INDIVIDVAL OPIKIO': OF JCDGE BASDEVANT
fTranslation]
While concurring in the operative part of the Judgment, 1 am
bound to Say that the reasons for which 1 do so are to a great
extent different from those stated by the Court. 1 therefore think
that 1 should indicate in outline, but without exhaustive consi-
deration of each separate point, the means by which 1 arrive at
agreement with the operative part. 1 do not propose, in doing
this, to embark upon a criticism of the reasoning adopted by the
Court, nor to express my views on al1 the points dealt with in
the at times over-complete arguments of the Parties ;to do either
would be to go beyond the bounds within which an individual
opinion ought, in my view, to be kept. 1 shall not indeed indicate
the particular points on which 1 am in agreement with the reasons
given by the Court.
In my view the present proceedings are essentially concerned
with the interpretation, in so far as it affects the Ecrehos and the
Minquiers, of the division of the Duchy of Normandy in the Middle
Ages between the King of England and the King of France, the
United Kingdom being now the successor to the rights of the King
of England while the French Republic is the successor to the
rights of the King of France. The problem was posed in this form
by Sir Lionel Heald at the hearing on September 17th. Reference
to this idea of division is made on a number of occasions in the
course of the arguments of Professor Wade and of Professor Gros.
Sir Lionel Heald placed this division, the effect of which has
to be determined, in the thirteenth century. In reality the facts
constituting the division were spread over a longer period. The
division was indeed effected as a result of a series of acts of war,
acts of possession and treaties in the course of the thirtecntli and
fourteenth centuries. Both Parties go back to al1 these factors
to find the historic titles upon which they seek to rely.
At the very beginning of the thirteenth centurv, imrncdiatcl\-
before the division of Normandy, the Ecrehos and the Rlincluic>rs
formed a part of this Duchy and were subject to its l$iilw. Tlic
King of England, as such, did not then possess any rights thc~-c :.
the Duke of Normandy's conquest of England in 106O and Iiis
acquisition of the title of King of that country cannot have co11f~rrc.d
upon the King of England, as such, any title to the possessioils
of the Duke of Normandy. The two crowns, one royal, thc otlicr
ducal, were vested in the same person, but legally tlic'- rcxinniiicd
distinct. This situation was in complete consonance \\litli tlic
of the feudal period, which was to subsist iii tlie timc. of tlii.
conception of the princely State only to give way ~vithtlic, si-o\~li
of the conception of a national State, leaving traces C\~CI~iii n~odc,iri MINQUIERS AXD ECREHOS (ISDIS'.OPIX. 31. BASDEVAST) 7j
times and indeed until the present day. For the King of England
to have any place in the status of Normandy it is necessary for
him to be substituted for the Duke of Xormandy :such a novation
was to take place in the course of the events by which the division
which has to be interpreted was effected.
Immediately before the division of Normandy the King of
France was the suzerain of the Duke of Xormandy. The title which
he thus possessed to the Duchy and to the islands n-hich formed
a part of itrirasnot merely a nominal title. The Judgment of 1202,
the forfeiture which resulted from it, certain provisions of the
Treaty of Troyes of 1420 and indeed the terminology of the Treaty
of Paris of 12j9, which uses the word "give" to indicate what was
done by the suzerain, the King of France, when, in respect of
certain territories, he released the King of England from the
effects of the forfeiture,l1these factors go to show that this \vas
so. Suzerainty, however, is ]lot sovereignty. For the French
Republic to be able now successfully to rely upon the ancient
title of the King of France, it is necessary tohow that this ancient
title became augmented as a result of the disappearance, from
beneath the King of France and in respect of the disputed islets,
of the vassal, the Duke of Normandy. A transformation of this
sort occurred in the case of Continental Normandy in the course
of the events which brought about the division. What has to be
determined is whether such a transformation enured to the benefit
of the King of France in respect of the Ecrehos and the Minquiers,
or whether the birth of some new and independent right over these
islets, a right vested in the King of England, prevented such a
result. This is the real question, and it is unnecessary to go into
the contention that the suzerainty of the King of France lapsed
as a result of the disappearance of the feudal system towards the
end of the fifteenth century, a contention which makes light of the
fact that up to the end of the seventeenth century the policy
followed by the French Kings in regard to boundaries \vas linked
to feudal principles, and of the fact thaturvivais of these principles
remained until a much later date than this.
The Judgment oi 1202, with regard to which there has been
controversy between the Parties, is not in itself relevant to the
present case, for given as it was, against the Duke of Normandy,
it did not affect the King of England. It did not deprive him of
any right since the rights over Normandy belonged to the Duke
and not to the King of England, and clearly it did not confer
any right upon the King of England. It is therefore unnecessary
to linger upon the doubts and criticisms to which this Judgment
has given rise. The Judgment deserves to be mentioned here
only because it is at the origin of the events marking, on the
one hand, the beginning of the substitution of the King of England
for the Duke of Normandy in regard to domination over Jersey,
Guernsey and other islands, and, on the other hand, the beginning
of the substitution of the sovereignty of the King of France for
i s suzerainty over Continental Normandy. MINQUIERS AND ECREHOS (INDIV. OPIK. M. BASDEVANT)
76
King John, as Duke of Normandy, treated the Judgment of
1202 and the forfeiture which ensued as a result of it with defianc;
he resisted the forfeiture, having recourse, for this purpose, to
force which was available to him in his capacity as King of
England. While the King of France eliminated his vassal from
Continental Normandy, the King of England, after various vicis-
situdes, gained possession of the islands or of some of them. This
marked the breaking up of Normandy, the division of what had
been united under the authority of the Duke and the suzerainty
of the King of France.
In the course of these events, the King of England acquired
jure belli and on his own behalf a title to the islands within his
power, a title which was later to be confirmed by certain treaties.
He thus became substituted for the Duke of Normandy in these
islands. There was a novation of his title as a result of which
"some alternative administration had to be framed by the English
Crown to replace that of the Duke of former years", as is said
in the Memorial (para. 26). The title thus acquired by the King
of England may properly be invoked by the United Kingdom
at the present day.
Did this title of the King of England extend to the Ecrehos
and the Minquiers ?
The Treaty of Paris of 1259, which provided for the effects
of the forfeiture, partly doing away with these and confirming
the remainder, seems to me to refer, in Article 4, to the Channel
Islands inter alia. It would seem to me to be difficult to hold
that it had overlooked them, and when it speaks of land on this
side of the sea of England and immediately afterwards mentions
the islands, 1 am of opinion that it refers to the Channel Islands
rather than to any other islands ; if it adds thaf the King of
England shall hold these islands "as peer of France and Duke
of Aquitaine", this is because it was not possible to say in this
Treaty that the King should hold them as Duke of Normandy.
From Article 4 of this Treaty, and from the reference it contains
to the liege homage of the King of England to the King of France
in respect of al1 that the King of France "gives" to the King of
England, it seems to me to emerge that the King of England
received the Channel Islands which he held at the time of the
Treaty, that he was to have them as vassal of the King of France
who remained their suzerain as in the past.
The Treaty of Calais or Brétigny of October qth, 1360, went a
step farther with regard to the right of the King of England. It
indicated an agreement according to which the King of England
should have and hold al1 the islands which he "now holds". His
title to them was thus to be a complete one-he would no longer
hold them as a vassal of the King of France. The rights of the
King of France over these islands disappeared. This Treaty renders
unnecessary further reference to the Treaty of 1259. It confirms the
right which the King of England had acquired +re belli.
