage that one \\+ould csliect from a
1;renchinnii.
Tlie utficrcase isonc uf 1891. On tiic 12th A~igust of tli;it year four
men, Jean Léon Besnartl, sori of Joscpli, Augiistc Louis De Caus,
Alfred Fraricis Gibaut aiid Jeaii Pierre Désir6 1'3uhot, were cliarged
by the constablc of St. hi:~rtii~\i.itli Iiavirig, on tlic aznd and 23rd July
1891, "tiiiMaître Jle cles Ecrcticis appartenant ct depeiid;tnt [sic] de
la paroisse de St. Martiii", committed offences ngaiilst the Ganic I,an-S.
Onc of tliem, Bcsiiard, w:is founcl guilty aiid a sriiall fine wns irnposed.
Tlie otlicrs werc discli~irgccl for lack of proof. 13ut tlic particularly
interestiiig poirit about tliis case is tlie fact tli:lone of the persons
charged, Buhot, was a native of l'ortbail, France. In tliis case, there-
fore, 3lr. l'resideiit, we find oiic of the Jcrsev courts csercising juris-
diction over ci Frenchmnn ii-i respect of offences against the laws of
Jersey alleged to Iiave bccn coinmitted on territory wliicli tlie Govern- ORAL ARGUhlENT OF MT.HARRISON (u.K.)-24 IX 53 . 183
ment of the Republic say was at that time-and in fact aIways has
been-French. If the other cases to which 1 have referred were not
sufficient to dispose of the French argument that the Jersey author-
ities exercised jurisdiction in respect of offences committed at the
Écréhous ratione +ersona. this last case must surely do so.
1 have with me here, Mr. President, photostat copies of the relevant
Jersey records, and 1 will hand them to the Registry. 1 will also, of
course, hand copies to my friend M. Gros.
I submit that the exercise of jurisdictionby the Courts of Jersey
in these cases, necessarily on a territorialbasis as I have described,
was a clear and unequivocal act of sovereignty, or, to use the words
of the Government of the Repubiic on page 721 of their Rejoinder, a
"sufficiently unmistakable assertion" of sovereignty.
So far as the Minquiers are conccrned, our records do not show
evidence of any offence having been committed there, but we can '
provicie evidence of another type of case occurring within the period
with which 1 am dealing, another type of case in which the Royal
Court of Jersey exercised jurisdiction in respect of something taking
place at the Minquiers. 1 refer once again to the two salvage cases
that were heard in 1811 and 1817, which figure as Annexes A 164 and
A 165 in the Additional Volume. Of course, our opponents will point
out that, again, the parties were al1Jerseymen. Nevertheless, it remains
the fact that in Jersey the basis of salvage jurisdiction is territorial.
If the wreck had not been found at the Minquiers-that is to say at
a place regarded as Jersey terntory, so to speak-the Court would
not have taken cognizance of these cases.
1have now terminated m review of the British acts in the exercise
of çovereignty, and of the Yong standing Jersey connection with the
Minquiers and the Ecréhous during the period Iam dealing with.Before
1 pass on to cornparc the French acts, Iwould ask the Court, in the
light of al1 the evidence of the British acts which we have given and
which I have reviewed, what value can be attached to the concIusion
that appears on page 722 of the Frencli Rejoinder, and whichI willread :
"...the Government of the Kepublic concludes that the said acts
were either devoid of significance or were too infrequent and too
intermittent to entitle the United Kingdom Governrnent to daim
continuous possession, exempt from any legal defect".
The only comment 1 will mnke on that-certainly very courageous-
statement is that, suppose it to be true, what becomes of the French
claim ? For ifour acts are devoid of significance, infrequent and inter-
mittent, what of the French acts ? The Court will he told in amoment
what they amount to. 1 suggest that we see here that element of tfie
French case to which Sir Lionel Heald drew such pointed attention-
namely, the pretension that it is iiot necessary for France to show any
specifrc exercise of sovereignty over the groups, because a FrenchKing
was once the feudal overlord of a Duke of Normandy, and therefore
France hasbeen sovereign ever since ! Our answer to this is that if France
is sovereign to-day, there must be some evidence of the exercise of French
sovereignty. But what evidence of it is there Let us see what concrete
acts France can i? fact put forward.
As regards the Ecréhous, the answer isvery simple.It can be given in
one word. None. Not one single act whatsoever is put fonvard by France
13in the period I am dealing with. There is really,1think, no more to be
said about the Ecréhous.
As regards the Minquiers, the position is substantially the same,but
the Government of the Republic do advance three acts, or corisiderations
rather-they can scarcely be called acts-as manifestations of sover-
eignty. These, asstated on page 401 of the Counter-Mernorial, are :
First-the supposed indisputable fact that she (France) assumed the
sole charge of the lighting and buoying of the islands (Minquiers) for
more than seventy-five years withaut having encountered any objection
on the part of the British Government ;
Secondly-the claim that iwas a Frenchman, M. Beautemps-Beaupré,
and not Captain Martin White, who made the first hydrographic survey
of the Minquiers group in rS3r ; and
Tltirdly-the claim that a French mission appointed to make a hydro-
graphie survey of the Minquiers in 1888 erected provisional beacons on
them to facilitate the survey.
Now, as to the first of these claims, there may be some question as
to whether any of the buoys placed by the French authorities in the
vicinity of the Minquiers are within the territorial waters of the Minquiers.
What is certain-in fact "indisputable"-is that not one of them is witiiin
three miles of any ofthe main islets or ofany of the main rocks, that is
to Say, rocks which are ncver entirely covercd by the sea. The way in
lvhich these buoqs are placed makes itquite clear that the principal
object of putting them there was to ensure that shipping should be
warned to keep away from the Minquiers ! The buoys were, in fact,
designed to aid navigation into and outof the French ports-principally
of St. Rlalo and Granville.
90 buoys or beacons of any kind have ever been placed within the
Minquiers reef itseif (that is to say, on the plateau) by the French
authorities. Every buoy and beacon within that reef-and there are a
considerable number of them-was placed there by the Jersey author-
ities-and itisthese buoys and beacons, not the French ones, whichcon-
stitute thereal aidsto the navigation of the Minquiers reef itself.
1 come iiow, hIr.President, to the second claim advanced by the
Government of the Republic, namely that it was a Frenchman,
JI. Beauternpç-Beaupré, and not Captain Martin White, u>ho made
the first hydrographic survey of the Minquiers group in 1831, and
as to that claim, 1would only point out that, having originally asserted
that it was hl. Beautemps-Beaupré who made the first hydrographic
survey in 1531 ,nd finding thernselves faced with the fact that Captain
Martin White made his survey in 1813 to 1815 ,l1 that our opponcnts
are now able to say is that the fact that White's survey was of earlier
date is without significance.(1 refer the Court to p. 724 of the French
Rejoinder.) But if so, then surely so also is the fact tIf. Beautcmps-
Beaupré's survey was carried out some 15 years later. Why greater
significance shoiildbe attrjbuted to the later of two events so near
the time, 1 do not know. 1 would venture to observe, however, that
Captain White's survey has at least this significance-that it shows
that the categorical statement made in the French Counter-Nemarial, ORAL ARGUMENT OF Mr. HARRISON (v.K.)-24 IX 53
185
denying Our claim that it waç Captain Martin White who made the
first hydrographic survey of the Minquiers, is incorrect, Moreover, as
1 have said, if the fact that Captain Martin White was the first to
make a survey of that area is without significance, then one of the
only three "faits de possession", acts of possession, advanced by the
Governrncnt of the Republic, must itself be "without significance".
We for our part do not claim any special significance for Captain
White's survey, standing by itself. It is as partof a general picture
that ithas significance ; and it is precisely this general picture which
islacking on the French side.
As to the fact that a French mission was charged to make a hydro-
graphie survcy of the Minquiers in 1888, and that this constituted
"un fait de posçesçion", 1 do not think that I need do more than Say
that, in August of this very same year, 1888, in the spring of which
the French party had been to the Minquiers, an officia1 visit to the
group was made by the Jersey Piers and Harbours Committee, who,
as 1 showed in my earlier reference to thisincident, were well aware
of the French visit. It was this visit by the Piers and Warbours Com-
mittee that drew forth for the frrst time the assertion of French
sovereignty made in &Ir. Waddington's note to Lord Salisbury of
August zyth, 1888, which appears as Annex A 53 to the Memorial.
Lord Salisbury's reply of November zrst is given as Annex A 54, and
its salient features are described in paragraphs101-103 of the Memorial,
and in paragraph 238 of the Reply. It asserted British sovereignty,
and it contained a full statement of the British grounds of title, both '
factual and historical. It took no formal objection to the French
survey, but it made it quite clear that, in the circumstances, it could
not be cited as proof of French sovereignty.
No reply was received to .this note.
We claim, therefore, that thcse isolated actrelative to theNinquiers
were neither properly in the nature of exercises of sovereignty, nor
evidence of its existence on the part of France. In any case, we claim .
that they are in no way comparable, either in bulk or in character,
tvith the numerous British acts, most of them involving actual admin-
istration and the exercise of jurisdiction. And 1 would remind the
Court once more that, as regards the Ecréhous, no French acts ai
al1 are advanced.
1 hope 1 have succeecled in demonstrating the enormous difference
between the French and the British-that is to Say in effect the Jersey
-positions, and 1 venture to conclude my cornparison as follows.
If the test of sovereignty isthe will and intention to act as sovcreign,
coupled with a display of sovereign authority, such will and intention
kas clearly been exhibited by Jersey and camed fully into effect-
not with any view to establishing sovereignty denom, but in the routine
exercise of a sovereignty always regarded as ours. It is al50 the Jersey
authorities who have assumed and discharged the responsibilities of
a sovercign and have incurred and discharged the resulting financial
liabilities.
Of France it can only be said, I think, tliat whether she had in fact
the wiIl and intention to act as sovereign, she has not evidenccd that
will and intention by any actuaI-certainly not by any sufficient-
exercise or display of sovereign right. France may have had the will
and intention to contest the British claim to sovereignty so far as she186 ORAL ARCUhtEST OF hlr.HARRISON (u.K,)-24 IX j3
couid. She has not evidenced the will and intention to exercisc sover-
eignty herself, or to discharge the responsibilities of sovereigntAgain,
1 would draw attention to the marked contrast between the French
actions in relation to the Chausey, and tlieir acçians-or ratherlack of
actions-in relation to the Minquiers and the Ecréhous. The Govern-
ment of the Kepublic may from time to time have made a formal
diplornatic protest about the Minquiers.and the &créhous, but in prac-
tice it has undoubtedly left them to us, just ris we have lcft the
Chausey to them.
Iconie now, hlr. President, to the sixth and final part of my speech-
that in which 1 will deal with the French project "for the installation
of tidal powcr plants in the Ray of Mont St. Michel and in the region
of the AlinqriiersArchipelago" (p. 731).
The Court will no doubt have çtudied the broad outlines of this
project, as set out in Annexes I and II to the French Kejoinder, and
the Court rvill have observed that the plan appears to comprise three
separate projects. The first is for the construction of a barrage on the
river Rance, uystrenm of St. Servan and Dinard ; the second is for
the construction of a dam joining Cancale to Granville via the Chausey ;
the third is for the construction of a dam connecting Cap Fréhel with
the Minquiers.
We have consulted expert opinion concerning these projects, and
\ve are advised that it is perfcctly true,asthe French Kejoinder says,
that they arc not engineer's dreams, but practical projects. Even the
most ambitious of the three projects, we are told, is technically feasi-
ble, although a nurnber of practical difficulties would have to be
solved ; but we are informcd that the cost would be so enormous as
to make it highly debatable whether the project would be a financial
possibility, atany rate in the foreseeable future. 1mention thesc points
in order simply to show that we have given this matter serious and
objective consideration. But having done so, 1 must ask-and 1 fecl
1 am entitled to put the question biuntly-whab, as a matter of law,
has this to do with the issue which is now before the Court ? 1 submit
that the considerations raised by these projects are not legal consider-
ations, such as aione this Court is able to deal with or take into
account : they are rnatters which might properly form the subject
of negotiations between the two countries, or bc taken into sccount
by a Comniission of Conciliation orEnquiry-but they arenot, I submit,
matters for a Court of Law. I will just observe in passing that, although
these projects must evidently have becn under contemplation for
some time on the French side, no mention of them \vasmade in the
negotiations leading up to the Compromis, or even in the French
Caunter-Rlemorial. The matter was introduced for the first time in
the Rejoinder, evidentl as an attempt to give some miicb-needcd
substance to the French claim.
It is therefore difficult to regard the matter of these hydro-electric
projects in any othcr ligl~t thanas an attempt to confuse the issue
before the Court, by importing into it at the last moment considerations
of an ob~~iouslyextra-legal character, and we may be fairly sure that
the distinguished jurists whom Our opponents number amongst tlieir
advisers are not happy at this importation and heartily wisli tliat the
French claim were strong enough, on the lcgal side, to enable them to
dispense with it. ORAL -4RGUlIEST OF .\IrHARRISOS (u.K.)-24 IX 53 137
Let me now consider, Mr. President, how tIiisFrench point is put.
1 cite two paragraphs from page 728 of the Rejoinder. They read as
follows :
"It has already been represented that the dismemberment of
French sovereignty resulting from the transfer of the outer Anglo-
Norman islands to a foreign sovereignty ought- not to be extended
any further without absolute necessity and without consideration
of the practical consequences. The Bay of Cotentin is, as everyone
knows, one of the maritime areas in which the tides attnin their
greateçt developmerit."
Pausing there, 1 am sure the Court will not be deceived by this
reierenceto the clismemberment ofFrench sovereignty. The connection
both in time and in character between this and these hydro-electric
projects is, to Say the least of it, remoIn any case, as we have pointed
out earlier, there has bcen no dismemberrnent of French sovereignty.
The boot is rather on the other foot.
The second passage, on page 728 of the Rejojnder, after describing the
projects, continues :
"This fact affordsclear evidence that the link with the Continent
esists ; that it is not a iink resulting simply from position or conti-
guity, without practical effect. The geographical dependency, in
the present case, is not confined in itseffects to a mere possibility,
open to both Parties, of instituting a locfishing industry, howevcr
useful that might be. When considered in relation to the Continent
the geographical dependcncy openç the door to possibilities infi-
nitely greater than could be offered by any association with the
islands."
'ïhe Coiirt will have no dificulty in seejng that tliis contention;
especially the 1st phrase of it, amounts to a plea, not that the Min:
quiers are French in law, but that as a matter of political equity they
oughtto be-but this is:ipurely political plea. The Court is being asked
to lend itçelf to bringing about what would, in effect, be a cession or
transfer of temtory under the guise of a judiciai decision as to title.
Furthemore, by means of this plea, the Government of the Republic
is really asking the Court to award France the Minquiers because the
realization of tliese hydro-electric projects would be for the benefit of
France, and-this iç the implication-unless the Minquiers are awarded
to France, the Governnient ofthe Kepublic may not beable to carry
these projects out.1 am sorry to put it sobluntly, but the matter of these
projects is so irrelevant juridically, that 1 can see no othway in which
it could affect the issue. Alternatively, the suggestion is that France
should be awarded the &linquiers because France can make a better use
of thern than will be the case ifthey remain part of or associated with
the Channel Islands. But, of course, this amounts to asking the Court
to act as an arbitrator or assessor, or as a Commission of Adjustment-.
not as a Court of Law. Such arguments, I suggest, are a measure of the
weakness of the French position, and virtually an admission that France
has not got the sovereignty, coupled with a plea that France ought to
have it. 1 am therefore authorized, Mr. President, on behalf of the
United Kingdom Government and the States of Jersey, to tel1the Court
two things.188 ORAL ARGUMENT OF Mr. WARRISOS (u.K.)-24 IX 53
The first is that, in our view, these projects-the realization of which,
subject to suitable safeguards and arrangements, both the United King-
dom and Jersey woiild gladly CO-operate-wadd not inany case-that
is to Say, even if the Ilinquiers belonged to France-be such as the
Government of the Republic could carry out entirely as of right, and
without reference to the position of other countrieIn the first place they,
or at any rate the second and third of them, could not fail to involve
interference with fishing at the MinquiersLand the Court will rernernber
that both Parties now have certain fishery rights there, irrespective of
the decision on savereignty. In addition, as the Court will see from the
sketch plan on page 730 of the French text oftheRejoinder, theseprojects
Involve the construction of dams across areas ofhigh seas,of the breadth
of ten or twenty miles, so that the possibility of interference witnavi-
gation, passage and other rnatters must arise, which would give other
countries a right tobe consulted. And it might wellbe that these projects
would need a considerable measure of international agreement before
they could validly be put into effect. Equally, the interference with the
free flow of the tides, which of course is the whole purpose of these pro-
jects, niight create otherprobleins. For instance we are advised by our
technical experts that the project s might well intensify our problenis iii
Jersey by causing the increased silting up of our harbours-already a
problem.It rniglialso cause otlierdificnlt iuch aswould involve us
in a very great deal of expense.
The Court will therefore see that, even if the Minquiers belonged
to France now, or were awarded to France by the Court, it would in
no way follow that these projects could be carried out by France
without the consent and CO-operation of other countries. But this
being said, may I impart my second piece of information, which is
this :that, subject to the necessary safeguards, we would not dream
of using our sovereignty over the Minquiers to impede or obstruct
the realization of hydro-electric projectsthat might be to the benefit
of France. I am authorized to declare on behaif of Her BfajestyJs
Government ihat any approach on this matter would receive sym-
pathetic and interested consideration, and, subject to suitable arrange-
ments, our fullest CO-operation.
In short, Mr. President, there is no need to award the Minquiers
to France in order to render these projects possible of realization, if
this is what our opponents are trying tosuggest to the Court ;but 1
am confident that the Court would in any case refuse to act on such
a basis.
I now corne, Mr. President, to the final passage of my staternent.
If our opponents are entitled to ask the Court to award the Minquiers
to France because of the supposed effect that not doing so might have
on future French hydro-electric projects, perhaps 1 might be allowed
to remind the ,Court of the effect that an award, whether of the Min-
quiers or the Ecréhous, in Javoirrof France would have, not on future
and possibly hypothetical projects, but now and to-day ; not on dams
and installations and electrical machinery, but on men and their
livelihood and habitations. Of course, 1 know that, in form, an award
in favour of France would be a finding that France was the rightful
sovereign : nevertheless, the practical effectin the present case would
be indistinguishablc from a cession of territory-a partition of the
bailiwick of Jersey and n transfer ofa portion of it to France. Indeed, ORAL ARGUMENT OF Mr. HARRISON (u.K.)-24 IX 53 189
it would have to be followed by arrangements between the two
countries about the buildings and constructions on the islands and
about other matters, very similar to those which are normally made
or provided by treaty when an actual cession of territory takes place.
For this is not a case of virgin territory where no man lives and no
law runs. No one can doubt, on the evidence we have given, that the
existing law of the groups is Jersey law. French law and jurisdiction
would have to replace an existing Jersey laxv and jurisdiction. As Sir
Lionel Heald pointed out in his speech, al1the Jerseymen whose names
and properties are listed in the affidavit of Mr. Furzer (to which I
have several times referred) would find that in respect of their holdings
on the groups and contrary to what they have always believed, they
were subject to French law ; that their property was on French and
not British soi1; that their existing title deeds were invalid ; that
they could only go to their property as .to a foreign country ; and'
that they would be subject there to the criminal, fiscal and other laws
of France.
But I fiad ithard to believe that the Court will at alreadilyreach a
conclusion which must result in the artificial consequence of awarding
to France territory on which no Frenchman has ever lived, over which
no French authority has ever been exercised, and in which French law,
whether public or private, has never been applied :and in this connec-
tion, Mr. President,I would ask the Court to bear in mind the following
passage from the award in the Grisbadurnacase (James Brown Scott's
Re+wts of Hague Court Cases,at p.130) :
"....it isa settled principle of thelaw of nations that a state of
things which actually existsand has existed for along time should
be changed aslittle as possible",
and
"This rule is specially applicable ina case of private interests
which, if onceneglected, can not be effectively safeguarded by any
rnanner of sacrifice on the part of the government of which the
interested parties are subjec...."
May 1be yermitted, Mr. President, to conclude my address by paying,
on behalf of the island xvhickI have the honour to represent, a tribute
to Sir Lionel Heald, Mr. Fitzmaurice, Mr. Best-the Agent-and the
other members of the United Kingdom delegation. Regarding thiscase
as we do, as primarilyours, we appreciate most warmly the vey keen
interest that they have displayed in this caseand the great energy and,
if I may Say so, skill, which they have devoted to itspreparation and
presentation : and may my last word be, speaking for myself, that 1
count myself very highly privileged in having been associated with them. 5. PLAIDOIRIE DE M. LE PROFESSEUR GROS
(AGENT DU GOUVERNEMENT DE LA RÉPUBLIQUE FR~~XÇAISE)
AUX SÉANCES PUBLIQUES DU 28 AU 30 SEPTEhlBRE 1953
[Séancepublique du 28 septembre1953, matin]
Monsieur le Président, Messieurs de la Cour,
La Cour est la seule institution internationaledevant lacluelle les
États saisissent véritablement le sens du pouvoir de la communauté
internationale, car le juge est leseul organe de cette communauté
intepationale dont les décisions ne peuvent pas être contestées par
les Etats, puisque ses décisions sont fondées sur le droit, puisqu'elles
sont le droit. C'est toujours dans un sentiment de confiance et de respect
profond que les Etats qui croient en la justice se présentent devant la
Cour.
Dans la présente affaire, le Gouvernement de la République éprouve
encore un autre sentiment, celui de rencontrer non pas un adversaire,
mais un ami. La Cour me permettra de m'associer ?I M. l'Attorney-
General lorsqu'il constate les progrès accomplis dans les relations inter-
nationales entre l'époque - encore si proche de nous - où les conflits
de souyeraineté territoriale se réglaient par les armes et le moment où
deux Etats viennent prier la Cour de leur dire à qui appartient la
souveraineté sur deux groupes d'îlots dont chacun, en toute bonne foi,
se croit investi.
Le délai mêmequi sépare le début de l'histoire du différend franco-
anglais sur les îlots dla Manche du point final que sera la décision de
la Cour, nous montre combien cependant les progrès de la justice inter-
nationale furent lents. Jamais, au cours d'une correspondance
diplomatiqiie qui fut abondante entre 1876 et 1914 ,'un ou l'autre des
gouvernements ne proposa l'arbitrage. 11aura fallu deux guerres faites
cdte à côte pour apaiser la crainte que l'amour-propre national ne
puisse supporter une décision contraire. Mais, malgré cet heureux
changement dans les rapports des peuples de nos deux pays, Ia Cour
aura noté,clans Ies paroles inaugurales dM. I'Attorney-General, comme
dans l'exposé de 31. l'Attorney-General de Jersey, que les sentiments
étaient encore vifs, et on ne nous a pas caché ((l'impatience 11des
Jersiaisà voir contester leur prétention.
Du cdté français il en est de même,et si nos pêcheurs sont moins
favorisés que les pêcheurs jersiais qui ont trouvé pour les représenter
les plus grands talents du Royaume-Uni, c'est en leur nom, c'est pour
eux, les pêcheurs de Saint-Malo, de Granville, de Carteret, de Camaret
et de Chausey, que le Gouvernement de la République a saisi la Cour
afin de faire reconnaitre qu'ils ont raison lorsqu'ils disentces rochers
sont a nous i).
Différend sur de petits îlots mais pas sur de petits sentiments.
IIm'est donc agréable de remercier les avocats du Royaume-Uni
de la mesure de leurs exposéset de l'amitié qu'ils ont témojgnéevis-
à-vis de l'autre Partie. PLAIDOIRIE DE 31.LE PROF. .GROS (FRANCE) - 28 1X 53 191
Sans doute, selon les mots de l'Attorney-General ils n'ont pas
épargnéles coups, mais l'attaque était loyale ; assiégéde quatre côtés
par des adversaires aussi éminents, la tâche du représentant du
Gouvernement de la République peut apparaître lourde. Elle le serait
si la cause de la France n'était pas bonne ; or ellel'est.
Lorsque nous entendons l'autre Partie exposer nos théses, nous
sommes toujours tentés de penser qu'une soudaine incompréhension
la saisit et que, seIon le vieil adage, cette traduction de nos idées est
en mêmetemps une trahison.
Mes collégues britanniques ont représenté la thèse française telle
qu'ils la voient ; la Cour me permettra de l'exposer telle qu'elle est.
Et avant tout, j'aimerais dissiper certains malentendus et réduire
à néant certaines légendes que mes collègues - en toute bonne foi,
cela va sans dire - ont crééset entretenus.'
Dans la présentation même (le notre thèse - clu'ils ont qualifiée
à plusieurs reprises de (<négative a , ils nous ont reproché de n'avoir
produit presque aucun document et de nous êtrecontentés de contester
la valeur des documents produits par le Gouvernement du Koyaume-
Uni. Singulier reproche en vérité!
Fallait-il réimprimer deux fois le texte dc chartes, de traités anciens
ou modernes, de lettres diplomatiques échangéesentre les représentants
de nos deux pays qui forment l'essentiel des annexes au mémoire du
. Royaume-Uni ? Celui qui remettait le premier mémoire avait publié
les testes. Quel curieux reproche de nous dire : ces textes ne sont pas
de vous. Paç de nous.... ! Ils sont à nous autant qu'à vous: à nous
l'acte de 1202 punissant votre roi par le nôtre ; à nous la((Gallia Chris-
tiana II,la cGaule chrétienne ii.Et je dirai plus : si ces textes sont
reproduits par le mémoire britannique en 1952, n'oublions pas que
tous les documents essentiels ont étéinvoqués pour la premiére fois en
1886 et par la France ! Dans le rapport des juristes français (annexe 42
au mémoire dii Royaume-Uni), au nombre desquels se trouvait un
homme dont la Cour n'a pas oubliéle nom : 31. Louis Renault. Et ces
trois juristes français connaissaient et utilisaient la charte de Pierre
des Préaux, l'arrêt de 1202, tous les actes anciens utilisés aujourd'hui
dans l'affaire.
Ces pièces ont étémises dans le dossicr par la France en 1886, le
Royaume-Uni le reconn;iît dans sa propre réponse (annexe A 47 au
mémoire du Royaume-Uni). Ceci, joint A la destruction de maintes
archives normandes au cours des guerres clui dévastèrent cette province,
sans parler de la dernière gucrre mondiale, explique la disproportion
entre les pièces écrites des deux Parties et renvoie à sa place ce qui
n'était sans doute qu'un argument de plaidoirie. Après avoir cru que.
tout océanétait britannique, faut-il que Ic Royaume-Uni imagine aussi
que toutes archives sont britanniques !
On nous a parlé avec émotion des pêcheursde Jersey qui attendent
anxieusement la décision de la Cour et ne peuvent imaginer qu'elle
puisse leur être défavorable. On nous a dit que ces pêcheurstirent des
îles litigieuses l'essentiel de leur subsistance et que les en priver serait
les condamner à mourir de faim ; on nous a décrit les abris construits
par ces pêcheurs aux Minquiers et aux Écréhous et que les Français 192 PLAIDOIRIE DE 31. LEPROF. GROS (FRANCE) - 28 IX 53
veulent maintenant leur ravir ; on nous a montrécomment les p@cheurs
français, qui n'allaient jamais dans ces parages avant 1940, s'y seraient
installés, en somme, A la faveur de l'occupation allemande ;on nous
a raconté qu'avant 1939aucun doute n'était possible sur le statut
juridique des îles et que sans la guerre le probleme n'aurait même
pas pu se poser devant le juge international ;on nous a dit enfin qu'Q
l'intérêtmoral et humain de Jersey la France n'opposait rien, si ce
n'est une prétention vide et un projet d'usine hydro-électrique brandi
A la derniére minute comme un instrument de pression sur la Cour.
Je dois dire avec regret que tout cela n'est pas conforme aux faits.
Pour l'affirmation que les pecheurs français ne fréquentent les îles
que depuis la guerre, nos amis britanniques auraient-ils vraiment
oublié les nombreux documents qu'ils ont eux-memes produits dans
leurs annexes nu mémoireet qui relatent des incidents survenus entre
les pêcheurs desdeus pays il y a déjà des dizaines d'années (annexes
A 50, A 51, p. 262-263) ? Pour l'affirmation qu'avant la guerre il n'y
avait guere cl!doutesur la situation juridique des îlots et que, néaprb
la guerre, le conflit venait pour cette raison aujourd'hui devant la Cour,
nos coIlégiiesne se souviendraient-ils plus de l'énormecorrespondance
diplomatique dans laquelle les deux Gouvernemeiits affirment, depuis
plus de quatre-vingts ans, leurs prétentions opposéesen ce qui concerne
ces îles? Pour l'affirmation de l'intérêt vitaldes pécheurs de Jersey
'dans cette affaire, le Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni n'a-t-il pas écrit
en toutes lettres dans son mémoire, paragraphe 178,et annexe A 139,
page 346, particuliérernent paragraphe Ij, que, depuis la fin de la
guerre, les pêcheurs professionnels de Jersey ne viennent plus pêcher
aux Minquiers où la pêchene leur semble plus assez rémunératrice ?
Le Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni ignore-t-il que les maisons de
deux îles sur trois aux Ecréhous appartiennent aujourd'hui à deux
riches estivants et non pas à de pauvres pêcheurs ? Simple affirmation
gratuite que les pêcheursfrançais qui, eux, continuent à fréquenter
les îlots n'ont guère d'intérêtmoral ou matériel Lis.auvegarder. Enfin,
peut-on vraiment comparer l'importance de l'intérètde l'île de Jersey
vis-&-vis de ces deux groupes d'îlots et celui de la France : la Cour
croira-t-elle vraiment que des villas d'estivants et quelques maisons
de pécheurs représentent un intérêtplus fondamental qu'uii projet
qui doublerait la production d'électricité actuellede la France ?
Mais il y a plus. Nos collèguesbritanniques ont essayé,tout au long
de leurs plaidoiries, de faire prévaloir l'idéeque, du moyen Lge à nos
ours, la France n'a exercé aucune souveraineté effective sur les iles.
k outes les preuves de souveraineté pour le Royaume-Uni, aucune
pour la France : ainsi pourrait-on résumer l'argumentation de mes
collégues.
(Toutes les preuves de souveraineté pour le Royaume-Uni »! De
.fait, M. l'Attorney-General a affirm é'existence d'une (véritable corn-
munauté britannique vivant ou possédant des biens aux Minquiers
et aux Ecréhous n,et Al. Harrison a, de son côté, insist sér les faits
de possession les plus variés, qui vont de l'inscription d'initiales sur
un rocher des Minquiers, qu'une science plus proche 1i la fois de la divi-
nation et de 1a.graphologie attribue à un habitant de Jersey - d ce
compte-là le Château de Versailles n'est plus français -, jusqu'aux
actes publics d'administration, en passant par le fait que des maisons PLAIDOIRIE DE M. LE PROF. GROS (FRANCE) - 28 lX 53 193
construites à Jersey aux xvrw et XVI!I~~ si&cleçl'ont étéen pierres,
analogues à celles que l'on trouve aux Ecréhous !
Si l'on essaie de se dégager de l'impression de «masse 11crééepar
lesconseils du Royaume-Uni, les choses prennent un aspect sensible-
ment différent. Prenons d'abord la période ancienne, jusqu'à la fin
du xv~i~mc siécle.
Quels faits de possession trouvons-nous du c6té britannique ? Rien
- je souligne : rien - en ce qui concerne les Minquiers ; quelques
documents assez obscurs pour les ficréhous, documents qui, nous le'
montrerons, n'ont absolument pas la portée qu'on leur prête. Dans
ces conditions, où donc est, pendant la période ancienne, cette pos-
session eflectivqui conférerait la souveraineté à l'Angleterre, soit en .
vertu du traité de 1259, soit en vertu des principes générauxdu droit
international ? Nos adversaires ont afirmé cette possession ; ils ne
l'ont pasle moins du monde démontrée. En ce qui concerne la période
récente, nous verrons que ces faits de possession si souvent cités n'ont
absolument pas la valeur probante que mes collégues leur prêtent :
souvent insignifiants, contestés par la France, ces faits ne peuvent
être apprécies qu'A la lumière de Ia convention du 2 août 1839 et
des controverses auxquelles elle a donné Iieu. C'est justement sur la
validité de ces faits, au regard du droit international - validité que
nous avons toujours contestée -, que la Cour est appelée à statuer.
Quant à l'affirmation de M. l'Attorney-Genera) qu'il y a une ((corn-
munauté britannique IIaux Minquiers et aux Ecréhous, elle est tel-
lement plaisante, surtaut en ce qui concerne les Minquiers, que les
photographies soumises à la Cour par le Gouvernement britannique
et auxquelles, si la Cour le permet, j'en ajouterai quelques-unes très
récentes, feront elles-mêmes justice de cette affirmation.
Mais la Cour se demandera peut-être pour quelles raisons les cabanes
de pêcheurs - abris occasionnels ou devenues, pour une bonne part,
résidences d'été - ont été édifiéespar des pêcheurs jersiais, et non
pas par des pêcheurs français. L'explication est très simple : du temps
de la navigation à voile, le régimedes vents et des courants permettait
aux pêcheursfrançais de regagner très facilement leurs ports par tous
temps, alors que les pêcheursde Jersey, dans l'impossibilité de rentrer
chez eux par mauvais vent, étaient obligés de se construire de petits
abris pour y attendre Ie moment du retour.
uAucune preuve de souverainet6 pour la France. 1)Sans doute, comme
je l'ai déjà dit, la destruction d'une bonne partie des archives normandes
pendant des siècles ne permet-elle pas de produire des documents
nombreux sur lapériode du moyen âge : mais la Cour constatera que
ce que nouç pouvons invoquer est encore supérieur L ce qu'invoque
le Royaume-Uni.
Quant B la période récente, les conseils du Royaume-Uni nous ont
mis au défi de produire des preuves effectives de notre souveraineté.
.Cedéfi,nouç le relevons. Pour avoir étéignorésde nos amis britanniques,
nos faits de possession n'en sont pas moins nombreux et importants
pour des rochers qui forment, selon le mot de Victor Hugo, une ((nudité
dans une solitude n.Nos pêcheurssont venus aux îles depuis un temps
immémorial, notre administration s'en est occupée, nos services en
assurent le balisage depuis 1865 pour les Minquiers, notre Président
du Conseil les a visités avant la guerre - et bien d'autres faits encore,
sur lesquels je reviendrai en détail ultérieurement. Mais il faut insister194 PLAIDOIRIE DE M. LE PROF. GROS (FRANCE) - 28 IX 53
quelques instants sur un point essentiel. De 1820 a 1950, la France a
manifesté un esprit de conciliation qu'on serait vraiment mal venu de
lui reprocher aujourd'hui : sacliant sa souveraineté contestée, elle n'a
pas voulu appliquer la politique du fait accompli et ,a maintenu la
controverse sur le plan des relations normales entre les Etats. En 1929,
par exemple, l'Administration française a annuIé le bail consenti sur
les Minquiers 1iun ressortissant français(annexe A 137) ; A plusieurs
reprises, le ministère français de la Marine a demandé à nos pêcheurs
de ne pas créer d'incident avec les pêcheurs anglais. Respectueux de
la convention de 1839, le Gouvernement de la lit5publique n'a jamais
voulu que ses ressortissants créent, aux îles, une situation contraire
à ce traité: va-t-on aujourd'hu nous en faire grief Les tentatives de
nos pécheurs se sont d'ailleurs heurtées plus d'une fois à des réactions
violentes de la part des Jersiais : molestations, destruction d'édifices,
abattage de mâts de pavillons, etc. Fallait-il recourir, de notre côté, à
la force et à la guerre 7Car- ceci est un point à ne pas négliger- aux
environs de 1875 jusqu'i 1904 - et j'aurais préférqu'on ne me forçât
pas à le rappeler- les rapports entre nos deux pays n'étaient pas ce
qu'ils sont aujourd'hui. La correspondance de Paul Cambon, l'artisan
de l'entente cordiale (publiéechez Grasset, Paris, 3 volumes) est on ne
peut plus éloquente. On y trouverait, en la lisant, qu'en 1898 sir Edmond
Manson, ambassadeur d'AngIeterre 5 Paris, avait, à Parisfaituii discoürs
où il faisait le procèsde la politique extérieure de la France et de ses
coups d'épingles (fiin pricks) h l'Angleterre : cesiicoups d'épingles »,
tout réciproques d'ailleurs, avaient pour noms : Fachoda, hladagascar,
Terre-Neuve, Extrême-Orient. La crainte .d'év&nementsgraves ne cesse
d'obséderPaul Cambon (correspondance,tome II,pp. 31 à34notamment).
Fallait-il donc exiger plus, défier et provoquer une rupture pour les
Minquiers et les Ecréhous ? Il suffisait de protester, sur le papier, contre
les empiétements les plus importants, pour montrer que le Gouvernement
français ne perdait pas de vue ses draits de souveraineté, sans créer
d'incidents pour des faits de moindre gravité. Entre les deux pays, les
relations diplomatiques connaissaient assez de problèmes autrement
importants que celui des Minclriiers et des Ecréhous. Jersey pouvait
consacrer toute son attention sur son unique problème de politique
étrangkre. Les deux Gouvernenients en avaient d'autres. Ce n'est pas
une preuve de faiblesse, mais de sagesse, que de mesurer sa diplomatie
à l'importance des questions. Entre les négociations nécessitéespar
1:apaisement de 800 ans de guerre et la querelle des Minquiers et des
Ecréhous, nos ambassadeurs à Londres et nos ministres des Affaires
étranghres ont su, Dieu merci, voir quelles étaient les plus nécessaires.
1,lsont fait, pour réserver les droits de la France sur les Minquiers et les
Ecréhous, ce qu'il fallait, avec.mesure :il serait grave de leur reprocher
cette mesiire. Seul un Attorney-General de Jersey pouvait dire que la
France n'avait jamais été enmesure de contester l'exercice dc la souve-
raineté par le Royaume-Uni sur les Minquiers et les Ecréhous (jeudi,
24septembre, p. 174).Devantune vue aussi ((paroissiale )desévénements,
il aura suffi dc ces quelques mots pour remettre les choses à leur place.
De quoi s'agit-il au fond ? La question doit êtreposée,car mes collé-
gues britanniques ont singulièrement élargi le débat. Il ne s'agit ni
des îles de la-Manche en général,ni de Jersey, ni des Chausey, mais
tout simplement des Minquiers et des Ecréhous, qui sont marqués
sur la carte. La Cour voudra donc bien me permettre, avant d'approcherle problème juridique, de me livrer à un rapide examen des données
géographiques. Certes, la géographie n'est pas le droit, et l'Œuvre des
hommes a maintes fois contredit celle de la nature. Le Gouvernement
de la République ne l'ignore pas, etc'estsur des actes et des faitsjuri-
diques qu'il va appuyer la revendication de sa souveraineté sur les
ilots litigieux. Mais l'analyse juridiqueà laquelle le juge doit se livrer
comporte toujours, dans les affaires mettant en cause la compétence
territoriale,l'examen préalable des données géographiques. Le droit
international attache tices facteurs une importance bien marquée dans
l'arrêtde la Cour sur 1es.pêcheriesnorvégiennes de 1g51, et les dévelop-
pements récentsde la pratique internationale sur la question du plateau
continental sont les illustrations les plus éclatantes, mais non les seuls
exemples, de l'importance des donnbes géographiques dans le droit.
Si nous essayons de placer les Écréhous et les RIinquiers sur la carte
par rapport a la cote et à Jersey, .nous voyons que les deux groupes
sont situés approximativement A mi-chemin entre la côte de l'île de
Jersey et la cbte continentale française. Le groupe des Ecréhous,
pius compact que celui des Minquiers, est situ6 entre l'île de Jersey
et la cate du Cotentin. 1.e point le plus rapproché de jersey se trouve
à 3.9 milles de cette île, le point le plus proche du continent 6,6 milles
du cap Carteret. Quant au groupe des Minquiers, plus dispersé que celui
des Ecréhous, il est situé entre l'île de Jersey et la côte nord de la
Bretagne. Le point te plus proche de Jersey est à II,~ milles de l'ile ;
le point le plus proche du continent à 17 milles de la pointe du Menga ;
enfin, 8 milles environ séparent ce groupe de celui des Chausey, qui
est français sans contestation aucune de la part du Royaume-Uni,
du moins dans son statut depuis 1764.
Le rocher le plus important des Minquiers n'atteint pas 150 métres
de longueur sur 30 mètres de largeur à marée haute, c'est un cargo,
il ne s'élèvequ'à quelques métres au-dessus des flots ; pas le moindre
brin d'herbe n'y pousse ; la superficie totale de quelque vingt-cinq
autres rochers du groupe ne dépasse guère celle de cet îlot, de sorte
que l'ensemble $es «terres émergées » des Minquiers couvre à peine
un hectare. Les Ecréhous ne sont pas plus importants d'ailleurs : l'îlot
principal a 300 métres de long, et la superficie totale des rochers qui
émergent trois hectares; là encore aucune culture n'est possible et
l'habitation y est fort difficile. Personne n'a mieux dépeint ces parages
que Victor Hugo, qui aimait à y situer les naufrages de son oeuvre,
soit aux Cascluets, soit aux Minquiers, que son exil lui avait rendus
familiers. Parlant de ce genre d'écueils, il écrivaite cite) iQu'irait-on
y chercher, ce n'est pas une île. Point de ravitaillement à espérer,
ni arbres a fruits, ni pâturage, ni bestiaux, ni sources d'eau potable.
C'est une nudité dans une solitude .... rien à trouver là que le
naufrage ...J)(Travullle2irs de la Mer, p. 262.)
Certaines photos aériennes ont étéprises le21 août 1953 par l'amiral
Durand de Saint Front que je me permettrai de déposer devant la
Cour et dont mes collègues britanniques ont actuellement les repro-
ductions. Je ne cherche à en tirer aucune conclusion, mais simplement
à mettre devant la Cour la reproduction fidéle du paysage. Les photos I,' Non reproduit.Jersey, Guernesey, Aurigny, Sercq et de leurs (dépendances n, il saute
aux yeux que ces dépendances ne peuvent etre que les Minquiers et
les Ecréhous.
Tel est, au fond, l'argument essentiel du Gouvernement du Royaurne-
Uni. Il se heurte à deux objections également décisives.
Un coup d'Œilsur la carte suffit à montrer l'inanité de tout argument
juridique fondésur une iinité naturelle de l'archipel formépar les îles
de la Manche. Un très grand nombre de ces îles relèvent en effet, incon-
testablement, de la souveraineté française : le groupe des Chausey, le
Mont St-Michel, Tombelaine, l'ile Bréhat, pour ne citer que quelques-
unes. Comme nous le verrons ultérieurement, l'unité naturelle de
l'archipel, s'ily en eut une, a précisément étédétruite au cours du
moyen âge. Elle existait avant le XIII~~siécle, mais, à cette époque-là,
le hasard des armes et ln volonté des rois ont brisé ce que la nature
avait uni. A partir de ce moment-lh, on ne peut plus parler de l'unité
des îles : une partide l'archipela étéattribuée au roi de France, une
autre partie au roi d'Angleterre, et tout le probleme est précisément
de savoir si les Minquiers et les Écréhous ont figurédans le premier
groupe ou dans le second. Parler de ((dépendance ))des Minquiers et
des Ecréhous par rapport à Jersey est donc un non-sens ; pourquoi ne
parlerait-on pas de la dépendance des Minquiers par rapport à Chausey
comme le fait au mot (Minquiers iile Nouveau Dictionnai dreGéogra-
$hie u?ziverselle, publiéen 1887 par Vivien de Saint-Martin, avant . .
que le Gouvernement français ne le dise officiellement dans la note
du 27 août 1888 de l'ambassade de France au marquis de Salisbury
(annexe A 33 du mémoire du Royaume-Uni quisemble avoir échappé à
M. Harrison lorsqu'il nous a dit que cette dépendance des Minquiers vis-
à-vis des Chausey était pour lui une chose aussi nouvelle que stupé-
fiante) ! Ou mieux encore, pourquoi ne pas s'attacher à la dépendance
de l'e~tsemblede l'archipel par rapport au continent ?
En effet - et c'est la seconde objection que suscite Ia thkse britan-
nique -, la prétention à l'unité naturelie de l'archipelne prend tout
son sens que si l'on tient compte de la proximité de la côte continentale.
11 ne s'agit pas d'un archipel perdu au milieu de l'Océan, mais d'un
groupe d'îles situé dans une baie française, à quelques lieues seulement
de la côte française. Pour avoir une vue plus juste de la matière, il
faut donc élargir 1~problème ci examiner non seulement les rapports
entre Minquiers, Ecréhous et Jersey, mais aussi leurs rapports avec
le continent tout proche,
Les Minquiers et les Ecréhous sont des îles proches ,du continent,
11 existe un lien très étroit entre les Minquiers et les Ecréhous et le
continent. Ce lien géographique ne peut pas demeurer sans conséquences
juridiqueç. Tout d'abord, il y a lien géologique, et il est apparent.
Dès le xrxmc siècle, le grand géologue anglaiL syell a montré, dans
ses Principe ds Géologie,que les océans accomplissent depuis des .
siécles, et continuent d'ailleurs à accomplir, un travail de sape et de
,destrucfion sur les continents qui les bordent, et que ce travail a
tendance à aller de l'ouest à l'est.Cette théorie reçoit une illustration
remarquable dans la baie de Granville, où les vieilles légendes confir-
ment d'ailleurs les enseignements de la géologieet lesrares documents
que l'histoire nous a laissés. L'inîularisation du Mont-Saint-Michel
par suite de l'cnglautissement de la forêt de Scissy par la mer est,
à cet égard, l'épisode le plus célèbre. Jersey, Guernesey, Aurigny ont été séparéesdu continent à une
date qu'il est évidemment impossible de déterminer avec précision.
Dans son Histoire des fles de la Manche (1881) Pégot-Ogier avance
l'année 709 comme Ia date de la séparation de Jersey du continent.
11s'agit là tr&scertainement d'une erreur, car, cinquante années avant
l'èrechrétienne, l'historien grec Diodore de Sicile signaledéjà l'existence
de l'îlede jersey, tout en ajoutant qu'à marée basseelle est pratiquement
réunie à la terre. Pendant un certain temps, Jersey ne lut donc séparée
du continent que par un bras de mer formé par l'embouchure de la
rivière Ay, laquelle se-jette aujourd'hui 2i la mer au havre de Saint-
Germain. Quant aux Ecréhous, ils n'existaient tout simplement pas
A l'époque et ne furent séparés du continent que bien plus tard ;
d'autres îles formaient une partie de la commune de Carteret, dont
la section la plus peuplée porte aujourd'hui encore le nom d'Ecréhou.
Au début, il n'y avait d'ailleurs qu'uwe seule île dlEcréhou, et, il y a
quelques siècles,la mer continuant ses ravages, cette île a étésubmergée
en partie et transformée en une multitude d'îlots et de rochers, dont
certains ne découvrent plus qu'5 marée basse.
Ainsi donc, l'ensemble de l'archipel est un démembrement du conti-
nent, comme le sera peut-être un jour l'actuelle pyesqu'iledu Cotentin
tout entiére si la mer en sape la base. Quant aus Ecrélious proprement
dits, ils se rattachent davantage au continent qu'h Jersey, car ils ont
été séparé. du continent bien après l'insularisation de Jersey. Le chenal
entre les Ecréhous et le continent atteint h peine-30 pieds de profondeur,
alors qu'il atteint de 124à 147 pieds entre les Ecréhous et Jersey.
Quanf aux effets juridiques du lien géographique entre les Minquiers
et les Ecréhous et le continent, le Gouvernement de la République les
invoque simplement pour montrer qu'à moins de preuve contraire
vraiment péremptoire, ces îles ne doivent pas êtrearrachées au continent
dont elles font partie géograpliiqueme~it. Dès 1805, sir WiIIiam Scott
(plus tard lord Stowell) parlait, dans l'affaire det'Anna, en des termes
devenus célèbres, des Eles formant ((une sorte de portique devant le
continent ii, et plus loin(des dépendances iiaturelles de la côte qu'elles
bordent et dont, en fait, elles sont constituées 11Les termes de ce juge-
ment si souvent cité ne pourraierit-ils s'appliquer, presque mot pour
mot, aux Minquiers et aux Ecréhous ? A supposer mêmeque l'onne
puisse pas considérer l'ensemble des iles de la Manche comme faisant
~artie du continent, il est vrai, en tout cas, que les Minquiers et les
Ecréhous, situés tout pr&s de la côte française, constituent bien ((une
sorte de portique devant le continent ii et sont des ((dépendances
naturelles de la côte qu'elles bordent et dont, en fait, elles sont
constituées ii.
Ce rattachement des iles proches du continent au continent lui-même
a été marqué avec plus de force encore dans l'affaire anglo-norvégienne
des pêcheries. Parlant du i(skjaergaardii, la Cour dit dans son arrêtdu
18 décembre 1951 (Recrteil,pp, 127-126) : «Ies iles gra~ides et petites,
toujours montagneuses, les ilots, les rochers et les récifs, les uns à
découvert en permanence, les autres ne découvrant qu'à marée basse,
ne sont en réalitéque la co~~tiizeiatiudnucontinent norvégien s. Et ce
passage se termine par cette phrase : (<Les réalitésgéographiqued sictent
ccttesolution.11
Au même titre que le (1skjargaard ))norvégien, les ilots et rochers
qui bordent la cOte française (constituent un tout avec la terre ferme ii.Ils ne sont que «lacontinuation du continent n, dont la mer les a
séparés à une Cpoque relativement récente et avec lequel ils n'ont
pas cessé d'avoir les relations que permettait leur caractère désolé
et inhospitalier. Comme dans le cas de la Norvège, les ((réalités
géographiques 1)sont apparentes.
Allant aussi loin que possible dans cette assimilation des îles proches
de la côte au continent, la Cour a, dans ce mêmearrêt, permis de
tracer les lignes de base entre les îles,ilots et rochers, alors méme
qu'il ne s'agitpas d'unt: baie et quelle que soit la longueur de ces
lignes. C'est ainsi que, dans le cas du Lopphavet, qui est constitué
(je cite) upar une vaste étendue d'eau parsemée de grandes iles,
séparéesentre elles par des bras de mer qui se terminent en divers
fjords II(p. 141de l'arrêt) et auquel la Cour a refusé lecaractère de
baie, les lignes de bases rejoignant les diverses îles mesurent44 milles,
18 milles et3,5 milles (Waldeck, The Anglo-Nomegian Fisheries Case,
dans le British Year Book of IniernalionaE Law, 1951, p. 146). Ln
Cour a ainsi consacré ce que M. Gidel a appelé la pratique scandinave
dans laquelle ula notion juridique de groupe insulaire est écartéeau
profit de la notion de groupe insulo-continental s. (Gidel, Le Droit
internationaE firiblde EaMer, tome III, p.722.) De ces règles, la Cour
a tiré la conséquence que les eaux situées erttrele continent et les îles
qui s'y rattachent ont la qualité d'eaux intérieures. Cette tendance
à rapprocher les îles du continent se manifeste enfin par la. trans-
formation, généralement admise, en mer territoriale de la portion de
mer libre située entre la mer territoriale d'une île et la mer territoriale
de la terre principale (l'ouvrage de M. Gidel, p. 687).
Le caractère insulaire des Minquiers et des Écréhous, leur proximité
de la c6te française, leur appartenance à un archipel que seuls les
accidents de l'histoire ont détacliéen partie de la France, telles sont
les premières données géographiques dont nous devrons tenir compte
dans le présent litige.
Un second facteur géographique qu'il faut prendre en considération
est le fait que les Minquiers et les Ecréhous sont situés, comme le dit
le mémoire du Royaume-Uni, dans une baie, une baie rectangulaire
formée par les cdtes de Normandie et de Bretagne, baie dont les deux
extrémités relèvent donc de la souveraineté française. Si la totalité
des îles de la Manche était restbe française, le Gouvernement français
pourrait revendiquer l'ensemble de cette baie à titre d'eaux intérieures
et calculer la mer territoriale à partir de lignes de base appuyées sur
les îlots et rochers extérieurs. C'est le travail qui a été porté sur la
carte no I remise à la Cour. Si le Gouvernement français raisonne ainsi,
ce n'est, faut-il le direévidemment pas pour remettre en question les
droits du Royaume-Uni sur Jersey, Guernesey et les autres îles, mais
pour montrer a quel point l'ensemble de cette baie est liéà la France,
et combien devraient être fortesles preuves fournies par le Hoyaume-
lJni pour se voir attribuer la souveraineté sur les Minquiers et les
Ecréhous.
Que les eaux en question constituent une baie ne saurait être mis
en doute. Une ligne de base tracée directement du cap de IaHague
aux eaux de Bréhat mesurerait, certes, environ 68 milles. Nais comme
il faut tenir compte des iles, îlots et rochers émergeant à marée basse,
les lignes de base sont sur la carte no I mesurées respectivement par
secteur, dont les distances se trouvent portées sur la feuille jointe à
14la carte. Or, la Cour a accepté de considérer comme une baie le Sv~r-
holthavet, délimitépar une ligne de base de 38,6 milles de longueur,
la Cour ayant estimé que le bassin en question devait être envisagé
dans sa réalité géographique globale (et que le rapport entre la largeur
d'entrée et la profondeur de pénétrationétait suffisant pour luiconférer
le caractère d'une baie n (arrêt des Pêcheries, p. 141).
La Cour ayant estimé que ((la règle des dis milles n'a pas acquis
l'autorité d'une regle généralede droit international » (p. r31), il en
résulte qu'une baie est essentiellement une donnée géographique, non
définierestrictivement par le droit, à travers laquelle on peut toujours
tracer une ligne de base en deçà de laquelle la mer n le statut d'eaux
intérieures (article citC du professeur Waldeck).
Ainsi apparaissent les effets juridiques que du point de vue géogra-
phique on peut tirer du lien entre le continent et les îles, et notamment
pour des îles aussi proches que les Minquiers et les Ecréhous.
Si l'on va au mur des thèses qui s'opposent devant la Cour, la
revendication britannique rappelle au fond la doctrine de SeIden, selon
laquelle toute la mer qui borde l'Angleterre au sud, jusque sur les
côtes mêmesde France, faisait partie du domaine de l'Angleterre. Toute
cette mer étant anglaise, il seraitnormal que les ilots et rochersqui s'y
trouvent soient également, sauf preuve contraire, sous la souveraineté
anglaise. Pour justifier les prétentions de l'Angleterre au domaine exclu-
sif de l'océan britannique, Selden utilise, on le sait, force arguments.
Il est intéressant de trouver parmi eux ceci : « lorsque les rois Jean
et Henri III perdirent la. Normandie, les iicsde Jersey, de Guernesey
et les autres iles adjacentes continuèrent de demeurer sous la souve-
raineté anglaise,comme#veuve cigagede lafiropriétide cetteWY, comme
patrimoine du Royaume n (citépar Calvo, Le droit interlzatiojzaédition
1870, tome 1,p. 325). Nous savons qu'aucun traité n'a jamais institué
ou confirmécette prétention britannique à la domanialité de la mer et
que Louis XIV montrait à l'époque mémede SeIden que Ia France
n'acceptait pas la prétention lorsqu'il s'opposait à ce que le canal de
la hlanche fût appelé le canal britannique (Calvo, p. 322). 11 n'est pas
indifférentde noter lafiliationentre la présentation actuelle de la thèse
du Royaume-Uni et le mare claustrmde 1635 en ce qui concerne l'appar-
tenance globalede Jersey et des îles adjacentes au patrimoine britannique.
Le Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni va-t-il donc refuser de faire sienne
la déclaration du Gouvernement espagnol du 4 juin 1790 ,ux termes
de laquelle (je cite) (cSa Majesté n'a à aucun moment prétendu a des
droits sur clesports, mers ou endroits autres que ceux qui appartiennent
à sa couronne par les traités les plus solennels, reconnus par toutes les
nations et, en ce qui concerne plus particulièrement la Grande-Bretagne,
par un droit fondé sur les traités, par le consentement uniforme des
deux nations et par une possession immémoriale, régulièreet établie ...>i?
(The Atznr~alKegister, 1790, p. 292.)
La revendication du Gouvernement de la République est,au contraire
fondée sur la prédominance de la terre sur la mer : reprenant les
termes de l'arrêt des pêcheries, le Gouvernement de la République
croit devoir insister sur il'étroite dépendance de la mer territoriale
à l'égard du domaine terrestre » et rappeler que (c'est la terre qui
confère à 1'Etat riverain un droit sur les eaux qui baignqt ses côtes »
j. Recueil Iggr, p. 133). Les Minquiers et les Ecréhous font
partie d'une zone maritime qui dépend étroitement du continent, du triple point de vue géologique, géographique et historique, ce qui, en
l'absence de tout titre international contrairede la part du Royaume-
Uni, ajoute une justification supplémentaire au titre de la France.
Un dernier mot sur Ia géographie : le Roy~ume-Uni a remis à la
Cour, le 8 septembre 1953, deux cartes demandes1, l'une de 1905,
l'autre de 1932. Dans une affaire où l'on plaiderait l'acquisition de la
souveraineté territoriale par occupation d'un territoire sans maître,
des cartes géographiques pourraient êtreutiles.Tel n'est pas le différend
actuel. Cependant, il nous faut répondre d'un mot aux allégations du
Royaume-Uni. M. l'Attorney-General a invoqué ces cartes de Stider,
qui englobent les îlots litigieux dans le territoire.britannique deîles
de la Manche. Il relhve que cette attribution, qui apparaît déjà dans
l'édition de 1905, se retrouve dans celle dc 1932, de tellc sorte que
l'on peut dire à bon droit qu'il ne s'agit pas d'une attribution faite
à lalégère. Les auteurs trh savants du Stieler, d'ailleurs désintéressés,
n'auraient pas dessiné leurs cartes sans avoir mûrement riifléchi. A
cela,il esfacile de répondre que, si grande que soit l'autorité de Stieler,
d'autres atlas neutres et techniquement trés remarquables et trés
sérieux montrent que l'opinion de StieIer n'est pas celle de tous 1s
cartographes. L'atlas du Touring Club italien (hlit:in,1929, plan-
ches 32, 33, 34 France Nord, et 25, 26 Royaume-Uni) - jedonnerai
les réferences, pour épargner le temps de la.Cour, sur la ronéotypie de
ma +plaidoirie - atlas qui passe pour un chef-d'Œuvre, englobe bien
les Ecréhous dans la zone britannique, mais il en exclut les Minquiers.
L'atlas suédois Bonniers Stora Vürldallus (Stockholm 1951 p,lanches 33,
34, 33 France Nord, et 26, 27 U. K. Sud), reproduit exactement la
même dclimitation. L'atlas hongrois, Kisatlasz Maggyar Kiralyn ALEami
(Budapest, 1939) ,lanches 13 (France) et 18 (Royaume-Uni), ignore
lesMinquiers, mais la limite des eaux territoriales deîlesde Ia Manche
les laisserait nettement en dehors ; ilignore aussi les Ecréhoiis, etla
limite passe par-dessus leur emplacement. L'atlas allemand Schul-Atlas
de Sydows Wagner, Justus Perthes, à Gotha, 1941 ,lanches 41 (France)
et 42 (Koyaume-Uni), est identique. Un autre atlas italien, le Grande
Atlante Geogvafico, 4mc édition, 1940, Istituto Geografico de Agostini
(Noyara, ItaIia), de hlaico Baratto, Fraccaro et Visintio, ignore aussi
lesEcréhous, mais est très net pour les Minquiers, qui sont nettement
en dehors de la. limite des eaux britanniques. L'Atlas Bartholomew
(The fimes-Sztmiey Atlas of the World), iidition1920 - Royaume-
Uni, planche 18 -, s'arrétejuste en-dessous de Jersey et n'englobe donc
pas les Minquiers. Ces cliverses délimitations inontrent que pour les
cartogrnpiies de nombr(:ux pays, celles de Stieler - que de toute
évidenceils connaissent bien - ne prévalaient pas.
Concluons simplement que le Royaume-Uni pourrait -d'ailleurs diffi-
cilement dire h la fois qu'une mêmecarte lui donne les Ecréhous, parce
que la délimitation Ies englobe, et les Minquiers, parce qu'elle ne les
englobe pas.
Mais les données gbographiques du litige, pour n'être pas déter-
minantes, n'en sont pas moins intliressantes Aconnaître.
* *
' 11reste maintenant à résumer en quclques phrases cette (approche
juridique iidont a parlé hl. l'Attorney-General du Royaume-Uni. Nous
l Kon reproduit.202 PLAIDOIRIE DE M. LE PROF. GROS (PRASCE) - 28 IS 53
nous ylaceroiis, pour ce faire, sur le mêmeplan que lui, c'est-à-dire
que le mérite de chacune des prétentions sera examiné dans soli
ensemble.
La thèse du Gouvernement du Royaume-Urii est fondée en réalite
sur deus postulats. Le premier de ces postulats, c'est qu'il faut com-
parer esclusivement les faits de possessioii sans meme avoir a tenir
compte des traités intervenus entre les deus Parties et qui peiiveiit
être susceptibles d'apporter des éIéments de solution. De 18, cctte
accumulation de faits destinée à impressionner par leur Inasse. Mais
si l'ony regarde de prés, on se rend compte que presque tous ces faits
sont postérieurs & 1876, c'est-à-dire reIativement ou très récents : on
a 1'iiiq)ression que, dans la thhse de nos collégues britanniques, le
poids des quatre-vingts derniéres années doit compenser le vide des
huit siècles précédents.
Lc second postulat du Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni, c'est l'unité
totale et z~bsolue, non seulement géographique, mais aussi juridique,
de l'archipel. Ce postulat, dont nous avons déjà démontré la fausseté
du point de vue géographique, est évidemment fort commode juridique-
inent, car si toutes les iles de la Manche à l'esception des Chausey
sont britanniques, toute démonstration devient superflue en ce qui
concerne leç Minquiers et les Écréhoils. Lorsque iious aurons réfuté
ces deus postulats d'un point de vue juridique, il ne restera rien des
prétentions anglaises, et il n'y aura plus qu'à examiner si les faits
jnvoqués par le Royaume-Uni depuis 1876 ont été juridiquement
valables contre le titre de la France, sa possession ancienne, ses récla-
mations diplomatiques et ses propres relations avec les îlots contestSs.
Quant à la prétention française, elle est fondée sur l'idéeque chaque
affaire a sescaractéristi(juespropres et que,loin de partir de postulats
indéfendables, ilconvient d'examiner le litige daris les élémentsjuri-
diques qu'il contient. Et, à cet égard, il me parait nécessaire de faire
deux observations.
Preiniére ubservatiori.Deus traités dominent Ia matière : un traité
ancien, un traité moderne.
Pour le Gouvernement de la République, la phiode ancienne est
dominée par Ie traité dc 1259:d'après ce traité.ce n'est que dans la
mesure où sa possession des îles en 1259 est certaine et prouvée qiic
lJAnglcterre peut les revendiquer ; certaine et prouvée, cette possession
l'est pour Jersey et Guernesey ; mais elle ne l'est. justement pas pour
les Minquiers et les gcréhous. Nos adversaires ne vont tout de même
pas soutenir qiie le traité d1259 est un document féodaldevenu caduc
avec la fin de la féodalité: quelle thèse révolutionnaire que de prétendre
considérer comme caducs des traités dfilintifes conclusdans un autre
systèine social ! Le Royaume-Uni devrait prouver sa possession en 1259
ou lors des traités subséquents qui ont repris à peu près à cet égard la
formule dii traité de Paris ; or cela ilne l'a pas fait. Un autre trait6
domine lapérioderécente : Ia convention du 2 août 1839 ; leGouverne-
ment français a toujours agi en conformité de cette convention ; son
interprétation a étécontestée par le Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni,
mais cette contestation mêmeprouve que le traitéestau cŒur du débat.
1-3 secollde observation est la suivante :
A lire et entendre le Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni accumuler les
interprétations historiques les plus sérieuses mêléesaux pamphlets
d'aritcurs de provincc ou de journalistes, on pourrait se croire à une PLAIUOIRIE I)E 11.1.E PHOF. GROS (FRASCE) - 28 1);j3 203
de ces seances de sociétés localesd'érudits où l'avocat, le notaire ou le
simple notable de la petite ville, h l'instar des plus célébresacadémies,
croient augmenter les mérites de leurs petites patries en en faisant le
centre, sinon du monde, mais d'un monde.
C'est là une atmosphère que le Gouvernement de la République ne
se laissera pas entraîner à créer. Nous sommes devant une cour de
justice, devant la Cour internationale de Justice, pour lui demander
Ie droit et nonpas l'histoire du droiLe principequi a orienté le Gouver-
nement de la République désles débuts de la procédure écrite est de ne
rechercher que l'étatderdroit, du droit ancien comme du droit actuel ;
les sources historiques peuvent être nécessaires, mais seulement pour
éclairer le droit; les auteurs ne sont pas le droit, et, particulièrement
dans la période ancienne du différend, ilfaut se garder de confondre
la description historique, qui borde le conte, avec le droit.
La question de droit est simple dans son exposé, délicatf: dans sa
preuve : qui a un titre de souveraineté sur les Minquiers et les Ecréhous ?
Résoudre ce yrobleme juridique de souvcraitieté, tel doit dtre le seul
objet du débat.
Ces observations générales faites, nous voudrions ajouter que la
prétention française est beaucoup moins négative que nos amis ont
essayé de le faire croire. Pour la période ancienne, nous montrerons
que le titre originel- car ily a un titre originel frariçai- rion seule-
ment n'a pas été perdu en vertu d'on ne sait quelle clause rebus sic
staniibtrsmais a été conservé d'une manière positive,et nous tiendrons
compte de l'importance primordiale qu'a pour toute cette période le
traité de Paris de 1259. Pour la périodc rkcentn eo,us nous attacherons
b une analyse approfondie de la convention de 1839, à la lumiére de
Iaquellc nous interpréterons les faits de possession les plus récents.
Nous verrons alors que l'opposition dans la présente affaire n'est pas
entre un titre nu d'un côté et une possession effective de l'autre -
dans ce cas la possession effective l'emporterait -, mais l'absence de
titre ct de possession valable en droit internationadu côtS britannique,
et l'esistence d'un titre et d'une possession valables du côté français.
C'est à Ia démonstration de cette thèse que seront consacrées nos
observations, selon un plan très simple. La première partie sera consa-
crée à la période ancienne : nous examinerons la question du titre
originel, pour montrer que ce titre n'a étéperdu, ni par non usage, ni
par possession effective de I'Angleterre. La conclusion de cette prernihre
partie sera qu'au dkbut du XIX~~C siéclela souveraineté sur les deux
groupes d'îlots appartenait A la France. Dans une seconde partie consa-
crée aux temps modernes, c'est-A-dire aux xIxmc et xxmc siécles,nous
étudierons deux questions différentes. En premier lieu, nous démon-
trerons que la convention de 1839 constitue bien la date critique et
que, par conséquent, la souveraineté sur les îlots litigieux appartient
aujourd'hui à celle des Parties iiqui elle appartenait la veille de la
conclusion de cette convention. En second lieu, nous établirons que,
même si1839 ne constituait pas ladate critique, les faits dc possession
invoqués par le Royaume-Uni ne sont pas susceptibles, en vertu des
régIes du droit internationalet en tenant compte des faits de possession
invoqués par la France, d'avoir arraché à la France la souveraineté
existant encore au début du XIXI~C siéclesur ces îlots. La conclusion
de nos observations sera que la souveraineté sur les ges litigieuses
appartient aujourd'hui à la France, soit que l'on prenne en considérationl'état de droit existant en 1839, soit que, écartant cette date comme
date critique, on examine les dates de faits de possession récents à la
lumière des régles du droit international général.
[Séance flwblique du 28 sefltewrbreI9j3,après-midi]
hlonsieur le Président, Messieurs de la Cour, nous allions aborder
l'étude de la période féodale, mais avant de commencer il me faut
faire une remarque de méthode.
Le Royaume-Uni a fait entendre à ln Cour quatre conseils, dont
les exposés portaient chacun les inarques de leur science et de leur
talent personnel. L'agent du Gouvernement de la République française
présente seul les thèses de son Gouvernement, mais il n'est pas devenu
médiéviste, feudiste, marin et normand pour cela. Que la Cour lui
permette de remercier les collaborateurs dévouéset compétents qui
ont contribué à la présentation de la thèse française dans cette partie
féodalc : Ic professeur Dumas, dc l'Université d'Aix ; le professeur
Lemarignier, de l'université de Lille, et 31. Pierre Duparc, archiviste
paléographe, conservateur des archives du ministère des Affaires
étrangères.
Période féodale. Mon éminent collègue, le professeur \Vade, s'est
défendu de traiter les aspects romantiques de la période féodale, et
pourtant quel roman ne nous a-t-il pas conté ! Les roitelets normands
installés aus Minquiers qui, ?i l'époque, avaient toujours Ijû mètres
de long sur 30 mètres de large ct pas de source d'eau potable, d'où
sortent-ils, de quelle merveilleuse saga, sinon de l'imagination de mon
éminent collégue?Autre image admirable mais où je soupçonne l'humour
britannique : les vaillants soldats anglo-saxons de l'époque fbodale
uniquement dévouésà la défense des iles normandes pour les garder
contre les attaques des Français et les maintenir entre les mains de
leurs possesseurs originaires. Les Sormands, possesseurs originaires ?
Et alors ces Bretons dont on nous a parlé qui étaient dans les îles
avant les Normands, sans parler de la Gaule ? Quant au dévouement
des Anglais de l'époque à la défensedes biens de leurs récents posses-
seurs, pour utiliser le léger anachronisme de M. l'Attorney-General,
c'est aussiune touchante image mais qui ne correspond pas aux- expli-
cations des historiens sur la rivalité séculaire des Saxons conquis et
des Normands victorieux.
Malgré l'érudition considérable déployke, nous décelons donc immé-
diatement le mytlie : le Normand des îles constitue un peuple à part.
Et le professeur de Cambridge s'est joint ii la vaillante cohorte des
historiens locaux pour la construction de ce mythe. Mais la Cour ne
retiendra sans doute que le pittoresque aspect de cette défense du
peuple conquérant de 1066, car ce qu'il importe de prouver est plus
s-imple et plus restreint : quel est le titre sur les Minquiers et les
Ecréhous avant, en da n et après le premier acte juridique incontesté
des deux Parties, le traité de 125g? En traitant ce problème juridique,
la Cour me permettra de relever au passage certaines interprétations
trop iiormandes de l'histoire de France.
La question à rksoudre dans cette première partie féodale est la
suivante. Lorsque se produisent, au début du s~xmc siècle, les premiers
inçideiits entre pêcheurs anglais et franqais, entre la cbte française et celle de l'île de Jersey- incidents qui donneront naissance, aprhs
de longues négociations, A la convention de 1839 -, quels sont les
droits respectifs de la France et de l'Angleterre sur les Minquiers et
les Ecréhous ? La souveraineté de ces îles appartient-elle, aux environs
de 1800, à la France ou h la Grande-Bretagne ?
Pour résoudre ce problkme, il faut remonter à,des textes et CLdes
événements très anciens.
Dans son premier mémoire, le Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni
conc!ut que la souveraineté du Royaume-Uni sur les Minquiers et
les Ecréhous est fondée sur un titre originel suivi, comme l'exige le
droit international, d'une possession effective, continue et paisible,
et en tout cas, en l'absence même d'un titre originel sur une telle
possession effective, continue et paisible (par. 184 du mémoire).
Le Gouvernement de la République est d'accord avec te Gouver-
nement du Royaume-Uni pour reconnaître qu'en principe la souverai-
neté sur un territoire peut s'acquérir soit par un titre originel suivi
d'une possession effective continue et paisible, soit, en l'absence de .
tout titre originel, par la seule possession. Il faudra cependant tenir
compte du fait que dans le présent litige le problème cles rapports
entre le titre originel et la possession effective se pose à la suite des
traitésayant régi la matière, dans des conditions assez différentes de
ceIIes du droit international général.
Le Gouvernement de la République établira successivement :
En ce qui concerne le titre, que ce n'est pas la Grande-Bretagne
mais la France qui possède un titrc originel sur les îlots litigieux.
En .ce qui concerne la possession, que le Royaume-Uni n'a pas établi
l'existence de faits de possession certains de sa part et que, tout au
contraire, la France peut invoquer en sa faveur des faits de possession
au moins wssi probants, sinon davantage.
Nous étudierons d'abord l'établissement du titre originel selon le
droit féodal. Nous examinerons ensuite l'application des principes du
droit féodal j.la situation des Ecréhous, des Minquiers et de Chausey.
La premidre période que nous nous proposons d'étudier va depuis
l'époque carolingienne jusqu'à 1204: elle vit l'installation des Nor-
mands dans une partie du uregnurn Francorurn n, c'est-à-dire le
royaume occidental de I'empire de Charlemagne, et l'établissement du
lien de vassalité soumettant le duc de Normandie au roi de France.
Pour cette période assez éloignée,nous pensons qu'il est possible
d'établir un certain nombre de faits historiques précis,en ayant recours
aux travaux d'érudits et d'historiens skrieux. A ce propos, nous som-
mes surpris que le professeur Wade considére comme autorité princi-
pale, et presque suffisante, l'ouvrage assez ancien et sans aucune pré-
tention de Dupont, juge du tribunal de Valognes, rédigé,comme l'auteur
l'indique dans sa préface,au cours des loisirs que lui ldissait un tribunal206 PLAIDOIRIE DE M. LE PROF. GROS (FRANCE) - 28 1x53
de premiPre instance traditionnellement peu occupé. Cet ouvrage,
comme le reconnaît le professeur \Vade, repose esseritiellement sur
\Vace, un historiographe normand du xrrmc siècle. Or la partialité
et l'inexactitude de ce chroniqueur, qui écrivait pendant les guerres
entre le roi de France et le roi d'Angleterre, et qui écrivait officielle-
ment pour le roi d'Angleterre, sont
bien connues : des historiens
que la Partie adverse ne récusera pas puispu'elle les a invoqués :
MM. Powick (TJzeLoss of Norntandy, pp. 439-440) et Petit-Dutailli(La
Monarchie, p. 184) l'ont constaté. 11 est vrai qu'on est encore plus
surpris d'entendre le professeur de Cambridge citer, sur un point d'his-
toire, comme un aveu officiel de la France, des testes tirésde manuels
dont le moins qu'on puisse direest qu'ils sont assez élément:~ires, tant
destinés à des enfants dont l'education se termine &14 ans ! Au surplus,
la France n'est pas plus que l'Angleterre habituéà imposer un enseigne-
ment orthodoxe à ses savants, h ses professeurset mêmek ses inspec-
teurs de l'enseignement.
Une observation préliminaire s'impose sur la thhse britannique. En
ce qui concenie les débuts de la période envisagée.cette thèse peut se
résumer ainsi. En 1066, Guillaume, duc de Normandie, conquit l'Angle-
terre, réunissant ainsi sous sa couronne la Normandie continentale,
1'Angleterre et les diverses îlde la Manche. En 1204,le roi de France,
Philippe-Auguste, arracha la Xormandie continentale, et elleseule,au
roi d'Angleterre, lequel conserva ainsi l'Angleterre et Ies îles de la
,Manche. La conquête de l'Angleterre par le duc de Normandie en 1066
constitue ainsi le titre originel du Royaume-Uni ,siIl'ensemble des îles
de la Manche, y compris les Minquiers et les Ecréhous. Le traité de
Pans, de 1259, n'a fait que confirmer cette situation : la Normandie
continentale 3. la France, l'ensemble des îles à l'Angleterre.
Cette thésc est sans doute simpIe et claire, mais c'est un exposé
moderne d'une situation féodale, exposéqui ne rend pas compte de la
réalité assez complexe dans laquelle se sont insérésles événements
invoqués, notamment la réunion puis la séparation de la Normandie
continentale et des îles dela Manche. Elle néglige lesdonnees du droit
féodal qui, seules, permettent de saisir la portée exacte des faits edes
textes invoqués. Or, comme l'ont déjà dit mes colléguesbritanniques,
un titre doit être appréciéselon les conceptions et les règles en vigueur
à l'époque où il est né (sentence de Palmas). J'ajouterai l'affairde la
détermination de la frontière maritime entre la Norvège et la Suède,
et mêmel'arrêtde la Cour dans l'affairedes droits des ressortissants
américains au Maroc (27 août 1952, pp. 184-185).
Ilconvient donc de déterminer avec précision la portée juridique,
en droit féodaE ,e la réunion puis de la séparation de la Normandie
continentale et des îles.
Plaçons-nous à la date de 2066, date essentielle dans la thèse britan-
nique. 11est exact qu'à cette époque GuiIIaume leConquérant rCunit
sous une même têtela lvortnandie continentale, l'Angleterre et lesiles
de la Manche.
Mais une observation fondamentale s'impose A cet égard. Dire que
la conquête de 1066 a placé les îles de la Manche et la Normandie
continentale sous la asouveraineté r du roi d'Angleterre estun véritable
anachronisme, comme nous l'a exposé le professeur Wade en critiquant
l'emploi du mot ((souveraineté n.Le roid'Angleterre était, 5.la vérité,
aprPs1066,un personnage double : en tantque roi d'Angleterre propre-' PLAIDOIRIE DE 11. LE PROF. GROS (FRAXCE) - 28 IX 53
207
ment dit, il était sans doute le suzerain le plus élevéen .4q$eterret ne
devait l'hommage à personne; mais en tant qiic duc de Normandie, il
était le vassal du roi de France. Souverain ici, vassal :cette situation,
qui peut choquer aujourd'hui quelque peu, était courante en droit
féodal. Aujourd'hui encore, il y a au moins un exemple de cette sorte
de dédoublement d'une niêmepersonne. En 1278, le temtoire d'Andorre,
à Ia frontière franco-espagnole, fut soumis à la CO-suzerainetéde l'évêque
d'Ur el et di1 comte de Foix. A l'heure actuelle, Andorre demeure un
fief kodal soumis A la CO-suzerainetédu Président de la Rtpublique
française et de l'évequed'Urgel, le Président de la République française
étant le successeur du comte de Foix. Le Président de la République .
agit ainsi en France, en sa qualité dé chef de 1'Etat français,et en
Andorre en sa qualité de co-suzerain féodal dCunterritoire étranger à
la France; et Ics triburiaux français sc déclarent incompétents pour
connaître des actes qu'il accomplit en cette dernihre qualité. Cette
survivance d'un régime établi au xrrtntcsiècle montre ce que vaut la
thése des avocats britanniques sur la disparition des traités etdes liens
féodaux en l'an de grâce 1485.
Lorsqu'en 1066 le duc de Normandie devint roi d'Angleterre, il
continua d'exercer ses droits sur Ia Normandie continentale et les îles
de la Blanche, non pas en tant que roi d'Angleterre, mais en tant que
duc de Normandie, vassal du roi de France. Cette conquêtede l'Angle-
terre ne modifia en rien ses droits sur la Normandie, ni dans leur étcndue
ni dans leur quaIitC.11 résultede ces constatations que la conquête de
1066 ne peut en rien constituer un titre de souveraineté du Royaume-
Uni siir les îles de la Manche.
Cette observation préliminaire était nécessaire pour nous permettre
d'examiner en toute objectivitk lc dérorilement des faits.
Dans qudles circonstanceç et de quelle manière les Normands s'éta-
blirent-ils dans la province qui allait porter leur nom ?
Dans l'étéde 911, un chef normand nommé liollon, qui avait ravagé
le Dunois, mit le siège devant Chartres. Mais l'évêqueavait organisé
la défense, et une armée de secours accourut sous le commandement
de Robert, comte de Paris, futur roi de France, du duc de Bourgogne
et du comte de Poitou. Le 20 juillet, Rollon fut vaincu dans une
sanglante bataille ou ses troupes auraient perdu près de 7.000 hommes.
Les Kormands durent battre en retraite (Prentout, p. 122). Ces événe-
ments sont ainsi résumésen une phrase par le Shorlcr Cambridge
Medinial History qui est de 1952 : "le roi Charles le Simple opposa
une solide résistance i(1, p.367). -4 ce moment, une certaine lassitude
commençait à se manifester des deux cBtés ; les circonstances étaient
favorables tiune négociation :au mois d'octobre gr1 fut conclu l'accord
de St-Clair-sur-Epte, qui céda la Normandie à Rollon.
La chronologie des événementsainsi établie donne au traité de 911
sa vraie signification. On ne peut raisonnablement soutenir que Rollon
s'est emparé de la Normandie par la force ; tout au plus aurait-il pu
la piller au passage- si toutefois sa défaite ne l'avait pas trop affaibli ;
et en faisant ainsi il aurait agi comme bien d'autres chefs normands
qui, avant lui, ne réussirent pas A s'installer à demeure dans une pro-
vince du royaume de France.
Rollon reçut donc la Normandie de Charles le Simplc. II la reçut '
en fief. Les anciens chroniqueurs français ne semblent mêmepas envi-
sager qu'il pût en être autrement. Flodoard utiIise pIusieurs fois à cette 208 PLAIDOIRIE DE ai.LE PROF. GROS (FRASCE) - 28 IX 53
occasion le verbe iconcedere ii,dont le sens usuel, et bien établi par
I'historien Lot dans Fidèleset Vassaux (p. IBO) e,t : concéder en fief.
Richer donne mêmela précision très significative que la Normandie
a étédonnée à Koilon à charge deservices militaires:iita ut ...regibus
Galliarum terra marique fideliter inilitaretii.Seul le chroniqueur nor-
mand Dudon, dont Prentout a d'ailleursrnontrk la fantaisie,essaie de
soutenir que la terre a étédonnée en alleu ; il doit cependant recon-
naitre que Rollon a promis au roi de se lier à lui par un (pactum
servitiu. !Vace, qui ne peul &ire suspect de partialité vis-à-visdu roi
de France, comme nous l'avons dit, déclare : ((Rollon devint l'homme
. du roi et ses mains lui livra.»On peut se représenter la scène :Rollon
a mis ses deux mains jointes dans celies de Charles le Simple, en signe
de dépendance, de vassalité.
Cet hommage du duc de Normandie n'est que le premier d'une longue
série qui,se poursuivra jusqu'à Jean sans Terre. En 939, Guillaume
Longuc Epée, fils de Rollon, prêta hommage au roiLouis IV dans la
région d'Amiens (Flodoard, Annales). Trois ans plus tard, Guillaume
Longue Epée mourut assassiné. Le défunt n'avait qu'un fils naturel,
Richard, âgé d'une dizaine d'années, et le duché risquait fort, en ces
tragiques circonstances, d'êtredéchirépar des luttes intérieures. C'est
alors que leroi Louis IV accourut à Rouen, et ((donna ila Normandie
au jeune Richard ; telle est l'expression employée par les anciens chro-
niqueurs, qui sont unanimes sur ce point. Flodoard écrit : « terra Nort-
mannorum dedit n; Kichcr : «provinciam a patre pridem possessam
ei largiens1; Hugue de Flavigny :((Richardus Normanniam dono regis
Ludovici obtinuit B.Nous sommes en présence d'un cas d'investiture
féodale incontestable (Lauer, Le règnede LoarisIIT, pp. 89-93C )om-
bien paraît inexacte, dans ces conditions, l'opinion de la Partie adverse
qui voit dans cette venue du roi de France A Rouen un signe de
faiblesse; la faiblesse n'était pas de cc côté, maisdu côté de l'enfant
de dix ans: Louis IV est allé a Rouen en 942 pour maintenir l'ordre
dans son royaume.
Citons encore les hommages prêtésà Louis VI en rrzo par Guillaume,
fils de Henri 1, et en 1137 par Eustache, fils d3Etienne dc Blois, qui
reçurent cliacun expressément la Normandie en fief(Luchaire, Louis VI) ;
les hommages prêtés Q Louis VI1 en 1140 par Eustache, en 1151par
Henri II qui vint à Paris (Lot, Fidèlees t Vassaux), cn 1160par
Henri le Jeune ; les hommages prétés à Philippe-Auguste en 1183 par
Henri II, en 1189 par Richard Cceur de Lion, en rzoo par Jean sans
Terre.
Les iles de la blanche étaient-elles comprises dans l'hommage fait
par les ducs normands ? Certainement non, en ce qui concerne l'hom-
mage de gIr, car Charles leSimple n'avait cédéque la basseNormandie
ii Rollon.
La Normandie occidentale était alors détenue pour les Carolingiens
par les Bretons. hiais en 933 le-roi Raoul compléta la cession de 9x1
et donna S Guillaume Longue Epée le Cotentin et I'Avranchin, c'est-
A-dire les diocéses d'Avranches et de Coutances. Les auteurs les plus
sérieux, comme Lot (p. 134) et Prentout (pp. 285-291 )o,t d'accord
sur ce point. Le Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni l'étaitaussi d'ailleurs,
dans son mémoire, paragraphe 22, jusqu'à ce que le professeur Wade
nous ait apporté la théorie des roitelets de la mer. Flodoard écrit à
ce sujet que le roia donne au duc x terrarnBrittonam in ora maritirnasitarn r. En vertu de quel texte, en conséquence de quel fait précis
la'Yartie adverse prétend-elle que les îles de la Manche étaient exclues
de cette iiterre maritime des Bretons II? Une description pittoresque
de roitelets nordiques, installés dans les îles, ne peut tenir lieu deréfé-
rence. Les ducs normands dans leurs hommages successifs, i partir
de 939, reconnaissent tenir des rois de France la Normandie, toute
la Normandie, telle qu'elle leur avait été concédée, ct aucun texte,
aucun document ancien ne permet, mêmeà un liistorien normand, de
prétendre qu'avant 1200 les îles dites anglo-normandes n'ont pas fait
partie du fief de Normandie.
Ne pouvant contester entièrement !'existence de ces faits - vassa-
lité du duc de Normandie, hommage au roi de France pour le fief de
Normandie -, mes collégues britanniques se sont attachés surtout à
en diminuer la portée. Danç ce but ils ont décrit le roi de France du
xnlc a11 XII~I~siècle comrne un personnage privé de tout pouvoir cffec-
tif, un seigneur parmi les seigneurs : i ce parivre homme le duc de
Normandje lie pouvait véritablement faire iin hommage sCrieux :
l'hommage qu'il faisait - et je reprends les espressions de $1.1'Attor-
ney-General et du profcsseur Wade - était (simple affaire de cour-
toisie »,((purement nominal ii.
hlais dans ces conditions, le puiççaiit duc de Xormandie aurait-il
contiiiué pendant des siècles,comme nous l'avons montré, B prêter cet
hommage, à se résigner à subir cette cirémonie humi1i:inte ? Si le roi
de France était si faible,si l'hommage était si vain, pourquoi cette
répétition h chaque changement de règne ? Pour nous, nous croyons
que si le duc de Normandie a prêtésouvent l'hommage, la rage au
cŒur, il n'a cependant pas pu s'y soustrairepour deux raisons :preniiére-
ment, le roi de France n'était pas si faible qu'on nous l'a décrit ;
deuxi&mernent, le lien juridique établi par l'hommage était particulière-
ment fort. Il convient de préciser ces deux points.
Le roi de France, merrie à l'époquedes grands troubIes successoraux,
de la rivalité entre Carolingiens et Capétiens, & la fin du xm.-siécle,
n'était pas seulement un seigneur parmi les seigneurs. Malgréla rarete
des textes qui nous sont parvenus, nous voyons que le roi Louis IV,
par exemple, a été formellement reconnu comme suzerain par les
comtes de Toulouse, dc Poitiers, de Roussillon, de ?iIâcon, par les
ducs de Bretagne et de Bourgogne ;,il gagna mêmel'hommage d'un
seigneur situé en terre d'Empire, le comte de Viennois. Aussi l'historien
Philippe Lauer se croit-il le droit de conclure (Louis II', p. 252) :((On
voit par cette énumération que Louis était reconnu comme suzerain
depuis les bouches de l'Escaut jusqu'à celles de l'Èbre. 1,
D'autre part, le lien juridique créé par l'hommage était trés fort.
11n'est peut-être pas inutile de développerce point, car l'argumentation
de la Partie adverse, bien déconcertante pour des médiévistes ou des
-feudistes,a consisté L ne voir dans l'hommage qu'une formalité vide
.de sens.
Nous parlons aujourd'hui d'ktat, de souveraineté, de compétence
territoriale. Mais à l'époqueoù se sont diiroulésles événementsdécisifs
pour la solution du présent litige, ces termes ne signifient rien. Et
ce n'est pas l'aspect le moins curieux de ce litige que la nécessitéoù
l'on se trouve de quitter un instant les concepts les plus familiers,
les notions juridiques les plus courantes, pour se plonger dans un
milieu social et juridique sans parenté avec le nôtre. Nous sornrnes210 PLAIDOIRIE DE 11. LE PROF. GROS (FRANCE) - 28 IX j3
au xrilicct au xi11i~siécles,dans une sociétésans État et sans citoye!iç.
C'est une sociétéoù il n'existe que deux choses : le lien personnel et
Ie lien de la terre, superposés d'ailleurs l'un à l'autre. Un homme,
qui prend le nom de seigneur, concède une terre 2 un autre homme
qui prend le nom de vassal. Mais le vassal ne paie pas cette terre en
argent ou en nature. Il la paie par une fidélitéabsolue à son seigneur,
lequel, en revanche, doit protéger le vassal. Toute la société est fondée
sur ce contrat entre le seigneur et le vassal ; le vassal doit la foi et
l'hommage, le seigneur la justice et la protection. Le serment de
vassalit4 accompagne la concession de terre et en est la condition ,-
nécessaire et préalable. T-e lien ,personnel entre seigneur et vassal est .
ainsi le centre mêmede la sociétéféodale. Lorsque le vassal brise sa
foi, ilperd son fief,c'est la ((commise )i,véritable saisie pour rupture
de serment. Lorsque le seigneur onlet d'apporter justice et protection,
le vassal est déliéde son hommage envers lui. Mais il garde son fief.
Seulement, ce fief, il le tient du suzerain immédiatement supérieur
dans la hiérarchie féodale.
Car ce lien de la vassalité se retrouve du haut en bas de la société,
c'est une pyramide sociale qui constitue la féodalité. Ide seigneur,
dont nous parlions à l'instant, est lui-même le vassal d'un autre
seigneur, auquel il est lié par un serment de vassalité, et Ie vassal
dont nous parlions à l'instant est lui-même le seigneur d'un autre
vassal qui lui doit foi et honimage. Ainsi s'établit une cascade de
liens féodaux, dans laqrielle chaque seigneur est le vassal d'un autre
seigneur, à l'exception du suzerain supérieur, le roi de France, et où
chaque vassal peut être lui-même le suzerain d'autres vassaus. Il
n'y a donc pas de souveraineté unique, mais une souveraineté mor-
celée et dispersée entre Ies divers seigneurs. Chacuir cle ces seigneurs
n'a de relations qu'avec son propre suzerain et son propre vassal, mais
au-clessus de lui il y a toute une hiérarchie d'autres suzerains ct au-
dessous de lui toute une hiérarchie de vassaux.
Pour terminer sur ce point, nous nous q~crmettrons simplement de
citer deux pages d'un ouvrage qui fait autorité en Angleterre, et que
ia Partie adverse a déjh invoqué, l'ouvrage de Pdlock et illaitland.
Voici le premier passage (t. 1, zinc éd., pp. 66-67) (notre traduction) :
CDire que la loi de la Normandie était principalement française,
c'est dite qu'elle était féodale.Mais féodalitéest lin mot malheureux.
D'abord ii n'attire notre attention que sur un élémentd'un état
complexede la sociétéet cet élément n'est pis le pluscaractéristique ;
il attire notre attention uniquement sur la prédominance de tenures
dc terres en dépendance. Ceci toutefois pourrait bien exister dans
une époque qui ne pourrait êtreappelée féodale au vrai sens de
terre. Les caractéristiques de la période féodalene se trouvent
pas dans les relations entre loueur et locataire, entre prêteur et
emprunteur de terre, mais dans les relations entre seigneur et
vassal, ou plutôt elles se trouvent dans la réunioii de ces deux
relations. 1)
Et voici l'application de cette théorie à la Normandie. Je cite de
nouveau (y.71) : .
tQuels qu'aient étéles termes dans lesquels Rollon reçut la
Xormandie de Charles le Simple - et la légende normande était qu'il la reçut comme un alleu -, ses successeurs furent considérés
comme tenant un fief des rois de France et leur devant en retour
hommage et service. ))
iiHroll received Normlirtdy u,tels sont les propres termes de Pollock
et Maitland ;la .duplique française s'étaitbornéeà lesreprendre (p.686).
Et lorsque le professeur Wade les reprend i son tour de la duplique
française pour les qualifier de pure fiction, nous ne pouvons être de
son avis, et nous croyons que Pollock et Maitland ont donné une bonne
analyse de la sitiiation.
La deuxiéme période que noiis allons examiner va de 1204 à la fin
du svnic siècle; elle est caractériséepar la perte par les rois d'Angleterre
de la plus grande partie de la Normandic, ct par l'élaboration d'un
nouveau statut entre roide France etroi diAngleterre.
Après la confiscation de la Normandie en 1204, le traité de Paris
de 1259 rbtablit I'allégeance qui avait été rompue. Nous prétendons
que le titre primitif de la France sur les Minquiers et les Écréhous,
qui se trouvait inclus dans l'inféodation de 933 et dans les hommages
postérieurs, a étérenouvelt et accru par le traité de 1259. Les traités
postérieurs de Brétigny, de Troyes, de Picquigny iic modifièrent pas
la situation.
A propos de la saisie de la Normandie, mes collégues.britanniques
ont de noiiveau mis en doute la validité de la sentence qui aurait été
prononcbe pour des motifs d'opportunité politique. Remarquez que
qualifier la sentence de((prétexte Iégaliic'est déjà reconnaître le carac-
tére légal de la saisie. Ilest certain que cette saisie de la Normandie
fut un sucds politique pour Philippe-Auguste, en écartant un vassal
puissant. Mais les motifs d'une action ne modifient pas son fondement
juridique. Le roi d'Angleterre ayant enlevé Isabelle d'AngouIême et
refusé de comparaître devant la Cour des Pairs de France, fut légiti-
mement condamné à perdre ses fiefs. C'est la proctdure féodale qui
s'appelle la commise, et dont on connaît bien d'autres cas. Le chro-
niqueur anglais contemporain, Raoul de Coggeshall, dont on ne peut
guère suspecter le témoignage, a donné un récit très précis de cette
affairequi se trouve dans la duplique française (p. 692).
Le pape Innocent III, dans une lettre adressée au roi Jean sans
Terre, le 31 octobre 1203, nous en a donné un autre récit, de forrne
moins juridique peut-être, mais qui concorde parfaitement avec le
précédent et qui est cité dans la duplique française (p. 694).
Il est exact de dire, et nous le reconnaissons bien volontiers avec le
professeur \Vade, que la sentence de rzo2 a rompu le lien féodal qui
unissait leduc au roi de France. Mais uniquement dans ce sens qu'elle
entraînait le retour au roi de France de l'ensemble des fiefs tenus par
le duc de Xormandie dans le Royaume de 'France. Les guerres qui
suivirent pendant une cinquantaine d'années eurent pour but l'exécu-
tion de lacommise, qui fut portée beaucoup plus loin que la Normandie.
De 1202 à 1259 i'action des rois de France n'est que l'exécution de la
commise.
Philippe-Auguste réussit assez facilement h occuper la Normandie,
en 1204, à l'exception de certaines îles. SofilsLouis, en 1217, débarqua
méme en Angleterre, pénétradans Londres et faillrenouveler l'exploit
.de Guillaume le Conquérant. Devenu roi de France, sous le nom deLouis VIII, il poursuivit l'esécution de la commise et s'empara en 1226
du Poitou et de la Saintonge. Enfin, son successeur, saint Louis, repoussa
et battit àSaintes en 1242 le roi d'Angleterre Henri III, qui envisageait
de reprendre ces provinces. QrieIques années après ces événements,
le traité de Paris rétablissait la pais et les rois d'Angleterre prstaieiit
de nouveau hommage aus rois de France.