33 To determine whether this right of the King of England, which
supplanted that of the King of France, extended to the Ecrehos
and the Minquiers, it is necessary to ascertain whether the King
of England held these islets at the time of the Treaty of 1360.
The Treaty imposes this condition, but it contains no clear indication
as to whether the Ecrehos and the Minquiers are to be considered
as forming part of the portion enuring to the King of England.
This lack of precision is common in the treaties of the period ;
these are not concerned with precise definitions of boundaries but
are based rather on feudal concepts of dependence ; the history
of the French monarchy up to the end of the seventeenth century
is filled with a mass of disputes relating to the interpretation and
application of instruments of this kind. From the fact that the
Ecrehos and the Minquiers are not expressly mentioned here and
from the fact that in other instruments they do not appear in one
or another of the enumerations of islands, or that after the indication
of certain islands there is or is not a reference to their dependencies,
no conclusion can be drawn as to the sovereignty over the islets.
It is necessary to have recourse to other elements for a decision.
If it were a question of interpreting the Treaty of 1259, it would
be necessary to have regard to the fact that the King of France
by this Treaty "gives" the islands, on condition of liege homage,
to the King of England who, until then and in that capacity,
enjoyed no rights there Save those which he had acquired by force
of arms. In case of doubt, therefore, this Treaty should be inter-
preted in favour of the grantor, in the sense of restricting the gift.
But what is in fact involved is the interpretation and application
of the Treaty of 1360. This Treaty, however, does not make any
reference to a gift by the King of France. It contains a statement
of an agreement to the effect that the King of England should
have the islands which he "now holds". This provision must be
interpreted, not in a way a priorfi avourable to one Party rather
than the other, but in a spirit of equality appropriate to the inter-
pretation of the division effected in a century of confused strife.
Were the Ecrehos andthe Minquiersheld by the King of England
in 1360 ? No direct and positive esridence to this effect has been
adduced. Xoreover, 1 do not think that the Charter of January
qth, 1200, in favour of Piers des Préaux, or the Charter which the
latter granted in 1203 for the establishment of a Priory on the
island of Ecrehos can provide proof that in 1259, and still less in
1360, the King of England held this island and the islets and rocks
within this group ; these charters provide us with information as
to the feudal dependence of the island of Ecrehos in 1200 and
1203, but they furnish no information as to the factual position
existing in 1360.
Holding the islands-this is an expression which is used in the
Treaty of 1360 in the military sense ; it refers to the situation
created by the military strength of the King of England. So far
34as inhabited islands are concerned, this idea involves the establish-
ment of English military authority in these islands, the possibility
of action taken by the King's agents in respect of the inhabitants
and, by the same token, the prevention of foreign action in the
islands thus occupied. But none of these elements are to be looked
for in the case of the Ecrehos and the Ninquiers, islets and rocks
which are practically uninhabited and most of which are unin-
habitable. From a n1ilita1-57point of view, for the King of England
to hold them,it is not necessary that he should maintain a garrison
there ; it is sufficient that by reason of his military and naval
power he should be in a position to intervene there when he
considers it appropriate without being prevented from doing so
by the forces of the King of France and tl-iat, by the same token,
he should be in a position to prevent intervention by these forces.
It would seem probable that the King of England, who had
established himself on the principal Channel Islands and who
remained there by virtue of the naval power available to him,
\vas thus in a position to take such action in respect of the Ecrehos
and the Minquiers. Without here introducing the concept of an
archipelago, w-hich is not in consonance with the geographical
situation, the propinquity of these islets in relation to Jersey
tends to confirm this probability. It would therefore seem that
within the meaning of the Treaty of 1360, the disputed islets
Tvere then held by the King of England and that the condition
imposed by the Sreaty for their being assigned to him as part
of the division was satisfied.
It would be of very great assistance if it were possible to find
confirmation of this probability in certain contemporary facts.
The Quo Warranto proceedings of 1309, which can be considered
relevant only with regard to a question of the adüocatio raised
therein, did not result in any expressed decision on this point
and the arguments relied on before the Judges and accepted by
them-the arguments relating to the poverty of the Priory-
were quite unconnected with that part of the proceedings ; the
desired confirmation is not therefore to be found here. As to
the actual relations with Jersey arising from the gifts made to
the Priory by the inhabitants of that island or the occasional
visits of the Prior to Jersey, these are at least counterbalanced by
the relations and the ecclesiastical disciplinehen existing between
the Priory of the Ecrehos and the Abbey of Val-Richer which was
on French soil. Neither here nor in any similar facts is it pos-
sible to find anything which confirms or invalidates the hypothesis
according to which the disputed islets would appear to have
formed a part of the islands held by the King of England in 1360.
The period which followed was one of strife in the course of
hvhich the advantage often lay with English arms. During a great
part of this period Continental Normandy itself was in the hands
of the King of England. The Treaty of Troyes of 1420, which made
35the King of England heir to the Crown of France-an inheritance
of which subsequent events did not permit him to reap the fruits
-expressly re-attached the Duchy of niormandy to the Crown of
France, and it presen~ed the distinction between the two Kingdoms
under the authority of one and the same "King and sovereign
lord". Finally, this prolonged strife resulted in the maintenance
of French domination in Continental Normandy and English
domination in Jersey, Guernsey and other islands :the division
was preserved by the later Treaties without its terms being clearly
defined by them.
Those svhich have been referred to in the arguments do not
appear to me to assist the solution of the dispute. The Fishery
Convention of 1839 is irrelevant on the question of sovereignty.
It cannot, how-ever, be completely disregarded. This Convention,
indeed, by its provisions on common fishery, either directly or
as the result of a traditional liberal interpretation dictated by
the character of the places in question, furnished sufficient justi-
fication for fishery acts and even for acts of user of the islets in
connection with fishing requirements ; facts of this sort cannot
thus be taken into consideration as providing any helpful indi-
cation on the question of sovereignty.
Al1 these elemeilts provide no more than an interpretation
which is probable but not backed by decisive proof, that the dis-
puted islets were held by the King of England in 1360 and that
they niust therefore be regarded as having been acknowledged
his by the Treaty of that year. Some doubt must still linger,
however, since this interpretation would lead to the acceptance
of the view that there was an increase in the rights of the King
of England on these islets and a corresponding abandonment of
his rights by the King of France in relation to what had been
decided in the Treaty of 1259.
This uncertain situation contiilued for a long period svithout
any attempt being made to clarify it. On both sides a lack of
interest was displayed in these islets, and when the disappearance
of the Priory brought about the disappearance of the light which
it had maintained on the island of Ecrehos for the guidance of
fishermen, neither Jersey nor Val-Richer, it seems, \vas concernecl
to maintain the only public service which for centuries esisted
on these islets. ViThen,in the nineteenth century, an interest \vas
taken not in the islets themselves but in this area, this svas con-
cerned in the first place with the regulation of fisheries by the
Convention of 1839, but the question of sovereignty over tlie
islets was not raised. This question arose only in tlie last quartcr
of the nineteenth century.
A great many facts have been relied upon in support of tlicl
rival claims of the two Governinents to sovei-cignty o~vr tlit,
disputed islets, particularly factssvhich occurred in tlic riiileteciith
and twentietl-i centuries. ln considering such fxts oiic must iiot
.3blose sight of the fact that the dispute relates not to rival claims
to have acquired sovereignty over territory which was nz~lli%cs,
but to the interpretation of the division which \vas effected in the
Middle Ages. The fact that one State exercised its authority on
the disputed islets or on sorne of them constitutes no more than
the expression of that State's convictions with regard to its own
sovereignty over the islets, if it be not merely a reflection of its
desire, a desire without ulterior motives, to provide for the pro-
tection of its nationals in the absence of any established authority
in the region : a unilateral expression of such convictions is not
sufficient to invalidate a claim of the other State any more than
a protest by one has this effect as against the other. There was
at least a latent conflict between the two States as to the inter-
pretation of the division, a conflict which it was not open to one
of them to settle in its favour by a unilateral act. What must be
ascertained in order to arrive at an interpretation of this ancient
division which is now legally valid is, in the first place, whether
the facts invoked reveal that either Government renounced its
own claim or acknowledged that of the other Party. The discovery
of such a fact or of such an admission would be sufficient to settle
the issue. In the absence of a finding of this sort it is necessary
to ascertain m-hether the facts invoked are consistent or inconsis-
tent with the interpretation that the Treaty of 1360 placed the
disputed islets within the portion assigned to the King of England,
an interpretation so far based on the hypothesis, which is merely
one of probability, that the King of England, who held the prin-
cipal islands in 1360, also held the disputed islets.
On the first point, it is necessary to determine the effect of
the letter of September 14th, 1819, from the French Minister of
Marine, of which a copy, together with a chart, was transmitted
to the Foreign Office on June ~zth, 1820, by the French
Ambassador ;this contained a reference to the "islands of ....the
Minquiers Ivhich are in the possession of England". If it is to be
taken literally, this reference would resolve the matter in respect
of the Minquiers, but it seems to me that one cannot attribute
such authority to it. This letter was forwarded only to provide
certain clarification, in the course of negotiations relating to the
protection of oyster fisheries and not to sovereignty ;it emanated
from a Minister without authority to make decisions pertaining
to questions of territorial sovereignty and indeed it reveals certain
serious lapses of memory on the part of its author ;in London it
was considered of so little weight that Canning, when drafting
his instructions for the purpose of the ensuing negotiations, based
himself on the ground of the State's exclusive fishery rights in
its territorial waters and on that of reciprocity and, while admitting
the existence of a belt of reserved fishery around the Chausey
Islands-which he described as "uninhabitedH-made no provision
for either the Minquiers or the Ecrehos. The II-ords of the Ministerof Marine would not therefore appear to amount to an admission
upon which reliance can be placed at the present day. It would
be equally wrong to construe Canning's silence upon this point
as implying an acknowledgment by him that these islets were
outside British sovereignty. For neither of the responsible statesmen
did this question arise at that time.
Though in terms less explicit, the attitude of the two Govern-
ments with regard to a fishery incident in 1869 seems to me to be
of greater significance so far as the substance is concerned. Some
Jersey fishermen had then complained of certain depredations
committed on the Alinquiers for which they blamed French fisher-
men. But these facts did not give rise to any police acts or any
exercise of jurisdiction on the part of the Jersey authorities such
as might normally have followed from the British possession of
sovereignty over these islets. These complaints were deait with,
at the request of the Jersey authorities, on a governmental level,
that is to say, on a level where those who had to deal with them
had authority to decide questions of territorial sovereignty. The
complaints were the subject of a dénzarcheby the British Embassy
which requested the French Government to take appropriate
measures ;the latter Government undertook an enquiry the results
of u-hich it communicated to the Embassy. It can thus be seen
that on this occasion the Government in London adopted an
attitude which would seem to imply that it did not consider itself
entitled to regard the Minquiers as a British possession. Such an
interpretation can be avoided only if it be considered that that
Government was then acting in a spirit of moderation desiring
not to aggravate a trifling incident with regard to which the most
important point was to ascertain whether the charge that had
been made had any basis in fact.
There was a similar incident in 1929, again in connection with
the Ifinquiers, when one Le Roux started building there after a
lease had been granted to him by the French Administration.
Xgain the British authorities did not attempt to prevent him
by the exercise of the police or jurisdictional powers which they
claimed to possess on the Minquiers by virtue of territorial
sovereignty. The British Government addressed itself to the
French Government,requesting it to prevent Le Roux from carrying
on with the building he had started, and this was done. In this
case neither of the two Governments went as far as its contentions
in relation to sovereignty over the RiIinquiers.The spirit of mode-
ration which they both displayed can prejudice neither the one
nor the other.
It does not seem to me that one would be entitled to conclude
from these facts, or from other facts of a similar nature, that
there was any renunciation by either State of its claim to sover-
eignty over the disputed islets, or any acknowledgment of the
rival claim. It thus becomes necessarÿ to enquire whether the facts invoked
on either side are such as to confirm or invalidate the interpretation
according to which the medieval division resulted in the disputed
islets being included in the portion of the King of England. We
are not here concerned to seek the birth of any new title enuring
to him, but rather confirmation of the correctness of a probable,
though uncertain, interpretation of this division.
As 1 have indicated, when 1 referred to the 1839 Convention
and to the liberal constructioo which in practice Ras given to it,
no conclusion can be drawn in this connection from the fishery
acts or from acts connected with fishing.
There are numerous facts, the existence of which has not been
challenged-although there is disagreement as to the conclusions
to be drawn therefrom-which show that the Jersey authorities
have for a long time, on repeated occasions and in a consistent
manner, concerned themselves with what was happening on the
Ecrehos and the Minquiers and have acted accordingly. They
have done so by the assumption of jurisdiction and by police and
administrative acts. 1 have some hesitation in regarding the
assumption of jurisdiction as the assumption of territorial juris-
diction. The facts to which the jurisdiction related occurred on
islets which are not much more than emerged rocks on which
there was no established authority, and they could thus easily
fumish the occasion for an extension of jurisdiction just as if the
wrong had been committed or the wreckage had been gathered
on the high seas. Lord Finlay, in his opinion in Judgment No. 9,
referred to this extension of jurisdiction in maritime cases (P.C.I.J.,
Series A, No. IO,p. 51). Jurisdiction was exercised with regard
to Jerseymen ;at the time of the incident of 1869 and in the case
of Le Roux, instead of applying jurisdiction, recourse was had by
the British Government to action by the French authorities.
Such recourse is inconsistent with the essential characteristic
of territorial jurisdiction which is its exercise in respect of al1
perçons. Census operations extending to persons on the islets or
to acts carried out there do not imply the exercise of a territorial
competence ; the same is true of rates imposed upon Jerseymen,
in Jersey, in respect of property belongirig to them on the islets ;
there is nothing to prevent a State's taxation of its nationals in
respect of property abroad or its compilation of statistics of facts
occurring abroad. The setting up of a custom-house on the islets
by the Jersey authorities would seem to be more significant ; but,
in the first place, no information relating to operations carried
on there has been submitted and, secondly, we read in a document
of 1886 produced by the United Kingdom that "[French] customs
cutters go once a week to the Ecrehos". Finally, it must not
be forgotten that international practice recognizes or tolerates
customs control carried out by a State outside its territorial waters.
39 IrlIXQCIERÇ ATD ECREHOS (ISDIV. OPIS. 31. B.ISDEVAXT)
83
If, moreover, Jerseymen prepared Iheir instruments of purchase
or conveyance of property on the islets in Jersey and in the forms
usual there, this 1s to be regarded less as an exercise of public
authority over these islets than as an adoption of the only practical
means available to those concerned.
At least the facts briefly mentioned above and other similar
facts shon- that for a long time and in a consistent manner the
Jersey authorities have taken an interest in what mas happening
on the Ecrehos and the hiinquiers and that they took action in
this connection to an extent and in a way appropriate to the
character of these islets and the use which \vas made of them.