Mais avant d'aborder les clauses de ce traité,il convient de revenir
un instant en arriere et d'examincr un acte que la Partie adverse s
cru pouvoir employer. Il s'agit d'un accord, ou plus exactement d'un
projet d'accord, appelé traité de Lambeth, conclu en 1217 entre le
roi d'Angleterre, Henri III, et Louis, fils de Philippe-Auguste.
Remarquons d'abord que ce traité stipule une ueslitution des îles au
roi d'Angleterre, ce qui implique nettement qu'elles n'étaient pas alors
en sa possession. Le traité envisagc mêmele cas où le prince Louis,
qui ordonne cette restitution, ne serait pas obéi : dans ce cas les iles
resteraient en dehors du traité de pais. Le traité de Lambeth indique
donc ex+licitemevt que les îles avaient éclzafipau roi d'Angleterre, et
il pourrait être invoqué A l'appui de la thése française. Cependant,
nous ne retiendrons pas cet acte, car il ne mettait pas en cause le roi
de France: il était passi: simplement avec Louis, agissant en son nom
personnel et n'ayant reçu aucune clélégation de pouvoir de la part de
son père, le roi Philippe-Auguste.
Le Gouvernement français reconnaît au contraire, comme le Gouver-
nement britannique, l'importance du traitéde paix, dit de Paris, conclu.
le 28 mai 1258 et ratifié par saint Louis et Henri III d'Angleterre, en
octobre 12jg. Cc traité ~0li~aclait la reconnaissance définitive de la
commise par le roi d'Angleterre ; il attribuait au roi de France la
Normandie, l'Anjou, la Tooraiiie et le Poitou, et apportait des préci-
sions intéressantes en ce qui concerne les iles. Nous nous permettrons
de reprendre attentivement certains de ces articles, en donnant tous
les commentaires nécessaires.
L'article 4 contient les dispositions suivantes : cEt de ce que le
roi de France donnera au roi d'Angleterre et à ses liéritierscn fiefs
et en domaines, le roi d'Angleterre et ses héritiers feront hommage
lige au roi de France et à ses héritiers les rois de France ; et aussi (le
roi d'Angleterre fera hommage) cle Bordeaux, de Bayonne et de Gas-
cogne, et de toute la terre qu'il tient deça lamer d'Angleterre en fiefs
et en domaines ; et des?les,s'ily en a quelqzres-unesquele roi d'dngleferrc
tienne en fief, qusoient du royaume de Frarzce ; ettiendra de lui comme
pair de France et duc d'Aquitaine. t)
Par cet article, le roi d'Angleterre recevait en fief leduché de Gas-
cogne et les îles tenues par ludans lc royaume de France. Qu'il s'agisse
de certaines îles de l'Atlantique - peu nombreuses à vrai dire, car
la plupart, comme Ré, Oléronou Koirmoutiers dépendaient de l'apanage
dJA1p1ionsede Poitiers, ainsi que nous le verrons à propos de l'article 6.
- ou qu'il s'agisse de Jersey et de Guernesey, comme l'affirme 1s
réplique britannique, ces iles devaient répondre à une double condi-
tion : être situées dans le royaume de France, et étre tenues par
le roi d'Angleterre à charge d'hommage.
L'article 6 ajoutait : (En faisant cette paix, le roi d'Angleterre
abandonnera au roi de France, à ses successeurs, à ses hoirs et à son
frère tous ses droits, si lc roi d'Angleterre ou ses prédécesseurs en
possèdent, sur les choses tenues par le roi de France, par ses prédéces- PLAIDOIRIE DE 31,LE PROF. GROS (FRANCE) - 28 IX 53 213
seurs ou par son frère. » Les droits abandonnés par Ie roi d'Angleterre
se trouvant (je continue la citation) <idans tout le duch6 et toute la
terre de 'I'onnandie, dans les comtés et toute la terre d'Anjou, de
Touraine, de Maine et de Poitou, et ailleurs, et dans les iles si quelques-
unes en tient le roi de France ou son frère, ou un de leurs vassaux n.
Dans cet article, le roi d'Angleterre cédait au roi de r'rance tous
les droits qu'il pouvait avoir sur la Normandie, l'Anjou, la Touraine,
le Maine, le Poitou et les îles tenues dans le royaume dc France soit
par le roi de France, soit par son frère. Les îles viséedans le deuxiéme
cas, c'est-à-dire tenues par le frère de saint Louis, étaient des îleç de
la côte atlantique relevant de l'apanage d'Alphonse de Poitiers ; elles
correspondent d'ailleurs à la province citée en dernier dans l'énumé-
ration : Ie Poitou. Ce sont en particulier Ré, Noirmoutiers, Oléron.
Les iles comprises dans le premier cas, c'est-à-dire tenues par le roi
lui-même, ne pouvaient être que des iles rattachees directement au
royaume de France ; les seules répondant à ce critére sont les îles qui
ont suivi le sort de la Normandie, citées en têtede l'énumération des
provinces, dans le mêmcarticle, et distinctes des iIes de la Manche
tenues par les Anglais qui sont, elles, citées dans l'article 4 :il ne
peut s'agir que des îles Chausey, Minquiers et Ecréhous. L'article 6
du traité de Paris est une consécration dc la commise de 1202.
Remarquons, d'ailleurs, pour en terminer avec l'interprétation de
ce texte, que si «toutes ales îlesde la Manche avaient alors été tenues
par les Anglais, comme l'a soutenu le professeur Wade, le texte du
traité l'aurait certainement explicitement mentionnb. Nous ne voyons
rien de tel. Bien au contraire, deus articles très précis opposent les
unes aux,autres les différentes catégories d'îles que la Partie adverse
essaie de décrire comme une unité.
Le second traité qui mentionne les îles est le traité de Brétigny de
1360. Après l'énumération très détaillée des provinces ct des villes
cédéesau roi d'Angleterre eii toute souveraineté, comme Calais, le
Ponthieu, le Poitou, la Saintonge, la Guyenne, le traité déclare, dans
son articIe 6 : ILe roi d'Angleterre ct ses héritiers auront ct tiendront
toutes les îles adjacentes aux terres, pays et lieux avant nommés, avec
toutes les a.utres îles que le roi d'Angleterre tient B présent. a Les iles
adjacentes aux territoires cédéssont évidemment des îlesde l'Océan
comme Noirmoutiers, Rd, Oléron, Yeu ; nulle contestation ne parait
possible iice sujet. Alais iln'en est pas de mêmepour cles autres îles
tenues par le roi d'Angleterre ». Dire que le roi d'Angleterre rtiendra
toutes les îles qu'il tientJIest une formule à peu prés vide de sens.
On peut d'ailicurs s'étonner de Ia grande imprécision de cette dési-
gnation, alors que tous les autres articles du traité sont très détaillés
et excluent le moindre doute ; il est mêmeproprement incornpréhen-
sible que les îles de la Manche, ou certaines d'entre elles- si c'est
d'eIles qu'il s'agit-, n'aient pas éténommées et bnum&rées. A cela
nous pensons qu'il y a une raison bien simple : le roi d'Angleterre
voulait se réserver la possibilité de revendiquer des îles où il n'était
pas encore installé, et qui pouvaient lui échapper. N'oublions pas,
en effet, que l'année prtcédente le roi de France Jean, prisonnier
Londres, avait conclu un accord qui ne fut pas ratifié et qui c6dait
la Normandie aux Anglais, la, Normandie avec ses iles naturellement,
Chausey, les Minquiers, les Ecréhous. Par le traité de Brétigny, au
contraire, la Normandie restait à la France. On comprend que le roi214 PLAIDOIRIE DE 31.LE P130F.GROS (FRAKCE) - 18 IS 53
d'Angleterre ait essayé de reprendre au moins les îles qui dépendaient
de la Normandie depuis le traité de 1259, c'est-à-dire les Cliausey,
Minquiers et Ecréhous.
Quoi qu'il en soit, on ne peut prétendre que le traité de Brétigny
ait modifié la situation établie par le traité de Paris. D'abord parce
que le texte en est véritablement trop incertain ; ensuite, parce que
les renonciations qui devaieiit transférer la souverainet4 ne furent
jamais échangées.Dès 1369, 121non-exécution du traité de Brétigny
entraînait une reprise des hostilités.
Aucun autre traité postérieur ne contient de disposition réglant le
statut des îles situées au large de la côte normande. On ne trouve
ensuite qu'un accord mentionnant les possessions insuIaires angIaises.
La tr&ve de 1471, entre Louis XI et Henri VI, contient la promesse
du roi de France de ne faire aucune agression contre le royaume d'Ali-
gleterre, la seigneurie d'Irlande, la ville et marche de Calais, Guines
et Ham, les iles de Giiernesey, jersey et Aurigny et autres pnys, îles,
terres ct seigneuries tenues par le roi dJAngleteri-c. Aucune mention
dans cette trêve n'estfaite de Chausey, des hlinqiiiers et des ÉcrChous
qui, si elles avaient alors étéanglaisg, auraient eu besoin, plus que
les autres encore, d'être protégéescontre une attaque venant de la
cbte française, puisqu'elles eri sont les plus prochesOn ne peut raison-
nablement supposer que ces îles, si elles avaient étéanglaises alors,
eussent étéimpliquées dans la trêve par la simple formule : ((et autres
pays, îles, terres et seigneuriesi.L'expression ((et autres ilesIpourrait
signifier?Lla rigueur Ies îles de la cote anglaise, comme Wight.
J'aurais arrêtélà mon exposésur le titre ancien de la France, puisque
les iles ne sont plus citées dans aucun trait6 de limites avec l'Angle-
terre, si je n'avais à.faire encore quelquesrtflexionssur lesévénements
de 1483-1485.
A vrai dire, ces Cvénements de 1483-1485 je les ignorais. C'est la
Partic adverse qui nous les 3 révi.li.et nous ne sommes pas encore
persuadés de Ieur existence.
M. l'Attorney-General a déclaréqu'en Francc le système féodal avait
pris fin sous le règne de Louis XI, c'est-à-dire entre 1461 et 1483. Et
il a ajouté que, tous les droits dérivant du systéme féodal étant alors
tombés, la France n'avait plus de titre ancien à produire au sujet des
Minquiers et des ficréhous. Le professeur \Vade, après quelques hési-
tations sui- la date, a proposé cependant 1455, avcc les mêmes effets
destructeurs.
Certes, on enseignait autrefois dans les écoles,et on y enseigne peut-
êtreencore, que le inoyen âge finissait exactement en 1453, à la prise
de Constailtinople par les Turcs. C'était un peu simplifier les clioses,
mais, très approxiniativement, cela approchait de la vérité.
14r contre, dire que le régne de Louis SI a vu la disparition des
droits féodaux, et probablement aussi de toutes les dispositions établies
par Ics traités antérieurs, c'est .une affirmation qui est sans fondement.
La France a connu jusqu'à la fin de l'ancien régime des fiefs, de
grands fiefs, comme la Lorraine, leNivernais, les Dombes. Et en cette
matière les événements de 1789 paraissent tout cle même avoir kt6
décisifs, en particulier une certaine nuit du 4 août.
De ces observations sur leproblème du titre originel, nous soinmes
fondés à dCduire que la France possédait ce titre bien avant le
xnlrsiècle, car pour donner les diocèses dlAvranclies et de Coutancesau duc de Normanclie eri 933, le roi de France devait bien les avoir
en sa propriété,L'arrkt de 1202 et le traité de Yak de 1259 ~i'ont fait
que confirmer cc titre originel, que les faits iiivotliiés pour ln périoclc
ancienne par le Royaurne-Uni n'ont jamais détruit.
Xous cn vcrions au titre II de cette deuxième partic féodale: I'appli-
catiari des principes du droit i6odal i la situation [Les Miniltiiers, des
Ecréhous et des C1i:iiisey.
IIcori\~icritd'insister avant tout sur l'aspect particulier quc j~résente
la question de la possession clans le 11r6seiitlitige. 11iie s'agit pas ici,
cornine daris la plupitrt des ;iffaires dniit a eu à coiinaitre ia juridictioii
interiiationr~lç, de cornparcr uu d'opposer le titre imprirfait ('inchoulc
tifle),néde la découverte, et le titre cléfinitif,11cl'un (esercicc continu
et ~i:~cifiqucde l'autorité étatiquei)poirr cmployer les termes (lel'arbitre
daris L'affaire de l'île de Palmas. T,a problème se posc, en effet,de 1:i-
maiiière suiv:liite. 1.3 Francc possède lin tittc originel sur l'ensemble
des îles de la BIanclic ; le .traité de 12j9, ainsi que tous autres traités
ultérieurs clu'oii poiirrait invotluer jusclu'aii SVII~~~ siécle, iic placeiit
sous la soirvcrainet6 ;iiiglrtiqua celles clcs îles pour lesquclles le
Royaume-Urii peut prouver la possessiori à 1:date de la conclusion de
ces divers traités. I'our simplifier, on peut clire que la souveraineté
anglaise ne peut être rcteiiuc nrijourd'~iui, en ce qui concerne les Min-
quiccs et les ~?crkt\uus,quc si lc Goiivcrnetneiit du Royaume-Uiii apporte
la preuve d'une possession sufisaiite, sinoti avant 1259, du moins
pendant l'ensemble de la période ancienne, rlcpuis cette date jusqu'à
la fin du svi~in~c siècle.
1711droit strict, le Gouverneinerit dc la Riipublique fr:iill;aist pourrait
donc se contenter de contester la valeur probatoire iles faits de pos-
sessioti invoqués par le Gouvernemeiit du lioyaumc-Uiii sirr les îlots
litigieris,l'absence tlc preuvc de possession effectivc de la part du
Royaume-U~ii entrainant ipso {nctol'attribution des îlots à la France.
Si le Gouveriiemeiit de la R6publiqiie parvient à établir l'absence de
possession tle l'=liiglcterre sur les ilots, le tiirc originel 'français (incor-
poration aus origines (-lesiles tle la Nariclre tlans leur ensemble dans
le cluciié di: Normaridic, arrêt cic rzoz, trait6 cle Paris) suffirait à lui
seul A faire attribuer 1;isouverainet6 sur ces îlots à la Francc, et cela
mêinesi la 1;raricc n'avait pas accompli d'actes positifs de possession
sur eus. A cet égard, un pourrait rappeler 1;iseiitencc arbitrale tlu roi
d'Italie dans l'affaire de I'ilc cle Clippertonen clnie du 28 janvier 1931 :
...l'île de Clipperton :L été légitimement ücquisc par la France ....
Iln'y a :lucuii motif d'estimer que ln France ait ult~rieuremeiit perdu
son clroit par clerelictio, puisqii'eln'a jamais CU I'anirnus cl'abaiidonner
l'île,etle fait tle ~i'yavoir pas exercé son autoritéd'une manièrepositive
n'implique pas la d6chéance d'une actIuisition déjà définitivement
faite. n
En fait, le Gouvernernent français ne se coiitcritera 11;~se nier l'exis-
tence de faits de yossession anglaise sur les Jlinquiers et Ies Ecréhous.
11 s'attachera à démontrer, dans la mesure oii les documents relatifs
a iiric période aussi éloignécde notre histoire le permettent, qu'au
Inomeiit de la coiiclusion di1 traité de Paris et de tout traité ultérieiir,
les ilots étaient dans la possessioil effective dii roi de France et que
cette possession effective n'a fait que confirmer le titre originel. Nous
Ic ferons d'ahord pour les Ecrélioiis, cnsiiite pour les Minquiers, ct enfinpour les Chausey, puisque, contrairement i toute attente, la France
doit justifier une possession ancienne des Chauçcy. ...
Depuis la mainmise de Phili~ilie-Auguste sur la Normandie, en 1204,
les Ecréhous ont constamment relevé de la couronne de France par
l'intermédiaire de l'abbaye de Val Richer, située en Normandie conti-
nentale, près de Lisieux. Le Gouvernement de la 1Zépubliquefrançaise
a établi dans son contre-mémoire (pp. 364 et S.)et dans sa dupIique
(pp. 697 et S.)le caractère indiscutablede cette ossession, et il a montré
que les actes isolésde possession invoqués par Pe Royaume-Uni étaient
dénués de pertinence. Sans rewnir sur le détail merne des événements,
nous nous contenterons d'en retracer brièvement les élémentsessentiels
pour la solution du litige.
r0La charte de 1203et la fondation del'égliseNotre-Dame d'f?crehou.
I'ar une charte du 14 janvier 1200 (annexe A S au mémoire), confir-
mée par des chartes données à .4ngers le 21 juin suivant (annexes A g
et A IO},le roi Jean d'Angleterre avaitconcédé à Pierre des Préaux
les îles de Jersey, Guernesey et Aurigny, ainsi que certaines terres
en Angleterre et près de Rouen, moyennant le servicede trois cheva-
liers et à condition que Pierre fit un mariage qui satisfasse le roi.
En 1203, Pierre,des Préaux donna, par une charte (annexe A 7 du
mémoire), l'île dlEcréhou à l'abbaye de Val Kicher «en libre, pure
et perpétuelle aumône 11et à charge, pour les moines de Val Richer,
de construire dans l'ile une basilique en l'honneur de Dieu et de Ste-
Marie où seraient célébréschaque jour les saints mystères.
1-e passage essentiel de cette charte sc trouve au contre-mémoire,
PaDe la mention ccgzli?nihiinsztias dedi1)(qui m'a donné les îles) le
inemoire du Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni (par. 126) tire la preuve
que la donation de Jersey, par la charte de rzoo, comportait i+so
fado,à titre de dépendances, celle des Ecréhous.
Ceci peut être discuté. L'expression : (1qui inihi insulas dedit e,si
elle devait designer toutes les îlau large de la côte normande, comme
le pense la Partie adverse, serait bien peu conforme aux habitudes
et au style du temps. On devrait avoir dans ce cas soit : (qui mihi
omnes insulas cledit », soit plutôt une énumération desdites îles. En
l'absence de toute autre indication dans la teneur même de I'acte,
le mot iiinsulasn renverrait plutdt à Ecréhou même, cité aussitôt '
après. La seule objectipn serait alors l'emploi du pluriel puis du singulier
pour désigner l'île dfEcréhou.BIaiçil convient de remarquer que nous
n'avons pas l'acte original de 1203, nous ne le'connaissons que par
une édition ancienne du XVIII~~C siècle, celle de la Gallia Christiana,
qui iie peut être considéréecomme une édition critique. Et tous les
médiévistessavent que les erreurs de transcription sont particulière-
ment nombreuses en ce qui concerne les terminaisons nnz ou as. Quoi
qu'il. en soit, admèttons ménie que l'expression rtqui mihi insulas
dedit iirenvoie à la charte de 1200. II n'en reste pas moins que Ies
deux chartes, celle de1200 comme celle de 1203,se placent à un moment
où les îles de la Manche forment encore un tout complet avec la Nor-
mandie continentale sous la couronne du duc de Normandie, roi
d'Angleterre, et ce n'est qu'à la suite des guerres qui allaient suivre PLAIDOIRIEDE 31. LE PROF. GROS (FRANCE) - 2s IX 53 217
que les îles allaient être scindées eri deus groupes, les unes &talit
occupéespar Ic roi d'Angleterre, les autres l'étant par le roi de France.
N'oublions pas que l'éclatement des îles au point (le vue de leur statut
territorial ne prend place qu'en 12j9, lorsque Ie traite de Pans établit
une différence entre les îles tenues par le roi d'ilngletcrre et Ies îles
non tenues par ce dernier. ,
Reste à savoir quel a étél'effet juridique, sous l'empire du droit
fkndal, de la charte de 1203.
La tliése du professeur Ylucknett, dans la coiisultatioii remise par
le Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni, est cluc la franche aumône diffère
de l'alleu et s'apparente au fief, et qu'une tenure en aumône se crée
donc par sous-ini$odatioi-i.Il en conclut qu'en 1203, Pierre des Préaux,
concédai~tI'ile d'Ecréhou en franche aumône à l'abbaye de Val Kicher,
:isous-inféodécette île L I'abl~aye; il a créiiun degré supplémentaire
dans cettc « hiérarchie des popvoirs 1que j'ai décrite dans la féotlalité,
pouvoirs s'eserqant isur les I<criihous n; c'est ce qui est dit tr6s claire-
ment au clébut au paragraphe g qui résume les conclusions (11professeur
I'lucknett.
Cette vue des choses prête 4 la critique. Certes, on concédera volon-
tiers P l'liistorien du droit britannique que l'alleii et la irariche aumône
offrent bien des diff6rences, cluc ce sont seirleme~it des auteurs tarciifs,
tels Boiitillier ou Loisel, (lui ont exprimé clairement l'idée qu'onpouvait
les rapprocher I'tinde l'autre ;qu'on ne saurait faire état de l'opinion
cle ces auteurs pour iiiterpréter un teste normantl cle 1203. II serait
sans doute erroné de dire qu'en 1203Ecréhouest devenu un alleu. Mais
li n'est pas la question, et la duplique française, ainsi cluc le rappelle
M. Plucknett lui-même(p. 613), nc le prétend pas. Si nous restons dans
le sujet précis,il'agit seulement de savoir si,:n 1203, Pierre des Prkaiix
s'est maintenu dans la hiérarchie relative à 1-créhou, ou s'il s'est effacé.
Il y a tout lieu de penser qu'ils'est effacé.Une probabilité en faveur
de cette opinion résulterait dbjà de l'examen des coutumiers normands ;
une quasi-certitude se dégage de I'etucle des termes cle I'acteLui-même. ..
Le très ancien coutumier normand, antérieur de peu d'annéesà 1203,
oppose l'aumône au fief, et l'on ne peut sJemp&cher de penser, à Ic lire,
que le professeur I'lucknett, dans son désirde démontrer la sous-inféoda-
tion, a ététrop porté B Ics rapprocher l'un de L'autre. Ce coutumier leur
consacre deus chapitres différents; il traite de la première, t'aumône,
au chapitre SVIII, clu second, le fief, au chapitrc SIX (éd. Tardif,
pp. rg et ss.).Y a-t-il contestation sur la nature d'un bien :il précise
ln procéclurequ'il faudra suivre pour déterminer (si c'est une aumône
ecclésiastique ou un fief laïque 11,Utrztm ftcerielemositta ccclesis ...vel
jeodzcmlaici (ch.XVIII) ; il affirme que la justice laïque est incompétente
en matière d'aumône, elle ne peut (étendre sa main sur l'aumône du
prêtre ni sur les biens ecclésiasticlues lui appartenant ii,laica justicia
xon exfendil malirtm srcam irt elemosinam presbyteri nec in res ifisizts
ccclesiasticas. Au chapitre LVII, où il est eiicore question i(d'almone »,
(les règles analogues sont réitérées ; il est précisé(par. 6) que la terre
tenue en aumône par une église ne saurait être grevée de servitium,
qui est de l'essence du fief ; il est impliqué (par. S) que c'est un bien
.d'église. Voilà qui nous écarte de la notion (le fief,et par conséquent
(le la sous-inféodation.
Seconde observation, toujours tirée des coutumiers normands. S'il
y avait sous-infeodation, il faudrait nécessairement que certains droits218 t21,.411)OlKIIII3 Sr.LE:IJICOF.GROS (FRAKCII) - 28 IX.53
du concédant soieiit réservésà son profit, ne fiit-ce que ceux du doinaine
éminent. La Siimma de Legibz6.sNormunnie, rédigéevers le milieu du
.uIIalisiècle,insiste sur ces réserves de droits. EIIe fondc sur clles une
classification des aumones (ch. CXV, Cd. Tardif, t. II, 1).298). 11peut
y avoir, dit-elke, aumône parfaite, elcmosina $tua, au cas où Ic priiice
territorial,c'est-à-direIc duc de Norin;indie, riie rctient aiicune juridic-
tion temporelle, :lucurie dignité11elemosi?tarizrtcmpura estinqira flrin-
CC@rtihil sib ierrene retinefjurisdicdionis sei~dignifatis (par. g), et dans
ce cas-li le bien tombe sous la seule juridiction ecclésiastique (par. bis).
11peut y avoir au contraire réserve de juridiction du prince, et c'est le
cas visé par Blum, Les ovigi~tes du bref de fief lai et d'airmbne (1923,
p. 3j1), je cite : «Ici le seigneur donatciir abandonne tous ses droits
sauf celui du dornlnlcscapilaEisou du duc. u Enfin, il pourrait aussi y
avoir (et c'est i cela que pense M. I'lucknett) réservc nu profit, non
seulement du c-luc,mais aussi clu concédant. Dans ce cas-li, ln Sllmma
est très nette, il faut une réserve formelle ; ((nul ne peut réclamer un
droit quelcorique de juridiction sur un fief qu'il a aumône s'il ne l'a
retenu siir ce fief D, ?aulltisaufem in /eudo qtrod ebemosz'itaverifpotest
(iliquamjtirisdictionem rcciamare,?tisi Camspecialitcr retinzierit i~reodem
(par. S, ibid., p. 298)O .r l'acte de 1203 rie forinde pas cle rCserve au
profit dc Pierre des I'rkairs. Ce passage clela Sîrnar7tsuffirait h suggérer
qu'il ne s'est rien réservé, qu'ila abandonné tous ses droits. -
Cette impression est confinni-e par les termes mêmesde l'acte dc 1203.
Il y a, en réalité,dans cet acte et par cet acte, non pas une, iiiais deus
donatioiis, plus esactetncnt deus concessions faites par Pierre des Préaux
aux moines de Val Riclicr. En premier lieu, il leur donne l'île dl]icréhou.
Eii second lieu, il leurconfirme une donation qui leur avait Ctéfaite
par ses vassaus de Jersey, Guernesey et Aurigny, Item cuircessiprae-
dictis ~nonachisquidqt~idab Izo?ni~tibzrm seis de Csrsy et de Certteséel de
Aurerze, ais ctrritntis igttuitti rationnbiEiterdatzcmfzr....(Gallia Chris-
tia~ra,t. XI, instr.,C. 941,je concéde aux susdits moines tout ce qui
Icui- n étédoriné dans une intention charitable par mes vassaus de
jersey, de Guernesey ct d'Aurign yi,il ajoute : ((Salvo jure nteo 11,
réserve faitede mon droit. La clause SaEvu jtrre est laclause-type de
réser\.e de droits ; oiila trouve notamment daiis une charte de 1237
du cartulairc de Saint-Michel du Trkport (cité par I3lum, 1). 371) :
elemosiizanf salvo jure capitalium domznorir~rz.Il faut interprkter ces
trois mots de notre acte rle la façon suivante. Les \?assaus (lePierre
des Préaux dans les trois iles n'awient pu donncr aus moines que ce
qu'ils possédaient sur les terres aiimbnées, conforménient au principc
qu'énoncela Sarrnmudans le passage citépar Pluckliett (p.614, no 8) :
que nul ne peut autnôner d'une terre que ce qui lui appartient sur
cette tcrre, nitllorsaziten~eletrtosynnrefiotcstex aliqtbaterra, nisi hocsoluri~
qztodsuum est ~FL eadem. Ils avaient donc fait uiie réserve des droits
de Pierre ; c'està cette réser1.e que Pierre fait nilusion iorsqu'ii dit que
les moines ont reçu leur donation salvo jure nteo ; et ce sont eii ré+lité
ces droits réservésqui constituent l'objet de la concession de Pierrc
sur Jersey, Giiernesey, -4urigny.Pierre, sur ces trois îles, renonce dolic
a tous ses droits, c'est clair ; il s'efface devaiit Val Riclier.
En ce qui concerne la donation d'kcréhou, sa volonté est la iiicme ;
elle résulte non moins clairement du fait qu'il ii'ÿ a pas de clause salvo
jure, et aussi dans les mots Iiabetrdamet possidendncirn liberc etquiets, plznarie,et hoiiorifice, inliberam ef$zcram et perfieti~amelentosy nrinl,qiii
impliquent une donation sans nulle réserve.
Ecréliou, en 1203, .est donc rattaché directement 5 Val Kiclier,
soustrait au droit de Pierre des Préaux. Certes la franche aumône, qui
ne pou~~riitCtrc faite (lue par le duc, ou par un seigneur ayant toute
jriridictioii, supposait dans ce dernier cas le consentenient di1 d~ic
(Strmmrr tie Lcgibz~s,CSV, par. 7). Mais ce consentement pouvait érre
tacite, ct résultait de la prescription trentehaire, comme l'indique la
Szimrnu ;iiTout fiefpossédéd'une manière paisible et hridente, pendant
30 ans, sous le rioin d'aiimbne ou 5 titre d':iumône, devra êtretenu et
rcconnri coinme une aumûne. >>(Voir sur cc point I3lurn, ouvrage cité.)
1-econtre-mémoire français a donc dit à juste titre qu'en 1203 i(Jean
était seigneur supérieiir des I?créhoiis parce qu'en sa qualité de duc
il Ctait siizerain suyériciir de Val Nicher ....L'île dfEcréhou dépendait
de luipar l'intermédiaire de l'abbaye au lieii d'en relever par l'intcr-
nlédiaire du fief des îles. ii
Ce qu'il est important de soiiligner, c'est que c'espq l'intermédiaire
direct dc: \'al Nicher, abbaye continentale, qu'en 1203 Ecréhou dépend
di1 duc de Bormandie, et non pas par l'intermédiaire du fief des îles.
En 1204, Jean sans 'rcrre, condamné par la cour de France pour man-
quement a ses obligations de vassal, perd la Norrnnndie continentale ;
Pliilippe-Auguste est lors substitué à lui pour tous les droits di1 diic
de Normandie, concernant la Normnndic continentale, et notamment
les droits relatifs à Val Richer, donc à Ecréliou. Les contemporains
l'ont pzirfaitemcnt saisi, un texte de 1209 en faitfoi. Cette année-là
iin seigneur de Normandie contiiientale, GuiIlaunie dlArgences (je
cite),r donna sa terre cle Surtenville pour faire subsister deux religieux
prophès de l'abbaye de Valricher d:ins l'isle d'Escrehout, ce qui fiit
confirmé par Hugues de Morville évéquede Coutance ib.Ce fait nous
cst rapporté par ilne histoire du diocèse dc Bayeux, rédigéeen 1701
par Hermant (bibliothèclue municipale dc Caen, ms 297, p. 204). 11
est corroboré par un rentier du svlnt: siècle (pub]. dans le Curluluire
(les îles normantles, Jersey, 1924, no 339,,p. 421) (je'cite) : ul)u Don
Guillaume d'Argcnces : [ moulin à vent ri lapiéce de terre sus quoy
ilsiet en la terre Rogier Poutre]. Sus le moulin a ble~7dudit, SX bois-
,se:iuls de fourmeiit mesure de Barneville. i)Barneville-sur-mer (Manche,
:irr.de Valogncs) est une localité située à une dizaine de kilomètres
au sud de Surtrainville, un peu à l'oiiest de Carteret. Quant à Guillaume
d'=\rgences, c'est un seigneur de la Normandie continentale, cité par
Gilles-André dc la Rocque, Histoire de ln famille d'Harcourt, 1662,
tome II, page 1174.
Ainsi, en 1209, cinq ans après la séparation de la Xormandic conti-
ncntalc .et des îles anglo-normandes actueIles, une donation est faite
poiir deils religieux d'Ecréhou dépendant de Val Ricfier. C'est la
donation d'une terre du continent. ficréhoii est, en quelque sorte,
considérécomme rattaché au continent non pas seulement di1 point
de vue juridique, mais du point de vue écoriomique. [Sdnitce Publique du 29 septcmbve1953, ~naliiz]
AIonsierir le Président, Messieurs de la Cour :
Hicr j'ai démontré que la France avait un titre originel, gi.iiéra1,
sur toutes les îles du fief de Normandie jusqu'au jour oii les îles ont
cessédc constituer un ensemble ct où certaines sont devenues possession
britannique, d'autres possessiori f~ansaise. Le problème est depuis lors
de savoir si les hlinquiers et IesEcr6lious sont dans Ic groupe {(tenu i~
par L'Angleteqc ou clans le groupe i(tetiu» par la France. Eii ce qui
concerne les Ecréhoiis, le point capital est celui de savoir qiicls sont
les effets de la franche au,n~ônc.En effet, ou bien Pierre des l'réaux a
perdu tous droits sur les EcrCtioiis par la doiintion dc 1203, et !'abbaye
de Val Richer est, depuis 1203, leseul titulaire de droits sur Ecréhou,
et, par l'intermédiaire de l'abbayede Val Riche?, le Royaume de l'rance.
Dans cette hypothèse, qui a Val Ricticr, a Ecréliou. Or, Val Richer
est en Normandie contiiientalc ; Val Iiiclier est au roi cle France; doiic
Ecréhou aussi. Ou bien la franche aumiine n'a pas fait (lisparaître ce
lien entre Ecréhou et des Prénus et, par lui, avec le duc de Normandie,
r~i d'Angleterre. Et alors,a moins que la Francc rie prouve avoir occupé
Ecréhou après rzoz, eri~esécution de la corninise pri.iwe par 1'arri.t
de la Cour de France, Ecréhou est anglais.
Voila donc le fait capital d:liis cette affaire, parfaitement perçu par
Ic Royaume-Uni, qui l'a dkrnoiitré en produisant I'intércssante consul-
tation du professeur I'iucknett. Tout tourne h cet égard autour dcs
effets de la franche aumône. Ile l'avis du Gou\.eriienient français,
la franche aumône, formellemciit coiicéc1i.edans l'acte de 1203 cornnie
étant pure, libre et perpétuelle, a brisé tous liens entre Pierre des
Préaus et l'île, donc entre l'Angleterre et I'Ue,pour na laisser subsister,
par l'intertnédiaire de l'abbaye de Val Kicher, qu'un lieri avec le roi
de France.
Ilnous reste à examiner, en ce qui concerne Écrfhou, dive-ciargu-
irieiits moins importaiits, car la question de la franche aumbrie décide
du sort d'Ecrkhou, mais qui ont éte avancCs par Ines collègues bri-
tanriiclucs.
lout d'abord, la procédure {le quo IC'RIYU J~~1 3)9. Coin~ne nous
l'avons espliclué dans le contre-mémoire, cette procédure coiisiste en
un procès porté devant les assises, que Ic roi d'Arigletcrrc avait
institiiées, darrsIcs p;iyssoumis i sa rlorninatiaii pour Ilreclicrche cle
ses propres droits. Chaque possesseur dc biens, sur lesquels les repr&-
sentants di1roi ti'hnglcterre estimaient ou prétcndaieiit que leur rnaitre
avait clcs ilroits, était cité dcvalit clcs justiciers itinérants vcniis sui
les licus. 11était sommé de produire ses titres, de dirc de quel garant
(de ytio 2e:arrctwto)il se réclamait pour justifier sa possessioii. Uii
procès-verbal, établi pour clinclue pl:lid, indiquait l:t rlécisio!i prise.
En I'esphce,l'abbé de Val Kiclier, représentépar- leprieur d'I<créhoii,
était cité devant les assises de Jersey au sujct d'un- moulin situé sur
cette île, au sujet de l'« advocatio » du prieuré d'Ecréhou, eiifiii au
sujet (l'un revenu de vingt sous qu'il percevait sur les revenus royaus
de Jersey. L'existence menie (le cc revenu montre Bien que le rai
d'Angleterre avait aiclé a la cloriation d'Ecrehou 4 Val Richer. Le
pr0ci.s-verbal (annexe A 12) traite longuement de la première et dela troisième question :du moulin ct de la rente, rente qui est verke
- notons-le - en monnaie française, non pas en shillings. Les expli-
cations du prieur d'Ecréliou, représentant l'abbéde Val Richer, dureiit
paraitre suffisantes, puisqu'il lui fut cpermis ii,dit le procès-verbal,
de tenir lesdites choses. comme il les a tenues jusqu'à présent, ((aussi
longtemps clu'il plaira au seigneur roi II.Cette dernière proposition :
((aussi longtemps clu'il plaira au seigneur roi »,ne signifie évidemment
pas que le prieuré lui-méme appartient au roi d'Angleterre, comme
le suggère le mémoire britannique (par. 130); elle signifie simplement
4ue pour le moment le roi ne met aucun obstacle au paiement d'une
redevance, d'une rente annuelle sur le Trésor'royal, et il ne met aucun
obstacle à. ce qu'un moulin jersiais et cette redevance royale çoieiit
conservés par un prieuré qui ne relève pas de lui. C'est parce (lue le .
prieui- avait pu démo-rer que l'abbaye de Val Kicher continuait à .
fournir des moines à Ecréhou, pour dire les prières qui avaient été
imposées dans la fameuse donation pour l'âme cie Pierre des Préaus
ou l'âme du roi Jean, que le tribunal accepta de conserver au prieuré,
aussi longtemps qu'il plaira au seigneur roi, les modcstes revenus de.
ce prieuré à Jersey.
Mais incidemment, une autre demande avait été faite i l'abbé: les
juges voulaient savoir pourquoi il tenait I'iadvocatio IIdu prieuré
dlÉcréhou. Remarquons le caractère accessoire, secondaire, de cette
demande, qui est iriséréeentre un moulin et une rente de vingt sous.
Elle était faite discrètement, mais le prieur nc daigna même pas y
répondre. Examinons cettc question de plus près.
Dans lc français du moyen âge, (advocatio ise traduisait par Iravouc-
rie n.C'est une institution qui a évoluéau cours des temps, et suivaiit
les pays ; elle comportait des prérogatives différentesimpliquant souvent
un droit dc patronage (jus patro~tatus), qui pcrniettait nu seigneur de
présenter un candidat pour la direction d'un établissement ecclésiasti-
qu~. 31. Plucknett (par. 13) préfère traduire par « adwoson iibien
qu on ne parlât pas encore anglais dans les iles normandes. Pour éviter
toute chicane, nous garderons le mot aduocatio.
On admettra sans difficulté quc la demande concernant 1'~idvocatio
avait, comme le dit N. Plucknett, le caractère d'une 7 ct'ion en reveii-
dication. L'essentiel est de savoir si la cour des juges itinérants a jugé
que le roi d'Angleterre n\.ait droit à I'udvocatio du prieuré d1I;créhou.
C'est un point que M. Pliicknett n'a pas examiné.
1-cprocès-verbal rclatéau rôle d'assise fait bien mention de Ladeniaiide
formuléepar Guillaume de Maresk au nom du roi,concernant l'advocalio
$rio~ulrrs. Mais il n'indique pas que le prieur d'Ecréhou, procureur de
l'abbéde Val Kichcr, si prolixe sur les autres chefs, ait répondu Acette
demande. Vraisemblablcrnent, le prieur s'en est abstenu, parce qu'il
considérait que la prétention du roi d'Angleterre n'était pas fondéecil
droit, et qu'une cour tenue dans I'ile dc Jersey n'était pas compétente
pour juger 1;~questioii. Et la Cour n'a pas insisté. Elle n'a pas nppliqui!
la procédure décrite dans la Summa de legibus, dont parle Bi. Plucknett
au paragraphe 14, ct son jugement ne dit rien de l'advocalio.
Iln'a donc pas 6té j1tg.éen 1309 q11cle prieuré dlEcréhou fût sous
I'udvocatio du roi d'Angleterre. La demande faite en son iiom par
Guillaume de Maresk n'a pas autorité de cliose jugée. Une prétention
n'est lus un droit.222 1~1~AIUOIRIE DE hl. LE PROF. GROS (FRABCE) - 29 IX 53
C'est cc qu'avaient dtijà fait remarquer les pièces françaises de ln
procédure écrite. M. Pliicknett n'en conclnt pas moins (par. 14) que ka
minute du rôle d'açsisc catteste l'esercice public et solennel de la souve-
raineté sur l'île» du roi d'Angleterre. Ccrtes, les juges du roi ont bien
iicntendii iine action pétitoire concernaritun droit de présentation inhé-
rent au roi d'Angleterre ilmais ils ne sc sont pas prononce's sur cettc
action. Depuis quand riritribunal, dont on conteste la coinpétence,
devient-il, par cc faitméme, coinpéteiit ?
,4u surplus, rieii ii'étahlit qiic le roi d'Angleterre ajamais présenté
à l'abbk de Val Kicher uii candidat piir tenir le prieuré dlEcréhou.
L'abbé clioisissait libremeiit le prieur parmi ses moines. Ainsi, Ie jeudi
avant lcs liameniis de l'année r338 (noiiveau style), alors qiie1;France
ct l'hnglcteme étaient cn guerre, Gabriel, ab& de Val Richcr, envoya
deux moines ptir garder ct régirla chapelle dc Notre-Dame d'l?créliou.
Il n'est pas indiqiié que cet envoi ait étriautoris6 par Ic roi d'angleterré
cn raison d'un prCtendii j~ts$atvonattbs.
Loin d'indiquer une rluelcoiique niaiiiniisc anglaise sur J?crthoii, In
procédure de qito ~warraitto de 1309 ne fait donc que confirmer le ratta-
chcment htroit dc l'île a I'abtxiyc norrn;iride clc Val Kicher, c'est-8-[lire
i la couronne dc France.
L'examen cles autres faits invoqu8s iious 1)errnetti-a (l'aboutir :ides
conclusioiis an:ilogues.
Les letlres LIEfirofeclio?de 1337 : En 1337, 12117jniiceet I'Aiiglc~crre .
étaient en guerrc..Cependant Icroi d'Aiigleterrc Edouard Ill accorcia
des lettres de protectiori, révocables.à volonté d'ailleurs,i divers prieurs
dépendant d'abbayes françaises. En vSritk, oii rie connaît que l'exis-
tence de ces lettrem s,is nori pas leur contenu exact (cf. annexe A ry
au mémoire britannique). Quoi qu'il en soit, Ie document indique,
parmi les bénéficiaires tic ces lettres, Ic IPrior de Acrehow ile ilzsrd~i
dc _Ierse,ii.Lc Gouve~.iiemeiit rlu 12uynuine-Uni ÇII tire ia prciivc
clu'Ecrélioufaisait partic de Jersey (mémoire, par. 48 et 131 ; réplique,
par. 169). Le Gouvernement de Iü Képiiblique a montré qu'il fallait
traduire : cpricur rl'Ecréhou c~tc sujet de I'ilc de Jersey il(contre-
mémoire, p. 392 ; duplique, p. 699) et noii pas (prieur cl'Ecr8lioude I'ile
de Jersey iiIl s'agissait vraisemblablemciit de permettre au prieur d'aller,
en temps de guerre, librement ILJersey, pour y percevoir les rentes du
prieuré :cles lettres dc protection spCciales étaient kvidernment néces-
saires à cet effet. La tracluctioii dc1;~~iarticulclatinede par ((au sujet
de na été contestee par le professeur \Vade. Nolis maintenons cependant
que c'est le sens le plus usuel, comme les dictionnaires l'indiquent, ct,
dans le mêmeacte de r339, nous trouvons deux autres cas où cette
trruction s'impose, deux autres cas tout 5 fait semblables à celui
d'Ecréhou : ils'agit du prieur 'd'Herm ct di1 prieur de Lithou de, c'est-
&-dire (au sujet de n Guernesey.
Le rentier du svm* siècle: Ce rentier, qui est reproduit en annexe
1) 18 du niémoire britannique, mentionne certaines rcdevaiices dues à
Ecréhou par des habitants de Jersey. Le Gouvernement du Koyaume-
Uni a pris la peine de démontrer que l'existence de ces redevances rie
prouvait rien quant à la suzeraineté de l'île. Le Gouvernement de In
République n'a jamaiç dit autre chose (cf. le contre-mémoire, p. 387).
Prenons donc acte de l'accord du Royaume-Uni sur te principe d'inop-
posabilité de tels arguments. PLAIDOIRIE DE JI.LE PROF. GROS (FRANCI:) - 29 IS 53 223
Les procédi~rcsirrdiciuires de Jersev dmis lesq~~el jirt~irnfiligi~i le
prieur dPEcréhouau cours dtd ~l~-~ncS~~CIC(cf. mémoire, par. 47 et 131,
ct annexes A 13, A 14, A 16et A 79 ; contre-mémoire, pp. 391et 395 ;
riildique, par.165 et 177 ; duyliqiie, p.700) :
Le Gouvernement du Itoyaume-Uiii a reconnu lui-même cltic ces
diverses ~irocédiiresne prouvaient en ricii que le prieur d'Ecréhoii nit
Ctéanglais, et que la juridiction des tribunaux jersiais poiivait très bien
s'expliquer, les faits litigieux s'Ctant d6roiilési Jersey meme (répliqiic,
1);".IGS et 177).
Ln cor~fiscalio~(ilespvieiiré! (;tvaiagers,d'ex-tei1528eel ludestrrtcliort
~lcI'Lgli see~\~otre-nnrcd'Ecréliou :
Eii 1414 fut ordonnk la confiscation clc tous les biens que les églises
dc France yossédaieiit en territoi're I~ritaiiniquD'a@ la répliquc
anglaise (par. 170) .es mesures contre lcs prieurés étrangers visaieiit
avant toiit un ((prieuré or1filialc, établi en Aiiglcterre, dont la niaisoil
iriCreétait sitiiéci l'étraiigeii.Dans cc ccts, on ne comlircnd vraiment
pas pourquoi le prieuré d'Ecréhoii n'aurait pas aiissi Etéconfisclué,car
l'abbaye de Val Kicher, la maison rnère ». était vraimeiit à l'étranger.
Or, il n'existe aiicurie preuve d'rine telle confiscatio~i: le Gotiverriemcnt
ciriRoyaume-Uni le recoriii;iit (réplique,par. 177) ;I'égliscne fut détruite
que bien lilus tard. Cela montre bien que l'Angleterre n'avait aticiin droit
territorial siiI'ilcdlEcréhoii. TOut cc qiic put fairele roi r'hngletcrre
fut de confisquer Ics rentes priyi.es sur soi1 proprc trésor:I Ecr&liori,ou
les rentes, versiics Ecréhou, par des habitants dc Jcrscy sous sa jiiri-
diction. Effectjvemcnt, l'abbaye dc Va1,Kicher perdit toiis les biens qui,
5 Jersey, étaient affectés au prieuré diEcréhou. 011 connait notaminent
une «extcnte iic'est-à-dire iin étatdes biens appartenant au roi d'Angle-
terre, daté de 1528, dalis lequel soiit rn~~ntionnéscomme biens <lela
coiironne diverses rentes due; i cause d'Ecréhou (by cause of Ecreiaou)
par divers habitants dc .Jersey (documciit reproduit en annexe A 19 au
mémoirebritannique). On y retrouve exactement le montant des rede-
vances, mentionnCes dans le rentier du xir1tisiècle,cliiiétaient alors ver-
sbcs au prieuré lui-rnêmc.Iles estentes dc 1607,1665, 1749 contiennelit
Ics mêmes indications, lcs noms des tenanciers ayant sculs cliangés.
Eii tout cas,, aucun de ces documents lie iiientionne la corifiscatioii
dc l'église d'Ecréhou elle-même, confisc;ition qui serait sîiremerit
iritcrvenue si ellc avait et4 nngtnisc, si I'îlc alpait vraiment étéanglaise.
L'église fut détruite riu cours cles guerres de religion qui sCvissaiei.it
eii France. La reine Elizabeth envoya i ce monient-là en France des
gens destinés à soutenir les protestants. Ces soldats détruisirent maintes
&lises sur le territoire fraiiçais, et l'tiistorien I-ierrnantrapporte, au
nv~imc sikcle, que la chapelle dc Notre-'Dame d'Ecréhou fut cl6triiite
Raris de pareilles coriditions (référencesdans contre-mémoire, p. 394,
et duplique, p. 700). T,'abbaye [le Val Richer iie fit pas reconstruire
I'Cglise, probablemeiit clii fait de la suppression des revenus qu'elle
tenait de Jersey, vraisemblablement aiissi parce que la mer com-
mençait a envahir l'ile.
Ce mémoire tlu Royaume-Uni avait iiivoiluG (par. 49) uii passage
clc l'ouvrage (le Philippe Le Gcyt, écrit en 1682, dans lequel l'auteur
indiquait que la (lime de poissoii était clrie au recteur cle la paroi~c
sur toutes les pêc1ieseffectuées, soit sur la côte de Jersey même,soit
((ails enclaves, savoir : Roques Iloe, Minrluais, Chausé, Ecrctio ii(cf.-24 PIAIDOIKIE DE ai. I.E raor;. GROS (FRAYCE) - 29 rs 53
annexe A 69 au mémoire aiiglais). Le Gouverilemcnt dc la République
a montré que le mot «enclaves il rie sigiiifiait pasirdcpendances is,
mais une iterre complCtcrnent iiidépendante au milieu d'une autre ii
(contre-mémoire, p. 395). Comme les Clinusey, les Ecréhous étaient des
terres françaises situées dans la mer de Jersey. Dans sa réplique, le
Gouvernement du Royaume-Wiii a d'ailleurs reiioncé à invoquer en
sa faveur le passage de Le Gept (par. 178).
Intevdictio,~attx Je~siczis de sc rclidre ri $cre'hoii: A deus reprises,
ziiicours du sv~iliiosiècle, enrGqG puis en 1G92, Ics autorita de jersey
iiiterd-irent, sauf dérogation, aus habitants de Jersey de se rendre
aus Ecréhous. Le Royaume-Uni espliquc ces mesures eii disant que
c'étaient des ccmesures extraordinaires (prises en temps cle guerrc)
pour empecher les Ecréhous de servir d'étape vers la Frarict., et elles
avaient pour objet particulier d'empêcher le transport des pcrsoniiec:
suspectes en route pour le continent II(réplique, par. ~79). .Cela est
I'bvidwice mcrnc. Mais ces mesures seraient incompreherisibles s'il
s'agissait d'un territoire .anglais. Elles deviennent, au contraire, par-
faitement claires si les Ecréhous étaient françaises: il s'agissait sirn-
plement d'interdire à des sujets britanniques cte se rendre sur un
territoire ennemi. Cette interlir6tation cst corifirrn6e par le ,fait <!lie
l'ordonnance de 1646 assimilait 5 cet égard les Chausey aus Ecrélious.
De toutes ces constatations la conclusion est évidente : le Gouvcrne-
ment du Royaume-Uni ne peut, en ce qui coricerne les Ecréhous,
invorliicr aucuii fait certain de possessioii clans toute la pbriode allaiit
jusqu'9 la fin du xviIrIi1. siècle. Les documents inanquent sans doute
pour le svi~i~iisiècleproprement dit et sont déj8riires au sv1111iscihcle :
ceta s'esplique par la destruction de I'église et par l'absence d'impar-
tance véritable de ces îles ; l'intkrêt ne se réveillera qu'au début
du ;YI';I~siècle avec la question (le la pêche. Mais, pendant ,tout le
cours de cette période ancienne, nous n'avons troitvk aucun fait certain
cle possession de la part du roi d'Angleterre. Tout se ramène doiic
aux effets de la franclie auy3ne, et la France prétend avoir possessiaii
continue et incontestée dcs Ecréhous, donnés irrévocablement i l'abbaye
de Va1 Richer.
Esarninons ~naintenatit la situation des Rlinquiers :
Les seuls documents que nous possédions eii ce qui concerne les
Minquiers datent du svIanc et du svIiIrlii: siècles,et ils sont, on le \.erra,
de peii de secours dans le présent litige. 1,a rareté des docunierits
s'explique probablement, cammc l'indique le inCn~oire britannique
(par. 203, par l'absence d'intérêtprésente par ces rochers et îlots : cet
intérêtn'apparaissant giière qu'au début du srsmln siècleavec l'esploi-
tation des pl.clieries dans les enus a\loisiiiantes.
Le Couïreriicrnent di1 Royaume-Uni, tout en recoirnaissarit I'abseirce
de preuves certaines, iiidiclue cependant qu'il est raisonnable clesupposer
[(que les Àiinquiers sont restés en la possession du roi d'rlngleterre 13
(ménioire,par. 204). Or, une telle iprésoinption iin'cst pas précis8rricnt
suffisante pour faire reconnaitrc la souveraineté dii Koyaurnc-Urii sur
ces îles.
Le Gou\.erncrnent ciu Royniirne-Uni a cependant invoqué dil-ers
ducurncrits pour établir le rattncliernent effectif(le ces îles Jersey. A
cet effet, il cite d'abord le passage de Le Geyt siir la dîme de poisson, I'I.AIDOIR1E DE Al. 1,lC PROF. GROS (FRANCE) - 29 IX 53 225
qui était due au recteur de la paroisse sur les pêchespratiquées le long
des côtes jersiaises eN dans les ericIa\:ciiNous aï70ns 1.uce que I'argti-
ment valait en ce qui concerne les Ecrélious, et le Gouvernement du
Koyauriic-Uni avait accepté ces vues, c'est-à-dire que le verseinent de
la dîme de poisson était sans rapport aucun avec la questioii territo-
riale. Quant aux autres faits invoqués, ils concernent les Cpnvcs ramas-
séesailx abords des Mincluiers, h diverses reprises au coiirs du svr~ni~
siécle,et que réclamaient les aiitorités de Jersey ; la Cour seigneuriale
de Noiriiiont à Jersey s'est notamment occupkc plusieurs fois de ce
problé~iie(arinexcs h 20, A 21, -422 au niérnoirc). I5ircalité, tout cela
ne prouse absolurnent rien quant h la possessioii effective des Minquiers
par les Ariglais.
Que prouvent les dociirnents ariglais ? Que [les pêcliciirsde Jersey,
ayant rainené des épaves cles Illiiiquiers, aï-aient h en reridre cornpte
et voyaient leur seigneur réclamer sa i([)art11cornme, par la suite, les
adrninistrations de tous lespays ciumontle (ainsi que pour les atrésors
découverts). Ce prélkvemetit eût étéicleriti(l11csi les 6p;ives avnicnt kt&
trouvées eiipleine rner oii sur la côte de France, cc qui arrii-a saris doute.
Ces documents ne prou\.ent donc rien quant I l'apliartenancc dcs
Minquiers : il s'agit cl'unc juridiction seigrieuriaqui eserce sa compé-
tence siir clesgens de mer 5 Jersey. Orine peut en tirer que les Minqiiiers
étaient une terre de Xoirrnont.
Il est d'ailleurs liors de doute qiie les Jersiais ii'étaicnt pas les seuls
ii« récolter» des épaves aux Minriniers (où les naufrages ont éti:innom-
brables). Le bon sens I'inilique, mais, en outre, dans un docuinerit analo-
gue d'une époque postériciire (annese h 164 du mémoire britaniiique).
nous voyons indiquer formellement la présence d'inconnus sur l'&pave
aux Mincluiers, qiii emliCchent les Jersiais d'y ahorder. Qui étaient ces
iriconnus ?Tout porte à croire que c'étaient des Français, car autrement
il y aurait eu arrarigemcnt ou plainte coritre les Jersiais. Ces Français,
bien entendu, devaient, eux aussi (autrefois comrne de nos jours), une
qrpart d'épave IIh leur administration, quelle qu'elle fût.
Le teste même de l'annexe 164 du mémoire britannique montre que
les deus pays sont à égalité polirce point dc juridiction seigneurialesur
les gens clc mer.
Le Goiivernement de la République française ric peut pas d'ailleurs
davantage invotliier des faits de possession certains dc la part de la France
pendant Irpériodequi nous occupe. La vérité est(lue nous ne possédons
aiicune preuve que l'unc oii l'autre des Parties ait véritablement accom-
pli des actes de sur les 3[inquic~s. Le Gouverneinent français
pourrait cependant citer dcux actes des Etats de Jersey de 1720 et de
1754 q,ui reconnaissent qiie Chausey, Mincluiers et Ecréhoiis font liartie
dii Koyaunie de France. Mais iious parlerons de ces actes a propos de
Chausey. Il faut y ajouter une correspondance relative aus Minquiers
et qui date de 1764, qui est reproduite dans iiLe Pays de Granville i),
1951 p,iécedéposéedevarit la Cour. Un sieiir.Quiiicttc de Cloizel deman-
dait une concession sur les Minquiers à I'adininistration française. Cette
dernière Iiésita5 la lui accorder, en dépit de la redevance qu'elie aurait
pli obtenir cn contrepartie ; le requérant lui semhlnit, en effet, peu inté-
ressant, et elle craignait, d'autre part, des difficultés de la part de
l'Angleterre. Dans une lettre adressée le 24 août 17S4par le subdélégué
de Granville à l'intendant de Caen, on lit ces phrases fort intéressantes :
<(...Ces pêcheursdes côtes de Granville ou de Jersey qui sc hazardent226 l~I..4IDOIKIEDE M. LE PROF. GROS (FRAFCIS) - 29 IS 53
sur cctte isle, s'ils sont surpris par un vent frais n'ont d'aiitrc ressource
que de couler leurs bateaus ....Ils retrouvent leurs bateaus entiers B
la rnarée basse ....Les François ct les Jersiais s'y rencontrent sans se
troubler, ceiis-ci plus voisins,y récoltent du varech pour fumer leiirs
terres. Les droits du Domaine du roi sur ces affreiis rochers souffriraient
peut-êtrequelciiie difficultkdes Anglois ç'ilsJIi-oyojent tenter un 8tablis-
sement ;ils auroierit la protection de leurs pêchcitrs à alléguer ;rnais
aiicuii François ne poiirroit y prétendre, il est de principc qiic les isles
appartiennent riu Roy ct qu'on ne peut les posséder sans aiicun titre (le
concession de Sa MajestC. Or le sieur Quinette de Cloizel se présente pour
obtenir ce titre de coiicession. tlssnrément il est le premicr qiii y ait
jamais songé. Mais sur iliiel espoir peut-il se foiidcr rLc signataire (le
la lettre poursuit en examinant les diverses cntreprises auxqlielles pour-
rait se livrer le requérant, et il fait un tahleau effrayant des Niriquiers,
en disant «que des criminels dévoués j.la mort prkféreraient le supplice
à itnpareil exil 11Il coiiclut au rejet de In demande, le sieur Quinette
étant un individu doutcris. La qiiestion fut soumise par l'intendant royal
au maréchal dc Castries, ministre de la Marine, qui rejeta la demancie.
Aiicun des deux Gouvernements n'a donc pu apporter à la Coiir des faits
de possession lirobants sur Ics Minquiers dans la période cliii va dcs
origines ju3qit1:ilidébut di XISII~Osiècle.
CI~AUSEY
Moiisieur le Président, je dois parler des Cliausey - iio~i pas (lue
ce soit l'objet du litige -, mais parce que Chaiisey est deirenu iinc
piéce essentielle de l'argumentation britannique, argumentation sur
l'uiiitédes îles dela hlaiiche, to~ctetenues par le roi d'Angleterre de1iuis
12~2. lSour ccinfinncr ce postiilat, iJfatcl!que Chausey ne soit deirenu
français qu'à une date tardive, sinon toute la tliésebritailnicpe tombe,
d'ou ladate de 1764,fisée par mes collèguesbritanriiques. Or, si Chausey
est frnriçais depuis leSIII~)~:ou le SIV~~!!siècle, c'est-à-direau moincnt
précis où la distinctiori entre les îles tenues par ciiricuii desdeus i-ois
est faite, cela prouve bien que cctte distinction des traités n une sigiii-
fication daris les faits, qu'il y a des iles tenues par le roi rl'dngleterse,
et rl11'jy a d':iiitres ilcs tenues par le roi de France, que l'unité de
toutes les ilcs entre les rnains du roi d'Angleterre est un iiiythe.
Voyons donc l'histoire des Chausey.
S'il est iin territoire français, depuis longtempsfrançais, dès le rnoyeri
âge, avec seuleirieiit de très coiirtes irrterruptioris, c'est bien l'île $e
Chausey. Aussi est-il véritablement surprenant que I'ori ait cm devoir
jeter un doute sur ce fait, et iioiis expliquer que les Chausey n'étaient
françaises que depuis I764.
Nous ne rfcuserons pas l'ouvrage de Cibori, pris par la Partie adverse
comine source essentielle, et nous demanderons 5 la Coiir l'autoris t'a ioti
.non pas d'y faire quelques référencesisolécs, tnxis de l'utiliser abon-
damment.
C'est en 1022 que le duc de Sormandie Richard donria Chausey 5
l'abbaye di1 Mont-Sriint-Nichel, située sur la chte normande ; dans
l'ileun prieuré fut installé,qui dépendit, jusclu'k sa suyyressio~i :LU
si7rrmlsiécle,ciela prrissante abbaye normande (Gihon, p. 37). [,'abbaye
possédait tous les droits de l'ile (p. 78).
Eii 1343, selon lin Iiistorien jersiais,Poingdestre, peu suspect de
partialité envers les I'raiiçais (je cite) : PLAI~)OIRIE DE 31.LE I'ROF. GROS (FKAFCE) - 39 IX 53 227
N en 1343 les Français, voyant ces iles négligéeset \.acantes, corii-
meneèrent i les usurper, car lc roi Philippe les donna aus l'reres
Mineurs ))(p. 74).
Les revers de la giiel-re de Ceiit Aiis amenèrent unc occupatioii
anglaise. alais n'oublions pas que l'abbayc du Mont-Saint-Michd,
après letrriitéde Troyes, resta seule à tenir contre les Anglais iristallés
en Normandie : son siège dura vingt-quatre années, sans succ65 pour
les assiégeants, jusqu'à lx reprise dc la Xormandie par la France.
Certes, les îles Chausey furent alors occupEes par les Anglais, mais
d'uiic manière discoritinue. Entre le Mont-Saint-Micliel et Saint-RInlo
qui résistait également, la flotte anglaise ne régnait pas toujours en
maîtresse des mers, et elle fiit battue, en particulier, en 1425et 1427
(Gibon, pp. 81-85).
Ida l'artie adverse a cité i l'appui cLcsa tl~èscsur Cliausey le teste
d'ulic bulle que le pape .illesandre VI aurait accordkc en Ijûû, et qui
aurait enleld Jersey, Guernesey, Cliausey et d'autres îles au diocèse
de Coutarices, pour Ics attribuer au cliocèse dc Salisbury, puis 5 celui
de \Irinchester. Xotons d'nbor(1 que ce transfert ne prouverait rien
quaiit la souveraineté. alais, surtout, cette bulle est d'une authenticité
douteuse. Connue par la publication qu'en fit Rymer au YVIL"~[siècle,
clic ii'apas Sté notifiec à l'év5que de Coutaiices et elle ii'a jamais &té
transcrite sur le Bullnrium dc Rome, ce qui était pourtant Urieforrnaiitb
intlispensablc. En tout cas, et mêmesi le pape Alesandre VI l'avait
réelleinent accordée, clle ne fut jamais esécutte en ce qui concerne
Cliauscy, et cc point est directement en cciritrndiction avec I:Lthèse
adverse. Tous ces détails sont dans Giboii, pages 96-97.
Au sir~nlesiècle, des documents plus abondants nous rnoiitreiit une
occiipation permanente de Chausey et son gouvernement par la 1- '7LlCi:.
Des forces assez co~isidérabless'installèrent dans l'île à la fin de rg 8,
et la constructioii d'une forteresse était achevée sur la Grancie 4 le
avant 1558 (pp 107-109). Les troupes françaises, venant en partic
de Chausey, tlevaierit s'emparer de Jersey en 1549 et 1" garder
jusqu'en rj53 ;cle mhe, cics débarrluements français devaient avoir
lieu à Aurigny (pp. i~o-III).
Chausey eut dès lors, sans interruption, des capitaines ou des gouver-
neurs. français, et i diverses reprises, pendant de Iongues années, une
garnison française. On retrouve des iioininationsdc I548 à 1576, en
1628, r6jlp 1677, 1713, 172~1 1749-
Le chancelier Seguicr ecriv:iit en 1640 :(( La petitc île de Chausey
al)purtei~;intau Koy II(Gibon, y. 146).
Au s~~II~~si!cle, les Anglais ii'apparurent que deus foish Cliausey :
en avril 1694 ct en airri11695. I<n ces cleus occasions, ils n'occupèrent
pris l'île, mais sc contentèrent de la ravager et se retirèrent (p:157).
Au début di1 s~~~ii~~!iècle, des habitants de Jersey ct de Guei-nesey
étaiit venus à plusieurs reprises prenclrc des pierres, ces faiiieiises pierres
à Ch:iiisey pour leurs constrtictions à Jcrsey et h Guernesey, le ministre
fran~iiis de i:i Marine interdit, le17 juin 1731, cctte pratique (Gibon,
y. 167). Lri défeiisefut renouvelée d'une manière plus impérative, par
un arret du conseil des Dépêchesdu 4 septembre 1736 (11187).
Peiidaiit In guerre de Succession, eii 1744, Chausey fut ravagé par
lcs Ariglais. Mais une fois la pais signée, à Ais-la-Ctiapelle, cri 1746,
les 1;clnçnis s'y installèrent de nouveau (Giboii, pp. 215-217). Aussitôtaprès, le ministre français dela Guerre ordonne d'y élcirerun petit fort.
Celui-ci n'était pas terminé quand la guerre de Sept Ans écIate. Les
Anglais ravagèrent de nouveau l'île en 1756. 11 est certain, comme l'a
[lit le profcsseur \Vade,qu'A la fin dc cette guerre, au traité de paix de
17G3 ,e Gou\.ernement anglais aunit pu réclamer avec quelque chance
de succès les îles Cliausey. Il l'aurait ceriairiement fait, comme le dit
Gihon (p.238)et comme le rcpète le professeur \Vade apr&s lui, s'il
axvriipu penser que les ITrançais étaient disposési céder sur ce point.
Le Gouvernement britannique avait déjà bien réclaméet obtenu la
plupart des colonies francaises. Mais nous iie croyons pas que cette
abstention involontaire et cette modération toute relative du Gou\,cr-
netnent anglais de l'époquetiennent lieu de titre.
Et après toutes ces dates, qui sont dans Gibon, que j'ai citées, pour-
quoi ne retenir qiie la dernière, 1764 ?
Ile tout ce qui precède, il seinblc bien qii'il soit difficile de contester
que les Cliausey étaient françaises dès le sièclequi suivit la confiscation
dc la Borrnandie. Avant 1764, les seules exceptioizset par 1% même les
titres de l'Angleterre en cjuclrjisorte, ne sont qiie cesincurçjons et ces
dévastations de 1694-169 d e,1744 et de 1756. On comprend cependant
pourquoi la Partie adverse essai ee retarder la date de la prise de
possession de Chausey par la France : il lui importe de démontrer que
les îles normandes forment: une entité absolue, que cette entit6 n'a subi
qu'un seul démembrement, et tellement tardif, en 1764,celui dc Chausey.
Xous croyons, au contraire, que la thGorie de l'entité des îles de la
Manche - un postulat plutôt qu'une théorie - n'est pas conforme
aux faits. Ceci nous montre qu'il n'y a pas ulreentité, mais une opposi-
tion entre deux groupes d'iles.Il y a les îles les plus importantes : Jersey,
Guernesey, Aurigny, avec quelques autres plus petites,qui ont été
erilcvéespar les Anglais à lnXormandie. Et il ya un autre groupe d'iles,
généralement petites, sans importance, proches di1 littoral français :
les Chausey, lesNinquiers, les Ecréhouç, qui ont suivi le sort de la
Xormandie continentale.
L'existence de ce second groupe, sa coliésion aus yeux des Jersiais
d'autrefois, le fait qu'il constituaitune entité dès le XVIIIIII~siècle-
notre entitéà nous - sont prouvés en particulier par un acte, un acte
qu'a cité le professeur IlTade et que je reprendrai.
Cet acte se trouve dans les annexes additionnelles du Gouvernement
du Koyaurne-Uni, page 627, annexc 160. Ilest vraique leprofesseurWade
l'a interprété dans un sens qui rne parait étranger Bcelui du texte.
L'acte du 26 janvier 1754 apparaît sous Ic titre qui neme paraît pas
Ctrecelui de l'acte lui-même, car ilesten anglais, alors que 1acte est en
français,et que j'imrtgine étrc une analyse. Je traduis le titre, ou I'ana-
lyse :
(Acte des États de Jersey interdisant, à cause de l'apparition
de la peste h Rouen, toute relation commerciale avec la France, et
de plus interdisant l'entrée de tout navire français dans les ports
de Jersey, ou dans les ileset rochers de Chausey, Ninquiers et
Ecréhoiis. »
rissimilatiuii des îles Charrçcy,Minquiers et Écrehous à Jersey, exercise
de l'autorité de Jersey sur toutes ces îles, telles sont les conclusions
immédiates que la Partie adverse estime tirer de cette analyse. PLAIDOIRIE .DE M. LE PROF. GROS (FRANCE) - 29 11;53 229
Malheureusement pour la thèse dri Gouvernement clu Royaume-Uni,
il me semble que l'analyse est inexacte, et letc.xtede l'acte pubIié(pp.627
et 625) me paraît venir entièrement kl'appui de1:~ thèsedu Gouvcrnemcnt
français. Voici le passage contesté : ((Qu'aucun Vaisseau oii Hateau
venant du I'ioyaunie de France nc sera souffert a cntrcr dans aucun
Havre, ni mettre 5 Terre aucuns Passagers. ou Jlarchaiidises en aucun
Endroit de cette Isle; pareille Deffence étant faite à l'bgard des Iles et
Rocliers de Chauzé, Marqués & lcrehots, oii Rochers adjacents. s Il y
a donc deus parties : la première s'arréte à (aucun Endroit de cette
lslen, la deuxième Etant le dernier membre de la phrnsc. La Ipareille
deffcnce ii,dont il cst question dans la dernière partic, c'cst cellequi est
faite aux bateaux veriant des Chausey, des .3lincluiers et des l?cr&hoiis,
d'aborder h Jerse L'interdiction est faite h tous les bateaux venant
du Royaume de $i:;;slce, y compris cciix irelialit des iles Chniiscy, cles
Jliricliiieet des Écréhous.
S'il subsistait quelque doute au sujet dc cette interprétation - et
il s'agit simplement de lire correctement un teste en, français -, il
sriffiraide se reporter à un autre acte de ces mêmesEtats de Jersey,
concernant la même situation, et antérieur seulement de 34 années.
En 1720, reciouJant une lois de plus que Ic continent transmît la peste
à Jersey, les Etats de Jersey prenaient un édit déclarant (je cite) :
«Qu'aucun vaisseau ou bateau venant de quelque port de France oii
lieus adjaceiits, comme sont Chausey, Ecrelio et autres isles ct rochers,
ne mettront ni gens ni marchandises à terre eri ccttc ide. ii
Ce texte cie r720, qui aurait pu faire l'objet d'une annexe adrlition-
nelle de la part du Gouvernemerlt de la République, a ktépublié,comme
celui de 1754 d'ailleurs,par la Sociétcj'ersiaise(~gnlcpiiblicatioii1701-
1730, Jersey, 1905 11. 71).
La concltisiolz de ces premiéres observations, s'impose : au marnent
où le statut territorial des hlinquiers et des Ecréhous bénéficied'ut1
regain d'actualitk, c'est-à-dire au début du sistne siècle, à la veille des
conversations franco-britanniques sur des questions qui conc)uisirent
à la convention de 1839, aussi bien les Alinquiers que les 13crdhous
sont sous la souveraineté franqaise. I'our Ies deux groupes, ln France
possède uii titre originel. Pour les deus groupes, la souveraineté du
Royaume-Uni est exclue du seul fait que le Gouvernement du Royaume-
Uni n'est pas arrivé i prouver la possession du roi d'Angleterre sur
les îlotsafirèsle trait6 dc Paris, ni j.prouver clut:les îles de la Manche
formaient une unité politique dont le statut juridique ne pourrait être
qu'unique.
En ce qui coiicerrie les Minquiers, la France ne pcut sans doute pas
établir que, avant le srxwi: siècle, son titre originel ait été corroboré
par une possession effective, mais cela est sans importance pour des
i10t~ diflicilcmcnt habitables eii toute saison et en I'abseiice de toute
prétention supérieure du Koyaume-Urii. Comme l'a cléclaréla Cour
permanente de Justice internationale clans l'affaire du statyt juridique
du Groënlarid oriental : ((Il est impossible d'examiner les décisions
rendues dans les affaires visant la souveraineté territoriale sans observer
que, clans beaucoup de cas, le tribunal n'a pas exigé de nombreuses
manifestations d'un esercice de droits souverains potcniu qaicl'autre I'LIIII>O IIIIft. 1,Il'ROI;CROS (FR.~~'cE) - 29 IX 53 231
1'abb;lyc dc Val Rictier qui a tenu les Iicr4hotis depiiis 1203 liotir la
France.
Monsieiir le Présiclcnt, il esiste deus raisons sérieuses d'examiner
cot~inicformniit irne dciixièinc partie dit j~roblkrncletestes et Icsfaits
du sisrl et*du siècleç.
Il'iine part, la conveiition d2iaoîit1539 apporte à coiip sîir cliiqlque
chose de nouvertii dans l'histoire juridiqiie des Minquiers et des Ecré-
hoiis :nion niiii AI.Fitzinauricc: r~urait-ilyxssétant cl'hctirdérrioritrer
l'absence totale d'intcrét de cctte convention si ce teste n'avait Grita-
blerncrit aiiciiric importarice polir le réglernent de la prbeiitaffaire7
Qiiellc cltic soit I'intcrl>r.6tatiori que la Cotir retiendra dc cette coiiveri-
tion, le inoins clu'pn pitisse dirc, c'est que, apr1839, Ic prahléinc des
'i.liiicluicrset dcs Ecréhoiis nc se pose plris de la mêmemanière qu'avant
la fin du SVIII~I siècle.En effct, et c'est la raison de ln divisiori histo-
rique, l'accornl~lissernent d'actes de possessiori du XIS~I~~et du s'rllil:
sièclcsa étc accorn~)ügné de ~)rotcstatiotis et de contestations dc lm-t et
d'autre. rotest stati oncontestations qui ont tourné précisémentautoiir
de 1'iriterprét:ition dIzconvcrition du 2 août 1839. Dans le cours de la
contestation clililornaticlrie par la Francc des divers faide possessiori
in\:otluFs par le lioyaume-Uni, oii a const:imment, depui80 ans, iiivotlué,
dans iirsens oiidans iiiaiitre, la con17ention de1839,
C'cst en effet srirtout le Goiivernemciit dii I<oyau~ne-Uni qui veut
troiiver dans Ics faits de posscssiori clisrir1 1tl1dt sslli si:cles un
soiiticr5 sa 1irétcntioi?Ila soiivcrainct& sur lcs îlots. Il le fait cn soute-
nant, soit clucces faitsde possession ont confirrnéson titre originel, soit
qu'ils Iiii ont permis d'acqucrir la souvcraincté en l'al~sencc de titrc
originel, par la prescrilitiori nctliiisitivc oii I'occul>atiori fondées siir un
exercice coiitinii et paisible de I'alitoritk étatiqiic. II est d'nillcurs malais6
de savoir laqucllcdc ccs deus thèses, prcscriptiori accluisitive ou occii-
pation. dont I'iine siippose l'existence d'un titrc ct l'autre I'abscricc
d'un titre, constitue l':~rgunicnt~itio~i1)rincipnlc du Goiivernemciit dii
Koyaiimc-Uni. Quoi clii'ilen soitde cette contradiction, tioiis avoiis mon-
trécluc,daiis In périoclcdite féodale,c'est la Fraiice, et noIcKoyaiirric-
Uni, clnidétient un titre originel sur Ics -\Iincl~iicrset les Ecrélioiis, et
que sciilc la I:r;~ncepyit, pendaiit plusieiirs siècles,démontrer iine posses-
sion effective siir les Ecréhozis,le çilericc en cc qtii coIicernc les Alinquiers
ne potiivant :iffcctcr Ic titrc originel. I)aiis ces conditions, les faits dc
possession des cent dcriiières ariiiées,itivoquéspar le Royaume-Uni, ne
pourront jouer en sa faveur qu'à titrc (le prescription acqiiisitive A
l'égard de la France. Il faut remarqiicr tout clc siiite cliie, polir être
valal~le, cettc prescription doiSC fonder véritablement et. incontestable-
ment siir irrcsercice coiitinu et ~~aisiblde l'autorité étatique. T.cs faits
invotlnés nc concernent p?s uric île déscrte, uiie lointaineîle du I'aci-
fiquc, siir laqiielle auciin Etat n'aiirait jainais éfcvcla moindre rcvendi-
cation. Ils coriccrncnt, tout nii contraire, des îles de la Manche qui
étaient à l'origine, de façon certaine, sous la soiiveraineté effective de
la Fr;incc. Sans doiitc, comme nous l'avons déji indiqiié, les faits de
possessioii effective avaient-ilscessé, [!robablement depiiis la destruc-
tioii dc l'égliseeice qiii concerne les Ecréhous, encore rluc noirs riyons
vii pour Ics Minquiers qii'cn 1784 I';icIr;iinistratioii frnriçaise se prb-
occilliait encore du prol~lèrned'iine coriccssioii ails Minqiiiers. Mais ilne
souveraineté siir un territoire difficilemerit haIlitable nc disparaîtpas
par le non-usage temporaire ;il faudrait, cri plus, une renonciation précise
r6232 PLAIDOIRIE DE 31.LE PRC~F. GROS (FRASCE) - 29 IX 53
et non équivoque. J'ai déjà rappel6 sur ce ~oiiit l'arrêtrelatif austutzck
jltvidiqite du Groë1~lal~doriental(p. 47). Citons aussi la sentence dans
l'affairede l';Lede CliPPerfo?~,Recueil des Senlelzcesarbltrliks, tome II,
page .IIIO, III I. De même, dans l'affaire de l'île de Palmas, tome II,
page S6j. Dans l'affaire de la Buic de Delagoa, l'arbitrcs aussi estimh
que (je cite) :cl'affaiblissement accidentel dc l'autorité portugaise dans
ces parages In'avait pas porté atteinte aux droits du Portugal sur la
baie litigieuse. Nous lisons de m6me dans le Digestof I?zternationolLaw,
tome l, page 442, que l'abandon d'iiiterritoire impliqiic un « délaisse-
ment volontaire3 et que les hypothèses en sont «csti~mement raresu
dans les temps modernes. Tel est l'avis de l'ensemble de la doctrine, par
exemple, Oppenhcim, ibid.,1, page 247 ; Hyde, ibid., 1,page 392, etc.
Les faits de possession invoqués par le Royaume-Uni :lu s~xl~lc et au
sxtllcsiècles cIoiventdonc êtreappréciésen fonction dc leurcontexte
historique et juridique. 11 faut doric tenir compte riotamment, d'une
part de La convention du 2 août 1839, d'autre part dc ce que ces faits
de possessioii ne concernent pas une res îizrllitmais un territoireplacé
déjà sous la souverainet6 d'un autre Etat. Si nous ajoutons à cela que
ces faits ont,B maintes reprises, soulevé des protestations du Gouverrie-
ment français ct que celui-ci peut, cle son côt6, invoquer des faits de
possession sur ces îlots,iious serons en droit, d'ores et dkjà, de dire que
les faits de possession invocluéspar lc Royaume-Uni au xixmc et au xxine
siècles sont bien moins concluants que nos :idversaires ne le disent. Ils
le sont encore moins si la Cour veut bien prendre note d'un iait, nuquci
nous avons déjàfait allusiori:les actesde possession deces cent dernières
annCes sont presque tous posttrieurs à 1576, postérieurs donc à l'aiiver-
turc des controverses diplomatiques qui sont 5 l'origine du litigeOn ne
peut se défendre de l'impression que ces actes si souvent cités par mes
collègues britanniques dans Ieurs plaidoiries ont étéaccomplis sjrstéma-
tiquemcrit cn vue-d'appuyer de preuve abondatitcs le G;uve;ncmeiit
di1 lioyaunie-Uni ail cours des négociations et dcs coiittistations d6ià
en cours. Tout se passe comme siie Royaume-Uni, ou peut-être plis
exactcinent Jersey, avait voulu, au cours mêmedu débat, par la modi-
fication d'une situation de fait, corivaincre l'adversaire ct plus tard le
juge de son bon droit. Entre ce machiavélisme dont Jersey craint d'être
soupçonné et la naïveté invoquée par le Royaume-Uni, il y a place
pour le raisonnement fondésur une excellente connaissaiice de la pratique
et du droit international. 11ii'y a rien de macliiavélique à s'établir un
titre, poui reprendre le terme de lord Stowell, mais cela ne veut pas
dire que ce titre sera reconnu comme valable. Le Gouvernement du
Royaume-Uni a soumis la Cour un document qui figure sus annexes
additionnelles, page 662 ;il s'agitd'un article publié l24 janvier 1886
dans le Journal La Jzistice edans lequel un journalistc Ccrivait ceci :
((Si !es Anglais n'ont pas affirmétrès haütemeiit leurs prétentions sur
les Ecréhous, ils cherche'nt à s'en emparer soumoisemeiit, sans bruit.
Des Jersiais y ont édifiédes maisonnettes trés habitables ; il y a de la
place pour d'autres, et un beau jour, ils pourraient dire : ceci est terre
anglaise et nous appartient en vertu du droit de premier occupant 11;
ce journaliste, cité non pas par le Gouvernement de la République,
mais par le lioyaume-Uni, s'est-il tellement trompé ? Lc débat date de
la seconde rnoitiéclu siècledernier, et non pas, comme l'a dit M. I'Attor-
ney-Gcneral, de la fin dc la deuxième guerre mondiale. Comment, dans
ces conditions, reconnaitre cornmc valables des faits que le Royaurne- FL:IIDOIRIE DE JI. 1.E PROF. GROS (FKANCE) - 29 IS j3 233
Uni a accoinplis en plein ceiir <ludébat ? Le l'résident Poincarékcrivait
déjà, dans le mémoire remis par le Gouvernement français dans l'affaire
de l'$lede Cli$perto~c(je cite) iOn iie voit pas en quoi l'acte par lequel,
al4cours ~'UIZdébnl,l'une cles parties dispose d'un des éléments,peut-
êtreconstitutifs, clel'objet litigieux, pourrait améliorer sa situation de
droit vis-à-vis de l'autre partie.11(lmjwimerie îcation~lle1912, y. 249.)
L'agent du Gouvenieineiit du Royaume-Uni a beaucoup insisté sur
les faits de possession des cent tleriiièreshannées dans la procédure
écrite, et les conseils du Royaume-Uni l'ont suivi dans les plaidoiries.
-ilais tout lc probléme disputé depuis cent ans et que la Cour doit
résoudre riujourd'hui est justement de savoir si ces faitssont licites au
regard du droit international comme ayant été accomplis sur un terri-
toirehritaniiique. Le Gouvernement de la Répiibliqiie pense - et nous
reviendrons sur ce point essentiel ultérieurement - que certains de
ces faits &taient parfaitement licites au regard du droit international,
la convention de 1839 ayant mis en commun entre les deus pays l'usage
des Minquiers et des Ecréhoiis ainsi que celui de leurs eaux, mais que
d'autres faits (constniction d'une maison douaniérc, érection d'un
payillon ails couleiirs britanniques,éviction des pêchcursfranqais, etc.)
etaieiit illicites et justifiaient les iionibreuses protestations Gouver-
nement fraiiqais. >i:iis, en tout cas, les faits invoqués avec une telle
insistance par le Goiivernement du l<oyaiime-Uni n'ont pris I'impor-
tance, tant s'en faut, que ce dernier lui prête : cc sont, en quelqua
sorte, des preuves accumulées pour les besoins du dossier en vile d'ob-
tenir une solution favorable à un conflit déjà néet qui ne saurait en
auciinc façon servir A établir l'existence d'une possession effective,
paisible et continue sur les îles litigieuses.
Quant à ce que l'on qualifierait plus justernent d'actes de force que
de faits de possessioii - intimidation de pêcheursfrancais, destr~iction
de mâts de pavillon français -, on ne peut vraiment cn tirer aucunc
Ilreu\7e,si ce n'est de la volonté delibéréedu Royaume-Uni d'imposer
ses propres vues. Comme le disait encore le PrCsident Raymond Poincaré
à II~OPOS d'espulsio~i d'ktrangcrs de l'île dc Clipperton par le Gouvcr-
nemcnt mexicain, de tels actes sont (je cite}: riune manifestation di1
jus abtifendi, c'est-à-dire d'un attribut d'une souveraineté acquise ;
ce n'est pas, en droit des gens, un des moyens d'arriver i cette soii-
vcraineté » (mémoirc de réylicluc,Ivzprimevie natiorznle, 1913, p. 119).
J-C Gouvernement di1 Koyaiime-Uni reprocherait-il à la France de ne
pas avoir fait usage, elle aussi, de la force et de la violence 5 l'égard
des ressortissants britanniques ?
Ce sont là des consid4rations dictées par le simple bon sens. 11nous
faut maintenant envisager la question d'un point dc vue rigoureuse-
ment juridique.
Je me propose, au cours dc cette rleuxiéiiie partic, de iios obser-
vations, de démontrer les deux points suivants :
I'reinier point:Les actes de possession postbrieurs ?t1839 ne peuvent
etre opposés A l'autre Partie en tant qu'actes de souverainet& ; autre-
nient dit, la convention du 2 août 1839 constitue la {(date critique )).
On remarquera que le Gouvernement de la Républiclue ne dit pas
que cette convention a disqualifié les Parties de revendiquer leur
souverainet&, mais que la revendication ne peut pas se fonder sur les
actes postérieurs à 1839. 11 nous faudra donc étudier le sens et la
portée de cette convention de 1839, c'est-à-dire l'effet qu'clle a eusur le règlcinent du différend des Mincluiers et des Ecr6Iious en établis-
sant entre les Parties un statut d'aprés lequel les tentatives de posses-
sioii d'me Partie ne sont pas opposables à l'mitre.
Ileusièrne point : Même si l'on faisait abstraction tlc In convention
du 2 aout 1839 et de l'inopposabilité qui, selon nous, frappe les faits
de posscssioii ~iostérieiirs à 1859, les faits de possession invoqiiés par
le Royaume-Uni peiidant la ~xiriode réceiite nc réunissent pas les
conclitions fisfies par le droit international pour servir de fondement
à uiie revendication (Le souverainett! territoriale, alors surtout que la
17rance petit, de sori coté, fairi: état de faits de poçsession sufiisants
stir les îles.
llc la sorte, quel [tue soit le point dc vue iidopté - conventioii de
rS39 on règles du droit intcrnatioiial sur !'exercice effectif dc la
souveraineté -, l'csaincn de la période réceiitc nous conduira i la
~riêrneconclusioil : la 17rarice a conseri+ ailjourd'liui la sou\-eraineti.
qu'elle avait déjà peiidant la périocle aiicienne.
l'rentier poirrl: Les uctes de ~ossessiortpostériearrsà 1839 smrt iltop-
+osabics R l'utltre Partie eli tant qzi'uctcsde soire~erairze:téILIco)ivejitioir
(lu 2 riout1839 établit ciitreles 1'~rtiesziustatut gzrifait decelte co?iae~ltion
Ici((dule crifiq~teil.
Dans sri réplique (par. 202), le Goiivertiemerit du ItoyaumelUni a
fort I~icndéfini la date critique (je cite) :(('routes les fois (lu'un différend
sur In souverainet6 est mentionné par le juge oii I'arbitre iiiternational,
il esiste uric clate après laquelle les droits juridiclues d'iitie des parties
ne peuvent plus étre affectés par les actes cle l'autre. En coriséquence,
ilriesert à rien pour la yremierc cl'irivoc~tieren preuve deirant le triburial
dcs actes poçtérieurs à cette date, qui est génér;ilemcnt déçignsc sous
le nom (le (date critic.lueiiIIIde Gouveriiemerit du Royaurne-Uiii cite,
a titre d'esemple, l'affaire (lu statut juridique du Groënland oriental,
dans lacluellc la Cour permanente a estimé que la date critique Ctait
celle de la proclamation royalc norvégienne du ro juillet 1931, procla-
rnaiit la souveraineté iiorvégiciiiie sur le Groë~iland oriental : c'est a
cette date cllie devait être appréciée i'esistence d'une souverriineté
daiioise sur le territoire litigieux. De même, dans l'arbitrage de l'île
dc l'almas, I'arbitre s'est,référéh uiie date critique :poiir déterminer
les clroits respectifs des Etats-Unis et des I'ays-Ras cn 1925, dnte du
cornpromis, l'arbitre s'est eii effet demandé quels étaient les droits
de l'l<spagricet des I'nys-Bas en 1898, cl;itedu traité fiis~iaiio-aniéricain.
Cc seconrl exemple est p;lrticulièrement intéressa~it clans le prbsent
litige et corifirine le Gouvernenient clc la Képublique clans L'icIEcque
la date critiyiie dans ln préserite affaire est celle de 1S39 Selon le Gou-
verliernent tlii Royaume-Uni, la rédaction même du compromis du
20 dccernbre 1950 rnoritrerait cliila dnte critique est ceile (le la signature
de cc comprotnis. l'out lui, l'cvénement précisqui a cristnllisé le prCseiit
diffëreiid est la dkcisioii prise par les deus Gouvernements le 29 dbcembre
1950 de le ctéf6rer & la Cour pour dCterrnirler ((s ia souveraineté sur les
îlots et roctiers appurtient ail Royauine-Uni ou :Ila 1<6publicluc fran-
çaise )i. A$fi~lrtiegitlictrrelle?ne~ile,n19j0, dit le Royaume-Uni. Tels
soiit bien les termes di] co~nl>romjs. ?daisle Goiivcrnemeiit du Koyaume-
Ciii iie reccinri:iît-il pas lui-inêmc (mémoire, par. 204) que le corn~iron-iis
ciaiis l'affaire de Palmas indicluait lui aussi, cn 1925, clue <rl'iiiiique
mission de l'arbitre sera de déterminer si l'île cle Palmas (ou dliaiigas)
/ail partie i)- au présent, en 1925 - idalis sa totaIitC, du territoire I'I,AJUOIKIE DE hl, LE PKOF. GROS (FRANCIS)- 29 IX 53 235
rippai-tciiant aus Gtats-Unis oii du territoire ap~iarteria~it nus l'nys-
Ras »? Et pourtant l'arbitre a fiséà 1898 la date critique, le traité de
l'aris ayant cristallisé ct centralis; le diff6rcncl à cette date. Le Gouvcr-
iiemeiit du Royaume-Uni croit cependant (par. 224 dc la réplique)
(je cite) que,icdaris le cas préscnt, en l'absence d'un traité (commc le
trait6 ile Igaris cl1S98), ou de tout autre instrument international ou
acte coiistitu:uit évidemment labase ou le centre du différend,la Cour
n'a pas le cllois, mais doit considérer le compromis lui-meme comrnc
lecentre du différend et, par conséquent, la source de la date critique ».
Mais le Gouvernement cle la KCpublique croit pr6cisément qu'il esiste
ici,coriimc dans l'affaire de Palmas,ciun traité international constituarit
Iiibase oii le ccntre du clifférciidet, par conséquent, la soiirce de la
date critique 3. Cet acte iiiteriiational, c'est la convention du z aoîit
1839. L'inopposabilité (les actcs accomplis postérieurement à 18x9
ii'est cI'riilleurs pas seulenlent, comme tlrins les autres hypothèses de
idate critique »,un effetesigéa posteriori par l'existence d'une procérlure
judiciaire ou arbitrale. Elle est inscrite entre les lignes mêmesde la
convcntioii ; toute atteirite au statut établi par les Parties est une
modification de la conveiltioii, et c'eI-ricnainsique le Gouvernement
de laRépublique a interlirétédésIc début lestentativcsdu Royaume-Uni
pour établir sa souveraineté sur les iles.(Lcs documents reproduits ails
rinnexes A 31, A 38, A 39 et A 42 in fi~aeA 61 ir~fine, du mémoire
britnniiiclui:, sont caractéristiclucs h cet kgarrl.)
Si la convention de 1839 constitue la date critique, cc n'est donc
119, comme dans d'autres affaires, parce que le différend se serait
cristallisA cette date. Ce que nous avons toujours affirmé - et ce
que nous continuons ii :~ffirmer-, c'est qu'en 1839 est intervenu uii
trait&, instrument international essentiel s'il en est, dont les effets
sont tels que, pour décider à qui appartient aujourd'hui la souveraineté
sur les îlots des 31intlr1iers etdes Ecréhous, la Cour ne peut que
reclierclierà qui elle apparteriait h la veille de I:iconvention. C'cst
bien eii 1839 que la situation des Parties a pris corps, qu'elle s'est
fixée. Ilepuis près de cent ans clrie dure la controverse eiitrc les deus
Etats, les documents produits par les deux Parties montrent bien
que c'est la portée de cette convcntion qui est le centre (lu débat.
Je ticiis en effet à souligner que cette iitilisation, par le Gouverncment
de la République, de la convention de 1839, n'est nullement une
inventioii sortic de notrc imagination après la signature dii comprornis
de 1950. Pris p;u- 1'écras;~ntciifficiiltéd'unc tâche put-etrcimpossible,
rnon arni hl. Fitzmaurict: m'a placé dans une situation un peu délicate
en me reprochant d'avoir, d'une manière imprévue, tiré argument de
laconvention de 1839 après la signature du compromis et de l'accord
'dc pêchede 1951. Pour dissil)cr tout mnlente~idu, je tiens à dire ici
que, en premier lieu, 1';iccord de pêchede 1951, cllie hl. Fitzmaurice
a invoquS - malgré l'engagement pris au mornerit du compromis
par les deus Parties de ne pas l'invocjuer dans la Cour (mémoire
hritaniiique, par.69 ; réplique, par.2) - ne conccrne quc l'inferprkta-
tion des dispositions relatives la peche aux >linquiers et aux Ecréhous
dans la convention de 1839. La portée territoriale de cette convention
demeiire donc entière. En second lieu, et surtout, au moment de la
riégoeiation du comprûniis, Ics autoritcs britanniques connaissaient
l'importance attachée par le Gouvernement de la République à la
convention dc 1839 : piirla correspondance échangéedepuis prés deccnt ans, (l'abord, mais aussi parcc cliic les procès'verbaux des négo-
ciations de la corivcntion dc pt.clie de 1951 montrent combien les
représentants de la France - dont deus sont présents ici- ont souligné
le sens de ln convention de 1S39 et insisté pour qu'elle fîit mentionnée
dans I'accord de pêche commeen étant la base, Si le Gouvcrnement
du Royaume-Uni avait voulu esclure la convention de 1839 du débat
actuel devant la Cour, il aurait pu le demander, et cela n'aurait pas
étC:plus difficile que d'escluredu débat toute preuve tirCe de l'accord
de pêche de Igjr, ce qui, comme 1:rCour Ic sait ,été conr7enii. Rien
de tel n'a été demandépar Ic Gouverncrnent du Royaume-Uni en
ce qiii concerne la convention dc 1839, et le compromis du zg décembre
7950 n'exclut auciin titre, aucune preu\Ie, aucune datc. Dans ces
conditions, la Cour me permettra d'exprimer à mon tour ma surprise
devalit l'étoniiement rnanifestb p;~r mes collègiies britannicliics cil
présence de notre argiimentation fondFe sur la convention de 1539
- argurneiitation qu'ils connaissent depuis de nombreuses années.
depuis des dizaines d'aiinées,et qiic le Gouvernemeiit de la République
n'a fait clut:~ioursui\~rcdevant la Corir. Il serait agréable au Gouverne-
ment de la Rél~ubliquede penser que Iriformulc tout à fait courtoise
de M. Fitzmaurice a cependant dépassé ça pcnséc, car rien, dans la
conduite dri Gouvernement de la République, ne peut @ter au soupçon
d'avoir abus& le Gouverncrnent du Royaume-Uni dans sa bonne foi,
terme que jcpréfèrcii celui dc nxïveté.
31onsieur le Préçidcrit, hlcssieurs cle la Coiavaiit de repseridre nies
observatio~is,jevoudrais faire iirie remarclue relative h la dernière partie
de ines observatiotis dc cc matiri.
Mo11excellent collégue et zirtii, 31. I:itzmaurice, m'a fait ohscrver-
qu'il semblait résulter de mes observations que nous consiclérions(lue
le Royaume-Uni n'avait pas respecté l'%ccordentre les deus Parties,
se1011leiluel l'accord cle pèche de1951 ne serait pas invorliié.iI'apptai
de 110sreveiiclicatioiisdc so~ivcraineté. le déplore d'avoir pu clonrier.
cette impression, et je désire rectifiemes remarcliics sur ce point. Les
coiiseilsdu Royaume-Uni n'ont pas utilid l'accord cle pêche de 1951
poiir appuyer leurs reveiidications de souveraincti., et je regrette vive-
merit d'avoir pu donner une autre impression.