They did this without encountering any competing action, still
less any exclusive action, on the part of the French authorities.
The latter displayed a far greater reserve. The French Government
cannot be reproached for having sometimes sought a settlement
of the dispute by rr.eans of compromise, but it is impossible not
to have regard to the hesitation it showed for a long time to press
its contentions and to the at least relative abstention of the Frericli
authorities from taking action with regard to what was happening
on the Ecrehos and the Minquiers.
From the facts tl-ius alleged and, in particular, from the action
of the Jersey authorities, unimpeded by competing action on the
part of the French authorities, it is possible to deduce some e3i
post facto confirmation of the reasonableness of the hypothesis
previously stated, according to which the King of England, who
held the principal islands in 1360, \vas in a position to exercise
power over the Ecrehos and the Minquiers and that he held these
islets within the meaning of the Treaty.
From these same facts it appears that, in the absence of the
establishment of a separate local authority on the disputed islets,
there mTas,to the extent permitted by the character of these islets,
greater and more continuous activity on the part of the Jersej-
authorities than on the part of the French authorities and that
in this way a tradition of the attachment of the islets to Jersej-
has gron7n up. This reveals the interpretation which in practice
has been given to the division of 1360. An interpretation alreadj-
inanifested before the birth of controversy between the two Govern-
ments as to sovereignty which has subsisted in practice throughout
the course of this controversy. This interpretation confirins the
interpretation previously advanced.
Thus the United Kingdom has, in modern tiines and at thc
present day, held the disputed islets so that the hg-pothesis that
the King of England formerly held them appears to be reasonable.
lt the same time the medieval division has beeil interpreted in
practice in the sense of an attribution of the islets to the King
of England. Al1 thiç, howerer, was done not in absolute terms
but in a somewhat flexible manner ;the British authorities have
acted with moderation, hesitating to exercise the full rights n-hichthe Cnited Kingdom now claims, addressing themselves to the
French authorities in preference to taking action against French-
men. In order to maintain what has been established by practice
on the basis of ancient instruments and of a liberal interpretation,
this flexibility should likewise be maintained. But the Court has
not been asked either in the Special Agreement or in the written
proceedings or in the course of the arguments to prescribe such
a maintenance.
This being so, and in the light of the facts referred to above,
the decision set forth in the Judgment appears to me to be justified.
OPIXION INDIVIDUELLE DE $1. BASDEVAXT
Tout en me ralliant au dispositif de l'arrêt,je dois déclarer que
les motifs qui m'y ont déterminé sont, dans une large mesure,
différents de ceux que la Cour a énoncés.Je crois donc devoir
indiquer dans ses grandes lignes, sans approfondir chaque point
particulier, par quelle voie j'arriveà souscrire à ce dispositif. Ce
faisant, je n'entends ni entreprendre une critique des motifs adoptés
par la Cour ni m'expliquer sur tous les points qui peuvent être
relevés dans l'argumentation souvent surabondante présentéepar
les Parties : l'une et l'autre chose dépasseraient les limites dans
lesquelles,à mon avis, doit se tenir une opinion individuelle. Je
m'abstiendrai mêmede signaler les points particuliers sur lesquels
je suis en accord avec les motifs énoncéspar la Cour.
A mes yeux le présent litige porte eçsentiellement sur l'inter-
prétation, quant à ses effets àl'égarddes Ecréhouset des Minquiers,
du partage du duché de Normandie effectué au moyen âge entre
le roi d'Angleterre et le roi de France, le Royaume-Gni étant
aujourd'hui aux droits du roi d'Angleterre, la République française
aux droits du roi de France. Le problème a étéainsi poséà l'audience
du 17 septembre par sir Lionel Heaid. Cette idée de partage se
retrouve à diverses reprises dans les plaidoiries du professeur
Wade et du professeur Gros.
Sir Lionel Heald datait du XIII~~ sièclela division dont il s'agit
de déterminer l'effet. En réalité,les données de ce partage se
situent au cours d'une période plus longue. Ce partage, en effet,
a étéeffectuépar une séried'actes de guerre, de faits de posses-
sion et de traités au cours des XIII~~ et xlvme siècles. Les deux
Parties remontent à cet ensemble pour y trouver les titres histo-
riques dont elles entendent se prévaloir.
Aux premiers jours du XIII~~siècle,à la veille de la division de
la Normandie, les Ecréhous et les Minquiers font partie de celle-ci
et sont soumis à son duc. A ce moment le roi d'Angleterre, comme
tel, n'y a aucun droit:la conquête qu'en1066 le duc de Xormandie
a faite de l'Angleterre et du titre de roi de ce pays, n'a pu donner
au roi d'Angleterre, comme tel, des titres sur les possessions du
duc de Normandie. Les deux couronnes, l'une royale, l'autre
ducale, sont sur la mêmetête, mais elles restent juridiquement
distinctes: situation en parfaite harmonie ayec l'état du droit de
la période féodale, que la conception de 1'Etat princier laissera
subsister, que seule contredira victorieusement la conception de
1'Etat national et qui laissera encore des survivances jusqu'à
l'époque moderne et contemporaine. Pour que le roi d'Angleterre INDIVIDVAL OPIKIO': OF JCDGE BASDEVANT
fTranslation]
While concurring in the operative part of the Judgment, 1 am
bound to Say that the reasons for which 1 do so are to a great
extent different from those stated by the Court. 1 therefore think
that 1 should indicate in outline, but without exhaustive consi-
deration of each separate point, the means by which 1 arrive at
agreement with the operative part. 1 do not propose, in doing
this, to embark upon a criticism of the reasoning adopted by the
Court, nor to express my views on al1 the points dealt with in
the at times over-complete arguments of the Parties ;to do either
would be to go beyond the bounds within which an individual
opinion ought, in my view, to be kept. 1 shall not indeed indicate
the particular points on which 1 am in agreement with the reasons
given by the Court.
In my view the present proceedings are essentially concerned
with the interpretation, in so far as it affects the Ecrehos and the
Minquiers, of the division of the Duchy of Normandy in the Middle
Ages between the King of England and the King of France, the
United Kingdom being now the successor to the rights of the King
of England while the French Republic is the successor to the
rights of the King of France. The problem was posed in this form
by Sir Lionel Heald at the hearing on September 17th. Reference
to this idea of division is made on a number of occasions in the
course of the arguments of Professor Wade and of Professor Gros.
Sir Lionel Heald placed this division, the effect of which has
to be determined, in the thirteenth century. In reality the facts
constituting the division were spread over a longer period. The
division was indeed effected as a result of a series of acts of war,
acts of possession and treaties in the course of the thirtecntli and
fourteenth centuries. Both Parties go back to al1 these factors
to find the historic titles upon which they seek to rely.
At the very beginning of the thirteenth centurv, imrncdiatcl\-
before the division of Normandy, the Ecrehos and the Rlincluic>rs
formed a part of this Duchy and were subject to its l$iilw. Tlic
King of England, as such, did not then possess any rights thc~-c :.
the Duke of Normandy's conquest of England in 106O and Iiis
acquisition of the title of King of that country cannot have co11f~rrc.d
upon the King of England, as such, any title to the possessioils
of the Duke of Normandy. The two crowns, one royal, thc otlicr
ducal, were vested in the same person, but legally tlic'- rcxinniiicd
distinct. This situation was in complete consonance \\litli tlic
of the feudal period, which was to subsist iii tlie timc. of tlii.
conception of the princely State only to give way ~vithtlic, si-o\~li
of the conception of a national State, leaving traces C\~CI~iii n~odc,iriprenne place dans le statut de la Xormandie, il faudra qu'il se
substitue au duc de Normandie : cette novation se produira au
cours des événements par lesquels s'effectuera le partage qu'il
s'agit d'interpréter.