Je mainticris simlilcmerit cc cllie j'ai [lit 'ensuite sur les nC.gociatioiis
du cornproinis de 1950, pour répondre à ce qui se trouve dans la plai-
doirie de mon ami, 31.I~itzrnauricc, page Gz,depuis Ia zSillcligne jusrlu'h
Ia fiidu paragraphe.
Si l'une des 1"artiesavait voiilu csclure la conventiori1839 cludétiiit
actuel devant InCour, jemairitieris qii'elle poilvait Ic demander qu'un
accord, du genre cle celui qui a éte conclu pour 1':iccord de yéche cle
igjz, aurait pu êtreproposé, jeiie dis pas accepté.
Les conseils du Royaume-Uni iious relirochent d'écarter du débat,
en fisant la date critique en1539 ,es événementsies plus r(ccnts, c'est-
a-dire les plus intéressants pour le juge. Ce reproche ne iious semble
pas fondé,car, s'il était justifiE, il aboutirait h éliminer la notion même
de date critique. Dans I'ajjaivc de Pal?nl~s,I'arbitrc n'a-t-il pns fixé la PLAIDOIRIE UE li.1.13PROF. GKOS (FRASCE) - 29 IS 53 237
date critique à IS~S et éliminé,ce faisant, les faitsde la pkriode la plils
récente, antérieure 1925 ?
Je me propose dc montrer maintenant - et c'est l&le point esseiitiel
- comment, de l'avis du Gouvernement de 1sKépublicluc,la conven-
tion de 1S39 n ktabli entre les Parties uri rcglement applicable aux
espaces litigieux qui interdit par son esistcrice méme à chacune d'elles
rl'invoquer eit tant ytr'actes impliquant la souk-eraineté territoriale, les
actes de possession postérieurs 5 1839. Nous montrerons donc avant
tout, par une analyse détailléede la conve~ition de 1839, pourquoi, h nos
yeux, elle constitue la date criticlue dans Ia présente affaire, puis nous
verrons pourquoi l'inopposabilité des actes postérieurs ii 1839 subsiste-
rait,quelle que soit t'interprktation qu'on donne à In convention cie 1S3g.
Notre plan sera lc suivant :
En premier 'lieu, l'iiiterprétatioii françaisde la conventioii de 1839
entraîne ipso facto l'inopposabilité, par une Partie A l'autre, des actes
de possesçioii postkrieurs à 1839 commc manifestation de la souve-
raincté territoriale.
Pour ce faire, nous aurons trois problènies à étuclier:
- la réfutation dc la tlibse di1 Iioyauine-Uni ;
- l'exposéde la tlièse française, et
- les coiiséc~uencesde I:ithèse frniiçaise sur la fixation de 111date
criticlue.
En secoritl lieu, cluelle cluc soit l'interprctatiocle la convention cle
1839, iious montrerons que les faits postérieurs à cette convention ii'en
sont pas moiris i~ioflflosablpar une Partie i l'autreen tarit que inani-
festntiotis de la souverainet6 territoriale.
*
* *
1.L'iiiterprCtatiori fraiiqaise dIliconvention du 2 aoîit 1839eiitrnîiic
ipso factoI'iiiopposabilité par uiie Partie à l'autrdes actes de possession
postérieurs 3 1539 comme manifestation dc la soirverainetk territoriale.
Il est esact - et Le Gouverncmznt dc ta R6publiquc en dorine
'volontiers acte au Gouvernemeiit du Royaiime-Uni - qu'en signant le
compromis dri 29 déccmbre 1950 es deus Parties ont, par 15rnême,mis
de côté, par voie de traité, toute iriterdictioqui aurait Cvciituellcrnent
résultécntrc elles d'un trait6 ailtérieur de se prévaloir de In souverniiieté
esclusive sur lcs Minq~iierset les Ecrélious. 1)aiisla rnesure oii la conven:
tion bu 2 aoUt 1839 entraînait ou iiiterdisnit une telle revendication,
elle n'est donc pas actuellenient applicable tlaiis le (]%bat(levant la Cour
et, comme le disent Ics deus Parties, il ne saurait étre cltiestion d:une
incapacité juridique il revendiquer la souveraineté sur Ics iles.Mais
cela ne iious clispense absolument P~S cl'exarniner In conveiitiori d1839,
car tlcson ititerprétation dtpend aujoui-rl'liui, dansle prCsent litige,
ln pertiiience(lesfaits de possessioii alléguésclcpart et d'autre, survenus
eiitre le2 aoîit 1839 et le zt) décembre 1950.
Essayons donc, a\va~ittout, de relire cette con\~entioii salis pr&jiigé,
sans opinioii yr6cont;iie. enne faisant usage que du bon sens.
L'articlepreiiiier dbfiiiit le tracé d'une ligne A BC ilE 17G H 1 li
le long de la chte noriiiriiide, critre lc cap Cnrteret et la.pointc du hlciiga.
C'est la ligne qui se trouve ttiarrluéeen rouge sur cette cartequi illustre,
je rn'cinpressc de tedire, la thiise frariçaise et qui n'est pas u~iccarte
ayant une \.aleur atitlienticluc entre les deus Parties. Cettc carte :iSté PLAIDOIRIE DE JI. LE ilKOF. GKOS (FRANCIS) - 29 IX 53
23s
rdduite sous le fornrat qui a été présenté i la Cour, et c'est Ircarte rliii
portc le no 3.Entre cctte ligne et la côte française, (la pêcliedes huitres
sera exclusive~nent réservée aux sujets iranqais iiCette carte et cctte
ligne prése~itciitceci cle particillier quc In ligne est située tant&i plus,
tantôt à moins de la limite de trois milles par rapport Bla côte de France.
Sig~ialonsenfin que si elle englobe l'ensemble des Chausey dans la zone
de pkhe réservéeà la France, elle laisse en defiors de cette zoiie les
Mincliiiersaussi bien que les Écr~hous.
1,'articl2 dispose que «la pêchedes huîtres au dedans cletrois milles,
calculés de ln laisse de basse mer, de l'île de Jersey (Jersey soi!ligné
dans le teste français original) sera esclitsi\~eineiit réservéeaus siijets
britanniques 1).
L'article 3 iiidiquc que «sera cornmu~icaux sujets des deux pays la
pkche des Iiuitres entre les liniites ci-clessus cfësignées, et en dedans
desqirelles cette pêclreest esclusimrnerit réscr~~ées,oit :iirx pêcheurs
frangsis, soit aux sujets britanniques II.
1,'nrticlg, lui, ne concerne plus escliisivement la pêche deshuitres,
contrniremciit aux articles Ià 3, mais vise la pêche en général.11dispose
que s Les sujets de Sa Majesté le roi cles ljrançais jouiront du droit
exclusif de pêchedans le rayon de trois milles h partir de la laisse de
basse nier, le long de toute l'étendue des côtes de Yrancc, ct les sujets
de S:t Aiajest britannique jouiront cluclroit exclusifde peche dans un
rayon de trois milles dc la laisse de basse mer le long de torite l'éteridue
des îles britatiiiiques)iet je dois dire que dans le texte franqais qui se
trouve dans les arcl~ives, il y a un graiicl i i Iles britaiiniques, ce qui
correspond a British Islalids dans le teste anglais.« Bieii entendu )idit
1'aliiii.2,aque sur cette partit des cbtcs de la France qui se trou\-e entre
le cap Carterct et la pointe du Menga, le droit exclusif cic toute espèce
de pêchen'appartiendra qu'aus sujets français en declaris des limites
mentionnées i l'articleIC~de la présente convention. II
'I'clest cet accord si controversé. 11a sans doute le dCfaut dc mêler
le sptcial au général, l'exceptionau principe :il parle en effet 2 la fois
de la pêchedes huitrcs, de la pkhe gtinbrale, ct avant mêmede poser,
dans l'article 9, le principe de la pêcherCservéedans un rayon de trois
milles Ie long de toutes les côtes françaises et anglaises, il ~irévoitd'abord
.une exception iice principe pour une scçtion dc la côte française, définie
à l'article premier pour la pêclieaus huitres et reprise à l'article9,
alinéa 2,pour la pêche générale . ccarnctére un peu hétérocliteest dû
aux circonstances dela rédaction dutexte, rédaction qui, nous le verrons,
a 6té longiic et pénible, faite, si la Cour me permet l'eupressioii, de
pièces et de morceaux.
Mais ce défaut de rédaction une fois constatb, il reste que l'objet de
la conventioii est fortclair.La Cour mc perrnettrü de lire le titrcexact
de la convention dc 1839 tel qu'il se troiive dans l'exemplaire du Gouver-
nement fraiiçais, signéet scellépar leduc de Dalmatie et lord Granville,
lez août 1839 à Paris. Ce titre est le suivant IConvention conclue entre
la France et la Grande-Bretagne pour la délimitatioii des pcheries
d'tiuitres entre lcôte de France et l'île deJersey avoisinante, ainsi que
pour la déte~ination des limites eii dedans desrluelles le droit général
de pêche sur toutes Ics autres parties des côtes des deus pays sera exclu-
sivement rtservé aux sujets respectifs de la France et de la Grnnde-
13retagne.))Comme ce titre l'iiidique, l'objde la convention est cn efiet
douhlc : il s'agità la fois de réglemeiiter la j~échcdes huitrcs entre PLAIDOIRIE DE M. LE PROF. GROS (FRANCE) - 29 IX 53 239
Jersey et la côte normande, et de définirl'étenduede Iamer territoriale
en géncral, cn vue d'ktablir le principe de la pOche reservée aux seuls
nationaux. Aiitremen t dit, c'est un règlementtcvritorial clfin depêche.
Les deus questions, celle de 1ü rner territorialc et celle dc la pCche -
pêchcgénérafecomme pêchedes huîtres -, sont intimement liées'tout
au long de la convention. IIne saurait faire le moindre doute que, dans
l'esprit cles comrnissaircs des deux Parties, les zones de pêcheavaient
un caractère territorial.Nous voyons les commissaires anglais demander
à plusieurs reprises (prochs-verbaus de la négociation de 1839, pp. 232
et ss.) une riplilication indulgente des sanctiondails Ics eaux réservées
i la France ct Ics conimissaircs franyais fairdcs reserves cn indi<.l~iant
que (je cite)« tcGouvernement francais est seul juge en dernier ressort
des infractions commises en dedans des limites fiséeç5 Le pouvoir de
police, dans la zone de compétence territoriale de l'Etat, était airisi
étroitement lib, dans I'csprit des aiitciirde la convention, à l'esercicc
du droit de peche.
Cette liaison entre les questions de pêcheet les (pestions territoriales
est estrêmemcnt importante ; elle résulte non seillement cfu texte de la
convention, mais aussi di: son Iiistoirc, ct remonte mêmeaux négocia-
tions de 18~4. comme nous le verrons par la suite. On peut consulter
sur ce point d'ailleiirs un ouvrage anglais, du professeur Smith, Grent
Britain and the Law O/ hTations (1-ondrcs,1935, vol. II, pp.144 et ss.).
Cc lien est d'ailleurs très naturel. 11 se retrouve en bien d'autres
occasions. C'est ainsi que la corivention franco-espagnolc du IS Iéi-rier
1526, rclative %la pêchc dans 1s baie di1 Figuier, prévoit trois zoiies
de péclies, l'une exclusivement franqaise, l'autre exclusivement cspa-
giiole, la troisième nelitre, et ces zones correspondent exacte~nent aux
zones de ijuridictionII,c'est-A-dire de souverairiet6, lire\-ueç par la
convention franco-espagnole du 30 mars 1879. Ida même liaisonentre
les (luestioris tcrritorialcs et cellde peche a été relevée, en ce qui
concerne la convention cte ISSZ siir la pêclieen mer du Nord, par sir Cecil
Hurst, dans son article Tlae ?'crritoriizlioj Bciys dans le IBritish
Yearbook »,1922-1923, page 42, et disons, en hommage i la mémoire
cles iiégociateurs de1839, que l'article z de cette convention de 1882
est aussi mal rhdigé que l'article 9 de celle de 1539.
Plus récemment est intervenu l'arrêt rendu dans I'afiaire[lesI-'êcheries,
entre le Royaunie-Uni et la Korvège, dont on peut citer un passage :
IIlJien que le décret du 12 juillct1935 se réfèrei la zone cle
pCclie norvégienne, et ne parle pas iiomméinent de b mer terri-
toriale, il est hors de doute que la zone délimitiie par ce décret
n'est autre que l'étendue de rner cluc la Norvi?ge considère comme
sa mer territoriale.>)(C. 1. J. Recueil Igjr, p. 125.)
Selon le Coiivernemerit de la République, la convention de 1S39
a cepcndant une signification çupplémentaire en dehors du double
objet que nous \:enons d'indiquer. Sans doute rie parle-t-elle ni des
>linquiers ni des Ecréhous ;sans doute ces îlots n'ont-ils pas da\-antrige
étémentionnés ;lucours de la longue négociation dont est issiie la
conveiition. Mais ce silence n'a pis pour cffct ma~ique <le faire dispa-
rsitrc les îlotsdc la carte ; les Minqnicrs et les Ecréhous se troulrent
au milieu méme de la région que la convention régit. Or, i moins de
dire que ce silence a aboli l'existence mêmede ces ilots, il est certain
que la réglementation dc péche établic par la convention de 1839240 PLhIUOIRIE DE II. LE PROF. GROS (I:RASCE) - 29 IS.j3
s'applique inC~.itablcnierztà dei; Minqiiiersct des ~crél~o~isqui relévcrit
d'un certain statut tcrritorialri supposer mérnc qu'il soit impossible
de dégager sur ce point l'intention des I'artics, il faudrait encore
rechercher avec quel statut territorialle rCgirnc de pêcheinstitué par
In conrwttiori semit seul corrip:rtible' et doncreconnaitrc qu'il y :i
Ih une iinplication nécessaire.
SOUS allons voir d'abord pourqiioi l'interprétation clonnée & 1:i
coiiventioii par le Gou\reriierrieiit di] Ixoyaunie-Uni ne saurait ktre
rctenue, ensuite I'iiiterprétatioii proposepar le Goiivenieiiierit Franp~is,
pour conclure enfin sur la c.luestion de 13 détcrminatiori de la date
critique eii 1839.
I.'id&eessentielle tle cette iiiterprétatioii est qu'il ne faut pas chercliei.
utiliser la conventio,de 1839 en vue de détemilier le statut territorial
clesMinquiers et des Ecrélious. La convention ne disant mot de ce statut,
on nc peut rien en tirer en ce qui Ic conccrne. 11faut, toutnt1 contraire,
appliquer ln conventioii en fonction d'uii statut préalablement détes-
~nirié.hutreinerit dit: il faut tenir pour acquis que la souvcraineté sur
ces îles a toujours appartenu nu Royaume-Uni et (lue la conve~itioii
ii'apas voulu porter atteinte h cette soilveraineté.
1,'interprétatioridu Koyaunic-Uni vise, tout eiiti&re, à démoiiti.cr
que l'article 3 relatif a la pêche cornmurie ne saurait s'appliquer aus
eux situées dans un rayon de trois milles autour des Minquiers et des
Ecrkhous. 1,'article 3 lie signifie pas que ces îles n'etigendrent pas leurs
propres eaus territoriales, ni, déslors, que la pêcliedans ces eaux n'cst
pas esclusivement réservée aux sujets britannicfues (carte 2, OU est
trouvée la limite de 3 milies :iutour des Rlinquiers et des ficrdhous).
L'objet essentiel de cette interprétation est d'esclure les pêcheurs
français cles Minquiers et des Ecréhous et cl'espliquer qu'une telle
esclusion ri'cstpas contraire i I'articl3, selon iequel la pêcheest corn-
rnrine aus pêclieursdes deus pays entre la ligne (rdIiocdéfinieà l'article
premier et la ligne situbeà trois millede l'ile de Jersey fiséeh l'artic2.
On peut d'ailleurs s'étonner que nos collègues britanniques, après
s'ctre achar iics à démontrer quc la zone commune de I'articlt: 3 n'englo-
bait que cles zones de haute mer ou des territoires sans maifre et rie
comprenait donc pas leseaux territoriales des nliiiquiers et des Ecréhoiis.
aient jugé utile de démontrer d'abord que la pêcliecornmulie des huîtres
n'entraînait pas la péchecommui-iede toute espécccle poissons, ensuite
que la pêcticgénéralecornmunc était parfaitement compatible avec uric
souveraineté unique. Xe seraient-ils pas absolument sûrs que l'article 3
ne crée pas une zone de pêche commune sur les plateaux litigieus ?
Quoi qu'il en soit, le Gouverncrnent de la Républiclue ne conteste pas
le principe que les droits de pêchecommune sont parfaitement compa-
tibles avec une souvernineté unique : la tlièse française est justenieiit
qiie la convention de 1839 a crCéun usage commun à des fins de peclie
sur un territoire exclusivement de souverainet4 française.
L'interprétation hritanniquc - pasde pêchecornmurie rlaiiç les eaus
territorialt:~ des Minquiers et ~crélious - soulève essenticilemeni deus
objections. En premier lieu, clle repose sur une sCrie (le pétitions dc
principe. 1311second lieu, e!le aboutit i détruire les dispositions esscn-
tiellesde In conr~cntioii. PI.:\IL>OIRIE DE Ai. LE PROF. GROS (FRANCE) - 29 IX 53 241
s) En premier lieu, l'interprétation clu Royaume-Uiii reposc tout
entiere sur une pétitid oenprincip e.le suppose acquis que Miiiquiers
ct Ecréhoiis ont toujours releve de la souveraineté britannique, et
c'est en fonction de ce postulat que le Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni
interprète ,les divers articles de la convention.
L'interprétation donnée A la convention de 1839 par le Royaume-
Uiii peut se résumer de la maniere suivante, que j'emprunte à la
réplique, paragraphes $3 et suivants :
Lorsque nous lisons, dans l'article 2, que «la pkhe (les huitres en
dedans des trois milles ....de l'île de Jerscy sera csclusivciiicnt réservée
aux sujets britanniques ii,nous devons lire: uJ-ersey ct ses dépen-
daiices »,c'est-à-dire Jersey, les Minquiers et les Ecréhous a.L'article 9
pose Ie principe de la pêchegénéraleexclusive dans un rayon clctrois
milles de la laisse de basse mer <le long de toute l'étendue des fles
britanniclues)). Or la convention du II novembre 1867 dispose dans
sori article 38 cluc « les termes : ((Iles britanniques IIet ((cRoyaume-
Uni 111employés dans cette coiivei-ition dc 1867 comprennent ~lesiles
dc Jersey, Guernesey, Alderney, Sark, l'île de Man et leurs dépen-
dances II.Le Royaume-Uni continue : les Minquiers et les Ecréhous
;tant uilc dépendance de Jersey, il en dEcoule que ces îles engendrent
leur propre mer territoriaie cornme n'importe quel autre territoire
britannique. Enfiii, disent rnes collègues, étant donné qu'on nc peut
raisonnablement admettre que l'État détenant la souverainetl terri-
toriale sur les îlots ait renoncé sans contrepartie, et sans le dire, à
la péchc esclusivc dans leiir mer territoriale, on peut en déduire que
l'article 3 relatif i la ~ikchecornInunc ne peut s'appliquer qu'aux
espaces cle haute nier ou ceux qui sont res rlz#irts.ce qui exclut ipso
facto son applicatioii aux Minqiiiers et aux Ecréhoiis, qui sont par
cldinition territoires brit;inniques.
Aucun de ces raisonnenicrits n'est, à la vérité,:idmissible. Keprcnons-
les un par un.
Premier argument. Idorsque l'article 2 parle de l'îlc de Jersey, ii
vise du même coup les Minquiers ct les Ecréhouç, dépendances de
Jersey, et c'est5 trois milles des Minquiers et dcs Bcrehous qu'il faut
donc porter la nier territoriale et la pêclieexclusive du Royaume-Uni.
Il y a 1i deus pétitions de principes :d'une part que «ile de Jerscy r
sigriifi,i.jersey et ses dépcndanccs ii; d'autre part que les Alinqiriers
et les Ecrhhous soiit des cl6pend:inces tlc Jerscy. Nous cxamincrons
ccttc dcrriière question avec le sccond argumerit du Koyaurnc-Uni.
En ce qui concerne la première allégatiari, ellc est absolument incom-
pr6hensiblc: comrnent imaginer que, lorsque, dans une convcntion
aussi loiigiiemeiit étudiéc, Ics Parties écrivent : rcl'île de Jersey )J(ct,
notons-le. en souligriant le inot Jersey dans le texte français), iffaille
entendre par là 1Jersey, les Alinquiers ct les Ecréhous n,et cela alors
que l'un des deux comniissaires anglais de la iiCgociation, M. Spirks,
était inspecteur des huîtrières A Jersey ct qu'on ne-peut Iiitsiipposer
qu'il ait oiiblié l'existence des Minquiers et dcs Ecréhous ?
I,a convention du 9 septembre 1834 (annexe A 26 au mémoire),
nncctre direct de la convention de 1839, ct qui, bien qric lion signée,
a étéappliquÊc pendant quinze ans, nc stipulait-clle pas dans son
article 3 que a les limites des pêcheries 'anglaisesd'huitrcs, moules et
autres cotliiillages de mEme natiirc sont fixées {iune lieue marine
autour des îles de Ciiernesey, Aldcrney et Sark, et h deux lieues marinesautour de l'île de Jersey n? Farit-il croirc (lue cette &numération si
lirécisc couvrait autre chose que les seules îles citées de Guernesey,
_iurigriy, Sercq et Jersey ? Une cstension de l'article 2 de la conven-
tion de 1839 est d'autant moins justifiée qiic l'on n générnlernent vri
5 cet égard uiie différence entre la conveiition de 1839 et 1; nmeusc
conventioii de 1882 sur la pèche dans la mer du Nord : la con~,ention
de 1882 a, en effet, ajouté au testc de l'aticlc 9 de la convention de
1839, clu'ellc reprend testiiellemcnt, les mots s et les îles ct 1,;~ncsqui
en dépendent it.Çcs ternics « îles et bancs qui cn dépendent ii,cliii
pourraielit poser un prob1èrnc d'interprétation s'ils sc troüvaicrit dails
le texte de 1839, rie peuvent recevoir application lorsqii'il s'agit noii
pas dc 13 convention de 1882 - où les mots se troiivcnt -, inais de
celle de 1339 - où ils ne se trouvcrit pas. Sinon, il cst vain d'écrirc
avec ,récision. Si une conïlention disant Il'île de Jersey )i,iiric autre
([les ilcs et bancs qui en dépciidcnt II,iine troisième IGuernesey,
Alderney, Sark et Jersey )idésignent le mtme objet, savoir Jersey
ct ses prétenducç dépeiidanccs, c'cst à n'y pliis rien comprcildre. Qric
dire d'ailleurs dii titre niéme de la conventioii de 1839 que j'ai raplielé
dcjà 4 ....entre la côte dc France ct l'ile de Jersey avoisinaii~e n.
Ileusième argument.du lioyaunie-Uni : les Ninquiers et les I~crélious
sont des cîles britanriiclricsiiau scris dc l'article g (le la corzventiori,
et à ce titre ils engendrent leurs propres eaus territoriales. l'réseiitésous
cette fornie, l'argument est évidemment lin sopliisme, parce que la
question est préchArnent de savoir si les &liiiquie& et les Écréliois sont
des ccîles britaniiiclues il.Aussi, le Gouvernement du Royaiirne-Uiii
s'appuie-t-il sur l'article $3 de la coiivention de 18G7, selon lequel, par
a îles britanniques ilil faut eiite~iclreaussi Jersey, Alderney, Guernesey,
Sercq, I'ilctfeMan et leurs dépenrlances.
Le Goiiverneineiit de la liépublitlue pcnsc, à vrai clirc, clu'oriiic saurait
interpréter une convention cluelconque 5 l'aide (l'un teste [lui a &té
élabore près de trente ails plus tard et qui n'a jamais étémis en vigueur.
liais, puisque le Gouveriicment du Royaurne-lini invoque la coiivcntio~i
dc 1867, le Gouvernen~ent de 1:i liépublique ne laisscrri pas l'argumerit
sans rhponse. Ide lioynume-Uni soiitient que, par la coiiventioii de 1867,
les Parties n'eritendaient pas modifier celle tlc 1339; il s'agissait simple-
ment, selon les ternies memes de son prtambule, cl'établir((certains
arrangemeiits dont 1'exl)Crience a démontri: l'utilitket qui ont parii
pouvoir ~nodificr et compléter avaritageusement les clispositions antk-
rieures daiis l'irit6rêtcommun des pêcheurscles deiis payi ii.Autrement
dit : la convention de 1867peut servir à éclairer rétronctivemeiit le seiis
des dispositioiis de la coiivention de 1S39.
Pour que cc raisonnement fût admissible, il faudrait que l'article38
de la convention dc ISG~se conteritat d'éclairer, de paraphraser, en iin
inot cd'interpréter iil'article g de la convention de 1839. Or, il n'eii
est rien, et je n-iepermets d'insister sur ce point essentiel. Daris sa phi-
doirie clu samedi 19 septembre, M. 17itzmaurice a citC (p. SI (111compte
rendu) certains estraits des procès-verbaiis de la commissioii cle 18G7,
qui se trouvent i la page 646 des aiincscs additionnelles du Roynu~ne-Uni.
Il a commencé h la trentième ligne seulement. Or, voici cc cluenous
lisons ailx deus précédcntcslignes (le lamêmepage (jetraduis) :(M. Cavc
[commissaire britannique] suggéra qu'une cl?use fût inséréepour inclure
les îles de la Manche daiis l'expression ccIles britanniques ii[avec uii
grand i 1.))Qu'est-ce à dire, sinon {lue I'cspression ((fles britanniques il, I11.AIL)OIKIE I)E 31. 1.E PROF. CROS (I:KANCE) - 29 1'153 243
contenue dans l'article 9 de la corivciition (le 1839, iie concerii;iit pas,
de I'avis même tlri corn~nissaire britannique, les îles de la Manche ?
L'île de Jersey était régiepar I'article 2,qui était ainsi loi11d'étresiiper-
fl11dans In coni7eritiori de 1839,les iIles brit;iriniqtieiiproprement dites
1);" l'article 9. Qi!;iiit aux autres îlcs de Iri Manche - notamment ICS
Aliiitl~iiei-set les Iicrétioiis -,la conveiition cle 1839 iie créait pas de
zoiie territoriale de trois miltes autour d'elles ; et une telle zone rie
pouvait se présurncr à I'bpot~ue, ILIconvcntioii dc 1839 étant prCcis6-
iriciit, de l'avis uiiariiine de la rloctririe, l'un cles premicrs documt:iits dc
ce que ccrtttins ont appelé depuis la i(regle » des trois milles. l'eu importe
donc ce que 12 mot (glépeiidanceç 1signifie :pour nos aclversaircs, il visc
les Minquiers ct les Ecréhous ; selori itous, il s'agit des nombreris îlots,
rochers et i.cueils ilrii bordciitB courte distaiice le contiiicnt, d'une part,
et les principales îles du I<oyaume-Uni, d'autre part, et qui font juricli-
(luement partie cliI;iterri: ferrnei Iarliielle ils se rattachentMais, je le
rcpète, lieu impurtc la sigtiificatiuii clc ce tcrme ((d&lxtida~ices x : une
cliosc est ccrtairic, c'est que I'article38 de la convention de ISGT mocli-
fiait, d'après la dCclaratiori de M. Cavc, l'article9 de la converitioii de
1835 ;1par consécliient, il rie peiit pas scrvir pour l'interpréter.
lJien (Iiie la signification (lu terme « dél~enrl;inces1)clans l'article 36
de lacatit.etition de 1867 soit étraiigiire au debat, je ~uudrais cepen-
tla~it dire, pour ne laisser uiicun doute sur le caractbre de l'interpréta-
tion du Go~i\~erncri~eiitdu lioyauiric-Uni, poiirquoi cette esprcssion ne
sniirait eii aucun cas 1-iserles Alinclriierset les Ccréhous. Si les ficrkhauç
sont çoiisitlErCs coiiime iine dépendaiice de Jersey, il serait norrnal de
cunsidérer !es Basses de 'Taillepied et les Bancs fcléscoinme unc dépen-
driitce des Ecréhous, da11s.lcs eaux tcrritoririlcs descliiels ils se troui.ent,
ct alors, de crilculer la nier territoriale de Jcrsey, en application dc
l'article2 (le la coii\,entioii c1839, I partir clc la seule 13assetlc 'l'aille-
pied qui tlécou\-rc toujours, oii bien encore du seiil banc décoiivrant
des Bancs félés. Si le Goii\?ernemeiit du Royaume-Uiii n'a pas émis
cette prctention, c'est vrniseriiblablei~~e~itparce que la nier tei~itorialc
;iiiisi défiiiieautour de Jei-scy \.iencliaaitalors rnordre siir la ligiie de. la
zoiic fraiiçaise dbliiiiitiiei l'article prernicr - ce cliii achèverait tle
dfmontrer. combien est insouteriahle iin argument fondé sur la notion
dc idkpciidtirices IIII1;iutre part, l'origine cle1':irticle 38 est britaniiiclue,
coirimc le moiitrciit lion scule~nent le dociiriiciit cite, inais encore la
c1Criorniii:itioriailglaise dans Ic teste de l'article 38 : Alderney, Sark :
si les coniinissaires anglais n\.aient \.oulu éclairer, coiriine on nous dit,
le teste dc l'article g de la cori\~entiori de 1839, croit-on \mirnent qil'ils
:iliraient laissi! passer l'occasion de citcr les Miiiquiers et les Ecrèlious ?
Croit-on irraimeiit que les coinmissaires franqriis auraieiit accepté sans
cliscussiori iiriteste portant une atteinte aussi gra1.c aux droits des
~iccheurç francais, Icsclucls fréi1uent:iicnt les parages sans inciclcnt, sur
lc mêniepicd que Ics pêclicursanglais, depuis près de trente ans, ct qui
etaielit con\.aincus clrie 1:i con\-entioii de 1339 a\.ait confirmé leurs
Iiabitudes ci leurs clroits ;iiiciens :'
011 peut donc rejeter saiis hésiter I'nrgumciit seloii lequel l'article (i
cle la coii\,kntion de rYjij, interprété par l'article 38 dc la conï.ention
de 1867, :ipour effet de créer iiiie zone de mer territoriale 5 yêctiecxclu-
si1.e autoiir des bliiiquiers et des Ecriihous : l'article g de la convention
cle 1839ne dit rien (le tel; l'articleJS de la convention de 1867 ne sert
p:is h l'iiiterl-irétatioii Iricon\.entioii rle 1839 : non sculemerit il n'est 234 Pi..4IDOIRIi3 DE 11. 1.E PKOI:. CROS (FRASC -E)29 IX j:S
jamais ciitré en \+peur, mais, de toute fnqon, il iilav;iit pas l'effet que
lui ont preté nies collègiiesbritanniques.
TroisiEme argument du lioyaume-Uni. 1,'article 3 relatiA la pêche
cornmurie ne peut ç'applic~uer qi1'5 cles espaces de 1>1uteiner, donc il
est iiiapyilicable:LUSeaux baignant les Miiicluiers et I:créhous, ces eaux
étant par définition des caus territoriales britanniques. Là encore, iI y
ri une p8tition dc principe, et on nc peut rien déduire d'un pareil raison-
nement. JZon collègue, II. Iiitzmaurice, a ajouté, le 19 septembre, que
l'article3 pouvait aussi s'appliqiier h des territoiresnon ri.clnrnésqui
~~ouvnieritse troiij-er dans cette zone. Il me permettra de lui opposer
l'arbre de Spinoza clont ilnous a si spiritucllement parlé ; ou bien il y
avait, en 1839, cles territoires noil r6clarncs, mais alors oii est l'unité
des îles rlela Manche dont on ~iouça tant 1)arlé? 011 bien toutes lcs îles
de la Jlanche sont supposbcs, par la théorie des dépeiidances, étre sous
la souïteraineté britannique, mais alors on iie voit pas à quel territoire
lion récinrnél'article 3 pourrait bieii s'appliquer.
>Jais ce ne sont encore Ih (.luedes griefs mineiirs quc nous avons :~dress6s
i l'iiitcrprétatiori britannique. Les pétitions cteprincipe que nous avons
signaléessont, en effet, un vice inhérent de la thèse britannique ; d'aprés ,
cette tlièse, la convention de 1839 ti'est d'aucun secours pour Ia solution
du prbsent litige piiisque, loin d'aider à résotidre leproblème posé, elle
le suppose tout entier résolud'avance. Qui plus est,cette interprétation
a ilne conséquence inadmissible, qui est de \vider la convention de 1839
de toiit son contenu. Or, uiie interprétation destructrice du texte à inter-
préter IIC saurait ktre rcteiii~e c'est Ihun principe général cle droit que
In Cour permanente a appliqué clans l'affaire des Einfrzrnfs serbes (série
:\,nu8 20121, p. 32).
b) C'est effectivement uiie interprktation qui détruit la convention
que propose le C;oui.ernernent dii Royaume-Uni. Dans la réplique et la
plaidoirie, le Itoyaume-Uni insiste très longuement sur le caractere
iiiutilc et superflu des article2 et 3 de la convention {le 1839 qui, seloii
lui. n'ajoutent rien à cette dernière.
Est-il t-iaimcnt adniissible de rbputcr iiori Ccrit lin texte qui est
~~ourtaiitécrit et qu'on peut même considérercoinme une pièce esseii-
tielle de la coiivention de 1S39 ? Comment soutenir, avec une apparence
de 1-raiseinblance, qu'est inutile et négligeable une disposition comnlc
celle-ci: (1Sera commune aus pecheurs des deus pays la pCche des
l~uitres entre les limites ci-dessus clésignéc )7 N'est-ce pas au contraire
un teste essentiel dans une convention destinée à concilier clcs reven-
, clications de pêciiecontradictoires dans unc zone où des incidents, par-
fois ïoioIcnts, venaient dc se produire ? Entre SI jet rS39, 223 brrteaui
de peche britanniques avaient été saisis par Izt croisi&re fran-
çaise, et certains détenus en France plus de sis mois. Les incidents
tirent mêmedes blesséset un mort. La convention de 1839 ne devait
pas seulement, dans .l'esprit de ses auteurs, régler la question de la
pêcliedes huîtres le long de la çôtc du Cotcntin ; elle devait encorc,
et surtout, comme l'a indiqué lord Granville lui-même,dans une lettre
adressee à 31. 'l'hiers le2 avril 1836, établir la pais rdans cette partie
de la Manche qui se trouve entre Jersey et lacôte de .France ii(Archives
du ministère des Affaires étrangères, Pêcheries de kl Manche. 13.275,
pièce déposée.)
Comine l'écrivaient très justement les jurisconsultes français dans
leur rapport de 1886 (annexe au mémoire ciu Royaume-Uni, p. 108). le système iiistitueii 18~~ était (je cite) un systCme de comperisatioii
qui a pour but de ,placer sur un pied d'égalité;ibsoluc les pêcheurs
des deus nations, de prkvenir toute coiitestation sur les liniites respec-
tit+es de leur souveraineté dans ce coin de I'océari i).Les négociateurs
de I;i convention de 1839 ont eu pour but, conforrnkment à Irimissioii
qui leur était imposéepar les deus Gouvernements et qui est, rappelée
dans le prcairibule de la convention de 1839, de mettre un termc .
définitif à toutes les contestations. 1-a zone commune de l'article 3 .
devait-elle en effet coinp-ndre tous les bancs et rochers susceptibles
de crber des incidents : Ecrélious, Basses de ?'aillepied, Katics fêlés,
kli~lquiers, ctc., oir non ? Comment soutenir que l'article3 est iiiutile,
alors que, comme l'ont montré déjà les auteurs de ce rapport ct comme
nous avons essayé rle le faire après eus, ~les articles r,2 et 3 forment
iin tout inclivisible,un ensemble applicable ari calcul tle lamer tcrri-
toriale dans la baie du Cotentiii. dont on ne peut distraire Urie partic
sans détruire l'kconomie équitable et rationnelle du système entier I?
(Je cite le rapport, p. 239, des annexes britanniques.)
La Cour a récemment rappclé que (le premier devoir d'un tribunal,
appelé à iiitcrpréter et a appliquer les dispositions d'un traité, est
de s'efforcer de donner effet, selon leur scns ~trrlzirelel ordinaire, a ces
dis+osiliorts prises dans leucolatextei(avis cons~ltatif sur la compétence
de l'Assembléegénéralepour l'admission d'un Etat aus Nations Unies,
Reciiei'lrgjo, p. 8). Or, n'est-ce pas aller directement à l'encontre
du sens naturel et ordinaire dc la coiivention de 1S39 que de soutenir
que son article 3 est superflu et de prétendre h une zone de peche
esclusive autour des Minquiers et des Ecréhous, alors que la coiivention
institue en toutes lettres u~i droit de pêche commun entrc la ligne
A à Ii et la ligne située à trois milles de Jersey, et de Jersey souligni.
dans le texte français ?
Ay:irit mutilé et ddfiguré la convention de 1839, l'interprétatioii
du Goilvernement du ICoyaume-Uni aboutit à des resultatç pratiques
stupbfiants. Arilieu de supposer chez les riégociateurs de 1839 l'intention
de réglementer d'une maniérc claire et simple la pCche dans cette
région, le Gou\-ernement du lio):aume-Uni leur prste un esprit singu-
lièrernent compliqué. Au lieu des trois zones de péche bien délimitées
(française, anglaise, commune), il y aiirait une multitude de zones :
celle délimitiie par la lignc adhoc ,4 à Ii (carte 2); celle délimitée par
la ligne située à trois mi!les de Jersey ; celle délimitée par 1;~ligne
située à trois milles cles Ecréhous (même carte) ; celle délimitde par .
la.ligne située A trois milles des 3Iinquiers; celle, enfin, rle formc
tourmentée, située entre les autres.
Lorsqu'on se rappelle que lord. Palinerston avait insisté, dans ses
instructions (Travanx i)véparatoiresde la con-~e~itiod re 1539, lettre du
zo octobre 1837, tome r, piécc 2), sur Iri néccssiti:d'obtenir des limites
szns équivoque et très apparentes pour les baieaila, et que l'on imagine
ce découpage (lue nous avons présentésur la carte 2, découpage subtil,
préconisépar ilos adversaires et absolument inutilisabtc pour des pë-
cheurs dépourvus de carte, on voit combien l'interprétation britannique
, est inadmissible. Croit-oii vraiment que des annies cle négocia5ions
ardues aient pu aboutir a créer une zone commune qui, entre les Ecré-
hous et la ligride zoiie française, aurait en toutet pour tout une largeur
de 0,6 mille, et qui critre les Minquiers et la zone tlc Chausey se réduirait
égalenient à uii étroit couloir dont les pêcheursseraient bien incapables.246 PLAI1)OIKIE 1>EM. LE t'!OF. CROS (FRASCE) - 29 IS j3
d'apprécier L'emplacement esaçt ? En fait, I'interyrétatiori du Gouver-
nement du Itoyaume-Uni aboutit à absorber 'puremeiit et simplement
la zoiic commune daiiç les limites de la pêclieanglaise. Ilieii ri'cst alors
plus simple cliiede déclarer que l'article 3 est iriutile.
Aussi bien le systcme précotiisépar le Gouvcrnemetit du Royaurne-
u'ni ii'a-t-il jamaisété transposé dans les faits. Pendant les premières
quarante années (le I'ayplicatiori di1 rcgime dc 1839, pkheurs anglais
et f~ntiçais fr-6quentCrcnt eri comniuii ct paisiblctneiit Ics Xlinrliiiers ct
les I~créfious,sans que leGouvernement du Royaume-Uni se soit jamais
avis6 de rlclamer uii droit esclusif tie pêchc lmiir ses propres ressor-
tissants. Au lendemain de In coiickusioii de In coiiventioii de 1839, il ,
nc lui était pas veiiii i I'eslx-it (lue I'n~ticle 3 (tait inutile et rlevrit
pas s'appliquer aus Minquiers et aiix 113créhoiisL.ors cles longues négo-
ciations qui (levaient aboutir arirèglement d'application du 23 jriir1843,
les con~missaires anglais ne soulevèrent jamais la question des >linquiers
et des Ecrélious, alors qu'on discuta aboiidaininctit du droit de moiiillagc
des liateaus anglais i Chausey. Et lorsque lord l'almerston attaqua, en
1843, devant In Chambre des Commuitcs, le traité coinme trop avari-
tagctis pour la France, il ne songea pns davantage A iiicttrc eii cause la
cominunaiiti! de pêclieautoui. tlc ces îlots.
ISt croit-on que si les eaus territoriales deshliiicluiers edes kcréhous
avaient étdrtiservées nus pêclieursbritanniques, la croisière britannique
n'aurait pas reçu dcs instructions aprcs la coiiverition de 1839ct clii'ellc
it'aurait 1);~chassC de ces Caux territoriales britaiitiicliies les pêcheurs
français qui y allaiciit?Et qii'il n'y aurait aucuiie trace de ces iiicideiits ?
Dans .sa note clii 2j avril ISS~, 31. Tissot, ambassadeur de France,
.faisait nllusioài1'~iisrige constnnt11cllieconstitilait 1api.clie eii commun
dans ces parages, et il ajoutait (eri188.3) que iile Gouvcrneniciit de la
Képublicluen'avait pas voulu entamer i ce sujct une vdritnble rliscussion
a\.ec le Goui.crneine~it britniiiiiclue, d';iutant plus \roiontiers qii'en fait
nos pêcheiirsont continué 5 exercer leur industrie le lorig des ficr&lious
saris rcnc~~iitrcrcl'oppositioide la part de l'aiitorité britniiriiquc, ce qui
pcrrnet de supposer que les nrgiimciits 1iréseiit6sdans Ic mémor:induni
de 1876lour revericticliier la propribtc! csclusii.~ clc ce groupe clc rochers
ric lui [c est-i-dire ;lu Gouvcrnemcnt britaiinicluej nc lui pai~;iissnierit
pasibsoluineiit pbrcinptoircs ii(anricsc A 3S du ~nknoire britariniqiie}.
Bien plus tard, le j octobre 1937, JI. Corhiri écrira dc son cOtk : CIAu
inornent oii fut iiCpoci6e la convention du 2 août 1S39, qui avait pour
ohjet de dblimiter Ics pêchci-icssur les côtes respectivcs dc 17r:inceet
t1'Angletcrrc, aucun cles deus Gouvernemeiits intéressésn'émit tle pré-
tcrition siir leiles3Iintluicrs (lui clemeurèreiit livrées, siiivarit la tradi-
tioii, à la libre esploitatioiides p.?$licurs des deus iiations. Eii vertu
d'uiic sorti: tl'accorti tacite, Ics pêclieursfrançais et anglais n'oiit jamais
ccssé de disposer, c~idroit ct en fait, cl'nvaiitages idetiticlues ))(;~nncxc
A 76, 1).zgz, du rniirnoire britiinnicitie).
Ilcs dociirriciits d'origine britannicl~ic confiriiient ce ~ioint de ilue. dont
Ic Goirveriicrnent dii Royaiinic-Uni rccoiinaît d';~illeursI'esactitiidc dans'
le rnémoirc (par Sg, ilote 2). Dans sa note du 12 novembre 1869 au
Goiiverrieincrit franqais, t'rimbassacleiir aiiglriis se plaint de ce cirre
ccrtaiiis écliiipementsdéposks par dcs pêcheursde Jersey aus Jliiiquiers,
aicrit ét6voléspar des pêcheursfrariçnis venus de Granville et de Cancale.
L'ambassadeur SC plaint unic)uemciit du vol, inais pas de la présence
dcs Francais ails 3linqiiiers. II ne l'estime donc cn ricri siirprenante(annexe A 51). Dans sa réponse à cette note, en date du II mars 1870,
le ministre français des Affaires étrangères indique que I'enquéte effec-
tuée n'a pu établir la culpabilité des pêcheurs français, mais que des
avertissements ont été adressés aux pêcheurs français (je cite) uqui
préviendraient au besoiii le renouvellement des dépradations dont se
sont plaints les pêcheursde Jersey n (annexe A j~).En 1870 encore, on
tient pour normal que la pêchesoit commune aux Minquiers et aux
Écréhous. Il faut donc arriver à la note britannique du 3 février 1888
(annexe A 42) pour trouver la prétentiondu Gouvernement du Royaume-
Uni %réserve+ Ases propres ressortissantla pécheaux 3linquiers. Quant
aux Ecréhous, cette mêmeprétention venait d'être formulée parallèle-
ment dans des notes reproduites aux annexes A 32, A 33, A 40.
II est donc constant que pendant une trentaine,voire une quarantaine
d'années au moins, le Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni a laissé les
pêcheurs français voisiner dans ces parages-avec les pêcheurs anglais
sans éleverla moindre protestation. Les archives françaises contiennent
un certain nombre de documents concernant des difficultésd'application
de la convention de 1839 pendant cette période: pas un seul ne concerne
les Minquiers et les fjcrehous.C'est 1d la meilleurepreuve que les deux
Gouvernements estimaient que l'article 3 autorisait la pêchecommune
dans les eaux des Minquiers et des Ecréhous, et on peut alors rappeler
ici ce que le Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni a dit dans ça réplique
(par. 86) de la« valeur probatoire considérable que la Cour a attachée,
dans diverses affaires, a la pratiqet à la conduite ultérieure des parties
à un traité, comme apportant la preuve de la manière correcte de l'inter-
réter et du sens que Ics parties elles-mémesentendaient lui attribuer)),
fes extraits de la jurisprudence de la Cour, que le Gouvernement du
Royaume-Uni a reproduits en annexe A Ij1.àsa réplique, peuvent être
appliqués ici pour établir que, par leur att~tude, postérieurement à la
convention de 1839, les Partiesont montré qu'elles avaient bien voulu
inclure les Minquiers et les Écréhous dans la zone commune visCe à
l'articl3 de la convention. Bien mieux,au moment même où ilsoutenait
sa curieuse interprétation de la convention de 1839, le Gouvernement
du Royaume-Uni, sachant très bien qu'elle était inapplicable, proposait
à la France un arrangement qui aurait permis aux pêcheurs français
de continuer à,pêcherdans certaines de ces eaux territoriales des Min-
quiers et des Ecréhous. (Note du 18 juillet1938, annexe A 78,p. 295,
reprenant des propositions plus anciennes du 17août 1905, annexe A69,
p. 282.)
Tout cela montre que l'article 3 avait un sens bien précis, et qu'il
devait s'appliquer, dans l'espritde ses auteurs, à toute la zone inter-
médiaire comprise entre la ligne ad hoc A - K et la ligne des 3 milles
de Jersey, et de Jersey seul (la carte no3). C'est cette convention de
1839, avec son article 3, qui a régi les rapports des Parties pendant
plus de cent ans. Si les commissaires français ont accepté, en 1867,
de supprimer l'article 3 du projet de nouvelle convention, c'était
parce qu'ils pensaient que la peclie commune dans la zone intermédiaire
était une chose acquise. Cela est clairement indiqué dans une note
de l'ambassadeur de France, en date du 25 avril 1883. Dans cette
note (annexe A 38), 31.Tissot relève en effet qu'au cours de la négo-
ciation de la convention de 1867 (je cite) «les commissaires français
et anglais ont déclaré.... qu'il n'y avait pas lieu de faire le moindre
changement h la carte signée en 1839 par les Parties contractantes ii.Ce point est confirmé par les minutes de la commissioii (annexes
additionnelles du Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni, p. 647). ((OrII- *
poursuit 31. Tissot - ccette carte reproduit, d'une manière aussi
précise que possible, les limites de chacune des, zones et notamment
de la zone neutre. Il en résulte donc-que les EcrChous, qui figurent
dans la carte de 1839 comme étant conipris dans la mer commune,
doivent, encore aujourcl'hui, être considéréscomme situés dans cette
mer....ii(Mémoirebritannique, annexe A 38, vol. 1, pp. 223-226.) Les
procés-verbaux de la commission britannique de 1866-1567, dont les
travaux ont abouti k la convention de 1867 (pp.644 A655 des annexes
additionnelles), confirment ce point de vue. A plusieurs reprises, les
commissaires parlent, reprenant les termes mêmes de la convention
de 1839, de la mer commune aux dellx pays ;cette espression se trouve
notamment page 649 (((la mer commune aux deus pays n),etpage 654
(«fhe sen cornmon to botkM): il ne s'agit donc pas là d'une invention
tardive du Gouvernement français, mais bien d'une notion essentielle .
dans l'esprit des auteurs des deux conventions de 1639 et de 18G7.
Ainsi, l'i~iterprétation proposée par le Gouvernement di1 Royaume-
Uni ne résiste pas à l'examen dcs conséquences mêmes auxquelles
elle aboutit. C'est, au contraire, h des conséquences satisfaisantes en
pratique et conformes au sens naturel et ordinairedes termes de Ia
convention qu'aboutit l'interprétation du Gouvernement de la Réyu-
blique française.
hlonsicur le Président, alessieurs de la Cour, nous allons exposer
l'interprétationde la convention du 2 août 1639 proposCe par le Gouver-
nement de la République.
Cette interprétation concerne deux points différents. Ces points sont
cependant intimement unis. La détermination des droits de pèche des
ressortissants desdeux pays, d'une part, lestatut des Minquiers et des
Écréhous, d'autre part. Mais avant d'exposer cette interprétation, il
me paraît nécessaire de rappeler brièvement les faits essentiels dela
longue négociation dont est issu ce texte. Pour les détails, la Cour me
permettra de rappeler qu'ilsse tmuvent dans le contre-mémoirc français,
pages 359 et suivantes.
1.Et tout d'abord, l'histoire de cette convention.
Aii début du 'rixincsiècle, des incidents parfois vioIcnts opposent
les pécheurs des deuxpays au large des côtes du Cotentin I.s'agissait
de bancs d'huîtres que les pêcheursfrançais prétendaient avoir cultivés
et dont les pècheurs anglais entendaient profiter en arguant de leur
éloignement de la côte française etde leur situation hars des eaux frsn-
çaises. Ceci est indiqué dans l'une des annexes additionnelles britan-
niques, A 166. C'est surtout à partir dc 1810 que commerice l'exploi-
tation intensive du côté anglais des bancs d'huîtres. Dès le début, 1s
discussion portait donc à la fois sur une question de péche et sur une
question territoriale.
Le 20 août 1820. le cornte dc Caraman, ambassadeur de France à
Londres, transmit au Gouvernement brrannique des propositions aux
termes desauelles la souveraineté de lJEtat adjacent s'étendrait dans
Cette zone jusqülà six millesdes côtes annex e4)^; il joignait salettre une lettre adressée au ministre français des Affaires étrangères
par son colléguede la Narine, le 14 septembre 1819 (annexe A ~j), et
on y trouve ces.mots : (Votre Excellence .trouvera ci-joint des copies
de ces tracés ; la couleur bleue indique l'étendue de 1s mer territoriale
pour la France, et la couleur rouge l'étendue de cette mer pour les îles
d'Aurigny, de Cers, de Jersey et des Minquiers possédéespar l'Angle-
terre.IIDe cette lettrele Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni entend tirer
des conséqiieiicesqu'elle n'implique évidemment pas. D'une part, cette
proposition n'eut jamais de .suite, on n'y répondit même pas ; or le
Gouve.mement de la République a rappelé dans sa duplique (p. 711)
que selon la jurisprudence de la Cour permanente comme celle de la Cour
internationale de Justice, on ne saurait faire état de déclarations, ad-
missions ou propositions faites au colin de négociations directes entre
les Parties, lorsque ces négociations n'ont pas abouti à un accord. D'autre
part, et surtout, les négociations ultérieures annulérent la proposition
de 1820.Alors qu'en 1820 le comte de Caraman parle des Minquiers et
laisse les Ecréhous dans l'ombre, on va dorénavant passer sous silence
les uns aussi bien que les autres. De 1820 àG1839 il ne sera plus une
seule fois question des Minquiers et des bcrthous, Nous pourrions
d'ailleurs invoquer, en sens contraire, un aveu caractéristique du c6té
britannique. C'est la pétition des Etats de Jersey au roi d'Angleterre
en date du 18 avril 1822, document déposépar le Gouvernemerit de la
République comme document nouveaii no 2. Dans ce document contem-
porain de la lettre du comte de Caraman, il est bien signalé que des
pêcheurs de Jersey ont découvert des bancs d'huîtres bien pourvus,
çitués (entre ces côtes [c'est-h-dire cellcs de Jersey] et la côte de France
qui est opposée s'étendant depuis le cap-Rozel aux rochers appelés les
>linquiers à peu de milles au N.-O. des petites îlesChausey, entre une
et trois lieuesdes côtes de France 1)Les gens de Jersey etaient donc
loin, cn 1822, de considérer les Minquiers comme une dépendance de
leur île et Ies tenaient bien davantage comme faisant partie des dépen-
dances de Cliausey.
Quelques :innées pliis tard, les négociations furent reprises : elles
aboutirent à un projet de convention du 7 septembre 1824 (annexe
A 26 au mémoire britannique). Ce .projet est fondé sur deux principes :
celiii de la réciprocitéet celui de la distinction entre, d'une part, la
pêche générale,d'autre part, la pecl-ieaux liuitres, aux moules et aux
coquillages.
Le régime institué peut etre résuméainsi : droit cxclusif de pêche
dans les trois milles ; limite portAesix niilles pour la pêche deshuîtres,
moules et coquillages entre Le havre de Carteret et le village dLingre-
ville du cbté français, au large de l'île de Jersey du c6té anglais. Cette
convention est l'ancêtre direct de celIe de1839, et elle confirme d'une
manière explicite ce lien, que nous croyons essentiel, entre les questions
de pêche et les questions dc souveraineté territoriale. Certes, nous
n'eiitendons pas confkrer 5 la convention de 1824 un effet interprétatif
que nous avons refusé à celle de 1867, bien que Ia convention de 1824
ait étéappliquée pendant quinze ans, mais il est néanmoins intéressant
de savoir que son article premier dispose expressément (jetraduis de
l'annexe A 26 au mémoire) : iiLes Hautes Parties contractantes recon-
naissent rnutiiellement, cornnte inhérent à la souveraineté territoriale
de chaque fitat, le droit exclusif de pêcherdans la distance d'unc lieue
marine ...n Pouvait-on affirnier plus clairement que la division en PLAIDOlRIE DE Y. LE PROF. GROS (FRANCE) - 30 IX 53
250
zones de pêcheétait également, voire surtout, une division en zoilcs
territoriales?
La conve~itioii de 1539a étéfaite par des homines qui coiinaissaien t
à fond la convention de 1824, et elle s'est bornéea modifier les limites
prévues à la convention de 1824 sans toucher aux principes.
Le Gouvernement du Iioyaume-Uni a produit, en annexe B6 l,une
carte indiquant les limitcs prévues par le projet de 1824. Elle permet
de constater que ni les hlinquiers ni les Ecréhous n'ont engendré, dans
ce projet de 1824 appliqué pendant quinze ans, une ceinture parti-
culière dc mer territoriale. Le Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni en
déduit qu'en 1824 le Gouvernement franç-ais n'a pas réclamé lasouve-
raineté ni sur les Ilinquiers ni sur les Ecréhoiis. S'fiavait considéré
ces iles comme françaises, il l'aurait dit, car cela lui aurait permis de '
faire établir k son profitun droit de pêcheesdusif dans un rayon de
trois milles de leurscbtes (mémoire,par. 215). Ne peut-on pas renverser
le raisonnement et dire que, si le Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni
avait voulu faire admettre que les îlesétaient britanniques, il l'aurait
dit en vui: de faire accorder h ses ressortissants un droit de pêche
exclusif à trois milles autour de ces îles ? Et cela est d'autant plus
plausible que, de cette manière, les pêcheurs anglais auraienteeu accès
à.des bancs d'huitres situés fortprès de la côte française, les Ecréhous,
comme les cartes le montrent, n'étant séparés que d'un peu plus de
six milles de cette côte. Croit-on.vrsiment que les négociateurs anglais
auraient laissé passer cette occasion d'avoir gain de cause pour une
bonne partie des bancs litigieux?Quoi qu'ilen soit, ilne choçeestcertaine:
dès 1824,LCS Parties ont passé les Minquiers et les Ecréhous sous
silence. Pour le moment, enregistrons le fait, sans chercher encore à
l'expliquer. Voyons d'abord la suite des événements.
Le 15 septembre 1824, l'ambassadeur de France se rendit à la confé-
rence de signature de la convention. Ses collégues britanniques lui
demandbrent alors si la convention était applicable Atoutes les pêcheries,
le long de toutes les cotes françaises et anglaises. L'ambassadeur les
renvoya au texte de la convention, qu'il estimait parfaitement clair.
Sur quoi les commissaires anglais lui déclarèrent qu'il étaitnécessaire
d'examiner jusqu'k quel point la convention pourrait affecterles pêche-
ries anglaises de hareng le long des côtes de Norfolk et, en mêmetemps,
ils produisirent une pétition adressée en 1819 - c'est-%-dire cinq ans
avant - par les pécheurs des cdtes de Norfolk, dans laquelle ils récla-
maient le privilège exclusif de pècher le hareng jusqu'à14 milles en mer.
Le lendemain dc cette réunion, l'ambassadeur de France eut beau
adresser àJI. Canning une longiielettre(jo~nteen annexe III au contre-
mémoirefrançais) exprimant soti étonnement de voir remise en question
une négociation serréequi avait duréplusieurs mois, par des revendica-
tions vieilles de cinq années et dont la convention devait justement
faire justice. Rien n'y f;tla convention était mort-née.
Le 28 février suivant, M. Canning essaya cependant d'expliquer au
prince de Polignac lesmotifs del'attitude de sonGouvernement (annexe 1,
contre-mémoire français). Ses explications sont fort intéressantes.
Il indique:en premier lieu que le Royaume-Uni aurait fait une concession
gratuite à la France en lui accordant une limite spéciale de pèche au
large dela côte de Granville; sans doute, la mêmefaveur était appliquée
aux pêcheiirsde Jersey, mais elle était purement théorique, la plupart
lVoir p. 350 du volume 1. des bancs d'huîtres jersiais étant situés à moins de 3 milles de la cbte.
II n'est donc plus question des p6cheurs de hareng de Norfolk, mais
d'une concession accordée sans contrepartie. En quelques jours la
situation a changé !
Second argument de Canning: il serait pratiquement impossible
d'appliquer la convention. Comment, en effet, faire respecter cette
limite exorbitante de 6 milles 1e long dc la cbte de Granville ? La loi
anglaise ne permet pas d'interdire aux pêcheurs anglaisde s'approcher
à moins de 6 milles des cr3tes étrang&res,,et, de toute façon, l'accord
prévu n'aurait pas pu êtreopposé aux Etats tiers. Cet argument est
évidemment dénuéde toute valeur intrinsèque si l'on songe que par le
Werring Fisbery Act de 1608, b Royaume-Uni lui-memc avait déjà
étendu sa juridiction jusqu'h IO milles des dies! (Fulton, The Sover-
eignty o# the Sea, p. 698.) Nous aurons d'ailleurs à revenir sur cette
question un peu plus tard. Ce que nous voulons relever ici, c'esf simple-
ment ceci : siM. Canning avait penséque les Minquiers et les Ecréhous
engendraient une mcr territoriale propre, qu'ilspouvaient êtrercvendi-
quis soit par le Royaume-Uni soit par la France, il n'avait pas besoin
d'insister sur ce second argument, car l'fitat qui auraCU la souveraineté
siir les îlots auraiipso factodétenu le pouvoir de faire appliquer, dans
la limite de leurs eaux territoriales, la réglementation prévuc. L'existence
d'une telle zone aurait enlevé à l'argument de If. Canning toute valeur
et toute force pratique. Là encore, nous ne pouvons que constater que
les Parties ont trait6 Minquiers et Ecréhous comme protégésde toute
revendication de souveraineté. Nouveau silence, nouveau point d'inter-
rogation.
Le projet de 1824a été inis provisoirement en vigueur, par une
entente que lord Palmerston devait appeler plus tard ((purement tem-
poraire et officieuse»,(annexe addit. britannique A 167, p. 640). hiais
les incidents n'avaient pas cessé pour autant entre les pêcheurs des
deus pays ; ils avaient même tendance à s'aggraver, par suite de Ia
distinction,dans la convention de 1824, entre la limite pour la pêche
généraleet lalimite de la pêche deshuîtres. J'ai déjà indiqué à la Cour
que, de TSZO à 1839, plus de zoo bateaux de pEche anglais furent saisis
. et internés dans le port de Granville, parfois pour une durée de sis
mois. En 1834, un incident violent : un mort, plusieurs blessés.Aussi,
l'un des buts de la commission réunie à Granville, pour faire cesser
ces incidents, fut-ilprécisémentde faire coïncider les deux limites, le
contrôle n'dtant pas possible autrement. Les commissaires français, repre-
nant une idée émise par le prince de Polignac, en 1824, suggérèrent
d'étendre la convention l'ensemble des côtes des deux pays.; les
commissaire anglais éievèrent une ccprotestation verbale PI(Travaztx
préparat. dc la convention de 1839, vol. II, p. rro), protestation contre
cette extension qui, disaient-ils, soulevait des questions de principe
etqui n'était pas prévue dans leurs instructions. Pas davantage. Cepen-
dant, le Gouvernement britannique, en transmettant au Gouvernement
français, en 1839, le projet- élaboré5 Granville, ajouta un article g qui
constitue précisémentun tel texte de principe. Ainsi, l'article g est une
addition introduite par Ie Gouvernement britannique au projet élaboré
à Granville, addition qui fut naturellement accueillie avec faveur par
le Gouvernement français, puisqu'il en était l'auteur primitif. Les
articlesr a S constituent ainsi une CIpetite convention IIrelative à la
peche dans la régionde Granville ; l'articl9 forme une c(grande conven-Sj2 PLAIDOIRIE DE 31.LE PROF. GROS (FRASCE) - 30 IX 53
tion » ajoutée A la derniére minute par le Gouvernement britannique
et acceptée par le Gouvernement français.
Cette circonstance suffit à expliquer certaines maladresses dans la
rédaction de la convention de 1839. Quoi qu'il en soit, les négociateurs
anglais, cette fois, purent signer, car la riouvelle convention donnait
au Royaume-Uni cette fameuse contrepartie qui faisait défaut dans le
projet de 1824 : premier argument de hl. Canning. La ligne A - K,
prévue A l'article premier, selle passait parfoisA plus de trois milles
de la cote française, passait ailleurs à une distance bien inférieure à
la limite de trois milles, ce qui donnaitaccès, aux pêcheursanglais, à
ces fameux bancs d'liuitreç les plus fertiles situés à l'intérieur des eaux
temtoriales françaises ; la largeur de la zone, à certains endroits, est
compensée par son cxiguité à d'autres.
Tels sont, très rapidement résumés,les antécédents de la convention
de 1839. Comment alors l'interpréter en tenant compte à la fois de son
teste et des circonstances assez particulieres de son élaboration ? C'est
ce que nous allons voir maintenant.
II.Quelle est la portée et la signification dla convention de 1839 ?
Pour plus de clarté, nous séparerons le problème des droits de pêche
et la quesf:ion proprement dite des Minquiers et des Ecréhoiis.
I.En ce qui concerne, en premier lieu, la question de la pêche,le
Gouvernement de la RépubIiqiie pense, et a toujours pensé, que la
signification de la convention était absolument claire, en dépit de
sa rédaction assez maladroite.
Les articles 1, z et 3 forment l'essentiede ce iue j'ai appelé la
(ipetite corlvention)>,c'est-&-d iareonvention relative, dans le pre-
mier état tles négociations, hla seule péche des huîtres dans la seule
rCgion du Cotentin. Leur sens naturel et ordinaire saute aux yeux :
entre la cate française et la fanieuse lignead hoc A à K, la pêchedes
huîtres est exclusivement franqaise ; entre la chte de l';le de Jersey
et la ligne situéà 3 milles de cette côte, la pêchedes huîtres est exclu-
sivement anglaise; entre ces deux limites, la pêche des huîtres est
commune aux sujets des deux nations. Ce découpage en trois zones,
qui se retrouve, nous l'avons dit, dans la baie du Figuier, entre la
France et l'Espagne, résulte des termes mêmes de la convention, et
on peut s'étonner qu'ilait étécontesté et qu'on ait seulement pu ima-
giner dans cette zone intermédiaire et commune certains îlots et
rochers engendrant leur propre mer territoriale à pêche exclusive,
surtout, si la Cour veut bien se reporter à la carte no2, que cette mer
territoriale seraibien plus vaste que toute la zone de Jersey. Il faut
noter d'ailleurs que le Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni a lui-mème
reconnu jadisl'exactitude de cette interprétation. Dans I'aide-mémoire
des magistrats de Jersey, communiqué au Gouvernement français
par le marquis de Salisbury, le 27 octobre 1877 (annexes au mémoire,
p. 256) .n trouve ceci :cTout en admettant que le texte de la conven-
tion, dalzsrinei?zter$rétatiolittérale,pourrait dans une certaine mesure
venir à l'appui de la revendication des pecheurs français tendant a
pratiquer la pèche des huîtres dans un rayon de 3 milles des Ecréhous,
considéré comme se trouvant dans les eaux intermédiaires, on ne saurait
toutefois considérer cette revendication comme conciliable avec l'esprit
de la convention » (c'est nous qui soulignons). Faut-il rappeler ici les
déclarations de la Cour permanente de Justice internationale dans
l'affaire relative auSevvicepostal fioEo?iaisàDalrtzig (C. P. J. I., série PLAIDOIRIE DE M. LE PROF. GROS (FRANCE) - 30 IX 53
253
B, no 11, p. 39), rappelées par la Cour internationale de Justice dans
l'avis consultatif du 3 mars 1950. sur la question de la comfiétencede
I'Assemblde générale 9our l'admissio~zd'un État aux Nations U+zies
(C. I. J. Recaleil1950, p. 8) : ((C'est un principe fondamental, disait
la Cour, que les mots doivent êtreinterprétés selon le sens qu'ils auraient
normalement dans leur contexte, it moins que l'interprétation ainsi
donnée ne conduise à des résultats déraisonn~bleset absurdes. aL'inter-
prétation française de la convention de 1839 que les magistrats de
Jersey qualifiaient de ((littéralen,est bien tout le contraire de « dérai-
sonnable et absurde II.
Mais à ces articles 1, 2 et 3 a été superposé ce que j'ai appelé
la (grande convention a, l'article g ; c'estcet article qui définit la
mer territoriale le long dc toute l'étendue des côtes françaises et an-
glaises et y crée, au profit des nationaus de chacun des deux pays, un
droit de pêche exclusif en ce qui concerne n'importe quelle pêche,
en dehors mêmede celle des huîtres.
Le Gouvernement de la République pense qu'il n'est pas difficile
de combiner l'article 9 avec les articles r, 2 et 3. Selon lui, l'articleg
a pour effet de faire coïncider la limite de la pêchegénéraleavec la
limite de la pêcheaux huitres. En ce qui concerne la côte française
du Cotentin, cette assi~nilatian des deux limites est écrite en toutes
lettres dans l'alinéa 2de l'article9 : IBien entendu que sur cette partie
des côtes de France qui se trouve entre le cap Carteret et la pointe
du Mengs, le droit exclusif de toute espèce de pêchen'appartiendra
qu'aux sujets français en dedans des limites mentionnées en l'article Iar
de la présente convention. ii
En ce qui concerne, d'autre part, la côte de l'île de Jersey, la limite
de trois milles posée par l'article g pour la peche générale coïncide
avec la limite spéciale des huitres posée par l'articl2. Les limites des
deux zones, françaisc et anglaise, dc pêche exclusive étant les mêmes
pour la pêche généraleet pour la pêcheaux huîtres, il en résulte tout
naturellement que la zone commune, qui se trouve entre ces deux
limites, prSvue à l'article 3 pour la seule pêcheaux huitres, sera égale-
ment commune pour les pêcheursqui se consacrent à la pêche générale.
Au cours de la négociation, les commissaires français avaient précisé
que les limites crééesdevaient s'appliquer ((aux huitres et au poisson
frais )(Trlivaux firéfiaratoi~ese 1839, tome 1, p. 34). Cette obçervation
n'avait soulevé aucune objection de la part des commissaires anglais.
Cette interprétation est d'ailleurs confirméepar le fait que la conven-
tion de 1839 devait précisémentmettre fin à des difficultéscréées,depuis
la mise en vigueur provisoire de la convention de 1824, par cette.distinc-
tion entre les limites de pêche,l'une de péche exclusive de trois milles
pour la pêche générale,l'autre de six milles pour la pêcheaux huîtres,
moules et coquillages. La coïncidence de ces deux limites était une
condition essentielle du contrôle efficace et la seule garantie .contre de
nouveaux incidents.
Telle est l'interprétation que donne - et a toujours donnée - le
Gouvernement français de la convention de 1839 en ce qui concerne
les droits respectifs des ressortissants des deux pays.
A cette interprétation, le Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni a opposé
essentiellement deux objections qui tiennent surtout à la manihre dont
Ie Gouven-iement français interpr6te et combine l'article g avec les
articles I, 2 et 3.L'une de ces objections, qui est de moindre impor-254 PLAIDOIRIE DE 51.LE PROF. GROS (FRANCE) - 30 IS 53
tance, concerne la question de la confusion des deux limites de pêches;
l'autre,plus sérieuse, consiste à mettre en doute la possibilité, pourles
deux Gtats, d'avoir déclaré (<commune aux sujets des deux pays 11la
pêche (surtout la pêchegénérale)dans des sections appartenant à la
haute mer.
Nous allons faire justice de ces deux objections, avant d'en terminer
avec ces questions de la pêche.
En ce qui concerne la confusion des deux limites de pêche, le Gouvcr-
nement du Royaume-Uni pense qu'elle ne résulte pas de la convention
de 1839 et qu'elle n'a d'ailleurs rien d'indispensable, les techniquede
pêche étant diffkrentes pour la pêche générale et 1ü péche aux huîtres.
S'il faut, pour le Gouvernement di1 Royaume-Uni, absolument. intcr-
préter l'articl3 de la conveqtion de 1839 comme s'appliquant à la mer
autour des Minquiers et des Ecréhous, il ne saurait s'agir en toucas que
de la pêcheaux huîtres.
Ces arguments sont longuenient développés notamrneiit dans la
réplique (par. 62, 68, 69,et annexe A 147 également).
Pour le Gouvernement français, au contraire, la convention de 1839
a bien eu pour but, entre autres, la confusion des deux limites de pèche.
II est reconnu aujourd'hui que l'exploitation exclusive, en haute mer,
des pêcheries dites sédentaires par I'Etat adjacent est incompatible
avec la liberté de la haute mer et donc avec la pêche générale libre. Je
citel'ouvrage de 31.Gide1(tome 1, p. 500): CC'est poursuivre la quadra-
turc du cercle que de prétendre concilier la légitimité des pêcheries
sédentaires en dehors de la limite des eaux territoriales avec la notion
de la liberté de la haute mer ü,et ce point de vue est développépar le
Secrétaire général des Xations Unies dans le mémorandum présenté
par Iui h ladeuxième scssion de Iacommission dc droit international
(A/C.K.4/32, pp. 82-83). Il est donc conforme aux exigences du droit
international générald'iiiterpréter la conventionde 1839 comme confon-
dant la limite de la pêche générala evec la limite dela pêcheaux hujtres.
Qiiant à la deuxième objection qui consiste à dire que les deux Etats
n'ont pas pu, par la convehtion, mettre en commun et réserver à leurs
seuls ressortissants lapêche généralecomme Ia pêche deshuitres, dans
des espaces qui sont la haute mer, c'est l'objection de M. Canning en
1824, et elle n'estpas meilleure aujourd'hui. Tout d'abord, certaines
parties de la zone commune de l'article3 ne sont >asdes sections de
haute mer mais constitueiit les eau? territoriales d2 tat qui a la souve-
raineté sur les Minquiers et les Ecréhous ; nous sommes entièrement
d'accord sur cc point avec le Gouvernement britannique : des droits
de péche communs ont parfaitement pu être établis dans les eaux
faisant partie du territoire d'un seul Etat- en l'occupnce la France.
Il est d'ailleurs assez piquant(j'ajoute ceci entre parenthèses) de voir
nos adversaires démontrer que la pêchecommune est passible dans les
eaux territoriales relevant de la souveraineté d'un seul État, alors
qu'ils refusentprécisément A nos pêcheurs d'aller dans les eaux terri-
toriales des Minquiers etdes Écréhous sous prétexte que l'article 3 qui
prCvoit formellement cette pèche commune ne s'y applique pas ! Cela
nous rappelle également l'arbre de Spinoza ....
D'autre part, l'article 3 de la convention déclare bien, en toutes
lettres ((sera commune aux sujets des deux pays la pêchedes huîtres
entre les limites ci-dessus désignee)iet le Gouvernement du Royaume-
Uni est mal venu à déclarer illicite une stipulation qu'il a acceptéet PI,:IIDOIRIE DE ar. LI; PROF. GROS (FRASCE) - 30 IX 53 255
ratifiée. La pêche des huitres faitd'ailleurs partie de cette catégorie
trésspécialede pêches (les pêcheriessédentaires 11quicomprend égale-
ment la pêche des éponges, des perles et d'autres animaux fixésau sol.
De tout temps, ces pècheries ont étésoumises à des réglementations
trés particulières, alors même qu'elles se trouveraient en haute mer,
l'État adjacen tntendant généralement se réserver une sorte de droit
de propriétésur les bancs cultivés par ses ressortissants et situésême
au del&de sa mer territorialeAu lendemain de la convention de 1839,
un Order in Coziitcilfut émis,le 23 août1843, pour suspendre la conven-
tion de 1839 en ce qui concerne lcs pêchesirlandaises d'huitres, ces
dernières s'étendant bien au delà de la mer territoriale et étant reven-
diquées par 1'Etat adjacent. De même,le Sea Fisheries Act de 1868
étendit la juridiction de 1'Etat porir la pêcheaux huîtres jusqu'à vingt
milles de lacote. Cet empiétement sur la haute mer se retrouve en ce qui
concerne la péche des épongesau large de la Tunisie et pour la pêche
des perles au large de Ceylan et de l'Australie (dans ce dernier cas, les
prétc~itions britanniques sont allées jusqu'i cent milles, d'après les
indications de M. Jessup dans son ouvrage : The Eaw of territorial waters
and maritime jurisdiclion,1927p ,. 17,note 37).L'ensemble.de la question
a été étudié dans le second rapport sur la haute mer présentépar
X. François devant laCornmission de droit international en 1951(A1C.N.
4/42. pp. 51 et S.), ainsi que dans hiouton, The Corztine?ztalShelf, La
Haye, rgj2, pages 138 ct suivantes.
M. Fitzmaurice, dans ce qu'ils appelé une note marginale, a accepté
lui-mêmel'idéeque l'article 3 avait eu pour effet d'éliminer toutes les
difficultésrelatives h la pêcheaux huîtres qui résultaient des prétentions
anciennes de la France réclamant, en 1824, la propriété privative des
bancs d'huîtres seméset cultivéspar sespêcheursdans la zone que devait
définir l'articl3. S'ast-ce pas dire que l'article-avait un double effet
dans les rapports entre lesParties ? Les deux Etats ont bien convenu
de ne pas s'oyposcr mutuellement des revendications fondées sur des
droits de propriété privative. Mais en second lieu, a l'égard des tiers,
les Parties continuaient à pouvoir exciper de leurs droits privatifs de
propriété.C'est nécessairement ainsiquedoit s'entendre la notemarginale
de RI.Fitzmaiirice. Dèslors, l'articl3 de 13convention de 1839 contient
bien l'idée d'un espace maritime commun aux deux pays, et la même'
observation vaut pour la pêchegénérale.
11 est reconnu depuis longtemps d'ailleurs que la règle des trois
milles est toiith fait inappropriée en matière de pécheries. Westlake
la qualifiait déjà de ((désuète et inappropriée n. Fulton a intitulé un
chapitre de son ou\-rage uLe caractère inadéquat de la limite de trois
milles pour la réglementation des pécheries ))(pp. 693 et ss.)De nom- .
breus Etats ont réclaméun droit exclusif pour la pêcheau del& de
la mer territoriale,ou bien ils ont Ctendu les limites de cette derniére
en matière de pêcheries, et j'ai déj5 cité la loi anglaise sur la pEche
des harengs de 1808.
On peut donc aller aussi loin et dire que le Royaume-Uni et la
France ont très bien pu en 1839 se réserver le droit de pêche dans
cette baie de Granville dont eux seuls sont riverains. C'est pratiquement
une mer franco-britannique, et ne pourrait-on pas dire de cette baie
de Granville ce que la Cour de Justice centre-américaine a dit du golfe
de Fonseca, à savoir que cette baie est Iune baie historique possédant
les caractéristiques d'une mer fermée », clont les riverains ont pulégitimemcnt exclure, comme dans le cas du golfe de Fonseca, les
autres Etats. (American Jozrunalof I?rternationalLaw, 1917, PP. 181
à 229.) Un exemple récent est encore plus frappant : le 26 février1942,
le Royaurne-Uni a conclu un accord avec le Venezuela, par lequel
les deux Btats se réservent l'exploitation d'une section de la haute
mer et en exc!uent les autres Etats (VaUat, Britis Yhearbook, 1946,
p. 334). Parlant de cet accord entre le Royaume-Uni et le Venezuela
qui a abouti k une pure et sirnple annexion de la haute mer par les
deux Etats, le Secrétaire généraldes Nations Unies a déclaré,dans
un mémorandum sur le régime de la haute mer présenté a la deuxième
session de la Commission de droit international : cLes eaux dont il
s'agit,resserréesentre le continent et une île,présentent des caractéres
assez spéciaux pour que les ktats riverains puissent revendiquer pour
elles un régime dérogatoire A celui des espaces normaux de la haute
mer n (A/CN/4/32, p. 6j). Ces termes ne peuvent-ils être transposés
tels quels au cas qui nous occupe ?
Nous en avons ainsi termin6 avec l'interprétation de la convention
de 1839 en ce qui concerne la pêche.Comme on le voit, l'interprétation
française, avec ses trois zones, dont l'une est commune aux pêcheurs
des deus pays, parait conforme à la foisau texte mêmede la conven-
tion, à ce que nous enseigne son histoire et, enfin, à la pratique
bien établie des Etats en cette matiére. 11 s'agit maintenant de tirer
de cette ccinvention les enseignements qu'elle comporte pour le présent
litige, non pas pour les quesjions de pêche,mais pour le statut terri-
torial dcs hiinquiers et des Ecréhous, car nous savons que les Parties
ont lié étroitement en 1839 les questions de pêcheet les questions
territoriales.La convention de 1824, qui est,je l'ai dit,l'ancêtre de
la convention de 1839 et l'ancêtreimmediat, avait dit en toutes lettres
dans son article premier.: ales Hautes- Parties contractantes recon-
naissent mufuellement comme inhérent à la souveraineté territoriale
de chaque Etat le droit excliisif de peche ...II.Et les commissaires
anglais de Granville ont eux aussi (nous avons cité les passages) établi
un Iien étroit entre le droit depêcheet l'exercice du pouvoir de police.
La convention de 1867 a d'ailleursété invoquée par le Royaume-
Uni lui-m&mecomme conférant, par voie d'interprétation de la conven-
tion de 1839, un caractére territorial à cette dernière. Quelle est
donc dans ces conditions Ia portée de la convention de 1839 en ce qui
concerne le statut territorial des ilotslitigieux ?
2. Il faut partir d'une constatation fondamentale : pas plus dans la
négociation de 1824 qye dans celle de 1837-1839, il n'a été question
des hlinquiers et cles Ecréhous, et il n'en est pas davantage question
dans la convention du 2 aoùt elle-même.
Il est toujours difficile d'interpréter Ic silence absolu des Parties sans
se.livrer iides conjectures arbitraires. Ici, cependant, ce silence a au
moins une signification certaine :il si nifie qu'aucune des deux Parties
n'a songé que les Minquiers et lesf+,créhousengendraient une limite
d'eau territoriale à pêcheexclusive. Aucune des deux Parties n'aurait
en effet accepté que l'on parlât de (pêchecommune IIentre la ligne
ud hoc A a K et la ligne de 3 milles de Jersey, si elle avait voulu se
réserver deux zones de pècl!e exclusive : l'une autour des hlinquiers,l'autre autour des Écr~hous, en plein niilieu de cette zone commune.
Ce premier point est donc clair: les Parties n'ont pas entendu créer
une zone de mer territoriale à pêcheesclusive autour des Ilinquiers
et des J:créhous.
Mais pourquoi ? Une premiére hypothèse cst à rejeter d'emblée,
comme trop invraisemblable, c'est celle de !'oublipur et simple des
ilots.Il est inconcevableque les négociateurs qui ont étudiéla question,
cartes sous les yeGs, pendant des années, aient simplement oublié les
Minquiers et les Ecréhous. C'est une explication qui serait trop fan-
taisiste.
La véritable esplication, que mes collègues britanniques nous ont
demaiidée, non sans insistance, est la suivante. Le but essentiel des
Parties était de réglementer la pêche. C'est en fonction de la pêche
qu'on traitait la mer territoriale. Or, on était d'accord, nous l'avons
vu, pour permettre la pCche en commun sur leplateau des viriquiers
et le groupe des Écréhous. En fait, il n'y avait là que le maintien d'une
pratique très ancienne. Ilepuis bien longtemps, les pscheurs des deux
pays venaient sur ces deux plateaux et pêchaient ensemble. Les graves
igcidents du début du siècle n'ont pas eu lieu aux Xinquiers ou aux
Ecréhous, mais sur la côte du Cotentin. C'est ainsi que, plus d'un demi
siècle avant la conclusion de la coiivention, en 1784 ors de la coriceç-
sion Quinette, le subdéléguéde Granville écrivait 5 l'intendant de
Caen, en parlant cles Minquiers :((les Frariçaiset les Jersiaiss'y ren-
contrent sans s'y troubler ». Cette pratique devait contiiiuer après la
signature de la conveiition. Dans ces conditions, on comprend très +
bien que les négociateurs n'aient pas &prouvéle besoin de parler des
Minquiers et des Ecréhous, puisqu'ils étaient en train de conclure une
convention sur la pêche encommun autour de ces îles et sur la possi-
bilité pour les pêcheurs de débarquer sur Ies ilots pour y trouver un
abri ou y construire quelques abris et y apporter mêmedes aménage-
ments propres à faciliter leur pèche.Il fallaitbien que ces pêcheurs
puissent débarquer et s'installer, au moins provisoirement, surles ilots.
Cela aurait pu avoir quelque inconvénient s'il s'était agi d'un territoire
habité, car la présence de pêcheursétrangers pouvait troubler la popu-
lation sédentaire ; mais cela ne pouvait soulever aucune objection pour
des îles qui,en dehors de la pêche, ne pouvaient servir à rien. Pourquoi
le maître des îles aurait-il fait des objections ? Pourqüoi aurait-il
empêchécette utilisatioil de pîiche 7 Quel intérêt y aurait-il trou&,
puisqu'il était convenu que la pêcheserait commune dans les eaus des
Minquiers et des Ccréhous ? Et cet 'accord figure dans l'article3 de la
convention. Xi le Royaume-Uni ni la France n'avaient plus intérêt
à faire mention de la souverain,eté proprement dite sur les ilots. Les
Rlinquiers, en tout cas, et les Ecréhous, ires probablement, n'étaient
pas habités de façon permanente, et sans grand intérêt d'ailleurs, si
j'en crois l'appréciation de l'ambassadeuA Paris, dans sa lettre adressée
au prince de la Tour d'Auvergne sur les Minquiers en 1869 (je cite) :
«ilots inhospitaliers et presque inhabitableoù de pauvres pêcheursont
construit des huttes pour s'abriter lorsqu'ilsne peuvent pas retourner
chez eux i)(Mémoire,annexe A 51, p.263.) C'est notre explication sur
la nature et le caractère des abris qui se trouvent dans les îlots. La
seule conséquence d'une mention de la souveraineté eût été la création
d'une zone de pêcheexclusive A3 milles autour de ces îles. Mais une
fois qu'on avait drcidé d'écarter cette conséquence, in'y avait plus de258 PLAIDOIRIE DE hl. LEPROF. GROS (FRANCE) - 30 1X 53
raison de parler de la souveraineté proprement dite. Seule comptait,
en 1539, comme intérêtpublic, la pêche. Celle-ci mise en commun,
tous les autres aspects de la souveraineté territorialqui, alors, étaient
purement théoriques, passaient & l'arrière-plan. Il est évidemment
impossible aujourd'hui de savoir si cliacune des Parties considérait
alors comme acquise sa propre souveraineté et pensait que l'autre
Partie ne la lui contesterait pas, ou, au contraire, si chaque Partie
savait conteçt6e sa souveraineté par l'autre et préféraitne pas soulever
un problème qu'il était inutile de trancher-& ce moment-lA. Signalons
seulement, encore une fois, qu'en 1822 les Etats de Jersey, s'adressant
au roi d'Angleterre, ne prétendent pas à un autre droit que celui de
pêcher, Les deux Iiypotliéses sont défendables, et aucune ne peut étre
soutenue sans risque d'erreur. Le choix est d'ailleursinutile, car, dans
l'une comme dans l'autre, une chose reste certaine : les Parties ont
e?zte?zdntizettreL'usagedes iles ellews eaitxen commzna, satzstoucher-
our uneraison oz4une autre,peit inz$ovtc- d la questionde soulieraineté.
tCn termes plus conformes au vocabulaire juridique moderne, on pourrait
dire que la compétence étatique de réglementation de la pêche,la seule
comybtence intéressant les de11.i:Parties en 1839, s'est cffacée pour
faire place à des droits communs sur ces espaces cn faveur des ressor-
tissants des deux Etats. Cette iiiterprétationqui,on le verra, a toujours
étécelle du Gouvernement français, tient compte à la fois du fait que
la convention de 1839 est principalement une convention de pêche,et
du caractbre arbitraire qu'aurait forcémentla supposition d'une intention
des Parties dont rien nc permettrait de vbrifier l'exactitude. Elle répond
ainsià. la préoccupation du juge international.
Dans l'avis consultatif sur Ia compétence de IrOrganisation inter-
nationale du Travail, la Cour permanente de Justice internationale a
dit:((En déterminant l'étendue et la nature d'une disposition, la Cour
doit envisager ses effets pratiques plutôt que le motif prédominant
par lequel on la suppose avoir étéinspirbe, )) (SérieD, no 13, p. 19.)
Notre interprctütion se fonde sur un élément certain : la pêche en
commun aux Ecréhous et aux Minquiers, et refuse de déduire du silence
des Parties - qu'il est difficile d'expliqiiaujourd'hui avec une cer-
titude absolue - un changement dans la souï~erninetéterritoriale de
ces îles.'
La convention de 1839 entraîne ainsi une double consécjuence : pre-
mièrement, I'ctat qui possédait la souver?ineté avant 1839 la con-
serve,il peut la revendiquer A l'égard desEtats tiers. Ce qu'il ne peut
pas, au contraire, c'est invoquer sa souveraineté pour exclure des îlots
les pécheurs de l'autre Partie, car il violerait en cela l'articlede la
convention de 1839, ui a institué une communauté de pêcheautour
des Minquiers et des 7~créhouset sur les Minquiers et les Ecréhous. La
souveraineté existant avant 1839 demeure, mais clle est limitée par la
mise en commun des ilots et $c leurs eaux 5 des fins de pêche.
Deuxième conséquence : 1'Etat dont les ressortissants utiiisent les
îles pour pêcheren conformité avec l'article3 ne peut faire 6tat de cette
utilisation en talit que manifestation desa propre souveraineté à I'en-
contre du véritable souverain. II en est de même pourles travaux desti-
nésdirectement àla pêche:construction de jetéesou abris pour pCchcurs.
IIne peut surtout pas abuser de cette utilisation commune pour accom-
plir de véritables actes de souverainété - construction d'édificespu-
blics non destinés à la pêche,déploiement du drapeau national, etc. PLAIDOIRIE DE M. LE PROlZ. CROS (FRAXCE) - 30 IX 53
Zjg
Ces actes seraient ipso /acteillicites au regard du droit international,
parce que contraires à la convention du 2 août 1839, qui n'autorise pas
à procéder à des changements de souveraineté, fût-ce sous le prétexte de
pêche commune.
La 'Cour aura remarquk que notre interprétation de la convention
de 1839 rend sans objet la plupart des objections qui ont étésoulevées
par le Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni. Le dilemme dans lequel il
cherche à enfern~er la France en disant que la mise en commun des
Minquiers et cles Ecréhous signifie forchment, ou bien que les îles de-
viennent l'objet d'uncondominiz~m,ou bien qu'elles deviennent une res
nzdlius, est évidemment iin faux dilemme. La mise en commun qu'im-
- plique l'article 3 dla convention est une mise en commun de l'usage
des îles à des fins de pêche; cc n'est pas une mise en commun de la
souveraineté territorialecar,conirne le dittrhs justement le conscil du
Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni, il serait déraisonnable de penscr qu'un
tel changement dans la souveraineté sur un territoire apu êtreeffectué
par voie implicite.
On ne peut nous reprocher de lire dans l'article cc qui n'yest pas
écrit. Nous disons au contraire que, la convention ayant étémuette -
peu importe la raison - sur la souverainet6 des Minquiers et clesEcré-
hous, cette soiiveraineté demeure après1839 ce qu'elle était avan1839.
Ce n'est pas parce qu'elle altère la souveraineté existantcque la con-
vention de .1839 constitue la date critique : c'est iiriiquement parce
qu'elle permet I'usage commun en dépitde la sorivcraineté unique, la-
quelle demeure inchangée.
M. Fitzmaurice nous :Ldemandé quelle était la loi applicable aux
îlesentre1839 et1950. Nous répondrons à cela que c'est précisémentla
question posée i la Cour. Nous prétendons quc c'est la loi franqaise,
le Royaume-Uni dit que c'est la loi britannique. C'est la Cour qiii va
trancher ce différend.
De même est un faux probl&me celui que soutève le Royaume-Uni
en disant que la France a adopté clansle passéune attitude paradoxale
en invoquant le caractère commun des îles litigieuses en mème temps
qu'il revendiquait sa propre souverainetsur ce territoire. Et le Gouver-
nement du Royaume-Uni d'ajouter que (si la convention de1839 faisait
obstacleà une prétention du Royaume-Uni rlla souveraineté, comment
pouvait-elle ne pas faire également obstacle à une prétention frança?1)
En réalité,il n'y a rien d'incompatible entre l'affirmation queces îles
sont françaises et le fait que la France, pourse conformer à la conven-
tion de 1839, accepte de ne pas se prévaloir de sa souverainetc pour
exclure des îles les ressortissantç du Royaume-Uni. Le Gouvernement
du Royaume-Uni, au contraire, prétendait non seulement avoir été
de tous temps le souverain sur Ies iles, mais encore avoir le droit, en
dépit de la convention de 1839, d'exclure les pêcheurs français des
îlots. Le Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni, dans son interprétation,
viole la convention de 1839 en invoquant sa propre souveraineté ; le
Gouvernement français, dans son interprétation, respecte toujours le
principe de l'usage commun des îles. On ne voit vraiment pas ce qu'il
y a d'illogique h mettre en commun l'usage d'une chose en continuant
d'affirmer qu'o~i en reste le seul propriétaire.
Et nous en arrivons ainsi au problème essentiel : celui dela déter-
mination de la date criticlue par la convention de1839.260 PLAIDOIRIE DE 31.LE PROF. CROS (FRANCE) - 30 IX 53
Conséquences de l'interprétation proposée par le Gouvernement
français sur la détermination de la date critique. - L'article 3 de la
convention de 1839, tel que le Gouvernement français l'a toujours
interprété, entraine une double conséquence. D'une part, les faits de
possession accomplis par chaque Partie postbrieurement à 1839 s'expli-
quent tout naturellement par la mise en commun des îlots et ne peuvent
êtreinvoqués à titre de rnanifcstation de la souveraineté territoriale :
ils sont inopposables par une Partie L l'aiitre Partie en tant qu'actes
devant servir de fondement à une revendication de souveraineté. Si '
j'accepte de partager l'usage de mon champ avec mon voisin, ce dernier
pourra-t-il invoquer cet usage comme preuve qu'il serait, lui,le véritable
propriétaire ?
D'autre part, la Cour, chargée par les Parties de déterminer à qui
appartient aujourd'hui la souveraineté sur les 3Iinquiers et les &crélious,
ne peut pas s'appuyer sur Ics actes postérieurs ii1839, puisque le
problème clécisifest justement de savoir iiqui appartenait cettc souve-
raineté au moment où la convention a étésignée, puisqu'elle n'a rien
changé driiis le régimede souveraineté. Il y a là une situatioil analogue
A celle qui se présentait dans l'affaire de l';le de Palmas, où, pour
trancher 1;iquestion de souveraineté sur l'île en ~qzj, l'arbitre a dû
se demander à qui appartenait cette souveraineté en IS~S, date du
traité de Paris, l'Espagne ne pouvant pas avoir transféré plus de
droits qii'clle n'en avait. C'est la convention de 1839 elle-mêmequi
permettait aux ressortissants des deux pays de @cher en commun
et sur un pied d'égalitéaux Jlinquiers et aus Ecréhous ct dès lors
de s'y installer comme s'ils étaient cllez eus. La plupart des actes
de souvcr;iineté invoqués par lc Koyarrme-Uni comme preiive de sa
souveraineté, construction de maisons, fréquentation assidue des
pêcheursde Jersey, aménagements divers, n'ont constitué que la pure
et simple exécution de la convention de 1839 et ne prouvent rien en
ce qui coricerne la souveraineté territoriale sur les Minquiers et les
Ecréhous. Si 1839 const.ituela date critique, ce n'est donc pas - et
je m'excuse d'insister sur ce point essentiel - parce que le différend
se serait cristallisé à cette date au sens où l'entendent mes collègues
britanniques, ni parce que la convention aurait (disqualifiéD lesParties
de revendiquer la souveraineté territoriale, mais parce que la convention
a institué un régimetel que les actes qui lui sont postcrieurs nc peuvent
êtreinvoqués par une Partie à l'encontre de l'autreen tant que mani-
festations de la souveraineté territoriale. C'està la Partie qui avait
la souvcraineté en 1839 que la Cour doit attribuer la souveraineté
aujourd'hui.
Ce n'est point que les faits postérieurs à 1839 doivent êtrc laissés
entiéremcnt de coté ;et 11. Fitzmauricc a pleinemcnt raison lorsqu'il
parle de l'utilité d'examiner les faits postérieurs à la date critique.
Selon la sentence de JI.Huber dans l'affaire de l'ilede Palmas, ules
faits postérieursà la date criticlue, s'ils ne peuvent pas par eux-mêmes
servir à éclairer la situation juridique de l'île au moment décisif ....
présentent cependant indirectement un certain intérêt, gr5ce à la
lumière qu'ils peuvent projeter sur la période immédiatement anté-
rieure ü (N. U., Rec. des Selatelzcearbitrales, vol.II, p. 866). Or, les événements postérieurs à 1839 sont précisément très ins-
tructifs.
Le Gouvernement du ~oyaume-Uni indique (réplique, par. 89)
qu'il a accompli dc nombreux actes de possession sur les îles entre
1839 et 1870, sans que le Gouvernement français ait jamais protesté.