A la veille de la division de la Xormandie, le roi de France était
suzerain du duc de Normandie. Le titre qu'il avait ainsi sur le duché
et sur les îles qui en faisaient partie, n'était pas un titre purement
nominal. Le jugement de 1202, la commise qui en a étél'effet,
telles ou telles dispositions du traité de Troyes de 1420 et jusqu'à
la terminologie du traité de Paris de 1259 qui emploie le terme:
donner pour désigner ce que fait le roi de France suzerain lorsqu'il
relève, pour certains territoires, le roi d'Angleterre des effets de la
commise,le montrent. Cependant suzeraineté n'est pas souveraineté.
Pour que la République française puisse utilement se prévaloir
aujourd'hui du titre ancien du roi de France, il faudra que ce titre
ancien se soit accru par la disparition, au-dessous du roi de
France et à l'égard des îlots litigieux, du vassal, le duc de Nor-
mandie. Cne transformation de ce genre s'est produite à l'égard
de la Normandie continentale au cours des événements qui ont
effectué le partage. Il s'agit de déterminer si semblable trans-
fprmation s'est produite au profit du roi de France à l'égard des
Ecréhous et des Rilinquiers ou si la naissance d'un droit propre et
indépendant au profit du roi d'Angleterre sur ces îlots y a mis
obstacle. Telle est la vraie question, sans qu'il y ait à s'arrêterà
l'allégation que la suzeraineté du roi de France aurait étérendue
caduque par la disparition du régime féodalvers la fin du xvme
siècle, allégation qui fait bon marché du fait que, jusqu'à la fin
du XVII~~ siècle, la politique des limites suivie par la royauté
francaise a étéattachéeaux principes féodauxet que dessurvivances
de ceux-ci se sont maintenues beaucoup plus tard encore.
Le jugement de 1202 dont les Parties ont débattu n'a, par lui-
même,aucune pertinence dans la présente affaire car, rendu contre
le duc de Normandie, il ne touche pas le roi d'Angleterre. Il ne
lui enlève aucun droit puisque les droits sur la Normandie sont
au duc, non au roi d'Angleterre et, assurément, il ne confère aucun
droit au roi d'Angleterre. En conséquence, il n'y a pas à s'arrêter
aux doutes et critiques auxquels ce jugement a donné lieu. Ce
jugement ne mérite d'être mentionné ici que parce qu'il est à
l'origine des événementsqui sont au point de départ, d'une part,
de la substitution du roi d'Angleterre au duc de Normandie dans
la domination sur Jersey, Guernesey et autres îles, d'autre part,
de la substitution de la souveraineté du roi de France à sa suze-
raineté sur la Normandie continentale. MINQUIERS AXD ECREHOS (ISDIS'.OPIX. 31. BASDEVAST) 7j
times and indeed until the present day. For the King of England
to have any place in the status of Normandy it is necessary for
him to be substituted for the Duke of Xormandy :such a novation
was to take place in the course of the events by which the division
which has to be interpreted was effected.
Immediately before the division of Normandy the King of
France was the suzerain of the Duke of Xormandy. The title which
he thus possessed to the Duchy and to the islands n-hich formed
a part of itrirasnot merely a nominal title. The Judgment of 1202,
the forfeiture which resulted from it, certain provisions of the
Treaty of Troyes of 1420 and indeed the terminology of the Treaty
of Paris of 12j9, which uses the word "give" to indicate what was
done by the suzerain, the King of France, when, in respect of
certain territories, he released the King of England from the
effects of the forfeiture,l1these factors go to show that this \vas
so. Suzerainty, however, is ]lot sovereignty. For the French
Republic to be able now successfully to rely upon the ancient
title of the King of France, it is necessary tohow that this ancient
title became augmented as a result of the disappearance, from
beneath the King of France and in respect of the disputed islets,
of the vassal, the Duke of Normandy. A transformation of this
sort occurred in the case of Continental Normandy in the course
of the events which brought about the division. What has to be
determined is whether such a transformation enured to the benefit
of the King of France in respect of the Ecrehos and the Minquiers,
or whether the birth of some new and independent right over these
islets, a right vested in the King of England, prevented such a
result. This is the real question, and it is unnecessary to go into
the contention that the suzerainty of the King of France lapsed
as a result of the disappearance of the feudal system towards the
end of the fifteenth century, a contention which makes light of the
fact that up to the end of the seventeenth century the policy
followed by the French Kings in regard to boundaries \vas linked
to feudal principles, and of the fact thaturvivais of these principles
remained until a much later date than this.
The Judgment oi 1202, with regard to which there has been
controversy between the Parties, is not in itself relevant to the
present case, for given as it was, against the Duke of Normandy,
it did not affect the King of England. It did not deprive him of
any right since the rights over Normandy belonged to the Duke
and not to the King of England, and clearly it did not confer
any right upon the King of England. It is therefore unnecessary
to linger upon the doubts and criticisms to which this Judgment
has given rise. The Judgment deserves to be mentioned here
only because it is at the origin of the events marking, on the
one hand, the beginning of the substitution of the King of England
for the Duke of Normandy in regard to domination over Jersey,
Guernsey and other islands, and, on the other hand, the beginning
of the substitution of the sovereignty of the King of France for
i s suzerainty over Continental Normandy. MINQUIERS ET ÉCRÉHOUS (OPIN. INDIV. M. BASDEVANT)
76
Au jugement de 1202 et à la commise qui en est la suite, le
roi Jean, comme duc de Normandie, oppose son défi ; il résistà la
commise en ayant, pour cela, recours à la force dont il dispose
comme roi d'Angleterre. Tandis que le roi de France élimine son
vassal de la Xormandie continentale, le roi d'Angleterre, après
des vicissitudes diverses, se met en possession des îles ou de cer-
taines d'entre elles. C'est l'éclatement de la Normandie, la division
de ce qui avait été uni sous l'autorité du duc et la suzeraineté
du roi de France.
Au cours de ces événements, le roi d'Angleterre a acquis ;izne
belli et pour lui-mêmeun titre sur les îles qu'il tient en son pouvoir,
titre que lui confirmeront certains traités. Il se substitue ainsi
dans ces îles au duc de Normandie ;une novation de titre s'opère
en sa personne, en conséquence de quoi une c(administration
nouvelle dut être constituée par la Couronne d'Angleterre pour
remplacer celle des Ducs du temps passé », ainsi que le dit le
Mémoire, no 26. Le titre ainsi acquis par le roi d'Angleterre peut,
à bon droit, être invoqué aujourd'hui par le Royaume-Uni.
Ce titre du roi d'Angleterre s'est-il étendu aux Écréhous et
aux Minquiers ?