11est exact que les premières protestations françaises.datent de 1876
pour les Ecréhous et 1885 pour les Minquiers. Mais tout cela est par-
faitement normal et plaide mêmecontre les prétentions du Royaume-
Uni. Il est normal que le Gouvernement français n'ait pas protesté
contre l'usage des Minquiers et des Écréhous par les Britanniques,
alors que cet usage découlait directement de la convention signée
par les deux Parties en 1839. Il est normal a~issi, contrairement à ce
que pense le Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni (mé~noire,par. azS),
que le Gouvernement français, en1870.ait décidé par contre d'adresser
des avertissements aux pêcheurs français fréquentant les Minquiers,
à la suite de vols qu'ils auraientcommis au détriment de pêcheurs
anglais (annexe A 52 du mémoire britannique) : ces vols étaient
directement contraires 5 l'usage commun des îles, prévu parl'article 3
de la convention de 1839. 11 est normal enfin que la France n'ait
protesté que lorsque les actes du Royaume-Uni impliquaient plus
qu'un usage commtin et qu'ils signifiaient une prétention de souve-
raineté. C'estainsi que le Gouvernement français a protestf. cn 1876
contre l'ordonnance du Trésor de 1875 q'ui englobait les I?créhous
dans les limites du port de Jersey (annexe A 31) ; deux fois en 1883
contre un ~r0Jet de loi tendant à interdire aux pêcheurs français
l'accès desEcréhous (annexes A 38 et A 39) ; en~888 contre la visite
officielleu comité cles Havres et Chausskes des Etats de Jersey aux
Minquiers (A 131) ; en1902, 1903 et 1904 contre-le déploiement du
pavillon britannique aux Minquiers (annexes A 35, A 65 et A 67) ;
en 1937 et 1938 contre I'kdification aux Minquiers d'une maison
douanière munie d'un panonceau aux armes de Jersey (annexes A 76
et A 77);
Cette enumération montre bien que les protestations françaises ont
eu lieu chaquc fois que les actes accomplis par le Gouvernement du
Royaume-Uni ou ses ressortissants ne pouvaient plus s'explicluerpar
l'application de la convention de 1839, mais impliquaient au contraire
une revendication de souveraineté sc traduisant par une véritable
annexion et, par conséquent, par une violation de la convention de
1839.
Le Gouvernement du Royaiime-Uni reproche, ilest vrai, à la France
d'avoir elle-même,revcndiqui maintes reprises la souveraineté sur les
Minquiers et les Ecréhous. Mais on remarquera que le Gouvernement
français ne l'afait que le plus tard possible, et pour se défendre contre
des empiétements de plus en plus audacieux du côtéanglais. En 1884,
le Gouverne,ment français était allé jusqu'h interdire A ses pêcheurs
d'aller aux Ecréhous, en vue de prévenir tout incident avec les Anglais .
(annexe A 116). Cela ne montre-t-il pas l'esprit de conciliation de la
France dans cc différend?
Nous avons d&sle début rappelé d'un mot. que les vŒux de la France
d'arriver à une entente avec l'Angleterre mirent, au x~xmc siècle, un
certain temps à se réalisereque dans les perspectives de cette politique
g$nérnle, le souci de ne pas laisser la question des Minquiers et des
Ecréhous envenimer les rapports entre les deux pays et se transformer en un objet de conflit sérieuxne devrait pas aujourd'hui êtreinvoqué
à notre encontre dans cette querelle des .protestations. C'est en conscr-
vant en mémoirecet aspect historique des relations franco-britanniques
que bien des détails prennent leur sens.
En ce qui concerne les Ecréhous, la première revendication française
date de la note du15 décembre 1886 (annexe A 41) C.ette revendication
était absente de la correspondance antzrieure relative aux Ecréhous ;
on ne la trouyenidans la protestationfrançaise de 1876contre l'incorpo-
ration des Ecréhous dans la limite du port de Jersey (annexe A 31)
ni dans la note de 1883 protestant contre un projet de loi tendant à
interdire l'accéç.des gcréhous aux pécheurs français (annexe A 38).
Cette dernière note refusait mêmede déplacer la question : iqu'il
importe de maintenir sur Ie terrain de la conventiode 1839 ».La même
observation vaut pour les Minqiiiers : ce n'est que l27 août 1888 que
le Gouvernement franvais s'est prévalu pour la premiére fois dc sa
. souveraineté, ccla aprPs la visite officieIle du comité des Havres et
Chausséesde Jersey (annexe A 53). 11s'était abstenu d'unc telle reven-
dication dans sa note de 1370 relative au prétendu vol d'objets
appartenant iides pêcheurs anglais sur les hiinquiers (annexe A 52).
De ce retard le Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni déduit évidemment
que la prétention française était mal fondée ct arbitraire.Il reproclie
ainsi?ila France a la fois d'avoir revendiqué sa souveraineté, contraire-
ment à sa propre interprétation de laconvention de 1839, et de l'avoir
fait trop tardpour lui conserver quelque valeur.
Pourtant, l'attitudefrançaise est logique et cohérente. La France
a 1aisséJespêcheursbritanniques fréquentertranquillement les Minquiers
et les Ecrélious après1839. Elle a protesté lorsqiie leRoq~aume-Unia
accompli des actes impliquant la souvcrainett britannique ; clle ne
s'est prévalue de sa propre souveraineté qiie le plus tard possible, au
moment où les empiétements britanniques devenaient véritablement
menaçants pour le droit de la France. Et même alors, nous insistons
sur ce point,ln France, fidèle9l'engagement qu'elle avait pris en1839,
ne prétendit jamais tirer de sa propre souveraineté les conséquences
qu'elle auraitpu comporter, à savoir l'attribution d'un droit de pêche
exclusifà ses ressortissantdans les eaux territorialedesdeux groupes
d'îlots. Mêmeobligée de rappeler que la souveraineté lui appartenait,
elle n'en restapas moins fidèleà la convention de 1839. Non seulement
ellen'a jamais, contrairement au Royaume-Uni, soutenu aucune thèse
de nature à exclure les ressortissants de l'autre Partie deces parages,
mais elle a insisté, au contraire,à plusieurs reprises, sur la neutralité
qu'elle. entendait conserver aux îlots et sur le caracthre comniun de
la pêchedans leurs eaux. Le terme mêmede neutralité se retrouve i
plusieurs reprises dans la correspondance diplomatique : par exemple,
dans les notes du 26 mai 1883 (annexe A 39) et du 29 novembre 1905
(annexe A 71).Dans la note du 15 décembre 1986 (annexe A g~),dans
laquelle il réclamepour la premitre fois sa souveraineté sur les Ecrélioiis,
le Gouvernement de la République propose une neutralisation des
îlots au pointde vue militaireet indique que « Ic libre exercice du droit
de pêcheen faveur des sujets anglais ne pourrait, en tout état de cause,
être contesté, en prtsence de l'interprétation que le Gouvernement
français croit devoir donner aux conventions esistantes sur la pêche
dans ces parages, et particulièrement L la convcrition dc 1839 D. PL:\IDOIRIE DE 51. 1.E PROF. GROS (PRASCE) - 30 1S 33 263
L'attituclc française' a (lonc toujours Sté parfaitcrnent logiguc ct
coiiforme A l'interl~rCtation que Ic Gouvernement français a doniiéc,
dès I'origiiic, polir les raisons qiie nous avoiis vues, 5 1;1convention
de 1839 I~idèleà cette convctltioii, il a coiitiiàuinsister sur la nkcessitb
d'un arraiigemeiit pratiqiie et sur la vanitc du problème de la souve-
raiiieté. Dans un aide-mémoire dii ij juillet 1903. l'ambassadeur de
Fraiice i 1,onclres indique clire le Gouveriiemeilt francais idksirerciit
seu\ulementrirrivcr:tun arrangement pratitluc qui perniît, sans trancher
eri faveurdc l'un ou de I'autrc des detis paysIriquestion de soriverainetC,
clc régler nmicalemcnt une cliiestiotiqui, n~nlgri:le peu d'iniportnnce qui
s'y attache, pourrait devctiir une c:iuse cl(:froisscmcnt et (l'irritation
parmi les populations iiitéressctis11(Annese h 64, mémoirehritannique.)
Cette proposition fut reprise le IS janvier 1-04 (nrinexe 1167). Aiissi.
serait-ce plutîit l'attitude hritanniiluc qui reste iricompréhensible. Si
le Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni n'a vraiment jamais Ctéd'accord
avec le Gouverncineiit français sur le sens.tle la convention de 1839'
pouryuoi donc a-t-il attendu trente ans avant cle faire connaître soi?
sentinien: ct d'essayer de rbserver-i ses propres ressortissants la pêctic
escllisive ails 3lint!uiers ct aux Ecréhous ?
II nous faut maintenaiit concliirc quant a la dbtermination cle la
datc critique. Si la Cour riclii-ietl'interprétatioqui ;itoujours été celle
de IriFrance et que Ic Koyatinie-Uni n'a cornniencé 5 contester que trente
ans :tprès la conclusion de l'acte coni.eritioiirie1, interprétation fondée
la fois sur I'esanien littéral du teste et sur les travaus préparatoires, la
Cour del-rn écarter ipso flrclles faits post&rieurs i 1839. C'est avaiit
1839 qu'elle devra SC placer pciur trancher le présent différend.En effet,
les faits ~ïostérieurs à 1839 sont soit conformes, soit contraires i la
conventioiz. S'ils lui sont conformes, on ne peiit en tirer auclirie preuve,
étant doiiriéque les Partics ont prCcisCrnciitvoulu une posscssion coin-
mune en dcpit dc la souï*craineté préesistante. 1out sinipleinent la
sou\.eraineté lie dcisait pas Ctre affirméeaii préjudicede la communauté
d'usage créCcpar I'cirticle 3 de la convetition. Les faits clui sont, au
contraire, cil contraclictionLLI~CCln convention de 1839 peuvent encvre
moins servir de preuve ; ce II'ES~pas parce que le Royaume-Uni aurait,
disons, unilatéralement nnncsé en fait les Ecréhous et les Minquiers
à Jersey, en abiis;int des droits <.luelui confbrait la con\*erition (Le
1839,qu'il pourrait aujoiircl'hui sc prCvaloir de cet acte internationale-
ment illicite pour affirmer son propre droit ; ces faits sont donc inop-
posables la France, et cela sans mêmeparler des rotest statio qn'ils
ont constamment soulevées de la pLrt de cette dernière. 1.e2 aoiit 1839
coiistituc donc bieii la datc critique.
1839 constitiierait encore ladate critique si13.Cour considérait l'intcr-
prCtation française comme inesacte. Et c'est ce que je ine prol)oserrii de
déiiioiitrer tnainteii:it-it très hrièveiiient.
[Sdnrrce iithliqt~dit 30 scPferfilbr1953, rtfirès-midi]
irlonsieur Ic Pri.sicleiit. &lessieurs de la Cour, ?I supposer iiierne que
l'iiitcrprétation française cle la coiii.entioii de1839 soit iriesacte, les
actes de possessioii postérieurs à cette date n'en resteraient pas rnoiiis
inopposables par uiie Partie à liautre, en tant que manifestations de la
souveraineté territoriale.
1s La France a, d'une manière constante, défendu I'jnterprktatjonquc
j'ai eu l'honneur d'exposer ce matin. Ko~iseulement elle l'a défendue,
mais elle s'y est conformée dans les faits. Quant au Royaume-Uni, il
a donné à croire pendant une trentaine d'années qu'il était d'accord
avec la France sur cette interprétation, et puis brusquement ri éclaté
ce que la réplique britannique appelle, d'un terme expressif, un umal-
entendu » (par. 91).Ceci est si vrai que, lors de la négociation de la
convention de 1867, les commissaires ang!ais n'ont même pas pris la
peine de faire inclure les Minquierset lesEcréhous dails I'éi~umcwtion
des îles britanniquesIIqu'ils ont fait insérerdans le projet. S'ils avaient
pensé, à ce moment-là, que l'interprétation française de la convention
était erronée, ils auraient certainement profité de l'occasion pour faire
lever I't?quivoqueet préciserlesdroits du Royaume-Uni sur ces ilots et
sur leurs eaux ; s'ils ne l'ont pas faitc'est que la pratique constante
suivie jusque-là, c'est-à-dire jusqu'en1S67 - la pratique de la pêche
comrnune - ne leur semblait en rien contraire à la conventionde 1839.
Mais voici qu'un jour le Gouvernement di1 Royaume-Uni, non seule-
ment conteste lc bien-fontlé de l'interprétationjusyu'alors admise par
les deux Parties, mais continue d'user des (!raits que lui confère la
convention de 1839 sur les hiinquiers et les Ecréhous dans l'interpré-
tation du Gouvernement français, cc dernier protestant uniquement
lorsqu'il ya abus, pour invoquer ensuite l'exercice de ces mêmesdroits
cornnie preuve que c'est le Royaume-Uni qui détient la souveraineté
sur les deux groupes d'îlots. Le Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni savait
quelle était l'interprktationque le Gour~crnement français donnait à
la convention de 1839 ; il reconnaît même nepas l'rivoir réfutée directe-
ment (réplique, par.91) ; il savait que le Gouvernement franqais, en clépit
du caractère aigu que prenait peu i peu ledifférend à partir de ISSS
environ, continuait et continuerait h appliquer la convention selon sa
propre interprétation, c'est-à-dire A faire hhnéficier les ressortissants
britanniques de ce que le Gouvernement français pensait, lui, Etre .la
correcte interp~étation de la convention de 1839. Nais alors, n'est-il
pas évident que, quel que soit le sensvrai de la convention de 1839,
quel que soit le caractére peut-être erroné de l'interprétation que le
Gouvernement français lui a donné,les actes accomplis par le Gouverne-
ment du Koyaume-Uni après 1839 ne peuvent pas étre opposés à la
France en tant que manifestation de la souveraineté, sans mémequ'il
soit besoin de rappeler qu'yln eu desprotestations de la part du Gouver-
nement français dès que Les actes du Royaume-Uni lui semblaient
êtreau delà de la portée exacte de la convention de1839 ? Sur ce point,
nous ne pquuons mieux faire que reprendre les termes du rapport des .
experts français, dont M. Louis Renault, communiqué en décembre
1886 au Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni (annexes A 41 et A 42 au
mémoire britannique, yp. 231et ss.):
({L'interprétation qui a prSvalu pendant une longue phiode
d'années ne peut êtremodifiée au gré de l'une des deux nations
par un simple acte d'autorité de sa part. Dans l'exécutiond'un
pac.te transactionnel, l'un des contractants ne peut s'érigeren juge
des termes du pacte, et le seulfait par lui d'avoir accepté sans
protestatibn L'ex6cution di1 contrat par l'autre partie dans un
sens,le rend non recevable à imposer à son a CO-contractant nune
interprétatioii contrairen PLA1I)OIRIE DE 31.LE PROF. GROS (FRAKCE) - 30 1X 53 26j
Nous pensons avoir établi 'que 1839 constitue en tout cas la date
critique dans le présent litige.
Quelle que soit l'interprétation que la Cour estimera clevoir donner
B cette convention, ce teste a imprégnéen quelque sorte tous les évCne-
mcnts et toutes les dis~ussions~de ce dernier siécleen ce qui concerne
Ic statut des Minquiers et des Ecrélious. Dans fa correspondance diplo-
matique des quatre-vingts dernihs années, la convention a étCmise
par les Parties au centre m6mc du débat séculaire que la Cour va
trancher. Selon le Gouvernement francais - il a constammeiit maintenu
cette attitude depuis 1839 -, la convention a iiistituk par elle-même
un règlement tel que les faits qui lui sont postérieurs ne peuvent plus
servir, selon l'espression de 31.Huber, (<à éclaircirln situation juridique
cie l'il1).Poiir cette double raison, centralisation de la discussion autour
cle la convention de 1839, significritionde la convention elle-même,le
Gouvernement de la Ri.publique demande à la Cour de considérer la
date de 1839 comme la ~date critique ))après laquelle les droits de
cliacuiie des Parties n'ont plus pu étre affectéspar les actes de l'autre.
J'ai terminé ainsi avec le premier point cte cette deuxième partie
{le mes observations coiisacrée arix actes et faits ciu XIXI~~ et du 'cxine
siècles.
* * *
II me reste 5 traiter lc cleusièrne et dernier point. En faisant tot:ile
abstraction de laconvention de 1S39, en considérant qu'elle n'existe
pas, les faits de possession invoclues par le Royaume-Uni ne sont pas
conformes aus régles généralesdu droit international sur l'acquisition
clc la souveraineté territoriale.
Pour l'étude de cette question, je ferai porter mes observations sur
trois propositions ;
1" Les faits de possession du Hoyaume-Uni ne peuvent lui faire
;tcc[uériria souveraineté par prescription acc~tiisitive.
2" Ces faits ne peuvent faire accluérir la souveraineté au Royaume-
Uni par I'occupation .
3" Etude tle certains faits de possession de la France.
. I.- Les faits de possession invoqués par leRoyaume-Uni ne,peuvent
lui faire acquérir la souveraineté sur les Minquiers et les Ecréhotis
p;ir voie de prescription acquisitive.
Les faits de possession postérieurs à 1839 ,nvoqués par le Gouvemc-
ment du Royaume-Uni, ne peuveiit en eux-mêmes servir en aucune
manière de fondement à une revendication de souveraineté territoriale.
Pour en faire la démonstration, nous supposons donc que la convention
de 1839n'est pas mise eii cause et que seuls comptent le titre originel
e. l~ or -----i-n u-té-ieur- -
I,e (;ou\~crrierncrit di1 ,Koy;liime-Uni soiitierit que s ~uverainelé
siir Ics 3liriquiers et Ici EcrClious est fondLêsoit sur iiiititrc originel
confirmé par une possession effective, soit sur une possession effective
seule, une lellc possessioii se tradiiiçant par des actes qui manifestent
un exercice continu et paisible dc la souveraineté sur ces temtoires.
Nous pensons avoir démontré,dans laprerniére partie de ces obser-
vations, que le Royaume-Uni ne possède pas de titre originel çur les
Minquiers et les Ecréhoiis et qu'il n'a pas fait la preuve d'une pos-
session durable, compte tenu mêmedu caractércdésolé des lots en
question, au cours de la période allant jusqu'au début du XIX~~ siècle.266 FLAIIIOIRIE DE 31.LE PROF, GROS (FRASCB) - 30 IS j3
Nous penmns avoir égaleiiierit établi que la France possède uii titre
originel sur ces îles, confinné par des xtes dc possession riicours dc
la période ancicrine.
Cela étant, il est certain que lc Royaume-Uni aurait ccpcnùant pu
acquérir là souvcraineté sur ces territoires par une prescription fondée
sur une possession continue, paisible et inintcrrompuc pendant le
srs~l~+et le ~xlliasiècles. Le droit international reconnait en effet la
possibilité d'acqitkrir la soirvcraineté territoriale sur un espace relevant
antérieurcrncrit d'une autre sauveraineté par une possession réunissant
un certain nombre de conditions : cette prescription acquisitive peut
alors étre opposée au souverain antkrieiir qui a négligé,pendant irnc
période suffisamment longiie, d'exercer son prolm droit. Comme l'a
déclaré la Cour permaneiitc d'arbitrage, cn 1909, dans l'affaire de
Grisl>~ckrv?~rae,lative à la délimitation des frontières mariiirnes entre
la Xorvège et la Suèdc : ac'est un principe bieii ctabli dans le droit.
des gens qu'il faut s'abstenir autant que possible de modifier l'état
de choses existant de fait et depuis longtemps 1)(Scott, Hague, Court
Kcports, p. 122).
Mais pour que la possession d'un tcrritoire pcrmctte ainsi d'acquérir
la souveraineté contre iine souveraineté antérieurement établie, il faut
que cette possession remplisse certaines conditions fisées par le droit
intmnatioiial. Or, ces conditions ne sont pas r411niesen l'espèce. C'est
cc quc nous vcrrons maintenant.
Selon le Gouvernement de la République, la prescription :icquisitive
serait le seul niode par lequel le Royaume-Uni aiirait pu, depuis le
xrslllesiècle, accliiérirla soiiveraineté sur les Minquiers et les Ecréhous.
Ces ilcs relevaient antérieurement de la souveraineté française, et
seulc la prescription a 1x1 les faire 1i;isser depuis sous la souveraineté
britannique.
1-a premièrc ciuestion qui se pose est celle du temps nécessaire pour
l'acquisition de la souveraineté par voic de prescription. Grotius
exigeait une 1iossession immémoriale («yossessio memoria escedens )i
- 1l)ejure belliuc pacis, lib. 11, cap. IV, par. 3). Oans t'affaire di1
Mceraugé opposant L'Autriche et la Hongrie, 1arbitre estimait, en
1902, que La possession imméinoriale est celle qui dure depuis si
longtemps qri'il est impossible de fournir la preuve d'une situatioii
différente et qii'aucune 1,)ersonnene se souvient d'en avoir entendu
parler. II(Rcvtte de Oroit irtterîzalio~tlret de Législation comparée,
2111<s:rie, vol.8, 1906, y. 207.) En réalité,il nous semble qu'aucune
période dCtem~iriéen'est fixée par le droit international ; c'est une
question d'eslièce, et, selon les cas, lespériodes les plus diverses ont
été retenues. (Cf. Hyde, Ititer~zaiio~aaLl aw, tome 1,pp. 388-389.3Le
Gouverilcinciit de la Rél~ublique n'entend pas contester qu'un sièclc
de possession suffirait, s'il était établi, 5 faire acquérir In souvcraineté
sur les Minquiers et les Écrkhous par le Royaume-Uni par voie de
prescri~rtion.
Elais les faits invoquCs doivent, eii seconcl lieu, être de nature A
iniplic1uer uiie prétentioiiL la souveraiiieté et ne pas coiistituer une
simple utilisation des ricliesses du territoire. I3lins le mémoire soumis
à l'arbitre dans l'affaire de l'île de Clipperto~i, le Gouvernement de
la KCpubliqueirisistait déjà sur ce point : rln question tf'utiliszziltjon
d'lin territoire est absolument distincte et indépendante de la ques-
tion de souveraineté et de possession ». (Impvimerie isationale, 1912, PLAII~OIRIE DE AI. LE PROF. GROS'(FRAXCE) - 30 IS j3 267
11.215.) Dans le mémoire cn réplique dalis la méme affaire, le Goiiver-
ncinent de la R41iribliqrrt:mettait à nouveau en garde contre 1~1 coi-ifn-
sioii de deux concepts très distincts, la souveraineté et la propribté.
« Ide Gouvernemeiit français - lit-on dans ce mémoire - n'a, quant
à lui, jamais compris qu'il fut tenu pour conservèr sa soiiveraineté
rle concéder ou <l'exploiter les gisements ...qui pourraient se trouver
k l'intérieur de cc territoire. Ce sont des rluestions purement intepies
et qui relSvent des solutions que, dans sa pleiiic indépeiidatice, 1'Etat
souverain juge A propos d'y donner ii(memoire en réplique, Inzprimevie
rialionale,1913, 1).119)C .e point de vue est d'ailleurs confirmé par la
jurispruderice interiiatioiiale: ainsi, la sentence arbitrale reridiie en
1865 par la reine d'Espagne dans l'affaire opposant Ics Pays-Bas et
le Venezuela re1:itivemcnt à l'ile d'Avis, iitdique que le fait de pêchcr
sur l'ile, invoqué par les Pays-Bas, ne pouvait fonder la souveraineté
et ne signifiait qua(uiie occupation temporaire et precaire de l'îleétant
rloniiéqu'il n'est pas, en I'cspèce, ,lamanifestation d'un droit exclusif,
niais la coriséquence dc l'abandon de I:L pcche par les llabitaiits iles
contrées voisines ou par son maitre légitime II (Ida Pratlellc et I'olitis,
KCC. des arbitrages i~ate~~zutiona~ trxI,I, p. 411).
Dans ccs conditions, le Gouï~criiemcnt du Royaume-Uni ne saurait
irivocluer, h titrc cle maiiifestation de souveraineté, le seul Fait, que
tlcs Jersiais verlaient jadis pêclierçoureiit aus Minquiers et aux Ecre-
hous. Quant au lait que des liabitants de Jcrscy ont seuls construit
clcs abris ou des rnaisons sur les îles litigieuses, non seulement la véri-
table eslilication a été donnée par la lecture cc matin de la lettre de
I'ambassadeur d'Angleterre (annese A .j~j, mais ce fait est sans perti-
nence aucune dans la présente affaire. Il s'agit 12[le propriétésprivees,
par consi.cpent, comme le disait le mémoire en réplique français dans
l'affaire cie l'Us dc Clipperton, d'une clucstion entièrement étrangère
au' problènie de souveraineté.'
Mais pour êtrevalable, la prescription doit réunir cl'autres conclitions
plus importantes encore. Dans ses coinmentaires sur le droit inter-
national, sir Robert PIiillimoie (3lllédit., vol. 1, par.260) disait déjà :
i(La prescription doit être caracterisée par la piiblicité, l'occupation
contiilue, I'absencc d'interruption et aidéepar l'absence tle toute tenta-
tivc d'esercice de ses droits de propnétC par le possesseur antbrieur. u
C'est daris le cklèbre arbitrage d;ttisl'affaire de Clzamizal que les prin-
cipcs sont posésde lri manière ln plus claire, et c'est sur cette sentence,
reiiclue Ic15 juin 1911 entrc les Etats-Unis et le Mexique, que l'on se
fonde presque toujours pour dCcrire les conditions de la prescriptioi~.
(Texte dans America~b ~Joz~r~za E/ Inferrtnlio.?l~Lrrleirgr r, pp. So j-
807.) L'arbitre.sfest exprirné en ces termes :
((D'après Ics preuves produites, il est impossible de considérer
que ln possession dJl<lCharnizal par les Etats-Unis a été non trou-
blée, ininterrompue et incontestée (undisturbed, iininterrupted
and uiichallenged) depuis la date du traité de Guadalupe 1-lidalgo
en 1848 jusqu'à l'année 1895, lorsque, en conséquence de ta créa-
tion d'un tribunal compétent pour trancher la question, l'affaire
de Chamizal lui a été présentée pour la première fois. Au contraire,
on peut dire que la prise de possession physique par des citoyens
des Etats-Unis et le contrôle politique ex-erckpar le Gouvernement
local ct fédéralont Ctéconstamment contestés et discutés (challengedVoir y. 423 du présent:vciliime.Voir p. 451 tlu présent vtilunie PLAIl~OIRlE DE 51. 1.I'ROF. GKOS (FRASCE) - 30 1S j3
270
L la inémoire du Gouveriiement du Koyaitme-Uiii sans interruption.
Le Gou\:ernenieiit du Royau~ne-Uni n'a jamais pu croirc que ilos
prétentions étaient abandonnkes. 1-a France n'alrait aucuiie raiçoii dc
soumettre l'affaire à uii tribunal internatioiial a\+aritque les iiBgociations
soiciit épi1içi.e; or cllesse prolongeaient, des propositions iiouvelles
étaient faites de ternps a autre, et l'on pouvait toujours espérer un
règlement aniiable de ce différenclqui durait depuis si longten~ps et qui.
à dire vrai, apparaissait coinine un graiJi de sable dans l'océan des
difficiiltésniondiales intéressant Icdeus 13tnts.Ce ii'esque lossc~u'urie
telle solution apparut iinpossible ct que les assurances austluelles nos
pScheurs tenaient avant tout fiirent liées à l'arbitrage sur In s0ui.c-
raineté que le Gou\.ernerncnt franqais iicccpta de soumettre l'affaire
à IciCour eil accord aircc celui du Royarinie-Uni.
Il est doiic certain que le Royaume-Uiii ii'a pi1 acquérir, par voie
Ge prescription acquisitivc, la soii\.eraineté sur lcs Ninqiiiess et les
Ecréhoiis.Les actes (lepossession qu'il a accomplis sur ces îles depuis
le inilieude sIxlllesii.clne \:alerit pas titre de prescriptionà l'eiicontrc
de l:1l~rdilce.
Seraient-ils alors siifisants pour \-aloir au Royaume-Uni titrepar
voie d'uccupatiori ? I.-arbpnse, ici encore,sera n6gntii.e.
* *
2. - F;~isons rnairitcnant la concession la plus large 5 In tiièse di1
Coii~~ernenient dit Royaume-Uni et esamiiioris si les faits de posses-
sion, iiivoqués depuis 1570 mviron, aiiraieiit pi1 faire accluérir au
Itoyaume-Uni la soiiveraineté sur ces îlotsen supposant qu'ils aient étc 5
cc moment-li terra ~zulli~ts,ce qui est l'iine des conditions l>oiirqu'uric
occrrpation puisse faire acqiiérir la souveraineté, nirisi que l'a soulign6
ie ~ouveriicment frnnqais dans le mémoire défensif dans l'affaire dc
Clipperton (p. 207) ; ou bien admettons même que le ltoyaume-Uni
ait prouvé iiicornrncncernent de titre (voot of title), et nous verrons cliie
rnhe dans ces hypothèses les faits invoqués par le Royaume-Uni ne
seraient passuffisants, si l'on pense aus iiombreiises ~irotestations du
cbt&français ct ails actes de pi~ssessioiiaccomplis par la France.
Dans sa sentencc rcnduc en rgoq dans le litige de froiitièrcs entre \ri
Guyane britannique ct le Rrésil, l'arbitre a estimé que l'occupation
devait être (effective, non intcrrornpue ct permanente (R. G. D. 1.P.,
1904, doc. 11.19 ;British und FareigraSIate Papers, vol. 99, p. 930).Les
conditions de l'occupation sont ainsi les mêmes que celles de la pres-
cription. C'est aussi I'oliiiiidc LindIey, dans son ouvrage The acqui-
sitio and Covernment of backwavd Territoryin InteraatioltatLaw, 1976,
page 179. Il est \.-rai (lue, dans l'affaire dii statut juridique dti Groën-
land oriental, la Cour permanente a considérablement assoupli les
conditions dc l'occupation dans les cas de territoires peu peuplés ct
inliospitalicrs, mais elle s'est fondessentiellement sur le faitqu'aucune
autre prétention sur le Groenland ne s'était manifestée en dehors dc
celle du Dariemark : rUne autrc circonstance, a dit la Cour, dont doit
tenir compte tout tribunal ayant à traitchcr une question de çouverai-
iicté sur uii territoire particulieest la mesure dans laquelle la souve-
raineti!est égalemeilt reveiidirliiéepar une autrc I'uisçance ....Une des
caractéristiques de la présente affaire cst que, jusqu'en 1931, aucuiie
autre Puissance que le Danemark n'a revendiqué la souveraineté siir
le Groënland. » (Séric .4/R, na 53, 11.46.) PL;ILDOIRIE DE 31. 1.E I'KOF. GROS (FRASCE) - 30 IS 53 271
Or, dans la présente affaire, Ia France a riffirmésa propre souverai-
ncté clès qu'elle s'est rcndu coinptc que le Koyautne-Uni iiivoqiiait
la sienne. Les mêmesobservations peuvent doiic êtrefaites que pour la
prescription : les faits invoqiiés par le Royaume-Uni lie peuvent pas
lui conférer ln soiiverainetC sur Ics Minquiers ct les Ecréhous par voie
d'occripntion, pas ])lusque par la voic de la prescription.,
Ces coiiclusioris de rcjet des théses britanniques sont d'autant plus
solirles que le Goiivernemeiit de la République, si l'on se place dans
I'hypothèse que j'étudie nctuellcinctit, peut de son côté invoquer de
nornhrciis faits de ~iossessionqui coi~trchattent la prétention britanniclric.
3. - Les /(litsde possessiorz de lrc Frtcncc :
Ce point est très important, car ces faits cnlèvent ~~récisémeiiatux .
faits dc possession invoqiiés par lc Royaiime-Uni leur caractère incoii-
testé et paisible. Xous avons vu, il y a iin instant, l'importance attachiie
par la Cour permanente h la prescnce ou à l'absence de pr6tentinns
contraires. Faiit-il rappeler égalenicnt quc dans l'affnirc de l'île dc
Palmas l'arbitre avait, liii riiissi, rclevé clri'eii dehors des Pays-Bas
aucrinc Puissance n'avait établi un esercicc effectif de Ia souverriinctS
« qui pourrait contrebalaricer ou annihiler les manifestations dc la
sotivcrainetC des Pays-Bas JI.(Rec. sent. arb.,vol. II, p. 868.)
Si nous avions assez pcii insisté jiisqu'à nujoiird'hui sur Ic nonibre
et l'importance de nos faits de possession, c'cst parce qiie nous ne les
coiisidérions pas comme opposableç h nos adversaires, cle mêmeqiic Ic
Royaume-Uni n'est pas recevable à nous opposcr les siens. Xous nous
conformions doiic simplenicitt àce que nous croyons encore aujoiird'li~ii
ctrc la bonne interprétation de la convention de 1839.
'ilais on nous a presque mis au défide prouver que nous nous soinineç
occupés des ilots litigie~is. De sorte quc nous avons dû, rila derniére
heure - et je m'cn excuse devant la Cour -, faire vctiir des documcrits
sur des actes de ~iossessionconcernant les ilots durant ces cent dernieres
années, alors que, en ce qiii nous eoiicerne, nous n'invoquons pas ces
actes comme preuve de notre souveraineté. Certains de ces documcnts
sont cependant parvenus h temps pour pouvoir êtrc déposésdevant
la Cour en temps titile :cc sont nos anneses ~iotivelles.
\ En ce qui concerne $notre activité maritiinc et notamment notre
activité de yêclie, nous avons toujours pensé rlu'elle est aussi peu
probante que celle du lioyaunie-Uiii, car elle n'est que l'esbcution
de In.convention de 1839. Mais mes coll&gucsse sont tellctnent éteiicliis
sur l'activité des pécheurs jersiais et le caractEre trés rfcent de la
présence des pécheurs français qu'il me faut tout de niéme rappeler
que ces derniers fréquentent les îlesdepuis un temps immémoria\.
-AU SVIII~~et ;LU SVIII~~Csiècles, nous en \.oyons la prcuve dans les
interdictions qui sont faitcs 5 quatre reprises : 1646, 1692, 1720 et
1754, aux p&clieurs de jersey de se rendre dans ces archipels, soit par
crainte cl'intellige~iceavec l'ennemi, soit par crainte de la peste. Quel
sens y aurait-il 5 celas'il n'y avait pas des 17ratir;aisqui se rendaient
dans ces ilots ? 1':pourquoi faire siilon pour pêclier? En 1784, c'est
le teste, déjà plrisieurs fois cité à propos de la concession Quiiictte,
qui parle de nos pêcheursfratiqais coulant leurs bateaus aux Minquiers
en cas clemauvais temps. (Le Pays [le Gra~rcillc,1951.)272 PL.4IUOIRIE DE 31. LE PROF. GR05 (FR;\SCE) - 30 IS j3
Puis ce sont les plaintes des pécheurs jersiais eus-memes (cor-
respondance publiéepar le Koyaumc-Uni daiis les annexes) qui s'blèvetit
contre la concurrence qui Ieur est faite depuis longtenips ou contre
des vols - prétendus vols - par des pécheurs français aux Minquiers
en 1869 (annexe A 51).Les témoignages abondent. Nous avons cité,
document nouveau n' 4l, une lettre adressCe le 3 août 1897 par un
officier de mririne anglais au coriirnandant de la station de Granville
pour une autre affaire de dépsaclations conirnises aus Minquiers par
cles pêcheurs français. 1869, 1897, il y a beaucoup plus d'un dcmi
siècle que les pScheurs français allaient donc aux ~lint~uicrs. Je serais
en mesure, si in Cour l'cstirnait utile, de citer d'après des attestatioiis
le nombre et les noms des bateaux et de leurs patrons qui exerçaient
leur métier en grande partie sur les Minquiers vers 1910. Si à Jersey
les pêcheurs cl'un village, le villagc de La Rocque, dont ;IIHarrison
nous a fait une description empreinte de tant de charme, fréquentaieiit
ces rochers, il s'agit pour la Z7rikncede toute une c6tc qui coinporte
non pas un village de pêclieurs, iiiaistrois ports de pêcheimportaiits :
Granville, Cancale et Saint-Malo. Il n'est pas jusqu'au port breton
de Camaret qui n'ait envoyé certaiiies années jusqu'à dix-sept bateaus.
Quant au petit archipcl de Cliausey, il arnic, à lui setil, sept fortes
barques à moteur diesel montées ~)rirune vingtaine d'hotnmes. Et si
les photogsapiiies de marins prou\.re~itquelque chose, j'ai, comrne nies
collègues britanniques, A la disposition de la Cour les photographies de
ces marins. Nous avons produit en documeiit nouveau n'7deux lettres
ériianant d'organisations syndicales de pêcheursqui font état de l'inquié-
tuclc des pêclieursfraiiçais devant Icsernpiétetuents de pltis en plus auda-
cieux de la part des Jersiais et de l'angoisse clu'ilséprouvaient, 1937,
quant à leur avenir. Xombreus, en effet, sont Icspêcheursfrançais qui
travaillent 5 la périphérieetà l'interieur des rochers des Minquiers.
I3n ce qui concernc les actes dc l'administration française, ils ne
sont pas nioins nombreus. Sans doute avons-nous pcu de docun~cnts.
i citer datis le domaine foncier. Cela est dît, la Cour s'en souviendra,
5 l'état des vents et des courants doiniiiants, c~uestiorivraiment indé-
pendante du problème de souveraineté. Alais lisons les documents
apportés par nos contradicteurs et cette petite plaquette que son
auteur n'aiirait certainetnentjamais cru vouée à l'honneur de paraître
devant la Cour, la plaquette de Charles Frémine, qui, en France, a
probablement passé i l'&poque pour une charinante plaisanterie, et
nori pas pour un document très sérieux :Le Roi des $cré~ious.L'autciir
fut conduit aus îlots par une barque française dont le conducteur
l'introduit dans une inaison dont i! avait la clef: il y avait donc au
rnoins une maison francaise aiis Ecréhous à ce moitient-là.
Aux &Iinqiiiers, l'administration française eut à intervenir au nioins
trois fois.D'abord en r7S4 la demande cie concession du clic\*alier
Qiiinette. I,a deuxiè~iie fois en1929 pour accorder iin bail en bonne
et due forme i M. T,ei.oiis ; on saque c'estle Gouvernenient fraiir.ais
lui-même, devant l'attitude des Jersiais, qui riniiula ce bail pour ne
pas créer d'incidents. mais en protestant de ses droits. Je tiens à
souligner que JI. 1,erous n'était pas un pecheur et que c'est Iii la
raison pour iaqiielle le Gou\,ernt.rnent françaisn'a pas estimé poiivoir
iii\,oquert'interprétationde la corivention dc 1S39 cii sa faveur. .
La troisième interveiition duiis le domaine foncier s'est procluite
lorsqu'ccun certain Marin Marie ii est allé, en 1939, ai-ec dis-sept
Voir p. q-G du présent volume. PI.;\II)OIRIE DE JI. LI: PROF. GROS (FRANCE) - 30 IX 33 273
bateaus, construire un refuge-abri ans Minquiers (docuineiit i~ouvcau
no 9'). Cctte entreprise était subventionnée, comme cette pièce le
prouve, par les communes de Cancale et de Granville, approuvée par
le préfet maritime de Cherbourg, les ministères cle la Marine nationale
et de la Marine niarchande. Elle revêtait ainsi un caractère semi-officiel.
Puis-je indiquer ici que le iisu callediiMarin Marie, comnie l'a appel6
M. Harrison, a non seulement deus prénoms mais aussi un nom : il
s'appelle Marin Marie Durand de St-Front. Peintre de la marine
nationale française, il a traversé deus fois liAtlaiitique en riavigateur
solit+re sur un petit cotre ; son noni est bien connu cies yachtmeii
des Ecréhous - s'il ne l'est pas dc 31. 1'A4ttorney-Generalde Jersey.
L'administration francaise des douaries s'est, elle aussi, occupée des
îlots. 1,'estrait de presse reproduit en annexe du mémoire britaniiiquc
(A 174 ,riii. add., p. GGz)signale en effet que le(pataches 1deç douatics
de Carter-ct effectuaient des visites Iiebdomridüires aux Ecréfioiis.
C'étaient des visites dk service.
La Fraiice entretient depuis longtemps des vedettes garde-pêclie
dans Ia région, une à Cancale et une à Saint-Malo, et ces vetlettes oiit
dans leur circuit clc surveillance norinnl les Mintluicrs et les Ecréhous.
On tioiis a dit que les autoritbs françaises nlavaie,nt jamais inaiiifestE
un intérêtquelconque pour les Mincluiers et les Ecréhous et qu'elles
n'avaient jamais pris la peinc de les visiter. .
Il setiiblcependant, d'aprés les témoipages que j'aireçus, gui sont
déposéscomme docurneiit nouveau no ZI', qu'en 1936, M. Edoiiarcl
Daladier, alors PrEsident du Conseil, accompagni: du ministre de l'Air,
JI. Guy La Cliambre, qui est actucl!ement maire de Saint-Malo, vint
aux Minquiers sur iin bâtiment de 1'Etat français. hl.Guy La Chambre
y vint Sgalement urie autre fois. L'amiral Darlan et plusieurs autres
ministres sernble~it s'y êtrenussi rendus. En 1939, lors de la mise en
place du refuge cMarin Marie ii,le maire de Granville en fonction,
M. Goval, était présent. 11était venu veiller à 1'esi.cution des délibéra-
tions du Conseil niunicipal et de la Chambre de commerce dont ilétait
le président, relatives à ce refuge.La prcsse des detix côtés de ln Manche
a d'ailleurs relatC L'incident auquel cette affaire a donné lieu.
J'aurais souliaité nt citer que pour mémoire les missions hydro-
graphiques qui, daris notre esprit, pas plus que les autres faits que je
viens dr: citer, ri'ont de valeur proba~ite entre les deus Parties pour
l'acquisition de la souverniiieté. L'argumentatioii britrinnique [ne
contraint à quelques esplicatiotis sur ce point.
Le Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni oppose aus travaus français,
selon lui postérieurs, ceux du capitaine de vaisseau White. Les cartes
anneses 13 4 et B j3, qui sont des cartes françaises, d'ailleurs inesactes,
du xvIrinicsiécle,déniontretit que le capitaine de vaisseaii. White avait
des préd6cesseurs français. Sans doute, les travaus de cet officier de
marine anglais commencèrent en 1812, mais il y a lieu de remarquer
que soi1ceuvre consiste essentiellement cn croquis fragmentaircs, établis
selon des inéthodcs anciennes. Le titre même de son ouvrage : Bvie/
Kemarks (p. IIO), justifie ces affirmations.
Les travaux de 13eautemps-Beaupré étaient d'une autre importance.
Ses Me'moires d'Hydrographie sont remarquables par la nouveauté des
méthodes ct l'étendue des travaux accomplis.
1 Voir k>.JJ; du ~r6sent voiuinï.
* 145()M * 1) .
M 1) 3jo D \.oliirne 1.2 YL.4~DOIRIE DE JI. LE PROF. GROS (I:H.~SCE) - 30 IS 53
II est doric incoiltestable qiie Beautcmps-Beaupré fit les premiers
relevéscomplets et exacts de ces parages, usant de méthodes modernes
dont il était l'initiateur. Udes premiers cxernplaires de'sa carte seri~it
prGcisément à enregistrer les limites de la convention de 1S3c). (Voir
annexe 13 7 l,en tenarit comptc de ce que la photocopie n'a pas ln préci-
sion de trait de l'original.)
Quant 9 ln missio nydrographique de 1588-1889, elle dut sijo~irner
longtemps aus 3lintliiiers, avec son navire hydrographique bien entendu.
Ileux de ses membres logèrent sur l'îlot. Elle ne rencontra aucune
opposition siir place ;le pavillon anglais n'était jamais hissé lorsque
le navire était au rnoiiillage avec le sien cn poupe. Les signaus te~npo-
raires mis sur certains rocliers fiirent respectéLes travniix de la mission
hydrograpliique française furciit achevés sans difficiilté, et ils diirent
êtrebons, car la carte de l'amirauté anglaise, que j'ai ici, la carte de
In région qui porte le numéro 2x00, (PPlatcaudes Minquiers 11(cil fran-
vais, sur iirie cartedc l'amirauté britaiinicjue), porte cette seiilc men-
tion :((From the Prerich Government Chart of 1891-190 )8.c laisserai
cette cartc à la dis1)ositiode la Cour.
Venons-en maintcnant à l'importante cluestion du balisage. Tl faut
rappeler, en effet, que la Cour permanente d'arbitrage a relevi: dans
l'affaire de Grisbadarrza ((la circonstance quc la Suède a effectué dans
les parages, surtout dans les derniers temps, des actes multiples émanés
de la conviction que ces parages étaient suédois, comme par exemple
le balisage, le mesurage de la mer et I'installation d'lin bateau phare,
lesquels actes entraînaient des frais considérables, et par lesc]uels elle
iic croyait pas seulement exercer un droit, mais accomplir un devoir )).
(R. G. D. 1. P., rgro, p.186.) Le Royaume-Uni a d'ailleurs invoqiié
lc rneme arrêt pour souligner la r~aleur de son propre balisage. Ccpen-
drint les travaus accomplis par les deus pays ne sont vraiment pas
comparabl(:s.
D'unc part, le balisage français a étérnis en place progressiwment
à partir Re rSbj, ailarit l'échange des toites premières correspondances.
EI~1go3, le mémoire britanniclue fait état (annexes A j7, jS et 59)
d'un projet d'irtablissement d'un phare francais aiix Minquiers. Des
naufrages retentissants comme celui du vapeur anglais SzcPcrb cn
1850 (aniicscs A 168, -4170) ct di1 brick franqais ilfarie, en xS61. ou
ily eut j1 dispanas, avaient ~irovoquéd'abord ta mise en place par la
France d'un bateau-fe~i qui fut doublé, puis remplacé, par un cnsemble
de bouCcs (document nouvcaii no S2). En 1937, il fut méme question
d'installer sur les Minquiers un magasin destiné A abriter le matériel
utilisé pour l'entretien de ces bouées, ct une proposition fut faite en cc
sens au Goiivernement du Royaume-Uni afinde rechercher, en commun,
un emplacement approprié à ce dépât dc matériel. La Cour trouvera
tout im dossier relatif 5 ce projet dans notre document nouveau no S '.
Le balisage britannique ail contraire, ou devrais-je dire Ic balisage
jersiais,a étéfait pendant les étésde 1936 et 1937, c'est-A-dire très
récemment.
D'aiitrc part, oia parlédes dhpenses du balisage jcrsiais ; les dtpenscs
cntrainées par 1" balisage Eran~riissortt infiniment supérieures, car le
bateau-feu initial (111fort bateau surmonté d'un pliare et doté d'un
équipage) a cédéla place a.une véritable ceinture de bouées entourant
toute la partie occidentale du plateau. 11 y en n présentement neuf,
--
1 Voir p.350 clilvoliimc1.
)i 11436 du prdsent voluine. PL.4IDOIKIE DE JI. LE PRQI:. GROS (FRASCE) - 30 IX 53 273
dont cinq luniineuses ou sonorcs ; elles sont portCes sur toiites Ics
cartes. L'entretien de ccs. énormes flotteurs, Iiauts comme une maisoii,
ancréspar grand fond et dans des parages à tempéte, qu'il faut fréquem-
ment relever et ravitailler cn combustible, est une lourde charge. Contrai-
re~nciit i cet iiiiportant bnlisagc fr:inqais, le tialisage jersiais nc consiste
c1~'ciiassemb1:igcs de fer et clepierres cimentés et scelléssur lc sommet
de certains rocliers. Très peu de ces repères sont lumineus, c'est dire
que leur entretien n'est lias comparable i celui de nos propres bouées.
JI. Harrison rious dit cliie le balisage français ne sert qu'à Ccrirtcr les
izavires de ce plateau dangereus, au lieu de leur eiz faciliter Iciyéiié-
tration. \'raimeiit, ignore-t-on clti'aucun navire n'a envie d'entrer clans
le plateau des JIiiiquiers ct aussi que c'est le devoir d'une itritioii de
baliser et d'éclairerses ciites vers le large, mais c~u'ellcest parfaitement
libre de ne pas baliser l'intérieur de ses rivières ou de ses ports ?
Lcs seuls bateaux gui peuvent s'aventurer sur le phteail, à l'iriterieiir
du plateau (voir annese A 16s in filie,avec I'appréciatioii sur ln culpa-
bilitédu capitaine du Sztperb) sont des barclucs, condiiites par des <(prn-
tiques Ide I'entlroit- et encore s'en perd-il. Ces praticliies n'ont nulle-
mciit besoin clc signaus pour se rcconnnitrc sur les écueils, pas plus
qu'un culti\lateur n'a besoin de bornes pour retrouver ses champs.
Toutefois, comnie il n'y a, à vrai clire, presquc plus (le pêcticursprofcs-
sionriels de Jersey nllaiit nus 3Iinrluiers mais seulement des :trnateurs,
ces amateurs peiivent cn effet trtiuver là iiiie aide. 'l'elle est une des
raisons d'étrccle ce balisage mineiir,qiii ne rcpo~idà aucune règle inter-
natioiiale et qui n'a jamais étésignalé tleiiuis qu'il esiste ipar aucun
atpis aux navigateurs JI,iii porté, saiif erreur, sur aucuiic carte.
Mes coll&gi~esbritanniques prbtenclent toutefois (lue notre balisage
ne sert qu'à faciliter l'accésdu port français tle Saint-Rlnlo et ne coiiceriic
en rien les Minrluiers. En fait, ilsc trouve que les &iincluiers,comme la
carte le montre, sont situés entre Saiiit->la10 et Ie port de Sairit-Hclier
(.Jersey). l'out hateau se renclant tlc I'uri 5 l'autre cloit contoiirricr lcs
Minquiers par l'ouest, car il n'y :L pas dc passage du cûtCdes Lliausey.
Leur balisage est donc aiissi nécessaire pour l'accès dri port de Saint-
Hélier (Jersey) que pour nos ports. Or, la seule ligne de navigation
réguiièrcqui esiste dnns les parages est le scrvice hebdomadaire Saint-
Ma10 - Saint-1-Iélier-- Southamljton, ct cette ligiic, estensi011 cles
Soiltlierit Rail\z;~ys, est ciitièremcnt britanniclitLe fait cliie le balisage
est une obligation incombant interiiationalernerit i la France n cl'ailleurs
étéreconnu par le Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni. Dans unc lettre
du 18 septembrc rgjz, l'attaché ni~vcilàlJa~nb:rssndede Graridc-13rctag1ic
à Paris (document nouveau no Ir l),s'adressant au ministre français de
la Marine, s'esprimait ainsi : « 1,e navire britanni(1iie Falniss a fait
savoir le 9 septembre clernier que tc feu de la balise du sud-ouest des
3iiiiquierç était Cteint. J'ai l'honneur de vous prier de inc fnirrconnaître
s'il eii cst toujours ainsi et, clniisI':iffirmativc, cluaiic!ce feu scra. :illumé
à nouveau. u
-4 cctte lettre,le ministre frariç;lis de la Marine répondit, le 29 sey-
terlibre T9j2, dnns les termes suivants ;
I(En rbponse i votre lettre de référerice,j'ai I'lioiineur tic vous
faire connaître que le feu de la balise sud-ouest des Minquiers a
étéeffectivement éteiritpendant trois jours, mais qu'il a étérallumé
le 15 septembre 1952, et que leservice local (franqais) des ]>tiares
et balises a ktit un avis de ralluriiage 3 ccttedate. ))
Voir p. 449 di1 présent volume.176 PI,.91DOlRlE DE JI. 1.E PROF. GROS (FR.ISCE) - 30 IS j3
Nous pourrions encore riccurnuler des preuves du mêmegenre sur
l'exercice de la souverainetb française aus Minquiers et aux gcréhous :
tellesque des visites aux Minquiers, en 1903, d'un officier de marine,
membre du cabinet du ministre de la Marine, des \?isites,en 1939,d'offi-
ciers de marine et de matelots en uniforme, de la visite, lIO juillet1945,
du cliasseur 14 de la marine de Guerre francaise.
. Mais, nous l'avons dit à la Cour, il n'est pas conforme a la position de
la France dans leprésent litige d'accumuler des faits qui, selon nous,
ne sont pas opposables au lioyaume-Uni 3 ils n'établissent pas la souve-
rainet6 françaisesur les Minquiers et les Ecréhous, pas plus que les faits
du mémegenre invoqués par le Royaume-Uni ne nous sont opposablcs.
Xous n'avons cité de tels faits que dans le cadre de notre hypothése
actuelle de démonstration contre la thése britannique, pour établir que
les faitsde possession existent des deus côtésdans notre litige, mais ils
doivent îttrc égalemelit écartés,des deux côtés,depuis 1839.
Monsieur le Président, Messieurs de la Cour, arrivé au tenile de Ines
observations sur I'tiistoire juridique des Minquiers et des Ecréhous, il
ine parait qu'une double conclusion s'impose.
Tout d'abord, cette histoire est dominée par la conx,ention du 2 aoiit
1839, dont l'artide 3 déclare commune Ia pêchedans les eaux des Min-
quiers et des Ecréhous. Le Gouvernement francais a toujours vu dans
cette disposition le fondement d'un usage en cqmmun, par lespêclieurs
de ces deux pays, des îles des Minquiers et des Ecréhous. C'est pour cela
qu'il demande S laCour de décIarer les faits de possession que chacune
des deus I'arties n pu accomplir sur les îles, postérieurement à 1839,
inopposables à l'autre Partie en tant que manifestation de la souve-
raineté.
En secondlieu, les faitsde possessionque le Royaume-Uni aaccomyIis,
en grand nombre, depuis moins de cent ans: ne peuvent lui faire acquérir
la souveraineté sur les Alinquiers et sur les EcréhousApartir du moment
où le Gou\~ernement français s'est rendu campte que ces actes étaient
plus qu'une simple application de l'article 3 de la convention de 1839 et
que le Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni, interprétant cette convention
d'unc manière diffcreiite, entendait revendiquer une souverüineté exclu-
sive et privative sur les iles, le Gouvernement franqais a constamment
protesté contre les agissements et contre les intentions du Gouvernement
du Royaume-Uni.
De cela il résulte quela Cour, pour répondre 5 la question qui lui est
pos4e par le compromis, devra se 4ernander à qui appartenait la souve-
raineté sur lesMincluierset sur les Ecréliousau moment où la convention
de xS39 a étéconclue.
Or, nous avons montré qu'en 1839 la souveraineté sur ces iles appar-
tenait 3 la France, en vertu de son titre originel et de sa possession
ultérieure.
Ainsi, pour les Minquiers et les kcréhous, les enseignements du droit
coïncideront avec ceux de la nature. Le droit est une Œuvre essentielle-
ment humaine qui adapte les exigences de la nature à celles de la societé
des hommes. Comme l'adit le grand juriste français, ldoyen Francois
Gény, le droit, c'est du itconstruits sur du a donné II.Souvent le
tconstruit umodifie le tdonné ii.Ici,au contraire, l'Œuvre du droit a
confirmé celle dela nature. Et cela est bien ainsi. 6. REPLY OF SIR LIONISL HEALD
AT THE PUBI.IC SITTING 01'OCTOI5ER 211d,1953
Alr. President and Alembers of the Court :
Wlien I addressed the Court rittlie opcriing sessioof thesc proceed-
in@, 1stated niy intention to present the case of Her Majesty's Govern-
rneiit in moderate and reasonable terms, bearing in inind that the
Government of the Republic of France and ourselves corne bcfore the
Court as friends and good neighbours seeking only an honorable çettle-
ment of their dispute and fully prepared loyally to acccpt your judgment,
whichc\.er side it might favour. I would like to reaffirm that intention
and to assure you that botli 1 aiid my colleagues will do Our utmost to
observe it faithfully. We thereforc believe that we shall have the approval
of tlie Court ifwe refrain from nny comnie~it on somc of the language
which my learned friend, Professor Gros, has thought fit to introduce
into his speech. For exainple, we siiall makc no reply to his remarks
about the "parochial" outlook of Jersey and lier "amateur yachtsmen".
Xor sliallme notice any further his accusation that ttic BritisGovern-
incnt lias tried to produce #aitaccomfili"by acts of force and violence"
and that "the so-cailed acts of sovereignty" were done with the intention
of prejudicing in advance the argument before the Cotirt. The cluestion
beforc the Court is not as to the persona1 mcrits or dcsecving qualities
uf the Parties,but as to iheir respectivlegal rights in international law,
and it is to that and that alone tliat our arguments have been and will
be directed.
\Vith your permission, therefore, 1 shall open the Rcply on behaIf of
the United Kingclom with some general obscrvations. following tlie lines
of my previous speech-1 hope without any mere repetition-and
designed to assist the Court in focussing the real issues which seem to
me to emerge from the debate. My colleagues \vil1then folIow as before,
with their comments on the argument of Professor Gros, so far as it
bears on their particular scctions of the case.
Jlr. I'resident, my colleagues and 1 will al1 be quite brief in our
speeches, but perhaps 1might be allowed to esplain why it is necessary
for us to go into rather inore detail on certain aspects of this case
than isusually necessary in a reply.At that stage of the procecdings,
after full oral argument, one norrnally expccts the area of discussion,
even in the most complicated cases, to have been reduced to a com-
paratively small compass. In the present case, however, the issues
seem to be still largely undefined, and tliis is partly due, am bound
to sriywitli great respect, to the method of argument urhich hiis been
adopted by mp learned friend, Professor Gros, for he has dealt ai
considerable length with several minor or subsidiary points to which
he evidently considers lie has a strong answrer, whilc as regards somez/S . HEP1-T OF SIR L. HEAI,D (u.K.)-2 S 53
of tlie [nain points of our argument, if he lias iiot nctually igiiored
thern, he lias dcalt ivith tticm-as it sceins to ils-quite casually and
in sucli a manncr as to leaive it doiibtful hou, ffarhe disptites tliem
and iipon whrit gronnds. A stRkiiig example of this is the tiandling
of tlic 1839 ITishcr!: Convention. Professor Gros spent seideral hoiirs
on the cliiestioii of its ~~recisegeogrnphical sphere of nplilicatiori,
apparcntly preteiiding that tliis was one of tlic iiiain pliinks of our
argürneiit, but in so doing Iie ignored ni).colicrigiiMr. I~itzmaiiricc's
ver' clear stateincnt of our attitude to this Conl-entioii ris set out
on pages 77 and 78 of this Voluinc, ivliich 1must iiolv qiiote. Xir.1:itz-
rnauricc said :
"'l'lie Court will rernciiiber tliat in our Reply we put forjvarct
tivo main poirits as to tlie interlirctation of Article 3.In the first
place, we tnnintai~ied tliat tlie Article did not apply to the Xlin-
cluicrs ancl tlic Ecrélious ;kt dl", alid lie tlieii gavea reason for
tliat. hlr. 1;itzniaurice wcnt on to Say : "Our second main coiitentioii
was tliat, eveii if Article 3 did apply to tlie groups, it did so oiily
in a purely fisiiery seiisc-an oyster fislicry sensc ;it tliat-and
tliat it hacl iione of the implications about so\.ereigiity ivliicli
our opporietits had suggestecl. Of tltesetzco iivgz~rnt:ithc second
is,of colirse. iizconzfiar~blythe more i?afiorlaittand il isthe ofte
oitluhich iciechiefl~rrely. The 1S39Con\-eiition is adiiiittedly i7ery
obscure. aricl, as our op~ionerits tliemsel\reç have strcssed, not
vcry well drafted. Sornc of its provisions beiiig in a sensc conflicting.
It rriaythercfore be rcry clifficult to Say witli nny certainty esactly
wtiat the spliere of :ipplication of Article 3 was. Oirr principal
co~rte~ztioinsthat, wli:ite\.er territory or \vaters it tiinpply to,
it rneant no more tlian it actually said, riiid had no iiiiplicatioiis
bcyorict such as woulcl be the riormal and necessai-y result of a
~~roïlisionfor a corniiioii oyster fisliery, wtiich woirld certainly
iiot iridude ariy renunci:ttion of soi,ercigii rights."
ris tlic Court will see, what is clcnrly put forward as oiir inaiii contcn-
tioii thcrc has liardly bcen seriously dealt with l-iy l'rofcssor Gros at
all.I ask the question : docs he accept our argument or not ? If not,
u~mn wliat grounds ?As 1iinderstood him, he did ndinit that the question
of soircrcignty \vas not in thc contemplation of eithcr Party tothe Converi-
tion rit the time when it wnssigncd. Jlr. Prcsidcnt, hoiv can an agreement
have aiiy legal cffcct in relation to soniething which was not within tlic
contemplation of the signatories ? The Agreement, as I'rofessor Cros
himself noiv rili~icarsto admit, was a Fishery Agreement, and nothing
elsc. It \vas the /islii~igthat was to be in common, not the islands. Let
us slrppose tliat ;it some Inter date one Party or the othcr maintaineci
that, as sovereign, it had tlic right to erect a wireless station on the
islaiids. \Irhat possible bearing coiild an agreement, adrnittcdly liniited
to fishcry rights, have oii any sucti dispute ? .And, Jlr. President, 1
woultl Iikc to nsk niiothcr jicrtinent qiiestion, to which thc Court, 1am
sure, will be interested to hcar I'rofcssor Gros's answcr. If the 1839
Convcrition still stands on the basis 11crilleges aiid th1951 Agreements
haire not affectcd it, how does the Govcrnmeiit of the Frcnch Republic.
in its scrupuloiis regard for the sacrcd terms of tliat Conircntion, justif!:
its avowcd intention-if it içsuccessful in these proceedings-to ercct ri
monster dam and to appropriate for ltself al1 the waters of the hart iip REPLY OF SIR L. HEALD (u.K.)-2 X 53 279
to and incliiding the Minquiers ? 1snot thetmth of the matter that the
attempt to use the 1839 Convention as a factor in the argument on sov-
ereignty has broken down, and that Professor Gros's own admission on
Wednesday morniiig shows its introduction to be little more than a
smokescreen-a red herring-diverting attention from the main issue ?
Mr. Fitzmauricewill deal in more detaiwithProfessor Gros'sargument
upon the Convention, but 1 feel bound for tlie assistance of the Court
to make one comment-severe perhaps, but 1 hope not unfair-on the
use which the legal advisers of the French Government have sought
to make of this 1539 Convention. If the Court willrefer to the Counter-
Rlernonal at page 371 (French text), it will see what we must presume
to have been the result of the mature consideration of the effect of the
Convention by the best legal mitids in France. Their conclusion \vas-and
it was at least a logical one-that il one were to leave out of account
the effectsof the Compromis and the accompanying Fishery Agreement
of 1951, ad if, further, one assumed that the 1839 Convention was
intended to deal with sovercignty, the effect would be to render the
whole of the reference to the Court abortive, since the Court could only
then decide that the islands were rnzrlliuthe Parties having renounced
al1claim to sovereignty on both sides. And 1quote the words onpage371
of that Counter-Mernorial, in which it was said that there were conse-
quences and the first was in these words: "que le statut actuel des
espaces litigieus résulte d'un titre nouveau qui a pris naissance par
l'accord deç Parties en1839 et non pas d'un titre quelconque antérieur".
\irhen it came to the Rejoinder, Professor Gros had obviouslj? realized
that such a conclusion as this could not be acceptable to the Court, and
bis ground was completely changed, it now being argued that the
Convention is consistent with Frenchsovereignty-pre-existing, contrary
to what I have just read to the Court-and was not consistent with
English sovereignty. Mr. President, 1 feel I am entitled ta ask, not
forensically, but as a matter of real substance-howdoes Professor Gros
account for such a radical change in the argument on this document ?
1sit really treating the Court seriously to ask it now to accept that
the same agreement means precisely the opposite of what the French
Government solemnly stated in its carefully considered formal pleadings?
Another example of what 1 would respectfully describe as Professor
Gros's failure to "grasp the nettle" is his treatment of my argument
based upon tlie Chausey Islands. He tried to pretend that we had
attacked the French claim to çovereignty over them and that he had
to defend it. This was, as 1 believe the Court will agree, a mere travesty
of my argument, but perhaps Imight be allowed to recall what 1 said
at pages 22 and 23 of the printed Record. Mr. President, I said this :
"An interesting light on this aspect of the case is provided by
the Chausey group of islets-which, as the Court will no doubt
already be aware, içclose to Granville on the French coast. The
Chausey group, as everyone ngrees, are French to-day, and it is
therefore pertinent task oneself-why is that ?"
And then, after a reference to the document, 1continued :
"The Chausey group became French much later, as 'the resuit of
specific acts in the exercise of French savcreignty. Andwhen youb
find, in the case of tlie Minquiers and the Écréhonod this process
19280 REPLY OF SIR L. HEALD (u.K.)-2 X j3
of transfer to France, but, on the contrary, the intensification of
acts and incidents of .British sovereignty and character, precisely
parallel tothose exercised by France in the case of the Chausey,
the admitted titleofFrance to the Chausey becomes a very relevant
point, not in favourof the French claim but against it."
Professor Gros has again avoided here giving any direct answer to
an argument which perhaps he finds embarrassing, but he does at any
rate give us hisexplanation asto how the Chausey came to be French.
And when we see that explanation, Mr. President, what is it ? Doeshe
base his title on the same foundation as the French clairn to the Min-
quiers and Écréhous-on the Peace of Calais and al1 the rat of it ?
Nothing of the kind. He starts in the year 1343,nearly IOO years after
1259, and then he finds the beginning of what he calls the permanent
French occupation in the sixteenth century, Professor Wade prefers to
place that in the eighteenth century, but this difference is for present
purposes immaterial. The point is that Chausey became French by
exactly the same process as thatby which we seek to confirmOurancient
title to the Alinquiers and Écréhous, namely effective possession.
Mr. President, 1 continue inrny argument upon the Chausey by saying
this. The French legal advisers clearly appreciated the danger of this
argument, and with characteristic quickness of thought they adopted the
offensive in their pleadingby asserting that the filinquiers are depend-
encies of the Chausey group. This, ofcourse, would be an excellent point
ifit could be established, but al1 the evidence is tothecontrary cffect.
Mr. President, 1 listened in vain during Professor Gros's argument to
see whether he would praduce the evidence. 'I'heonly evidence that he
produced was a reference to some French geographical work between,
1 think, 1880 and 1890, which was of course dealing purely with the
geographic:il aspect of the matter. And no real atternpt has been
made to justify the suggestion that the Chausey was a dependency of
the Minquiers.
Before 1 corne to deal with some of the main issues, 1 would like
to dispose of a comparatively small point-a question of documentation.
Professor Gros misunderstood me if he thought 1was making any point
of the fact thatthe relevant documents appeared inour Annexes rather
than his. As the Court will see if it turns my first speech, page35-36
of the Prinf, what 1 there drew attention to was the comparative Iack
of positive evidence supporting the French claim to possess the sover-
eignty over the Minquiers and the Ecréhous. 1 was not there referring
to the diplomatic correspondence, or to the treaties, al1 of which, aç
Professor Gros çaid, are evidenlly common to both sides; nor to suçh
works as the Gallia Chrisfiana. 1 was referring to such thinas charters,
grants, court rolls, the affidavitsof witnesses and officiais, records of
judicial proceedings and so forth, showing actual administration and
the exercise of jurisdictionand the fact that France, on fier side,had
been able to produce ço little matend which helped to prove her case.
Despite the destruction of archives-a matter on which wc very sincerely
sympathize with our French friends-we feel that this disparity in the
weight of the piece of docurnentary elridencewhich can be relied on by
them, as compared with us, does reflect a real difference in the character
of Ourrespective daims. REPLY OF SIR L. HEALD (u,K.)-2 X 53 281
Coming now to some of the main legal issues of the case, the Court
rnay rernember that 1 ernphasized the importance of the right approach
and I subrnitted, as a cardinalpoint, that we must examine the respec-
tive titlesasa whole over the entire period and not attempt any division
into separate compartments. For this purpose, 1 cited the great authority
of Judge Huber (p. 33,Vol. I, printed Record). In his address Professor
Gros paid liy service to this principle, as may be seen from the Compte
rendu of the 28th September, page 232, but he soon abandoned it, and
of course his whole attitude to the year 1839 is a negation of this prin-
ciple. For the attempt is made to Say that the years subsequent to 1839
must bear the whole burden not only of proving the British title but
actualIy of displacing the French sovereignty which is said to exist on
that date. 1donot intend to repeat my argument on this point: 1merely
wish to add that once again here Professor Gros does not attempt to
rneet our argument but sirnply evades it-and the Court is entitled, 1
suggest, to draw the appropriate inference.
The next point 1 made was the unreality of anykind of suggestion
that the British case dependcd in some way on acts of aggression, as if
we had forced our way into French territory and were seeking to take
it. Hut again. in his oral argument, Professor Gros in effect said that
France must be presumed to be the rightful sovereign and the United
Kingdom an interloper.Al1 that France need do (he says) isto establish
that the United Kingdom acts are invalid or insufficient to give us the
sovereignty. Perhaps 1 might recall here wliat 1 said in my previous
speech, that the French case proves altogether too much, for if it were
.sound ii would establish a French title not merely to the hiinquiers and
to the Ecréhous but to the whole of the Channel Islands. The Court will
judge, for tbey have heard Professor Gros, whether this is not a perfectly
fair comment on the main theme of his argument. At any rate, I submit
to the Court that the French case ought to be rejected on its own thesis
unless our opponents can give a satisfactory explanation of how the
Minquiers and the Ecréhous are in some way to be distinguished and
separated from the rest of the islands.
Professor Gros advanced a nurnber of g~ographical considerations,
directed to showing that the Minquiers and Ecréhous were dependencies
of the rnainland and ought to be French, but, of course, all this applies
equally, if it were valid, to the other islands, and we have already
pointed out that Alderney, for example, is as near to France as the
Écréhous and much nearer than the Minquiers. Professor Gros's argu-
ment appears to be that, while it must be admitted that the larger
islands are now dehnitely British, yet this isall so wrong ittfiri~zciple
that even though it has to be accepted for the major islands, the process
must not be extended any further than it must, and unless the United
Kingdom can bring foyard the strongest proofs of actual possession
of the &linquiers and Ecréhous, the sovereignty must be adjudged to
France. \SrellMt. President, I would have thought that, even on that
basis, we had in fact brought fonvard the strongest proofs of actual
possession of the groups, and of having been in that position for a Iong
tim.. There is no need to discuss how long, since on any view it is a long
period.
But 1 submit to the Court that here once more Yrofessor Gros is
not meeting the real argument. Indeed, he is making another appeal
to sentiment or prejudice rather than to law, for it is quite wrong to282 REPLT OF SIR t. HEALD (u.K.)--2 X 53
regard the United Kingdom as an interloper or usurper in the matter
of the Channel Islands. The Court knows that these islands originally
came to us by reason of the Norman conquest. Even if, for a while
after that time, they were held by the Kings of England as Dukes of
Normandy rather than as English Kings, they certainly were held by
thern as English Kings from the year 1204 ori~vards.The major islands
have unquestionably been in English hands ever since. It is not therefore
possible orright to loolcatthiscase as one in rvhichthe United Kingdom
has, so to speak, crossed the Channel and possessed itself of something
that rightfully belonged to France. 1 ask the Court to reject entirely
the implications of the langusge used by Professor Gros, on page 228
of the Compte Rendu of Tuesday 29th, that the islands were, in Iiis
words, "taken away from Normandy by the English". This is incorrect.
Continental Komandy was taken away by Philip of France-the islands
remained. The only correct view is the purely objective view. that the
major islands do in fact belong to the United Kingdorn, whose right
to them is not and can not be chailenged. If tfiiis so, ought not the
Minquiers and the Écréhous equally to be regarded in a purely objective
way, as one would any other islands or any other piece of territory
situated between the possessions of two different Powers ? Why, in
the circumstances, çhould the Minquiers and Écréhous be any more
dependent on, or rightfully belong to, the mainland, rather than to
the rest of the islands of which they form a natural part ?If, indeed,
distance and geography come into the matter at all, then, as we have
pointed out, these groups are nearer and more closely related to Jersey
than they are to France. 1 submit, therefore, that there is absolutely
no valid ground for the presumption which Professor Gros seeks to
establish, that "its principle" these groups shouid be French. Only if
he is prepared to argue that in principleall the Channel Islands should
be Frencli would a similar argument about the Minquiers and tlie
Ecréhous be tenable.
We come back to the same oint, therefore. How does Professor Gros
reaiiy distinguish the case ofthese two groupr from the rest of the
islands ? He admi ts (and I refer to p.206 ofthe Com@eRemhi, of Mon-
day 28th) that before the thirteenth century the Minquiers and Ecréhous
were Iield, together with the rest of the islünds, by the English Kings,
whether as Dukes of Normandy or not. We have therefore a situation
of fact in 1204-one which is apparently admitted by Yr9fessor Gros-
that al1 these islands, including the Jfinquiers and the Ecréhous, were
then in the same hands. Then, he says, after 1204 the islands became
separated from continental Normandy but, for some magical reason,
this only üpplied to the major islands. Tliey alone remained in Englisli
hands, wiiereas-hey presto !-the Minquiers, the Ecréhous and the
Chausey have suddenly become French. i3y what extraordinary process
of'reasoning does Professor Gros produce this strange result ? Surely
the normal presumption is that a known state of fact continues until
a change in it can be shown tu have occurred. If, aç içadmitted, tlie
Minquiers and Ecréhous were in the same hands as the rest of the
islands in 1204 hen what caused them suddenly to cease to be in those
hands and pass into French hands ?Obviously nothing, unless the French
took theni, as they took continental Normandy, and it is for our
opponents to establish that France did take them, which they have
not done. REPLY OF SIR L. HEALD (u.K.)-2 X 53 283
The presumption that the Ilinquiers and Écréhous remained where
they were with the rest of the islands is, moreover, greatly strengthened
by the known attempts of the French to obtain possession of al1 the
Channel Islands, principally during the two periods from 1204 to 1217,
and £rom 1337 to 1345. During these attempts the French admittedly
temporarily occupied some of the islands, but they were eventually
expelled. Would it -not he for our opponents (if they could) to show
that, in the course pf one of these attempts, France actually occupied
the Minquiers and Ecréhous, and not only occupied them but remained
there pemanently ? We have evidence of temporary French occu-
pations of Jersey, Guernsey, etc., but we have no ?ctuaI evidence
of any French occupation of the Minquiers and the Ecréhous. They
may have been occupied, but there is no evidence of it,and I merely
Say that, if France had possessed herself of the islands and remaincd
there at some point after 1204, there must have been some evidence
of it. Given the knowri situation of fact before 1204, therefore, which
is rtdrnitted by our opponents, a situation of fact which included the
Minquiers and the Écréhous aç being in English hands, I ask the
Court to find that this situation of fact cannot be assumed suddenly
to have ceaçed, and must be assumed to have continued unless and
until the contrary is shown.
In al1this, of course, Ihave beeii assuming, for the purpose of the
argument, that the original title did lie with France. In this connection,
Professor Gros poured a great deal of scorn on our history, as being
based on the writings of local Norman hiçtonans. But 1 would ask,
t$hat reason is there for regarding a French historian writing in Paris
as being ~lecessarily more reLiable or more impartial than a Norman
historian writing at Caen or elsewhcre in Normandy ? 1s not the one
concerned to maintain the French point of view just as much as the
other maÿ have been to maintain the Norman point of view ? Or is
there something in the air and atmosphere of Paris which causes its
residents to have an impartiaIity which no one else possesses ? In
point of fact, it is prccisely to local historians that one would turn
for details of local events, which often are not sufficientiy dealt with
in the more general histories. However, we shall show you presently
that our historical case is not based only on the authorities or works
we cited in the original statemcnt. We shall show that it can be
supported by general histonans of great repute, including even a
qumber of those cited by our opponents in support of their case,
such as Prentout, Fliche and Lauer.
1 said in opening the case that France's claim isaclaim to be entitled
by virtue ofancient right and little more. This has been virtuaiiy con-
ceded by Professor Gros, for he said (1 translate): "theoriginal French
title...wonid suffice in itself to vest the sovereignty over these islets in
France, and this would be so even if France had not performed any
positive acts in respect.of them'.'. AncI he later emphatically stated that
he was flotreIying on any of the so-crilled acts of possession in this or the
last century to justifyhis clairn. Yet in another part of hisspeech,
Professor Gros agreed thnt if the issue lay between a bare right on the
one side and effective possession on the other, the latter must prevail-
and there is in fact no doubt of course that international law requires
a title, however ancient, and even if of unquestioned original validity,
to have been kept up by an adequate degree of effective exercise. LVhat284 REPLY OF SIR L.HEALD (u.K.)-2 S 53
degree will be adequate must, of course, as 1 said before, depend on
circumstances. No doubt where a piece ofterritory oran islandis appar-
ently under the sovereignty of a country, and its titleisnot challenged,
and no otlier country daims the sovereignty, very little in the way of
actual exercise of jurisdiction will be necessaryBut this cannot be so
when another country is known to claim sovereignty and even to be
exercising jurisdiction itself, so that there is an actively competing claiin
in the field.In such circumstances, the original title, however good it
may once have been, ivill inevitablbe lostby non-use,and title ivillbe
acquired by that country which exercises it.
Professor Gros has cited in support of his argument the Clipperton
Island case. The Court will remember that, in that case, a period of
only 30 or 40 years had elapsedsince the datewhen France had originaIIy
taken possession, and during that time no acts of sovereignty had been
carried out by any'other country. In those circumstances itwas quite
natural to hold that France's title still subsisted, but obviously the
facts of tiic present case are completely different. The prcsent case,
indeed, as 1 pointed out before, is much more akin ta that of the Island
of YaEmas, in which an original title vested in Spaiby right of discovery
was heid to have been lost by non-exercise, andto have been superseded
by a Netlierlands title basedon long continued occupation and control.
One might indeed take the matter a stey further, for there is a consid-
erable analogy between a claim of ancient right which lias not bcen
followed up by any effective exercise of sovereignty, and a title based
on discovery which, as the Court knows, only gives an inchoate right
which will nccessarily lapse after a certain time ifnot followed by the
effectiv exercis of sovereignty. I do not of course Say for a moment
that the two cases (this and that of the island of Palmas) are identical,
but merely Say that the principlesapplicable to them are very similar.
It isat any rate clear that the Clipperto?~ Island case not only does
not support Professor Cros, but is actuaIIy contrary to his argument.
For the Court will remcmber that in that case Mexico put forward a
claim of so called "historic right" based on an allegcd ancient title.
1will not go into the: details, but the Arbitrator expressly found that
thiswas not sufficient unless supported by some concrete manifestation
of sovereignty. This is shown in the following passage, which 1 take
from page 393 of a Verbatim Report of the Judgment as given in the
American journaL of InterrcalionalLaw for the year 1932 (1 quote):
"filoreover, the proof of an historic right of Mexico's is not
supported by any manifestation of her sovereignty over the island,
a sovereignty never exercised until the expedition of 1897 ; and
the mere conviction that this was territory belonging to Mexico,
although general and of long standing, cannot be retained."
That, I submit, would not be an unfair description of France's position
in the present case.
May 1 here interpose an observation with regard to the question of
rnaps. Professor Gros was at pains to show that, although the work
of StieIer (to which1referred) marks both the Minquiers and the hé-
hous as British, other, so to speak neutral maps do not. But even so,
he was obli ed to admit that a number of them do mark the Ecréhous
as British.",urely the real significancc of these maps is this : that we
have produced at least one neutral map-maker of great reputation and REPLY OF SIR L.HEALD (u.K.)-z x 53
285
authority who marks both groups as British. Our opponents have
referred to a number of maps which do not mark one or both of the
groups as British, but they have not produced any map, other than a
French one, which marks either of the groups-let alone both-as
French. Here again 1 must draw attention to the technique employed
by Our opponents in other instances in this case, and no doubt forced
upon them by the circurnstances, of rnerely criticizing the evidence we
produce without producing any positive evidencc in support of their
own case. Here, it is not a large and important point, but it is a sig-
nificant fact that we can point ta at least one neutral atlas which marks
both groups as British, and thereby affords positive evidence af some
notoriety for the fact that they are British. Our opponents have not
produced any evjdence which would go to show that any neutral map-
maker ever regarded either of the groups as French.
1now wish to refer, Mr. President, to the attempt made by Professor
Gros to argue that the finding of this Court in the Norwegian Fisheries
case had some bcaring on the present matter. I wish very respectfuily
to enter a strong protest against the introduction of this case.It is,
I suggest, completely irrelevant, and 1 submit thst the Court should
exclude fromits mind any considerations based on the finding in the
Fisheries case, because of the cornpietely different nature of the issues
which are involved. In the Fislicries case, there was ex Aypothesi no
question of sovereignty. Al1the islands and rocks coticerned were Norwe-
gian. It was simply a question of how Norwegian territorial waters were
to be drawn. Here again Professor Gros, by implication, lays a claim
not merely to ttie &quiers and Écréhaus, but to the whole of the
Channel Islands, for his suggestion is, thatifthe islands al1belonged to
France, France would, applying the base-line principles sanctioned by
the Court in the Norwegian casc. be able to draw base-lines along the
outerrnost fringe of the islands which would enclose them and al1 their
waters right up to the French nlainland coast as intcrior waters. Surely
this hypothetical proposition haç absolutely nothing to do with tlie issue
of sovereignty before the Court. Yet it is apparent what Professor Gros
is seeking to do when hc produces that chart with red lines enclosing
the whole of the Channel Islands. How can we possibly apiily the prin-
ciplesof the Norwegian case to such a situation ?
One might jiist as well suggest that the United Kingdom, being in
fact sovereign over the Channel Islands, would be entitled to draw base-
lines round them which would enclose the whole of their waters, and
draw some inference from these. But, of course, we have no intention
of doing any such thing.
Mr. President, it has often been pointed out by eminent judges of
manp countries that there is nothing more dangerous or unscientific
than to attempt to reason from the facts of one caseto those of anothcr :
precedents and authorities are of value only in so faras thcy establish
yrinciples.1 emphasized this in the reference 1 made to the Palmas and
- Greatzlarzdcases, and1 was careful to limit myself to the use of statemcnts
of princiyle.In his attempt.to influence the Court by reference to the
Nonvegian case, Professor Gros has not even pretended to show that
some principle can be extracted from it wliichwill help the Court to
decide this case. This ienders tlie Norwegian case wholly irrelevant,
apart from any other distinction,and invites the Court to decide this286 'REPLY OF SIR L. HEALD (u.K.)-z x 53
case against the United Kingdom on prejudice-an invitation \\?hich
I belicve this Court will reject with indignation.
Here 1might also perhaps refer to Professor Gros's attempt to invoke
Selden's doctrine of mare clausum against us. Surely everyone knows
by now that this doctrine has been abandoned for centuries by the
United Kingdom and that, so far from being advocates of any principle
of mare clazcsum,our whole doctrine and policy is exactly the reverse.
Surely, if anyone is attempting to apply a doctrine of mare clausîtm in
this case, it must be France, for itis France who has so persistently
claimed that the waters between Jersey and the French coast are "a
sort of Anglo-French Mediterranean", a mare nosfrum, a mare cornntztne.
It is we who have declined to subscribe to that idea.
But here again, Rlr. President, surely such considerations are utterIy
and completely irrelevant to the question of sovereignty. Professor Gros
said a great deal about the doniinance of the land over the sea, but if
sucli a pririciple was applied by the Court in the Norwegian Fisheries
case, itwas there applied for one purpose and for one purpose only,
the delimitalio?r of territorial waters. It has absolutely nothing to do
with the question of soriereigntyoveland.Those are two entirely different
things, and it is thoroughly bad law-1 suggest-to compare them.
Professor Gros's claim is not a claim that the land should dominate the
sea, but that one piece of land should dominate another piece of land.
For after all, the Rlinquiers and the Ecréhous are land and not sea. 3luch
of the difficultyin thiscase has arisen from the persistence with which
France has sought to treat the disputed groups as if they were areas
of sea and not pieces of land. 1can only repeat that such considerations
are not considerations of a legal character, such as ought to be taken
any relevailce ai all, there is no reason,~hy Ithey should operate anyave
more in favour of France than in favour of Jersey.
May 1 Say a final word about the position of Jersey in this matter.
As I said eariier, on the United Kingdom side, this dispute, aaprüctical
mat ter, interests principally thc largely autonomous island of Jersey.
Ive fully and entirely support Jersey, but it is a fact that the dispute
has never been allowed to affect Anglo-French relations in their wider
aspect. That this has been so has, ofcourse, been due to the good sense
over a long period of successive French and United Kingdom Govern-
ments. 1 would venture respectfully to differ from Professor Gros in
this by suggesting that both Governments are entitled to the credit
for this and not only (ashe appeacs to suggest) France. The fact that
the Parties have previously refrained from bringing their dispute to a
head does not juçtify, however, what has actually been happening. And
I must say here that, while fully appreciating that the reasons given
by Professor Gros may have accounted for the failure of successive
French Governments in the period between 1820 and 1950 to take any
effective steps to pursue or prosecute the French claim, 1 cannot for a
moment admit the validity oftheimplications which he sought tu draw .
from that fact. For those considerations do no more than establish the
motives which France may have had. Any government may have many .
motives for what it does or does not do. The assertion of a clairn to
territory has, afterall, always been inclinedto be somewhat disturbing
to good relations betwveenthe countries concerned. If thiswere admitted
as a valid reason for not asserting a claim, then surely govemmentsCould almays, on the plea of not wanting to prejudice good relations,
Iet such matters go by default or assert their claims in a perfunctory
and forma1 way, and then, years aftenvards, Say that the claim was
still alive and they had in no way acquiesced in the situation, Now, of
course, 1 am not suggesting, that France has never made any protest.
But we have suggested, and 1 maintain, that France's protests and
assertions have been inadequate in the circumstances, given the nature
and number of the United Kingdom acts. To a large extent, as we
pointed out, Jersey has been allowed by France to go ahead, to undertake
responsibilities, and to incur expenses in respect of these groups.
liThatever the motives may have been which caused France not to assert
her daim more insistently during this period, and however estimable
those motives may have been, this fact surely cannot now be used to
prejudice and defeat the yerfectly just claim of Jersey. If any nttempt
is to be persistecl in by Professor Gros to rely on such motives, it is
legitimate to point out that if, as he has suggested, France was not
anxious to give any cause for a possible rupture in the time of Fashoda,
Madagascar atid the rest, her reluctance to raise the question of the
Ecréhous and the Minquiers rnay well have been explained by the fact
that France recognized that these were for al1 practical purposes a
part of Jersey, and that, ifshe attempted to claim tliem, she would
expose herself to the very charge of agression which she was ço very
properly anxious to avoid.
Although 1 have. beeti anxious to emphasize that this dispute is,
as a practical matter, one primarily between France and Jersey, one
which cannot by the wildest strctch of imagination be described as
an attempt to extend the United Kingdom, I must repeat-what of
course is already clear from the documents-that the United Kingdom
Government has throughout supported, and now supports, the attitude
adopted by the Jersey authorities in this matter, believing it to be
right in law as well as just. Indeed, it is the view of the United Kingdom
Govcrnment that it would be absiird to charge the island authorities
with any intention of aggression vis-à-vis their larger neighbour, and
that Jersey has throughout been concemed to do no more than preserve
and maintain her own island heritage. If the Court declares (as we
shall ask it to do) that (1 quote from the final paragraph of Our written
Reply) :
"the United Kingdom is entitled, under international law, to
full and undivided spvereignty over al1 those islets and rocks
ofthe Minquiers and Ecréhous groups which are pliysically capable
of appropriation-"
if the Court makes that declaration-then, although, "as a matter of
international law", the United Kingdom would have the sovereignty,
in practice of course, aiid as a matter of domestic law, the groups
would continue to be administered-as they always'have been-by
the insular authorities of Jersey, as dependcncies of Jersey, and there-
fore would enjoy the same high degree of autonomy as Jersey herself.
An award of these islands to the United Kingdom would therefore
in no sense mean that the London Government would be exercising
authority within a few miles of the French coast. Indeed, many of
the anomalies to which Our French friends have referred, in regard
to this whole question of the Cliannel Islands lying on the Frenchrather than on the British side of the Channel, find their natural
solution-as well as to some extent their historical justification-in
the large measure of autonomy which is,and, throughout the centuries,
has always been, enjoyed by the respective bailiwicks of Guernsey
and Jersey.
Mr. President, France has nothing to fear or lose from any award
of these groups to Jersey. We have shown that, even from the point
of view of fisheries, which is the matter which has always been of
most concern to successive French Governments, French interests will
be adequately catered for, regardless of where the Court decides that
the sovereignty Lies. The Government of the. Kepublic always made
it perfectly cIear that they woiild not agree to submit the sovereignty
question to the Court without the prior, or, at any rate, the simul-
taneous, conclilsion of an agreement on fisheries. The fact that they
ratified the lTishery Agreement of 1951,and did so simultaneously
with the Compromis, must prove beyond doubt that they have satisfied
themselves on the fishery question. The fishermen of St. hlalo, Gran-
ville, Carteret, Cameretand Chausey, to whom Professor Gros referred,
have in fact no ground for any concern cxcept in his fertile imagination.
I can give the Court the fullest assurance that Jersey will faithfully
honour al1 her obligations under the 1951 Agreement and that the
French fishermen will be treated with scrupulous fairness, whatever
the reçult of these proceedings may be.
Mr. President, 1 have made my own contributions to the discussion
as brief as possible and limited them mainly to broad considerations,
in order to avoid overlapping with my colleagues, who will be taking
up Professor Gros on the points which particularly concern them. I now
propose to leave the case in their hands, asking Professor Wade to
follow me imrnediately, and 1 hope you and your colleagues \vil1not
consider it discourteous of me if Iask your permission to withdraw in
order to attend to othcr officia1duties. But before 1 leave the Court,
rnay 1 offer to al1 its members on behalf of my colleagues and myself
Our most respectful thanks for the patience and close attention witli
which you have listened to the arguments in thls long and complicated
case. As 1 believe the Court will apyreciate, we considered long and
anxio,usly whether it would be possible in someway to limit the material
to be included in Our pleadings and Annexes, so as to lessen the burden
on the Court and narrow the areas of controversy. But we came to the
conclusion that, in view particularly of the principle enunciated by
Judge Huber, to whicli 1 have already referred, tliat the title must be
considered as a whole over the entire relcvant period,we had no alter-
native but to produce al1 the relevant material, hoivever voluminous.
This has inevitably complicated the proceedings, but we hope it has
enabled the Court to approach the decision of this matter with full
confidence that it is possessedof al1the relevant material and therefore
in a position to give judgment in accordance with the establistied
principles of international law. 7. REPLY OF PROFESSORWADE
(COUNSEL FOR THE COVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINCDOM)
AT THE PUBLIC SITTINGS OF OCTOBER 2nd AND 3rd, 1953
[Public sitlingof October 2nd,1953, morning]
Mr. President and Illembers of the Court, I startmy reply by remind-
ing the Court that Our clairn to original ancient title is a positive one
based on uncontested historical facts, whereas that of Our opponents
isat least highly contestable. Our claim is that when William, Duke
ofNormandy, conquered England in 1066 and became King of England,
his ancestors had already been establjshed both in Normandy and in
the Channel Islands for 150 years. This situation of fact the Government
of the Republic does not deny, but it seeks to show that the Dukes of
Nomandy were always vassals of the King of France, bound to the
King of France by ties of suzerainty. We contend that the Dukes held
Normandy and conquercd the Channel Islands as indepcndent rulers.
Now in face of tlie factual situation, that is the possesçion by King
John of the wliole of the Cfiannel Islands in 1202-England held them in
1202-wllich my opponent acknowIedges, he still relies on the suzerainty
of the French Kings. He says this must be presumed to be operative
right down to the present time, even without any attempt by France
throughout the centuries to support it by actual possession or even by
administration frorn a relatively distant capital-Yaris. This claim
apparently only applics to the Minquiers and the ccréhous. Itobviously
cannot apply to the rest of the Channel Islands. The whole question is,
hlr. President, in rny submission, in what way do Our opponents distin-
guish the Minquiers and the Ecréhous from the rest of the Channel
Islands ?
Professor Gros has left the Court in no doubt as to the ctiaracter of
the original ancient titlc claimed by France. It iç based exclusively on
the feudal relationship between the French Kings and the Dukes of
Normandy. Thc existence of this relationship wedo iiot deny, but the
question is what did it amount to, and did it i~ivoive sovcreignty as
we understand that concept to-day ? Here may I say tliat 1 entirely
agree with Professor Gros that we must interpret feudalisn~ in terms of
itself and according to the ideas of the period when it prevailed, but
for that very reason, 1submit, that we must not read modern concepts
of sovereignty into a feudal relationship-suzerainty-~vl~ich had no
direct connection with any question of sovereignty as wt: know it in
the nineteenth and twentietb centuries. On this point 1 would like to
cite, and if 1may adopt, Professor Gros's actual words which I take
frorn the top of page39 of the English translatiol (p. 209 in the French
test), Professor Gros said:
"To-day we speak of State, sovereignty and territorial juris-
diction. At the time, hotvever, when the events which are decisive
for the determination of the present dispute occurred, thcse terms
meant nothing. Not the least remarkable part of this dispute is
'Engtish textnot reprocluccd. REPLY OF PROF, WADE (u.K.)-2 X 53
290
the need to leave for amoment the more familiar notions and the
more current legal terms and to try in some way to go back to a
social and legal setting which has nothing in common with Our
present one."
In my original speech, 1 presented a certain view as to the character
of the feuda relationship between the French Kings and the Norman
rulers, particularly with reference to the period before 1066, before
the date when William became King of England as well as Duke of
Normandy. 1 naw propose to reinforce that view by ample references
and citations from standard French historians-or so1and my colleagues
believe thern to be-including authorities on whom my opponent, at
al1 events. has relied. These authoritics show that suzerainty in the
tenth, eleventh and twelfth centuries was a very different thing from
the conception of sovereignty known to international law. In fact those
who owed suzerainty were as often as not entirely independent of their
overIords, and in the case of the Dukes of Normandy usually so. Indeed,
it was actually possible for a king to hold lands of his own subjects.
This created a feudal relationship, but itobviously did not make the
subject the sovereign of the king, but only his feudal seigneur in respect
of those particular lands.
Professor Gros has attacked my exposition of Norman-French history
with vigour. Of course the brunt of his attack had to be directed against
the view I put forward that feudal suzerainty was not a link comparable
with sovereignty. He even chided me with neglecting the views of that
great English scholar Maitland on the reception of Normandy by Rollo
in 911. This is indeed a dangerous allegation to make against any histo-
rian or lawyer from my University of Cambridge, particularly one who
liolds, however un,worthiiy, the Chair which Maitland adorned with
such distinction-as 1 have the honour to do. It will be within the
recollectionof the Court that 1 also cited the History O/ EngZisk Law
by Sir Frederick Pollock and Frederick Maitland, on the nature of
frankalmoin-another point. But 1 also cited Maitland's own work-
his Cons~i~ill~tiofiistiry-on this very issue of the nature of the
feudal tie. Like my opponent, 1 claim no omniscience in medieval
history, and 1,like he, have had mnch expert help from medievalists
of distinction-not only a colleague at Cambridge, but in the Univer-
sities of London and Leeds, in particular Professor Plucknett, whose
opinion on two important legal points is before the Courc, and frorn
Professor Le Patourel-while Oxford has made its conspicuous contri-
bution through one of my colleagues on this delegation, namely
Mr. Lambert, who is now a senior research oflïcer at Our Foreign Office.
Inpassing, may 1Saythat we, for Ourpart, do not share ouropponent's
disdain for Norman historians.I need not amplify that point which
the Attorney-General has already made. \Ve were aware, Mr. President,
of the passage from Pollock and Rlaitland's book about the terms on
which Rollo is said to have received Normandy from Charlesthe Simple-
the passage which Professor Gros cited. But, after consideration, we
preferred the passage which I cited tu the Court 'from Maitland's
ConstitutionalHistory. Actually there were two passages, and they will
be found on page 107 of the printed Oral Arguments, so I need not read
them. The reason for Our preference tvas because the passages seemed
to give amore realistic picture of the relationshiof the Frankish Kings REPLY OF PROF. WAIIE: (u.K.)-2 .Y53 291
to the Norman Dulies iiithe light of the views of French historians of
the first rank. \Vhat 1 now want to do is to draw the attention of the
Court to the impressive volume of authority, not merely from local,
but frorn standard French historians, including a nurnber cited by Pro-
fessor Gros and the medieval experts who have helped him.
In order to Save the time of the Court, I shall only give a limited
number of citations froni these historians-the remainder 1have embo-
died in a separate note, and in order to avoid citing them al1 here and
now, 1 shall hand copies of this note to the Registrar and ask that it
may be appended as an annex to my present speech, if theCaur! will
allow me so to do. The historians concerned, from whom citations will
be made,are,amongstothers, the following : Michelet, Prentout, Luchaire,
Bayet, Fliche, Lauer, Besnier, Halphen, Petit-Dutaillis.
I shall first give sonie extracts showing the general character of
feudal suzerainty :the first from a work relied upon for one point by
Professor Gros himsetf, namely, Petit-Dutaillis's (the famous French
medievalist who died recently) La Monarchie féodale en France et en
Agzgleterre.I begin with a citation from the introduction by Henri
Berr, page X, summarizing the general character of the author's \iews.
This says-I translate:
"At the outset of the period covered by this book, one only
finds seignories but not a State. The conception of a subject
has become lost, the King is no more than a 'superior suzerain'
at the summit a€ the 'feudal pyramid'. The kingship symbolizes
a title rather than a power ; it does not imply a kingdom: the
individual power of the King at the beginning is iil-assorted,
dispersed and incoherent. The kingdom will only corne into being
together with French unity little by little, particularly after the
victory over the English and the Albigenses."
Then turning tothe text itself, M. Petit-Dutaillis expressed the following
views on pages IO and 11 :
"The thing to do was to question the people of the country
and, for example, to ask them what jurisdictions were exercised
in their neighbourlioods. But the discussion was about justice
and overlordship, not about sovereignty, and the disputes were
inspired by feudal and not by national considerations. The feudal
idea was relatively clear, but the idea of the State, of the frontiers
of a State, of nationality, was shrouded in mist."
This last passage which 1 have just read to the Court shows the
way in which feudal relationships cut entirely acroçç what we should
nowadays cal1 national boundaries and had no direct connection with
sovereignty as we understand it to-day. They created an order of a
completely different kind. To such an extent was this true that, as
1 said, it was eren possible for kings to hold of their own subjects.
A striking example of this-which seems to us very pertinent in the
present connection-is to be found in the fact that the Oriflamme, which
became the, standard of the Kings of France, was only the banner
of a barony-a feudal barony-in respect of which those Kings of
France were actually tlie vasçals of the Abbey of St. Denis.
See pp. 313-326,292 REPLY OF PROF. WADE (u.K.)-2 X 53
A similar description is given by Augustin Fliche, another historian '
whornour opponents have cited in support of theirview. In his Histoire
du moyenâge,888-1125,he says-and 1 rcad from pages 165 and 166 :
"In France, as in Italy, the Royal prerogatives had almost
completely disappeared ; an Otto the Great was not to be found
who could restore monarchical authority. On the contrary, this
'did not cease to weaken as a reçult of a long penod of dynastic
struggles and the need, which the Carolingians and the Robertian
Kings found to alienate the few rights which they had been able to
retail in order to buy the support which was necessary to them.
On the other hand, there was nothing in France which resembled the
German Duchies : the kingdom was divided into twelve or fifteen
principalities,without any well-defined ethnic character, whose
chiefs, having assumed the titIes of Dukes, Rfarquises or Counts,
had very often gathered several Carolingian counties under their
domination. These were veritable States, governed by hereditary
dynasties and exercised the full powers of monarchs, less those
which they had granted to seigneurs of lesser importance. In any
case tlie King lost al1 power of control over them : indeed, only
a few of these kings were able to preserve for themselves the right
of nominating to a rare Bishopric. No one even thought of asking
from the King a Charter and his suzerainty [and I would ask the
Court to note these words particularly], though purely theoretical,
was not able to exact from these vassals, though they were descen--
dants of former Carolingian officials, any of the duties which came
under the heading of fidelity [the essence of the feurial tie]. The
seignorial répme had attained the height of its power : itwas a
long time before monarchy could re-conquer the rights which it
had successively abandoned."
1 now turn to Professor Gros's assertion that the Frankish Kings
exercised real power. 1take Say three historians (al1of national repute)
at diffcrent penods of time, in reference to what they Say about the
days of Charles the Simple and Louis IV d'Outre-Mer.
Michelet, in his first volume, at page 409,Histoirede France, dealing
with the alleged strength of Charles the Simple, who was finally deposed
and imprisoned by his rivals,says:
"Charles the Simple, recognized King in 899, by a large section
of those who had tried to exclude him, reigned first of al1for twenty-
two years without opposition. It was during this space of time
that he abandoned [the French word is abandonne] to the Norseman
chief Rollo al1his rights over the territory neighbouring the mouth
of the Seine."
It may be said by Professor Gros that Michelet, though a national and
not a mere provincial historian, was writing some time aga. What,
therefore, does Lavisse's history-in which an imposing array of French
professors collaborated-say ? 1 read a short extract from Volume 2
at page 401 :
, "The King [that is, Charles the Simple] abandoned a territory
which the barbarians occupied in actual faci foalong tirne." REPLY OF PROF. WADE (u.K.)-2 X 53 293
I-Iere, too, the professors seem at variance with the contention of
Professor Gros that '
"one cannot reasonabiy sustain that RolIo seized Normandy
by forceJ'.
Perhaps 1 may be permitted to remark how this French point of view
çeems to have persisted until it was abandoned in this Court a few days
ago. For, to take the evidence of a stillmore recent source (published
just before the last war), Professor Louis Walphen in hiç Pezlple et
CivilisatiV onls,e V, page 301, says this :
"Then [in 8851 began a long senes of operations which only
ended in gIr by tlieir [the Norsernen's] permanent installation
officially recognized on the two banks of the Lower Seine ...The
King of France, Charles the Simple, gave up trying to prevent the
inevitable and Normandy was already to a large part occupied
in 911,when a treaty concluded at Saint-Clair-sur-Epte betuieen
the Carolingians [thais,Charles the Simple] and the Scandinavian
chiefRollo transfonned into a legal state the factual state which,
thanks to circurnstances, the settlers from the North had been able
to create in the country whichtiil bears their name."
And one final short extract on this point. Professor Gros made a further
point that Louis IV "gave" to the infant Duke Richard (that is, the
son of William Longsword) once more the Duchy. ItwouId seem to
be more correct to Say that he tried to take it away from him. For,
to cite an .authority submitted by my opponents themselves, Philippe
Lauer, in hisLe RègnedeLouis IV d'Ozklre-Mer,wrote :
"Normandy was {rom 943 to 945 the cliief preoccupation of
Louis. The situation of the country gave him the opportunity
of developing the same activity he had already shown in regard
tothe events in Lorraine in939. The result was no more fortunate,
for after his captivity[Louis was defeated and captured by the
Norsernenl hisaction in this country \vas neutralized, andhis son
Lothaire never received even the hornage oDuke Richard."
And Lauer givesas his authority for this statementLes derniers Caro-
lingien ws,ose author, Lot, Professor Gros recognizes as a serious
histonan.
hlr.President, ifyou will allow me to do so,1 should like to stop rny
argument until this afternoon at that point.
[Public sittin Og Octobe rnd. 1953, after.lzoon]
Mr. President, Members of the Court, the Government of the Republic
has founded its contention that the original title to the Channel Islands
lies with France largely on the allegation that successive Dukes of
Normandy did homage to the French Kings, and it has been suggested
-indeed, rathet more than suggested-that, if this was so, these
Kings cannot have been so weak as we have argued that they were.
1 hope the Court will have seen from the passages which 1 have cited,
and will also see from the further passages which will be found in the
note which has now been deposited with the Court, that this view294 REPLY OF PROF. WhUE (u.K.)-2 X 53
represents a distortion of the position created by any homage which
the Dukes rnay have rendered to the French Kings. We do not seek
to deny that, from time to time, such homage was in fact rendered,
but ae do Say that it was rendered largely asa matter of policy and
convenience and that the recognition involved by the rendering of
homage was that of a stiperior in rank rather than of a sovereign in
a strict sense of the term. II may give one more citation fromLauer's
Le Rdgtte de Louis IV, page 93 ; he is dealing with the position that
William Longsword had been assassinated and was succeeded by
Richard, who was a minor. In these circumstances, according to Lauer.
it was the Norman Lords who did homage to the French King on
behalf of the rninor Duke Richard. Speaking of this, he says that
some of the Lords paid homage to Louis himself and some to Hughes
le Grand, Duke. of France. Thc author continues (and I now cite) :
"The hornage which they rendered was in any case only a
provisional measure. It was to be anticipated that, as soon as
their young Duke Iiad attained his majority, they would throw
off al1 foreign intervention and would exercise their autonomy
as in the past."
Similarly, Pégot-Ogier, another histonan who has been cited on behalf
of the French Govcrnment, shows quite clearly that Richard and
William's ancestor, Kollo, did homagc purely as a rnatter of policy.
In Histoire des Ues de la Manche, at page 70, Pégot-Ogier writes :
"When he wa the victor, Rollo did homage and the King
ceded territories to him."
The truth was that the Dukes of Kormandy and later the Kings
of England paid the Freiich Kings homage when it suited them or
when it was politic so to do. 1 give one or two examples of homage
being rendered by English Kïngs. Thus Eustache, son of Stephen
(whose title to the throne of England was doubtful), paid homage
for Normandy when it was in possession of his rival, Mathilda, the
daughter of Henry 1 af England, and her husband, the Count of Anjou.
Richard 1 of England paid homage when it suited him, and he did
not hesitate to refuse todo it. John did homage for Normandy when
his brother King Richard was captured (i.e. before he came to the
throiie), and he was conspiririg witlz Philip Augustus againçt him.
Thus, even in relation to continental Normandy, the title based
on suzerainty remained highly dubious, until Philip subdued that
territoryby force of arms after the arret and défi of 1202, which-
and I think both sides are agreed as to this-broke the feudal link.
Subsequently, so far as the Kings of England were concerned and
their other lands in France-there was no longer, of course, any
question of Norrnandy-Edward II paid no homage whatsoever.
.Edward 111 paid homage only twice before he himself claimed the
throne of France. And after Edward III no King of England paid
hornage for the holding of land in France at all. .
1 corne now to two questions :where is the evidence of any homage
or services being rendered by a Duke of Normandy to the French King
in respect ofthe Channel Islands, as distinct from Norrnandy itself ?
And secondly, when did a King of France enforce his rights inthese
islands, either by conquest or by the normal feudal method of distraint,if Iiis dues were not yaid to Iiim ? 1 suggcst that therc is no eïideiicc
of this before the Court becniise these matters never happencd, apnrt
of course, froni tlie xrery ternporary occup;~tion by force of arms iiitltc
years immediatcly succeedirig the loss of tlie mainland by John antl
for ;L\.Cr?:fe~ yenrs at the bcgiiining of the Hundred Yeiirs \Var. Tiiosc
two occupations me ha\,e rilways, of course, ailrnitted.
Xoïv it is clenr, ei-en oii tlie basis of a feuclal tie-ttie of suzerainty
-tliat letidal Iaw requires tliis : the conception of seisiii. 1 t requirecl
:~ctual pliysical rendering of homage and services for tlie criforcemeiit
of feudal obligations which were owed by a tenant to his oirerlord, just
as actual pliysical possessiori by a tenant was always riecessary to
perfect liisown riglit sigainst his lord uncler ;Igrant. 'rl~oseapplicatioiis
of the feucial tloctrine of çeisiri are, of course, a inatter of law about
wliich 1 do not tliiiik there is ariy dispute anions the authorities, ancl
I'rofessor Plucknctt in his book The Leglshrtioiaof Edwarrl I, at page jj,
acccpts that \rieiv aiid eniplinsixes it as beiiig orthodos feudal law. If
no 1:rcncli Kirig, tlien, cari tie sliown tu Iin\,e concluescc1tlie islands,
spart frorn tliosc two temporary phases of occupation, erlually no
111 1e reiidered liomage or seri-ices to a I<iiig of France in respect of Iiis
aiiccstors' coiicluest and coiitiniied possession of thosc islands. *flic
islands, in otlicr ivords, werc never Frencli,but from the ninth and tetitli
centuries they represented concluests of Xorsernen made hy Dukes of
Norinandy, as intie~iendt:nt i.ulcrs.
Now 1 was cliatleiiged to prodiice sorne eliderice for ttie Norse charactcr
of the occupatiori of the Lliannrt Islanrls, ;ilid tliat Xorserrien-and 1
ain preparcd to concede Bretons as well-lirid conquered these islands.
1 crin offcr somc evidence froiii tlie earliest island place names for tlie
Xorse ctiaracter of tlie occupation- of tlie Cliannel Islands, including ari
exp1;intltion of tlic riaine of tlie Ecréhoiiç tliernselves. l'lierwas vcry
receiitly publislicd (withiii tlie Last year or two) by a coriternyosnry
Iiistorian, Kalleinc-I concede tliat he is :L Jersey historian, a residen t
iiiJersey-a Iiistory of the island of Jersey and, rit page 26, Ive find
this reference to place names :
"Xow lvc hegin to fincl our earliest liliice narnes [tliis is Jersey],
Norse naines, given by tlic pirates as tliey sailed round tlie coasts.
I,'Etac, for exsmple, whicli in old clocuments is always spelt
'L'Estak'. is the Xorse word "slukh", whicli means "a high rock".
It iç repeated again ancl again on the Coast [çays tlie authorl-
.L'Etaquerel at St. Alartin's, Etaqiierel at St. Oueii's, the North
:tnd South Etacs off-Groiirille and the Gros Etncs off Ln Kocrluc.
Etoc is oiic of the Eci-khous."
1 will not troiible the Coiirt ~vitli more of tliat passage, but two more
esatnples follow, ii seriesof places connectcd ïvith tmo Xorse words-
Holrn and Gorroic. Bon in addition to that intcrestiiig citatioii, tlic
editor of tlic publications of the Englisli l'lace -3anles Society lias
iriforrried us tliat tlie derivation of the worcl "Ecréiious" is indeed
Scaridinaviaii, tlie terni "ecrc" ineaning a siiiall ploughecl Lieldand tlie
"hos" or "holi" bcing deri\.ecl frorn the terrii "ltnrtgie".nieaiiing a hillock.
(A small ploughed islanrl or Iiillock in tlie sea, 1 suppose, ,is the idea.)
This seems to iridicate tliat nt any rate at one time the Ecréhous did
not consist of rnere barre11 rocks : thougli i take this opportunity of
rcrnoving one iniscoriception whicli 1 ha1.c createcl in the mincis of iiiy
20296 KEP1.Y OF PROF. WA1313(u.K.)-2 S j3
opponents-1 never said in rny openini speecfi that petty Norse Kings
set up courts on these barren rocks. If I said it, 1 made a miçtake;
what I intended to Say was that the Korse chieftains occuyied the
Channel Islands as riivhole.
Now the only concrete argumeiit which has been advanced in siipport
of the view that the Dukes did homage of the Channel Islands is that
given on page 208 of the transcript of Professor Gros's speech, whcrc he
quotes the chronicler Flodoard as stating that the Frcnch King gave
the Duke (1 quote Latin mords now) : "terrnmBritlonam inora marilima
sitam". He deduces that what he calls this maritime territory of the
Bretons (the translation that Professor Gros gives to that Latin phrase)
must have comprised the Channel Islands. Therc is,however, 1 suggest,
no particular reason for interpreting the phrase "terrum Rriitonam i~z
ora maritinta sitanz" as covering an archipelago of islands in respect of
which one would have sitpposed a different Latin phrase. The natural
translation of "ora maritirna", 1 suggest, would be "the shore" of "the
coast", and jt would primarily apply to the coastal districts or the
mainland. Jly own translation would be "Breton territory sited dong
the coast".
Obviously, Mr. I'resident, a grcat deal of obscurity surrounds and
must surround qucstionç of this sort at this distance of time. We woiild
not presunie to say that our view is necessarily unassailable. We can
only say thar it obviously has a considerable amount of reputable
authority to support it, And I submit to the Court in the first place
that, in the circumstances, Our thesis of title acquired by conquest of
the Channel Islands isquite as likelytobe tme as that ofour opponents.
And 1 rnake a second submission : that the Court can hardly regard as
satisfactory aclaim ta ancient titlc to the Channel Islands, and in conse-
quence to the Minquiers and the Écréhous ; one that is based on such
considerable uncertainties, particularly when it is an ancient titlc of
this kind, unsupported by hardly any other subsequcnt acts, whicii is
put forward as virtually the sole foundation of the whole French clairn
to sovereignty.
1 pass next to the consequences of the Judgment of 1202. Every
argument that the Government of the Republic has put forwarcl presup-
poses that the Channel Islands were s feudal entity under the suzerainty
of the French King, and remained in that condition unless detached in
some way. In particular, since John held al1 the islands in 120-and
this is not queçtioned-our opponents would argue that they al1pagsed
to Philip in1202 under the alleged forfeiture, the date when Norm:indy
did pass to him. Our opponents' arguments thereforc, if ualid, u'ould
enable them under an original title based oii suzerainty to claim Jersey,
Guernsey, Alderney and al1the other islands, and we ask ourselves and
wc ask the Court, why iç it that they do not daim them-mhy arc
the Minquiers and the Ecréhous treated differently from the lnrger
islands ? Now Professor Gros said-and 1 think 1 understood his answet
aright-because there was a dismemberment after the Judgrnent
of 1202. AS a reçult, of thiç dismemberment, he says, a distinction
was established. Some of the islands-the major islands-remained
English, and as regards them no more, of course, is heard of the plea
of suzerainty. Some of the lesser islands, however, the argument runs,
are said to have become French, but I am entitled to ask : where is
the evidence of this split in the islandsIt is admitted as a fact by the REI'I,Y OF PROF. \VAI>E (u.K.)-2 S 53 '97
Goverriment of tlie liepublic t1i;it the Minquiers ;ilithe Ecrtihous, and ,
indeed tlie Cliausey, were il1 English hnnds before IZOZ-equally with
Jersey, Guernsey aiid Alderney. By what process, theii, does the position
become reversed as regards these three groups of islands and these three
groups of islands only ?'In my submission it is clearly for the Govern-
melit of the Republic and not for the Government of the United King- .
dom to show hoxv thiç came about. The Government of the Republic
have shown it in the case of Chavçey. They lia\-e not shown it in the
case of the Minquiers and the Ecréhous. IlTeneed not, for present
purposes, argue at esactly wliat date tlie Chausey pasçecl finally into
French l~ands. We know thüt it did so, iind in the reply a considerable
time wns spent in this Court the othcr tlay in describing to the Court
tlie process by wliich tiiis transfer of thc Cliausey took place. If then
:isimilar transfer took place in the case of the Alinquiers and the Ecré-
hous, ~'113 ~s it that the Government of the Kepriblic is un:~bleto tell
the Court by what e\-ents thnt transfcr of the hlinqiiiers anclthe Ecré-
lious took place ?
Surely, 'rir. Yresident, tlie simple and obvious answer is tliat the
transfer liever did take place, for tlierc would certainly be some
evidence of it, as ttiere is plerity of elfidence of it inthe case of the
Chausey.
Perliaps the argument of oux oppoiients could be put in another
way. Sirice, as tliey allege, n dismeinberment of French suzerairity
alone gave the Eiiglish Crown Jersey, we must show that a dismem-
bermeiit in our favour alsq took place as regards Jersey's depçndcncies
of the Minquiers and the Ecréhous. The object of this line of argument
is to escape from the dilemma which the suzerainty basis of titIe
forces on our oppoiierits when seeking to establiçh title to the minor
islands, the Mincliiiers and l<créhous group alone. The Government
of the Repiiblic has got to show why it is that, although it cannot,
on the basis of original French suzerainty, claim Jersey, Guernsey .
and -4lclerney, and the other islands to-day, yet they can nevcrtheless
clairn the Mincluiers and the Gcrél!ous. In fact, there corilcl only be
one valicl basis for such a claim, alid, tliat would be if it colrld be
shown tliat the Minquiers and the Ecrkhous, iiiilike al1 tlie otlier
Channel Islands, al1 the major islands, Iiad i~ot remained in English
hands, but like the Chausey, had passed into Ifrench hands. Kow
obviously, this has not been proved iri the proceedings before this
Court, and it iç surel for the Government of the Republic to prove
it, and not for us. Tf? may repeat, there was a situation of fqct hefore
1202-a situation that inclucled the Minquiers and the EcrChous.
That situation of fact, in Our contention, esists to-day except as
regards the Chausey. When and how did it ceasc to exist ;is regards
the Minquiers and tlie EcrChous ?
Yow, hlr, President, not only is there no concretc evidence of such
a change, but 1 contend that al1the probabilities are against it. 1have .
iilready drawn attention in my previous speech to the prevailing
naval and inilitary situationafter the troubled tiine of 1202 onwards.
1 should likenoiv togive some citations from French historians whicli
very strongly reinforce the \*ie\vthat no dismemberment of the entity
of the islands occurred after 1202. Indeed, the Govemment of the
Republic does not claim this, except eventually in respect of Chausey.
One point which al1 these historians stress is the determination of the2g8 REPLY OF PROF. WADE (u.K.)-2 X 53
Channel Islanders tliemselveç to reniain independent çubject to tlieir
attachmcrit tu tlie E?agJzsk Crown. Tt rtrasthjs determination above
al1 whicli ensured the non-succcss of the vnrious 1;retich attempts
after 1204, and again at the beginning of the Hundred Years War, to
take the islands. 1 begin with a citation from Gibon, taken frotn an
article iiiLe Pays de Grapville for January, 1910, and 1 lirive a little
more confidence in putting forward Le Pays de Gru~zzlillebecause it
was put birward by E'rofessor Gros in nilotlier context. On page 255
jve find tlic following :
"AL>oïe al1 [I now cite) the renson uras. as in othcr ages unfor-
tunately, the insufficiency of our Navy which prevcnted Yhilip
Aug~istus frotn profiting by circumstances in order to keep iii
tlie same Iiand as Normandy al1 tliiç arcliipelago which was iii
tlie nature of its natural estension. Successors of I'hilip Augustris
did not trouble thernselves siifficiently about the Clianiièl Islands.
Before as well as after the Hundred Years \Var tlie attempts
tlieyrnade (and there were a certain number) were ~ic\~ersustained
as was necessary. ITinally, we must take irito account the feeling
of attachmeiit for the EngIish King-llitkes wliicli was deeply
rootecl in the hearts of the Islanders ; and their iiidividuality.
founded on a basis of independence. disco\.ered iiioreover ttic
greatcst advantage in such a position."
In riiy opening speecli I cited Besnier, Professor oi History at Caen,
as saying tliat the islands were detached from Normandy in fact in
1204 and in law by the Treaty of 1217, but I did not continue tliat
passage, and I no\\- do so. It istaken from page 736 of his article iri
Volume jC;of Retizte Aistoriqrrin 1934. The passage continues :
"'l'liey [that is, the Channel Islariders] struggled to assert tlieir
traditionai pri\rilcges. Firçtof al1 tliey succeeded iii heing treatcd
as remnants of ttie vanished Uuchy, linked to the King of England
iri hiscapacity :is Duke of Normandy and not in his capacity
as tlie English sovereign. Tlie legal proceedings [tliat is, the qzio
wurrunto proceedings] of 1248,1308 and 133~ show that tlie
Islaiiders in the end attained moreover :Lreally administrative,
firiancial,judicial and evcn rnilitary nutonomy. However, tlicy
did iiot succecd in gaining the legislative power wliich was less
necessary ai a time when disputes were settled on the basis of
custotn and equity."
And firially a tliird short passage froni Pcrrot, a work eiititlecl
Deux e.rf4ditiojtifisltlaires françaises(p. 16) :
"\\'bat emerges from a study of tliis Iiistory of tlie islaiicls
tlirougliout tlie whole period is the desperate and fine energy
with which the inhabitants deferideci tlieir iridependence. They
werc, it is true, under the protectioii of England, but the latter
had given a kind of autonomy and did not intei'fere in tiicii-
interna1 affairs but contented herseli witli regardirig ttiem as free
islands, which she {vas obliged to defend by her arms agninst
any action undertaken by their neighbours."
I now fiass to the question of the treaties, whicli, WC claim in our
opening speech, confirmed de factoand de jatr~our title to the Channel REP1.Y OF PROF. WADE (u.K.)-2 S 53 *99
Islands. 'The Government of the Kepublic admits that the effect of
the Judgrnent of 1202 was to break the feudal link between the French
King and the English King, thougii it is contcnded, of course, by tliem
that it only did so in the sense of the return to the King of France of
al1 the fiefs held of tlie Kingdom of Franceby the Duke of Xormantly.
In fact, however, we know that this return only took place in so far as
Philip was able to enforce the Judgment by actually taking possession
hy force of arms, if need beThe feudal link itsclf was not rc-cstablished
until the 'Trcaty of1259 ,nd then only in respect of certain territories
which in our contention quite clearly, on the true construction of the
Treaty of 1259 (the 'I'reatyof Paris), did not include aily of the Chaiinel
Islands.
But before I come to the 'freaty of Paris, to which 1 entirely agree
great importance is rightly attachcd in this controversy, 1 ~nust say
something about the 'I'reaty of Lambeth of 1217. The suggestion made
h!. Professor Gros \vas that this Treaty can be disregardcd because it
was signcd by Louis, son of thc French King, and not by the King
himself, and that it therefore lacked validity. 1find it dificilit, &IrPresi-
dent, to take that suggestion ai al1 seriousty, hccause, as 1 said beforc,
this Treaty haç to he read in thc light of tlie political and military
situation which existed at tlie time it was made. .41id what was that
situation ? It foHowed ulion thc English naval victones of Damrne aiid
Sandwich and on a pcriod of some twelve years, diiring which the French
liad made strenuous attempts to obtain possession of the Chanricl
Islands. 'l'he real point of the Treatywas this: sorne of the Channel
Islands iri rz17 were still in the tiands of tlic brotherç or follou~eof
a man called Eustace the Monk ; he was formerly in thc service of the
King of England, but he had deserted to thc French in the course of
the fighting for the islands. The 'Treaty involvcd a definite undertaking,
which 1 shall show in a moment was carriecl out, that these followers
of Eiiçtacc would be withdrawn liy the French. The Treaty contains a
condition for the restoration of the islands on the part of the followers
of Eustacc under pain of outlawry if they failed to do so-if they failed
to restore the islands ta the English King. Now Professor Gros said-
and it is my contention that hc was not correct in saying this-that
iri thc event of disobedience to this order of rcstoring the içlands to the
French King, the islands were to remain oiitside the provisions of the
13eaceTreaty, tvhich mcant that they would rernain with France. Bow
the words used-and 1 quote fronl the printed text given in Rymcr's
Foedera (the words are of coursc in Latin) :"sint extra pacenz istam",
i.e. outside this peacc, i.e. the peace of Loiiis who made the Treaty,
if the followers of Eiistace disoheyed this condition. 'Those words are
words which I understand are commonly used for the imposition of
oirtlawry. ln no sense is it true, then, as has been suggested to the
Court, that the Treaty of Lambeth states explicitly that the islands
had eluded the King of Englarid. 'The only basis for that suggestion is
the interpretation of those words "outside this peace" as tneaning that
-as Professor Gros said-the islands were to be oiitside the provisions
of the Peace Treaty. But iny contention is that those words mean, and
caii only mean, "outside this [the Dauphin of France's] peace", that
the followers of Eustace would he outlawed by their King if they did
not carry oiit the condition which he had irnposed in thc Trcaty. There
is a passage from Pégot-Ogier, oiic of the works which has been citedto the Court on behalf of the Governrnent of the Republic, on page 189
of Histoire des ?*lese la Manche. The Philippe d'Aubigny, who is men-
tioned in the cxtract, 1 shoiild explain, was anEnglish Adiniral. He hacl
commanded thc English flect which won the battle of Sandwich shortly
before the Treaty of Lambeth, and at the time of the 'Ureatyof Lambctfi
he had been arpointed by the King as \trardcn of the Channel Islands.
He was the king of England's Warden of the Channel Islands. XOH,
the passage is this :
"The archipelago was to he evaciiated by the French iii virtue
of the 'Trcaty signecl liy Louis of France. Philippe d'Aiit>igiiy
assumed cliarge of the esecution of this provisioii in the narnc of
Henrb- II1, who \vas a minor. By the 24th January 1218 he Iiad
retaken Jersey; by the 13th Februüry Guernsey, Alderney arzd
Sark. Two instniments prove this afficially-.Kothing is known as to
wliat becarne of the young Eustace. It is certain that there was rio
resi~tance, for the Icast actions ofthe Admiral were reportecl witli
care, and Eustacc had probably abnndoned the islands which it
was no loiiger possible to defend contrary to tlic wishes of tlicir
inhabitants.
The effective taking of yosscssioii of the islands [that is, bÿthe
English] resulted frorn aiiact of I?ehruary 1219 ordering Ievy of
the hdf tax, which was due to the Dukes of Xorniandy every threc
years..,.
In 1219 Philippe, iiephcw of the Adrniral, is made Warde~i of
the archipelago, his iincle leaving for the Holy Land. On the
rSth February 1220, a contribution towards ltis pilgrimnge iis
demaiided on the retliicst of the King froni tlic worthies of the
islands."
It seems incoiiceivablc in the circuriistances that this eryulsioi~ of
the follomers of Eustace from the islands zliould iiot have exterrcled
to, and have included, the Minquiers and the Ecréhous. 1have mentioncd
in some little detail this matter of tlic Treaty of1217 because itis orily
iri thelight of the situation created by that Treaty that the Treaty of
Paris of 12jg iniist be aypreciated. Taken in conjunction with the varioiis
acts relativeto the Channel Islands whicli were referred to in rny previous
speech, where 1 selected three events in this intervenirig period between
1217 and 1259 as eniphaçizing the English King's position in the islands.
and other acts which are mentioned iri our pleadings. tliere can, itiiiiy
submission, he no doubt at ail that nt the date of the Treaty of 1259
all the Channel Islands Iiad heen frilly restored to English hnnds for
over forty years.
The Treaty of Pans is the first full treaty after tlic unclialleiiged
possessiori~ofthe Channel Islands had I~cen secriredby theEnglish Kirigs.
Not urinatiirally, Professor Gros attaches importance to this docurnciit.
If he can establish the interpretation which he offcred to the Coiirt
thc other day, it would then becorne unnecessary for Iiirn, as 1 sec it,
to rely on the dubious feudal suzerainty to establish the French origiiial
title.
Nr. President, 1 taok iip a good deal of the time of the Court on the
previous occüsioii in submitting my vicwç as to the interpretation of
the relevant Articles, 4 and 6, and tlic Court will find my argument
reproduced at pages IIj and 116 of the pririted procccdings. And 1do REPLY OF PROF. AT;\»E (u.K.)-2 9 53 30r
tiot venture to-day to repeat that argument ; 1 am quite content, if I
inay say so, for the Court to weigh the construction of ArticIcs 4 and 6
which 1 offered there, against the reading of the text which Professor
Gros has since offered : and I am hopcful that the comparison will show
that my interpretation is not merely far sirnpIer but is more probable.
Perhaps 1 might be allowed to recall to the Court that my argument
wüs based on the following points : 1 will do so, iI may, (luite briefly.
Tlie text of the Treaty is to be foiinas Annex A I of the United King-
dom Mernorial, pages 14- and 143T.he Court will remember that the first
point I made waçthis : the Channel Islands, despitestrenuous attempts
hy the French Kings, were definitely not conquered and held by the
French after 1202. Al1 the evidence is that aftera temporary period of
occupation, they reverted to and reniained possessions of the Kings of
England. Secondly, thnt although Article 4 of the Treaty relates to
islands, if any there be, which the King of England holds which are of
the realm of France, it is clear from the context of Article4 that these
islancls refer onltoislands in the Bay of Biscay-to the West of France,
ariiliiotiçlands to the North of France. That, in very siirnmary forni.
\vas iny interliretation of Article 4.
1hope 1 am not doing Professor Cros anj- injustice if 1 say that he
seems tobrush aside the geographical factor which points to the islands
referred to as being off the West coast of France : islands held by the
English King as Peer of France and Duke of Aquitaine. And reading
his argument in the transcript, I should like to siiggest to him that he
linsstated incorrectly that we contended in our Reply that Article 4
was concerncd with the Channel Islands. 1 have studied our Reyly vcry
carefully in the light of what Professor Gros said, and 1 caii only arrive
:it the conclusioi that we said precisely the opposite in paragraphs 123-
125 in thc Keply of the United Kingdom Government in the writtcn
plcadings.
Now turning to Article 6, that Article, as the Court knows, dealt.only
with what tlieKing of England renounced, as distinct from Article 4,
lvliich dealt witli what the King of England was to hold. Now so far
as it related to islands, the King of ISngland gave up only the isla~ids
"if any are held by us or by Our brottier, or by otherç in Our or their
belialf and al1arrearsM-in other words, the King of England only gave
up the islands if any there were wliich were heid by the French King
or by his brother or by pcrsons on tlic French King's behalf. Thnt the
Cliannel Islands were not so held is, in my subrnission, perfectly clear,
evcn if we were to accépt the view that there waç some doubt about
the Treaty of Lambeth, because tliere is no doubt that the ~ttempts
to wrest the Channel Islands from King John ceased by 1218 and were
not renewed for ~zp years. Kow if niy opponent coula show that the
Minquiers and the Ecréhous were in a different situation from that and
that they were held by the French King at any time during that period,
tben liewould adrnittedly be in a strong position. but 1 Say again, there
is no evidence before tlie Court to show thai the Minquiers and the
Ecrthous were escepted from this situation. So even aprt from the
confirrnation by this Treaty, this loiig possession was sufficient to confer
title, as we kriow it did, in the case of the larger Cliannel Islands.
Therefore, during this period contiiiuous and effective possession by
tlie'English Kings extends from 1217, interrupted for a few years at
the begintiing of the Hundred Yearç Cirar, resumed again in 1345 ,nd302 REPLY OF PROF. \?TADE (u.K.)-2 X 53
it bas continued riglit down to the present day. And in tliat period
there is this confirmatioii to be deduced from wiiat 1 submit is the
correct reading of the Treaty of Paris, that the Channel Islands must
ha\-e been part of the possessions of the King of England. By the
standards of~noderninternational law, tli,is,surely, shouldbc conclusi\re,
unless-nnii 1 apologize for kceping I~irping back to this point, but 1
do think that it is vital to the case-unless the Government of the
Kepublic can show that this continuoiis and effective possession for
some reason still unexplained did not npply to the Minquiers and the
Ecrklious. If,as the result of tlie attempts by the French on the Channel
Islands ;it the bcginning of the thirtceiith ceritury and agiin at tlie
beginriing of the Hundred Years \Var, the Minquiers and the Ecréhoiis
had rernained in French haiids, we contend that there mtist ha1.e been
some cvidence of this, whereas in fact there is absolutely none.
The next treaty about whicli 1 rnust Say a word, RiIr. l'resident, is
the 'l'rcaty of 13rétigny(Calais) of 1360 (we have printed it under the
title of the Treaty of Calais as Annes 1, orrather we have printed tlie
vital article, tlieonly one that Professor Gros and T ha1.e discussed
before the Court). 'Thevital phrase is the one in Articl6, which provides
that tlie K.ing of Eiigland and 1iis successors sliall have aiid hold al1
the "islands adjacent to tlie lands, the countrics and places abovc
namecl, togethet with nli oiherislarzdsmhzch the King O/ Errgland now
holds". Now the obvious meaning of tliat phraseology, in my submission,
isthat it is confirming the title of the English King tal1tlie islands tlieii
held by Iiirri.Against that, Professor Gros says that to say that the King
of England skall hokdail the islands wliich Iiedoesholdwnulcl be a fonnula
entirely devoid of meaning. but, 1ask tlie Court, is thatso?'I'liemeaning
seems clear-the King of England was confirmed by this formal docu-
ment-was confirmcd in tlie possession of what lie actually held. Provi-
sions of tliis kind were common form in treaties of peace, and that is
really al1that 1have to say about the inntter. Here is a coInmon formiila
in a treaty of peace, confirming existing holdings. The other esplan at'ioii
which was offered to the Court by my opponent was why tlie Channel
Islands were not tnentionerl by riame. M'el1iiow, that explanation was not
supported by ariy referericc to authority and again, looking at the
poIitical background, 1 find it so improbable that 1 cannot accept it.
(;iverithe recent defeats of tlie French and tlic fact that the King of
I'rancc was, at tliistime, actually a yisoner in English hands, it really
cannot be supposed that the King of England wanted to reserve the
right to claim islands on which he had not pet established himself and
which might elude him. But that was the esplanation that Professor
Gros offered. The King of England wanted to rescrve the right to claiin
the islands on which he had not yet establishcd himself aiiclwhich migtit
elude him. Surely, Mr. President , the simple reasori why tlic islandswere
not mentioiied by narne was, as I have been trying to show throughoiit
this afternoon, that they were held by Engiand. Not only at this time
was the King of France a prisoner of the King of England ;Normaridy
was virtually in Iiis hands, and even Reims was being besieged by the
forces of the English King. Now 1will refrain at this point from quotiiig
any French historians on the state of l'rance at this time because the-
are al1 agreed tliat the state of France was desperate. So far as, the
Channel Islands were concerned, al1 of them :tt this time urcre in tlie
English King's possession. 'l'iie nest point upon whjcli Professor Cros and 1 diffcr \vas witfi
regard to the p:issing of the feudal system. 1 was particularly carefiil
irimy original speech (1 refer to p. 121) no1 to give any partjcular
date for ttiis cvcnt-the pnssing of tlie feudal systcrn-for it was
oh~~iouslya gracliini procass. 1dicl give a date, 1said that the traditional
date from the point of view of prescribiiig periods of stiidy of history
nt tlie end of the Middle Ages was i4Sj, but 1did not Say, or 1 certairily
dirl not intend to convey, tliat I was pin-pointing to 14Sj as being
the encl of the feudal system. But obviously the eiid of the feuclal
systern was a gradua1 process, and what we do know is that at soiiie
point the systerri did pass away aiid witli it iiecessarily al1 riglits
wliich had a piircly feudal basis. And so 1 repeat our coiitention that,
witli the passing of the feudat system, unless the original French title,
based on notliing but feudal siizerainty, tiad, at the tinie of the passing
of tlie feudal systein, been superseded by some other hasis of title-
as a treaty, or cession, or effective possession anci control-
such
coiiquest-then ttiis original title, the suzerainty title, the title, that
depended entirely on feudal considerations, must ha1.e lapsed. Now
the answer offerecl on belialf of the Governnient of the Kepublic was
to mention, in particular, the cxamplc of the Republic of Andorra.
\Yc were told, and 1 have no reason to cluestion it, that tfie Presidents
of the French liepublic have succeeded to the ancient rights of the
Coiirits of ITois. 13utif the Prcsidents of the French Rcpublic, succeeding
to the rights of tfie French Kings, who in turn succeedecl to the ancient
rigtits of the Counts of Fois-if they have succeeded to those ancieiit
rights, surely it is precisely because the French Kings, rind noul, in
siicccssion, the French Presidents, became sovereign and directty
sovereign-tiot on a feuda! basis, but on the basis of central admiii-
istration from Paris-ovcr thc territory ttiat was forinerly within the
jurisdiction of the Lounts of Fois. Sow that is precisely what has
never happened in the case of the Channel Islands. There are nom-
and this has been a state extending over many hundreds of years
now-there are now no feudal rights, and therefore, unless the allegecl
ITrencli title to the Channel Islands can bc sliown to have some otfier
hasis to-day t1i;iii tliat oa purcly feudal right, then, iri tny submission,
it cxnnot possibly esist.
1 now turn ta .anotIier tnatter. Lnoted that Professor Gras &d not
offer the Court an alternative explanation to the admission that \vas
made by the Abbot of Mont-St.-Michel, and secondly-this was not
titi:idmission-to an actual ruling of the Court of tlie French King
-botli of which stated that thc Chausey were in regito (ittglie. Tliose
wcre tlie matters in the first iialf of the fourteenth century. In dealing
witli this question of Chausey, Professor Gros concentrated on the
cluestion of the validity of the Papal Rull of Alexander VI, very miicli
Iater, I500. Now, it is my contention that the 1-alidity of the Bull-
aiiri if 1 understand him aright he questioned both its authenticity
niict its validity-surely those niattcrs, particularly the validity of
ttie 131111i, not tlie point. M'liether the I'apal Rull was technically
valid or not, arid wliether the transfer of the Channel Islands whicli
ttiat Bull decreed from the riiocese of Coutrinces to the diocese of
\Vinchester, wl-iether it actually took place and, if so, when, are not
so important as the fact that fiere is this document offering evidence
of the fact tliat al1 the (;hnniicl Islands, iiicluding Chausey, arid there- 3O-C REPL\- OF PROF. \\'\.'AO(u.I<.)-3 X 53
fore a fortio groups much closer to Jersey-tlie Minquiers and the
Écréhous-were placed on record in Ijoû, as they had beeii both bu
thc French Abbot and by the decree of the Corirt 170 years earlier,
as being in English hands, and the phraseology u7as sz~bsttofemfiorali
donzinio of King Henry VI1 of England-under the temporal rule
of King Heiiry VIT of Englünd. So it seems to me that tliis disposes
of the poiiit tliat the çovereignty of the King of England cannot be
cleduced from the terrns of the ISuIl, unless. of course, Professor Gros
-alid I do not think he intended to-wanted to suggest this to the
Court, unless he was going to say tlie whole document was ri fake-
but here is a document of ail official character which states that this
arca, the Cliausey, are under tlie temporal dorriinion of tlic King of
England. Al-id if temporal dominion is not ecluivalent to sovereignty,
I do not know what is. Sow on the question of validity, cven if the
EuIl was never acted upori as regards the Chausey-as Professor Gros
stntes-there is no doubt whatever that it was operative soinc years
later inthe case of al1 the otlier Channel Islaiidsnamecl in it,Jersey,
Gtiernsey, Alderney, Herm and Sarli, tlie five otliers namecl along
with Chausey in the document. And this trrinsfer to the diocese of
\Vinchester of tlicsefi\-named Channel Islnnds is actually iii opcration
ilow, in 1gj3:they remain nttached to the Englisli diocesc presided
oieer by the Bisliop of IVinchester. Altliougti I think the historians
are agreed that the Bull was not put into operation immediately,
its terrns were put into operation cventually by tlie intervention of .
lclizabeth I of England, and that \!,as done by ridocument referred
to in this sliort extract from Sélosse's book L'fl de Serk (1 translate
froni p. 28). Dealing with tliis ecclesiastical situation created by the
13111a1nd its non-fulfilment iri certain areas, lie snys :
"Tlie situatioii was too paradosicai tobe allowed to be coiitinued
any longer ; a letter of Queen Elizabeth, dated rjth ùlarcli156S,
put ari end to it by dedaring the isIands to be for cver separated
froni tlie bisliopricof Coritances aiirl attachecl to tl~cbishopric
of Wincliester."
Mr. President, my next section is ratlier longer-considcrably longer
thaii most of the sections uith which I haire been dealing this afternoon
+because 1 shall there be dealing with tlie interpretatioiiby the French
experts of the gant in frankalmoin-1 leavc rnyself in tlie hands of
the Court as to whether 1 should start tliat this evening or mhetlicr
thcy woultl prcfer me to rcsiime tliere to-inorrnu~ niorriing.
3Ir. President. in my speech yesterday, I dealt mainly with the oral
arguments of the Government of the Kepublic relating to suzerainty,
to the alleged dismcmberment of the Channel Island?, and conimcrited
oii the failurc to separate thc hfincliiiers aiidthe Ecrélious frorn the
Channel Islaiids, and finally with the treaties and their application to
tlre Channel Islands.
This morning 1 start ail ,argument or1 a point of law which relates
spccificallyto title to the Ecréhous. I will csamine the interprctation
bj. the French experts of the grant in frankalmoin by Piers to the RE1'Ls OF PROF. WhDE (u.K.)-3 S 53 305
Abbey of Val Riclicr in rzoj. That is the document wiiich .bas been
refcrred to so often iiithese ~iroceedings, rcproduced on pages 155 ancl
Ij6 of thc Annex to our Nemorial-Anne'; 7-and 1 shall referas 1go
dong to the text.
Professor Gros contended that the grant \vas of such a nature that
Piers ceased to have any interest iri the land, and that tlie result of this
was to leave the grantee-that is,the Abbey of Val Richer-in direct
feudal relationsliip with King John as Dukc of Kormündy. He argued
that when, in. 1204, John, in thc capacity of Duke of Normandy, lost
continental Sorrnandlv, where Val Richer \vas situated, the Abbey
thencefortli IieId the Ecréhous directly of the French King, ~vho hnd
succeeded by concluest to the Duke of Korrnandy with regard to
Normaridjr itself. This argument, to a lawycr trained in property law,
seems untenablc, bccause it involves substitution, whereas such 3.grünt
at this date had to btby way of sub-infeudation. The argument dcpends
on two points. The first point which Professor Gros took was the allcged
failure bj.the grantor of this Charter of1303, Piers de Préaris, to reserve
in the Charter any interest for himçelf in tnaking thc grant in franlal-
moin. If the Court will bc good enough to refer again to the Charter,
and pirticularly to the passage beginning :it line'6 of thc printed test
(the translation on 11.15j), it will see that Piers expressly reserved tlie
following services : narnely, in order, that divine mysteries be daily
celebrated there in the Priory on the Ecréhous, for the salvation of the
sou1 of John, but also for the sozrls of lzimself [Piers] ond of his luther
and moltier ad ull hisaxcestor.~ . ow thosc, Mr. Prcsideiit, were tlic
only scrviccs which Piers could have reserved in a grant iii frankalmoiri :
yet the Court is asked by the Government of the Republic to Say that
Fiers, the grantor, reserved no rights for himself, whereas the trtic
position, 1 subrnit, is that he reserved for himself and in respect of his
relatives the only services which he coiild have reserved iri a grant of
this character. If 1 am right in tliat contention, the whole foundation
for the claim that the Abbey of Val Richer held the land free from
services owed to Piers falls to the ground. There is,I contend, no reason
whatcver for interpreting this particular grant as anything more than
an ordinary grant in frankalmoin by sub-infeudation, wtiéreby services
werc reserved for John, the overlord of the grantor-prayers for tlie
salvation of the sou1 of John, illustrious King of England-and aiso
for the graiitor, Piers himself-prayers for him and his father and
mother and his ancestors ; the ordinary formula in siich cases. Them
was thcri no break in the three links of the feudal chain which bound,
first, theAbbey of Val Richer to Piers, and then Piers to King John of
England. There is rüiother point which ha5 not so far been inentioiicd
in thesc proceedings :Piers could himself have claimcd enforcement iti
an ecclesiastical court if the Abbot had failcd in performing the divine
mysterics to prap for the salvation, lirst, of the King, and sccondly, of
the grantor. 1 support that proposition by cititig once more from Mait-
land-page 35 of his Co~~stitutionalHistovy, wfiere he begins his descrip-
tion of the varioiis feudal tenrires by dealing first with frankalrnoin.
I now read the test :
"1 mention frankalmoign first ;it can be very hricfly dismisscd,
but is instructive as showirig how far thc theory of tenurc has
heeti pressed. Soinetimes religious bodies and religious yersons,306 REPLY OF PKOF. iV.4DE (u.K.)-3 S 53
monasteries, bishops, Parsons, hold land for which they do no
earthlg service to tlie lord. They are said to hold by way of free
alms, free charity, +Y libfiram elemosytzam, in fraiikalmoign. The
theory of tenure, however, is saved by the doctrinc that thcy owe
spiritual service, that they are bound to pray for the sou1 of the
donor who has given them this land, and this duty can he enforccd
hy spiritilal censures in the ecclesiastical courts."
My second puiiit is tliis. I.'rofessor Gros cited Tardif(The Cttsfo~lzof
Normandy) for the proposition tliat land lield in a11risby ;Lcliurcli caiitiot
bc burdened witli sen-ice (servitizrm) wliicli is of the essence of a fief.
His comment was that this is in sharp contradistirictioii to the notion
of rifee and tlierefore to siib-infeudatioii. Eow it \vas of tlie essciice of
a fief held of spiritual tenures that ccclesiastical, but not lay services,
wcre renderecl-as tlie pcissage which I lia\re just read to the Loiirt
confirins. Xow tlie C;overiirnentof the 12epribliclias ~tclrnitted thit tliis
grnnt to Piers by the Abbey of Val Kiclier tlid create a feuclal teriiire.
'I'ti;itwas deniecl in tlie Counter-Mernorial in tlie writteii pleadings but
conceded in the Reply. I%utthei-e could iiot. in fact, be siich athinp as
a fcudal teiiurc wflich was not the tenure of a fief, wheilierthe sen-ices
wcrc lay or spiritual. It must then be decluced tliat, iiitlie passage to
wliicli Professot- Gros referrccl, 'I'srdif \vas referring ciiily to lay services
ancl did not include sliiritual services when he said tli~~tland lield in
alr~isby a church could not be burdenedby services. It follows tliat as
in the case of al! other feudal tenures, tenure in frankalmoiil could only
be created by way of sub-infeudatioii and tliat iiecessarily left the graritor
-in this case, I'iers-as the intermediate link in tlie feudal cliaiii.
'l'lie liiik was Piers, in the iniddle of tlie tliree links of tlie chaiii, wlio
reniained bouncl to John who had granted him the land hy the Charter
of 1200, and by the Charter of 1203, he himself (Piers) was linked to
.the Abbey of Val Kicher. Correspondingly, the Abbey of Val Kictier
owed him (Piers) services.
Now \vlic:n tlie Irrencli argument snys tliat servitiilrit (service) is of
tlic essence oCa fief, 1 must point out ttiat this was not riecessarily so.
'I'licessence of a fief in the feudal system was the personri1 relationsliip
between lord aiid tenant, and a fief esisted even if the services were
piirely naminal. And if any confirmatioii of that be iieeded, trie Court
cari,fiiid itin tlie contentions whicli my opponents have put fonvnrd
witli regard to the rendering of homage.
So far was tlie Norman custom from being in aiiy ivc~ycontrary to
thc position wliicii 1 ha1.e just described that-and I now cite froin
paragraph .7on page 61j of the printed opinion of Professor Pluckiiett :
"Indeed, tlie Sorman conception of alms passed to Eiiglaiicl
where it bccnme a rule of law thnt ;itenure in :ilrris can only be
created by subinfetidatioii."
Professor Plucknett goes on, in the Opinion, to support tliis by
quoting two of the most famous old law books in Englisli legal literature
-1,ittletan on ï'enlrres,and Coke's First lirslittrtes. He makes the furtfier
striking point that, in England, gifts inalms, that is, gifts in fra~ikalmoin,
bec:~me impossible after thc year izga-over 80 years later tlian the
date of the tlocument uTe are now discussing-because in 1290 tlte
statute known as the statiite Qrrin E~~rptore wsas passed, forbidctiirg grants by way of sub-infeudation and, sincc tcnure in fraiikalmoin coiild
be created in iio otlier way thnn I)y sub-infeudation, no tenures of tliat ,
lcind could thereafter be gratitetl. Arid cvery Eiiglisli real property
lawyer I;iiows that tliere was no grrint in fraiikalnioin valid in Englarid
alter 1290.
Professor Gros lias riiso arguecl tliat the sccorid grant iri the Cllai-tcr
of 1203-tlie orle thnt begins just o\.er halfway down tlie test : "1 Iiavc
furthet. grantecl to tlic aforesaicl rrionks wh:itcrer by niy ineiiof Jersey,
and of ciiernsey, arid of Alderriey, ha\*ing regard to cliarity, shall Iic.
reaçonably gi17eiito tlietii, sax7inginy right." He has argued tliat tliat
rcond grant was c\+idence tliat Piers renounced al1 his riglits in tlie
Ecréhous. But thc words "salririg rny riglit" (iri the original test, srrlvo
meo jrrre) were :iphrase cori-inioiily used, and most certainly mcniit
tliat tlic corifirniati~rihy Piers of tlie grarits whicl-i Iiis inen made to
thc iiioiiks on the hcrélious was inade itibject to tlie reservation tliat
his own rights-Piers's own riglits-shouid iiot thereby be prejudiccd.
These gifts on tlie part of Piers's own tenants rnust not diminish tlie
sert'ices iiirespect of tliose ten;irits' holdings in the islands of Jersey,
Guet-iiscy aiid Alderriey wliicfi tliey owed to I'iers, lord of ;il1tlie islaricls.
Ili rny view, Mr. I'resideiit, rio otl-ier coristruction of tliat second giltis
plausible.
.4t tlie end of tlie first da!. of his speech, Professor Gros laid considcr-
able stress on the fact that a I;rerichm?ri, Guillaume dtArgences, made
a grant iii1209 to thc Priory of the Ecréhoiis. The United Kingcloin
Goveriiincrit pointecl oiit in their l'ie11(pariis.164 and 165) that natiorial
consciousness was not at this date so strorig as to override a syiritiial
desire to make gifts to religious foundatioris with which a man might
have some connection, irrespective of the tcrritory on \.vliich they stoacl.
If ariy significancc is to he attacligd to this donation by Guillauine,
the Frencliman. to thc Priory of the Ecréhoiis, we must takc into consid-
eratioii tlic following facts. Firstly, this gift was made in 1zogwhen.the
French may wcll have been in temporary occupation of some of tlic
Channel Isla~lds. In the second place, we have evidencc froni the early
fifteenth century Rental whicii is rcproduccd at Annes A 18, the Kenta1
showing the endowments of thc Priory at the Ecréhoiis in Jersey,
Guerriscy and France-;L long list occupyirig the wholc page iii sniüll
print-tliat more tlizin thirty Jerseymen had made gifts to the Priory,
some probably over along period of years aftcr 1203-one date rnentioried
iri thc docuinent is the ycar 1235. It is at al1eirents unlikelÿ tl-iat al1 this
long list of gifts wotild have been made at this date, but tlie real signifi-
caiice of the document is that it shows that sonic thirty Jcrscymen hacl
made gifts to the Priory and tlie incident discuçsed by Iny opponerit
refers to one gift by a 17renchman. Now, assuming that local consider-
ations were a factor iri inspiring gifts, surely the fact that some thirty
Jerseyrneri na degifts to the daughter holise of a French Abbey woiilcl
indicaic that çucli c1:iiigliter housc stood ori Jersey-tlint is local-soil.
Tliey niiglit have bcen expected to clcmand tliis territorial link to pronqit
their gifts. 011 the other hand, tlie one Frericliman, Giiillaiimc, had at
least tlie Iink that tlic E'riory, tlioiigh standing on Jersey soi], Eriglisli
soil, was controlled bv a mothcr hotise on French soil.
If any cvidencc of tfie reliahility of this gift is to bc founcl in tlicsc
donations, it tells more weightily in favoiir of the Uriited Kingdorii.
I might put it on tlie bnsis of 30 : r.308 REPL\* OF PROF. \\'AIIE (u.K.)-3 S 53
1 nomrturrii to theqtm7aarrartfo proceedings ,of 1309, which the Court
\vil1remernber also relatcd tothe Priory on,the Ecréhous ;the proceedings
wliich dealt with the advowson of tlie Ecréhoils itself and two of its
entlowmcnts-a mill and rents-on tlie island of Jersey. In the first
pIace, so far ris the titto the advosson is cancerned, thesc proceedings
could never have been entertained rrt al1 by a Court of thc King of
I<rigiand sirting in Jersey or anjwhere else on E~iglish territory unless
tlic advowson \vas within its jiirisdiction. 1 made that point before,
Yr. President, and 1 assert it rigainwith some confidence, because 1Iiappen
to have made, indeperidently of tliis case, a considerable stut-Iy of tI-iis
type of proceeding. An advowson is ;i right of property in land, riright
relating to immovable property, and the only basis of jurisdiction in
rcspect of it was and is that the right is situatecl within the King's terri-
tories-tlie rjght is attached to land, that means that the land must be
sitiintedititlic King's territories. This, rnoreover, confirms the contention
\vhicli 1 hnce just put before the Court thnt the grarit in frankalmoin of
1203 was simply an ord!nary grant in frankalinoin by sub-infeudation
and therefore left the Ecréhous within that part of the Kingdom of
'
England-tlie Channel Islands-wliich had corneto the Kingdom through
tkie Duke of Normancly. If, as was contended by Iny opponent, the
Iicréhous became part of the territories of tlie King of France, hiç
Norman territories after 1204, the claim in 1309 could never have bcen
entertained in aii Englisli Court.
Professor Gros attempted to dismiss that part of the proceedings
(trnnslated on p. 158 of the Annexes) which related to the advowson
lisbeing of an ancillary character, but 1rcly on thetcxt itself as showing
that the plen relating to the mill in Jersey and the adïiowson of the
Ecréhous puts both thosc property rights on an equal footing. If there
is a sccondary summons, the text shows that it related to tfle other
endo\vment., the 201- rental in Jersey. LTurther,it is argued against my
~iew that tllcjudgment of the Court did not refcr to the advowson and
tlie justification for that it is sought by the French experts in the conclud-
irig sentence of the Ylea Roll: "Therefore it is perrnitted to the said
l'rior to hold the $remises"-that is the relevant word-"as lie holds
tliem as loiig as it shall please the lord the King." Kow Professor Gros
tlenies that that is an adjudication by the Court, but what meaning can
be attached to this co~icludingsentence except that it is a decision of the
Court lhnt the Prior shall hold the premises sz~bjectto the pleasure of
the King on the same basis as he held them before his çummons to the
King's court ? The mord "premises" in this connection can only mean
al1 the disputecl rights which had bccn-detailed above in the Court Roll
cstract, that is the advowson of the Ecréhous, the mill in Jersey, and
the rent of zo/-.
Kight dowii to the yresent day, transfers of land, transfers of
i~nmovables, under English law, use the expression "premises" to cover
comprehensively dl that has becii earlier on detailcd in thc transfer, .
and no English lawycr at al1events would have any shadow of doubt as
tothe meaning of the word "premises" in a document of this description.
Finally, on these proceedings before thc King's Justices in 1309,the
French case, both in the written pleadings and in the speech to the
Court, has misunderstood the importance of the Court proceedings and
the reason why they are relied upon by the United Ringdom. We rely
on thesc proceedings simply and solely to indicate that the Court was REPLY OF PROF. 1VADE (u.K.)-3 S 53
309
esercising jurisdiction over a right of property \rithin the King's
territory,this being, as 1 have said, the only possible basis for the
jurisdiction of the Court.,It is quite immaterial for this purpose whetfier
the Iciiig or the Abbot was entitlcd to the ownership of thc advowson.
The proceedings show that English jurisdiction was being exerciscd
mer the Ecréhotis more than a hundred years after the separation of
the ,Channel Islands from continental Norrnandy.
1pass now, hfr. President, to the Letters of Protection. aprcliminary
point 1 woiild draw the attention of the Court and of my opponent to
the fact that 1 carefully answerccl the statement, which w,îs made in
the Frciich Rejoinder and was rcpeatecl earlier this week by Professor
Gros, that we had not shown the precise wording of the Letters of Protec-
tion. We printed the wording of the Letters of Protection, as 1 erplained
to the Court on page 137 of the printed transcript, as Annes 17 of the
JIemorial: therc has ticver been :iny attcmpt to withkold the actiial
wording of the Letters of Protection, and 1 explaincd the passage to
whicli 1 refer in my previous speech-the reason why the Letters are
not reproduced verbatim in the case of every Prior to whorn they were
riddressed. The wording of the Letters was identical in each case.
Nor does Piofessor Gros's speech csplain the point which 1 elaborated
in the same passage, and on the following page 138, why the Latin word
de rneans of on the first and third occasions when it is iised to describe
the Prior of the Ecréhousof the island of Jersey,and yet means touchi~ig
or concevning or as lo on the second occasion ïvhcn it is used in this
phrasc. and in the identicnl description of al1the othcr Priors whoreceivcd
thesc identical Koyal Letters of ProtectionI say,as Isaid on the previous
occasion, that to argue that the second time of its use in each phrase de
ineans touclzingcorzcerni.ngor as to not only distorts the sense of tlie
plirase but also makes nonsense of it in relation to the several other
Priors names, whose priories werc physically of Jersey, being situated
on the isiand itself.1 will not troiible the Court with my full argument
on that, becaiisc itistherc in the passage to which 1 have referred :but
I do appeal to a rule of interpretation which I believe to be universâlly
accepted bÿ cotirts of law that thc natural meaning stiould be attributed
to a word unless the contcst compcls otherwise, In this case there is no
such compulsion, and the phrase "Prior of the Ecréhous of the island of
jersey" means what it says, narncly, that the Ecréhous is part of the
island of Jersey just as much as the othcr priories mentioned in the
Koyal Letters of Protection, such as the I'riory of Bonne Nuit, which
is in Jersey itself, and the Priory of St. Pcter, which is equally on the
main island.
1 was referring, Mr. Preçident, a few minutes ago ta the matter of
the Rentals (the nest annes, iinnex 18) when 1 wns dealing with tfie
gift of Guillaume d'Argcrices in 1209, and 1yointed out that any signi-
iicance theçe Rentals may have is weighted heavily in favour of the
United Kiiigdorn by reason of the numerous gifts made by Jerseymm
to thcir Priory on the I<créhous, as against the single gift made by
tlie Frenclimen living in France. IVifh regard to subsequent proceedings
whicli affected the Priory on the Ecréhous, Professor Gros and 1 are
mainly in agreement, escept on the question of the confiscation of the
Priory. Here it is the Frcnch case that we have offered na evidence of
the confiscation of tliis Priory. Tlic Court is therefore asked to deduce
that the Priory wns not confiscatcd because it was not on English soil-'I'lic evidetice offerecl to suppcirt tliis argurneiit was tliat Hcrniant, n
local histoiian of a later clate. allcged that tlie Priory \vas destroyed bj*
Englisli soldiers as ail act of \var carried out. foreign territory in tlie
reign of Queen Elizabeth. A far rnore plausible explanatjoii-or expla-
i~atioris, ratlier-iseitlier the Priory hacl fnllen into disuse because of
ttie poverty of its endowments and the lack of interest oii tlie part of
ttie mother Iioiise of Val Riclier, partly hecause of this salne poverty
aiid partly because of the fact that tlie Priory was oii Englisli soil. Or
its disalipearance inny have heeri the rcsiilt of the confiscntiori of its
endowments. l'riories thernsel\.es,risis weil-knowii, were tiot always
confiçcated ; the confiscatiori of their endowinents was soinetimcs
coiisidered sufficient and, of coiirse, bccause of such confiscation the
priories inevitably ceascd to function.
\,VI-ienive turned to the Miiicluierç, I'rofessor Cros did iiot repeat
tlie esplanation of tlic Dumarescl case, 1692, wliicli \vas given in tlie
French Rejoinder, as possibly rirising oiit of a stnte of \var betweeii
Erigland aiid France. 1ani tliercfore entitled to nssritne that Iic acceptecl
my argument on thit point. But lie did liglitly disiriiss tlie pi'ciceedings
in tlie Xoirniont Court-the earlier proceedings of 161j to 1617-as
having no bearing or1SOI-ereigiitybecause, lie çaid, tlic Court wns simply
a rnanorial court and this was ritinstance of seignorial jurisdiction anci
iiotliing more. He did not, liowe\rer, deny iny statement 'that in 1615
and, indeed, right oii uiitil 164(i,the Kiiigs of England held tliis partic-
ular maiior of Koirmoiit in tlieir own linnds. It WELS in 1646 that King
Charles I granted this manor to one de Carteret, whose fairiily is still
a proniinerit family of landowners in tlie islaiid. 13ut Professor Gros
asserted, as tlie ITreiicli printerl case lias asscrted ii-iorcth:iii once, tl-irit
tlie wreck cases areto be esplained as esrirnples of seignorial jurisdictioii
over wreck in Jersey esercised [email protected] agi-ce ttint iri his speech
lie did not iise the words rutior~e$ersoizar again, brit he disniissed tlic
proceedirigs as being tlic exercise of jurisdiction by :Llord of tlic maiior
over Iiis i-rierT.hope, Ili.President; tliat I have coiivii~ced tlie Court
in rny earlier speech that suc11jurisdictiori would lx contrztry to Jersey
and Englisli laiv and to feuda1 principles. Jersey and Eiiglisli la\v nii
tliis subject are hased on territorial jurisdictioi~ alone, as, of coiirse, was
feutlnl law, depending as it ciid ori the tenureof laiid : and 1 rclieat tliat
it isonly by treating the Miiicluiers as part of this Jersey manor of
Noirmont tliat the case of the anchor fouiid at the Minquiers and takeii
to St.-Malo is csplicabic. Tlie explanation also fits tlie other crises : tlic
court had jurisdiction hecausc tlie anchor and tlic other articles wcrc
foiind 011Xoirmoiit tcrritory in tlie Minquiers.
Professor Gros concluded that rieither side tins :~iiy proof to offer :is
to possessioii of tlie Miriquiers. \Ve, for our part, gladly nccept tliat
view as regrirds the C;overnment of the 12epublic. I3ut these ~iroceecli~igs
iri wreck, put at tlieir Iowest, do enforcc tlie stroiig presuinption that
tlie possession of al1the Cliariiicl Islandiiithe Etiglish King establistietl
not later than 1217, as 1r.eare ngreed, stiil remained undisturberl :LS
repirds tlic Minquiers centuries loter.
1 return last to Cliaiisey. 'l'tic Coiii-t rnay recollect that iiiy statc-
riicrit was that it was not iintil 1/64 ttiat Chausey tinally ancl firnily
becanle 1;rencli. Xot tiii rathcr later werc the j3 islets whicti foriiierl
tlie Chausey group forinally iiicorporatecl into tlie npproyriiite nepart-
ment of the rnainlancl of I:rrincc, oiiiittirig significantly a11 menti011 REPLY OF PROF. WADE (u.K.)-3 X 53 3IX
(collectively or individually) of the Minquiers, whichrny opponent has
alieged were dependencies of Chausey. 1 am quite prepared to accept
Professor Gros's statement that in .the seventeenth century (very
troublous days in England on account of the Civil War), England may
only have occupied Chausey on two occasions. But in the eighteenth '
century Gibon, at al1 events, leaves liis reader in no doubt that the
islands were still the subject of intermittent possession, first by one
country and then by the other, and often ina kind of neutral position.
1 conclude, as did Professor Gros, by relating this enquiry into the
thousand-year title to the doctrine accepted in the Eastern Greenland
case, that relatively few acts of sovereignty need be proved in cases
where the other claimant cannot make out superior acts. In the yresent
dispute Imight claim to rely on only one or two acts, çince the Govern-
ment of the Republic has still not established a single effective act
of possessian or assertion of titk before 1800, with the exception of
the incident where a French official rejected the daim of a man of
dubious character to a concession on one of the islets in the eighteenth
century.
But we, Mr. President, have becn able to show some evidence in
every century relating to both or one or other of thc groups. 1s it
not then established that the English Crown was sovereign in these
groups, the Minquiers and the Ecréhous, in 1800, and a fortioriin
1839 ? It is tme that Professor Gros has challenged much of the
historical account by which, in my first speech, 1 tried to unravel
the title to these islets. But 1 hope that j~esterday and to-day Imay
have shown how unjustified that challenge has becn. In particular,
it sccrns to me to lose much of its force for three reasons. At the
outset, my opponent's speech threu7 over the views of the great majority
of French medieval historians as to the real character of suzerainty,
and that on an issue which is vital to the whole French claim to original
title.he challenge is fiirther weakened by the interpretation which
was sought to be put upon the Treaty of Paris, the mis-reading of
Our contention in the Ke~ily(paras. 123 8) and, moreover, the confusion
about our arguments relating .to categories of islands off Aquitaine
and Normandy with the point made by my opponent about the dis-
rnemberment of the Channel Islands after 1204, matters which emerged
from studying his speech at pages 44 and 45 of the tÿped version1.
Finally, on the issue of title to the Gcréhous, that of frankalmoin,
the Court has been asked by my colleague to rejcct the grant of 1203
as being an ordinary grant in frankalmoin (as 1 have shown it to be)
in favour of a form of grant in which the grantor deliberateIy deprived
hirnself of ail his existing rights in the land, without the consent of
hiç overlord-which, I submit, isa highly improbable explanation,
but significantly the only one which fits the French case. In short,
the case of the Government of the Republic is altogether too insub-
stantial to prevail over a competing claim of the wcight and character
of that of the United Kingdom.
llr. President, some licence may be permissible in an advocate.
* Professors like myself are naturally suspicious of such licence. I have
tried to avoid it and to give the Court a fair account of the long
history of the sovereignty of Her Majesty's predeccssors over these .
lSee pp. 2 12-23 of this volume.
21 REPLY OF PROF. WADE (u.K.)-3 X 53
3I2
islands. 1 respectfully ask the Court to compare the exposition which
1 gave the Court in my opening speech, reinforced as it was on the
issues offrankalmoin and the quo warranto proceedings by the opinion
of so high an authority as Professor Plucknett, with the alternatives.
offered to the Court by the Government of the Republic inthe address.
which Professor Gros delivered, alternatives which are weakened by.
thc features to which 1 have referrcd. And 1 ask the question, does:
not that cornparison show tlie strength of the United Kingdom's
caçe-a fhousand years of unintempted possession of the Channel
Islands unshaken by ang proof that these two dependencies of Jersey,
the Minquiers and the Ecréhous, have ever had any political history
apart from that of Jersey itself ?
Mr. Harrison, Mr. President, is ready to proceed and continue the:
story of the title from the end of the eighteenth century. REPLY OF PROF. \VADE (u.K.)-3 S 53
3I3
ANNES OF HISTOKICAL QUOTATlONS FROM STANDARD
FRENCH AUTHOKITIES
The present Annes supplies specimen quotations frorn French .
authorities in order to illustrate (a) tlie nature ofsuzerainty in the
Middle Ages ; (b) the weakness of later Frankish and earlier Capetian .
Kings ; (c) the relations between the French monarchs and Norman
Uukes with particular reference to their relative strength and to the
fate of the Channel Islands.
These quotations are taken frorn standard French authoritiesranging
over the last hundred years, and from works cited and submitted
by the Government of the Republic itself.
The list of authorities quoted is :
(j) Petit-Dutaillis,C. La Monarchie jéodaleeu France et el$Angle-
terre, 1933.
(ji) Lauer, P. Robert Icr et Raoul De Bourgogne - Rois de France,
1910.
(iii) Fliche, A. L'Europe occidentaleile 888 li1125, 1930.
(iv) Giry, A. Munuel de difilornatique,1894.
(v) Sismondi, C. L. Fratrce nrnder the Feudal System, 1851.
Halphen, L. L'Essor de l'Europe (x~e-xr~p siècles), 1948.
(vi) Michelet, J. Histoire de France jusqu'au xv~e siècle, 1852.
(vii)
(viii) Luchaire, A. Les premiers Capélieizs(987-11371, 1901,
(ix) Halphen, L. L'Essor de l'Europe (xzme-srzz~c siècles)1948.
(x) Lauer, P. Le Règ~rede Lozris IV d'Outre-Mer, 1900.
(xi) Prentout, H. Essai sur les Origines et In Fondation da Duché.
de Normandie, 1911.
(xii) Hayet, C., Pfister, C.,and Kleinchausz, A. Le Christiarzisme,
les Barbares, Mérovingienset Carolingien 19,03.
(xiii) Besnier, K. La Coutume de Normandie, etc., 1935.
Gibon, P. de. Les fies Chn~rsey,in Le Pays de Granville,janvier,
(xiv) 1g10.
Pégot-Ogier, Histoire des ilcs delaMawche, 1881.
(SV)
(xvi) Besnier, R. Compte rendu. Le Statut juridiq~cedes iles Anglo-
Normandes, etc.Revuehistorigzlede Llroitfrançnis etétranger,
XIIT, 1934,
(xvii) Perrot, M. Deux expéditionsinsulaires franpaises, 1929.
(xviii)Halphen, L. Les Barbares, 1926. 3I4 REPLY OF PROF. !VADE (u.K.)-3 X 53
(a) Petit-Dutaillis, C. La Monarchieféodale elz France eten Anglelcrre,
1933.
(i)[From Introduction by Henri Berr, p. x]
"Au début de la périodeque couvre ce livre, on trouve des seigneuries,
mais pas d'État. 'la conception de sujet s'est perdue (pp. IO, 338,
347). Le roi n'est qu'un iisuzerain supérieur »au sommet de la (pyra-
mide féodale 1) (p.2). La royauti: représente un titre plutôt qu'un
pouvoir ; clle n'implique pas un royaume : le domaine propre du roi,
au début, est a disparate, ~Iispersé,incohérent n(p. 161 L.e royaume ne
se constituera, avec l'unité française, que peu à peu, surtout par la
victoire sur les Anglais et les Albigeois. La iicivilisation n est alors
sans lien avec les progrès de la royauté, qui, longtemps, ne joua aucun
rôle intellectuel et moral (pp. 107, 424)."
(ii) [l'rom text,pp. 10-111
"Le mieux était d'interroger les gens du pays : on leur demandait
par exemple quelles étaient les juridictions qui s'exerçaient chez eux.
Mais on parlait de justice et de seigneurie, non de souveraineté, et
les arguments étaient d'ordre féodal, non d'ordre national. L:idée
féodaleétait relativement claire, mais l'idée d'Etat, de frontières d'Etat,
de nationalité, s'était couverte de brume.
etait-il légitime d'user des lumières que fournissait celle-là pour
dissiper l'obscurité qui entourait celle-ci Nullement. Seigneurie et
souveraineté ne se confondaient pas toujours. On pouvait être vassal
d'un roi sans être son sujet, et l'on ne s'en inquiétait pas : on ne
cherchait Ilas a éclaircir la notion de sujet. Il y avait des seigneurs
possessionnés desdeux côtésde la frontière, comme le comte de Flandre,
lecomte le comte de Chalon, le comte de Valentinois, etc., et mêmele comte
de M~co~, de Toulouse, qui faisait hommage à l'empereur pour lc comté de Pro-
le seigneur vence ; mais ce qui est plus significatif, il y avait des seigneurs d'Empire
de qui étaient vassaux d'autres seigneurs d'Empire pour des terres sises
''abbéde dans le royaume de France et qui n'étaient pas des enclaves :le comte
Beaulieu
de Bar teilait le fief de Hans, près de Sainte-Blenehould, de l'évéque
de Verdun ; et, d'autre part, il y avait des seigneurs français vassaux
de l'empereur pour des terres sises dans le royaume de France :pendant
un siècle, les comtes de Champagne furent vassaux des Hohenstaufen
pour trois terres françaises ; le roi de France, depuis l'hommage pr@té
par le comte Henri à Frédéric Barberousse pour ces trois fiefs, n'y
avait plus aucun droit féodal, mais il y restait le roi. Ailleurs, e(Bar-
rois mouvant II,& partir dc 1301,il sera. le seigneur, mais il ne sera
pas encore le roi, et Jeanne d'Arc naîtra en Barrais inouvant dans un
quartier de Domrémy qui dépendait, comme. mourant de Charles VII,
d'un baillinge champenois, et, comme terre d'Empire, d'un bailliage
barrois."
(b) Lauer, P. Robert Ier etRaoul de Bourgogne - Rois de France, 1910.
[From p. 841
"C'était la troisième fois qu'un roi désignépar une élection véritable
parvenait :LU trône de France. Cette royauté féodalenaissante nous est
en somme trèsmal connue, faute de documents. Il semble qu'elle puisse REPLY OF PROF. !VADE (u.K.)-3 X 53 3I5
êtreainsi définie :un suzerain choisi par l'électiondes grands et consacrb
par l'onction religieuse, qui est le seigneur des seigneurs et dont tous
les sujets sont considérés comrnesles vassaux. Elle paraît dépouillée
de presque toutes les prérogatives de la souveraineté."
(c) Fliche, A. L'Europe occidentale de 888 R 1125, 1930. '
[In Histoire du moyen dge, vol. II, Cd. Glotz] .
[Frorn pp. 165-1661
"En France, comme en Italie, les prérogatives royales ont à peu
prés complètement disparu. Il ne s'est pas trouvé un Otton Ic Grand
pour restaurer l'autorité monarchique ; tout au contraire, celle-ci n'a
cessédc s'affaiblir par suite de la très longue duree des luttes dynastiques
et de la nécessité oùse sont trouvés les rois, Carolingiens ou Robertiens,
d'aliéner les quelques droits qu'ils avaient pu garder pour acheter les
concours qui leur Ctaient nécessaires.D'autre part, il n'y a rien en France
qui ressemble aux duchés allemands. Le royaume est partagé en douze
ou quinze principautés sans caractère cthnique bien accusé et .dont les
chefs, parés du titre de duc, de marquis ou de comte, ont réuni le plus
souvent sous leur pouvoir plusieurs comtés carolingiens. Ce sont là de
véritables Etats, gouvernés par des dynasties héréditaires qui exercent
tous les droits régaliens dans la mesure où elles rie les ont pas aliénés
à des seigneurs de moindre importance. En tout cas, lc roi y a perdu
tout pouvoir de contrôle ; c'est à peine si dans quelques-uns d'entre
eux il a conservé Innomination de rares évêques.On ne soiige mérne
pas à solliciter de lui la clelivrance de diplômes et sa suzeraineté, pure-
ment théorique, ne saurait exiger de ces vassaux, pourtant descendants
des anciens fonctionnaires carolingiens, aucun des devoirs que comporte
IIla fidélit); lc régimeseigneurial est parvenu au terme de son évolution,
et il faudra longtemps avant que la royauté puisse reconquérir les droits
qu'elle a s~~ccessivcrnentabandonnés."
(d) Giry, A. Marztcelde diplomatiqzie, 1894.
[From pp. 318-31gI
"Pépin et Cha~lemagiie s'intitulèrent dans Ics protocoles de leurs
diplômes : Kex Francorum vir inltrster ; mais 3 cette dernière qualité
Charlemagne ne tarda pas à en substituer une autre, rappelant l'inter-
vention divine à laquelle sa famille devait le trône ; il s'intitula Rex
Dei gratia. Tous les autres monarques de la dynastie carolingienne
cmployérent cettc formule ou d'autres analogues, telles que : Domina'
Ilei Propili~nle gratia, Dei misericordia, etc. Ils furent imités par les
rois de la troisième race, sous lesquels la formule se fixa définitivement
(3 partir du régne de Louis VII) dans l'expression Dei gratia, qui resta
seule en usage et passa dans les actes français : tous leç souverains de
1a France jusques et y compris Napoléon III le furent désormais par
ln grhcc de Dieu.
Cette très humble fom~ule,'qui n'exprimait à l'origine qu'une pensée
pieuse et avait été empruntée, avec beaucoup d'autres, au formulaire
ecclésiastique, prit avec le temps une signification bien différente: on
en vint a l'interpréter eii ce sens que le roi déclarait par là une tenir
son royaume que de Dieu ». II est difficile de déterminer avec ~irécision
l'époque à laquelle cettc idée d'ihdépendance, de souveraineté et de
droit divin s'est attachée 5 ces mots. Au r'rlnau xiliesihcle et jusqu'aux31~ REPLY OF PROF. lV.4DE (u.K.)-3 X 53
premières années du stirme,on voit des seigneurs féodaux s'intituler
souvent, comme les rois et 5 leur exemple, seigneurs par la grâce de
Dieu, et non pas seulement de grands feudataires quasi indépendants,
mais des seigneurs de fiefs secondaires, tels que le comte de Meulan,
les seigneurs de Combourg et de Fougkres. Au commencement du svme
si6cIe encore, Archambaud de Grailly s'intitule réguliérenientDei grutirr
cornes Fuxi, etc. ; mais au xvriisiècle le comte d'Armagnac, Ies ducs
de Bretagne et de Bourgogne se virent interdire ccttc formule par les
rois de France oit furent obligés à des déclarations de non-préjudice ;
elle était dés lors une prérogttive de la souveraineté."
(e) Sismondi, J. C.L., France tr~rdethe Feudal Syste~n, IS~I Ed. (Trs.).
(i) [From p. 11 .
"The period, the bistory of whichwe have now undertaken to prcsent,
iç therefore likea long interregnum, during which the royal authority
was suspended, although the name of king waç always preserved. He
who bore this title in the midst of rirepublic of princes, mas only
distinguished from them by some honorary grerogative, and he exer-
cised over them scarcely anp authority. Until very near the end ofthe
eleventh century, these princes were scarcely less nurnerous. than the
castles which covered France. ?JO authority Ras acknowledged at a
distance, and evcry fortress gave its lord rnnk among the sovereigns.
The conquest of England by the Normans broke the equilibrium between
the feudal lords ; one of the confederate princes became a king in 1066 ;
gradually extended, until 1179, his domination over more than half
of France, and aIthough it was not he who bore the title of king of
the French, it may be imagincd that in time the rest of the country
would also pass under his yoke."
(ii) [From p. 71
"These infeoffments, on account of alliance, contributed greatly to
maintain a sentiment of equality among al1 the possessors of a noble
fief, at wliatsoever distance they might be from suzerain lord. In
fact, no great lord djsdajned to rcceive from a prince less porverful
than hirnself, a fiefwhich suited him, and render to hirn fait11 and
hornage for that fief. Uetween two knights, one was often the lord
ofthe other in one land, and his vassal in anotlier. The count often,
aftcr having received homage from the viscount, paid him homage
in his turn for some barony which he received from hirn, and which
formed a part of that very viscounty. The kings tliemselves did .not
disdain to hold, in their turn, lands in the dependence of their subjects,
and the oriflamme become the standard of the kings of France, was
only the banner of a barony, for which those kitigç were vassals of
the abbey of St. Denis."
(f) Halphen, L. L'Essor de L'Ez~rope(x~e-xrr~a siècles), 194s
(3rd Ed.).
[Contained in PerrPleset CiziilisationsVol. VI]
(il[From p. 191
"De proche en proche, l'État s'est ainsi trouvé démembré admi-
nistrativement, non moins que politiquement, et, aux premiers temps REPLY OF PROF. W-%DE (u.K.)-3 3: 53 3I7
de I'iige féodal, on peut dire que ce ne sont plus les rois, mais les
seigneurs qui gouvernent."
(ii)[From p. 201
"Mais, en attendant que la royauté soit en mesure de remettre de
l'ordre dans la maison, le régimeféodal dégénèreen une épouvantable
anarchie. Orientée vers la guerre, organisée en vu de la guerre,la vie
des seigneurs, s'ils ne trouvent pas à e~nployer au dehors le trop-plein
de leur activité, se passe en luttes perpétuelles."
(a) >lichelet, J. Histoir dee Fra?ice jzrspn'ar-YV~ siècle 1Sj2
[Frorn Volume III, pp. v, vil
"Cette locution : Un bon Français, date du quatorzième siècle.
Jusqu'ici la France était moins France que chrétienté. Dominée,
ainsi que tous les autres Qtats, par la féodalitéet par l'église, ellerestait
obscure et comme perdue dans ces grandes ombres. Le jour venant
peu a peu,elle commence à s'entrevoir elle-même."
(b) Ibid. [From Vol. 1, pp. 387-3901
"Ainsi fut démontréeI'impuissance du pouvoir épiscopalpour défendre
et gouverner la France. En 870, le chef de l'église gallicane,l'archevêque
de Reims, Hincmar, écrivait au pape ce pénible aveu : (Voici les
icplaintes que le peuple élévecontre nous : Cessez de vous charger
« de notre défense, contentez-vous d'y aider de vos prières, si vous
« voulez notre secours pour la défense commune.... Priez le seigneur
n apostolique de ne pas nous imposer un roi qui ne peut, de si loin,
a nous aider contrelesfréquentes et soudaines incursions des païens ...»
Le pouvoir local des évêques,le pouvoir central du roi se trouvent
également condamnés par ces graves paroles. Ce roi, qui n'est rien
sans l'Eglise, ne sera que plus faible en s'enséparant. Il peut disposer
de quelques évêchés, humilier les évêques,opposer le pape de Rome
au pape de Reims. Il peut accumuler de vains titres, se faire couronner
roi de Lorraine et partager avec lesAllemands le royaume de son neveu
Lothaire II; il n'en est pas plus fort. Sa faiblesse eau comble quand
il devient empereur. En 875, la mort de son autre neveu, Louis II.
laissait l'Italie vacante, ainsi que la dignité impériale. Il prévient à
Rome les fils de Louis-le-Germanique, les gagne de vitesse et dérobe
pour ainsi dire le titre d'empereur. Mais le jour mêmede Noël où il
triomphe dans Rome sous .ladalmatique grecque, son frère, maitreun
instant de la Neustrie, triomphe lui aussi dans le propre palais de
Charles ; le pauvre empereur s'enfuit d'Italie à l'approche d'un de
ses neveux, et meurt de maladie dans un village des Alpes (877).
Son fils, Louis-le-Bègue, ne peut mêmeconserver l'ombre de puis-
sance qu'avait eue Charles-le-Chauve. L'Italie, la Lorraine, la Bre-
tagne, la Gascogne, ne veulent point entendre parler de lui. Dans le
nord même de laFrance, il est obligéd'avouer aux prélats et aux grands
qu'il ne tient la couronne que de l'élection. 11vit peu, ses fils encore
moins. Sous l'un d'eux, le jeune Louis, l'annaliste jette en passant
cette parole terrible, qui nous fait mesurer jusqu'où la France était318 REPLY OF PROF. WADE. (u.K.)-3 ;Y 53
descendue :CCIl bâtit un' château de bois ; mais il servit plutà forti-
(1fier les paiens qu'à défendre les chrétiens, car ledit roi ne put trouver
« personne à qui en remettre la garde. »"
(c) Luchaire, A. Les 9rcrniers Capétiens (987-1137)~1901,
[Contained in Histoir de France depuis les origirtejusqu'u la Révo-
Ez~dio~ z. Lavisse, Volume II [2)]
[From PP. 144-1451
"Entre la Féodalité et l'Église, qui se sont partagé la terre et le
gouverncnlent des hommes, quelle place reste-t-il pour Ic Roi ? On
a incidemment parlCde lui dans les pages qui prkcèdent, mais pour
constater surtout son impuissance. Il suffitde jeter les yeux sur une
carte de la France au xime siècle:Ie mince territoire qui constitue le
domaine de ir~Monarchie donne la mesure de sa cléchéance. Le plus
étonnant est qu'elle persiste h vivre, et qu'une dynastie nouvelle ait
pu reprendre et faire durependant des siècleslepouvoir quiéchappait
aux Carolingiens.
L'homme qui fonda cette dynastie, Hugue Capet, était le fils aîné
du cDuc des Francs J),I-Iugue le Grand. Ce dernier avait tantôt com-
battu, tant& protégé Louis d'Outremer, travaillant à 'le supplanter
dans la France du Nord, comme dans l'Aquitaine et Ia Bourgogne,
sans pouvoir ou sans oser le déposséder tout à fait. En 956, Hugue
Capet succédait à son père daris les comtés de Paris, de Senlis, d'Or-
léans, de Dreux, dans sa dignité d'abbé laïque de Saint-Martin de
Tours et de Saint-Germain des Prés, et dans cette espèce de vice-
royauté qui était attachée au duché de France. Il hérita aussi de sa
politique astucieuse et de seshabitudes équivoques, tour à tour adver-
saire et ami de la dynastie carolingienne, mais gagnant toujours à
jouer l'un ou l'autre rôle. Peu à peu, il réduit le roi Lothaire à s'en-
fermer dans Laon, et va jusclii'à Rome (981) pour s'allier contre lui
à l'empereur d'Allemagne, Otton II. Puis il fait tout A coup volte-
face, et, réconcilié avec la famille royale, embrasse publiquement
Lothaire comme le plus dévouédes vassaux. L'énigmatique personnage
aspirait-il secrètementA la couronne ? On nc peut l'affirmer, puisqu'en
979 il ne fit rienpour empêcher l'association an trône du jeune Louis,
le prince royal, et qu'a la mort de Lothaire, en 986, il ne s'opposa
pas davantage au couronnement du dernier Carolingien. Il apparut
mEme dans l'armée de 1,ouis V, pour remplir son devoir de feudataire,
lorsque celui-ci marcha sur Reims, décidéà punir l'archevêque Adal-
béron de ses comylaiçsnces envers l'Allemagne."
(d) Halphen, L. L'essor de l'Europe (s~c-sr~rme siècles), 1948.
[Frorn pp. 183-1841
"La maison carolingienne qui, au milieu du xmc siècle, ne se main-
tenait déjà qu'à grand' eine, avait succombé en 987.Avant de mourir,
elle avait eu sous Lot Eaire (954-986) un dernier sursaut d'énergie:
secouant violemment l'cncornbrante tutelle des Otton, le roi carolingien
avait réussi, en 978,A pousser par surprise jusqu'aux abords du Rhin
et à se donner un instan t'illusiode la puissance en allant trôner à
Aix-la-Chapelle dans lecélèbrepalais fondé par Charlemagne.
Vain exploit :au bout de trois jours, il avait fallubattre. précipi-
tamment en retraite ; laisser le camp libreaux troupes allemandes, qui REPLY OF PROF. WADE (u.K.)-3 X 53 3I9
s'avancèrent jusque sous Ics murs de Pariç ; assister la rage au cŒur
aux louches tractations de 1'empercur.germanique ct du nouveau «duc
des Francs iiHugues Capet, le fils de cet Hugues le Grand qui, en 940,
s'était reconnu le vassal du premier des Otton. Enserré dans un réseau
de trahisons, que tissait autour de lui l'archcvéque de Rcims Adalbéron,
Lothaire était mort, le 2 mars 986, en pleine tourrnentc, sans être
parvenu, malgré ses efforts courageux, 5 vaincre l'audacc croissante
d'une partie de l'aristocratie laïque et ecclésiastic~ueliguée contre lui.
La royauté carolingienne lui avait survCcu quelques mois sous son
fils LouisV, énergique jeune homme de dix-neuf ans, qu'un accident
mortel avait enleve le21ou le 22mai 987.Six semaines après, le 3 juillet,
le duc des Francs avait enfinreçu dc ses partisans la couronne royale.
Mais la restauration de l'autorité monarchique était une Œuvre de
longue haleine, bien au-dessus des forces di1 nouveau roi. Quoique, en
apparence, le premier de tous les barons du royaumc, Wugiies Capet
ne disposait, lors de son av&nemcnt, que d'une autoritc trPs réduite,
souvent meme purement nominale, sur la majeure partie des provinces
qui jadis avaient constitué, aux mains de ses ancêtres, l'immense
«marche iide Neustrie, niaintcnant démembréeen plusieurs seigneuries
féodales (duchés, comtés, vicomtés) :Normandie, Maine, Anjou, Tou-
raine, Blésois, Vendômois, pays chartrain, etc. Dans l'état d'émiette-
ment féodalauquel on était arrivé, il manquait au Capétiencette solide
hase territoriale,sans, laquelle il était difficile à celui qui portait la
couronne de triompher, en cas de conflit, de ses propres vassaux. Son
domaine dircct, en y ajoutant l'héritage des Carolingiens, confisqué
.avec le titre royal, ne comprenait que les régions de Paris, Scnlis,
Poissy, Etarnpes et Orléans, avec quelques annexes excentriques, dont
la pliis importante était le comté de Montreuil, à l'embouchure de la
Canche."
-
. III. THE HELATIOKS BICTWEES THE FREXCH~JONARCH .SSD XOKMAN
DUKES WlTH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO THEIR RELATIVE STKIINGTH
AXD TO THE FATE OF THE CHANSEL ISLASDS
(a) Michelet, J. Histoire de France jtdsgzl'au,Y~~I~~i~cle,1852.
[From Vol. 1, pp. 404-4061 .
"Charles-le-Simple, reconnu roi cn 898, par une grande partie de
ceux qui avaient travaillé à l'exclure, régna d'abord vingt-deux ans
sans aucune opposition. C'est dans cet espace de temps qu'il aban-
donna au chef normand RoIf tous ses droits sur le territoire voisin
de l'embouchure de la Seine, et lui conféra le titre de duc.Le duché ~9x23
de Normandie servit plus tard à flanquer le royaume de France contre
les attaques de l'empire germanique et de ses vassaux lorrains ou
flamands. Mais le premier duc fut fidhle au traitéd'alliancequ'il avait
fait avec Charles-le-Simple, et le soutint, quoique assez faiblement,
contre Rodbert ou Robert, frère du roi Eudes, élu roi en 922. Son
fils, GuillaumeIer,suivit d'abord la mêmepolitique,. et lorsque le roi
héreditaire eut étédéposé et emprisonné A Laon, il se déclara pour
lui contreRaduIf ou Raoul, beaufrére de Robert, élu et couronné roi,
en haine de la dynastie franque. Alais pcu d'années aprés, changeant
de parti, il abandonna lacause de Charles-le-Simple ct fit alliance320 REPLY OF PROF. W..IDE (u.K.)-3 X j3
avec le roi Raoul. En 936, espérant qu'un retour à ses premiers erre-
ments lui procurerait pliis d'avantages, il appuya d'une maniére éner-
gique la restauration du filde Charles, Louis, surnomméd'Outre-Mer.
Le nouveau roi, auquel le parti français, soit par fatigue, soit par
prudence, n'opposa aucun compétiteur, poussé par un penchant héré-
ditaire à cliercher des amis au delà du Rhin, contracta une alliance
étroite avec Othon, premier du nom, roi de Germanie, le prince le
plus .puissant et le plus ambitieux de l'époque. Cette alliance mécon-
tenta vivement les seigncurs, qui avaient une grande aversion pour
l'influence teutonique. Le représentant de cette opinion nationale, et
l'homme le plus puissant entre la Seine et la Loire, était Hugues,
comte de Paris, auquel on donnait le surnom de Grand, à cause de
ses immeiises domaines. Db que Ies défiances mutuelles se furent
accrues au point d'amener, en 940, une nouvelle guerre entre les deus
partis,qui depuis cinquante ans étaient en prksence, Hugues-le-Grand,
quoiqu'il ne prît point le titrede roi, joua contre Louis-d'Outre-Mer
le mêmerdle qu'Eudes, Robert et Raoul avaient joué contre Charles-
le-Simple. Son premier soin fut d'enlever à la faction opposée l'appui
du duc de Normandie ; il y réussit, et, grâce a l'intervention norniande,
parvint à neutraliser les effets de l'influence germanique. Toutes les
forces du .roi Louis et du parti franc se brisèrent, en 945, contre le
petit duché de Normandie. Le roi, vaincu en bataille rangée, fut pris
avec seizc de ses comtes et enfermé dans la tour de Rouen, d'où il
ne sortit rliipour êtrelivre aus chefs du parti national qui l'emyri-
sonnèrent à Laon."
{li) Ibid.
[Frorn Vol. II, pl).1j2-1541
"Le duc des Normands le [the French King, Henri 1 (1031-106o)l
prit sous sa protection, et força Robert [younger brother of Henri 1]
de se contenter du duché de Bourgogne. C'est la tige de cette première
maison de Bourgogne qui fonda le royaume de Portugal. Toutefois, le
Normand ne donna la royauté ci Henri qu'affaiblie et désarméepour
ainsi dire.Tlse fitcéderle Vexin, et se trouva ainsi établià six lieues
de Paris. Henri essaya en vain d'échapper h cette servitude et de
reprendre le Vexin, à la faveur des révoltes qui eurent lieu contre le
nouveau duc de Kormandie, Guillaume-le-Bâtard. Ce Guillaume, dont
nous parlerons tout au long dans le chapitre suivant, battit ses barons
et battit le roi. Ce fut peut-être le salut de celui-ci, que le duc
aittourné contre l'Angleterre ses armes et sa politique.
Henri et son fils, Philippe rer [~ogr-iioS], resthrent spectateurs
inertes et impuissants des grands événementsqui bouleverskrent l'Eu-
rope sous leur régne. Ils ne prirent part ni aux croisades normandes
de luaples et d'Angleterre, ni ?I la croisade européenne de Jérusalem,
ni à la lutte des papes et des empereurs ; ilslaissèrent tranquillement
l'empereur Henri III établir sa suprématie en Europe, et refusèrent
de seconder les comtes de Flandre, Hollande, Brabant et Lorraine,
dans la grande guerre des Pays-Bas.contre l'empire. La royauté fran-
çaise n'estguère encore qu'une espérance, un titre, un droit.La France
féodale, qui doit s'absorber en elle, a jusqu'ici un mouvement tout
excentrique. Qui veut suivre ce mouvement, il faut qu'il détourne
les yeux du centre encore impuissant, qu'il assiste L Ia graride lutte REP1.Y OF.PROF. ivh~6 (u.K.)-3 S 53 321
de l'empire et du sacerdoce, qu'i1,suive Ies Normands en Sicile, en
Angleterre, sous le drapeau de lJEglise, qu'enfin il s'achemine à la
terre sainte avec toute la France. Alors il sera temps de revenir aux
Capets, et de voir comment 1'Egliseles prit pour instrument à la place
des Normands, trop indociles ; comment elle fit leur fortune, et les
éleva çiIiaut, qu'ils furent en état de l'abaisser elle-rnéme."