Le traité de Paris de 1259 qui règle les effets de la commise,
les supprimant en partie, les maintenant pour le reste, me paraît,
dans son article 4, viser, entre autres, les îles de la Manche. Il me
paraît difficile d'admettre qu'il les ait omises et, quand il parle
de la terre deçà la mer d'Angleterre en mentionnant aussitôt après
les îles, il me paraît viser les îles de la Manche plutôt que toutes
autres îles;s'ilajoute que leroi d'Angleterre tiendra cesîles ((comme
pair de France'et duc d'Aquitaine »,c'est qu'il n'était pas possible
de dire dans ce traité que ce roi les tiendrait comme duc de Nor-
mandie. De l'article 4 de ce traité, de la mention qu'il fait de l'hom-
mage-lige du roi d'Angleterre au roi de France pour tout ce que
celui-ci« donne »à celui-là, il me paraît résulter que le roi d'Angle-
terre reçoit les Blesde la Manche qu'il tient au moment du traité,
qu'il les aura comme vassal du roi de France lequel en reste suzerain
comme auparavant.
Le traité de Calais ou de Brétigny du 24 octobre 1360 fait un
pas de plus en ce qui touche le droit du roi d'Angleterre. Il énonce
un accord selon lequel le roi d'Angleterre aura et tiendra toutes
les îles qu'il (tient à présent 1).Il les tiendra donc purement et
simplement et non plus comme vassal du roi de France. Le droit
du roi de France sur ces îles disparaît. Ce traité rend inutile de se
référerdavantage au traité de 1259. II consacre le droit que le
roi d'Angleterre s'est acquis jure belli. MINQUIERS AND ECREHOS (INDIV. OPIK. M. BASDEVANT)
76
King John, as Duke of Normandy, treated the Judgment of
1202 and the forfeiture which ensued as a result of it with defianc;
he resisted the forfeiture, having recourse, for this purpose, to
force which was available to him in his capacity as King of
England. While the King of France eliminated his vassal from
Continental Normandy, the King of England, after various vicis-
situdes, gained possession of the islands or of some of them. This
marked the breaking up of Normandy, the division of what had
been united under the authority of the Duke and the suzerainty
of the King of France.
In the course of these events, the King of England acquired
jure belli and on his own behalf a title to the islands within his
power, a title which was later to be confirmed by certain treaties.
He thus became substituted for the Duke of Normandy in these
islands. There was a novation of his title as a result of which
"some alternative administration had to be framed by the English
Crown to replace that of the Duke of former years", as is said
in the Memorial (para. 26). The title thus acquired by the King
of England may properly be invoked by the United Kingdom
at the present day.
Did this title of the King of England extend to the Ecrehos
and the Minquiers ?
The Treaty of Paris of 1259, which provided for the effects
of the forfeiture, partly doing away with these and confirming
the remainder, seems to me to refer, in Article 4, to the Channel
Islands inter alia. It would seem to me to be difficult to hold
that it had overlooked them, and when it speaks of land on this
side of the sea of England and immediately afterwards mentions
the islands, 1 am of opinion that it refers to the Channel Islands
rather than to any other islands ; if it adds thaf the King of
England shall hold these islands "as peer of France and Duke
of Aquitaine", this is because it was not possible to say in this
Treaty that the King should hold them as Duke of Normandy.
From Article 4 of this Treaty, and from the reference it contains
to the liege homage of the King of England to the King of France
in respect of al1 that the King of France "gives" to the King of
England, it seems to me to emerge that the King of England
received the Channel Islands which he held at the time of the
Treaty, that he was to have them as vassal of the King of France
who remained their suzerain as in the past.
The Treaty of Calais or Brétigny of October qth, 1360, went a
step farther with regard to the right of the King of England. It
indicated an agreement according to which the King of England
should have and hold al1 the islands which he "now holds". His
title to them was thus to be a complete one-he would no longer
hold them as a vassal of the King of France. The rights of the
King of France over these islands disappeared. This Treaty renders
unnecessary further reference to the Treaty of 1259. It confirms the
right which the King of England had acquired +re belli.
3377 3IINQUIER.S ET ÉCRÉHOCS (OPIY. INDIV. M. BASDEVAKT)
Pour déterminer si ce droit d~ roi d'Angleterre qui évince celui
du roi de France s'étend aux Ecréhous et aux Minquiers, il faut
déterminer si, au moment du traité de 1360, le roi d'Angleterre
tenait ces îlots. Le traité pose cette condition mais il n'énonce
rien qui fasse directement apparaître s'il entend comprendre les
Ecréhous et les Minquiers dans le lot échéantau roi d'Angleterre.
Cette imprécision est fréquente dans les traitésde l'époque ; ceux-ci
ne s'attachent pas à définir des limites précises et se réfèrent à
des notions féodales de dépendance ; l'histoire de la monarchie
française jusqu'à la fin du XVII"~ siècle est remplie de tout un
contentieux portant sur l'interprétation et l'application d'actes
de cette sorte. Du fait que les Ecréhous et les Minquiers ne sont
pas expressément nommés ici, ainsi que du fait qu'en d'autres
actes ils ne figurent pas dans telle ou telle énumération d'îles, ou
qu'après indication de certaines îles il est fait ou non mention de
leurs dépendances, on ne peut tirer aucune conclusion quant à
la souveraineté sur les îlots. 11faut faire appel à d'autres éléments
de décision.
S'il s'agissait d'interpréter le traité de 1259, il faudrait retenir
que, par celui-ci, le roi de France (cdonne », à charge d'hommage-
lige, les îles au roi d'Angleterre qui jusqu'ici n'y avait, comme
tel, aucun droit, sinon celui acquis par la force des armes. En
conséquence, ce traité devrait, dans le doute, êtreinterprété en
faveur du donateur, dans le sens restrictif de la donation. Mais
ce qui est en cause, c'est l'interprétation et application du traité
de 1360. Or celui-ci ne parle plus d'un don fait par le roi de France.
Il énonce un accord portant que le roi d'Angleterre aura les îles
qu'il cctient à présent 1).Cette disposition doit être interprétée
non pas dans un sens favorable a firio ril'un plutôt qu'à l'autre,
mais dans un esprit d'égalité ainsi qu'il convient pour l'inter-
prétation d'un partage effectué en un siècle de luttes confuses.
Les Écréhous et les Minquiers étaient-ils, en 1360, tenus par
le roi d'Angleterre ? Il n'en a pas été apporté la preuve directe
et positive. D'autre part, je ne pense pas que la charte du
14 janvier 1200 dont a bénéficié Pierre des Préaux et celle qu'il
a accordée en 1203 pour l'établissement d'un prieuré sur l'île
dlEcréhou puissent prouver qu'en 1259 et encore moins en 1360,
le roi d'Angleterre tenait cette île et les îlots et rochers de ce
groupe ; elles nous renseignent sur la dépendance féodale de l'île
dJEcréhou en 1200 et 1203, non sur la situation de fait existant
en 1360.
Tenir les îles, c'est une expression qui, dans le traité de 1360,
est prise au sens militaire ;elle se réfèreà la situation crééepar
la force militaire du roi d'Angleterre. S'il s'agit d'îles habitées,
34 To determine whether this right of the King of England, which
supplanted that of the King of France, extended to the Ecrehos
and the Minquiers, it is necessary to ascertain whether the King
of England held these islets at the time of the Treaty of 1360.
The Treaty imposes this condition, but it contains no clear indication
as to whether the Ecrehos and the Minquiers are to be considered
as forming part of the portion enuring to the King of England.
This lack of precision is common in the treaties of the period ;
these are not concerned with precise definitions of boundaries but
are based rather on feudal concepts of dependence ; the history
of the French monarchy up to the end of the seventeenth century
is filled with a mass of disputes relating to the interpretation and
application of instruments of this kind. From the fact that the
Ecrehos and the Minquiers are not expressly mentioned here and
from the fact that in other instruments they do not appear in one
or another of the enumerations of islands, or that after the indication
of certain islands there is or is not a reference to their dependencies,
no conclusion can be drawn as to the sovereignty over the islets.