..........................
"Dès le onzième siècle, A l'époquc oh la royaute capétienne, faible
et inerte, ne peut les seconder encore, l'épée des Français de
Xormandie repousse l'empereur des murs de Rome, chasse les Grecs
et les Sarrasins d'Italie etde Sicile, assujettit leç Sasons dissidents de
l'Angleterre."
(c) Lauer, Y. Le Règnede Loztis IV dlOzltre-Mer, 1900.
[From p. zj~]
"La Normandie fut de 943 i?94j la principale préoccupation de Louis.
La situation de ce pays lui fournit l'occasion de développer la m2me
activité qu'il avait déjàmontrée lors des événeinciitsde Lorraine de 939.
Le résultat ne fut pas meilleur, car & partir de sa captivité son action
dans ce pays est comme annihilée, et son fils Lothaire ne recevra mÈme
pas l'hommage du duc Richard."
[From P. 931
"Le jeune Richard n'était pas encore apte i prêterl'hommage. Aussi
ce furent les seigneurs normands (firinci$es) quile prétbrentà sa place.
Certains d'entre aux firent scission et se tournèrent du côté du seigneur
le plus voisin et le plus fort. Ils portèrent leur hommage à Hiigues-le-
Grand."
..........................
"L'hommage qu'ils [the Kormans] prêtèrentn'était d'ailleurs qu'une
rnesure transitoire.II étaith prévoir que, dès que leur jeune duc aurait
atteint sa majorité, ilsse débarrasseraient de toute ingérence étr;lngkre
et jouiraient de leur autonomie comme par le paçsC."
(d) Prentout, H. Essai sur lesorigineset la #ondatio?adzcDuchéde Nor-
rnnndie,191I.
[From p. 23'1
"Suivant certaine théorie, Rollon ne peut osséder 1'Etat normand
d titre de fief, puisque les Normands, want euillautna le Conqudrant.
n'avaient pas connu le systéme féodal et ses obligations ; Rollon tient
la terre en alleu, c'est ainsi que Charles le Simple la lui a donnée à
Saint-Clair-sur-Epte : ferram determinutam in ulodo et in fzjndoP: c'est
l'alleu franc et quitte, libre comme l'air M. Steenstrup croit que c'est
dans ces coriditions que les Normands reçurent de lui la terre lorsdu
partage : « Il est hors de doute que les Nonnaiids reçurent leurs parts
cccomme propriété perpétuelle sans autre devoir que celui d'aider
« Rollon à la défense du pays 4.ii
1 Jlraitzlm. cif.
2 Dudon. p. 169.
Suivant une expressiondc 31.Flach. op ci!.p. 190.
Steenstrtipop cbf.p. 388. 322 REPLY OF PROF. \VADE (u.K.)-3 S 53
Que cela ait cté la conceptioii de Rollon et des siens, cela est pos-
sible."
(el Rayet, C., Yfister.C., and KIeinchausz, A., Le Chris:stiaiaisme l,s
Barbares, iMérovingie~zest Carolingiens, 1903.
[In Histoire de France depztis les origines j~sqlt'a la Kduolrition,
E, Larsse, Vol. II (r)]
[From p. 4011
"Une entrevue a lieuentre lui [Charles the Simple] et le chcf normand
[Rollon] à Saint-Clair-sur-Epte. Rollon s'engage à cesser toute attaque
et ii embrasser le christianisme. Le roi lui abandonne un territoire
que les barbares occupaient en fait depuis longtemps, qui avait pour
centre la villc de Rouen et s'ttcnclait d'un côté jusqu'à la rivière de
l'Epte, de l'autre jusqu'i la nier. Mais ce pays, désolépar les guerres
continuelles, était inculte, et les Kormands n'y pouvaient trouver à
vivre. Charles leur livra la Bretagne voisine, en promettant de fermer
les yeux siir leurs incursions de ce côté. Les barbares jurérent de
respecter les autres régions, et le royaume franc put respirer; les
paysans ensemenckrent leurs champs et moissonnèrent leurs blés, et
les saintes reliques furent rapportées dans les monastères."
[From y. joS]
"En apparence, la. puissance de Louis a été encore considérabIe.
Les graiids seigneurs ne lui coritcstent pas, sa qualité de suzerain. 11
a reçu l'hommage de Guillaume Longue-Epée, duc de Normandie ;
et, après l'assassinat de celui-ci (943),ia investi du duché Richard Ier,
bâtard de Guillaume : iiillui a donné la terre des Normaticis ». Dans
sa cfievauchée d'Aquitaine, il a distribué des investitures. Ses vassaux
ont pris de ses mains leurs seigneuries comme des dons de sa bonne
'gricc et à charge de lui êtrefidèles. Et lui-mêmeest un roi sans terre.
'Ilne possède peu près rien si ce n'est le pays de Laon qu'ilperd et
reprend. Qu'est-il en face de son puissant adversaire auquel il a donné
ledztctz~zcFraizcorunr qu'on commence à nommer le duché de France,
et auquel il a ajouté, en 943, le duché de Bourgogne ?"
(1) Luchaire, A. Les pre~niersCapétiens (987-1137).
[Une Histoire de Frltrtce depztis les origines j~rsqtr'aln Révolutioit.
E. Lavisse, Volume 11 (z)]
[From p. 41
"A l'ouest, si le roi de France veut dépasser alantes, il SC heurte
au i(duché de Normandie », puissance à qui ses origines et le caractère
de sa constitution politique donnent une physionomie bien tranchée.
Aux anciens pirates scandinaves, ailx Normands, appartiennent l'an-
tique cité de Rouen, avcc son archevêque etsa corporation demarchands
de l'eau,les villes épiscopales d'Évreux, de Bayeux, de Séez,de Lisieux
et dc Coutances, les centres commerçants de Caen et d'Alençon, le
port de Dieppe, les riches abbayes de Jumièges, de Saint-Wandrille
et de Fécanip. Le traité de Saint-Clair-sur-Epte qui céda la Neustrie
maritime aux compagnons de 1-lrolf ou Rollon n'avait fait que clore
une immigration qui remontait loin. Sur cette terre nourricière et
attrayante entre toutes, le chef normand avait rencontré des compa- REPLY OF PROF. \VADE (u.K.)-3 X 53 323
triotesdéjà fixés en maints endroits. L'étude des noms de lieux de la
province et mitme des vocables di1 dialecte normand qui sont d'origine
scandinave ; l'examen du type physique (encore caractériséaujourd'hui)
des paysans di1 Bessin et du Cotentin, prouvent combien les envahis-
seurs étaient nombreux."
(g} Besnier, R. La Couiztme de Nornzarsdie,etc.,193 j.
(i) [From pp. 10-111
"L'état féodalnormand apparaît pour lapremière fois en 911 quand
Charles le Simple abandonne, par la convention de Saint-Clair-sur-
Epte, à la bande de Kolf (Rollon) le territoire qu'elle occupe. C'est
seulement à partir de cette date qu'il est possible de parlerde la Xor-
mandie. Unité politique, religieuse, administrative, elle ne tarderapas
à être également une unité juridique. Comme l'a nettement montré
Robert Génestal, le droit du moyen âge est u11droit morcelé en une
infinité de coutumes. Le temps est passé des législations uniformes
imposées par naturalisation à tout un empire, comme le droit romain,
ou appliquées h un peuple comme les lois barbares. Le droit du moyen
âge est morcelé parce qu'il se forme au moment même oùle royaume
des Francs se subdivise en une série de petits Etats presque indépen-
dants."
(ii) [From p. 231
"1. - La Xormandie est un Qtat féodal, le duc est donc placéail
sommet d'une double hiérarchie constituée par la féodalité laïque
et par la féodalitéecclésiastique."
(h) Gibon, P. de. Les fies Chausey, in Le Pays de Granville,janvier,
1910.
"Comment les grandes îles de la côte,Tlie Channel Islands, comme
disent les Anglais, échappèrent-ctles au roi de France à .ce moment,
après une prernihre et rapide occupation ? Pour plusieurs causes.
. Philippe-Auguste dut envahir l'Anjou, la Touraine et Ie Poitou,
comprimer, même en Normandie, des coalitions féodales toujours
renaissantes, lutter contre cette grande coalition extérieure qui aboutit
a Bouvines.
Et cependant il comprenait l'importance des îles Normandes ; mais
il préféraitattaquer d'abord l'Angleterre chez elle, ce qui eut entraîné
la soumission des îles. Seulement ces projets préparés ii grands frais
ne purent aboutir, et la flotte française fut en grande partie détruite
par une tempête.
Par-dessus tout, ce fut, comme .?.d'autres époques, hélas! I'inçuffi-
sance de la marine qui empêcha de profiter des circonstances pour
retenir dans la mêmemain que la Normandie tout cet archipel qui
en est comme le proioiigement naturel.
Les successeurs de Philippe-Auguste ne purent suffisamment songer
aux îles Normandes. Avant, pendant, comme après la guerre de Cent
Ans, les tentatives (et ily en eut un certain nombre) ne furent jamais
.soutenues con~me il convenait.
Ilfaut enfin faire entrer en ligne de compte le sentiment d'attache-
ment aux rois-ducs anglais très ancré dans le cŒur des insulaires ;
leur particularisme, grsffé sur un fond d'indépendance, y trouvait
d'ailleurs les pIus grands avantages."32-# REPLY OF PROF. \VADE (u.K.)-3 X 53
(i) 1>Cgot-Ogicr,Histoire des Zlesde la llilanclze,etc.,1881.
[From pp. iS6-1871
"Les iles de la Manche furent la concession dernière du roi (Philip
Augustus) dc France. 11 les accorda à Ia couronne anglaise comme
compensation, plus glorieuse que rCelie, de la Normandie, du Maine,
de l'Anjou, de la Touraine et du Poitou, acquis par le traité au roi
de France. Il restait à l'Angleterre l'archipel, l$erle de ce patrimoine
normand perdu par Jean.
Louis de France s'engageait à envoyer des lettres patcntes à Wistace
le Moine (lecadet),afinqu'il rendit les îles à EdouarIII[rectéHenry III]
reconnu roi d'Angleterre. Louis s'engageait en outre, si son père ne
les faisait pas rendre, 5 les restituer à son avènement au trône, car
le cas était prbvu où Wistnce mis hors la loi n'exécuterait pas les ordres
du roi de France. Philippe d'Aubigny signa le traité ; il est probable
que c'est à cette intervention personnelle qu'il faut attribuer la clause
qui concerne l'archipel."
d"
"L'archipel devait être évacuk par les Français, en vertu du traité
signé par Louis de France ; Philippe d'Aubigny se chargea de I'eshcu-
tion de cette dause au nom d'Henri III mineur. Le 24 janvier 1218,
il avait repris Jersey ; l13 février, Guernesey, Aurigny et Serk. Deux
pièces le prouvent officiellement.On ignore complètement ce qu'il
advint du jeune Wistace. Il est certain qu'il n'y eut pas de résistance,
car les moindres actions dc l'amiral étaient rapportées avec soin, et
Wistace avait probablement abandonné les îles qu'il n'était pas possible
de defendre contre le vŒu des populations.
La prise de possession effective des îles résulte d'un acte de fevrier
rzrg ordonnant la levéedu droit de fozbagequi était dû au duc de Nor-
mandie tous les trois ans. Cet impôt sur chaque jeu devait être payé
en argcnt ; de là le mot latin monetagium, souvent employé dans ce
sens.
En 1219, c'est Philippe, neveu de l'amiral, qui reçoit la garde de
l'archipel, son oncle partant pour la terre Sainte. Lc 18 février1220,
un aide pour son pélennage est demandé aux homi?iib~isprobis des
îles, à la requéte du roi. L'amiral mourut en Palestine."
(j) Uesnier, R. Compte Regidzi, in Revue historique, Volume 58 (1934).
[Fr~m PP. 736-7371 '
"R, Besnier, professeur a la Faculté de droit de Caen. - Le statut
juridique des ilcs anglo-normandes, du XIII~~ au XVIII~~ siècles.
Détachéesde la Normandie en fait en 1204, en droit par le traité
de 1217, les îles anglo-normandes de Jersey et Guernesey restent rat-
tachées au roi d'Angleterre par l'allégeance féodale.
Elles luttent pour faire reconnaitre leurs privilèges traditionnels.
Elles obtiennent d'abord d'être considérées comme des épaves du
duché disparu, liéesau roi d'Angleterre en tant que duc de Normandie
et non en tant que souverain anglais. Les enquêtes de 1248, de 1308
et 1331 montrent que Ics insulaires finissentpar obtenir en outre une
véritable autonomie administrative, financière, judiciairet même mili-
taire. Il leur manque cependant le pouvoir législatif, moins nécessaire REPLY-OF PROF. .WADE (u.K.)-3 X 53 325
à une époque où les litiges sont régléssur la base de la coutume et de
l'équité."
"A la mêmeépoque, la neutralité des îles est proclamée et acceptée
par Louiç XI et par le pape Sixte IV. A partir dece moment les iles
font figure d'îlots indépendants, constituéschacun par une fédération
de communes. Cette indépendance est tempéréepar l'uni011personneHe
avec l'Angleterre sous la forme traditionnelle de l'allégeance féodale.
Les revisions ordonnées en 1591 ,es ordonnances de 1619, 1654, 1661,
1668, 1671 et 1720 n'apportent que des rectifications ou des perfec-
tionnements de détail sans toucher à l'esprit des rapports des îles et
de 1'AngIeterre.
Loin d'entraver l'évolution des idées constitutionnelles, la forme
féodale traditionnelle du status des iles leur a permis d'éviter des
crises constitutionnelles brutales.Elle les a fait bénéficierd'un empi-
risme fécond, d'une adaptation spontanée aux problkmes politiques,
sociaux et économiques et des possibilités infinies de rajeunissement
du droit coutumier."
(k) Perrot, hl. Deux expéditions insulaires jrançaises1929.
"Dans le traité de 1204 qui rattachait la Normandie à la France,
les îles, pour une raison que l'histoire n'a jamais pu éclaircir, furent
omises. La Normandie était divisée en onze bailliages. Deux d'entre
eus étaient ceux de Jersey, d'une part, et de Guernesey, de l'autre,
à laquelle étaient jointes Serk et Aurigny. Or ces deux bailliages ne
figurcnt pas au traité.Ont-ils étS oubliés ou sciemment mis de côté?
On ne sait. Toujours est-il que les îles étaient restées fid&lesà Jean
sans Terre en 1204, et le traité de Brétigny(1360) devait explicitement
consacrer leur perte pour la France. A partir de cetteépoque, ce n'est
plus que par la force que les Français tentérent de les reconquérir."
[From p. 61
"Ce qui ressort de l'étudede cette histoire des îles pendant toute
cette période, c'estl'énergie farouchet belle avec laqueue les habitants
défendirent toujours leur indépendance. 11s étaient,il est vrai, sous
le protectorat de l'Angleterre, inais celle-ci leur avait concédéune
sorte d'autonomie, n'intervenant pas dans leurs affaires intérieures
et se contentant de les considérer comme terres franches qu'elle s'enga-
geait à défendre par ses armes contre les entreprises de leurs voisins.
Sous cette domination des plus légéreet librement consentie, les
Jersiais montrèrent un loyalisme qui ne se démentira pas jusqu'g nos
jours,
Dans les attaques nombreuses auxquelles ils eurent A parer, l'on
peut dire que c'est àla vaillance de leurs milices, ne désespérant jamais
après leurs défaites, qu'ils durent de conserver toujours cette indé-
pendance qui fait leur gloire.
C'est de leur sang, vieux sang normand, qu'ils ont payé leur
autonomie.'' REPLY OF PROF. WAÜE (u.K.)-3 X 53
3~6
(1) Halphen, L. Les Barbares, 1926.
[From pp. 300-3011 ....
"Alors commence la longue suite d'opérations qui ne s'achèvera
qu'en 911 par leur installation définitive et officiellement reconnue
sur les deus rives de la basse Seine et dans une grande partie de ce
qui va devenir le duché de Normandie ....
La guerre civile quia éclatéen France et qui met aux prises Charles
le Simple »,ledescendant de Charlemagne, et Eude, le roi élu dans
un moment de détresse, fournit aux Danois l'occasion de revenir à
la charge du côté de la Seine. Durant l'été896, ils s'établissent à
l'embouchure du fleuve, et désormais on ne pourra pIus leen expulser.
On les verra roder jusque dans la vallée de la Loire, jusqu'en Bour-
gogne, en Champagne ou même en Lorraine; on les verra sur l'Oise
et sur l'Aisne ; mais ils ne feront qu'y passer ; tandque, sur la basse
Seine, l'afflus de leurs compatriotes transformerapidement leur occu-
pation en une colonisation véritable. Le roi de France Charles le Simple
a renoncé à empêcher l'inévitable, et la Normandie se trouve déjh
en grande partie occupée quand, en 911,un traité conclu à Saint-
Clair-sur-Epte entre le Carolingien etle chef scandinave Rollon vient
transformer cn un état de droit l'état de fait qu'i la faveurdes cir-
constances les colons du nord ont su créer dans le pays qui porte
encore leur nom." REPLY OF &Ir,HARRISON (u.K.)-3 X 53
32s
skargaard. So far as the French mainland is concerned, this seems
to us,a very exaggerated proposition. In relation to the French mainland,
the Ecréhous are a small and isolated group of islets and rocks. The
Minquiers are situated some 17 miles from thc mainland, and bctweei~
them and this mainland the Chausey group is interposed. In fact, in
relation to the French rnainlarid, it is again onlby taking the whole
archipelago, that is to Say, nll the Channel Islands, that anything
approaching a skærgaard can be shown to exist. On the basis of the
Minquiers and the Ecréhous alone, it sirnply does not esist in relation
to the French mainland. On the other hand, in relation to Jersey, the
~osition is very different. As 1showed in my speech the other day, the-
Ecréhous, atany rate, togetherwith the Dirouilles and the Paternosters,
constitute atrue rock rampart, a substantialpart of which is even witkin
the territorial waters of Jersey-atrue rampart stretching along Jersey's.
north and north-eastern coast. In the same sort of way, though of course
the relationship is not so close, the Rlinquiersnagroup which stretches.
parallel to the whole southern coast of Jersey at a distance of only
rr miles from jersey, as compared with 17 from the French mainland..
Another point in Professor Gros's geographical observations which 1
noticed, was his implied suggestion that such isletsas Rlont-St.-Michel,
Tombelaine and Bréhat, were part of the Channel Islands. This, 1
submit, is cluite incorrect. Neither geographically nor historically have-
these places ever been considered a part of the Anglo-Norman aichi-
pelago. Al1these islets are situated weil within French territorial waters.
.off the mainland coast, and they are so near, indeed, that they are
joined to the mainland at low water. Bréhat, incidentally, lies just off'
the coaçt of Urittany-nowhere near tlie coast of continental Normatidy.
In this connection 1 would refer the Court to the French map No. r.
The Roches Douvres also were mentioned. These, Mr. President, are.
isolated rocks more than 20 miles west of Jersey and nearly the same
distance to the south of Guernsey. To the best ofhy knowledge and
belief they have never been regarded as part of the Channel Islands.
archipelago, nor have they ever been put to any use, even temporarily,
escept for the purpose of the French lighthouse which Ras erected there.
some years ago.
The next matter 1 dealt mith in my previous speech, yr. President,
was the Jersey connection with the Minquiers and the Ecréhous, and
the use made of them by inhabitants of Jersey for various purposes,
such as fishing, cutting seaweed, the quarrying of stone, and so on.
1 described the Jersey buildings on the groups and the interest taken
in thern by Jersey men. My learned friend did not seriously question any
of the facts which I gave. He rnainly queried their legal significance,
and their validity in support of the United Kingdom claim. 'Io that
aspect of the matter 1 shall come presently. There were, however,
certain observations of hls, relative to the facton lvhich 1 should like.
to comment.
Ne poured a good deal of scorn on the suggestion that there was.
what arnounted to a Jersey community at the Minquiers and the Écré-
hous. This he descnbed (and 1 use the term as itis given in the English
translation of bis speech) as "ludicrous". 1 would'submit to the Court
that, far from being ludicrous, the Jersey connection with the Minquiers-
.and the Écréhous during the period 1 am dealing ivithisin fact rather. REPLY OP >Ir.HARRISON (u.x.)-3 X 53 329
a remarkable one, and that, to assert the existence of a British corn-
munity or, ifyou prefer it,a Jersey settlement on the Minquiers and the
Ecréhous, is not in the circumstances any esaggeration. Let me consider
what these circumstances are, Professor Gros himself told us what they
are,and I wiil quote his words verbatim from page ~gjof the proceedings
of Monday, Septernber zSth (1 quote) :
"The chief rock of the Minqiiiers group is less than 150 metres
in length and 30 metres inividth at high tide-the size of a merchant
ship. It only risesa few metres above sea-level ; not a single blade
of grass grows there ;tlie total area of the other rocks-some 25 in
number-of the group does,not exceed that of this islet, so that
the total area of the 'above-water rocks' of the Minquiers is barely
a hectare. The Ecrehos are no larger : the principal islet is300
metres long and the total area of the above-wiiter rocks is three
hectares. No cultivation is possible in this group either, and it is
very difficult for anyone to live there. No one has described these
waters so well as Victor Hugo, who liked to place the shipwrecks
iri his books eitheron the Casquets or on the Minq~iers, with which
he had becorne familiar during his esile. Referring to reefç of this
sort, he wrote (1 quote) : 'What should anybody go thcre for ? It
is not an island. No food is to be found there, ileither trees, fruit,
pasture nor anirnals ; there are no wells of drinking water. It is a
desolation in a solitude .... nothing but wrecks would be found
there...." (ï'ravaillez~rsdeZriMer, p. 262.)
Izlsewhere Professor Gros cited documents referring to these groups,
or at any rate to the &linquiers, as "these awful rocksM-"ces a8reztx
rochers".
Now, 1would ask the Court, having heard that description, to consider
the photographs of the hlinquiers and the Ecréhous given in our Annex C
series, and the long history of the facts which we have been able to
furnish to the Court regarding the Jersey activities on these islets.
Without accepting every word of Professor Gros's description of the
physical condition of the islets as literally true, 1 accept it as being
substantially true IOO or rnore years ago. This being so,arenot we Jersey-
meIl entitled to feel rather proud of what we have made of these islets ?
Are Eve not entitled also to say that what we have done in regard to
. these islets affords real evidence of our interest in them and of their
value to us ?
A hundred and sweilty years rigo, hfr. President, thesc islets were
regarded by the French as "affreux rochers", and it appears from the.
document lvhich Ouropponentshave put in as .4nnex r in their Additional
Dociiments that no French authority could imagine why anyone should
wish to go tliere. To-day. on the other hand, when, largely through the
efforts of Jerseymen and by reason of works carried out .by the Jersey
aut horities,theçe islets have ceased to be '"affreux rochers" and have
become capable of profitable use,a French claim to them is strenuously
pressed..
Not only have our opponents disparaged the Minquiers and the
Écréhous as barren and uninhabitable rocks, but, hlr. President, they
hrwe compared tIiem unfavourably with the Chausey, in which, as we
know, cultivation is possible. I wonder what esactly the relevance
of this is, or wliat it is that our opponents hope to establishby it.1s the33O REPLY OF Mr. HARRISON (u.K.)-3 X 53
fact that they are so much better off in the lliausey, tlicir title to whic!~
we do not question, is the fact that they are so much better off there,
I repeat, a reason for wanting the Minquiers as well, and e\.en, in :iddition,
-
theAÉcréhous?
My learned friend, however, evidently felt, that the existence of
Jersey habitations on the JIinquier-s and the Ecrehouç, an0 the total
absence of any French habitatioiis, required so~nething by way of
explanation. He said, on linge 193 of the same day's proceedings that L
have already referred to-that is to Say, the proceedings of Monday,
September 28th (1 quote) : "But the Court will perhaps ask why the
fishermen's huts ...were erccted by Jersey fisliermen and not by French
fishermen." Hc went on to sap that the explanation was very simple,
that in the days of sailing sliips the direction of the prevalent winrls and
currents made it quite easy for the French fishermen to return to their
ports at ariy tinie, whel-eas the Jersey fisherrncii oftecould not do so,
and were therefore obliged to build shelters for theinselves on tlie islets.
The Court Inay fecl that this explanation isncither entirely satisfactory
nor, in itself, sufficient to riccoiint for the exclusive presence of Jersey
c. .-. .ctiuns and tlie total absence of French ones. But tiuite a~ni't
from this, ti~is7esplaiiation surely cannot be correct, becauLe,the Ihi~i-
quiers and the Ecréhouslie on different sides of Jersey;one, the Ecréhous,
roughly to the Sorth and 13ast, the other, tlie Minqriiers, to the South.
l'lie winds and currents w11icl-i iglit liinder navigation towrtrds the one
would assist it,surely, towards the other. I.tcertainly cannot be truc
that the winds ancl the tides made it invariably difficult for Jerseymen
to get home from both these groups and invariably casy for 1;renchmcii
to do so. 1 suggest, Mr. President, that a simpler csplanation is tlicit
thc Jersey Eisherrnerifished tliewaters of these islets much more regularly
than the French did, and that thesc fisheries were nlso of far greater
importalice to tliem.
Apart from thesc various matters and one or two othcrs whicl~ 1
shall mention later in another connection, rny lcarned fricnd made
iittle attempt to question tliecorrectness of rny facts. AsI said earlier,
it was their legal significaiice and probative value in support of our
claim to sovereignty which he chiefly denied. Tliis fie did on two
grounds. First, that some of theçe acts were mere applications of the
1839 Fishery Convention, or, alternativelq-, that thcy were in violation
of that Convention. This matter, Rrr. President, falls within the scope
of Mr. Fitzmaurice's opening speech, and 1 shall therefore leave it
to him to deal with. Secondly, Professor Gros's objection was that
even leaving the 1839 Convention out of account, the United Kingdom
and Jersey acts did not fulfil the coiiditionsrequircd by international
law for the acquisition of a title by prescription or by occupation.
This, too, I shall lcave to AIr. Fitzmaurice, as regards the law, but
1 shall discuss certain points of fact in relation to this French contentio..
Originally, Our opponents offered a third category of objection to
the probative value of the British acts. This was that most of them
were to be accounted for on the basis of an exercise of jurisdiction
ratione $ersona and not ratione soli. My learned friend only made
one brief mention of this matter when he said that acts (1quote) "sucli
as inquests on dead bodies or the taxing of houses belonging to jersey-
men were to be explained ratzone $ersomz and therefore gave rise to
no protests through diplomatic channels". This, as the Court will REPLY 01: hlrHARRISON (u.K.)-3 X 53 33 I
sec, is a mcre reiteration of the previous French contention and makes
absolutely no attempt to answer the dcmonstrations we gave, that
acts such as inqucsts aiid rating could not possibIy be accoiinted for
on a basis of ratiorie perso?zŒ,even ifsuch 3 bais were possible under
Jersey law, whicli it is not. For instance, ttake the matter of inquests,
what is Professor Gros's answer to Our demonstration that an inquest
has riothing to do eithcr with thc nationality of the dcceased person,
which is not eveii officially established until the inquest is held, or
with the nationality of any potcntial criminal, since it is not cven
established until tfic inqiiest is held that a crime hns been committed ?
What is his answer to oiir contention that these acts are acts of an
administrative character carrieù out as a matter of good order and
police by the authorities of a tcrritory in relation to an evcnt which
lias occurred there ?-acts which thep would not tliink of carrying
orit iii relation to similar events occurriiig on foreign çoil.1 will not
enlarge upon this any fiirther, for 1 believe that Professor Gros's
cniitestatioii was not a serious one. Rut 1 woiild rernind the Court
of tlie proofs whicli gave artd which arc also afforded by the Annexes
to Our wrjtten pleadings that the Jersey coiinection with the Minquiers
and the Ecréhous involves a real exercise of sovereignty in the scnse
of actual administration and jurisdiction. It is not only Jersey hnbita-
tions whicl~ are there, Air. President, it is also Jersey law which riins
in the islets.
1 now turn to the suggestion that the United Kingdom acts lack
probativc value for othcr reasons. As 1 said a moment ago, 1 shall
not discuss thc law, but 1 should like to deal with certain points of
fact that arise in this coriiiection. Professor Gros reiterated several
times thnt yractically al1 the United Kirigdom ncts, incltidjng, that
is to say, the Jersey acts, had taken place since 1576. 1 want to show
that this gives a vcry mislcriding impression of the situation. No dolibt
many of the United Kingdom acts have tnken place sincc that date.
Tliis is only natural. Inclecd, it would be strange ifit were not so.
13ut a considerable number also took place before tliat date, and the
Jersey coiincction with the groups was by then already long cstablished.
1 think 1 should not be far wrong if 1suggested that the whole French
contention about tlie inadmissihility of the British acts, £rom the
point of view of establishing a title based on prescription or occupation,
assumes that France was the sovereign over these groups, and, there-
fore, that the British position {vas one of endcavouring to acqriire
savereigntp l~y the prvcess of cstablishing title in the face of an
alrcr~dy esisting French title. But suppose, Mr. President. that the
position waç entirely different. Suppose that .it was not France ivho
was sovereign, and suppose that, as uTecontend, British sovereignty
over thc groups liad alrcady been established for centuries. Then,
perliaps, the United Kingdom acts during the last 150 years would
assume an entirely difierent cornplesion. Therc would then be no
question of their sufficiency or \~alidity for the purposc of giving ils
titlc. Thcy would simplv be acts in the normal esercise of an esisting
sovereignty. That, of coiirse, is what we contend to be the true position.
My learned fricnd ttçks the Court to contemplate the United Kingdom
acts in tlie light of something done in order to gain possession or
establish title. M'c invite the Coiirt to look at them in their tnie
pcrslç~ectiveas the natural consummation of a process ivhich had its332 REPLY OF JIrHARRISON (u.K.)-j X 53
origins in a distant past, and which had becn in existence for a very
long tirne. Let us now against this background briefly review some
of the main features of these acts, thoiigh of course 1 do not for a
moment propose to recapitiilate them in detail, sinc1 described them
in full in my earlier speech. From this review we shall see, amongst
other things, that, although the United Kingdom acts, subsequent
to 1876, may have been more numerous than tliose which accurred
before, many of them fall into exactly the same category. In short,
there wns no new departure in 1876.We did not then start suddenly
to esercise a sovereignty wc liad never exercised before, or to carry
out a whole number of nea acts neirer previously applied to the groups.
Tlie post-1876 acts should, therefore, be regarded, in rny submission,
çimply as the natural contiiiuation of a process ivhich tiras alrcndy
fully in existence before.
[Pzjblicsitfi~iO/ October5tA,19 3.7,rnor?ling]
' 0
Refore the adjournment on Saturday, >Ir.Yresident, 1\vas apyroach-
ing the matter of the United Kingdom's acts of sovereignty over the
Minquiers and the ficrkhous up to 1876. My consideration of this matter
will cover, first, the periup to the signing of the1839 Fisliery Conven-
tionw ,hicli, evenon the baçis of Professor Gros's argument, isprior to
the earliesi possible "critical date" ; and, secondly, the period between
1839and 1876.
Iii dealing with the first of these periIdslialgo back rather furtlier
thariT did in my openii~g speech and consider certain matters which
arose in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.
1 think 1 can dispose quite quickly of the latter-that is to Say, the
seventeenth and eighteentli century matters. Earliest in tjme in this
period were the cases in 1615, 1616and 1617in the seignorial court of
Noirmont and then the case of 1692 in the Royal Court of Jersey.
Professor Wade dealt with these the other day and, except forone
observation of a general character that 1 shall inake later,1 shall say
no more about them. hly learned friend, Professor Gros, drew the atten-
tion of the Court tocertain Acts of the States of Jersey of 1646, 1692,
1720 and 173. 4.e referred to them because he said they afforded proof
of the fact that Frenchrnennt those times resortedto the Minquiers and
the ecréhous. 1 may point out here, Jlr. Presideiit, thatof these Acts,
only that of 1754, produced hy us ris Annex A 160, lias been placed
testualiy before the Court, Rly learned friend appeared the other day
to be somewhat disturbed by what Sir Lionel Weald had said about
the lack of documentation of the French case, but it would surely not
have been impossible for our opponents to produce copies of al1 tliese
Acts of the States of Jersey, nor, just to refer lo one statement among
many made by my learned friend, which are entirely unsupported by
anything in the nature of evidence, should it have been impossible for
them to produce a copy of the document in which, in relation to the
cancellatioiiof the lease granted to hl. Leroux in 1929, the French
Government reserved its rights. It is perfectly clear, reverting to the
Acts of the States ~vhiclI have just mentioned, that the Jerseymen
who were in the habit of resorting to the tuPo groups in those days
were fishermen who made one of the içlcts ieach group their base of REPLI' OF >Ir. HARRISON (u.K.)-5 S 53 333
operation. But we do not know wl~atwas the occupation of the French-
men who u7ent there occasionally, nor the purpose for which they went.
They certainly Iiad no base in either group. Itmay ive11have been that
they went there for purposes of smuggling or even espionage, or it may
have been that it was whilst fishing on tlie fringes of the reefs that they
encountered Jersey fishermen operating frorn their bases within the
groups themselves. IVe simply do not know, and 1challenge my learned
friend to provide any real evidence that he does, either.
As regards the Act of 1754, my learned friend goes even further.
He asserts that this Act affords evidence of the fact that the States of
Jersey regarded the Chausey, Minquiers and Ecréhous as being included
within the Kingdom of France. I will quote,hlr.Presiclent, the relevant
part of the text in question :
"Qu'aucun Vaisseau ou Bateau venant du Royaume de France
ne sera souffert à entrer dans aucun Havre, ni mettre à Terre
Aucun Passagers ou Marchandises en aucun Endroit de cette Tsle,
pareille Deffence étant faiteà l'égard desIles & Rochers de Chauzé,
Marqués,& Icrehots, ou Rochers acljacents."
I will translate,if 1 may
"That no vesse1 or boat coming from the Kingdom of France
shall be allowed to enter any harbour, nor to bring to land any
passengers or merchandise in any place in this island, the like
prohibition being imposed iiirelation to the islands and rocks of
Chausey, Minquiers and Écréhous, or adjacent rocks."
Our opponents interpret this prohibition as applying to ships coming
front the Chausey, the Minquiers and the Écréhous, but in order to .
justify this interpretationthey have to introduce the word "including"
-"y conz@ris"-which isnot to be founcl anywhere in the text. Ive, on
the other hand, had interpreted this in the contrary sense ; that is
to Say, as applying to boa+ coming from the Kingdom of France to the
Chausey, Minquiers ancl Ecréhous, and in so doing we had relied on
Father de Gibon, the authority on whom also our opponents appear to
rely hesvily for other purpoçes. Referring to this Act of the States of
Jersey, Father de Gibon said on page 224 of his book : "A noter cette
indicatio?zde Cljausey et des Minquiers parmi les fleset ilots r~cclamés
comme dépendancedse Jersey." ("\Ve may note this indication of Chausey
and the Minquiers among the islands and islets claimed as dependencies
of Jersey.") The Court will notice that Father de Gibori mentions only
the Chausey and the Minquiers in this connection. He seems to find
nothing remarkable in the fact that Jersey should have claimed the
Ecréhous in 1754.
But, hir. President, whatevcr may be the correct interpretatiori of
the Act of the States of Jersey, a cIcar distinction is drawn in it between
the Kingdom of France and the Chausey, Minquiers and Écréhous-a
distinctbn which is enlphasized by the particular provision relating
to the Ecréhous which iscontained in the last sentence of thc Act. AS
the Court will see, there is nothing in the text of this Act to support Our
opponents' staternent that the prohibition applied to al1 boats coming
to Jersey from the. Kirigdom- of France, inclztding those coming from
thc Chausey, Minquiers and Ecréhous.334 REPLY OF air.HARRISON (u.K.)-5 X 53
Now, 1 do not propose to weary the Court by mentioning again the
various matters which 1 advanced in my opening speech as being acts
rnanifesting British sovereignty over the Minquiers and the Ecréhous
during the early years of the nineteenth century. The one to which we
attacli the rnost importance is the prosecution of Georgc Rorneril iri
1826, and it is very significant, my submission, that my learned friend
did not attempt to deal with thisat all, for here wasa very clear asser-
tion of sovereignty thirteen years before 1839. Xor, incidentally, did
Professor Gros attempt to deal with the other instances, which 1 gave
in my original speech, of prosecutions inthe Jersey courts for offcnceç
alleged to have been committed at the Ecréhous-in one instance, by
a Frenchrnan. One is left to assume that the explanation is that our
opponents are maintaining the arguments advanced in their written
pleadings that thiç exercise of jurjsdictioby the Royal Court of Jersey
was ration6 persona. As the Court is nware, 1 dealt with this contcntioii
at some length in my opening speech, and it is one of the obvious weak-
nesses of our opponents' case that they are unable to ofier any sort of
reply.
This, MJ-. President, wouId üppcnr to be an appropriate point at
which to consider what rny learned friend had to Sayabout our Additional
Annex A 164at page 12 of the English transcriptl for Tiiesday, Septem-
ber 29th. The Court will remember that this Annex contains the record
of the salvage case heard in the Royal Court of Jersey on May zSth,
1811. There were joined in those proceedings three clifferent actions
arising out of the wreck at the Minquiers of one ship. The plaintiffs in
the second action alleged that they had been prevented by other persons,
mho were already in the wreckcd ship when they (the plaintiffs in the
second action) reached it, from eRecting any salvage. It seems clear
from a reading of the judgment of the Court tliat the persons who liad
first boarded the wreck were the plaintiffs in the firçt action, but my
learned.friend has suggested that they must have been Frenchmen,
and he goes on to Say (1 quote froni p. 12 ofthe English transcriptl for
Tuesday, September 29th) that "'l'he very test of Arinex 164 of the
United Kingdom hlemorial shows that the two countries are at one on
this point of manorial jurisdiction over seamen". This very sweeping
statement, Rlr. President, is, inmy subrnission, quite unsustainahle.
It waç always clear tliat our opponents would be hnrd put to it to
dispose of the evidence which we hacl advanced of the esercise of juris-
diction by the Jersey Courts in matters arisirig at the Minquiers iiithe
seventeenth century, but I cannot think that the Court will fincl that
tliis statement by rny learned friend affords an adequate answer.
It is perhaps also appropriate that 1 should refcr here to the letter
fram the French hlinister of Narine to the French Foreigii IIinister
dated the 14th September 1819 (Anriex A 25 to our Mernorial), in which
the writer referred to the Minquiers as being "possédéespar l'Angleterre"
("possessed by England"). As 1 said in my opening speech, we relied
on this lettcr ivhich, incidentally,was trançmitted by the French
Ambassador in London to the British Foreign Office on the 12th June
1820 (Annes A 24), as showing that there could not at that tirne have
been in the minds of French Ministers any thought that the hiinquiers
were under French sovereignty. My learned friend seeks to dispose of
this by invoking a supposed principle of international law that no use
can be made of declarations, admissions or proposals made in the course
l En~Iish test iiorcprodricedSee p. 215of tfiis volurnc. KEPLY OF Mr.HARRISON (u.K.)-j X 53 335
of direct negotiations between parties when those negotiations have not
resulted in agreement. 1 yould submit, however, that this principle
cnnnot be invoked in this connection. The statement of the hlinister of
Marine was macle in a letter in which he sought the assistance of tlie
Iïreiich Foreign hlinister- to put aend to alIeged violations of French
territorial waters by British fishermen. It was, therefore, prirnarily a
domestic communication oii the interna1 plane from onc ITrenchauthority
to ai-iother and, as sucfi, we contend, fully admissible ris evidence of
the French view at that tiine that the Minquiers were "possédées par
1'A~tgEeterre".
In an endeavour to offset this piece of eviderice, my learned frieiitl
iiivoked what he described as a "characteristic admission" on the part
of the States of Jersey in 18~2. The relevant paragraph of the -Act of
thc States of Jersey to which he thus referred is cited in Annex NO. 2
of the French Additional Documents. 1coiild have supplied my learned
friencl with tliccomplete teut, of which 1 have. photostat copies, but
this yriragraph cited by our opponents seems to us to bc wholly devoid
of any probative value. Itis certainly not, in my submission, an admis-
sion in any sense of that word. In the first place, it appears to be little
more than a mere description or recitation of the fact that oyster banks
had been discovered in certain areas. But my learned frierid suggested
(1 quote frorn p. 4 of the English transcriptl for Iliednesday, Septem-
ber 30th) thnt this Act of thc States of Jersey showed that "The Jersey
people did not therefore, in 1822, consider the Minquiers in any way
as a dependency of their island ; irideed, tliey regarded them much
rather as part of the dependencies of Chaussey." There is, 1 submit,
Mr. President, nothing whatsoever in this instrument to justify such
;isuggestion. It was a petition addressed to Wis Majesty the Ring in
Coiincil,and it wouId therefore be natriral, arid indeecl Iiecessary, to
givc an exact description of the situation of the islarlds referred to.
Tlic Chausey werc only meiitioricd as a convenient wny of giving the
exact location of the Minquiers, and it caiinot be inferred from this
that the latter were regardetl asa dependency of the former. The Court
will remember tliat the Royal Court of Jersey had, only a few yerirs
earlier, dealt witli two cases of salvage nt tlic illinquiers. Furthemore,
considering ttiat only a few years earlier still, a petition had been
rtddressed by Jersey fishermen to the States ofJersey praying.that the
quarrying at the Minquiers should be stopped (para. 166 of the United
Kingdom i\Iemorial), the suggestion that at this time the States of
Jersey can have thought the Minquiers to be dependencies of the
Cl~nuseyis clearly lacking in any semblarice of plausibility.
Mr. President, 1 have digrcssed somewhat from the main thread of
iny argument in order to deal with these rniscellaneous points arising
on the earlierpart of mv period, I had originally startedto discus. the
vnliclity of the French contention that al1 Our acts of sovereignty had
occurred after 1876,and, in dealing with this, I said 1 would cover the
periods up to 1839 and between 1839 and 1876. I think. the simplest
tliing1 can do, and the onc wliich will Save the most time, will be to
cnumerate without comment the principal acts or evidences of sover-
eignty which we have produced relating to the period up to 1S76, some
of them of dates prior to 1839 and some after.
)\part from the records of the Seignoiial Court of Noirmont regarding
the cases in 1615, 1616 and 1617, the case hcard in the Royal Court of
17nglish text not repro<lucSecp. zjg of tliis volume.336 REPLI' OF Mr. HARRISON (u.K.)-5 X 53
Jersey in1692 and the Acts of the States of Jersey o1646, 1692,1720
and 1754,to which 1 have already referred, these acts and evidences
are, as regards the Minquiers, the following :
I. Act of States of Jersey, Jaiiuary rzth, 1779, subsidizirig Jean
Richardson and his crcw for the carrying out of rescue work at the
Minquiers (Additional Annex A 162).
2. Act of States of Jersey, February zgrd, 1872 ,egarding French
interferencewith Jerseymen fishing at the Minquiers (Annex 140).
3. Judgnlent of tlie Iioyal Court of Jersey, May 28th1811 ,n the
salving by Jerseymen of a vesselwrecked at the Minquiers (Additiorial
Annex -4 164).
4. Judginent of the Royal Court of Jersey, October grd, 1517 ,n
thesali-ingbyJerseymen of a vesse1wrccked at the Minquiers (Additional
Annes A 165).
5. Three inquests on bodies of passerigertheship Su+erbwreckedat
the Pvlinrl~iiiii Seytember TS~O(Additional AnnexesA 168, 169 ,70).
6. Evidence of workmen quarrying stone at the Minquiers in 1792 ;
work continued until early in the nineteenth century ; fishermen made
protests wliich eventiiallp brought work to an end (para.166 (a) of
our Mernorial,and Annex A 129, p.337, 2nd para.).
7. The cutting of initials by quarrymen on Maîtresse Île and evidence
of its occupation by them. (1rnay say in parenthesis that 1 notice
that my 1e:irned friend çcaffed at this, but nevertheless Isubmit,
of probative value.) (Thiis referreto in paras.166 (b) and (c) of oilr
hfemorial, pp. j-96.)
S. Captain alartin White's survey in 1812,with its evidence of
buildings on the Ninquiers (para.169 (a)of the Xemonal, on p. gS,
and Annex A 138).
g. The evidence of buildings at Maitresse fle in 1869 (para. 167
of the Memorial),
IO. Despatch from British Embassy in Paris, November rzth, 1869,
claiming that the Minquiers werea dependency of the Channel Islands
(Annex -451).
II. The evidence of the presence of fishermen at the Minquiers and
thebuildingof huisbythem (para. 173of the Memorial,and AnncxA139).
As regards the Écréhous :
I. The esamination by the Bailiff of Jersey of a fugitive from
French justice found ai the Ecréhous on May .28th, 1706 (Additional
Annex A 159).
2. The prosecution of George Romcril in 1826 (para.136 (a), p.79
of the Mernorial, and Annex A 80).
3. Inquest, May z8th, 1859, on the body of an unknown seaman
believed to be a French national, found drowned near the gcréhous
(Additional Annex -4 172).
4. The registrationof Philip Pinel's boat by Her Majesty's customs
officer in1872 (para. 138 (c)of the MemGal, p. Sr,and Annes A 87).
5. The warrant dated October gth, 1875, constituting the island of
Jcrsey as a port of the Channel Islands (Memorial, par85, pp. 56and
57, and Annex A 30).
6. Thc evidence of the niins of the stone huB on Blanc Pie bearing
the date 1820 n ~vhich Philip Pinel later lived ; and the reference to338 REPLY 01: >Ir. HARRISON (u.K.)-j X 53
wcre thrcc widely spaced protests, each of which was concluded \)y a
detriilcd and reasoned affirmation of the grounds of British sovereignt~y
to which no furttier reply was made. In the meantimc, Jersey ricts
continiied certaiiily on the basis of a complete conviction on the part
of jerseymen and the Jersey aiithorities that tlie groups wcre part of
Jersey. Tlic long-standing Jersey connections with the islets and the
absencc of any French rcaction, ai least for thrcc-quartcrs of the lnst
century, would alone have been sufficient to warrant this bclief. Those,
>Ir. Presidcnt, are the facts. 1shall lcave it to 31r. Fitzmaurice to.dcal
with thejr legal jmplications.
1corne ~iow,&Ir.President, to Professor Gros's remarks on the allcged
French acts of sovercignty. 1 caii inost easily deal with thcse, 1 think,
in rzlation to thc Additional French Documents which were put in
and circulated as Annexes I to 13.
'l'herc iça certain pattern ruririing through thesc documcrits wtiicli
1 think thc Court will ~iot have failed to have noticed. Let us take,
for instance, Anncs I, thc so-callcd "Deniande de concession des Min-
rluicrs" of 17S4, an accoiint of which appcars iiithe number of the
Pays de Grnizvi/ld for A~irilrggr. 1 woilld ask the Court to consider
this in relatioii to Annes S, which contains a long and detailed corre-
spondence about the buoying and lighting of the Alinquicrs. In cnch
casc, the Court will sec ;Ldesire on the part of the Frencli authorities
to claim the Mincluicrs as French territory, couplcd with an evident
realization of the fact thnt there was ecliially a British claim to this
group :tllat any assertion of the French daim ~vouldlead to difficulties
with the I3ritish authorities, anrl finally, a decision, largcly for ttiat
rcason, not to proceed with the particular object which the French
authorities had in mind. The samc observation also applies to -4nnc.s Ci,
which consists of a letter from the Frcncli Foreign AZinistry to the
Frencli A~nbassador in Londoii, dated Fcbriiary 1937. ln the first of
thesc cases, the request for a concession at the Minquiers by the French
niithorities\vas rcfused, and, in the second and thircl, Frencli proposals
for thc creation of a depot on thc Maitresse yle of the hlinquiers for
the use of their buoving service and proposals for the CO-ordinating
of buoying and lighiing in that area, were not proceeded with. Xo
attempt was made hy the French Govemmcnt to cstablish the proposed
depot oii the >l\?laitrcscle ilor.to interfere in any way with the buoying
and ligtiting wliich hatl bcen carried out by the Jersey authorities.
In short, the documents in these three Anneses, I,6 and S, ftilly
hear out our conterition that France, while persisting in rnaintaiiiing
a clairn to thesc islets, was not in yractice prcpared tu assert itand
thereforc did in practice nccluiescc in thc British and Jersey position,
whatever she may have rnaintained on paper.
There are certain furttier points of interest arisiiig out of these tlirce
Annexes iridividually. For instance, it is quite clear from the lettcrs
of the Intendant at Caen and the Sub-Déleguéat Granville, in Aniies I.
that they themselves knew very little or nothing of the Minquiers
in 1784. The Sub-DéltguC rit Grailville, in his Report to the Tntenclant,
said that he had clerived the information contained in that lieport
from "ceux qui ont été dessus"-from titose who have been ttiere.
'This rnay be compared witli tlie obvious knowledge of tlie Minquiers
which prevailed in Jersey at tiiat time niid earlicr and is amply shown
by the evidence before the Court. 0.11the other hand, wc firid this same REPLY OF Mi'.HARRISON (u.K.)-5 S 53 333
curious lack of knowledge--tliis time about the ~?créltous-in Frencli
quarters inuch later. 1 refe: to our Adclitionnl Annes A 174, page 662,
~vhere it will be scen fhat in ISSG the jourtialist BI. Sutter Laumanii
eriquired about the Ecreh~us at Cherbourg and \vas met with tlic
enquiry "'Les Ecréhouc', cu'est-ce que c'est clu'çn!" ("The Ecréhous
-what are they !")
-4nnex S is also signifiant iii anotlier sense, as it estal~lislies oiit
of the very mouth of the Frencli aiithorities thernselves, alid on thc
basis of their own interna! official correspondence, ~irccisely what we
said \vas the position in regird to the buoying and lighting of the hfiii-
quiers, anrl that is, that all tlie buoys, liglits and beaconç on the islets
and on tlie plateau itself '.vere installed and are maintained by the
Jersey authorities. The skctclies given in Annes S clearly establiçl~
this, as, npart from other Jtiings, al1 these beacons, marks, etc., are
shown to hear the iiarne j:tals de Jersey. The whole concesii of the
French authorities in 1938 \?as that the coIour and forrn of the beacons
and marks on the Minquiers itself wcre different frotn those crnployetl
for the Frcticli biioying and lighting of the waters situatcrl at soinc
clistniice from the main isl:.nds and rocks and marking the approaclics
to Granville and St.-Alalo. \Vhat the Frencli autliorities souglit was
uniformity in the matter, .,vhictt tvas no doubt quite natural. Never-
theIcss, thc csistence of t1ic:sediffescnces serves to mark quite cierirly
the two facts,first, that al1.:he marking and beaconiiig of the Minquiers
themselves was-as it is tc-day-by Jersey, and secondly, that tiicre
was-as there is to-day-no French buoyiiig or ligliting of tlic bIiri-
quiers. It isonly outside tlic:reef and for a different purpose.
Incidentally, Mr. Preçidl:nt, support for. our coiitentioii that thc
French buoys in this area a:.e designer1to nssist navigation to and froni
the Port of 9.-hfalo, is to te found in a letter clated March 17tl1,1937,
addrcssed to the British Foreign Secretary by the I'rcncli .Ambassador
iii London. That letter, though it was the immediate sequel to tlic
letter datecl February zgrd, 1937, given as the Frencli Annes 6, is iiot
prorluced iii that Anriex, but 1 would sitbmit that it is clearly relevant
since in-it (and 1 have a copy of it) tlie Frencii Ambassador spoke of tlic
reinforcement of the beaconiiig system of the approaches to the port
of St .-Malo.
The objcct of the Frcnr:li buoyiiig and lighting iii this aren also
emerges very clearly from tlie correspondence betweei] the British Naval
Attaché in 13arisand the Frrricli Ministry of Marine, given in Annex II.
1 would, however, incident::lly point out that this correspondence, not
having been exchangcd until September 1952 ,nd rclating as itdoes to
events taking place at that ~late,that isto Say, a year after this dispute
ïvas submitted to tlie Court and nearly two years after the sigriature
of the Compromis, is not, strictly speakirig, receivable as evidence
before this Court. \lieIiave not objected to its production, but 1 woulrk
nevertheless drarv the atteiition of the Court to the dates in question.
Wowever, what does this c~rrcspondence show ? It s~iows that it was
the British sliip 1;alaisewllich reported the extinction of the light oir
the south-west Minquiers bioy. Now the Falaise, hlr. President, is the
British Railways' ship which during the summer rnaintains the regular
service between Sauthamptc~n and St.-hlalo, andshe was reporting that
one of the lights on he~'route was extinguished. This again bears out
our contention that these lights have, as their object, not the buoying REPLY OF Mr. HARRISON (u.K.)-5 'C53
34O
or ligtitiiig of the Minquiers but that of tlie approaches to St.-Malo.
The request made bÿ the British Naval Attaché for the re-lighting of
this huoy mas in the ordinary routine interests of navigation, and of
the maintenance of the service between St.-Halo and Southampton.
Such interchangcs on technical rnatters between the competent autho-
rities of different counlriare cornrnon hm, and are, I.submit, devoid
of any legal or political significance. IVe have never denied that there
are buoys and liglits in tl-iisvicinity, which have heen installed by the
French authorities and wliich are their property. Iis obviously for theni
to maintain these lights. .Al1we have denied is that these lightshave any
direct connection rrrith the Minquiers themselves, or that their existence
is in nny way evidence of French sovereignty over the &linquiers.
1 do not know, hlr, President, what the Court will think of Annexes 12
and r3. These documents are dated September mst, Igj3, that is io
Say, not only after the submission of the dispute to the Court, but even
aftcr the opening of the preseiit oral hearing. However, we offer no
objection ti) them : we merely draw attention to the fact. In any case,
\Te fail to seewhat itisexactly that these documents establish, assum-
ing them to be accurate, and the mernories of those concerned to be
reliable.All that they show is tliat, in 1903 or 1904, and spin in 1935
or 1938 (the tu70 ietters in Anncs 13 are not in agreement about tl-iis),
certain French visits to the Maîtresse fle of the Minquiers took place.
We do not deny that such 1-isits, which we would regard as quite
unauthorized, may from time to time have occurred, but the circurn-
stances surrounding these particular visits seem, at the very least, to
be equivocal. In any case. 1woulcl silbmit that such isolated acts occur-
ring iltintervals of thirty or forty years signify nothing and are not
evidence of French sovereignty.
Annes g appears to relate to nothing more than the grant of an ex
post juctosubsidy in respect of the refuge hut erected on the Maîtresse
Tle of the Minquiers just before the war, which we have already fully
discusscd in our pleadings and in my original speecll. I am interestecl
now to observe that this hut was called "Maison de France". Why a
"Alaison de France" on French territory ?It is usually,I suggest, outside
France that one finds a "Maison de France". Incidentally, there are a
number of discrepancies betweeii the actual terrns of this document and
what my learncd friencl said in relation to this matter generally, oii
pages 44 and 45 oftheEnglish transcript lfor IVednesday, September 30th.
He spoke of the essential interest in the matter being that of the Conseil
municipal of Granville l-ieaded by the Alayor of Granville. Annes 9
records proceedings of the Conseil municipal of Cancale-but that, 1
have no doubt, my learned friend will be able to explain.
Annes IO appears to be totally without probative value of any kind,
and 1 do not propose to make any further comment on it, except that
1 would ask the Court to note tlie date at which it is stated that the
efforts of the gallant Admiral had resulted in the cleciçionto hoist the
French flag on the Mincluiers-August zoth, 1945. Already, Air. Presi-
dent, in May Igqj, sliortly after the Iiberation othe Channel Islands,
a visit tiad been made by Jersey officials to each of the groups and the
British flag had been hoisted there (1 refer the Court to Annex A 131
to our Mernorial). Equally lacking in probative value is Annes 2, which
1 discussed at an earlier stage of my speech.
l Ilnglish tert not reproduceSec pp. '77-273 of this volume. REPLY 01' Mr HAR.RISON (u.K.)-5 X 53 34I
Itis also difficult to siiwhat way Annex 4 helps thc French case.
It consistç of a protest by the British naval authorities at depredations
committed at the Minquiers by French fisherrnen. In reply, the French
naval authorities offer to o:?en an enquiry about this, and cornplain at
ttie constant hoisting ofth: British flag atthe Minquiers. Ifanything,
iliis Annex only confirrns the fact that this flag was flownat the Minquiers
and that the Minquiers wt:re regarded by Jersey fishermen and the .
Jersey arithorities aç Hritisli territory.
This leaves us, therefore, ~vithAnnexe3,5 and 7.The correspondencc
in Annex 7 was quite clearly the precursor and cause of representations
contained in M. Corbin's notes of October1937 and January 1938, which
figure as Annexes A 76 and 77 tothe United Kingdom Memorial. This
correspondence adds nothirg to the effect of those notes, which was
iuHy discussed in my first s eech. The French Annex 7 is, however.
interesting as eridence froni grench sources of thedefacto position at
the Minquiers and of the oc1:upation of that group by Jersey fishermen.
Annes j,which consists 1)fa lettei frorn the French .4mbassador in
London to the French Foreign Minister of April 1903, shows exactly
the same thing ascertain of the other French Annexes to which 1 hav
already drawn attention-r.amely, that the real interest and position
of France in this matter wz.s not to assert her own sovereignty but to
prevent the assertion or recognition of British sovereigiity and to
rstablish forthe islands a sort of indete~inatc or neutral position.
1 will have more to Say about this later, hIr. President, but for thc
moment I will only say thit it is difficult to reconcile letters of this
kind with the French clain! to have the sovereignty over the groups.
Annes 3, consisting of :r let te^ of Februa~y 1876 from the French
Foreign Ministry to the Fri:nch Ambassador in London, is clearly the
precursor of the representations madeby the latter, which are contained
in Annex A 31 to the Uni:ed Kingdom Memorial. This letter indeed
contains the instructions 0.1 whicli tliose represeiitations were based,
and it therefore adds notliinl: tothe latter. It does, however, add strength
to certain observations that 1 shall make in a few momei~ts. Tt also
contains evidence of a French desire to split up the Dirouilles, part of
which are definitely within Jersey waters-and also an admission of
our contention that the Eci.khous are a submarine prolongation of the
Paternosters and the Dirouilles and therefore, geographically, a unity
with Jersey.
That is al1 1 shall Say about the Additional French Documents,
Mr. President. But perhaps, in view of the factthat some of them are
dated even after the openkg of the present oral proceedings,1 might
be allowed, on the same ba~is, to mention a pieceof information which
I have received from Jersey, since 1 made my opening speech, from
a member ofa local firm of advocates.Itrefers to a well-known Jersey.
famiiy of the name of Tocque, and to a book1 of family history and
records kept by that farnil:~. In it appears the following note, and1
would emphasize the date : "A.D. 1690-Nicholas Tocque. Died and
buryed by the side of his hwse the south side of the Maître Ile, Min-
quiers." If this can be credited as accurate, and with respect 1 see
no reason why it should n3t be, it indicates the existence of Jerçey
habitations on the Minquiers as eady as the end of the seventeenth .
century. The Court will r?member that the Dumaresq case, given
in our Annex A 21, was hr:ard in 1692.342 KEIZY OF $Ir.H.4RRISON (u.K.)-5 X 53
Tliere is very little more 1 need Say about the allegecl Frencti acts
of sovereignty. 1 believe the Court will not have been favourably
impresçed by my leariied friend's attempt to disparage the efforts of
Jersey in the buoying and beaconing of the hlinrluiers. Great stress
was laid on the superiority of the French efforts and its far greater
cost. This Ive do not dispute. \Vc only Say that the French buoying
and lighting is not of thc Aiinquicrs tfiemselves, whercas the Jersey
works arc. This is indeed proved, as 1 have shown, by the French docu-
ments tlicmselves, and there ison147 one srnall correction to Yrofes-
sor Gros's observations that 1 would like to rnake. He suggested that
tlie only passage for shipping between Jersey and St.-hlalo was to
the IlTest of the Minquiers. That, Mr. President, 1,as an eye-witness
of the passage of ships hetween 5t.-hlaio and Jersey, would say is not
correct. Alay 1 rckr the Court, &Ir. President, to the chart Annes B 3
to our Mernorial. My leariied frieiid producèd il in Court wlien he was
spealiing the other day. \ire were quite familiar with it because .ive
liad prodiiced it as our Annes R 3. It is here on the blackboard beiiind
me, and 1 would point out, if 1mny, to ttie Court, whercthe French
lightbuoys and otiier buoys respectively are.[Mr. Harrison ltere indi-
cated the appropriate places on the chart.] Here, on the estreme right
of the chart is tlieCaux buoy, as we know it. That is a lightbuoy-
it is well to tlic East of the Plateau, which the Court well knows is
liere. Here, at tliis point, is tlie Sauvages, another lightbuoy. Here,
another. Here, another and, finally,the Minquiers buoy, here to the
West. Tliose, hlr. Presideiit, are the five French lightbuoys : tliere,
there, tliere, thcre and tliere-riot one of them within tliree inites of
any permanently uncovered rock on the reef itself. There remain the
four otlier buoys which are not lightbuoys but are whistling buoys,
I think :one Iiere, the Nuisible ; one here, ariother Iiere and another
there. 'l'lieCourt will see that these buoys, al1 of them, form a circle
around and away from the Mincluiers. \Vliat is significant,1 submit,
RIr. President, is that there are two buoys to the East of the Minquiers,
tlie Caus (the lightbuoy of which 1 spoke first)-here, with the red
circle round it-nnd the Buisible, the one with the blue circle round
it, which is on the left ofthe first on tlie chart. Those two buoys, the
one a light, the other a bell, are there, Mr. President, for shipping
passing to the 15ast of the hlinrluiers, and, ris1 have snid, 1 ani
replarly inyself a witiiess of the passage of the British Railways
steamer Britfatty, which goes regularly every week frotn Jersey to
St.-Malo, and three times during the summer. Tnvariably that ship
passes to the East of the Minquiers and, 1 subrnit, quitc apart from
the fact that it shows that my leamed friend is perhaps no better
informed on this particular point than he is about the régime des veufs
etdes coztnints iri thaaren, itshows quite clearIy that shipping passes
from Jersey to St.-Ma10 on both sides of the recf ; and that it is in
order that shi ping should do so that the area is so lighted and buoyed
by the iirencR authorities.
There is, of course, Mr. President, no French buoying or lighting at
the Ecréhous. Everything there is done, has been done, by Jersey. My
learned friend, quoting from one of our Additional Annexes, suggest-
qd that iii 188G French customs boats visited or had visited the
Ecréhous weekly. 1 can only say that we have no evidence of it and
that the Annes in question is an article written by a French journalist. REPLY 01: MI. HARRISON (u.K.)-5 X 53
343
I would add simply thrit is it quite inconceivable that there should
have been weekly visits tc, the Ecréhous on the part of French cus-
toms authorities without our knowledge, more particularly having
regard to the factthat itJ<:rseycustom-house had been established at
the Ecréhous in 1884 (Anriex A 86) without, as 1 have shown, any
comment or protest from tlte French Government ; and having regard
also to the elridence we Iiavz produced of the vigilance of &Ir.Bertram,
the sub-agent of the Impôt:; of Jersey.
The VICE-PRESIDEN ATcting President [InterfiretatzonjMr. Hnrriçoii,
1 would like now to give an opportunity to Judge Hsu Mo, who wants
to put two qucstions with iegard to the last part of your speech. Ifou
are under no obligation to answer these questions at once-you ma}.
do so later at your own coiivenience.
Judge Hsu a10 : My fir!;t questionis: Do ships usually navigatc
inside or outside the senii-cjrcle formed bythe French buoys ? And my
second question is : Can you show us the buoys constructed by Jersey
on the Alinquiers ?
&IrH. ARRISO :S1can give the answer tothe first question very simply,
Mr. President. It is that, to the very bestof my knowledge, no sliips-
* apart from fishing boats-eller navigate inside the French line of buoys.
They navigate esclusively-and 1 would submit that they must navigate
exclusively-outside those l)uoys. 1 would Say, however, that tliere is
one exceptioii ta that, and lhat is that I know that one of the alasters
of the Britlany-one of the former Ilasters of the shiy Britl~ny-used
to take a passage which, a!; far as 1 know, none of his colleagues will
take, that is the passage wliich goes near to the Coq Reacon placed by
the Jersey authorities in,1 think, 1931 or rg34. I can point that out to
the Court. [hlr. Harrisori indicated on the map.] There, Mr. President,
isthe Coq. The other Jersey buoys and beacons are principally within
this area ; most of them ar: immediately round the Maîtresse Ile here
and in that area. There is (,ne which is marked on the chart-1 would
admit that it is the only fine of the Jersey buoys or beacons whicli
is marked on tlie chart-tha t bell, at that point near tothe Petit Vascelin,
isa Jersey bel1and buoy. The remainder of the Jersey buoys and beacons, O
as 1have said, hlr. Presiden are principally in this area, although there
is one, as the Court will finj from the Annexes, on the Pipettes. There
is another on the Maisons, ind indeed tliere are others eIsewhere, 1 am
quite certain, of which I rtrlnot able atthis moment to tel! the Court
exactly wherc they arc on the map, but I can say that al1 thc Jersey
buoys and beacons are withi:~this area. Al1the French buoys and beacons
are right outside, and 1hav~:not the slightest reason to think that there
isany navigation by shippjiig properly so called inside the line of those
lights.
The Vice- RESI SI DENA T,cting President [inlerfiretation: Juclge HSU
Mo states that he is satisfiej with your answer and 1 would thank you.
RTr. HARRISO PA;nd nou., in conclusion, Iilr. President, rnay1 place
before the Court a view of this case which, speaking with the local
Yknowledgeof a Jerseyman, 1 believe to be a true and correct view.
Itis this : thst the Governnlent of the liepublic inthis matter is princi-
pally-if not indeed entire.y-concerned with the interests of French
:fishermen. It iç not-and 1 would subrnit that it never has been-
23 REPLY OF Mr. HARRISON (u.K.)-5 X 53
344
really interested in the matter of sovereignty. 1 have in point of fact
always believed that the realconcern of the Government of the Republic
was solely the protection of the interests of French fishermen, but it
would seem that 1 must now modify that view to some extent, at least
so far as the Minquiers are concerned, having regard to the recent
disclosure of the hydro-électric projects for the. installation of tidal
power plants in the Bay of Mont-St.-Michel and the region of the
Minquiers archipelago.
1would now say, therefore, that the main objects of the Government
of the Repiiblic are-as they always have been-to protect the interests
of French fishermen in thc areas of the Minquiers and ,the Écréhous
and now to further the hydro-electric projects. But 1 would repeat,
hlr. President, that France isnot-and never has been-really interested
in the matter of sovereignty as such.
1shall try to show in a moment why 1consider myself amply justified
in making this statement, but Ishould Likefirst toSay that our oppo-
nents need have no fears in regard to these matters. Whatever the
outcome of the present proceedings, French fishery rights will be
respected by us and, as T said the other day, no unreasonable obstacle
will be placed in the may of the hydro-electric projects by the Govern-
ment of the United Kingdom or by the States of Jersey.
Now, as to France's real interest in this rnatter. 1 draw the attention
of the Court to two principal points. The first is that my learned friend,
Professor Gros, saidtliatit was forthe sake of the fishernleiofSt.-hfalo,
Carteret, Camaret and Chausey that the Government of the liepublic
had brought this matter before the Court.so that it rnight be establishcd
that they were right when they said : "These rocks are ours." Now why
should these fishermen wish to clairn these rocks as theirs ? They have
no huts on them-apart from the shelter erected in1939 at the Minquiers
-and they never have had any huts on them. Moreover, if we accept
as correct the explanation offercd by our opponents to account for the
building of huts on the islets by Jerseymen only-namely, that the
régime des vents etdes coura~tts-the prevalent winds and tides in these
areas-is always unfavourable to Jersey fishermen and never to French
D fisherrnen-this I have already diçcussed-then one sirnplycannot çee
why French fishermen should ever have wanted to have huts there.
They have, in fact, no interests whatsoever on the habitable portions
of the reefs. Their only interest is in fishing in those waters. When one
considers al1thatmy learned friend had to say to show what insignificant,
miserable things the reefs are-devoid of vegetation and without
drinking water ; when one compares, as he invited the Court to do when
he produced his photographs, these écueilswith the ;lehabitable, Chausey,
one cannot lielp asking oneself :"Why on earth are Our opponents
making such strenuous efforts to secure these écueils?" It is true, of
course, as 1have said, that Jerseymen in the last 150 years have made
them much more attractive than they were, but even so, they have,
according to Professor Gros, very little to commend them even now,
And if that is, infact,the French view, then it is difficult to see how
the Government of the Republic can be really interested in the matter
of sovereignty. This brings me, Mr. President, to Iny second point.
I believe it not unfair to Say that-certainly in cornparison with
Jersey-France has never at anytime performed any true act ofadmin-
istration or act manifesting sovereignty over either of the groups. She REPLY OF M:.. ARRISON [u.K.)-5 X 53 , 345
has certainly contributed nothing towards making them usable. More-
ovcr, up to 1876-a dato to which our opponents themselves obviously
attach considerable import ince-France never reacted in any uray at
al1against the very obvious acts of possession on the part of Jerseymen
and the Jersey authorities over both the groups, of which we have
already given proof. What was it, then, that in 1876 produccd the
very first reaction on the 1,artofthe French ? It was, of course, the
United Kingdom Treasury Warrant of 1875, of which the Court has
already heard a great deal. 1 would, however, ask the Court to refer
again to Annexes A 30,31, 33 and also Annex 3 of the nexvdocuments
submitted by our opponents.
It i1,submit, perfectly c1t:arfrom these documents that the immediate
concern of the Governmen: of the Republic waç lest any prejudice
should be suffered by Frencli fishermen. The question of France's sover-
eignty over the Écréhous W;LS never raised-even in the letter from the
French Foreign Minister to the French Arnbassador in London,. dated
February 17th, 1876,which is reproduced in Annex 3 of the new French
documents. What they weri: interested in was the maintenance of the
rights of Frenchfishermen under the 1839 Convention, and securing for
the French fishermen the rit:ht to avaiI themselves of the shelter be
found in the fossetothe Eaci of the Maîtressefle.
1t was not until several years later that, followiagprotest in1883
against an aIIeged and in fiict non-existentProjetde loi of the States
of Jersey, said to be desil;ned to prevent French fisherrnen having
access to the Écréhous, the French began to show an interest in the
matter of sovereignty. the.^then set up a Comrnittee of Experts to
look into the question, and that Cornmittee eventually, in November
1886, produced the Report 1:Annex A 42 to Our hlemorial) which ledto
the Government of the Re~ublic putting fonvard, for the first time, a
claim to sovereignty over the kcréhous.
Following that, it was no doubt natural that the Government of
the Kepublic should put forward a claim to sovereignty over the
Minquiers and, in 1888, th~y seized the opportunity afforded by an
officia1 visit made to the Blaitresse lle by the Piers and Harbours
Comrnittee of the States of Jersey and, for the first time, advanced
that claim. 1 will not wear'r the Courtby referring again to the corre-
spondence that followed. The point I çeek to' make is simply this-it
was only with the object of uphoIdin what they believed to be the
rightsof French fishermen under the IQ39 Convention that the Govern-
ment of the Republic raised the question of sovereignty at all. This
indeed seemed to be admitt.:d and even declared by my learned fiiend
the other day. It emerges cl-arly frorn the correspondence beginninin
1876 that France had previously regarded the Minquiers and the
Écréhous as neutraI territory. 1 think iisnot unreasonable to suggest
that the clairns to sovereignty over the islets were put foiward wino
other object than to secure an agreement with the Government of the
United Kingdom which would have the effect of confirming the groups
as neritral territory. Striking evidence of this is to be inthe letter
of M. Paul Cambon, Frencli Arnbassador in London, to M. Delcassé,
French hfinister of Foreign Affairs, dated April 27th, 1903, which is
reproduced at Annex 5 of the new French documents-and 1 would
Iike to ask the Court, if1 may, to take particufar note of the terms
of that letter. Apart from ievealing a curious lack of liaison between346 REPLY OF air. HARRISOP; (u.K.)-5 x 53
departmentç of the Government of the Republic on the quest'ionwhether
or not there was any intention on the part of that Government to erect
a lighthouse on the Minquiers, this letter shows quite clearly that what
M. Cambon was aiming at in 1903 was to obtairi (1 quote) "la recon-
naissance de la neutralité des Minquiers" ("an acknowledgment of the
neutralityof the Minquiers"). And we knoWthat M. Cambon's suggestiori
to the French Foreign Minister was followed up almost immediately
(Annex A 62) and again in 1905(Annexes 71 and 72).The same funda-
mental concern over fisiiery rights rather than sovereignty also appears
clearly from the French Additional Annex 7, tlie correspondence in
which led up to M. Corbin's representations of 1937.
It is, 1 submit, Mr. Prcsident, abundantly clear that the Government
of the Republic, which now so boldly asserts that France is and rrlrvays
has been sovereign over these islets, woiild, at tlie turn of the century,
have been cornpletely satisfied if the United Kingdom Government had
been willing to agree that the groups were neutral territory. Ouroppo-
nents are secking now, by effortsboth skilful and energetic, to make
good a cIaim to sovereignty, and the Court has heard from 1)rofessor
Gros a very able exposition ofthe historical and legal aspects of their
case. Yet tome the wliole French casegivesthe impression of something
put fonvard ex Post factoratlier than oa case always firmly believed in.
And the irivocation at a very late stage of the hydro-electric scheme,
combined with the failure of my learned friend to reply in any way at
al1 to my contention that this is a matter of political expediency and
certainly of no relevance whatsoei-er to the issue before the Court,
merely serves to strengtheii this impression.
1 ask the Court, Mr. 13resident, oii a,basiç of law, to dcclarc that
sovereignty over the Ninquiers and the Ecréhous iswhere it so clearly
lies already. 9. REPLY OF MT. FITZMAURICE
(COUSSEL FOR THE GCVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM)
-4TTHE PUBLIC S1TT::P;CSOF OCTOBER jtflAND 6th,1953
[Publi sittittg of October5th,1953, afterttooiz]
Mr. President and Mt:mbers of the Court :
1 am conscious that aftcr the speech you heard this morning, witli
al1its colourful detail, a spei:ch which really contained the whole cssencc
of this case, since, after all, we are not dealing with the dead past nor
the unborn future, but witl. the living present, the rather pedestrian-
or perhaps 1 should say, ~iscatorial-matters that 1 have to address
you about will comc as somswhat of an anticlimax. 1 am also conscious
that whereas 1 and my coll+:agues-and this applies also to our Frencli
friends-will shortly be able to go away and forget al1 about this case
(that is, until we receive 3,our judgment), the work of the Court iç,
I willnot Say, only just stating, but at any rate,by no means finished. .
1should, therefore, have likcd to have made my own remarks as brief as
possible and to have ter~nin.ited this afternoon, but my friend Profcssor
Gros gave me so much to think about in that part of his speech the
other day wliich covers th< matters 1 have to put before you that it
will in fact be impossible fx me to finish before to-rnorrow morning,
though I shallcertainly do :;before lunch-time.
1shall address you, hIr.Pcesident, on two topics in reply to my frientl
Professor Gros :first, the (luestion of the critical date ; secondly, his
argument that, even if 1830 is not the critical dat-cthe United King-
dom acts in relation to the Minquiers and the Ecréhous during the
nineteenth and twentieth centuries would not fulfil the conclitions
required by international la~vfor the acquisition of a titleby prescriptiori
or occupation, although thcrc is a certain unreality in a discussion 011
thnt matter, because, of cou.:se, isnot Ourposition in the very slightest
degree that we were acquiring a title by prescription or occupatioii
during that period. Nevertlieless, 1 will deal with the matter on that
basis, hypothetical though it is in Our view. Then, since my speech will
conclude the case for the Uiiited Kingdom, 1 shall also, at the end of it,
summarize veryshortly ourinain argument relating to the caseasa whole.
Refore 1 begin, there ale certain preliminaries 1 must deal with.
1 should like to add my pt:rsonaI tribute to the spiritin which these
proceedings have been corducted by Our French friends. Given the
history ofboth our countnes, there are no doubt various ways in which
each Party might have souf;ht to embarrass the other by enlarging the
field of debate. This has htrppiiy heen avoided, and we have confinecl
ourselves to our supposed ".i\nglo-French Mediterranean", which 1 must
say seems to have afforded plenty of scope for controversy !
Next, a question arose tlie othcr day about the right of the Parties
to invoke the 1951 Fishery Agreement, and my friend Professor Gros,
in very generous terms, ~vithdrew any imputation that the United
Kingdom Government, conlrary to the understanding between our two
countries, had made any xse of the 1951 Fishery Agreement for the
purpose of supporting its daim to sovereignty. May 1, in my turn, REPLY OF Yr. FITZMAURICE (u.K.)-5 X 53
348
unreservedly withdraw any imputation of bad faith on the part of the
Government of the Republic, or its Agent in this case, which might
have seerned to be contained in my previous rernarks concerning the
French position about the Convention of 1839.Certainly no such imputa-
tion was intended, and what is really involved is yetanother of the many
misunderstandings to which this ill-fated Convention has given rise.
1 also entirely agree with Professor Gros that within the scope of
the Compromis submitting this dispute to the Court, there is nothing at
al to prevent either Party from advancing any argument in support of
its claim or against the claim of the other Party. But equally, of course,
it must be open to either Party to contend that the arguments of the
other are,or may be, contrary either to the letter or to the spirit of the
Compromis, asive believe this argument about the 1839 date to be.
That I shaU discuss presently.
Mr. President, 1 spoke of the 1839 Convention just now as ill-fated-
a terrn which the interpreter translated asceltemalheureuse convention ;
perhaps it would be a little more in accordance with the idea in mind
if it were translated destinée azcmalheur. If there is one thing that is
certain, it is that this Convention has given rise to constant difficuities
and rnisunclerstandings, and 1 think it is worth while enquiring why
this should be so, for after all, on the face of it, this Conventionis a
perfectly normal one, very similar in many ways to many another
fishe convention. There have been, 1 think, two principal reasons for
this.? he first has been the uncertainty abouthe exact territorial sphere
of application of Article 3 of the Convention. France regarded this
rovision as ap~ilying to the Minquiers and the Écréhous. The United
kingdom evidently did not. But the second cause of difficulty has surely
been the constantatternpts onthe part of successive French Governrnents
to read into an ordinary fishery convention implications about sover-
eignty. Thus a vicious circle was set up. France became alarmed on
perceiving that the United Ringdom did not consider that the Co,nvention
created a cornmon fishery position at the Minquiers and the Ecréhous.
But, equally, the United Kingdom Government was alarmed when it
became apparent what was the basis on which France claimed these
common fishery rights-in short, when itappeared that France wished
to use this Convention, not merely to claim fishery rights, but also to
contest, or at any rate deny, the existence of the United Kingdom
sovereignty.
Now the argument about the 1839 Convention has been presented in
various forrns in the course of thiscase, and from this the Court may
draw its own conclusions. However, Professor Gros has greatly helped
us now by defining his attitude on certain points in the French thesis
which were previously obscure. This will enable us to ignore the inessen-
tials and concentrate on the only mattcrs which are really decisive.
From the moment that Professor Gros admitted or declared three
things, as he did the other day, this whole question becomes relatively
simple. What were these three things 7 They were, first, that in 1839
the main, and indeed the sole, object of the Parties was to regulate
fishenes, and to do so (1 quote his words) "without touching on the
question of sovereignty" ; secondly, tliat the 1839 Convention neither
created a joint régime or condominium for the islands, nor caused them
to become res?zulliusbut that they continued to be under the exclusive
sovereignty of whatever Party had sovereignty in 1839-that Party REPLY OF Yr. FITZMAURICE (u.K.)-5 X 53
348
unreservedly withdraw any imputation of bad faith on the part of the
Government of the Republic, or its Agent in this case, which might
have seerned to be contained in my previous rernarks concerning the
French position about the Convention of 1839.Certainly no such imputa-
tion was intended, and what is really involved is yetanother of the many
misunderstandings to which this ill-fated Convention has given rise.
1 also entirely agree with Professor Gros that within the scope of
the Compromis submitting this dispute to the Court, there is nothing at
al to prevent either Party from advancing any argument in support of
its claim or against the claim of the other Party. But equally, of course,
it must be open to either Party to contend that the arguments of the
other are,or may be, contrary either to the letter or to the spirit of the
Compromis, asive believe this argument about the 1839 date to be.
That I shaU discuss presently.
Mr. President, 1 spoke of the 1839 Convention just now as ill-fated-
a terrn which the interpreter translated asceltemalheureuse convention ;
perhaps it would be a little more in accordance with the idea in mind
if it were translated destinée azcmalheur. If there is one thing that is
certain, it is that this Convention has given rise to constant difficuities
and rnisunclerstandings, and 1 think it is worth while enquiring why
this should be so, for after all, on the face of it, this Conventionis a
perfectly normal one, very similar in many ways to many another
fishe convention. There have been, 1 think, two principal reasons for
this.? he first has been the uncertainty abouthe exact territorial sphere
of application of Article 3 of the Convention. France regarded this
rovision as ap~ilying to the Minquiers and the Écréhous. The United
kingdom evidently did not. But the second cause of difficulty has surely
been the constantatternpts onthe part of successive French Governrnents
to read into an ordinary fishery convention implications about sover-
eignty. Thus a vicious circle was set up. France became alarmed on
perceiving that the United Ringdom did not consider that the Co,nvention
created a cornmon fishery position at the Minquiers and the Ecréhous.
But, equally, the United Kingdom Government was alarmed when it
became apparent what was the basis on which France claimed these
common fishery rights-in short, when itappeared that France wished
to use this Convention, not merely to claim fishery rights, but also to
contest, or at any rate deny, the existence of the United Kingdom
sovereignty.
Now the argument about the 1839 Convention has been presented in
various forrns in the course of thiscase, and from this the Court may
draw its own conclusions. However, Professor Gros has greatly helped
us now by defining his attitude on certain points in the French thesis
which were previously obscure. This will enable us to ignore the inessen-
tials and concentrate on the only mattcrs which are really decisive.
From the moment that Professor Gros admitted or declared three
things, as he did the other day, this whole question becomes relatively
simple. What were these three things 7 They were, first, that in 1839
the main, and indeed the sole, object of the Parties was to regulate
fishenes, and to do so (1 quote his words) "without touching on the
question of sovereignty" ; secondly, tliat the 1839 Convention neither
created a joint régime or condominium for the islands, nor caused them
to become res?zulliusbut that they continued to be under the exclusive
sovereignty of whatever Party had sovereignty in 1839-that Party REPLY OF Mr. FITZMAURICE (!J.K.)-5 X 53
349
being, of course, in his view, France ; and, thirdly, that what the Parties
agreed to in 1839 waç the coinmon use of the islands for fishery purposes.
1hope that 1 have described his theory in objective terms.
Now with this introcluction 1 shall corne to my main argument,
and, in the Iightof my frirnd's speech the other day, I shall ask thc
Court to reject his thesis on three grounds. First, that is inconsistent
with the Compromis, whicli it is the primary duty of the Court to
apply. Secondly, that, sino: the question at issue in this case is tht:
territorial sovereignty overi.heMinquiers and the Ecréhous, the French
theory cannot be accepted r.nless itis at least quite clear that Artic3e
of the 1839 Convention did apply to thuse groups ; and I shall submit
that this fact is by no mt:ans clear. 1 shall, however, be extremelj,
brief oirer that part of mj. argument. 1 shall certainly not attempt
to re-open al1the geograpt.ica1 or historical details or to go througli,
the various negotiations and instruments again. It wili really be suffi-
cient for my purposes on that point that, although Professor Gros
argued that the territorial application of this Article was perfectly
clear, it took him some hoiirs ofmost intricate exposition in order ta
do 50. Then, thirdly, and even on, the assumption that the Article
applied to the Minquiers a:id the Ecréhous, 1 shall ask the Court to
reject the French theory b:cause it is clear,and indeed is riow char
from the observations inaCe by niy friend the other day, that this
provision applied in a purei,y hshery sense and kad no bearing on thc
question of sovereignty.
Rly first argument is tha,: the French tlieory about 1839 is difficult
to reconcile with, at any r:.te, the spirit of the Compromis which the
Court has to apply. The (:ompromis recites-in the Preamble-that
differences (1 quote these words) "have arisen" between the Parties
(and then 1 quote again) "kave arisen ....as a result of claims by eacli
of them to sovereignty ove;. the islets and rocks in the Minquiers and
Ecrehos groups". It goes on to Say that it is "these differences" whicti
the Parties are desirous of having settled by a decision of the Court.
It is further quite clear fiom Article I of the Compromis that thç
Court is to determine the matter on the basis that the sovereignty
bclongs to the one country or the other. This evidently assumes and
pre-supposes that claims ttb exclusive sovereignty have already been
put fonvard by the Partits, and the natural interpretation is that
the Court is being asked to determine which of these clairns to exclu-
sive sovereignty which ex hypoll~esihave already been put fonvard,
which of these claims is tlie correct one. That in turn pre-supposes
that it must have been opeti to the Parties to put fonvard such claims.
and that the rnatter is being submitted to the Court on that basis,
One of the Parties' claimsi; correct and the other willbe found to bc
incorrect, but both Parties are, and also were previously, entitled to
claim this exclusive sovereignty, and of course therefore necessarily
entitled to claim toexercise it. That, we suggest, is the natural meaning
and effect of the Compromis.
Now, the French theory, if itwere correct, would have this result,
that the claims which have already been put fonvard by the Parties,
in so far as they were based on acts carried out sinc1839 , ere invalid
as weH on the one side a:; on the other because, according to this
theory, neither Party was at that time entitled to make a claim on
that basis.35O REPLY OF Jir.FITZIIAURICE (u.K.)-5 X 53
There is no doubt that the differences which arose between the
Parties in the period 1839to lgjû were in fact differences about the
nght of the Parties to esercise an exclusive sovereignty, for both the
Parties put fonvard their claims on that basis, including, from' about
1880 onwards, France. And there is no doubt that in making tliese
claims, both Parties (including again France} invoked acts of the very
kind that Professor Gros now says they may not invoke. Now, since
it isdifferences about these claims which the Parties have asked the
Court to adjudicate upon, and since these claims were based in con-
siderable measure upon these alleged non-invocable acts-if 1 may
so cal1 thern-it has to be assumed that, in submitting thcse claims
to the Court, the Parties have themselves vnlidated the bnsis on which
the claims are put forward. Othenvise the Court wonlrl be askcd not
to say ïvhich of two claims to sovereignty was correct but which of
two invalicl claims was the better-an ob\~iously impos~ible situation.
To repeat, it is precisely differences about claims which both Parties
have put fonï~ard invokliig al1 the various acts which, according to
the Frencll theory now, they were not entitled toiiii.okc-it isprecisely
these claims made on this basis which are apparently submitted to
the Court under the Compromis and this is why we Say that the present
French argument is inconsistent with the letter of the Compromis.
It is certainly inconsistent with itç general tenor and intention.
I ivould add that the present French contention about the effect of
the 1839 Convention is one which had not been put forward until the
present proceedings for many years by France. Since 1880 or thereabouts,
France has claimed exclusive sovereignty invoking hydrograpliic mis-
sions, buoying and lighting, and so fortii. So has the United Kingdom.
It must be assumed therefore that this is the basis on whichthe matter
has been s~ibmitted to the Court-namely, that such acts are properly
invocable ; and 1 ask the Court to interpret the Compromis in that
sense.
1 now turn .to rny second point. The French contention is based on
Article 3 of the 1839 Convention, and, therefore, since this is a dispute
about territorial sovereignty, it is surely essential to that contention
to shpw that Article 3 was terriiorialapplicable to the Minquiers and
the Ecréhous. 1 submit to the Court that the territorial application of
Article 3 to the groups must be established quite clearly before a coriten-
tion so far-reaching and drastic in its effects as this French contention
could be accepted. If there isany room for serious doubt as to whether
Article 3 applied to the groups at all, then effect should not be given
to the contention that neither Party can invoke against the other the
events subsequent to 1839.
Now, as the Court knows, successive United Kingdom Governments,
rightly or wrongly, have rnaintained with unvarying consisiency and
over a long period of years, that Article 3 never had any application
to the groups. Professor Gros suggested that the United Kingdom only
began to challenge the French interpretation of the Convention some
thirty years after its conclusion. This may be so in fact, but no occasion
to challenge that interpretation arose eariier. There isna evidence
between 1839 and 1869 of any incident which necessitated such a
challenge. ln that year-in 186yincidents began to arise, and there-
after the French interpretation was conçistently challenged, partic-
ularly when it became clear that this interpretation involved a claim REPLY OF blr.FITZhlAURICE (u.K.)-5 X 53 351
not mercly to common fisheïies, but aIso a denial of British sovereignty
over the groups.
\Ve have equally, in thi: course of this case, questioned whether
Article 3 had any territorialapplication to the Minquiers and the
Ecréhous, and we rely on aiid adhere to our previous arguments. Rut 1
will iiot go over them again. The point 1 want to make is that, on any
view, the exact territorial;.pplication of this Article must remain one
of great doubt. The vmy fact that Professor Gros had to employ so long
and intricate an argument 3n the matter, whicli, indeed, took up the
greater part of the time whch he spent on the 1839 Convention, shows
that it yust be far from cleai .The Article does not mention the Minquiers
or the hcréhous, or, inclced, any particular territory, and itis ccrtainly
possible to read it as not i~pplying to territory whicli was under the
sovereignty of one or other of the Parties. Indeed, it is not only possible
to do this, but it is also possible to put fonvard a number of cogent
arguments in support of tf.at vietv.
May 1, without rc-openin:; the matter, just remind the Court 'ofone
or two of these arguments. It will be remembered we maintained that
what the Parties were really interested in was the Article I line off
the French coast. If the Cou1.twill rc-read the historical part of Professor
Gros's argument, in which he told the storg of the question from about
1820 onwards, it will see that his argument fully supports Ourcontention,
and shows even morc clearly than.we had that this Article I line was
the important thing. It wac here that the important oyster banks Iay,
and each side obtained a.co:npensation because, in some places, HritisIi
fishermen were allowed to ~ish within French territorial waters, while
in othcr places French fishtnnen liad an exclusive right, eyen outside
French territorial waters. A.nd that being so, there would be nothing
particularly surprising if th< common area under Article 3 were quite a
small one, and if itexcli~dedany territory or waters in tliat region which
were under the exclusive i;overeignty of one or the other of thc two
countries.
Again, it did not sccm to ne that Professor Gros gave any convincing
explanation of why, if jne of the two coiintries had sovereignty over
the hlinquiers and the Ecrtihous, nnd therefore, according to his ow~i
viewv-for he insisted very inuch on the connection between territorial
sovereignty and fisheries-that Party, having the sovereignty, had an
escIiiçive fishery right rit th- Minquiers and the Écréhous, there was no
explanation of why a Partj. in that position should have been willing
to abandon this excliisive ~ight and to share the fisheries-for which,
be it remernbered, there would be no compensation, since the compen-
sation had already been fo~nd for both sides by thc way in which thc
Article I line was drawn.
Now, Professor Gros doe:; assert that one of the Parties, that is to
Say, France, had the exclusive sovereignty in 1839 ;but the only
explanation which he gives of why'France should have been willing to
place the groups under the régime ofArticle 3 appears on page 257 of
the printed record (p. ISof i:he English transcriptl). But itisnot really
an explanation at all, for it begs the whole question and assumes that
Article 3 applied to the grciups. Professor Gros asks this, and 1 quote
a passage from that page :
1 Englishtcxt not rcproduce<i. 352 REPLY OF hlr.FITZMAURICE (u.K.)-5 X 53
"Why should the orner of the islands havemade any objection ?
Why should he have prevented them from being used for fishing 7
What wouid he have gained from doing so, since it had been agreed
that the fishing should be common in the waters of the Ifinquiers
and the Ecrehos, and that agreement appears in Article 3 of the
Converition? Neither the United Kingdom nor France had any
longer an interest in inserting a mention of the sovereignty, properly
so-called, over the islcts."
Well this, as the Court will see, gives no explanation of why the
country having sovereignty should have been wiILing to place the groups
under the régimeof Article 3, because it açsiimes that they had already
been so piaced. 1 repeat my friend's words : "What would he [that is,
the owner] have gained from doing so, since it had been agreed that
the fishing should be common in the waters of the Minquiers and the
Ecrehos 7" It is no douht arguable that ifthe groups had already been
placed' under the régime of Article 3, for whatever reason, the country
having sovereignty might then have had no particular motive for
preventing the fishermen of both countries from landing on the islets
and using them. But there would still have tobe answered the preliminary
question why the country having the exclusive sovereignty, and therefore
pvimu faciethe exclusive right of fishery, should ever have been willing
to place the groups under this common régime at all, therehy, as1have
said, sacrificing the excIusive fishery rights in return for no compençating
advantage anywhere else. On Professor Gros's interpretation, this fact
stillremains completely unexplained, and 1 cannot find any other
passage inhis speech than the one 1have read, in which he atternpts to
put for\r?ard any explanation.
Another difficulty about the French argument is that it would
apparently lead to the result that, not only did the Minquiers and the
Ecréhous have no territorial waters in which any exclusive fishery right
could be enjoyed, but also that none of the Channel Islands did, except
Jersey, for which special provision was made by Article 2. IfMembers
of the Court will in due course look at pages 242 to 244 of the printed
Report (English transcript, pp. 41 to 449, they ~ill see that this is
precisely the effect of what Professor Gros said. From these passages
and also from other parts of his speech it would appear that, in his
view, tlic "British Islands" referred to in Article g were simply the
United Kingdom and Ireland and possibly one or two others, such as
the Isle of Wight. He denies any validity or interpretative effect to
Article 36 of the later, unratified,1867 text, which made it clear that
this term was to be read as including the main Channel Islands "with
their dependenciesw-amongst which we, ofcourse, place the Minquiers
and the Gcréhous. Of course, he did this largely in order tç,try to
establish that Article9 did not apply to the Minquiers and the Ecréhous,
but the egectof his argument is that Article 9 did not apply to any of
the main Channel Islands. So, according to the French interpretation
of these articles, ArticleI, 2,3 and g, an exclusive right of fiçhery was
reserved to Jersey alone-under Article2, but not to the other Channel
. Islands. Now, that is clearly an impossible interpretation. The meaning
ascribed to the terrn "British Islands" is in any case incorrect, since
l Englishtext not reproduced. REPLY OF 1Jr. FITZMAURICE (u.K.)-j X j3 353
the technical term used to describe the United Kingdom and Ireland
is, or was, at slny rate, ''BritiIsEes",not "Islands".
1 mention these points, and there are a considerable number of others
which 1 could mention and which will be found in my previous speech
and also in the United Kingdom RepIy, in order to show that, despite
al1 that Our opponents have said, the question of the territorial appli-
cation of Article 3 remaini one at best of doubt and difficiilty. The
French explanation by no means solves al1the difficulties, and it leaves
a considerable number of the most important points uncxplained. It
is certainly impossible to Say, at this date, with complete certainty to
what precise areas Article :;applied. Even Our French friends would,
1believe, agree that no entirrly satisfactory interpretation can be found.
If that is so, can this provi:;ion afforan adequate or reasonable basis
on which to buiId the consecluences which the French theory involves ?
1 submit to the Court ttiat, unless itis,quite clearthat Article 3 must
Iiave applied to the Minquiers and the Ecréhous, the Court cannot, in
a dispute relating to the territorial sovereignty over thcm. regard that
provision as applicable if the consequences of doing so would be to
preclude the Parties from irvoking any of the acts of territorial sover-
eignty which have occurred in relation to these same groups since 1839.