It is necessary to have recourse to other elements for a decision.
If it were a question of interpreting the Treaty of 1259, it would
be necessary to have regard to the fact that the King of France
by this Treaty "gives" the islands, on condition of liege homage,
to the King of England who, until then and in that capacity,
enjoyed no rights there Save those which he had acquired by force
of arms. In case of doubt, therefore, this Treaty should be inter-
preted in favour of the grantor, in the sense of restricting the gift.
But what is in fact involved is the interpretation and application
of the Treaty of 1360. This Treaty, however, does not make any
reference to a gift by the King of France. It contains a statement
of an agreement to the effect that the King of England should
have the islands which he "now holds". This provision must be
interpreted, not in a way a priorfi avourable to one Party rather
than the other, but in a spirit of equality appropriate to the inter-
pretation of the division effected in a century of confused strife.
Were the Ecrehos andthe Minquiersheld by the King of England
in 1360 ? No direct and positive esridence to this effect has been
adduced. Xoreover, 1 do not think that the Charter of January
qth, 1200, in favour of Piers des Préaux, or the Charter which the
latter granted in 1203 for the establishment of a Priory on the
island of Ecrehos can provide proof that in 1259, and still less in
1360, the King of England held this island and the islets and rocks
within this group ; these charters provide us with information as
to the feudal dependence of the island of Ecrehos in 1200 and
1203, but they furnish no information as to the factual position
existing in 1360.
Holding the islands-this is an expression which is used in the
Treaty of 1360 in the military sense ; it refers to the situation
created by the military strength of the King of England. So far
34cette notion correspond à l'établissement de l'autorité militaire
anglaise dans ces îles, à la possibilité d'une action exercée par
les agents du roi sur leurs habitants et, corrélativement, à l'exclu-
sion d'une action étrangère dans les -îles ainsi occupées. Mais
tout cela ne peut êtreexigé pour les Ecréhous et les Minquiers,
îlots et rochers à peu près inhabités et la plupart inhabitables.
Au point de vue militaire pour que le roi d'Angleterre les tienne,
il n'est pas nécessaire qu'il y tienne garnison, il suffit que, par
sa puissance militaire et navale, il soit en situation d'y intervenir
quand il le juge à propos sans en être empêchépar les forces du
roi de France et que, corrélativement, il soit en situation d'y
empêcher l'intervention de ces dernières. Or, il paraît vraisem-
blable que le roi d'Angleterre s'étant établi dans les îles principales
de la Manche, s'y maintenant grâce à la force navale dont il
disposait, était, par là même, en situation d'exercer une telle
action sur les Ecréhous et les Minquiers. Sans faire intervenir ici
la notion d'archipel qui ne répond pas à la situation géographique,
la proximité de ces îlots par rapport à Jersey vient à l'appui
de cette vraisemblance. Il semble donc qu'au sens du traité de
1360, les îlots litigieux étaient alors tenus par le roi d'Angleterre
et qu'ainsi était remplie la condition posée par ce traité pour
qu'ils lui fussent reconnus dans le partage.
Il kerait précieux de pouvoir confirmer cette vraisemblance par
quelques faits contemporains. Le plaid de Quo Warranto de 1309,
qui ne pourrait être retenu que pour la question de l'advocatio
qui y était posée,n'a pas abouti à une décisionexpresse sur celle-ci
et les motifs invoqués devant les juges et retenus par eux - à
savoir la pauvreté du prieuré - sont étrangersàcechef de demande ;
la confirmation recherchée ne se trouve donc pas là. Quant aux
rapports defait avec Jersey résultant de dons faits par les habitants
de cette île au prieuré ou de la venue occasionnelle du prieur à
Jersey, ils sont pour le moins contrebalancés par les rapports de
fait et de discipline ecclésiastique existant alors entre le prieuré
des Ecréhous et l'abbaye de Val-Richer située en terre française.
Ni en cela ni dans des faits analogues on ne peut trouver confir-
mation ou infirmation de l'hypothèse selon laquelle les îlots liti-
gieux paraissent avoir fait partie des îles tenues par le roi d'Angle-
terre en 1360.
La période qui suit fut une période de luttes au cours desquelles
les armes anglaises eurent souvent l'avantage. Pendant une grande
partie de celle-ci la Normandie continentale elle-mêmeest aux
mains du roi d'Angleterre. Le traité de Troyes de 1420 qui fit
35as inhabited islands are concerned, this idea involves the establish-
ment of English military authority in these islands, the possibility
of action taken by the King's agents in respect of the inhabitants
and, by the same token, the prevention of foreign action in the
islands thus occupied. But none of these elements are to be looked
for in the case of the Ecrehos and the Ninquiers, islets and rocks
which are practically uninhabited and most of which are unin-
habitable. From a n1ilita1-57point of view, for the King of England
to hold them,it is not necessary that he should maintain a garrison
there ; it is sufficient that by reason of his military and naval
power he should be in a position to intervene there when he
considers it appropriate without being prevented from doing so
by the forces of the King of France and tl-iat, by the same token,
he should be in a position to prevent intervention by these forces.
It would seem probable that the King of England, who had
established himself on the principal Channel Islands and who
remained there by virtue of the naval power available to him,
\vas thus in a position to take such action in respect of the Ecrehos
and the Minquiers. Without here introducing the concept of an
archipelago, w-hich is not in consonance with the geographical
situation, the propinquity of these islets in relation to Jersey
tends to confirm this probability. It would therefore seem that
within the meaning of the Treaty of 1360, the disputed islets
Tvere then held by the King of England and that the condition
imposed by the Sreaty for their being assigned to him as part
of the division was satisfied.
It would be of very great assistance if it were possible to find
confirmation of this probability in certain contemporary facts.
The Quo Warranto proceedings of 1309, which can be considered
relevant only with regard to a question of the adüocatio raised
therein, did not result in any expressed decision on this point
and the arguments relied on before the Judges and accepted by
them-the arguments relating to the poverty of the Priory-
were quite unconnected with that part of the proceedings ; the
desired confirmation is not therefore to be found here. As to
the actual relations with Jersey arising from the gifts made to
the Priory by the inhabitants of that island or the occasional
visits of the Prior to Jersey, these are at least counterbalanced by
the relations and the ecclesiastical disciplinehen existing between
the Priory of the Ecrehos and the Abbey of Val-Richer which was
on French soil. Neither here nor in any similar facts is it pos-
sible to find anything which confirms or invalidates the hypothesis
according to which the disputed islets would appear to have
formed a part of the islands held by the King of England in 1360.
The period which followed was one of strife in the course of
hvhich the advantage often lay with English arms. During a great
part of this period Continental Normandy itself was in the hands
of the King of England. The Treaty of Troyes of 1420, which made
35du roi d'-Angleterre l'héritier de la couronne de France - héritage
dont la suite des temps ne lui permit pas de garder le profit -
rattachait expressément le duché de Normandie à la couronne
de France et maintenait la distinction des deux royaumes sous
l'autorité d'un même (croi et souverain seigneur N. Finalement,
ces luttes prolongées aboutirent à la persistance de la domination
francaise en Normandie continentale et de la domination anglaise
à Jersey, Guernesey et autres îles: le partage était maintenu
sans que les termes en aient étépréciséspar les traités ultérieurs.
Ceux qui ont été mentionnés au cours des débats ne me
paraissent pas apporter une contribution à la solution du litige.