Before 1pass on to what is obviously the principal point at issue iri
al1 this, namely-assuming that Article 3 did apply 'to the groups, in
what sense did it do so and what was its effects-before 1 embark on
that, 1 would like to correct the impression which may have been made
by one part of Professor Gi.os's argument, and .that was tlie assertion
that there would be nothiiig contrary to previous United Kingdom
claims or practices in asserting jurisdiction over areas of the high seas
or claiming exclusive fishery rights there.I am conscious that this rnatter
is strictly irrelevant to the ~resent proceedings, but nevertheless, in the
circumstances, 1 have to sa); something about it. 1am sure it was quite
unintentional, but my frienl did misdescribe our practice andpolicy,
and also, I am sure unwiti.ingly, he made certain mis-statements of
fact which 1 am obliged to correct. He cited a number of Acts of Parlia-
ment under which he said jurisdiction was asserted up to ten or twenty
miles from the English coas:. It is, however, an understood thing, that
is to Say, to a11intents and purposes, a presumption of law, so far as
the English legal system isclincerned, that unless the contrary is stated,
a United Kingdom Act of Parliament only applies outside territorial
waters to British subjects irnd British vessels, unless perhaps it map
be in the application of an :nternational convention which permits the
exercise of jurisdiction over foreigners outside territorial waters. Apart
from that, jurisdiction is iiot exercised outside the three-mile limit
. under United Kingdom Act5 of Parliament except in regard to British
vessels, and it is inthis sense, and in this sense alone, that Acts of
Parliament asserting jurisdiction outside the three-mile Iimit are to be
understood. Then rny friencl citèd the Agreement between the United
Kingdom and Venezuela of February 1942, about the submarine areas
of the Gulf of Paria. This Agreement, however, refers solely to the
sea-bed and the sub-soi1of tl!eGulf.Article j expressly says (1quote it) :
"This Treaty refers s~lely to the submarine areas of the Gulf cf
Paria, and nothing her-:in shall be held to affect in any way the
status of the islands, islets or rocks above the surface of the sea
together with the territorial waters thereof."353 REPLY OF llr, FITZ3IAURICE (u.K.)-j X 53
So that, so far from that being in any sense a precedent for the Min-
quiers and the Écréhous (it could notbe a precedent because it happened
much later in date) but being at al1 similarto that case, it is exactly
the opposite. And similarly, Article6 of the Agreement with Venezuela
says :
"Nothing in this Treaty shall be held to affect in any way the
status of the waters of the Gulf of Paria or any rights of passage
or navigation on the surface of the seas outside the territorial
waters of the Contracting Parties ...."
This 'Treaty is therefore most definitelyizota claim to the division of
the actual ivaters of the Gulf, nor does it involve any claim by either
country ta exclusive fisheries or rights of any lrind in the waters of
the Gulf outside the ordinary territorial waters of the two countries.
This, 1 rnay Say, represents the settled policy of the United Kingdom
Government. Professor Gros also rnentioned an tlustralian claim to
sedentary fisheries to a distance of xoo miles. This he characterized-
with technical correctness,, in a sense-as being equally a "British
claim", but the Court will knoïv that an -4ustralian claim is not imput-
able to the United Kingdoin as such. But, in any case, 1 can assure
the Court that the huçtralian clairn is not a claim to jurisdiction over
the hjgh seas or to any esclusirre rightof fiçhery there. It is a claim
solcly to the submarine areas and to the sedentary fisheries actually
attachcd to the bec1 of the sca.
Well then, that great authority Gidel was cited, and the Report
drawn up by the Secretary-General of the United Nations for the
International Law Com~nission on the Régime of the High Seas, and
the actual author of this Report was himself Gidel, so that in a sense
Gidel was cited twice, undcr different capacities-himself and qua
Secretary-General of the United Nations. But now, as 1 think most
people who are acquainted with the practice of the United Nations
know, these reports whicli the Secretary-General, empIoying very
oflen a well-known authority to do so, draws up for various com~nittees
and commissio~is, are conipilritions intended to assist the cornmittees
or comrni~sions in their work-and that, of coursc, applies eclually to
the International Law Commission. These reports do not represent the
views of the cornniission itself nor even the official views of the Secrctary-
GenerxI on the law. Now in point of fact, the International Law Com-
mission, in,the articles whichit l-iasframed on this subject of the régime
of the high seas, has been rncist careful to distinguish clairns to the
bed of tlie sea and the sub-soi1 from claims to the waters above the
sub-soil, which are quite ar?other matter and which are not norrnally
exercisable outside territorial waters. wns ansious to give that expla-
nation to the Court of Our position and of these various matters.
Mr. President, 1 now corne to my third main argument, wliich is
the essential part of this matter. Assurning, contrnry to our view,
that Article3 of the 1839 Convention did apply to the Minquiers and
the Ecréhous, in what sense diù it apply and with what effect ? Now,
1 am greatly assisted here by the fact that Professor Gros defined
the French position on a numbcr of points which have hitherto been
uncertain. The Court wiII remember, for instance, that 1 asked what,
according to the French view, was the status of the islands in 1839.
Ive now know that, according tathe French view, tiiey were definitely REPLY OF Mr. FITZLI~URICE (u.K.)-5 X 53 355
French and not, for instance, a resnulliecs.Similarly, 1had asked what
status Article 3 was suppo~ed to have created for the groups in 1839
and thereafter, accordirig :O the French view, jVe now know that
the Article is not said to liave created either a status of res .rrullizts
or of ,condominium, and that French exclusive sovercignty is said to
have continued. Now for iny present purposes it is unnecessary to
discuss whether the soveri:ignty over the groupç at the time was
French or British. It suffi ci:^that both Parties agree that it was one
or the other, According to .:he viey now put forward on behalf of the
Government of the RepubIic:, one of the two countries-naturally, theÿ
sa]'it was France-\vas sov?reign in 1839 and went on being sovereign
aftenvards.
On this basis, let us seeliow ttie Freiich argument is put : and herc
1 hesitate, because there are in fact two possible ways of putting it,
one of which it seemed to rie Profcssor Gros was putting during somc
part of his speech, but late1 he put forward what 1 think was a rather
different view and one wf.ich perhaps more nearly represented iiis
real intention. However, 1 shall deal iKith the matter systematically,
and 1 shall begin with the Triewwhich it seerned to Ine Professor Gros
was putting forward some time before the end of his observations,
and 1 shall corne later to the second basis of his argument. On what
1 will cal1the first basis, it scemed to me that the argument put forward
was this : it was said that, altliougli one of the Parties was sovereigii,
an agreement was made irvolving a common use of the islands for
a certain purpose. Then, the argument proceeded, the resulting position
was as follows :
The Parties were entitletl to makc comrnoii use of the islands for
the stated purpose. Any usl: of them which they did in fact make foi ,
that purpose would then bi: explicable in tenns of the Convention as
something done under the Convention, and therefore would not bc
of any significaiice from the point of view of suliporting a claim to
sovereignty. On the other hand, any act perforrned by the Parties
7zotin pursuance of this conimon use ~vouldbe a violation of the Con-
vention and therefore inva.id, and consequently equally not capablc
of being invoked in support. of a claim to sovereignty.
Let 'ils follow the matter out on that ground and see what wiil be
involved by that way of putting the argument. According to that
theory, the Convention perniitted the use of the groiips by both Parties
for fishery purposes. Therefxe, in so far as the Parties used tbem for
fishery purposes, they could not quote that use in support of their
claims to sovereignty. But ifeitlier of the~n used the islands for any
other purpose than this particular yurpose, then they were breaking
the Convention and could not invoke those acts cither. \Vé11,that
is surely reading a great deal into a conimon fishery provision. The
wliole argument, 1 suggest, on ttiat basis, appears to be founded on
the implied proposition thai: anythirigwhich is notexpressly permitted
by a certain clause must bc: assumed to be forbidden, which is surel]?
a complete non sequitur.
Let me take the example whicli the United Kingdom Attorney-
General gave the other day, the erection of a wireless station, or else
it miglit be a meteorological station, or again, if it were a larger island
it rnight be the constructioi~ of an airfield. Can Ive believe that when
two countries, one of them lieing sovereign over thc island, have agreed356 REPLY OF Mr. FITZMAURICE (u.K.)-j X 53
to use it for common fisheries, or rather, more accurately, have agreed
that the fisheries of the island shall be available to both of them-can
we belicve that the country having çovereignty must thereby be held
to have impliedly undertaken not to erect a wireless station ora meteor-
ological station, or to construct an airfield, or in fact to make any
of the normal uses of the island which the country having sovereignty
would norinally be eiititlecl to do ?
Alternatively, are we to believe that the country having sovereignty,
having agreed that the fisheries of the island shall be available to both
Parties, has thereby undertaken that everything else will equally be
available to both Parties ? In short,if a wireless station is erected, it
must be,done in common, if an airfield is constructed, that must be
done in common too, and everything else, every other normal act of
property or sovereignty, if done at al], can only be done by the two
countries acting jointly or by agreement ?Are we not here going back to
something very like the condominium position which Profeçsor Gros was
at pains to Say his theory did not involve ?
Sirnilarly, if we revert ta the other meaning, that when two countries,
one of theni being sovereign,agree on a common use for fishery purposes,
this rneans that the country having sovereignty is precluded from using
the island for any but the common fishery purposes, does not this reduce
the sovereignty of the country possessing it to nothing ? The French
theory, on the basis 1 am dealing with now, which 1 know Profesçor
Gros may Say presently does not correctly describe his intention (but
1shall corne ta that in due course), affirms that one of the two countries
was sovereign and continued to be sovereign, but it places that Power
in a position in which it would not, in effect, be able to exercise any
individual sovereignty at all, or it would place it in a position where it
would only exercise itç sovereignty in conjunction or in agreement with
the other country, in short, condominium.
And 1 siiggest, therefore, that this form othe French theory would
be no less self-destructivethan it was previously in the fonn in which
it was put fonvard in the French Counter-Memorial and Rejoinder.
These results would a11be sufficiently extraordinaryifthe two Parties
had been intending to deal with the question of sovereignty. Ive have
always maintained that they were not, but it isunnecessary for me to
argue that point any further, since my friend has himself admitted,
and indeed declared and adopted, it as part of hiç argument. 1might
have pointed out, for instance, that when two countries intend to deal
with the question of sovereignty and to produce results of this kind,
they do not normally appoint as their negotiators officers in theNavx,
a local Consul, and an officia1of their Ministries of Marine or Fisheries.
Any question of sovereignty iç normally treated as a political matter,
and not as a technical fishery matter. 1 might have pointed out that,
if these are the kind of consequences which are going to be read into
provisions about common fisherieç,countries will in future have to be
extraordinarily careful as to how they enter into agreements of this kind.
However, it is unnecessary for me to point out these and a number
of other things tending to the same conclusion because, as 1Say, Professor
Gros has adrnitted, and indeed made it a principal point of his argument,
that the Parties had no thought of any question of çovereignty over
the Minquiers and the Écréhous when they drafted Article 3. 13y this
he meant, and indeed hc said, that what they wished to do was to deal REPLY OF hlr.FITZMAURICE (u.K.)-5 X 53 357
with the question of fisheries (1quote) "without touching on the question
of sovereignty". That 1 can imagine and am quite prepared to accept
-indeed, we too agree with it-but how can itfollow that because they
dealt only with fisheries andwere not intending to deal with the question
of sovereignty, these conseqiiences concerningsovereignty postulated by,
at any rate, this basis of t1.e French theary, how can it be that such
consequences can follow froin a fishery provision not intending to deal
with sovereignty ? Surely exactly the opposite conclusion should be
drawn from the fact that t'le Parties did not intend to touch on the
question of sovereignty or t.2 deal with it. This surely rneans or ought
to mean that when they dealt with the question of fisheries tliey did
sowithout prejudice one way orthe other to the question ofsovereignty ;
as to which of them was sovereign ; or whether either of them was
sovereign. The fisheries were to be common, but othenvise the position
would not be affected in any way.
It could only be otherwise if there were some absolutely necessary
connection between a common fishery position and an absence of any
exclusive exercise of sovere:gnty for any other purpose. We tried to
show in Our previous argurr.ents, written and oral, that there waç no
such necessary conncction. Eiut it is at least in part on some such basis
that Professor Gros founds his argument. The Court will remember that
he said a good deal about the connection or liaison between fishery
matters and territorial quesiions. 1 cite, for instance, from page 5 of
the English transcript.1 of Document 53/17. Referring to the earlier
1824 Convention, he sait1 tkat it was the direct ancestor of the 1839
Convention, and then he atlded :
"it explicitly confirms the link, which we regard as essential,
between questions of fishtry and questions ofterritorial sovereignty".
Again, the Court will remeinber that he cited Article r of the 1824
Convention, which provided (1 quote) :
"The High Contractin: Parties reciprocally recognize as inherent
in the territorial sovere.gnty of each State the exclusive right of
fishing within the distalice of one marine league ...."
Surely this, however, involws no more than an affirmation ofthe usual
position by which, in the abt,ence of any agreement to the contrary or
any other applicable legaI status, the country which has sovereignty
over a territory or an island has the exclusive right of fisheries in the
territorial waters of the terrjtory or island. This cannot possibly mean
that the existence of an exclusive sovereignty necessarily implies an
exclusive fishery right, if tht res an agreement which gives a right of
common fisheries ; nor can it possibly impIy that the effect of the
cornrnon exercise of fisheries by two countries in certain waters must
be to exclude the exclusive iiovereignty of either of them. We pointed
out long ago in our Reply thti:, if this were the position, no country could
ever grantfishery rights to another country in its waters without
apparently losing or renou~icing its right altogether of exercising
sovereignty there. We gave examples of cases where common fishery
rights actually existed in wat:ers under the exclusive sovereignty of one
of the parties. To these the Governrnent of the RepubIic replied with
the contention that in those clses there was no dispute about sovereignty,
English text not reproducedSec p. 249 ofthis volume. REPLY OF hir. FITZhlAURICE (u.K.)-6 X 53
358
but Professor Gros has now said that thcre was no dispute about
sovereignty in 1639 either, and that the Parties were not even indeed
thinking about sovereignty. In any case, we pointed to the1951 Fishery
Agreement as a perfect exam~ile, applicable to these very groups, of
a common fishery position established in territory, the sovereignty of
which was in dispute, and the sover~ignty over which was to be deter-
mined in the sense of an award of exclusive sovereignty in favour of
one or the other Partÿ-common fisheries still continuinexcept in
certain small reserved zones.
Now 1 can imagine my friend Professor Gros, having listened very
patiently up to this point,saying that 1 have entirely misrepresented
his argument. He does not Say, he will tell us, that theParty having
sovereignty in 1839 could not continue to exercise it. What he is saying
is that the Party not having the sovereignty could not subsequently
acquise it,and that since you must distinguish between thc two-between
the Party which has sovereignty and the Party which has notsovereignty
-therefore the Court must begin by deciding who was sovereign in
1839. And thcn his argument is that since, ex hypothesi, according to
him, the 1839 Convention precluded the Party not having sovereignty
from acquiring it; no change in the situation can have taken place since
1839 . rhoevcrhad the sovereignty then, has it now. U'ith the permission
of the Court, 1 shall deal witli thnt argumciit to-morrow.
hlr.Preçident and hfembers of the Court, wlien 1broke off yesterday,
1 had been discussing the French contention on the basis that, according
to this contention, the Parties, having agreed to use the Minquiers
and the Ecréhous in common for fishery purposes (if that was indeed
the effectof Article 3 of the Convention), they tlien became disentitled
to use the goups for any otlier purpose unless they also did so in
commoii, and that this applied even to the country having the sover-
eignty : and 1 showed that on that basis the French doctrine would
empty tliatsovereignty of a11content, anclreduce itto notliing, and
consequently that this conception involved a wholly untenable inter-
pretation of Article 3.
1 now have to deal witli the French contention on the basis that,
according to it, a distinction hris to be drawn between the country
having sovereignty in 1839 and the country not having it.The country
lisving it could, according to tliis contention, continue to affirmand
exercise itssovereignty, subjcct to giving effect to the other country's
fishery rights.On the other hand, the country not having the sover-
eignty could oniy act in such manner as the Convention permitted.
Under the Convention it could exercise fishery rights, but no other
rights. Any otlier acts wouldbe invalid because not expressly permitted
by the Convention, and therefore could not be cited in support of title.
In short, the Convention would operate to prevent the country not
having sovereignty from acquiring it. Thus, no change could take
place, and whichever country was sovereign in 1839 would still be
sovereign now. Hence, what the Court must do, according tothis theory,
is to determine who was sovereign in 1839,and that would be the end
of the matter. Obviously this is a very cleverly constructed argument, but it is
open to the same fundameiital objection to which 1 drew attention
yesterday. It involves the fallacy that whatever is not expressly author-
ized is forbidden, and tha: because one thing is permitted, nothing
else is permitted. It also involves another and more important fallacy,
for it invites us to assume that everything that occurred after 1839
must be related to and read in terms of the Convention. Now for this
idea there is no basis at all,(xcept in the imagination of our opponents.
1 shall hope to show that vhen the Parties fished the Minquiers and
the Écréhous after 1839, it was certainly not becaacsethe Convention
permitted them to do so. It was on a basis of having sovereignty there
that they fished and exerci:ed their rights, or at any rate, such was
undoubtedly the position O::the United Kingdom and Jersey. Their
acts are therefore fully "in~rocable" as evidence of çovereignty.
Lcaving that on one side for the moment (1 shall corne back to it),
is it not clear that the Frenc:i contention really begs the whole question
of what effect Article 3 was intended to have, and assumes that itwas
intended to have some effect, direct or indirect, on territorial status ;
whereas Professor Gros's wtole theory is that it was not intended to
have any such effect, that th? Parties did not intend to deal with sover-
eignty, that they left this (luestion entirely on one side. If you first
decided that Article 3 was i~itended to affect sovereignty in some way,
or the rights of the Parties i.1regard to it, the results suggested by my
friend might follow-though even then there would remain much that
would be open to argument. But the moment you postulate that there
was no such intention, that there was a positive absence of it-a point
on which we are in entire at;reement with Professor Gros, for we have
never seen how these fishery commissioners of 1839, who were quite
evidently carrying out a ttchnical fishery task, can be regarded as
having dealt with any quesiion of territorial status-the moment you
have lhatposition, the consecluences suggested by our opponents cannot
conceivably follow.
If,as we are now appareiitly agreed, Article 3 was not intended to
deal with any question of :overeignty, the Parties must surely have .
remained completely free in that respect. They must have remained free,
and both must have remaineil free, so far as this Article was concerned,
to exercise any sovereignty either of them thought it possessed and to
invoke such acts in support 3f its title. Equally, the Parties must have
remained free, so far as thi:; Article was concerned, to acquire sover-
eigrity if they had not alreadj got it. The Article, in short, was comyletely
negative or neutral on the s~bject, and therefore the French theory in
its present fom, asin its prt:vious one, falls to the ground.
Again, if Article 3 effected no change in the existing sovereignty-
a point on which Profess(~r Gros insisted very strongly-it could
equally not prevent suchaa change being brought about, if that were
material, in coiiforrnity with the ordinary rules of international law
governing the matter. A provision perrnitting, or rather, simply dedaring
the existence of a comrnon fishery position, could not possibly take
away or affect the ordinar;! international law rights of the Parties,
either to exercise sovereignty (if they thought they had it) or, if that
matter arose, to acquire it. Therefore, we cannot agree in particulac
with the passage on page 20 .îfthe English transcript 'of Professor Gros's
English text not reproduceil.Secp. 259 of tiiisvaluiiie.360 REPLY OF hlr. FITZJIAURICE (u.K.)-6 X 53
speech, mhere he says, afterreferring toacts of sovereignty not connected
with fisheries (1 quote) :
"These acts would be ipso facto unlawful in the eyes of inter-,
national law, because they would be coritrary to the Convention
of ....1839 which does not authorize a party to effect changes of
sovereighty, even if this were dotie under the pretext of common
fislier."
Here we see the same fallacy as before-that because Article 3 did
not expressly authorize a given thin , it thereby forbade it. Article 3
is neutral on çorrereigntyand acts Of soarereignty.It permits commun
fisheriesin the areas to which it applies. It neither permits nor forbids
anything else, and therefore cannot rule out or invalidate the sub-
.sequent acts of the Parties, whose rights in the matter of sovereignty
must depend on factors wholly extraneous to this Article-in fact,
on the ordinary mles of international larv.
If we analyzc Professor Gros's position a little more closely,1 think
we sliall find that he is really inviting us to rcad Article 3 as if it
consisted ofa grant ofcommon fiçhery rights onthe part of the country
possessing sovereignty to the Party not possessing it. From this he
argues thar it would be contrary, if not to the letter, ai any rate to
the spirit and intention of the grant, if the other Party proceeded
to tnake use of the right so granted in order to carry out acts of
sovereignty, and then assert a claim of sovereignty based on those
acts. Without entering into the question of what esactly the mutual
rights of the Parties would be in such a position,it is snrcly obvio~is
that Article 3 of the 1839 Convention is in no sense a grant of rights
by a Party hüving sovereignty to one not having it. This is indecd
yrecisely one of the reasoiis why we have always thought that Article 3
could not apply to islands under the sovereignty of eithcr Party,
because if it had, if it had belonged to one of the Parties-and that
had been known to both of them-an articleproviding for common
fishcrics in thc islands must have becn quitc differently worded. By
no ~iossibility could a cornmon fishery position have been established,
or al1 these results have been yrodiiced in the indirect and almost
incidental \iraythat Article 3, in itç present form, in its actiial form,
involves. However that may be, Article 3 is in no sense s grant by
one of the Parties to tl-ic othcr. It is simply an affirmation of the
existence of common fisheries in certain regions, or an agreement
that both Parties shall have the right to fish there. A provision of
this kind simply affirrns the common fishery position, without either
affirrning or denying the rights of either Party, in other nzntters, or
as respects sovercignty or the right to assert or claim it. Since it has
no cffect on these matters, it cannot rule out the evidence or "invoca-
bility", so to speak, of sulisequent acts. .
A similar fallacy can be seen in the esample of the use of the field
which Professor Gros gave. Re said (1 will quote his words) :
"If .[should agree to share the use of a field belonging to me
with niy neighbour, can the latter rely upon this use to support
a claim that he is in fact the true owner of the field ?"
There is much here that coiild be discussed, but surely the answer to
the question posed is that it does not represent a true analogy. A truer REPLY OF hlr. FITZ3IXURICE (u.K.)-6 X 53 361
analogy wouId be if, suppo:;ing two neighbours both claimcd s certain
field, they agreed that they would both use it. In that case, since each
of them believes he ownc thr: field, what each really does is to agree that
he will not prevent the other [rom using it. He himself, however, continues
to use the field on the baçis of hiç own claim of right to it, and not
because of the agreement. :/le can therefore invoke his use in support
of his title-both can. A fi~rtiovi,of course, he can invoke any other
basis of title that he has clr which may subsequently arise.
And this brings us,I tliinl:, to what is really the most important point
in al1 this matter, and the reaI answer to the theory which Professor
Gros has put forward. As 1'said earlier, he has invited us to regard the
wholc period subsequent tc 1839 in the light of the 1839 Conventioii
and to interpret theacts of t;ie Parties solely in terrns of that Convention.
According ta that tlieoryal1the actsof the Parties are either attributable
to the Convention and tberefore witlioiit signifrcnnce, or elsc contrary
to tlie Convention and thi:refore invalid. But is there the slightest
reason why we should do this ? Why should we imagine that it was
by reason of Article 3 of the Convention, and solely by rcasoq of that
Article, that the Parties wer.t on fishing the Minquiers and the Ecréhous
after 1839 (and for the puiposes of my argument 1 will suppose that
both of the Parties did in j'act do so) ? Article 3 did not mention thc
aïinquiers and the Ecréhouj ;it applied to a certain area, which was
partly high çeas, iri which thxe might be territory of different kinds with
different statuses ;some of it might be under the sovereignty of tht:
Parties or one of thcm ; sonie of it migllt not be. Article3 saici nothing
at al1about anything of that sort ; it simply establisl-ieda cornmon fisliery
régimeover a certain area, *vithout reference to territorial status. Now.
the situation that arose frorn that was one in which we have to assume
tiiat cacti Party regardet1 it!;elf as sovereign over the Minquiers and thi:
Écréhous, or would certainly have claimed sovereignty ifchallengecl.
1s it not therefore manifes: that each of ttiem went on lîshing those
groups on whatever basis th~:ypreviously fished those parts of the area?
Either of them tfiat claim~cl sovereignty over the groups obviously
went on fishing the groups cn the basis of an exercise of its sovereignty,
not on the basis of the Convrntion. Al1that the Convention did for each
Party was to regulnrize the position of the oihe~Party so far as partic-
ipating in the fisheries was concerned. For each Party the position was
tiiat it had a right to fishindependently of the Convention. The sole
question was the right of tlic other Party to do so too. It is therefori:
i!lusory to suppose that th(: Parties, in fishing the Minquiers and the
Ecréhous after 1839, did so:;olely,oreven chiefiy, because they believed
tbemselves to be entitled to do so under the Convention. Tbey did so
because ttiey beiieved therrselves to be sovereign, and the only effect
the Convention liad, assurn.ng that Article 3 applied to the Minquiers
and the ficréhous at all, w is to prevent, as 1 have said, either Party
from objecting to fishingb) the other. If the othcr Party \va5 not per-
mitted to fish, that would, of course, be s breach of the Conventioii
if Article3 did apply to the groups, but it would have no effect one way
or the other on the questicn of sovereignty.
1 would like to ask our F'rench friends : do they really imagine that
when the 1839 Convention wxs concluded, the fishermen of both countries
gnthered,arouncl and said ",ili, now at Inst we can fish at the Minquiers
and thc Ecréhous-tlie Con\ ention gives us a right to do so" ?Ob\-iouslynot. They went on fishing because they thought this was their territory
-that was the basis on which they fished the Minquiers andthe ecréhous
not the Coilrention-, or ai any rate most certainly that was the basis
on which Jersey fishermen did.
This being so, it must follow that the acts of the Parties after 1839
in the exercise, or purported cxercise, of what each believed to be its
sovereign position, including any acts of fishery, must be read precisely
in the light of their respective claims to sovereignty, not in terms of
the Convention. Tliose acts are therefore fully "invocable" in support
of title. The fishery acts are indeed "invocable" just because they were
carried out on a basis of socereignty, and not simyly on the basis of a
right conferred by Article3. Neither side, believing itself to be sovereign
(and that is wliat we have to assume in this argument), could for a
moment have listened to the idea that itwas not fishing at the Ninquiers
and the Ecréhous becausc it was sovereign, but only because it had
rights under the Coni:ention. That is something which it is obviously
quite impossible to imagine or bcliere, and that seems to me to dispose
completely of the theory wtiicli has now been put forward by Our
opponents.
In conclusion on this subject of 1839, 1 colne back for a brief
moment to the question of the interpretation of the Compromis, and
1 hope that the interpretation 1 have suggested will in the meantime
have bcen strengthened and supported by my other observations.
Whatever the tlieoretical positiothere can be no doubt that, previous
to the submission of this dispute to the Court, the Parties did put
fonvard claims to exclusive sovereignty, and that each of them invoked
the very type of act which, according to Our opponents, niust be
excluded by the operation of the 1839 Convention. It is these claims,
based on the invocation of ihese acts, arnongst others, and hy both
sides, that the Court is asked to adjudicate. The Compromis must
therefore be interpreted in the sense of permitting thc Parties to
invoke theçe acts in support of their respective claims.
hlr. President, tliis brings me to the second part of rny speech, the
question whether the United Kingdom acts during the eigliteenth
and nineteenth centuries would be sufficient to give us a title by
prescription or occupation, if that were necessary. 1 may say at once
that npe regard this as an unreal question, since we have never
contended that that part of Our claim wliich is founded oii long
possession is based in any way solely on the acts of the last 150 years.
However, if it is necessary for us to show that we tiad the sovereignty
in 1839, we cite the evidence we have adduced in support of the view
that we had the sovereignty at that time. The same applies n fortiori
to the later date of 1876 which has beeii invoked. But we regard our
acts in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries simply as the coritiri-
uation of a title already fullyin being.
Xei~ertheless,1 will deal with the question whether, assuming we
had not got any title before,say, 1800, we have validiy acquired a
title since. It will be convenient to begin with the question of occu-
pation. That question, of course, only arises in regard to territory
which is res rculltusand not under the sovereignty of any country.
It would therefore only be a material question if the Court should
hold that the Minquiers and the Ecréhous were res nullius in 1800
and not under the soi-ercignty of either country. If that were the
* REPLY OF Mc. FITZAlAURICE (u.K.)-6 .Y53 363
position, we should Say that without question the subsequent Britisli
acts have given us a title by occupation.,Moreover, since the task of
the Court is in effect to say which of the two countries' claims is the
better, it would follow ine.~itably that if the groups were res ?zzdlius
in 1800, itis the United Kir.gdorn to which they must now be adjudged,
since there can be no com~arison at al1 between the respective weight
of the Parties' acts since tliat date. The question of the effect of any
French protests would not lrise on this basis, since, if the groups were
res nullitu in 1800 or therrabouts, there would be no legal basis for
any French protest, or, intleed, for any British protest, because both
Parties would be fully at liberty to occupy the groups and acquire
a title in that way. On the basis of occupation, therefore, there can
be no doubt at al1 about mir title, for we have been in continuous and
effective possession of the islands, certainly ever silice 1800, and, of
course, in our view, from much earlier, but 1 am at the moment simply
dealing with that period. On the other hand, it is evident that France
has not exercised any efft:ctive possession or control of the islands
during the same period. If, therefore, they were res nzrllius in1800 or
thereabouts, they certainly belong to us now. And perhaps 1 might
add that, in considering this question of occupation and prescription
to which 1 am coming, we can, of course, exclude the question of the
1839 Convention in this stnse-that al1 the arguments which 1 have
just given as to its inability, its ineffectii~eness, for determining any
question of sovereignty a~iply equally and with equal force to the
question of the acquisitioii of sovereignty by occupation or by pre-
scription. The arguments which 1 have advanced to show that that
provision, Article3 of tlie1839 Convention, cannot prevent the Parties
from invoking acts subseqiient to the Convention, equally show that
nothing in that entirely neutral provision could have prevented them
from acquiring titleby occupation or prescription,if that were niaterial.
My friend, Profcssor Gros, whcn it cornes to his turn to speak,
Mr. President, \vilof course Saythat on the questioofoccupation as from
the date of tlie 1839Conveiition al1the acts of the Parties are not only
to be understood in terms of that Convention, but in any case that they
are to be understood simp:.y as an exploitation of the Minquiers and
the ÉcrChous for fishery purposes. 1 shall deal with that when 1corne.
to prescription, but 1 think al1 need really say on that subject is that
from the point.of view of any title by occupation, it is quite unnecessary
ta consider the exact bearing and effect of any acts of pure fishcry,
because it is so obvious,that the United Kingdom acts in relation to
the Minquiers and the Ec~éhous went far beyond mere fishery-they
went far beyond it in many ways and were quite obviously assertions
of sovereign right, and coni;tituted occupation on the ordinary basis of
sovereignty.
1 now turn to the questiq~nof prescription. This implies that France
was the sovereign in 1800. 1ought to Say, of course, Mr. President, that
it implies it only for the rarposes of my argument-we naturally do
not admit that France was sovereign in 1800. We think we were, but 1
am simply discussing the cuestion of whether we could have acquired
a titleby prescription sincc that date. And since prescription consists
of the acquisition ofa titleto territory which isunder the .sovereignty
of another country, we ass:ime for the purposes'of the argument that
France was sovereign. Anc. the question is, then, whether the events REPLY OF Mr. FITZMAURICE (u.K.)-6 X 53
364
which have taken place since 1800 would have caused France to lose
her sovereignty and the Unitecl Kingdom to acquire it. There is no
doubt that international law recognizes the possibilitof the acquisition
of title by prescription, and, as Professor Gros also agrees with this;
there is no disputeon that point between us. Authorities on international
law give various reasons for perrnitting this mode of acquisition, chiefly
the need to preserve international order and stability. One aspect of
this matter is well statcd by Ortolan in his work, DesMoyens d'acquérir
le domaine i?zternational,in which he bases prescription on the view
that, if one Statc has maintained law and order in a territory and has
developcd it,that State is entitled to sovereignty ovcr the territory as
compared with the State which, though origirially possessing the same
temtory, has neglected it. And i need hardly cal1 attention to the fact
that thisdoctrine would fit thecircumstances of the present case exceed-
ingly well.A similar view was put fonvard by the American Secretary
of State, &Ir.Olney, ina letter to the British Ambassador in Washin ton
in June 1896, whicli can be found in the British nnd Foreign .&ale
Pufiers, Volume 88, page 1285, and a ~vell known modern jurist,
hlr.Max Soreiisen, in theNordisk Tidsskrift for International Ret(1932),
page 243,expresses a sirnilar view.
What are the conditions necessary for the acquisition of a titleby
these means ? The first is that the possession of the prescribing State,
or acquiring State, must be exercised à titrde souverain.Professor Gros
invoked this principle when he said, quite correctly, that the facts
relied upon in support of titlby prescription inust be suchas to imply
a claim of sovereignty and not merely constitute the utilization of the
riches of the territory. He deduces, ofcourse,that al1the United King-
dom acts in relation to the Minquiers and the kcréhous were rnercly an
exploitation of thc fisherieç therand conscquently not exercised rititre
de souue~uin.In answer to that 1 need only point to the facts. Even the
most cursory examination of the evidence we have produced and the
arguments we have placed before the Court will show that Our acts
did imply a claim of sovereignty, and that many of them werc the most
public and emphatic acts of sovereignty possible, which could not
conceivably have been carried out on any other basis than that of a
claim to sovereignty. This would still be the case even if one were to
rule out al1 those acts which could be attributed to the exercise by a
State of jurisdiction over its own subjects. 1 thinkmy friendmay here
be confusing the motives or reasons which may inspire a count to
daim sovereignty-confuring that with the actual clvirn itselfgven
assuming, in the case of the Mi~iquiersand the Ecréhous, that fisheries
were the sole motive (which they were not), and which would be very
far from the truth, the acts themselves were neverthelesç undoubted
manifestations of sovereign right and went far beyond any exploitation
of the fisheries.
The next condition for the acquisition of a titby prescription is that
possession should he continuous, in the sense thatthe acquiring country
does not, as it werc, corne ango, but takes possession and remains there.
This condition is obviously fulfilled in the present case so far as the
United Kingdom is concerned, and need not be further discussed.
Then the next condition is that possession should be peaceful, a<
any rate in the sensc of not being maintained by force in the face of
violent opposition. Our opponentshave tried to argue that Our possession REPLY OF Rlr.FITZMAURICE (u.K.)~ X 53
365
was not peaceful, but obvib~uslyit wa? peaceful in the sense rhat WC
did not invade the Minquiers or the Ecréhous or commit any act of
war of any kind in relation to thern. But it lias been argued that our
possession was not peaceful, because from time to time some Frenchmen
may have been expelled froin, or prevented from landing on, the islands.
Well, in so far as those acts .werenot the result of mere quarrels between
fishermen of the two countries, the expulsion of a Frenchman or thc
prevention or prohibition o:i residence applied to him-those are mer<:
acts of police, such as wouIcl, sucas must, be carried out by whatever
authority is administering or purporting to administer given territory
on an orderly basis. The requirement of peacefulness in tlie acquisition
of a title by prescriptioii oiily extends to preventing the maintenance
of possession by acts in the nature of war or public arrned force or
hostilities. It cannot prevent ordinaryacts of police carried out in thc
territory concerned in the Frocess of administration, for that would bc
to deprive the country coni:erned (the country acquiring title, that is)
of the possibility of rnainta.ning law and order in territory which it is
undoubtedly adininisteringde facto-in which it istherefare to tiiat
extent internationally respoiisible for the maintenance of law and order.
Finally, we come to the requirement that the possession must bc
undisturbed, and to the c,uestion how far protests from the other
country having, or believing itself to have, the sovereignty, operatc
to disturb and interrupt t:le possession of the acquiring country so
as to prevent the acquisiticln from ever maturing as a rnatter of law.
The whole subject of protcsts, of course, pre-supposes the existence
of a title on the part of the protesting country, and the Court will
bear in mind that we do n~t admit that France had any title in thc
'nineteenth century or even earlier. For this reason alone, French
protests were necessarily ~qithout legal effect. Howcver, for present
purposes we must discuss the matter as if France hnd some right.
One of the leading autliorities on the subject of acquisitive pre-
scription,Verkyios, in La prescri$tioizen Droit inlernational p.e*bLic
(1934) discusses the queslion of protests and suggests that, while .
they constitute a warnirig fo the other State concerned that its claim
or its position is not acquiescecl in, nevertheless a protest not followetl
up by other action becomis in time "academic" or "üseless". This
was also admitted, 1 think by Professor Gros when he said (1 quotc
from p. 39 of the English .:ranscript'):
"Of course, an isolited protest which was not pursued for
many years would not signify a great deal ;protracted silence
over such a protest might even be regarded as an abandonment
by the State of its onn claim."
Does not this exactly describe the present case ?
Saturally,. Professor Gras added :
"But in the present case, France kept its protests alive in the
minds of tlie United E:ingdom Government without interruption.
The United Kingdom Government could never have believed
that these claims werr: abandoned."
IveIl now, oddly enough that is esactly what we did believe, antl
in our view were entitled to believe. Take the Ecréhous. The last
1ISnglish texnot reproi~uc~d. Sec p269 of this volume.French utterance on that subject was, as the Court have been told
before, received in 1888, and despite the most public acts in the
exercise of sovereignty over the Écréhous since that date, no word
of protest of any kind has been received from the Government of the
Republic. Without r~uestiori tlierc has here been ncquiescence in fact,
even if there has been no formal abandonment. ln the case of the
Minquiers, although two or three protests of a certain kind have been
received since about the saine date, we maintain-for reasons kvhich
1 shall develop a little more fully in a moment-that they were never-
theleçs ineffectual protests, not sufficient to interrupt theacquisition
of title ; though, of course, the Courtwill bear in mind that we in no
way regard the position as one in which we were acquiring title.
Protests must, however, be related to the circumstances. Abundant
evidence has been put before the Court that the real basis of al1 these
French protests was the question of fisheries rather than a 'claim of
sovereignty. As Mr. Harrison said pesterday, if the Court stiidies the
diplomatic correspondence of the periods 1902 to 1905, and again
in 1937-193 8t,will sec that the aim of these protests was neither
to assert nor to secure the recognition of French sovereignty, but to
secure the "neutralization" of the islands and the recognition of
cornmonfishery rights. Norv,you cannot in law interrupt the acquisition
of title by another country unless you assert, or protest on tlie basis
of, a claim of right yourself. You cannot in law keep territory ownerless
by protesting at the exercise by another country of a sovereignty
you are not prepared to assert yourself.
Mr. President, when 1 said just now that we had heard nothing
about the Ecréhous since 1888, 1 meant, of course, until the two or .
three years preceding the submission of this case to the Court. Naturally
u7eheard sornething then. We Say,therefore, that when yoü have protestç '
continuing intermittently over a period, the situation must be looked
at as a whole and the protests considered in relation to the facts of the
situation. On that basis we say that the inadequacy of the French
protests becomes very apparent. It is not even as if protests were the
only recourse open to France, though this has, of course, been suggested
by Our opponents. Authorities suc11as Verkyios and others have stressed
the inability of protests to produce legal effectsif not followed up by
such othcr action as is possible. The mere fact that compulsory arbi-
tration was not possible at this time does not meet the point, for there
was nothing to prevent France from making al least a proposal for
arbitration. BIany famous arhitrations took place in the nineteenth
century by agreement between the parties. It cannot be assurned that
the United Kingdom Government, which was itself a Party to several
of these arbitrations'during that century, would have refusedto arbitrate
the matter. There was even, asfrom 1903, a Franco-British Arbitration
.4greement, the test of which can be found in the volume of the British
and ForeigS ntate Papers for that year. At the end of paragraph 230
of Our Reply, we indicated the various means of recourse, apart from
protests, thaf might have been available to France. In the light of
modern means of settling international disputes-means' which were
certainly not unavailable fifty or eighty years ago-it can be said that
the diplomatic protest is now of greatly reduced significance and no
longer constitutes necessanly the principal method of interruptingscription since about 1800, we affirmed that we have fulfilled all the
conditions necessary in order to do so. The French protests, related
to the circumstances, were quite inadequate to interrupt the acqui-
sition of title. In nny case, they were al1 received after 1876, when
title was already accluired.
Mr. President, 1 can imagine my friend replying with a tu quoque.
He may say, svhy did not the United Kingdom propose arbitration
during al1 this period ? But of course the positions were entjrely dis-
similar. It was France which was in the position of the complaining
Party. \lie had no reason to propose arbitration, or even to protest,
because it was not France whicl~ wzts carrying out al1the acts of sover-
eignty at the Afinquiers and the ficréhous, but we. Here 1 would ask
the Court once again to consider the position of the Chausey, which
afford a very good illustration of the principle that 1 am trying to
establish. France was carrying out at the Chacsey al1 the acts which we
were carrying out at the Minquiers and the Ecréhaus. Now supposing
we had suddenly sent France a diplomatic note reminding them of Our
ancient possession of the Chausey-which after al1 existed-supposing
we had done that, andsupposing after that we had sent no further note
for perhaps another thirty years, and then sent thern another note,
1 can imagine that our French friends would certainly be saying now-
and 1 myself would entirely agiheewith them-that our protests were
ineffectual ; and certainly that if we had wanted,in any serious way, to
intcrrupt their possession ofthe Chausey, oui- protests were ineffectual
for that purpose, at any rate unless we followed them up in some way
by proposing arbitration. And tliat seemç to me, if1 rnay suggest it, to
be a very good illustration of the real position, and to establish exactly
what we-maintain. The French proteçts in relation to the Minquiers
and the Ecréhous were just as ineffectual as similar protests on oupart
would have been ifwe had made them inthe case of the French position
at the Chausey.
Rlr. Yresident, that concludes my remarks on the subjcct of the
acquisition of title in relatively recent ti~nes, though I must again
stress the fact that the whole matter involves s distortion of the case
as far as the United Kingdom is concerned. It involveç a distortion
to regard us as having been, during these last 150 years, in the position
of acquiring title.And 1 venture to suggest that there is not a single
thing in the whole history of this case, or equally in recent tirnes, which
has even the shadow of an appearance of an attempt by the United
Kingdom or by Jersey to acquire title to these islands, to annex them
or take possessionof them. Everything which we have done in connection
with them from the earliest times has been absolutely natural and has
been carried out as part of the ordinary daily lives of the persons
concerned. It is in this light that 1venture to suggest the Court should
view our claim.
1 come now to mp concluding rcrnarks. May 1 try to summarize
Our whole position. Fundarnentally, we rest our claim to the Minquiers
and the Ecréhous on the same basis as Our existing title to the rcst
of the Channel Islands, Our right to which is not questioned. In our
vie,, our title to the Ninqüiers and the Ecréhous is simply part of
our title to the Channel Islands as a whole, and in particular Jersey,
the histonc connection between ivhich and the disputed groups is
manifcst and requires no further proof. REPLY OF Mr. FITZMAURICE (u.K.)~ X 53
' 369
Tlic case starts with th,: question of ancient title. Both Parties
have a claim based on that ground and both are evidèntly worthy
of consideration, We maintain ttiat ours is the better one because it
is founded on more certain and unquestioned facts. There is at least
no doubt about the Normaii conquest of England. There is no doubt
that, at least at that time, the Xorrnan Dukes were possessed of the
whole of the Channcl Islands, including the Minquiers and the ccréhous.
Therc is no doubt that, wliether as English Kings or as. Dukes of
Normandy, they continued in possession of the islands. There is no
doubt that, even after they lvere dispossessed of continental Normandy,
they continued in ~~ossessio,~ of the Channel Islands, and thefe is no
doubk that this possession at the time comprised the Rlinquiers and
the Bcréhous as part of t;ie whole archipelago. Al1 those facts are
concrete and certain.
The French claim of ancient title, on the other hand, is based on
factç which are highly diçp~.table, and have been disputed, not merely
before this Court, but bef(ire the bar of history. Furtherrnore, this
claim, cven if the facts on wliich it is based are admitted, is nevertheless
stilI uncertain, becausc of i:he uncertainty as to the exact character
of the right involved by it. We have tried to show that it was not
sovereignty-it was a purely feudal title, not in any way equivalent
to sovereignty, and no sovereignty over the islands waç actuaIly
axer~isedby the entity possi:ssing this feudal title-namely the French
Crown. The sovereignty, a: we understand it,was always exercised
by thosc who worc, or becarne entitled to Wear, the Crown of England.
If the Court agrees with us that the ancient title, in the sense of
titlcto çovereignty as we understand it, lay lvith us, there can be
IittIc further room for disciission, for there is absolutely no evidence
that we ever loçt it, and a ;reat deal of evidence that we retaincd it,
and effectively cxercised it in one form or another throughout the
centuries üp to the presen,: time.
On the other hand, thou$;h of course this isnot a view which 1 in
any way put forward or advocate, but I stillhave totake account of
it, the Court may feel that ;LSfar as ancient title is concerned, honours
are about even. Theoretically, there was a. French title of a kind-
there was perhaps one, the Court may feel. The effective title, on the
other hand, lay witli us. Tlie Court may therefore leave that on one
side and pass on to consider sirnply the situation of fact. It will then
find there is no doubt about the fact that we had possession up to 1204,
and 1 believe the Court will j'eelthat al1the probabilitics and practically
al1 of the evidencc indicate that we retained that possession after that
date. There is absolutely na) evidence of any alteration after 1204 of
the situation of fact which undoubtedly esisted before that date-a
situation of fact admitted 11y our opponents and one which included
the Minquiers and the Ecri,hous, and indeed the Chausey, as part of
the Channel Islands in English hands. It is only in respect of the
Chausey that Our 0pponeni.s have been able to show definitely any
change in the situation of fac.:admitted by al1to have existed befo1204.
If the Court cornes to the conclusion that this was the position, 1
venture to suggest that it Inust also come to the conclusion that this
situation of fact was coniirmed by the treaties of the thirteenth,
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, for theenera1 effect of those treaties,
to sum the matter up in a sentence, was to leave the islands in the hands of whichever sovereign actually possessed tliem de facto, and
to confirm the holder in his possession.
If this analysis is correct, there can be no doubt that the English
' sovereignty over the Channel Islands at the end of the Middle Ages
and thereafter included the Minquiers and the Écréhous. In those
circumçtances, L am not even sure whether, as a rnatter of law, it
tvould really be nmessary for us actually to demonstrate acts of sover-
eignty in the period following on the Middle Ages, provided we can
show-as we undoubtedly can-that we still have that sovereignty
now, or had it on any date that could be selected as the critical date
in this case. In point of fact, however, we unquestionably can show a
nurnber of acts during the period 1500 to 1800which are evidence
that our sovereignty over both the groups was kept up.
If we now turn to the French clairn, the points that stand out are
that itdepends chiefly on the alleged ancient title, and on the presump-
tion of the continued existence of that title right up to the present
time. The whole French case (1 venture tosuggest) consists of that and
Iittle else. This presumption is, however, not enough when it has to
meet an actively competing claim. More is needed-and there is no more.
There is no evidence at any date of the actual exercise of sovereignty
by France over the groups or of any possession and control. Indeed,
one can go further and affirm positively that France has never possessed,
controlled or administered tbese islands in historic times. French title
to them no more exists to-day than it does in relation to any of the
other Channel Islands. And, as 1said, only if France could show actual
possession, as she can in the case of the Chausey, and demonstrate by
some sort of concrete evidences the process by which this has been
accomplished, could she claim title to tlicse groups.
IfFrench title is ruled out for these reasons, the only alternative to
the existence of a British title would be that, at some period, the groups
had become ownerless. Ifso-it is not what we suggest, but if it were
so-there could be no doubt that during the last 150 years, or there-
abouts, the United Kingdom has acquired a tille bjr occupation, and
hadequaily done sa by any date that could be selected as the critical
one. It is not necessary for me to recapitulate the evidence in support
of this. There could equally be no doubt that France has not done so.
The question before the Court would then be, on the basis that at some
point the islands became ownerless, first of all, which of the two coun-
tries' acts were the weightier and more numerous, and secondly, did
those acts amount to the assertion and exercise of sovereignty ? The
only possible answer must be that the United Kingdom acts prevail
by a very heavy margin, and that they unquestionably constituted an
assertion and exercise of sovereign right.
So the whole case could be summed up in these words : England,
and later the United Kingdonl and Jersey, have exercised the effective
sovereignty over the Minquiers and the Écréhous. France has not. It
would be a very strange thing if, for the first time in more than a
thousand years, she started to do so now.
&Ir. President, it only remains for me to thank the Court for the
patience with which it haç heard the long exposition of our case-the
nature of the case has made it extremely difficult to be bnef. And may REPI-Y OF 3lr. FITZIIXURICE (u.K.)-6 S 53 37I
1also take this opyortunity of paying my inbute equally to the patience
with which our French friemls have listelied tathings which must often
perhaps have been hard to listen to.They have done so wjth the good
humour and the fortitude so typical of their great country.
As regards our conclusions,Mr. President, we maintain the conclusions
which we put forward in our Mernorial, but we wish to make one or two
srnall changesof wording aridtliereforeWC shall hnnd in a written version
to the liegistryl.
For thetext of theConcIu~ions,see l'artIV, h'o.IO,!p. 518 10. DUPLIQUE DE M. LE PROFESSEUR GROS
(AGENT DU GOUVERSEYEXT DE LA RÉPUBLIQUE FRABÇ.~ISE)
xus SÉANCES PUBLIQUES DES 7 ET 8 OCTOBRE 1933
[Séancefiubliqzte dzt7 octobre1953, ufirès-midi]
Ilonsieur le Président, 31essieurs de la Cour.
C'est un redoiitable honneur de prendre la parole après mes collègueç
britanniques, le professeur Liade, hl. Harrison et M. Fifzmaurice.
Le cours d'histoire donné par le successeur de Maitland avec autorité
mais aussi l'objectivité prudente qu'imposent les incertitudes d'époques
tr&s reculées; la description clu décor local si habilement retracé par
M. Harrison ; la discussion juridique approfondie de mon collègue et
ami le jurisconsulte du Foreign Office, resteront dans ma mémoire
coiriine un exemple et comme une leçon.
La seule ombre qui pourrait demeurer provient d'une partic du discours
du premier orateur pour Ic Royaume-Uni. Je demande i la Cour de
m'autoriser à la dissiper, afin que, aprhs nos échanges d'arguments, il
ne reste pas autre chose que les élémentsde droit et de fait que les
Parties doivent soumettre à la Cour.
J'imagine que quelques vivacitésde langage peuvent sembIer natureIIes
devant certains tribunaux nationaux ou dans des assemblées parlemen-
taires, mais l'agent du Gouvernement de la République est tenu de
rclever certaines ailtgations lorsqu'ellcs sont apportées devant la Cour
internationale de Justice.
Le premier orateur pour le Royaume-Uni nous a fait grief d'avoir
éludé les questions essentielles dans le présent liti(p. 278,plaidoiries
britanniqucs, texte anglais, vendredi 2 octobre), d'avoir essayé par-
tous moyens d'échapper à l'argumentation du Royaume-Uni (p. 28r),
d'avoir déployé devant la Coiir un «écrande fumée n (p.279) destiné à
lui voiler le véritable problème, et d'avoir égaréla Cour sur de fausses
pistes en iiivoquant des précédents pour «inviter la Cour à trancher 1s
présente affaire en se fondant sur un préjugé ii,invitation qu'il appela
la Cour à ((rcjeter avec indignation».
Avons-nous éludéle problème essentiel posé par la convention de
1839,i savoir la démonstration que l'article 3 entrainait certains effets
quant au statut territorial des ilots co~itestés? Si la Cour veut bien se
reporter aiicompte rendu imprimé de la plaidoirie françaiselle verra
qu'après avoir indiqué la portée de la convention en ce qui coiicerne la
péche (pp. 252 t~a$), nous avons montri: pourquoi ce texte concernait
également le statut territorial des Minquiers et des Ecréhous (p256 à
zjq), et pourquoi l'article 3 entraînait des conséquences importantes
quant à ladétermination de la date critique (pp. 260 à 26j).
Avons-nous consacré n plusieurs heures»- comme on nous le reproche
(p.278, plaidoirie duzoctobre) -à discuter du problème de la rsphère
gi.ograpliique d'application » cle la convention d1839 et fait semblant
d'ignorer toute l'argu~nentation de .RI.Pitzmaurice? L'analyse de la
portée géographique de la convention couvre tout juste ln moitié de lapage 252 et la page 253 ; ]>Iusieursheures pour une page et demie ?
Quant à la réfutation des arguments du Royaume-Uni, elle se trouve
notamment aux pages 240 A 248, 253 (en bas) A256, et 259.
Avons-nous, essayé d'induire la Cour en erreur en invoquant l'arrêt
des pêcheries,comme on ncas en accuse (pp. 285 et286 de la plaidoirie
britannique du vendredi z ortobre) ? La Cour se souviendra sans doute
que nous avons indiquC exp::essément que la France ne cherchait pas à
tirer des conséquences juridiques dc l'étude des données géograpliiques
(plaidoirie française, p. 195, premier paragraphe). Les données géogra-
phiques, la proximité des îlcspar rapport au continent, nos remarques sur
l'arrêt despêcheriesne se ti'ouvent que dans nos observations yrelimi-
naires. Pas une seule fois nous n'avons utilisé ces arguments au cours
même de notre exposé, de la page 203 à la page 276 ! Nous n'avons
jamais prétendu tirer des 1il;nesde base appuyées sur chacune des îles
de la Blanche ; nous avons simplement dit, pour illustrer la situation
géographique de ces îles :(sz Ia totalité des îles de la Manche étaitrestée
française, le Gouvernement français pourruit revendiquer l'ensemble
de cette baie à titre d'eaux intérieures....i(p. 199). Ceci montre bien
qu'il s'agissait degéographie,et non pas d'une revendication de souve-
raineté fondée sur l'arrêtdei pêcheries.
Avons-nous accusé où que ce soit le Royaume-Uni d'êtreun i(intrusii
ou un ((usurpateur i>dans les îles de la Manche, comme on nous ena fait
grief (plaidoirie britannique, z octobre, pp. 281 et282) ?Nulle part, nous
n'avons dit que toutes les ilcs de la Manche devraien ê ttrefrançaises et
que lc Royaume-Uni nous les a ravies ; nous avons dit simplement
qu'avant 1202, toutes les îli:s étaientune dépendance du Royaume de
France et que c'est au Royaume-Uni de prouver la possession effective
des deux groupes d'ilots pcur lesquels cette possession est contestée.
11 s'agit là d'un problème o'ajectif et purement juridique de charge de
la preuve, en exécution d'u.1 traité de limite, et non d'usurpation ou
d'intrusion.
Le premier orateur pour le Royaume-Uni a essayé de compromettre
notre thèse en disant qu'elle aboutirait i déclarer française l'île de
Jersey, pour laquelle noiis aurions le mêmetitre originel que pour les
&linquiers et les Ecréhous. Cela.déformeà nouveau ce que nous avons dit.
Oui, nous avons un titrc originel à toutes les îles de la Manche, mais
ce titre a étérendu caduc en 1259 pour celles des îlesque le roi d'Angle-
terre tenait alors, etnous n'iivons jamais contesté que ce fût le cas de
Jersey et de Guernesey. E.: si nous avons parlé des Chauscy, pour
montrer qu'elles appartenaient à la France bien avant le xvi111tisiècle,
c'est parce que ce fait confi,:me la scission entre les îles de la Manche
tenueç par le roi d'Angleterre et les îles de la Manche tenues par le roi
de France. J'avais d'ailleurs indiqué expressdment ce motif, page 226,
deuxiCme paragraphe de ma plaidoirie.
Enfin, n'avons-nous pas te::minénos observations de caractérc géogra-
phique par ces mots : «les données géographiques du litige, pozrrn'être
pas déterminantes, n'en s0i.t pas moins intéressantes à connaître ri
(p. 201) ? Peut-on être plus clair?
La Cour trouvera dans n~tre texte les preuves, si besoin était, de
l'inexistence des intentions qii'on nous a prêtées- et quelles intentions !
On nous a reproché également d'avoir fait appel au sentiment et
au préjugéplutôt qu'au droit ii(p. 281). Il faut encore une foisrouvrir
devant la Cour - et je m'i:n excuse - le compte rendu imprimé de374 DUPLiQUE DE hl. LE PROF. GROS (FRASCE) - 7 X 53
la plaidoirie française. 11n'y est parlé ((sentiment ))qu'à la page 192,
pour dissiper l'impression que seuls les pêcheursjersiais étaient rnora-
lement et matériellement intéressés au présent litige. Pour le reste,
je ne voispas, de la page 201 à la page 276, un seul passage où il ne
soit pas question de droit. Tous nos arguments ne convaincront sans
doute pas la Cour. On peut les réfuter, on peut les combattre en droit -
mais non pas dire qu'ils sont étrangers à la cause, qu'ils font appel au
préjugéet qu'ils ne constituent qu'un écran de fumée destiné à égarer
la Cour.
La Cour aura compris dans quel esprit nous avons présenté,forcés
et contraints, ces quelques rectifications à l'exposédu premier orateur
britannique : c'était un nuage à dissiper, et je vais maintenant pouvoir
concentrer mes observations sur les quelques points qui appellent de
nouveaus éclaircisseme~its au terme de ces débats. Ces remarques
suivront le mêmeplan que le premier exposé : période féodale - les
temps modernes-
Dans la période féodale,nous grouperons rios observations sous deux
rubriques :
Premier point : Le titre originel de la France est encore valable
aujourd'hui.
Deuxième point:Développement et maintien dc cc titre sur les
Minquiers et les Ecréhous.
Quant à la période moderne, nous n'insisterons également que sur
quelques questions que, pour la commoditi: de l'exposé, nous pouvons
grouper de la manière suivante :
r) La portée de la convention de 1839 pour le règlement du préseiit
litige ;
2) la question de l'acquisition de la souveraineté par le Iioyaume-
Uni par voie de prescription ou d'occupation ;
3) la question des faits de possession des srx~llet xxillesiécles.
Première partie
Période féodale: premier point : la validité du titre originel de la
France.
Le Royaume-Uiii affirme que si meme Ia France a eu un titre originel
a la souveraineté sur les Minquiers et les Ecréhous, ce titrc ne saurait
plus êtreinvoqué A l'heure actuelle, et les arguments du Royaume-Uni
sont au nombre de deux.
Premier argumet~t :Le roi de France n'a jamais eu la souveraineté sur
les îles de la Manche, ni sur la Normandie continentale. Il s'agissaittout
au plus d'une asorte de suzeraineté » (p. 38) de caractére purement
féodal, non accompagnée d'un exercice effectif de la souveraineté éta-
tique telle que nous la connaissons aujourd'hui, et le titre de la France
est donc ((abstrait ii((formel n, «une ombre sans substance ii(ces for-
mules sont des citations de la plaidoirie britannique, 1)~).35 et 122).
Et ce titr((abstraitii, formel n,ne saurait en aucune façon êtrecomparé
A la souveraineté au sens actuel du terme.
Dettxiémeargument : A supposer mêmeque le titre féodalde la France
ait été valide à l'arigine, il se seraien tout cas évanoui avec l'époque
féodale,c'est-à-dire vers la fin du xvriiesiPcle (pp.40, 50 h 52, 122 dela
plaidoirie du Royaume-Uni). Les avocats du Royaume-Uni ont ainsi soulevéla délicate question
du droit intertemporel, c'est-à-dire la valeur juridique dans un systkme
juridique déterminé d'untii:re acquis dans un système juridique diffé-
rent. 11convient donc de se référerau célébre passagede l'arbitrage de
Palneasconsacré à ce problhme. h.1 W.uber s'exprimait ainsi :
R Pour savoir lequel des différents systèmes juridiques en vigueur
à des époquessuccessiv~:~doit êtreappliquédans un cas déterminé
(question du droit dit intertemporel), il faut distinguer entre la
création du droit en question et le maintien de ce droit. Le même
principe qui soumet un acte créateur de droit à la loien vigueur à
l'époque oùle droitnaît, exige que l'existence de ce droit, en d'autres
termes sa manifestation, continue, suive les conditions requises par
I'évolutiondu droit. n (lq.U., DOC .es sent.arbitr., II, p. 845.)
L'arbitre voulait exprimer ainsi une double règle :
Premièrerègle :u Un fait juridique doit êtreappréciéA la lumière
du droit qui lui est contem~orain et non 3.ceiie du droit en vigueur au
moment où le différendsJél$veou est réglé. n
Deuxième règle: Lorsque disparaît le systérne juridique en vertu
duquel le titre a étévalablem.ent créé, cdroit ne peut plus êtremaintenu
dans le système juridique nouveau, A moins qu'il ne se conforme aux
conditions exigéespar ce dzrnier.
L'arbitre a tiré de ces rigles la conséquence qu'une souveraineté,
acquise par la découverte,pctuvait exister tant que le droit international
considérait la découverte tomme faisant acquérir la souveraineté A
elle seule, mais qu'elle ne po.lvait semaintenir, lorsque l'exercice effectif
de l'autorité étatique est devenu, en droit international, une condition
de l'acquisition de la souvei.ainetépar l'occupation effective.
Les réglesposéespar l'arbitrage de Palmas ne sont d'ailleurs pas sans
rappeler les principes du dr3it international en matikre de respect des
droits acquis lors d'un chan:ernent territorial :cerjains droits, valable-
ment acquis sous l'empire 11ela législation de 1'Etat ancien, peuvent
demeurer intacts, mais à la (:ondition que la législationde l'État succes-
seur soit analogue à la législation précédente.
Ces règlesconcilient heuriyusement les deux exigences fondamentales
du droit :la sécuritk et l'adaptation. La sécurité, parcequ'elle évite
de rendre caducs des droits zcquis valablement sous l'empire du systhme
juridique ancien ; l'adaptation, parce qu'elle exigeque le titre ancien se
conforme aux conditions du droit nouveau et évite ainsi de prolonger
A l'infini, isoléde tout le r.:ste du milieu juridique contemporain, un
droit acquis sous l'empire (l'un ordre juridique aujourd'hui périmé.
Tels sont les principes que nous devons appliquer à la présente affaire.
Le probléme est le suivant : dans quelle mesure, à quelles conditions,
un titre, néAl'époque féodalep , eut êtreinvoqué valablement devant
la Cour internationale de Justice en 1953. 11 le peut à une dohble
condition : I) il faut que ce titre ait étévalablement créé sous l'empire
du droit féodal ; 2)il faut qu'à l'expiration du système féodaIil se soit
conformé aux conditions e~:igéespar le droit qui a succkdéau droit
féodal dans les relations internationales. Examinons donc ces deux
questions. Premiéreme~ :ztLe titre originel français était valable au regard du
droit féodal
Cette proposition est contestée par nos adversaires d'un point de vue
trés particulier. Ils soutiennent, ensomme, que le titre français, dans
' la mesure où il existait, n'était pas un titre de souverainetéeffective,
réelle,mais une simple suzerainetéféodale. 11sprétendent, en effet, que
le roi de France n'a jamais eu la souveraineti effectivesur la Normandie
et lesîlescie la Manche et que son unique droit sur ces territoires était
une suzeraineté purement nominale et théorique sur la personne du duc
de Normandie. Et nos adversaires de montrer, citations à l'appui, que
Ie systéme féodal nc connaissait ni Etat, ni souveraineté, ni frontières
temtoriales, ni nationalisme, et que les rapports purement féodaux
entre le faible roi deFrance et le puissant ducde Normandie ne sauraient
donc être invoqués, au xxme siècle, à l'appui d'unc revendication de
souveraineté,au sens moderne du mot, sur les Alinquiers et les Écréhous.
hIais c'est précisémentparce qu'il n'y avait pas de souverainetéaux
sme et x1n1esiècles, parce qu'n'y avait pas d'autorité étatique au moyen
âge, que l'on ne saurait aujourd'hui exiger l'exercice d'une tellesouve-
raineté, d'une telle autorité étatique à l'époque féodale. N'est-ilpas
extraordinaire d'exiger au xirne siPcle la preuve d'me souveraineté-
tep-itoriale effective dont la notion mêmene date que de la création de
1'Etat moderne, au XVI~~ICsihcle.? Pour être logique avec lui-même,le
Royaume-Uni devrait écarter toute preuve en sa propre faveur, tirée
du moyen âge, yuisqu'aussi bien il lui sera impossible - au mêmetitre
et pour la même raison que cela n'est pas possible pour la France -
d'établir que l'Angleterre avait, dès l'époque féodale, une véritable
souveraineté sur les îles de la Manche. Nous reprocher de ne pouvoir
établir la souverainelé du roi de France sur la Normandie aux sme et
x~me siéclesest donc un anachronisme déraisonnable pour les partisans
du droit intertemporel. C'est un véritable contresens sur la sentence
de M. hl= Huber.
Mais s'il n'y avait pas, dans le système féodal, iiiie véritable souve-
raineté étatique, il y avait une notion qui en tenait lieu - et dont
la souveraineté moderne descend directement - : je veux parler de la
suzeraineté. Tout le monde admet que la caractéristique essentielle
du système féodalest le morcellement de la souveraineté et le remplace-
ment de cette dernière par une cascade de liens féodaux. Mais, comme
l'a admis le professeur Wade, cette pyramide féodale a un sommet,
en la personne du roi,appelé (suzerain universel n ou même usouverain
fieffeux du royaunie IIQue le roi ait étéou non plus puissant, matérielle-
ment, que ses vassaux importe peu dans le système féodal ; la suzeraineté
était une iiotion entièrement étrangère à celle de puissance effective ;
le lien féodalétait à la fois patrimonial et personnel, mais n'impliquait
jamais un controle effectif du territoire du vassal par le suzerain. Dire
que-le duc de Kormandie était tellement puissant qu'il avait sa propre
armée,ça propre monnaie, sa propre justice, est une véritéde La Palisse :
les droits régaliens appartenaient a chaque seigneur séparénient et
n'étaient cn rien exercéspar le roi. Sans doute les rois de France s'effor-
cèrent-ils de s'attribuer l'ensemble de ces droits effectifs au cours,deç
siècles,mais leur sucds signifia précisémentla fin de laféodalité; 1'Etat
était né, la souverainetk territoriale avait désormais sa place. La sou-
veraineté, au sens moderne du mot, est absoluinent antinomique avec DUPLIQUE DE BI. LEPROF. GROS (FRANCE) - 7 X 53 377
lesystème féodal: exiger uni! preuve de la souveraineté au sens moderne,
c'est-à-dire de i'exercice effe:tif d'une compétence territoriale à l'époque
féodale, c'est omettre entikrement l'enseignement de M. Huber. Il
disait: Un titre doit étre appréciéau regard du droit contemporain
et non au regard du droit actuel. ))
Nous n'avons donc pas à iitablir que le roi de France exerçait quelque
pouvoir effectif, que ce soit en Normandie.0~ sur les îles. Tout ce que
nous devons étabIir,c'est qu'il exerçait la suzeraineté dalesconditions
établies par le droit féodal.Or cela, nous l'avons prouvé. Nous avons
montré que depuis 911 le duc de Normandie était uni au roi deFrance
par un Lienféodal, etque ce lien était on ne peut plus effectif. L'hommage
exigé par le droit féodal &;kit prêté, soncaractère obligatoire est rap-
pelé par le traité de 1259, la sanction du lien fbodal - la commise
des fiefs- a étéappliquéi: par l'arrêt de 1202 et par une cour qui
n'était pas composée de fon(;tionnaires à la solde du Roi mais de grands
vassaux, les égaux, don 1f:professeur Wade, du duc de Normandie,
qu'ils. n'eurentpas la rnoinrlre hésitation à condamner (Petit-Dutaillis,
Le déshérilemen te jean s,zns Terre, p. 176). Que veut-on de plus ?
Accuser le roi de France de ne pas avoir lui-mêmeexercé l'autorité
en Normandie, c'est ignorer les règles du droit féodal, c'est méconnaître
le principe fondamental du droit intertemporel. Le lien entre le duc
et le roi était purement fonneI et abstrait ? Certes non, ilétait ce que
devait êtrele lien féodal, ni plus, ni moins : le roi était le suzerain du
duc, et cela suffit.
Deuxièmequestion: Le titre françaisn'a pas disparu à la fin de
l'époque f6odale.
Le Gouvernement de la République pense que la fin de l'époque
féodale n'a pu en aucune rranière entraîner la caducité du titre de la
France sur les Min uiers et 11:sÉcréhous. Ce titre avait étéen effet incor-
pore dans un trait% internat ional, Letraité de Paris de 1259, qui etait
un traité de Iimiteç, un trai:é de frontiéres, un acte qui aurait pu être
conclu dans les mêmes cond;tions à l'époquemoderne et qui ne revêtait
aucun caractére spécifiquement féodal. II s'agit d'un traité instituant
une situation juridique objecbtiveetqui ne peut êtrerendu caduc par la
transformation du milieu juridique et social. S'il est donc établi qu'en
vertu du traité de 1259 les frontières entre les deux royaurneç étaient
telIes que les Minquiers et le; Écréhous appartenaient au roi de France,
ces frontières doivent demeurer en dépit de la disparition du régime
féodal.
Nos adversaires nous répondraient sans doute que le titre réel de
l'Angleterre est d'avoir exe::céune souveraineté effective sur 'jersey
et Guernesey db lerrnomen.: où cette notion est apparue, au moment
de la création de 1'Etat au iiens moderne du mot, et que c'est grâce à
cette possession effective que l'Angleterra pu conserver son titre acquis
A I'bpoque féodale. Le professeur \Vade nous a d'ailleurs demandé
pourquoi nous n'avions proiluit aucune preuve de possession effective
sur les Minquiers et les Eci'éhousaux xvIme, xvrImeet xvrIrme sikles,
alors que nous avions pr0du.t de telles preuves pour les Chausey. Nous
répondrons simplement que la France est A égalitésur ce point avec
le Royaume-Uni, qui peut bien produire de iiombreuses preuves de
possession effective sur Jer:iey et sur Guernesey entre le xvrme et leXVIII~~ siècles,mais qui, en ce qui concerne les Minquiers et les Écréhous,
ne peut en produire aucune.
En ce qui concerne les Écréhous, nouçavons eu la possession effective
dèsl'époque féodalep , ar l'intermédiaire de l'abbaye de Val Richer. Or,
les droits féodaux se sont maintenus en France en vigueur jusqu'à la
Révolution française, au mêmetitre qu'ont existé jusqu'A cette date
les droits du duc de Lorraine ou de maints autres seigneurs de l'ancien
régime.La révolution de 1789 a nationalisé les biens de l'Église et de
ces seigneurs, et les droits féodauxsur Ie prieuréd'Écréhousont tombés
dansle domaine public de l'État français, ohils sont encore.
Quant aux Minquiers, nul n'ignore qu'ils étaient inhabitables et
inhabités. Rien n'établit que la personne citée par M. Harrison lundi
dernier, page 341de la plaidoirie britannique, comme ayant étéenterrée
A l'île Maîtresse, était un habitant permanent, mais trésprobablement
un pêcheurqui mourut par hasard au cours d'une expédition de pêche
peut-être assez loin des Minquiers d'ailleurs, et qui fut enterré prés
de l'abri que, comme beaucoup d'autres pêcheurs, il avait installé
sur l'île. La suzeraineté féodaledu roi de France s'est donc transformée
îles faisaient partie du territoire français;iil n'y a aucune raison de
penser que le changement du milieu juridique et social ait modifié .
cela. Sans doute le Royaume-Uni pourrait-il prétendre avoir acquis
la souveraineté sur les Minquiers et les Écréhous s'il avait exercé seul
cette souverainet6 entre le xvrmeet le xvIrIme siècles: mais cette
preuve, le Royaume-Uni ne l'a pas fournie. Il soutient sans doute
qu'il a eu sur les îlots litigieu- et c'est une trés belle formule -
une possession continue pendant mille ans, et quand il faut en apporter
les preuves, en ce qui concerne les ;Minquiers,il n'a pu, pour mille ans,
produire avant l'an 1800 que les faits evoquéspar le professeur Wade
dans sa plaidoirie (texte impriiné, p. 125, et par moi-même,y. 225).
Ces discussions permettent de comprendre un peu mieuxlesdocu-
ments cités. Il s'agit, comme le reconnaît le professeur Wade, d'épaves
apportéesdes Minquiers a Noirmont, épaves dont l'attribution devait
êtrerégléedéslors par la cour seigneuriale de ce fief.
Le fait se produisit en 1615 et se renouvela, autant que nous le
sacliions, en 1616, 1617 et 1692 (annexes A zo, 21, 22).Le professeur
Wade lui-mêmea attiré l'attention de la Cour sur le fait qu'il s'agit en
1615et 1616d'épavesaflfiortée s Noirmont, et en 1692d'épavesafiporfées
sur la seigneurie desDumarescq. Mais il n'en persiste pas moins A
penser que les procéduresouvertes ii Noirmont et la procédure de 1692
s'expliquent par le fait que les Minquiers faisaient partie du fief de
Noirnont ou du fief des Dumarescq et par conséquent du fief deJersey.
Cependant, des textes produits une seule chose rCsulte clairement. A
savoir que les Minquiers ne faisaient partie nide Noirmont ni du fief
des Dumarescq. Il résulte en effet nécessairement du jugement de la
cour royale de Jersey, rendu en 1692 (annexe 21) que les Minquiers ne
faisaient pas partie de Jersey.
Voyons encore une fois l'affaire. Le fond du l saisies parela damet:
Durnarescq,tveuve,sen qualité de tutrice de son fils, seigneudu lieu où
les épaves avaient étéafi+ortées.Elle refusait, sur le fondement d'un
titre ancien qu'elle alléguait, de subir sur les épavesle concours du roi.
Bile acceptait de partager avec les sauveteurs, mais non avec le roi. Or il fut jugé que les Minquiers étaient en tout état de cause situés
hors de la seigneurie des I)umarescq, puiçqu'il est dit que les épaves
furent afi#ortees des Minqiriers dans ladite seigneurie. Mais le roi ne
soutient pas ses droits en disant que les épaves ont ététrouvées aux
Minquiers et que déslors la dame Durnarescq ne peut lui opposer aucun
droit.Il soutientqu'il ledroitdepartager, à Jersey, avec lesDurnarescq,
les épaves qui y ont étéapportées.Or il lui était facile, si les alinquiers
avaient été à lui, ouà un altre seigneur, de soutenir ou bien qu'il avait
un droit exclusif sur ces-épaves en tant que seigneur des Minquiers, ou
bien que c'était uneaffaire entre lui et le seigneur des Minquiers, mais
qu'en tout état de cause les Dumarescq n'avaient rien à y voir. Il n'a
rien fait de pareil, etleG8)uvernement de la République soutient dés
lors que ni le roi, ni les Ilumarescq, ni lesseigneurs de Noirmont, ni
personne d'autre ?iJersey, n'étaient, aux dates en cause, seigneur des
Minquiers. Dans sa répliqur samedi, pages 309et 310, le professeur Wade
ne parle plus des faits dIE 15,1616 et 1692qu'avec un certain détache-
ment, mais ilmaintient q.le l'affaire de 1617 est trésprobante. Elle
du moins ne pourrait s'ex1)liquerque si l'on admet que les Minquiers
faisaient partie de Jersey. Mais il n'est méme pas dit (annexe zo), il
n'est mémepas dit en 1617 que la fameuse ancre a ététrotcz~é aux
Minquiers. Eue a étéeiilevée alix filinquiersou dans les parages, mais
non pas des Minquiers, et C.'autrepart la rédaction du motif au dernier
. paragraphe ((en défaut enirers les officiers du seigneurn suggéretout
aussi bien une action cri~ninelle ou disciplinaire contre un individu
relevant de Noirmont et ml~ntésur une barque de Noirmont qui aurait,
partant des Minquiers, dét~urnéune ancre qu'il aurait laissée à Saint-
Malo, soit qu'il l'y ait ventlue, soit qu'il en ait autrement disposé.Les
termes de ce motif, qui étaient peut-être très clairs pour les contem-
porains au courant des faits, sont fort obscurs pour nous, et rien ne
prouve même qu'ilse soi: agi d'une épave plut& que d'une ancre
appartenant à un autre bai:eau de pêche deNoirmont.
IR Gouvernement de la Rkpublique est donc fondé à soutenir que,
avant l'an 1800, il n'existe Al'appui des prétentions du Gouvernement
du Royaume-Uni sur les Minquiers aucun fait. Il n'y a exactement rien.
En l'absence de toute possession contraire du Royaume-Uni, la
souveraineté sur les Mincliliersa donc étéconservée à la France, au
mêmetitre que sur toute autre partie du territoire français, jusqu'i
l'époque moderne.
Je voudrais clore ces rerlarques sur le premier point de cette partie
féodaleen indiquant A nouveau - puisque ce point a été contesté par
le professeur Wade vendreili (p. 51 de la traduction françaisel)- qu'il
existe encore, 2tl'heure actiielle, au moins un temtoire où la suzeraineté
féodales'est entièrement m;.intenue sansaucunexercice effectifd'unesou-
veraineté d'Etat moderne par une administration centralisée :Andorre.
Les vallees d'Andorre sînt un fief aujourd'hui encore, comme au
XIII~~ siècle, sur lequel s'exerce la double suzeraineté de la France et
d'un évêqueespagnol, IJévi!qued'Urgel. Les vallées ncconstituent pas
un Btat ; ce ne.sont pas un État protégéni une confédérationde
paroisses, c'est un fief (je me réfèreau volume France dans la collection
La vie juridique des peupl,?s,, 933,p. 393). Le statut d'Andorre a sa
source dans l'actede paréag,:du 8septembre 1278q ,ui plaça le territoire
sous la double suzerainet4 de l'évêque d'Urgee lt du comte de Fois,
lTexte fran~aisnon reprot.uit. Voip.303 du présent volume. DUPLIQUE DE nr.LE PROF. GROS (FRANCE) - 7 x 53
380
dont les droits passèrent plus tard à la Couronne de France par la
fusion des familles de Foix et de Béarnet par l'avènement d'Henri IV
(édits de juillet 1607 et du rg octobre 1620). La position respective
des CO-princesdecoule encore aaiijourd'huide l'acte de paréagede 1278 ;
ils possèdent l'autorité suprême, nommentchacun un viguier pour la
justice criminelle et alternativement un brzyle pour rendre la justice
civile. Tout auteur ayant écrit sur Andorre a dit et redit que le Pré-
sident de la République française agissant en Andorre est entikrernent
indépendant de l'organisation politique et administrative dont il est
le chef en 'France ;il agit comme suzerain feodal en 1953 en vertu du
titre conventionnel de 1278. La juridiction administrative compétente
en France, pour annuler les actes illégaux desautorités administratives,
y compris les actes du Président de la République, s'esttoujoursdéclarée
incompétenteen cequi concerne tout acte du Présidentde la République
en Andome, car, dit le Conseil d'État, ce ne sont pas les actes d'une
a autorité françaisen. L'administration française n'a rien à voir avec
les choses d'Andorre.
Et ceci démontre avec ampleur qu'un fief authentique au moins
survit en Europe.
Maintien el déueloppemen tu titreféodal
En histoire, il nous semble qu'il faut distinguer entre les faits bien
établis ct leur interprétation par un système les reliant au passé et
aux événementsultérieyrs. Pour notre propos, qui est d'établir des
faits,c'est-A-dire ce qil~s'est passé siir un territoire donné dans un
temps donné,il est important de ne pas mêIerce qui est interprétation
à ce qui est arrivé.Pour simplifier l'exposédes problémeshistoriques,
nous devons donc nous restreindre à ce qui intéresse le juge dans une
situation néeau moyen âge, aux élémentsproovk de cette situation,
et éliminer toute conjecture dont la place - si intéressante qu'elle
puisse être dans une construction d'historien - n'est pas dansle rai-
sonnement du juriste. Cette observation de méthode étant rappelée,
que cherchons-nous & établir ? Qui, du roi d'Angleterre ou du roi de
France, était maître, au sens féodal du mot, de certaines îles de la
Manche? J'avais résumé le résultat de mes déveIoppements sur
l'ensemble de cettc période féodale,au cours de la premiéreplaidoirie,
en quatre propositions, qui se trouvent page 230 du texte imprimé.Je
vais lesreprendre, en y ajoutant simplement les précisionset Ies obser-
vations quc la replique du professeur Wade pourrait rendre nécessaires.
aPremière proposition : Dans le (regnum. Francomm iiil y avait
un ensemble : tles et continent.i
Le professeur Wade, qui avait développé à cc sujet une théorie des
roitelets scandinaves des Îlesde la Manche (pp. 104-1d5utexteimprimé),
ne semble pas avoir repris ce point avec beaucoup de conviction. Le
sces roitelets scandinaves est maintenant l'étymologiedes mots Ecrehouar
pareles roitelets et la séparation des îles par rapport au continent.
Si le mot Ecrehou est sans doute d'origine scandinave, il ne l'est ni
plus ni moins que bien d'autres toponymes normands. De plus, le
choix d'Ecrehou parait particulièrement malheureux, car la Cour se
souviendra peut-être quec'est aussi le nom d'une partie de la communede Carteret sur la côte du Cotentin, dans le département français dc
la Manche (Plaidoiries françaises, p. 198). Il est vraiment paradoxal
d'avoir pris ce nom pour illustrer une prétendue séparation des iles
et de la Normandie contin,:ntale.
Quant l'intéressant expcsésur le caractbre nordique du mot ((estac il,
me sera-t-il permis de faire remarquer à la Cour que cette théorie di1
professeur Wade va condui~e nos conquérants normands assez loin, car
nous avons, à cinq ki1ornèt:es de hlarseille,lachaîne de l'Estaque, et
Marseille passe plutôt pour une colonie grecque que pour une colon?e
normande ; et surtout, suivant le professeur Wade, nous allons découvrir
desNormands en plein centrt: du Texas, Aneuf cents kilomètres de l'océan,
dans le Llano estacado [st;.ked plain) où une ville ç'appelle Estacado
(Aizdrees Handatlas, 7lneédit., Leipzig,1921, p. 207, qui, au fait,attribue
les Ecréhous à laFrance). Or:ne saurait cloncêtretrop prudent en voulant
s'appuyer sur l'étymologie.
cDeuxiéme proposition : Le fief de Normandie, tenu par les ducs
normands, comprenait ale933 à 1202 toutes les îles, par la donatioii
des diocéses de Coutances et d'Avranches. n
Dans cette proposition <.eux constatations étaient faites : le duché
de Normandie de 933 à Ir 02 comprenait toutes les îles; le duché de
Normandie était un fief, tt:nu par les ducs, des rois de France.
Sur lepremier point le pr.~fesseur IVade n'a plus apporté d'arguments
contraires. Le Gouvernemerit du Royaume-Uni avait d'ailleurs reconnu
dans son mémoire (par. 22) quc les iles furent raftachées au duché de
Normandie en 933, Iorsq~e Guillaume Longue-Epée reçut du roi de
France les diocèses d'Avranches et de Coutances. Et comment pourrait-
on espliquer autrement l'introduction de la coutume de Nomandie dans
ces îles dès lesrIrme siècle?
Mais sur lesecond point, 1:iquestion du fiefde Normandie, le professeur
Wade s'est étendu trés lon~ement ; ila de nouveau repris sa théor~e
de l'cihommage nominal »,{lufief indépendant, si je puis dire,bien que
le rapprocliement même de ces mots contienne une contradiction. Alon
collègue de Cambridge a avancé, à.l'appui de cette théorie, un grand
nombre de citations tirées d'auteurs trés divers ; si grand mêmeétait
leur nombre qu'une note aiinexe a dû êtredéposéeà ce sujet.
Revoyons quelques-unes des citations du professeur \Vade. Que
lisons-nous sous la plume de Henri Berr ? CILe roi n'est qu'un suzerain
supérieur au sommet de la pyramide féodale 1); sous celle de Petit-
Dutaillis (p. IO) :((On parliit de justice et de seigneurie, non de souve-
raineté » ;mais nous avons eu la curiosité de tourner la page, et nous
avons lu (p. II): u Le roi de France, depuis l'hommage prétépar le
comte Henri (de Champape) à Frédéric13arberousse pour ces trois
fiefs,n'y avait plus aucun droit féodal, mais il y restait le roin
Nous devons constater (lue ces citations ne prouvent qu'u~ie seule
chose ; elles ne peuvent meîer le lecteur attentifqu'A une seule coriclu-
sion : au moyen âge, 1;~nl~tion de souveraineté n'existait pas encore
dans sa forrne actuelle ; elle était remplacéepar la notion de suzeraineté,
et cette suzeraineté, en cl: qui concerne le roi, était d'un caractère
spécial: c'&tait une sueraineté abdue. Nous avons déjà exposé, et
fait ndtres, toutes ces not:ons aujourd'hui encore.
Remarquons de plus que dans les citations de mon éminent collègue
de Cambridge, nous ne troiivons que l'énoncé d'opinionsextrêmes, des382 DUPLIQUE DE M. LE PROF. GROS (FRANCE) - 7 x 53
raccourcis d'historiens voulant mettre en évidence des caractéres par-
ticuliers et distinctifs d'une période. La réalit4 était plus complexe,
comme l'amontré notre propre extrait de Petit-Dutaillis, comme le
montre aussc iette page d'unouvrage que la Partie adverse ne récusera
pas, il s'agit de The ShorterCambridgemedieval Hislory (vol.1,p. 469) :
« La moi~archie appartenait au nouvel ordre féodal d'où eiie
était sortie, et par lequel les Carolingiens avaient étéécartés,mais
en mêmetemps elle conservait le prestige de l'ancienne royauté :
les rois, qui recevaient le sacre de l'Eglise, étaient plus que de
simples suzerains, parce qu'ils représentaient et étaient la source
du gouvernement légitime.Mêmelin grand rebelle, comInc Eudes II
de Champagne, s'adressait à son royal ennemi avec une profonde
déférence,parce qu'il tenait ses fiefs et ses droits du roi. ))
Continuons l'examen des citations de la Partie adverse. Dans le cas
particulier du fief de Rollon, le professeur \Vade préfèrese rallier au
point de vue de hlichelet - pour lequel Charles 1eSimple ((abandonna n
les territoires cédés- plutôt qu'à celui de Pollock et Maitland, dlapr&s
lesquels Rollon creçut n ces mêmesterritoires (Plaidoiries françaises,
p. 210). Que penser de cette fidélitéde mon colléguede Cambridge à
ce grand poète que fut Michelet ? Et quelle garantie supplkmentaire
peut-il espérertirer d'une citation de la trésdésuétehistoire de Lavisse ?
Pour nous, nous préférons nousen tenir au témoignage des chroni-
queurs anciens, comme Flodoard, Richer, Hugues de Flavigny, et à la
conclusion de Pollock et Maitland, que nous avons citée.
Ajoutons, enfin, pour en terminer avec les citations, et pour en avoir,
nous aussi, notre bon poids, d'autres extraits tirés de Petit-Dutaillis,
toujours IJetit-Dutaillis, dans Ia Monarchie féodale (pp. 72 et 76) :
clRollon, vaincu dans une sanglante bataille qui aurait coûté
aux Normands près de sept mille hommes, dut battre en retraite,
aprés quoi il s'empressa de signer avec Charles le Simple le traité
dc St-Clair-sur-Epte i),
et plus loiri :
(<.... le duchéde Normandie a revêtu une physionomie semblable
à celle des autres grands fiefs. Tout d'abord il reconnaît la suze-
raineté du roi de France. B
Quoi qu'il en soit, les faits eux-mêmesne peuvent Ctre contestés ;
ces faits sont les hommages qu'à diverses reprises, et depuis ~II, les
ducs de Normandie ont prêtés pour leur duchéaux rois de France. Nous
ne reprendrons pas l'éniimérationet l'interprétation de ces divers
hommages, un par un, puisque nous l'avons déjl fait dans la premiére
plaidoirie (pp. 207-211). Il suffira simplement, croyons-nous, d'établir
avec plus de précision qu'au début du xrIrme siècle, à la veille de la
sentence de 1202, le duc de Normandie, roi d'Angleterre, faisait hom-
mage au roi de France, se considérait comme son vassal, tenait de lui
en ficf le duclié.
avantalaesentence condamnant Jean sans Terre. Deux:aet c'est un traité :le
traité de paix du Goulet, conclu le 22 mai 1200 entre le roi de France
et le roi d'Angleterre. Ce traité ne laisse aucun doute sur la situation
respective des deux rois. Laissons la parole à cet historien impartial, DUPLIQUE DE M. LJ:PROF. GROS (FRANCE) - 7 X 53 383
que la Partie adverse a la première et souvent cité, Petit-Dutaiilis.
Ce deFrnierécritdans Les copies du traite'depaix dzc Goulet (BibIiothPque
de 1'Ecoledes Chartes, 1941, pp. 35 et 42) :
u Le traité lui assura I;iPhilippe-Auguste] de précieusesannexions
domaniales, et la plei~~esubordination vassalique de Jean, qui
non seulement lui fit hommage, mais lui paya un droit de relief
considérable : c'était en.:ièrement reconnaître au roi de France une
supériorité féodale que les rois normands et angevins n'avaient
jamais acceptée que de mauvaise grâce. ))
Et un peu plus loin :
r Dés le début de 1';~ctesont nettement marqués les rapporfs
de suzerain à vassal que le roi de France entend maintenir. Ils'agit
moins d'un traité entre deux rois que d'une paix entre un seigneur
et son homme. 1)
ctTroisième proposition : L'arrêt de 1202, juridiquement, reprend
l'ensemble :Normandie continentale et les îles. Mais, en fait,il y a
éclatement de l'unité ces îles avec le continent, certaines étant
reprises par le roi de France, d'autres non. L'idée de la tenure
effective, comme distinrtion entre les deux rois, est née. n
La Partie adverse n'a pis rcnouvelE ses attaques contre la valeur
juridique de la sentence dl: 1202, contre la commise. Aussi peut-on
conclure sur ce point cominc l'a fait Petit-Dutaillis dans un article
sur ((le déshériternent ))(p.176) : (Une sentence prononcke ainsi da.
le tumulte et le cliquetis des armes avait cependant une valeur jun-
dique, que les Français de c1:tte époque ne songeaient pas à contester ....
La procédure adoptée en 1202 fut à.la fois régulièreet sommaire. u
Par contre, mes collègue:.britanniques se refusent A admettre qu'il
;y ait eii un éclatement de l'unité des îles aprés la commise, certaines
iles étant reprises par le roi de France, d'autres non. Le professeur
Wade reconnaît seulement qu'une scission s'est produite entre la
Normandie continentale et la Normandie insulaire, la conquêtede la
Noi-mandie continentale par Philippe-Auguste étant achevée dès 1204
et ce territoire ayant étéréilnidéfinitivement A la+couronne dc Francc :
par contre, les îles seraient restées complètement en dehors de la com-
mise. Le roi de France se :jerait, en somme, arrêtéau bord des flots.
Ainsi voyons-nous réapparlitre cette théorie de l'entité des îles de
la Manche, déjà longuemeiit soutenue dans le plaidoyer britannique,
et qui a comme effet mjra:uleux de maintenir une unité jndissoluble
des îles au cours des siécli:~,malgré tous les événements historiques
et, pourrait-on dire, contre vents et marées.
Nous constatons cepend~mt que les faits ne s'accordent pas avec
cette théorie, que la limite entre le royaume de Francc et le royauye
d'Angleterre n'a pas suivi fxcément et régulièrement Ia côte du conti-
nent. Après 1202 et pendant un demi siècle, jusqu'atu raitéde 1259 -
que nous étudierons avec r.otre quatrième proposition -, des guerres
maritimes presque continuc:lles firent osciller llimite entre les deux
royaumes, à l'intérieur méme desîles. De mêmeque nous avonsmontré,
juste avant 1202, le roi d'Angleterre faisant hommage au roide France
pour toute la. Normandie, c.e mêmenous pouvons montrer, juste apres384 DUPLIQUE DE M. LE PROF. GROS (FRANCE) - 7 X 53
1202, le roi de France en possession non seulement de la Normandie
continentale, mais d'une partie des îles, de la plus grande partie.
Et où trouvons-nous cette idée aventureuse, révolutionnaire, d'une
exécution de la sentence de 1202 sur les îles ? Tout simplement dans
le mémoire du Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni, paragraphes 23,24
et 30. Nous y lisons :I(vers 1205 Phillppe Auguste s'btait emparé des
îlespar la force des armes IIEn 1205, par conséquent, aussit8t après
la saisie de la Normandie continentale, les iles étaient conquises par
Ic roi de France.
Les îles tombèrent ensuite entre les mains d'un aventurier, Eustache
le Moine, qu'il est difficile de considérer comme un représentant du
roi d'Angleterre, surtout 1orsqu'Eiistache le Moine reconnaît, au moins
dPs 1212, qu'il tenait les iles pour le roi de France ; il conquit même
pour ce dernier Sark, qui était la seuleîle restéesoun~ise au roi d'Angle-
terre. En 1214, Sark fut peut-être repris par les Anglais, mais ce fait
n'est pas sûr.
L'offensive française ne se ralentit pas dans les années suivantes.
Après la Normandie continentale, après les îles de la Manche, confisquées
réguliérementen vertu de la commise, une expédition de caractère non
officiel, coiiduite par Louis de France, le futur Louis VIII, débarqua
en Angleterre. L'échecde cette expbdition aboutit au traité de Lambeth
de 1217, par lequel Louis de France restituait au nouveau roi d'Angle-
terre Henri IIItoutes les conquêtesqu'il avait faites (par cette guerre en
tout lieu dti royaume d'Angleterre ii, per guerram istam in quocunque
loco regni Anglie n (art. 9).
Les îles, qui ne faisaient pas partie du ((regnuin Anglie n, étaient
visees par l'article IO : Louis s'engageait à envoyer des lettres aux
frères d'Eustache le Moine, pour leur demander de remettre les îles au
roi d'Angleterre ; et, prévoyant leur désobéissance, Louisajoutait que
s'ils ne le faisaient, ilsresteraient en dehors de la paix conclALambeth,
« extra pacem istam 11.
Le professeur Wade m'a reproche d'avoir ainsi traduit ces trois mots
latins ; il préfèrcvoir dans ((cette paix IIla pais avec le roi de France.
Nous n'hésitons pas A dire que cette traduction n'est pas soutenable :
l'expédition de Louis était une aventure personnelle, à laquelle le roi
Philippe Auguste n'avait pas voulu participer, et le roi de France n'est
pas partie au traité.'« Cette paix n ne peut renvoyer qu'à la paix qui
intervient entre Louis et 1-IenriIII. Et s'il était besoin encore d'uii
argument pour préciser ma traduction, on le trouverait dans le teste de
l'article g que nous avons cité : a estra pacem istam iicor.respond
exactement à ((per guerram istam il.
11est bien évident que (<cette guerre » et «cette paix »n'engageaient
pas le roi de France. On comprend, dans ces conditions, que la désobéis-
sance des fréres d'Eustache le Moine eût pu êtreprévue. La guerre pour
la possession des îles continuait.En fait, rien ne nous permet de croire
que le roi d'Angleterre avait repris toutes les iles avant le traité de Paris
de 1259.
Le mémoire du Royaume-Uni (par. 30) est d'ailleurs fort prudent
sur ce point, en ce qui concerne Chausey. 11 dit que l'île revint aux
Anglais ({probablement » lors itu traité de Lambeth. Mais comme il
reconnaît que Chausey étaitde nouveau aux mains des Français dans
la première moitié du xrvli*siécle,il serait plus vraisemblable de penser
qu'elle n'errest jamais sortie. Et voilà ce qui reste de la théorie de I'unité desîles constamment
entre les mains anglaises à gartir de 1202.
.iQuatriémepropositio~i :Les traitésde 1259et de 13rétignyconfirment
cette distinction. Il n'y aura plus jamais unitédes îles, et le cas de
Chausey le prouve. n
Le professeur Wade a donné des articles 4 et 6 di: traité de Paris
.une interprétation dont lc m~iriteprincipal est évidemmentla simplicité.
Dans cette interprétation, jes îles de la Manche disparaissent : elles
ne seraient pas viséespar le traité. L'article 4, qui énumère lestenures
du roi d'Angleterre, menticnnerait les îles de l'Atlantique. Quant 1i
.l'article 6, qui énumère lesri:nonciations du roi d'Angleterre, iln'aurait
plus aucun sens en ce qui coiicerne les îles;sa signification disparaitrait
comme les îles de la Manche Le professeur Ilrade s'est contenté de dire
,que les iles de l'article 6 n'iltaient pas les îies de la Manche ; mais ni
.dans les plaidoiries,ni dans les répliques,je n'ai trouvé quelles étaient
.ces îles.
Est-il admissible qii'un 'ci-aitde paix, liquidant cinquante années
,deguerre, régIünt dans les pliis grands détailsla situation territoriale des
Parties en présenceavec l'incertitude dans Ia possession des îles que le
mémoirebritannique a reconiiue entre1202 et1251) (par.22 du mémoire),
n'ait pas parlé desîies de la ;Manche ? Peut-on admettre que ces îles, un
fragment de ce duchéde Normandie où commença la guerre, aient été
.escluesdu réglernentdu conflit ? Cette exclusion nous parait insoutenable.
31 faut que le traité de Pars se soit occupé des îles dela Manche, et
toute interprétation qui ne le; inclut pas est forcémentinexacte. Peut-on
croire en outre qu'un traité si soigneusement établicontienne un article 6
vide de sens ?Que cet article fasse mention d'îlessans qu'il soit possible
%de les identifie? Devant ces incohérencesauxquelles aboutit le systkme
.du professeur Wade, nous devons en revenir à notre interprétation.
L'article 4 concerne les î1i:sde la Manche tenues par les Anglais en
.fief. L'objection du professt:ur Wade selon laquelle il est impossible
.que le roi d'Angleterre tieniie ces îles tcomme pair de France et duc
d'Aquitaine II ne nous parait pas pertinente. Le roi d'Angleterre ne
pouvait tout de mêmepas tenir les îles comme duc de Normandie,
,puisqu'ilavait perdu presque toute cette province et que, dans l'article 6,
il renonçait précisément à tout droit sur ce duché. Le roi de France
n'aurait d'ailleurs pas accepté que le roi d'Angleterre, dans un traité
qu'ilsignait avec lui,reprît, le titre de duc de Normandie. Le titre de
.duc d'Aquitaine, dans 1article 4, peut ne s'appliquer qu'à Bordeaux
.et A la Gascogne. Quant ar. titre de pair de France, plus généralet
sans précisionterritoride ce1taine, il s'applique à l'ensemble desposses-
.siens tenues par le roi d'Angleterre dans le royaume de France.
L'article6 vise deux catég~riesd'iIessur lesquelIes le roi d'Angleterre
.abandonne tous ses droits. Ides unes relkvent de l'apanage d'Alphonse
.de Poitiers, frére du roi :c*:sont les îles de l'Atlantique comme Ré
.et Oléron. Les autres relévent directement du roi de France : comme
ce ne sont ni les îies de la Manche tenues par le roi d'Angleterre A
l'article 4, comme Jersey et (;uemesey, ni les îles de l'Atlantique dépen-
dant d'Alphonse de Poitiers dont nous venons de parler, ce sont forcé-
ment les Chausey, les Mirquiers, les Ecréhous, le Mont-St-Michel,
Césambre et l'île Bréhat. 386 DUPLIQUE DE M. LE PROF. GROS (FRANCE) - 8x 53
L'article 6 du traité de Paris consacre la sentence de 1202, en ,ce-
qui concerne la Normandie continentale et certaines îles ; il consacre
l'exécution de cette sentence, la commise, faite de 1202 A 1205 sur la
Normandie continentale et sur certaines iles, comme nous l'avons montré.
. Le traité de Brétigny de 1360 ne nod di faas cette répartition des
iles entre rois de France et rois d'Angleterre. Rien ne permet d'aber-
le contraire.
Le professeur Wade a fait état clela situation critique dans laquelle.
se trouvait alors la France, pour dire que certaines îles de la Manche,
ne pouvaient êtrerestées entre les mains des Français. Cependant il
faut constater qu'en 1360 la situation n'était plusla mêmequ'en 1359.
C'est en 1359 que le roi Jean, prisonnier à Londres, avait acceptk,
dans un projet de traité, de céder la Normandie au roi d'Angleterre.
Ce projet avait Ctérepoussé par les autorités françaises de régence ;
les hostilités s'étaient poursuivies ; la Normandie n'avait pu être
conquise en entier par les troupes anglaises, Et le traité de Brétigny,
en 1360, onsacrait cette résistancefrançaise en Normandie, en laissant.
la province au roi de France.
Ces évbnements, les termes trop vagues du traité de Brétigny, et.
enfin le fait que les renonciations qui devaient êtreéchangéespour.
que le traité de Paris de 1259n'a pas étémodifi6 sur ce point par les
traités postérieurs.
Nous avons dit ce que nous pensions des prbtentions du Royaume-.
Uni à mille ans de possession ininterrompue sur les Minquiers, prorivke
en somme par l'enlévement d'une ancre dans les parages, seul fait.
que leRoyaume-Uni puisse finalement apporter A l'appui de sa thèse,
Nousn'avons rien B ajouter A ce que nous avons déjhdit sur ce point.
Ce n'est que pour les Ecréhous qu'il nous faudra donc ajouter à nos.
premières explications. certaines observations rendues nécessaires par-
les critiques de mon collèguebritannique.
[Séancepublique du 8 octobre1953, mat2wJ
Monsieur le Président, Messieurs de la Cour, j'en étais arrivéhier A.
la fin de mes premiéresobçervations sur la période féodaleet ilme restait
à traiter le probl&me d'Ecréhou.
Le professeur Wade a repris sathéorie suivant laquelle la franche-
aumône d'une maniéregénéraleet la donation de 1203 en particulier ne
seraient que des sous-inféodations. Nous avons déji longuement réfuté-
cette conception dans nos plaidoiries (pp. 216-ZI~),mais il nous faut
revenir sur deux nouveaux arguments soutenus par la Partie adverse.
à l'appuide sa théorie.
Le premier est l'affirmation que Pierre des Préaux, dans sa donation
AVal Richer en 1203,a retenu quelque chose, et n'a par conséquent pas,
pu créer une franche aumône. D'après le professeur Wade, Pierre des-
Préaux se serait réservéexpressément leservice suivant :la célébration
d'une messe quotidienne dans l'églised'Ecréhoupour le repos de l'%me-
du roi Jean, dela sienne, et de celle de ses parents.
Nous avons relu l'acte de 1203et nous n'avons absolument pas trauvé-
pareille stipulation. Voici le réçuméde la donation, comme il est facile,
de l'établir d'après letexte publiéqui se trouve aux annexes au mémoire- DUPLIQUE DE M. LI? PROF. GROS (FRANCE) - 8 x53
387
.du Royaume-Uni, page 1j5 : Pierre des Préaux, mû par un sentiment de
piété,pour le salut de l'âmf du roi Jean, pour le salut de la sienne et
.de celles de ses parents, a donné A Val Richer l'île d'ficréhou, pour
.qu'une kglise y soit construil:e, afin d'y célébrerla messe chaque jour.
La clause :«mû par un sentiment de pieté n et « pour le salut de
l'âme n,placéeen têtede l'acte et avant le dispositif, est une clause de
.style bien connue de tous les historiens, mais le but mênede la donation
.est éviclemmentla construction d'une églisepour la célébrationde la
messe quotidienne ; c'est une fondation « ad rnajorem Dei gloriam a,
pour que, sur cet îlot inhablé, des prêtres fassent leçervice divin. On
peut aussi supposer que les habitants occasionnels d'EcrChou - quand
.il y en avait- profitaient (le ces secours religieux, et que la libéralité
.de Pierre des Préaux remédiait en somme à leur dérélictionspirituelle.
Mais où leprofesseur Wacle a-t-il lu que I'églised'Ecréhou avait une
.obligation de priérespartici~lières? Où a-t-il lu que Pierre des Préaux
.avait retenu quelque droit ? En vérité Pierredes Préaux a fait sa dona-
tion sans la moindre réservt:,nous dirions aujourd'hui sans la moindre
réticence. Il n'est que de lire le texte. Nous sommes bien en présence
d'une franche aumône.
Le deuxième point de l'arpmentation du professeur Wade est l'affir-
mation que la donation de I'ierre des Préaux a crééune tenure féodale,
.car, dit-i:a il était de 1'esst:nced'unfieftenu grâce à un lien spirituel,
que des services d'ordreeccl~isiastique,mais non laïque, fussent rendus n.
Nous venons de voir ce (lutil fallait penser de ces iservices d'ordre
.ecclésiastiqueiiEn faitla d,nation de 1203 ne contient aucune stipula-
tion de ce genre, aucune réserve. Et par conséquent la Partie adverse
n'est pas fondéeBsoutenir (lue la donation de Pierre des Préaux a créé
une tenure féodale.Nous poumons nous en tenir là sur ce point. Mais
nous voudrions encore une i'oisfaire remarquer, à propos de la franche
.aumône, combien les théories de mon éminent coilèguede Cambridge
.sur le droit féodal nous ~~araissentnouvelles et contestables : qu'il
s'agisse de Rollon et des gr.inds fiefs, ou des tenures ecclésiastiques -
et on sait combien ces derniéresétaient nombreuses au moyen âge -,
le professeur Wade ne voit là que des fiefs nominaux et hommages de
pure forme; le systéme fécidal CL ce cornpte-là ne serait plus qu'une
espécede vaste mystification !
Or ce systémeétait fort c>hérent,et les diverses catégories de posses-
sions ecclésiastiques,par exi:mple, étaient bien définies.Si nous laissons
de côté les grands fiefs ecc.ésiastiques, qui devaient, avec l'hommage,
le service de plaid et d'ost, nous trouvons deux sortes de biens : les
tenures par service divin et les franches aumbnes. Le professeur Wadr:
nous semble avoir c0nfond.i ces deux catégories. Pour les distinguer,
nous aurons recours à l'ouvrage, souvent cité par nos colléguesbritan-
niques, de Pollock et Ma..tland uHistoire du droit anglais n; nous
donnerons notre traductiori de passages qui se trouvent aux pages
240-241 (me éd.,t. 1).
Voici ce que disent ces auteurs pour la tenure par service divin :
aSi une terre était donnée à un ecclésiastiqueavec la stipulatian d'un
seMce défini, bien que de nature spirituelle (par exemple une stipu-
lation que le donataire d:vra chanter une messe une fois l'an, oti
distribuer une certaine sonune d'argent aux pauvres), la tenure ainsi
crééeétait appelée, non pas franche aumbqe, mais tenure par service
divin ;le possesseur pouvajt &trecontraint, peut-être,de jurer fidélité à son seigneur, et l'accomplissement du service pouvait êtreexigépar;
l'action de la cour royale. B
Et voici maintenant pour la tt:nure en franche aumône :« Par contre,.
si le possesseur tenait en franche aumbne, c'est-à-dire si les termes de
la donation (ce qui était souve~~tle cas) ne parlaient pas de service,
ou stipulaient simplement des priérespour le donateur, alors la fidélité.
n'était pas due. o
D'après ces définitions, la donation de Pierre des Préaux ne peut
pas êtreconsidéréecomme créant une tenure par service divin. On peut
aussi constater que cette donation ne stipule même pas ce que Pollock
et Maitland admettent pour la franche aumbne, h savoir des prières.
pur l'âme du donateur. Une donation en franche aumône, d1apr2s.
Pollock et Maitland, est compatible avec une clause vague prkvoyant
des prihres pour le donateur. Or, nous l'avons vu, la donation de 1203
ne contient mêmepas cette clause vague. Dans son préambule, Pierre
des Préaux a expliqué les motifs de cette libéralité :ce sont des motifs.
pieux, le salut de l'âme du roi Jean, le salut de son âme, mais dans son
dis ositif il a défini lebut de sa libéralitéla canstruction d'une église
à Ifcréhoupour y faire dire la messe.
Nous pouvons donc reprendre entièrement nos concIusions :
I" la donation de 1203 n'est pas une sous-inféodation, eue ne contient
aucune réserve ;
2" l'île d'kcréhou est donnée à Val Richer en franche aumbne pure,
et non pas en tenure par service divin ;
30entre Ecréhou et Val Kicher il n'existe plus, aprks 1203, aucun
intermédiaire féodal.
A propos d'un point secondaire, les donations faites au prieur&
d'ecréhou, le professeur Wade aiirait relevé les nomsde trente Jersiais,
contre le riom d'un seul Français (que j'avais cité), Guillaume d'Ar-
' gentes, parmi les .donataires. 11 s'agit de l'annexe A 18, page 164, des
annexes britanniques. Et le professeur Wade ajoute: (Si l'on trouve
dans ces donations une preuve quelconque de l'appui que fournit ce
don, ces preuves penchent bien plus en faveur du Royaume-Uni ; je
' pourrais dire sur Ia base de trente contre un. 1)
Nous avons relu l'annexe A 18. Parmi les premières mentions que
trouvons-nous ? «Sus le moulin de Barneville III1 quartiers de four-
ment du don Simon de Damrnartin, conte, et de Aalis, sa femme, fille
du roy Lo~iysde France. n Le professeur Wade a-t-il naturalisé Jersiais
le comte dc Darnmartin, gendre c1'u.nroi de France ?
Mais quel titre porte donc le rentier du x~e siècle,édité danscette
annexe A 18? ((Les rentes de Notre-Dame de Escrehou en Gierresy u
(c'est-à-dire en Jersey).11 n'y a rien d'étonna~it h ce que des rentes
« en Jersey saient étédonnéespar uiie majorité de Jersiais.
En ce qui concerne la procédure de ((quo warrant0 n, le professeur
IVade ne peut plus contester que le prieur dlGcréhou s'est refusé à
répondre sur la question de I'uadvocdio n tenue par Val Richer. Mais
il soutient que les juges itinérants pouvaient légtiimement enquêter
sur ccttc question, et lameilleure preuve en serait - toujours d aprés
mon coiiégue - le texte de. la sentence finale par laquelle Ies juges
perrnettcnt au prieur # tenir cette c advocalzo » en même temps que
le moulin ct la rente. Evidemment la Partie adverse ne peut pas pré-
tendre que l'u aduocalioa ait étédtsignéc explicitement dans la procé- DUPLIQUE DE M. LI:PROF. GROS (FRANCE) - 8 X 53
389
dure ; mais la gentence ayant dit que le prieur fut autorisé à tenir
a premissa ii,c'est-à-dire les (:hosessusdites, toutes les choses contestées
et en particulier 1'«advocatit1)seraient, nous dit-on, forcément visées
par cette expression.
Ouvrons encore une fois les annexes britanniques, A 12, page I~S,
et que lisons-nous à la fin (le cette annexe ? uIdeo permittitur ipsum
priorem tenere premissa sicut tenet. i,ctC'est pourquoi il est permis
au prieur de tenir les choses i;usnomméescomme il les tient. )>Les choses
susnommées se trouvent cinq lignes plus haut, dans la phrase précé-
dente et A laquelle la phrase que nous étudjonsse rattache logiquement
par la conjonction iideo »,( c'est pourquoi 1).Ce sont les mots : (pre-
dictum molendinum et predictum annuum redditum viginti solidorwn n.
Où peut-on trouver mcntim de l'a advocation dans cette phrase ?
L'ccadvocatioiin'est citéequ'au dPbut de l'acte, une seule fois, et aprés
on n'en parle plus, nous l'avons déjà signalé.
D'ailleurs,à défaut mêmi:de preuve littérale, le bon sens suffirait
à écarter l'interprétation incluant 1'«advocatio )dans a fremissn iiC'est
l'abb6 de Val Kicher, le supérieur religieux et temporel qui tenait
I'uadvocatio iien 1309, mênieen admettant que le fait ait pu faire
l'objet d'une enquéte. Ce n'zst en tout cas pas le prieur, seul présent,
qui tenait l'aadvocatio o de son propre prieuré.
Au sujet maintenant des lettres de protection accordées en 1337
par leroi d'Angleterre au prieuré dlÉcréhou, le professeur Wade s'est
montré:surpris parce que j'ai insistésur le fait que nous ne possédions
pas le texte de ces lettres, et il me renvoyaA l'annexe A 17 au mémoire
britannique. Maisje ne peux cependant que maintenir mes affirmations :
nous n'avons pas le texte des lettres de protection, à quelque prieuré
qu'elles aient étéadressées.Ce que nous avons, c'est une anal se, une
mention d'enregistrement fart brève, comme il est vraiment Yacile de
le constater, page 164 de l'annexe.
L'intérêtde cette questicn réside uniquement dans I'interprétation
qu'a donnée le Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni de la particule ((den,
pnor de Acrehowe dt: insula de Jereseye 1)Nous avons dit
((dea pouvait avoir plusieurs sens, parmi lesquels celui de «.au sujetY eD
(Plaid. fr., p222). Le professeur Wade tient B ce que itdeü n'aitjamais
qu'un seul et mêmesens dans un texte donné. Sur cette question il
sera peut-êtrenécessaire d'o ivrir un dictionnaire.
Une dernière observation (lecaractére accessoire doit être faitesur un
point repris par le professeur \Vade pour contester nouveau l'ancien-
neté de l'appartenance de (;hausey à la France. La Cour sait le rdle
que joue Chausey dans notrt:affaire (Plaidoiries, p. 226).
Il s'agit de la bulle d1500, qui transférait les îles Chausey du diocése
de Coutances au diocèse de Salisbury, puis de Winchester, soi-disant
parce que ces îles étaient datis le domaine temporel du roi d'Angleterre ;
admettons même qu'elleso..t authentique. Le pape pouvait fort bien
s'être prêté A ce transfert, car ilétait alors en mauvais termes avec le
roi de France qui entreprenait les guerres d'Italie. Mais il est justement
étrange,et bien contraire à la thésede la Partie adverse, que cette bulle
n'ait jamais étéexécutée.
Voici ce qu'un auteur, Pei..suspect de partialité à notre égard, Eagle-
ston (p. 1g), dit2icet effet:
Mais le transfert stmble avoir étéignoré ;après 1500 on ne
peut trouver aucun cai; où Winchester ait exercé sa juridiction,. cependant que Coutances continua de l'exercer sans arrêtjusqu'à
la fin du régnede Marie et aprés. a
Si vraiment la juridiction spirituelle sur Chausey avait étéofficielle-
ment transféréede Coutances I Winchester, cette inexécution nepeut
prouver qu'une chose :c'est que le roi d'Angleterre était incapable de
faire exécuterla bulle donnée à son profit. Comment peut-on supposer,
s'il avait eu Chausey en sa possession, qu'il n'ait pas fait exécuter la
bulle ?
Ilest temps de conclure ces observations sur la premiére partie de
notre exposé sur la période féodale.Nous avions, dans la plaidoirie,
résumé nos vuesen quatre propositions. Nous les avons reprises une
par une en examinant les critiques dont elles avaient fait l'objet, et
selon nous ces propositions demeurent intactes. La-France possède et
a conservéun titre originel sur les Minquiers et les Ecréhous.
Deuxièmeparlie : Période moderne
La réplique du Royaume-Urii a soulevé trois séries de problémes :
la question de l'acquisition par le Royaume-Uni de la souveraineté par Lieu
voie d'occupation ou de prescription ; enfin la question des faits de
possession pendant les xixme et xxmesiécles,
A. Questions poséespar la convention de 1839.
Mon ami M. Fitzrnaurice a essayé de dénoncer les contradictions
qui entacheraient notre interprétation de la convention de 1839. Il
l'a fait avec une grande courtoisie, dont je le remercie, et avec un esprit
de finesseauquel on ne saurait re;ter insensible. hiais je crois que, malgré
son talent et malgréses efforts, iln'a pas réussidans sa tâche.
11 a porté son attention sur trois questions : celle de la portée de
l'article3 de la convention de 1839 en ce qui concerne la délimitation
des zones de pêche ; la questioii de notre interprétation de ce texte en
ce qui concerne.la souveraineté ; enfin la compatibilité de notre inter-
prétation avec le compromis. Ce sont ces trois questions que je vais
reprendre une à une.
1. Quelle est la portée del'article 3 de la convention de 1839en ce qui
concerne Ia délimitation des zont:sde peche ?
M. Fitzmaurice a repris l'argumentation présentée par le Royaurne-
Uni dans la procédure écritecomme dans les plaidoiries, selon laqneiie
l'article 3 ne saurait s'appliquer aux Minquiers et aux Écréhous, mais
ila reconnu que cette interpréta.tion n'était pas, au fond, plus certaine
que celle du Gouvernement français, et il ademandé A la Cour d'écarter
l'article 3 du débat Bcause de son obscurité.
On peut êtresurpris par ce changement de tactique de nos adver-
saires. Jusqu'ici l'article 3 étaittizilementclair qu'il en devenait superflu.
Maintenant il est tellement obscur qu'il devient inutilisable. Mais ce
changement de tactique laisseentier le but poursuivi, qui est d'écarter
du débat l'article 3, ce texte qiii gênetellement le Gouvernement du
Royaume-Uni.
Pour montrer la véritable portée de l'article 3, le mieux sera .peut-
être de retracer le plus briévement possible sa genkse et son histoire, DUPLIQUE DE M. LI? PROF. GROS (FRANCE) - 8 X 53 .391
à la lumière de ce qui a étiidit depuis trois semaines devant la Cour,
Je m'excuse de revenir sur cette question, mais elle est essentielle dans
le débat.
Cette histoire commence avant 1824, car la convention de 1824
(annexe A 26, p. 176).qui ~istl'ancêtrede la convention de 1839et où
l'article 3 de la convention je 1839se trouve en germe, a eu pour but
et pour effet de régler des difficultbs anciennes.
Depuis trés longtemps, Itspêcheursfrançais et anglais exploitaient
en commun et sur un pied d'égalitél'étenduede mer qui s'étendentre
la côte de France et la cate de Jersey. Aprés1815l, es pêcheurs anglais
se portèrent sur des banc: d'huîtres que les Français considéraient
cornme leur propriété.Les iins étaient situés à plus de trois milles de
la laisse de bassemer descôtes de France, dans la baie de Granville,
les autres. au contraire, t0r.t présde la côte de France, à la toucher,
Les Français se défendirent contre les prétentions des pêcheursanglais
en invoquant, même au de:à de la limite de trois milles, un droit de
propriétésur les bancs et slr les étendues marines qui les recouvrent.
Des incidents violents se 1)roduisirent auxquels les deux Etats déci-
dérent de mettre fin par un accord. Les deux Parties convinrent de
procéder à une dblimitation des zones de pêche.A la suite de longues
conversations, elles aboutir~nt à l'idéed'un principe géndralde délimi-
tation : c'est l'article premier de Ia convention de 1824. La limite de
la pêche exclusiveétait fixé; à trois milles desc8tesde Jersey et de Ia
tonales sur lesquelles les dt.ux Puissances se reconnaissaient mutuelle-
ment le droit de souveraineté (art. r, par.I, de la convention de 1824).
Il était expressément convc:nu que les eaux territoriales ainsi délimi-
tées constitueraient une zone de trois milles, mer basse, et, en consé-
quence, autour des îles énuniéréed sans l'article 3, Guernesey, Alderney,
Sarket jersey, et le long de la c8te de France, toutes les pêchesétaient.
réservéesaux pêcheursfran;ais, d'un côté, aux pêcheursbritanniques,
de l'autre, dans un rayon dl:trois milles. La peche généraleétait com-
mune dans l'espace compris entre la cBte de Jersey, d'une part, et la
cate de France, d'autre part. En ce qui concerne les huîtres et d'autres
coquillages, la limite de ces pêchesparticulihes était fixéedans les
parages à six miiles le long des côtes de l'le de Jersey, d'une part, de
la côte française opposée, de l'autre. En d'autres termes, dans les
parages litigieux, la ligne des eaux territoriales qui, du fait qu'elle
était la limite de l'exercice des pouvoirs souverains des deux nations,
était également Ia limite des pêcheries,se trouvait doublée en ce qui
concerne les huîtres et d'autres coquillages par une seconde &ne trois
milies en avant dans la mer. Sil'onreporte surla cartecette délimitation,
nous avons autour de l'île de Jcrsey une ligne de trois milles et autour
des côtes deFranceune autre ligne de trois milles, et en avant de chacune
de cesdeux lignesune ligne s:?éciale, ui représente,tant du cBtédeJersey
que du côte français, les limites de la pêche spéciale deshuitres.
On constate que, entre ces lignes, la pêchegénérale s'exerçaitnéces-
sairement en commun dans ies espaces Litigieuxaussi bien des Écréhous,
sur lesquels se croisent les limites spéciales,que des Minquiers qui sont
en dehors. A cet égard, la convention de 1824 est incompatible avec
toute autre interprétation, car elle maintient le statzt qu; elle ne fait
que préciser les limites de !'espace intermédiaire ouvert aux pêcheurs
des deux nations sur un pit~dd'égalité,en fixant, tant du côté de l'île
26de Jersey que du c8té français, la limite de la pêche commune qui est
aussi,A l'intérieur de ces limites, celle de la pêche exclusive,de laquelle
ilest dit clairement dans I'articIe premier qu'elle correspond à la limite
de la mer territoriale,
Entre 16:slimites ainsi définies il n'existe aucune étendue d'eaux
territorialesappartenant exclusivement à l'une des deux nations et
engendrant un droit de pêchecixclusif. D'autre part, comme il a été
dit et répétépar les deux Parties, si l'une d'entre elles l'avait voulu en
1824. il lui était facile, en faisant état desa souveraineté, si elle s'y
croyait fondée, de soutenir ses prétentions à la pêche exclusive dans
des parages que l'une et l'autre convoitaient. Rien n'empêchait une
Partie de tracerce cercle.de trois milles que j'aitracé sur cette carte
autour des Écréhous et autour des Minquiers et de le reproduire sous
la forme appropriée dans la convention de 1824. Au lieu de recourir
a une tactique si simple et si efficace, que font-elles ?Elles con!-iennent
pour les huîtres de limites spéciales qui coupent en deux les Ecréhous
et laissent les Minquiers dans l'intervalle qu'elles renferment.
Ces faits ne sont pas contestables. La carte est là.
Ilest également certain que ni la France, ni le Royaume-Uni ne
renonçaient pour autant a défendre leurs droits anciens contre des
tiers. Cela dit, remarquons trois points : la convention de 1Sz4 n'a
jamais été.signée ni ratifiée ; ileuxiéme point : elle a étÊ appliquée
luqu'en 1839 par les deux Parties qui lui reconnaissaieiit, après treize
ans, quand a cominencé la négociation de 1837, une certaine force
contraignante, puisque la première chose que font les commissaires
anglais en arrivant h Granville, c'estde dénoncer ce qui n'était pas une
convention, puisqu'elle n'avait jamais été ni signée ni ratifiée et que,
de leur cbté, les Français paraissent avoir soutenu avec succès que la
convention de 1824 continuerait d'obliger les deux Parties jusqu'au
terme des négociations entreprises, donc jusqu'à l'entrée en vigueur
de la convention de 1839. Troisième remarque : la convention de 1839
n'est qu'une version de la convention de 1824, fidèleau mêmeprincipe,
nouvelle seulement en ce qui concerne la délimitation.
Je ne reviendrai pas sur les cil-constances particulières qui expliquent
la mauvaise rédaction de la corivention de 1839. Mais sielle est mala-
droitement rédigée, ellen'est tout de mêmepas aussi dépourvue de sens
que nos contradicteurs se plaisent à le dire.
La convention de 1839 étaiten premier lieu destinée à réglerla situa-
tion dangereuse qui résultait de contestations qui s'étaient élevées,en
dépit de l'arrangement de 1824e ,nce qui concerne la pêchcaux huîtres.
Le long des côtes de France la limite de six milles n'était pas respectée,
et les pêcheurs anglais convoitaient des bancs très nombreux situés à
l'intérieur mêmede la limite dcs trois milles de la mer territoriale recon-
nue par l'article premier de la convention de 1524 ,onc dans les limites
de la pêcheréservéeaux seuls Français.
Qu'ont fait les commissaires de Granville ? 11sont fait une conven-
tion réglarit une délimitation nouvelle de la pêche aux huîtres qui,
moyennant des cornpnsations savamment calculées, donnait à peu prés
satisfactiori aux pêcheurs britariniques sans léser dangereusement les
pêcheursfrançais. Tout cela a étéespliqué déjàet ce n'est pas là-dessus
que les deux Parties se recherchent.
Mais pour tout lc reste, leurs thèses s'opposent. Suivons notre méthode.
Qu'ont fait les commissaires de Granville ? Ils ont dit : désormais,autour de l'île de Jersey la limite de la pêcheaux huitres sera à trois
milles de la cbte, basse mer. Du c8té français, elle sera déterminée
par une ligne ad hocqu'ils ont matérialiséepar des repaires faciles à
distin uer pour les pêcheurset ensuite reportée sur une carte, car il
ne su k sait plus dans ces Farages d'appliquer simplement la régledes
trois milles. C'est cela qu'il!;ont fait, et rien de plus. Mais c'étaient des
hommes capables. Ils savaient très bien qu'il.s'agissait de remplacer la
convention de 1824, non seulement en ce qui concernait la pêcheaux
huitres, mais aussi pour tout ce qui concernait la pêchegénérale.Cepen-
dant, les principeslesdépassaient, et pour régIeréquitablement lapèche
aux huitres, disaient-ils, voila ce qu'il faut changer dans le régime de
1824. Aux chancelleries de décider comment il faut s'y prendre pour
conserver ou modifier les principes, pour aménager ce qui doit être
amLes chancelleries - car ce sont elles et non plus les commissaires de
Granville qui mettent la liernière touche à la convention, d'ailleurs
signéenon pas par les conimissaires de Granville mais par le duc de
Dalmatie et par lord Granv;.lle,les deux ministres des Affairesétrangères
-, les chancelleries ajoutrnt l'article g (voir Plaidoiries françaises,
p. 251) et aboutissent à uri texte qui dit la même chose,sans doute
moins bien que la convent..on de 1824. La seule différenceimportante
entre laconvention de 1824 et celle de 1839est en réalitéqu'in'y a plus,
de part et d'autre, qu'une seule limite de pêchevalable .pourles huîtres
comme pour tous les autres animaux marins. Il faut ajouter, il est vrai,
comme je l'ai déjAdit, que du côté français la règle des trois milles
reçoit une exception dans les parages en cause où la ligne généraleest
remplacéepar une ligne ad hoc.Mais pour tout le reste et surtout en ce
qui concerne les principes, c'est la convention de 1824qui subsiste, y
compris la corrélationde la.délimitation de la'pêche et de la mer terri-
toriale (art. premier de la (:onvention de 1824) Je reconnais volontiers
que, en 1839, les chancelltries n'ont pas donpé une forme élégante à
la convention ;elles ont cousu sans retailler. Elles ont misà l'article 9
ce qui faisait si bien àl'article premier de la convention de 1,524 .lles
ont reçu des commissaires nleGranville le projet de convention relative
aux huîtres, auquel elles oiitrajouté l'article 9.
Mais il me parait impossible de soutenir que la délimitation résultant
déslors de la combinaison des articles 3 et 9 de la convention de 1839
ait pu avoir pour objet on pour effet de modifier le statut des espaces
maritimes situés au milieu de l'intervalle compris entre les deux lignes.
En ce qui concerne les I?criihous,notons d'ailleurs que ce groupe d'îlots
ne se trouvait mêmeplus intéressé, commeen 1824, par lecroisement,
en son beau milieu, de derlxlignes de dklirnitation de la pêche.
Voilà ce qui s'est passéen 1839.Pas plus en 1839qu'en 1824,aucune
des deux nations n'a invoqué au milieu de l'espace délimité5 l'arti-
cle 3 un droit de souverainq:téqui aurait engendrédes eaux territoriales
et qu'elle aurait pu,à ce titre, interdire aux pêcheursde l'autre nation.
La carte est plus éloquenbequ'un long récit, et elle nous permettra
de résumeren quelques prspositions nos observations sur le sujet.
Premier temps :Avant 1824, les pêcheursdes deux nations pêchent
en commun dalis 1'enseml)lede ces espaces maritimes entre fa côte
de l'île de Jersey et Ia côte française. Ils se disputent les bancs d'huîtres
situés présde la côte frailçaise. 394 DUPLIQUE DE M. LE PR.OF. GROS (FRANCE) - 8 X 53
Dezaxième temps :1824. La pêche générale est délimitéeA trois milles
de la cBtelaisse de basse mer de 1'Uede Jersey et de la côte de France
opposée. La limite de trois miles prise pour la pêche généraleest
convenue parce que c'est celle de la mer territoriale. Toutefois, pour
la pêcheaux huitres une deuxiifme limite est portée A trois milles en
avant de la premiére, donc à six milles de la cdte de I'ile de Jersey
etde Ia côte de France.
Troisièmekmps : La convention de 1839, article 3,est destinée à
éliminer les difficultésqui sont apparues en raison de l'existence de
cette deuxiéme ligne spéciale de pêche aux huitres. Le principe de
1824 est rétabli dans toute sa rigueur. La limite des pêchesaux huîtres
est ramenée des deux côtés jusqu'g la limite de la mer territoriale :
du cBté français c'est une ligne géométriqueu , ne ligne ad koc, afin
de donner satisfaction autant que possible aux revendications des
p&cheursdes deux cbtés,mais le principe de l'unitéde limite est exac-
tement sauvegardé, et l'état anf.érieuà 1824 dans les espaces inter-
médiairesest rétabli. Ni d'un caténi de l'autre personne ne fait valoir
des droits exclusifs sur une part quelconque de ces espaces interné-
diaires, alors que, comme nous l'avons vu, rien n'aurait étéplus facile
que de 1e faire. Lorsqu'on eut écartéces deux lignes spéciales de six
milles,la situation des Minquiers et des Ihréhous éclatait aux yeux
des commissaires. Que disent-ils? Rien. Et on voudrait que ces îlots
qui n'avaient pas de mer territoriale propre en 1824 en acquièrent
une par ce rien ?
Quatrihm temps :La pratique est restée conforme de 1839 à 1870
environ, sanscontestation, et de 1870 . 1951 malgr6 les prétentions
du Gouvernement britannique, qui n'ont jamais eu d'autre prétexte
que l'interprétation- erronée, A notre sens - de l'article 38 de la
convention de 1867.
Arrêtons-nous un moment pour considérer l'oeuvre de 1839, celle
.des commissaires de Granville, comme celle des chancelleries. Elle porte,
assurément, la marque d'une certaine negligence. Depuis longtemps,
sans doute, cette affaire avait passé de bureau en bureau, sans être
repensée, et les conséquences étaient parfois amusantes.A prendre la
convention de 1839au pied de la lettre,par exemple, il n'y aurait autour
'des îles de la Manche autres que Jersey, Guernesey, Sark, etc., aucune
ceinture d'eaux territoriales. Cette bévueapparente a déjàétésignalée.
C'est elle qu'ona peut-êtrevoulu réparer en 1867 en écrivant dans le
projet d'article8 que le mot fles britanniques comprenait les îles de
laManche. En fait, cette glose était une utile correction de formais
personne ne pouvait douter en 1839ni en 1867 que, en ce qui concernait
les autres îles que Jersey, la convention de 1824,dans son article 3,
avait une fois pour toutes régléles limites de leurs eaux territoriales et
la bévue de 1839était sans consi:quence. C'est une curiosité,une petite
étourderie dans la longue liste de celles dont l'histoire de la diplomatie
a gardé le souvenir. Cependant, c'est ellequi explique l'article 38 de
1867. Mais venons-en à l'essentiel.
On peut dégager deux points.
D'abord l'article 3 et l'articicombinésont un sens clair. Entre les
deux limites, celle qui entoure l'ile de Jersey et la limihocale long
de lacôte de France opposée,la pCcheest commune sur un pied d'égalité
aux pêcheursdes deux nations. Xos contradicteurs ne le nient pas maissoutiennent qu'il faut excepter dans ces espaces les territoires apparte-
nant à l'une ou àl'autre nati4)net engendrant une zone de mer territoriale
interdite aux pêcheursde la nation qui n'a pas la souveraineté.
Le Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni soutient toujours que la pêche
des huîtres est interdite aux Français en dépit de la convention de 1839
autour desMinquierset dcsÉ :réhous,parce que cesîlots sont britanniques.
Maiscette prétention A la p&:heexclusive des huîtres elle-même va contre
un texte clair et une pratique conforme constante. Pour soutenir leur
thèse, nos amis britannique; ont en somme commis une sorte de péché
contre l'esprit. Ilsont étéjusqu'àdire que l'article 3, qui est kcrit, n'était
pas écrit.Maisil est clair qu'une interprétation aussi désespéréee plaide
pas en faveur de la tliése britannique. Le meilleur commentaire de
l'article3 est fourni dans ;me lettre du marquis d'Harcourt (annexe
A 31, p. 213,des annexesbritanniques),où il est dit, Ala fin du premier
paragraphe : aSi nous reveiions h la convention précitée[c'est cellede
18391 et envisageons la question au point de vue de droit international,
nous apercevons que la preniiéreconséquencede cette mesure serait, en
vertu de la délimitation des trois zones, française, neutre et anglaise
indiquées sur lescartes mxines, de déplacer cornpletement les limites
d'Ecréhous arriveraient, po.ir ainsi dire, suroala cdte de France.ern
En second lieu, nos adve~çairesnous opposent les conséquences inac-
ceptables de l'interprétatioii française, En réalité,quand on nous dit
cela, cela veut dire que, aux yeux de nos amis britanniques, si la conven-
tion de 1839 était Arefaire, ils seraient plus sages que leurs anciens et
se prémuniraient contre ce:; conséquencesdont ils ne veulent pas ou
dont ils ne veulent plus. Peu importe ce que nos amis anglais voudraient
que l'article 3 fût, Ce qui iinporte, c'est ce qu'il est. Or, le langage de
cet engagement est clair, et, traduit en lignes reportées sur la carte, il
est encore plus clair.
Continuons l'histoire de 1:33g.La convention est appliquée'trente ans
sans la moindre difficulté ;des difficultéssurgissent parfois le long des
lignes définiespar l'article premier ou l'article2 et surtout le long de
la ligne ad hoc, qui représeiitela limite française. Mais s'il y avait eu
des lignes de délimitation du genre de ceLiesque j'ai tracées aux Min-
quiers et aux Écréhouç, ?Illuelques milles de la côte française, est-ce
qu'on croit vraiment que ds incidents ne se seraient jamais produits
alors que la configuration mêmedes Minquiers avec ses rochers décou-
vrant~ eût exigéune délimitation particuliérement compliquée,et que
personne n'a encorefaite aujourd'hui ?En fait, l'articlen'a 6tCcontesté
contre son sens parfaitemer.t clair que du jour où l'on s'est avisé du
côté anglais quesi l'onpouvitit tirer parti de l'article 38la convention
de 1867, on arriverait .4mtidifier le sens de l'article 3. De bonne foi,
bien sûr, mais avec de grands efforts d'exégèse,on me le concédera.
Or cet article 38 était destin5 trésprobablement a redresser la mauvaise
rédaction de la convention i.e 1839. Interprétée littéralement sans tenir
compte de la convention de 1824qui avait, à mon sens, à tout jamais
régléle problémedes eaux territoriales pour Guernesey, Alderney, Sark
et Jersey, la convention de 1839demandait sans doute une correction.
C'est cette correction que proposait M. Cave en 1867lorsqu'il suggéra
d'inclure lesîles de la fifanclie dans le terme fles britanniques. Si nous
avons évoquésa suggestion, c'était uniquement pour dire que dans la
thésedu Royaume-Uni l'article 38 de la convention introduisait quelque DUPLIQUE DE hl.LE PROF. GROS (FRANCE) - 8 X 53
396
chose de nouveau dans la convt:ntion de 1839, et qu'à ce titre il ne
pouvait pas êtreretenu pour son interprétation.
Pour faire direA l'article3 ce qu'il dit, la thèse française secontente
donc de donner au texte. son sens naturel et d'alléguer la pratique
conforme suivie d'abord pendant trente ans sans contestation puis
iusqu'à nos jours, malgré les prétentions nouvelles de nos amis britan-
niques énoncéesdepuis 1870 environ, à la faveur d'une addition intro-
duite dans l'article 38 de la convention de 1867avec un autre sens et
en tout état de cause inopposable à la France en tant qu'elle modifierait
laconvcntiori de 1839.
II. Quels sont les effets de l'interprétation française de l'article 3
en ce qui concerne la question lie la souveraineté.
M. Fitzmaurice a examinéce que l'on pourrait appeler deux versions
de la thése française, en reconnaissant que l'une seulement devait être
la thèse véritable du Gouvernenient de la République.
La première version de notre thèse présentéepar M. Fitzmaurice
est, la Cour s'en souvient, fort simpIe. L'article 3 a mis en commun
entre les deux pays l'usage des îles aux fins de la pêche. Lesactes
accomplis cn exécution de cette convention sont donc inopposables à
l'autre Partie en tant que manifestation de la souveraineté. Quant
aux actes autres que les actes di: pèche, ils ne sont pas permis par la
convention et sont donc interdits sauf accord de l'autre Partie. Ainsi
présentEe,notre interprétation se heurte évidemment à l'objection de
M. Fitzmaurice qu'il y a là quelque chose de très proche d'un condo-
minium et qu'un tel statut ne peut êtredéduit du silence de la conven-
tion. Mais il est inutile d'insister sur ce point, car, M. Fitzmaurice le
reconnaît lui-même,nous n'avons jamais dit que l'Êtat qui avait la
souveraineté sur lesîles devait, pour accomplir des actes autres que
les actes de pêche,obtenir prialablement l'accord de l'autre Partie.
C'était une hypothèse d'école. Aussivoudrais-je préciser trés briève-
ment ce qu'est authentiquement la thèse française en ce qui concerne
les effetde l'article3 sur la qufstion de la souveraineté. Je fais donc
abstraction pour le moment de la portée géographiquedu texte et je
suppose acquisqu'il s'applique 1;irégiondes Minquiers et des Écréhous ;
le problémc se pose alors dc savoir quels sont ses effets en matiére de
souveraineté temtoriale.
L'histoin: de la convention de 1839 nous a montré que les deux
Parties étaient d'accord pour autoriser la pêche encommun dans les
eaux des &linquierset des Écréhous.Il n'y avait pas làune uconcession n,
un ((octroia accordépar l'État qui avait la souveraineté Acelui qui ne
l'avaitpas : c'était la simple confirmation d'un état:de choses ancien
et que la convention de 1824 avait déjà confirméquinze ans plus tht.
C'était probablement aussi la condition d'rin réglement nécessaire
d'ensemble de la pêcheentre l'ilede Jersey et la côte française; enfin,
aucune des Parties n'avait soulevéle .problémeau cours de la négo-
ciation, sachant vraisemblablement que la revendication d'une zone
de pêche exclusiveautour des Miriquierset desÉcréhouscompromettrait
définitivement les chances d'un pareil réglement. Les Parties étaient donc d'accord pour la pêchecommune dans les
eaux des Minquiers et des Écréhous. En principe, un pareil accord
eaux des îlots, mais les îlots eux-mêmes.Dans le cas des Minquierss les
et des Ecréhous,1sterre des îles ne pouvait en 1839 servirà rien d'autre
que d'abri temporaire aux pécheurs,et il est normal dans ces conditions
que la communauté de pêchese soit traduite par un usage commun des
îles elles-mêmesaux fins de la pêche.Pendant une trentaine d'années,
la convention fut d'ailleurs interprétée comme cela sans difficulte ;
aucune des Parties ne prétendit à autre chose qu'Ala pêche,et aucune
controverse ne se produisit. Vers 1870, les difficultéscommencent, et
des actes furent accomplis Far les deux Parties qui n'ont aucun rapport
avec la pèche. Ces actes scnt invoqués aujourd'hui devant la Cour ri
titre de preuve de la souveraineté, et la question que nous posons est
celle de savoir si l'utilisation de ces actes est valable.
Nous avons suggéré à cet égard qu'il fallait distinguer entre les
actes de pêcheproprement dits (c'est-à-dire la pécheet les activités
connexes: construction de jetées ou abris de pêcheurs)et les actes
que nous appellerons pour ~llusde commoditéles actes de souveraineté.
En ce qui concerne les ;tctes-de pêche,les deux Parties pouvaient
valablement les accomplir entre 1839et aujourd'hui, la convention
de 1839 ayant placé les ':les dans la zone commune de l'article 3.
R.1.Fitzmaurice nous dit qoe les pêcheursdes deux nations ont exercé
la pêcheaux îles non pas parce qu'ils pensaient exécuter la convention
de 1839m ,ais parce qu'ils pensaient que leur État avait la souveraineté
sur les îles. Nous avouons ne pas voir la portée de cet argument, car
les mobiles qui ont inspiré, sion les connaît, les pêcheursde nos deux
nations, sont étrangers à l:cause ;ce ne sont pas les pêcheursqui vont
interpréter la convention dt: 1839et déciderdu sens de l'article3. C'est
un fait ,que des actes de pêcheont étépermis par 1%convention de
1839 à 1'Etat qui n'avait pasla souveraineté comme à 1'Etat qui l'avait.
Ils ne peuvent donc êtrein-roquésaujourd'hui comme preuve de souve-
raineté.
Quant aux actes de souveraineté proprement dits, construction
d'édificespublics non destiiés à la pêche,visites de personnalités offi-
cielles, déploiement du drapeau national, hypothéses telles que la
construction d'un radar, etc,, il faut distinguer selon qu:ils ont été
accomplis par lstat qui avait la souveraineté ou par 1'Etat qui ne
l'avait pas. L'Etat qui avait la souveraineté pouvait évidemment
accomplir tous les actes qua?comportait son droit de souveraineté, sauf
dans les cas où son activité aurait gêné enquoi que ce soit la pêchedes
ressortissants de l'autre Partie;l'article 3 ne vidait donc aucunement
le contenu de la souveraineté de 1'Etat véritablement souverain, excep
tion faite de l'objet preciclece texte, c'est-à-dire la pêche.II n'y avait
pas condominium, il y av,lit souveraineté exclusive et intégale sauf
pour la pêche.Quant L 1'::tat qui n'avait pas la souveraineté, il ne
pouvait au contraire accom?lir aucun acte autre que des actes de pêche.
Mon ami 111 Fitzmaurice rne dit que cela revient B affirmer que tout
souveraineté lui était intc,rdit. Mais n'est-ce pas l'évidenceitmême?la
Depuis quand un État peut-il accomplir des actes de souveraineté sur
le territoire d'un autre l~t?iN'est$ pas normal que les actes de pêche
prkvus par l'article 3 misà part, 1'Etat qui n'avait pas la souverainetén'ait pu accomplir aucun acte irripliquant la souveraineté sur un terri-
toire qui relevait de l'autre Partie ? Comme l'a dit trés justement
M. Fitzmaurice, l'article 3 n'entravait en rie11la liberté des Parties.
C'est exact, en ,ce sens que l'État souverain pouvait continuer comme
auparavant faire tout ce qu'il voulait dans la mesure où cela ne gênait
pas la pêchedes ressortissants de l'autre Partie, mais 1'8tat qui n'avait
pas la souveraineté continuait à ne pouvoir accomplir aucun acte sur
les îles, l'exception des actes de pêchedésormaisformellement auto-
riséspar la convention de 1839.
Juridiquement, la situation etait parfaitement claire. En pratique,
la souveraineté et considérait comme illicites les actes, autres queirde
pêche,accomplis par l'autre Par1.ie.C'est la Cour qui va nous dire qui
avait raison et quels sont ceux dt:s actes- accomplis par le Royaume-
Uni et par la France - qui ont étéillicites au regard du droit inter-
national, parce que commis en violation de la convention de 1839.
C'est parce que la licéitéde nos actes de souveraineté, aussi bien du
lioyaurne-Uni que de la France, était contestée par l'autre Partie, que
le Gouvernement de la Républiqiie s'est abstenu d'insister sur les faits
de possession des cent derniéresaniiées.II était convaincu - et il l'est
toujours - que ce sont les faits invoqués par le Royaume-Uni qui
sont seuls inopposables comme yireuve de la souveraineté britannique
sur les ilots, car il considére que, le Royaume-Uni n'ayant jamais eu
la souveraineté sur les Minquiers et les Ecréhous, n'a pu valablement
accomplir sur ces ilots aucun autre acte que des actes de péche. Mais
c'est la précisément l'enjeudu présent litige, et c'est pour cette raison
que le Goilvernement de la République a préférérejeter en bloc les
actes de possession des deux Parties postérieurs à 1839, et c'est, je le
répéte,parce que les avocats du Koyaume-Uni nous ont, en quelque
sorte, mis au défide présenter des preuves de notre souveraineté que
nous avons produit en annexes nouvelles ces preuves que peut-êtreils
pensaient inexistantes.
L'arrêt de laCour va, si elle accepte notre thkse, lever tous les doutes
expriméspar mon ami M. Fitzmaurice, car l'interprétation donnéepar
la Cour au texte d'une convention a, selon la jurisprudence de Ia Cour
permanente, un effet rétroactif en ce sens que le texte de la convention
doit êtreréputé avoir toujours eu le sens résultant de cette interprétation.
(Écoles minoritaires allemandes en Nazlte-Silésie,A/B 40, p. 19.) La
situation s'éclairera donc r6troat:tivernent. Les deux États pourront
continuer à utiliser en commun les îles aux fins de la pêche.L'Etat
auque1 la Cour aura attribué la souveraineté pourra, seul, de sa propre
initiative, constrqire des maisonri de douane, des stations de T. S. F.,
installer lin radar. L'Etat qui n'aura pas la souverainet6nc pourra rien
faire sur les ilots, excepté des actes de pêche.Tout cela nous semble
clair, simple et sans contradiction possible.
hl. ITitzmaurice a dit que notre Interprétation de l'article 3 de la
corivention de 1839pretait A ce texte si modeste des ambitions bien
vastes. Ce grief n'est pas fondé.Nous n'avons jamais ditque l'article3
moclifiait en quoi que ce soit la souveraineté sur les Minquiers et les
Ecréhous.Tout au contraire, nous avons insistésur le fait que ?u silence
de ce texte on pouvait tirer une conciusion, et une seuleA savoir que les
Parties n'ont pas voulu modifier la souveraineté exijtante (Plaidoiries,
p. 258). Et c'est préciçément parer: quel'articl3 est muet sur la souve- raineté que les actes accomplis en son exécution ne peuvent pas être
invoquésed faveur de la souveraineté de l'une ou de l'autre des Parties.
M. Fitzmaurice nous a, il est vrai, reproché d'interpréter tous les
actes de ces cent dernières a:lnéesen fonction de la convention de '839,
Mais cela n'est-il pas natur:l ? Un traité intervenu entre deux Etats
n'affecte-t-ilas, nJimprègn+:-t-il.pas les actes postérieurs qui ont un
rapport avec son objet ? Est41 donc indifférent que LS actes accomplis
aient étéconformes ou contraires à la convention de 1839 ? 11 nous
semble que poser ces questions, c'est les résoudre.
III. Le troisième point di: l'argumentation de mon collègue britan-
nique était que notre interprétation de la convention de 1839 serait
incompatible avec le coniprt)mis de 1950.
La thèse de M. Fitzmau~ice peut se résumer ainsi. Le compromis
suppose que la Cour est ap~leléeà trancher des revendications contra-
dictoires par les deuxParties Ala souveraineté sur les Minquiers et les
Écréhous ; il suppose donc l'existence de telles revendications et la
possibilité pour les Parties je les avoir formulées. Or, selon la thése
française, laconvention de I339avait pour effet de rendre inopposabIes
A l'autre Partie tous les actcs de possession accomplis par chacune des
Parties postérieurement 5 sa conclusion et de rendre donc irrecevables
les revendications de souver,iineté fondées sur ces actes. 11en résulte,
nous dit $1, Fitzmaurice, que l'interprétation française de 1839 est
incompatible avec le cornprmis.
Mon collègue britannique revient ainsi purement et simplement à
la thèse primitive du Royailme-Uni selon laquelle la convention de
1839 - autour de laquelle ont pourtant tourné toutes les controverses
avant comme après la sourriission de l'affaire A la Cour - doit être
laissée complètement hors du débat et que les faits de possession de
ces cent dernières années doivent êtreenvisagés comme ils le seraient
si cette convention n'avait pas existé.
L'objection de M. Fitzmaurice est d'ailleurs dirigéeexclusivemerit-
la Cour l'aura remarqué - cmtre la première version de la thèse fran-
çaise. Entre la deuxième version, la seule exacte, et le compromis il
n'y a pas la moindre incom.patibilité. D'une part, la Cour est saisie
des prétentions contradictoi~es globales des Parties et non des seules
prétentions fondkes sur des :.ctes accomplis depuis 1839. D'autre part,
l'État qui avait lasouveraint:téet qui sera jugé telpar laCour pouvait
continuer, nous l'avon~~dit, à accomplir tous actes de souveraineté
sur les îles ; quant 21lJEtat qui n'avait pas la souveraineté en 1839,
ce n'est pas à vrai dire la convention de 1839 qui barre l'évocation de
ses faits de possession, mai: le fait qu'il n'avait pas la souveraineté
et ne pouvait donc pas accomplir valablement de tels actes. Il n'y a
donc aucune contradiction eiltre notre interprétation dela convention
de 1839 et de l'articl3 et 16compromis.
B. La question de l'acquisition de la souveraineté par le Royaume-
Uni par voie de prescription i)u d'occupation. En ce qiiiconcerne l'acquisition de la souveraineté par voie d'occupa-
tion, je suis évidemment d'accort1avec M. Fitzmaurice pour dire qu'elle
ne peut êtreenvisagée que si l'on admettait qu'aux environs de 1800
les deux groupes d'îlots étaient res nullizls. Nous pensons aussi que
tel n'était pas le cas, et si nous avons parlé très brièvement (pp.-271)
de ce mode d'acquisition de la souveraineté, c'était pour l'éliminer en
ce qui concerne le Royaume-Urii, pour le cas où la Cour estimerait,
contrairement à l'opinion des deux Parties, que les ilots étaient res
nullius aux environs de 1800.
Pour ce qui est de la prescripl:ion,M. Fitzmaurice ne me semble pas
avoir ébranléce que nous avions dit (pp. 265 à 270), et jene serais
pas revenu sur cette question s'il n'avait dans l'exposédenos arguments
négligé quelques points de nos propos. Nous n'avons pas dit que tous
les actes invoqués par le Royaume-Uni n'étaient que de simples actes
d'utilisation des richesses des îles et non pas des actes de souveraineté :
nous avons seulement dit que n'étaient pas des actes de souveraineté
les actes de pêchede Jersiais aux îles et l'existence sur les îles de maisons
appartenant à des Jersiais (p. 267). Quant au caractére paisible de la
possession requise, nous n'avons pas dit qu'il s'agissaide l'absence de
violence de la part de i'Etat qixi acquiert la souveraineté par vpie de
prescription, mais de l'absence de contestation de la part de 1'Etat à
l'encontre duquel la prescription s'opPre.Or, les protestations françaises
ont éténombreuses, nous l'avons vu (pp. 268 270).Mêmesi le Gouver-
nement français s'abstenait d'élever des protestations pendant de
longues armées, il n'en demeurait pas moins ce que j'aiappelé une
sorte d'état de protestation permanente, et je m'étonne que hl. Fitz-
maurice ait pu dire que le Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni avait cru
que la France avait acquiescé1,aux revendications du Royaume-Uni :
pour quiconque relit la corresporidance diplomatique le contraire semble
évident. Le seul fait d'avoir cons.tamment invoqué,dansnotre correspon-
dance, la convention de 1839, conçtitue cette protestation permanente;
le Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni ne pouvait dès lors ignorer comment
le Gouvernement français estimait trouver dans cette convention une
défense adéquate aux revendicadons de souveraineté du Gouvernement
britannique. A quoi auraient servi nos tentatives de négociations vers
Igoa par exemple, si.on les qualifie d'acquiescement ? C'est encourager
IesEtats à ne jamais modifier leurs positions primitivdans une négocia-
tion de peur qu'onne leur diseensuite :vous avez acquiescéà nos préten-
tions. On nous reproche aussi de n'avoir pas fait suivre ces protestations
d'actes positifs, ces derniers étant seuls, nous dit-on, susceptibles d'inter-
rompre la prescription. Je prierai encore une fois la Cour de garder en
mémoire les circonstances de l'histoire de France des années 1870 à
1914, voire même 1950, et demanderai une seconde fois à nos amis
britanniques : que fallait-il faire ? Débarquer des fusiliers-marins, faire
sauter la maison de douane à la dynamite 7 Expulser les pêcheurs
jersiais lorsqu'ils hissaient votri: pavillon ?
Quant à l'absence de propositions d'arbitrage, tout arbitrage sur une
question territorialesouléve adjourd'hui encore une émotion qui fait
comprendre qu'aucun des deux ]?agisn'y ait songéen des temps d'amitié
moins parfaite.
Mais RI.Fitzmaurice, se rendant sans doute compte de la faiblesse
de ses arguments sur ce point, a fini par dire que si vraimentla France
avait B souveraineté vers 1800, le Royaume-Uni l'avait acquise par prescription entre 1800 et 1876, date de la première protestation fran-
çaise qui aurait pu interiompre cette prescription. Nous poserons
simplement une question :, Comment cette acquisition a-t-elle pu se
faire alors qu'en 1822 les Etais de Jersey, s'adressant au roi d'Angle-
terre, n'invoquent aucun d~oit de souveraineté et que la quasi-totalité
des faits de possession brit:tnniques est postérieure à 1870 sans qu'on
-puisse trouver pratiquement aucun fait de possession anglais dans la
.premiéremoitié du xIxye sècle 7 Je me suis référé en faisant allusion
.à 1822 à cet acte des Etat; de Jersey que j'avais cité pour partie et
que, grâce à l'extrême obiigeance de mes collègues britanniques, je
.détiens maintenant : c'est l'acte du 18 avril 1822.
Les faits énuméréspar M. Harrison (pp. ,336-337) ne sont en
,effet des faitset des actes de souveraineté.
Les uns sont de simples iictes de pêche ou desactes liés à la pêche
autorisée par la convention de 1839 et ne constituent pas, comme nous
l'avions déjà montré (Plaidoiries, p. 267), des actes de souveraineté.
Tels sont, pour les Minquif:rs, les faits nos 1, 2, IO 'et II ; pour les
Ecréhous, les faits nos 4 et 8. D'autres concernent la construction de
.cabanes appartenant à des particuliers, question qui, nous l'avons dit
(p.'~67)~est entièrement étrangPre au prob1ème.de souveraineté : tels'
.sont, pour lesMinquiers, le, faitsno 9, pour les Ecréhous les faitsno6,
7, 9 et IO.
Deux faits au moins sont absoIument en dehors de la question : il
:s'agit du fait no 7 des Minquiers - l'inscriptiondes initiales d'un
,Jersiais sur Maîtresse Pie -- et du fait no 6 - extraction de pierres
aux Minquiers par des Jersiais : des pierres ont étéégalement extraites
aux Chausey, au xv11111s~ieècle,je l'ai rappelédans ma plaidoirie, page2;7
va-t-on en déduire que les lhausey appartenaient au XVIII~~ siècleau
Royaume-Uni ?
Le faitno 8 des Minquius, c'est-à-dire la mission du capitaine de
.vaisseau Martin White, a étiiremis à sa juste place lors de notre premier
.exposé (pp. 257-258). .
Le fait no 5 des Écréhou; - inclusion des Écréhous, en 1875, dans
.les limites du port de Jerse'- a précisémentfait l'objet d'une protes-
tation du Gouvernement frlnçais reproduite en annexe A 31, et c'est
l'un de ces actes illiciteau .:egard du droit internationacomme violant
la convention de 1839. De tous les faits énuméréspar M. Harrison,
que reste-t-il ? Les cas d'enquête sur les personnes décédéeset l'appli-
-cation de la juridictionjers.+irç elatés aux nos 3, 4 et 5 pour lesMin-
.quiers ;I, z et 3 pour les Ecr&hous. Je pourrais faire remarquer que
..certains de ces faits se réd.~isenA de pures hypothèses : ainsi le fait
n"3 des ecréhous concerne ::'enquêtefaite sur le cadavre d'un (inconnu
.szcfiposéêtreun marin français iice sont les termes mêmesdu document
publié en annexe additionrelie A r7r, et je pourrais demander si on
ne fait pasà Jersey, cornmc.dans tous les pays du monde, une enquête
..sur tout noyé trouvé n'im~orte où, en pleine mer ou sur tout rocher.
Le faitno I des Êcrél-ioun;concerne, comme l'indiqpe l'annexe addi-
tionnelle A 159,un Fran6;ais fugitif trouvé aux Ecréhous par des
-pêcheurs jersiais et non par des fonctionnaires, et emmené, sur sa
demande, car il fuyait des ~ioursuites pénales, à Jersey où il a comparu
-comme immigrant irrégulier devant l'autoritit jersiaise. Mais sur tous
-ces faits de juridiction queM. Harrison a qualifiés de territoriale, on
-pourrait soulever une quesion de principe. Nous voulons bien croireque la loi de Jersey a une application territoriale, mais que prouve.
cela dans le présent litige ? Il est en effet de principe que l'application
d'une loi interne ne peut en rien affecter une situation établielégitime-
ment selon le droit international ; si la France a établison titre originel
et sa possession sur les Minquiers et les Ecréhous, ce n'est pas la
prétendue application d'une loi intérieure jersiaise à ces îlots qui pourra
modifier la situation internationale de la France. Je me rdfèresur ce.
point Ala décisionde la Cour permanente sur les communautés gréco-
bulgares (B 17, p. 32). Les lois internes des Parties ne sont que des.
faits pour la Cour, elle les prend naturellement en considération, mais-
comme tels ;le raisonnement du Royaume-Uni en fait la source directe
du droit de souveraineté par une sorte de syllogisme qu'il est facile-
de démontrer. Le Royaume-Uni nous dit :
IO notre loi est une loi territoriale ;
2' nous appliquons notre loi a-ux Minquiers et aux Écréhous ;
3' donc, les Minquiers et les Ecréhous sont un territoire dépendant.
de Jersey.
Le seul raisonnement valable serait le suivant :
IO Minquiers et Écréhous sont un territoire dépendant de Jersey ;
2' notre loi est territoriale ;
3O nous l'appliquons aux Minquiers et Écréhous.
Et ceci ramkne le raisonnement britannique A une simple petition de-
principe.
Ajoutons encore pour clore cet-tediscussion sur la loi rationefiersonŒ
ou la loi ratione loci que, mêmesi la loi jersiaise dont nous n'avons
aucune raison de douter qu'elle soit, comme nous l'a dit M. Harrison,
essentiellement une loi rufiane locila Cour permanente a juge :.
t(11est constant que les tribunaux de beaucoup de pays, méme
de pays qui donnent à leur législation pénaleun caractére stricte-
ment territorial, interprètent la loi pénale dans ce sens que les.
délitsdont les auteurs, au moment de l'acte délictueux, se trouvent
sur le territoire d'un autre Etat, doivent néanmoins êtreconsi-
dérés commeayant étécommis sur le territoire national, si c'est
là que s'est produit un des elémentsconstitutifs du délitet surtout
ses effets.n (A ro, p.23.)
Ainsi, la territorialité du droit pénal n'est pas un principe général
de droit international, il ne sert de rien de citer des exemples de pr6-
tendue juridiction, que nous avons d'ailleurs expliqués par d'autres.
motifs, pour appuyer la prétention du Royaume-Uni.
Cet examen des faits énumérés par M. Harrison permet de rejeter
l'idéeprésentéepar M. Fitzmaurice que le Royaume-Uni aurait pu
acquérir Ia souveraineté par voit: de prescription avant mêmela pre-
mière protestation française en 1.876.
11 nous restera à étudier la troisiéme question dans cette 'artie-.
consacrée aux temps modernes : lesfaits de possession. DUPLIQUE DE nr .E PROF. GROS (FRANCE) - 8 x53
403
[Séance@ubliqur du 8 octobre1953, a#rèsmidi]
,C. Les faits de possession dux~xme et'du xxriiesiècles.
Je voudrais tout d'abort. revenir sur quelqiies points soulevéspar
'l'exposéde mon collégueJI. Harrison.
En ce qui concerne le rét tend euercice de la juridiction jersiaise
:relativement aux Minquiers. et aux Ecréhous, je me suis expliqué ce
matin sur le caractére et la portée en droit international de tels act;s
.jen'y reviens pas.
hl. Harrison a contt:sté l'interprétation ue nous avions donnée
(pp. 228-229 de la plaicloire) de l'acte des 2tats de Jersey de 1754,
publié en annexe additionnelle h 16a. Ce texte prohibait l'entréedc
navires venant de France, où sévissait alors une épidkmiede peste.
Nous avions indiqué que cet.:einterdiction s'appliquaià tous les navires
.venant du Royaume de France, y compris ceux qui venaient des Chausey,
*desMinquiers et des Ecréhot.~.M.Harrison a dit (p.333) que nous avions
.mal interprétéce texte. Maisil s'estcurieusement abstenu defairemention
d'un autre texte, un des rar:s documents non publiés dans les annexes
,du Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni et que j(avajs cité (Plaidoiries,
p. 229): il s'agit d'un autrs acte des mêmesEtats de Jersey, sur la
même question : la prohibiti~n aux navires venant du continent. Que dit
.ce textede 1720qui n'est pas tr&séloigné du texte de 1754 (je cite):
IIQu'aucun vaisseau CU bateau venant de quelque port de France
ou lieux adjacents, coinme sont Chausey, Ecreho et autres isles
et rochers, ne mettront ni gens ni marchandises A terre en cette
isle.r
'Faut-il donc croire que les :E?tatsde Jersey considéraient les ficréhous
-comme français en 1720, et comme anglais en 1754 ? L'acte de r754,
comme celui de 1720,sipifif: donc clairement qu'au XVIII~~siécleJersey
même considéraitque les ICcréhousfaisaient partie du Royaume de
France au mémetitre qiie leChausey.
hl.Harrison est égalemen.:revenu sur le prétendu «aveu JJdu comte
de Caraman, ambassadeur de France à Londres, en 1820 (Plaidoiries).
J'ai traité ce point pr&céderr!men(tPlaidoiries, p. 249).Je n'en reparlerai
pas autrement que pour solligner (L nouveau que depuis 1820 jusquJ%
1952il n'a jamais étéune seule fois invoqué par le Gouvernement du
Royaume-Uni A l'appui de ca prétention de souverainetéet Al'encontre
des prétentionsfrançaises. D'autre part, sijamais ceprétendu ((aveuétait
considéré commeayant une portée quelconque, il me semble qu'elle est
largement compensée parl'a\.eücorrespondant et contemporain desÉtats
de Jersey dans un acte do~lt j'ai déjà parlé : la pétitiondes États de
Jersey en date du 13avril 1822 dont j'avais produit un simpleextrait et.
qui se trouve maintenant,grâce à la grande obligeance de mes collégues
britanniques, sous la forme,c!el'annexe française nouvelle no21.
Dans ce document, les E1:ats de Jersey se plaignaient, la Cour s'en
souvient, 'dece que les pèchi:ursfrançais voulaient s'emparer des bancs
d'huîtres situésn entre ces clites - c'est-A-direcelles de Jersey- «et
la côte de France qui y es:opposée, s'étendant depuis le cap Rozel
aux rochers appelés.les Minquiers, A peu de milles au nord-ouest des
petites îles Chausey, entre une et trois lieues des côtes de France u.404 DUPLIQUE DE M. LE PR.OF. GROS (FRANCE) - 8 X 53
De ce texte, il semble bien résulter qu'en 1S22 les États de Jersey
considéraient les Minquiers aussi bien que les .Chausey comme faisant
partie de la icôte de France ». En tout cas,les Etats de Jersey étaient.
bien loin de les considérer comme une dépendance de Jersey, car si
tel avait étéleur sentiment, ils se seraient plaints non pas des prétentions.
françaises à la pêche exclusive, nais de la présence même despêcheurs.
français dans des eaux territoriales britanniques. Ce dont se plaignaient
les Etats en 1S22, c'étaitde la revendication française de pêcheexclusive-
dans une zone de pêchelibre, et non pas d'une prétention française
à pêcherdans une zone excIusivement britannique, car cette pétition.
se plaint de sévices de bateaux du Gouvernement français devant
Jersey mème. 11n'est pas préteridu dans ce document que les pêcheurs.
français violent les droits de souveraineté territorialedu Royaume-Uni
sur les Minquiers. Si vraiment les Etats de Jersey en 1822 avaient
considéré les Minquierscomme liritanniques, ils auraient tenu un autre-
langage en face de ces prétentions françaises à la pêcheexclusive entre.
la côte du Cotentin et la côte mêmede Jersey. Et je suis convaincu que
si la pétition de 1822 avait indiqué les Minquiers comme dépendances.
de Jersey, le Royaume-Uni aurait attiré notre attention sur ce fait.
M. Harrison nous a dit que les autoritésde Jersey étaient bien renseignées.
sur les Minquiers, bien mieux que les autorités françaises. Leur connais-.
sance aurait-elle subitement fait défaut le 18 avril1822 ?
M. Harrison considPre que la Fracce s'est contentée d'affirmer sa.
souveraineté sur les Minquiers et les Ecréhous, mais qu'elle n'a jamais.
traduit sa souveraineté en acte:; positifs. J'ai déjà expliqué k la Cour
(q:271 de la plaidoirie) pourquoi nous avions jusqu'ici attaché peu
d importance à établir l'existence d'actes positifs de souveraineté de
la part de la France. Puisque mes collègues britanniques m'ont permis
- et je les en remercie bien sincèrement - de faire état aujourd'hui
de doc~lments qui me sont parvcnus assez tardet que je leur ai communi-
quésle 6 octobre, je voudrais indiquer que j'ai déposéau Greffe divers
témoignages, sur lesquels je ne m'attarderai pas, et qui confirment
l'existence d'une pêchefrançaise aux Minquiers depuis fort longtemps,
ainsi que le déploiement sur les Minquiers du pavillon national (piéces
14a 171). Parmi ces pièces figure également la réponse à une question
que M. Hamison a posée, lorsqu'ils'étonnait de ne pas avoir vu la preuve
d'une subvention du maire de Granville à l'entreprise de Marin Marie
(c'estla pièceno19 '). Enfin, lCour trouvera là'deux télégrammes(pièces
zo et21 3)de MM, Daladier et Guy La Chambre, 'ancien président du
Conseil et ministre de l'Air du Gouvernement français avant la guerre,
qui lèveront les derniers doutes de mes collègues britanniques quant
aux visites (équivoques a et ((illégaleIIde ce président du Conseil et
de ce ministre français aux Minquiers avant 1939.
Puisque nous dissipons nos doutes mutuels, puis-je à mon tour
appuyer lin doute que j'avais déjà exprimé en donnant, cette fois, une
preuve nouvelle l'appui : il s'agit de l'importance de la pêche jersiaise
aux Minquiers, dont M. Harrison nous avait fait le tableau. Mon docu-
ment est rbcent, du 30 septembre 1953, et il est jersiais, car il s'agit d'un
extrait du journal jersiais Chronique de Jersey. J'y trouve ceci (c'est
un article sur les modes d'a1irni:ntation de l'île) :
Voir pp. 45~-457.
u p. 458
a P.459. DUPLIQUE DE M. LE PROF. GROS (FRANCE) - 8 X 53
405
u Passons maintenant au poisson, qui joue son r6le dans I'alimen-
tation insulaire. Il est évident que la profession de pêcheurn'a
guère d'attrait localerni:nt, si par contreilexiste un bon nombre
d'amateurs qui profitent des grandes marées et se plaisent A la
((pèque à basse iaue n,les plus favorisésétant ceux qui peuvent se
rendre jiisqu'aua Minquiers,cesîlots dont onparle tant actuellement1,
M. Fitzmaurice a terminii son exposéen disant qu'il serait étrange
que pour la première foisdepuis mille ans la France commence à exercer
la souveraineté effective sur les Minquiers et les Ecréhous. La formule
est belle. Mais est-elle vrai?
On nous a dit que la Fiance s'était toujours intéresséeB la pêche
plutat qu'à la souveraineté proprement dite. Cette souveraineté, nous
l'aurions affirméesur Ie papier, nous n'aurions jamais tenté de l'assumer
effectivement. Toutes les r~sponsabilités que la souveraineté confhre
i1'Etatqui en est investi,ia France les aurait laisséesau Royaume-Uni.
Pour fairejustice dc cette ai:cusation, il nous suffira de donner quelques
nouveaux détails sur la cluestion du balisage.
Le Royaume-Uni n'a janiais afirmé que les signes extérieurs de la
souveraineté, des panonceaix sur des maisons de douanes vides, des
cérémoniesde drapeaux. Mais, dans ces parages terribles, il y avait
une vraie responsabilitéh a!surner, une seule, celle de protégerla navi-
gation. Et cette responsal~ilité étatique, celle qui aurait en effet
constitué une revendication de souveraineté de la part du Royaume-
Uni, quand y a-t-il pensé pour la premiére fois ? En 1936. Eii 1850,
c'est un navire anglais 5 valleur qui naufrage aux Minquiers, le Superb;
quelle est l'affirmation de la responsabilité du Royaume-Uni ? Une
enqu$te sur les noyés.La France, elle,installe dès1865 un bateau-feu,
et c'est ensuite le travailccmplet de ceinture des écueilsqui - je me
, permets de le signaler à la Cour - a depuis 1865 coûté à la France
375 rnilhons de francs en fourniture et entretien des bateaux-feu et
450miilions de francs en fourniture et entretien des bouées, soit un
total de 825 millions de fr;incs; ces chiffres m'ont étédonnés par la.
,direction des Phares et Balises du rninistére français des Travaux
publics.
Cebalisage vise à protégerla navigation hauturière contre les dangers
redoutables de ce plateau. Les rochers qui ne couvrent jamais étant
prolongés très' loin par de; dangers sous-marins touchables par les.
navires, il faut évidemmeiit que nos bouées soient en dehors de ces
dangers, sous peine de lieiervir A rien, comme lesmarques jersiaises.
qui, placées sur de hauts rxhers comme les Pipettes ou les hlaisons,
ne sauraient par elles-~nêniesprévenir les navigateurs B temps, et
' n'ajoutent rien d'utile, &tarit d'ailleurs invisibles si le rocher l'est lui-
même,la nuit ou par mxivais temps.
Le rBle du balisage jersiais me parait très bien illustré par un article.
publié dans la revue The liachtsman, sous la signature de M. Philippe
Matelot (qui me semble b.en, d'après le texte, être le pseudonyme.
d'un yachtman jersiais, peul-être un de ces propriétaires aux Minquiers,
p. 175, numéro d'hiver 194;' :)
((...Le sentiment [jersiais] était que les Minquiers ne pouvaient-
être que britanniques, quoiqu'il soit regrettable que ce soient les
Français qui maintierin1:ntune belle sériede huit bouéeslumineuses. [il y a d'ailleurs une erreur] età sifflet. Certes, ce fut une économie
pour nous. ..!a
Plus loin (p. 178) :
u ...Le non-initié se gardera de visiter cet îlot rocheux avec
son propre et précieux bateau sans avoir trouvé un pilote ou fait
tout au moins une exploration à bord d'un autre bateau. A moins
d'avoir CLvotre bord quelqu'un de familier avec les lieux, abordez
le plateau aprés escale à Chausey !s
RI. Harrison nous dit encore qu'il trouve compréheiisible que les
services franqais critiquent le balisage jersiais parce qu'il différe du
leur, mais que précisément cette différence atteste son origine. Je
regrette de lui dire que là n'est pas la question. TIy a des conventions
internationales qui fixent la forme et la couleur de semblables signaux,
qui doivent vouloir dire queiqur: chose : (Passez à droite 11ou ((Passez
au Nord ii.Les marques jersiaises en question ne correspondent Aaucune
norme, ni ancienne, ni nouvelle, ni anglaise, ni française. Elles ne servent
strictement qu'A donner l'appellation du rocher, qu'il faut d'ailleurs
s'approcher pour lire. C'est sans doute la raison pour laquelle elles n'ont
étk,sauf erreur, ni signaléespar des avis aux navigateurs, ni portées
sur les cartes.
Je précise que je ne parle pas ici de la balise ((Le Coq D, ni de la
bouée du Vascelin, qui ont toutes deux une utilité ; la première, la
balise a Le Coq a,avait d'ailleurs été poséeinitialement par la France,
et elle fut emportée, sans doute par la tempCte, vers 1937, juste au
moment où les travaux du balisage jersiais étaient en cours,
Enfin, mon collégue nous a fait savoir, et ses photogra~hies le
montrent, que ces balises portent l'inscription trésapparente (Etats de
Jersey a.Mais ni la France, ni l'Angleterre, ni aucun pays que je sache
n'a coutume d'inscrire « Goum:rnement de la République française,
Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni a sur les innombrables balises de ses
côtes.
Dans ces conditions, la Cous jugera qui, des deux pays, a su où
.étaient les vraies responsabilités et les a assumées.
Monsieur le Président, Messieurs de la Cour, telles sont les remarques
fragmentaires que m'ont paru appeler les répli ues de mes collègues
du Royaume-Uni sur cette deuxième partie de 7 a plaidoirie française
consacréeaux temps modernes. Il est temps de conclure, mais, aupara-
vant, la Cour me permettra peut-êtrede dire un mot sur une question
qui doit rester en dehors de l'argumentation mais qui présente un
intérêtdans le débat, je veux parler des usines marémotrices. Jerépète
ce que j'avais déjArendu clair dans la plaidoirie: la France ne dit pas
*queces projets d'usines marémotricesconstituent un titre pour l'acqui-
sition de la souveraineté sur les Minquiers. Elle expose devant la Cour
quels sont ces projets qui constituent pour elle la manifestation d'un
intérêt - non pas d'un droit -: intérêt dela mêmeportéeque l'intérêt
de pêcheou d'habitation que mon collégueM. Harrison nous a exposé
:avec tant de talent. Les renseignements que j'ai recueilliç sur la question des usines
marémotrices et que j'exposerai trés briévement répondent donc aux
observations de M. Narrisori (Plaidoiries, pp. 186188).
Nous sommes heureux dr prendre note du fait que, sur l'avis de
leurs experts, nos colléguesbritanniques ont volontiers reconnu qu'cc il
est parfaitement exact qu'il s'agit là, non de rêvesd'ingénieurs, mais
de projets réalisables )iet ilcc <(mêmele plus ambitieux de ces trois
projetsii,c'est-h-dire celui qui s'appuie sur l'archipel des Minquiers,
leur semble «techniquemer.t réalisableii. Ceci ne m'étonne pas, car
les ingénieurs français qui étudient ces projets se sont constamment
tenus en effet en contact avec les spécialistes anglais, en particulier
avec sir William Halcrew, Mr. S. B. Donkin et leurs collaborateurs,
Mr. Bertram Darell Richarcs et Mr. H. Headland.
RI. Richards et hl. Heac.land ont fait mention des projets et des
&tudesde la France dans div-rses conférencessur l'utilisation de l'énergie
des marées, que, si la Cour le permet, je déposeraidans la piéce 211.
Ce sont des documents publics.
Nos contradicteurs nous objectent que ule prix de revient en serait
si formidableque l'on peut su:demander si le projet serait financièrement
pratiquable au moins dans 1: proche avenir ii.
La réalisation du premier projet, qui est purement français, appuyé
sur la rivikre Rance, coûteril une trentaine de milliards ct devra durer
de sept àhuit ans. Cen'est clu'aprésla mise en service de cette première
usine que l'on entreprendra.t la réalisation du second projet, celui qui
est basésur les Chausey, qui coûtera dans l'ordre de 1.000 milliards et
dont les délaisd'exécution,tl'aprésles estimations faites en fonction des
moyens techniques actuels, seraient d'une vingtaine d'années.Ce n'est
qu'aprés ce deuxième stadz que serait entreprise l'exécution du troi-
siémeprojet, celui des Minquiers. hlais la Cour est appeléeaujourd'hui
A se prononcer sur un différendde frontière entre les deux pays ;l'inci-
dence de sa décisionsur ce projet reste la même,quel que soit le délai
de réalisation des ouvrages.
Quant au prix de revient, certes, il est, pour employer l'expression
de M. Harrison, ciformidable » : 1.000 milliards pour l'un (Chausey),
1.500 peut-êtrepour l'autre (Minquiers). Mais notons que la production
d'énergie à attendre dc ces usines est, elle aussi,i(formidable )i: 15 mil-
liards de kwh, pour le second (Chausey) et plus de 20 milliards de
kwh. pour le troisikme projl:t (Minquiers). La consommation d'énergie
électrique double actuellem~nt en dix ans. C'est sur cette base que
doivent calculer les ingénkurs frayais. Or, notre consommation en
1952s'est élevée à 40 millia-ds de kwh. Les 15 milliards de Chausey et
les zo milliards des hfinqriier:;ne sont absolument pas hors de proportion
dansun programme d'accroinement régulier.
~uant- au- financement de projets de cette envergure, n'oublions
pas que ces tranches de 1.000 ou 1.500 milliards de francs doivent
s'échelonnersur une vingtaine d'années, ce qui fuialement en restreint .
Ie budget annuel à cinquante milliards. C'est une somme importante,
mais tout de même une tris faible fraction du revenu national fran-
çais, qui est de l'ordre de ::o.ooo milliards.
Depuis une dizaine d';~nnl3es,la France a équipédivers grands bar-
rages : Donzère-Mondragon, Bort-les-Orgues, Ottmarsheim sur le Rhin,
après avoir achevé celui dl: Génissiat, soit au total une productiond'une dizaine de milliards de kwh. par an, pour un coût qui se monte
aujourd'hui à plusieurs centaines de milliards. .
Voici les chiffres exactsdes trois derniéresannées :
Le budget total des investissements français pour l'équipement
électrique en 1950 était de 149 inilliards, en1951 de 153 milliards, en
1952 de 160 milliards :462 milliards en trois ans consacrés à l'équipe-
ment de centrales nouvelles tant hydrauliques que thermiques.
J'en viens à l'affirmationde AI. Harrison, selon laquelle le second
projet (Chausey) et le troisième (Minquiers) (ne manqueraient pas
d'entraver La pêche aux hlinquiers u,sur laquelle, dit mon collkgue,
« les deux Parties disposent de certains droits II.La réalisation des
projets, par son incidence sur les courants, peut en effet comporter
des effetsindirects sur 1'abond;lnce des poissons, Mais si des modi-
fications locales interviennent, rien ne prouve que. ce sera dans un
sens défavorable. En Hollande, la fermeture du Zuyderzee en a modifié.
le peuplement en poissons, mais la pêche dans lJIJsselmeer, d'une
part, et au large de la digue, d'autre part, existe toujours. N'oublions
pas que, selon les déclarations rnsrnede la pressede Jersey et certaines
déclarations officielles que j'ai relevéesdanma plaidoirie, les pécheurs
professionnels de jersey ne sont d'ailleurs plus trPs intéressés par la
pêche aux Minquiers.
La construction de digues coiipant des zones navigables nécessitera
évidemment la mise en place, parfaitement réalisable du point de vue
technique, d'éclusesde navigation.
Notons d'ailleurs à ce propos que, Acôtéd'un trafic purement français,
nous ne voyons dans ces parages que des navires à destination ou en
provenance d'un port français, sans qu'il y ait aucune navigation de
transit. Les digues et écluses (lui permettront le franchissement ne
constitueront donc qu'une sortc de passage dirigé qui existe sous une
autre forme, sans que les Britanniques s'en plaignent, puisque la
Southern liailways, dont les navires assurent le trafic maritime entre
Southampton, Jersey, Saint-Malo, utilise le balisage externe des Min-
quiers assurépar le service français des Phares et Balises.
Poursuivant la lecture de I'argumentation britannique, j'ainoté ü les
entraves au libre écoulement des marées,qui constituent naturellement
le but de ces projets, pourraient soulever d'autres problhmes n. Cet
aspect de la question que relkve le Gouvernement britannique a été
étudiCtrès soigneusement par nos ingénieurs.Les modifications apportées
aux courants et aux dénivcllatic~npar l'implantation et I'explojtation
d'une usine marémotrice peuvent se prévoir, de mêmeque les ingénieurs
hollandais ont prévu l'incidence sur les marées de la mer du Nord de
la fermeture du Zuyderzee à.propos de laquelle les calculs du professeur
Lorentz se sont trouvés vérifies à un pouce près, c'est-A-dire 2 centi-
mètres 112.J'ai trouvé cette citation à la page 117 du volume Dredge
Drain Reclaimpar le Dr Joh. van Veen, La Haye, 1948 ,ue jedéposerai
également dans la piéce 211. Une étude approfondie de la question de
l'incidence précisede nos projets d'usines sur la marée dans la Manche
est en cours ; cette étude est :suffisamment avancée pour permettre
d'affirmer que l'ordre degrandeur de cette incidence sera très limitéet
d'effet pratique négligeable (je me réf4re au BuUetin de la Société
française des Electriciens no29 (mai 19j3), L'énergiedes Maries, par
M. Gibrat, dont j'aiégalement un tirage à part dans ce dossier). DUPLIQUE DE hi.'SE PROF. GROS (FUXCE) - 8 X 53 409
Nos plans sont donc tecliniquement et financièrement dans les limites
actuelles de nos possibilit~ls. J'ajouterai que plus de cent millions rie
francs ont déjà été dépen:iésen sondages dans la région de Chausey,
sondages qui sont rnarqiiés sur cette carte malheureusement trop
éloignéepour qu'ils puisse:it êtrevus, mais je peux également déposer
la carte, si mes collégues m'y autorisent, naturellement. J'ai diverses
photographies représentan,: les appareils de sondage et je signale, cn
hommage à la constructioii britannique, que ces appareils de sondage
sont anglais.
Nous prenons naturellenient acte des déclarations du Gouvernement
britannique selon lesquclle:; (p188 ci-dessus) ((leRoyaume-Uni et Jersey
seraient heureux de coopé:ern à l'Œuvre française et (p. 18sci-dessus)
ne songeront jamais à exciper de leur souveraineté (éventuelle) sirr
les Minquiers (pour empêcher la réalisation de travaux hydrauliques
qui pourraient êtreau bént:ficede la France ttTout en étant très recon-
naissant au Gouverneme~it du Royaume-Uni de cette déclaration,
puis-je d'un simple point de vue de juriste faire remarquer que, comme
l'a dit la Cour permanenti:, «un engagement de négocier n'est pas un
engagement de conclure )rIlous avons danscette propre affaire l'exemple
de tentatives prolongées de négociations sans conclusion. La situation
juridique de la France en ce qui concerne la construction des usines
marémotrices, appuyées sir les Minquiers, sera toute différente seIon
que la Cour attribuera la souverainett à la France ou au Royaume-Uni.
Dans le cas où la souverair etéfrançaise serait reconnue, nous pourriolis
construire sauf à indernni:ier des conséquencesdommageables, ce que
la négociation ou la juridi1:tion internationale peuvent toujours régler:
Dans la solution inverse, celle de la souveraineté du Royaume-Uni
reconnue sur les Minquier~, la question se pose de savoir s'il ne serait
pas beaucoup plus délicat de prouver un abus du droit de négocier,
c'est-à-dire du droit dc ccnclure.
Monsieur le Président, j: voudrais résumer en quelques propositions
les points essentiels de celte réplique.
Premièrement: La prételtion du Royaume-Uni ne peut sc fonder sur
aucun élémenten aucune époque.
Elle ne peut se fonder s'ut-un titre originel, car le seul titre que le
Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni ait invoqué - la conquête de l'Angle-
terre par le duc de Normandie, vassal du roi de France - n'a pas Ie
moindre rapport avec la question. Elle ne peut se fonder sur le traité
de Paris de r259, car le (;ouvernement du Royaume-Uni n'a pas pu
établirqu'à ce moment le roi d'Angleterre tenait les îlots contestés. Elle
ne peut se fonder sur une possession effective de ces îlots pendant la
période ancienne, car cettt: possession n'a jamais existé pendant cette
période : pour les Minquiers, le Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni n'a
pas invoqué d'autres faits que lesjugements de la Cour seigneuriale de
Noirmont relatifs au ramissage de certaines épaves, et nous avons
montré ce qu'il fallait en lienser ; pour les Ecréhous, le Gouvernement
du Royaume-Uni n'a rien liu citer qui ne soit davantage une preuve de
possession française qu'une preuve de possession anglaise.
Les événementsde lapériodemoderne ne lui sont pas plus favorables.
La prétention du Royaume-Uni ne peut se fonder sur un esercice effectif,
continu et paisible de la souveraineté : les faits invoqués sont, ou bien
accomplis en exécution de 'la conveiition de 1839 et donc dénuésdetoute force probante, ou bien contraires à cette convention et, en
conséquence, illicites au regard du droit international ; ils ont soulevé
les protestations du Gouvernement français, ils ont étécontredits par
l'exercice effectif de l'autorité étatique par la France et la prise en
charge par ce pays des responsabilités essentielles inhérentes à la
souveraineté ; ils ne sont donc de nature, ni à conserver au Royaume-
Uni une souveraineté antérieure. à supposer que celle-ci ait jamais
existé, ni à lui faireacquérir la souiw-aineté par voie de prescription
à l'encontre de la France ou par voie d'occupation, si les îlots avaient
été à un moment quelconque res~zztllizts.
Deuxièmement: La prétention de la France, au contraire, peut se
fonder sur des élémentsnombreux, anciens aussi bien que modernes.
Elle peut se fonder sur un titre originel incontestable : la possession
des îles de la Manche dans leur c~isemble, d'abord par le roi de France
avant 933, ensuite par le duc de Normandie, vassal du roi de France,
à qui ce dei-nier les a données à cette date. Elle peut se fonder sur la
posçession effective du duc de Normandie, vassal du roi de France,
entre 933 et 1202.Elle peut se fonder sur l'arrêt dela Cour de France
en 1202, privant le duc de Norm;zndie de son fief. Elle peut se fonder
sur le traité de Paris de 1259 et les traités ultérieurs, lesquels faisaient
de la possession effective des îles:la Manche le critère de leur propriété,
car le Royaume-Uni n'a jamais pu faire la preuve de sa possession, à
cette date, des Minquiers et des Ecréhous. Elle peut se fonder pour les
Ecréhous sur la possession effective, par l'intermédiaire de l'abbaye du
Val Richer, pendant tout le cours du inoyen âge,Elle peut se fonder,
pour les Minquiers, sur le principe quela souveraineté sur des territoires
de ce genre ne se perd pas par une simple absence de possession effective,
fût-elle prolongée. Elle peut se fonder pour les deux groupes sur la
transformation du titre féodalen titre de souveraineté au sens moderne,
au moment où pour le territoire français cette transformation a été
accomplie.
Dans la période moderne, la prétention de la France peut se fonder
sur la convention du 2 août 1830, dont l'article 3a eu pour effet, en
mettant en commun- entre le Royaume-Uni et la France la pêchesur
les Minquiers et les Ecréhous, et autour de cesilots, de rendre inoppo-
sables à l'autre Partie les actes lie poçsession accomplis par chacune
après 1839 ; la France, ayant eu la souveraineté avant 1839, I'a donc
encore aujourd'hui.
Les actes du Royaume-Uni au cours de cette période n'ont pu lui
faire acquérir la souveraineté par voie de prescriptioii.
Troisièmemen t: France, par ses actes positifs et par ses protes-
tations, a exercé, dans toute la mesure possible, l'autorité étatique,
exercice suffisant oompte tenu du caractére du territoire envisagé.
Avec la permission de la Cour, je lirai les conclusions dn Gouverne-
ment de la République française : DUPLIQUE DE M. 1.E PROF. GROS (FRANCE) - 8 X 53
4II
PLAISE A LA COUR,
Dire et juger :
I) que la France :?osséde un titre originel sur les ilots ct
rochers du groupe des Minquiers d'une part, et du groupe des
~créhous d'autre pari ;
2) que la France a confirmé, à toute époque, ce titre originel
par un exercice effectlf de sa souveraineté dans la mesure ou le
caractère de ces ilots i:t rochers se prêtaià un tel exercice;
3) que le Royaume-Uni n'a pu établir avoir eu la possession
effective de ces îlots i:t rochers au moment de la conclusion du
traité de Paris, lequel faisait de la possession effective la condition
nécessaire de la souvt:raineté anglaise sur les diverses iles de la
Manche, ni à une écotlue ultérieure ;
4) que, par la con7rention du 2 aoat 1839, le Royaume-Uni
et la France ont créé,entre la ligne située à 3 milles de la laisse
de basse mer de l'île de Jersey et la lignead hoc définie A l'article
premier de la convention, une zone où la pêchede toute espéce
de poisson est commune aux ressortissantç deç deux pays ;
5) que les ilots et rochers des groupes des Minquiers et des
l?créhousse trouvant :iit~és dans la zone de @Che commune ahsi
définie,ont étésournis par les Parties en 1839A un régimed'utilisa-
tion commune aux fins de pêche,sans que la souverainetéterritoriale
sur ces îlots et rochers ait étéaffectée par ailleurs par ladite
convention ;
6) que, par voie de conséquence, lesactes accomplis par chaque
Partie sur les ilots et rochers postérieurement au2 août 1839sont
inopposables à l'autre Partie en tant que manifestation de la
souveraineté terri tonal^, de sorte que cette souveraineté appartient
aujourd'hui à celle dts Parties à qui elle appartenait avant le
2 août 1839 ;
7) que cette cidate critiqueu demeurerait, alors mêmeque le
Gouvernement français aurait donné à la convention du z août
1839une interprétatioii erronée,étant donnéque le Gouvernement
du Royaume-Uni n'ignorait pascette interprétation ni la possibilité
qu'elle donnait au Goiivernement du Royaume-Uni et aux ressor-
tissants britanniquesde bénéficierde la mise en commun des îlots
et rochers des deux groiipeà des fins de pêche, telle qu'découlait,
dans l'esprit du Gouve:mement français, de l'article3de la conven-
tion du 2 août 1839 ;
8) que, mêmesi la tdate critique J)devait êtrefixée à une date
postérieure au 2 août 1839, les faits de possession invoqués par
le Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni ne réunissent pas les conditions
requises par le droit iiiternational pour l'acquisition ou la conser-
vation de la souveraineté territoriale;
9) qu'au surplus, la France a accompli pendant Ie XIX~~ et le
xxmesi&clesles actes (le souveraineté que comportait le caractére
particulierde ces îlots et a assumé lesresponsabilités essentielles
inhérentes Q sa souvei,aineté.412 DLJFLXQUEDE M. LE PROF. GROS (FRANCE) - 8 X 53
IO) que, pour ces motifs, la souveraineté sui, les iloet rochers
du groupe des Minquiers, d'une part, du groupe des.Ecréhous,
d'autre part, appartient, dans la mesure où ces ilotetrochers sont
susceptibles d'appropriation,à la République française.
Ces conclusions ont été déposkesau Greffe et communiquées à mon
coll&gue,M. l'agent du Royaume-Uni.
Je prierai simplement la Cour de bien vouloir noter qu'h la différence
des conclusians du Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni, nos conclusions,
conformément au compromis, demandent à la Cour de bien vouloir se
prononcer sur lesseuls îlots çusceptibleç d'appropriation.
Telles sont, AlonsieurlePrésident, Messieurs de la Cour, lesprétentions
qui s'affrontent. L'agent du Gouvernement de la République se joint
aux avocats du Royaume-Uni pour remercier la Cour de sa patience et
de l'attention avec laquelle ella Cicouténos prétentions.
IdaCour me permettra, au moinent où se c16t le débat, de me tourner
vers mes collèguesdu Royaume-Uni et de leur dire nous avons Cg~ené
devant la Cour mille ans de luttes ; de St.-Clair-sur-Epte g~r jusqu'à
la date qui sera celle de l'arrêtde la Cour nous a fallu clleminer lente-
ment dans ilne voie où se succédent les traités et les coinbats. L'heure
est aujourd'hui venue où tout ce passé glorieux de nos deux pays va,
pour ces deus petits groupes d'îlots dont chacun de nous pour quelques
jours encore peut se croire le seul souverain, s'effacer devant un acte
nouveau qui nous sera, comme tous les précédents,cornInun, la marque
finale de notre lutte:l'arrêt de laCour. En acceptant à l'avance, avec
sérénité,votre décision, Monsieur le Président, Messieurs de la Cour,
nos deux Gouvernements vont clore dignement leur conflit de mille ans.
Procès-verbaux des séances publiques tenues au Palais de la Paix, La Haye, du 17 septembre au 8 octobre et le 17 novembre 1953, sous la présidence de M. Guerrero, vice-président