La convention sur la pêchede 1839 est étrangère à la question de
souveraineté. Toutefois, elle ne peut être completement ignorée.
Cette convention, en effet, par ses dispositions sur la pêchecommune,
a, soit directement, soit par l'effet d'une interprétation libérale
traditionnelle dictéepar la nature des lieux, fourni une justification
suffisante des faits de pêche et même de faits d'utilisation des
îlots accessoirement aux besoins de la pêche ; des faits de cet
ordren'ont doncpas à êtreretenus comme fournissantuneindication
utile sur la question de souveraineté.
Tout cela ne dépasse pas une interprétation vraisemblable mais
non assortie de preüves décisives, selon laquelle les îlots litigieux
étaient tenus par le roi d'Angleterre en 1360 et devraient, en
conséquence, être co~sidéréscomme lui ayant étéreconnus par ce
traité. Cependant, une hésitation subsiste car cette interprétation
conduit à consacrer un accroissement du droit du roi d'Angleterre
et un abandon du droit du roi de France sur ces îlots par rapport
à ce qu'avait décidéle traité de 1259.
Cette situation incertaine demeura telle pendant longtemps
sans qu'on cherchât à la clôrifier. D'un côté comme de l'autre on
se désintéressait de ces îlots, et quand la disparition du ,prieuré
entraîna la disparition du feu qu'il entretenait dans l'île'Ecréhoip
pour guider les pêcheurs, ni Jersey ni Val-Richer ne se préoccupa,
semble-t-il. de i~ourvoir au maintien du seul service nublic
qui, pendant d& iiicles, ait existé dans ces îlots. guaGd, au
xlxmc siècle, on s'occupa si~iondes îlots eux-mêmes mais de ccttc
région, ce fut d'aboi-d pour y régler ia pêche par la convention
de 1839 sans poser la question de la souveraineté sui-les îlots. Cette
question n'apparaît que dans le dernier quart du x~xlllsièclc.
De nombreux faits ont étéinvoqués à l'appui des prétentions
opposées des deux Gouvernements à la souveraineté sur les îlots
litigieux, en particulier des faits qui se sont produits aux x~xll~~'
et xxnlc siècles. Dans l'examen de ces faits, il ne faut pas perdre de
36the King of England heir to the Crown of France-an inheritance
of which subsequent events did not permit him to reap the fruits
-expressly re-attached the Duchy of niormandy to the Crown of
France, and it presen~ed the distinction between the two Kingdoms
under the authority of one and the same "King and sovereign
lord". Finally, this prolonged strife resulted in the maintenance
of French domination in Continental Normandy and English
domination in Jersey, Guernsey and other islands :the division
was preserved by the later Treaties without its terms being clearly
defined by them.
Those svhich have been referred to in the arguments do not
appear to me to assist the solution of the dispute. The Fishery
Convention of 1839 is irrelevant on the question of sovereignty.
It cannot, how-ever, be completely disregarded. This Convention,
indeed, by its provisions on common fishery, either directly or
as the result of a traditional liberal interpretation dictated by
the character of the places in question, furnished sufficient justi-
fication for fishery acts and even for acts of user of the islets in
connection with fishing requirements ; facts of this sort cannot
thus be taken into consideration as providing any helpful indi-
cation on the question of sovereignty.
Al1 these elemeilts provide no more than an interpretation
which is probable but not backed by decisive proof, that the dis-
puted islets were held by the King of England in 1360 and that
they niust therefore be regarded as having been acknowledged
his by the Treaty of that year. Some doubt must still linger,
however, since this interpretation would lead to the acceptance
of the view that there was an increase in the rights of the King
of England on these islets and a corresponding abandonment of
his rights by the King of France in relation to what had been
decided in the Treaty of 1259.
This uncertain situation contiilued for a long period svithout
any attempt being made to clarify it. On both sides a lack of
interest was displayed in these islets, and when the disappearance
of the Priory brought about the disappearance of the light which
it had maintained on the island of Ecrehos for the guidance of
fishermen, neither Jersey nor Val-Richer, it seems, \vas concernecl
to maintain the only public service which for centuries esisted
on these islets. ViThen,in the nineteenth century, an interest \vas
taken not in the islets themselves but in this area, this svas con-
cerned in the first place with the regulation of fisheries by the
Convention of 1839, but the question of sovereignty over tlie
islets was not raised. This question arose only in tlie last quartcr
of the nineteenth century.
A great many facts have been relied upon in support of tlicl
rival claims of the two Governinents to sovei-cignty o~vr tlit,
disputed islets, particularly factssvhich occurred in tlic riiileteciith
and twentietl-i centuries. ln considering such fxts oiic must iiot
.3bvue que le litige porte non sur des prétentions opposéesà l'acqui-
sition de la souveraineté sur un territoire n.ullius, mais de l'inter-
prétation du partage effectuéau moyen âge. Le fait de l'exercice
par un Etat de son autorité sur les îlots litigieux ou sur certains
d'entre eux ne constitue que l'expression de la conviction de cet
Etat touchant sa propre souveraineté sur ces îlots, quand il ne
répond pas tout simplement et sans autre pensée à la préoccu-
pation de pourvoir à la protection de ses nationaux en l'absence
de toute autorité établie sur les lieux :l'express5n unilatérale de
cette conviction ne suffit pas à déchoir l'autre Etat de sa propre
prétention, pas plus que la protestation de l:un n'a semblable
effet à l'encontre de l'autre. Entre les deux Etats existait une
contestation au moins latente sur l'interprétation du partage,
contestation que l'un d'eux n'a pas pu trancher à son profit par
un acte unilatéral. Ce qu'il faut rechercher pour arriver à une
interprétation actuellement valable en droit du partage ancien,
c'est, tout d'abord, si les faits invoqués font apparaître que l'un
des Gouvernements ait renoncé à sa propre prétention ou reconnu
celle de l'autre Partie. La constatation d'un tel fait, d'une telle
admission suffirait à trancher le débat. A défaut d'une telle consta-
tation, il faut rechercher si les faits invoqués confirment ou contre-
disent l'interprétation selon laquelle le traité de 1360 aurait fait
tomber les îlots litigieux dans le lot du roi d'Angleterre, inter-
prétation jusqu'ici fondée sur l'hypothèse simplement probable
que le roi d'Angleterre, tenant les îles principales en 1360, tenait
aussi les îlots litigieux.
Sur Tepremier point, on doit déterminer l'effet de la lettre du
ministre français de la Marine, du 14 septembre 1819, dont copie,
accompagnéed'une carte, a étéremise, le 12juin 1820, par l'ambas-
sadeur de France au Foreign Office ; mention y est faite des
cîles ....des Minquiers possédées par l'Angleterre ». Prise à la
lettre, cette mention trancherait le débat pour les Minquiers, mais
il ne me semble pas qu'on puisse lui reconnaître une telle autorité.
Cette lettre n'a ététransmise que pour fournir des éclaircissements,
à l'occasion d'une négociation portant sur la protection des
huîtrières, non sur la souveraineté ; elle émane d'un ministre qui
n'a pas qualité pour prononcer sur une question de souveraineté
territoriale et elle révèle même, chezson auteur, certains oublis
graves ; à Londres, elle fut jugée de si peu de poids que Canning,
rédigeant ses instructions en vue des négociations qui suiyirent et
se plaçant sur le terrain du droit exclusif de pêched'un Etat dans
ses eaux territoriales et de la réciprocité,tout en admettant une
zone de pêche réservée autour des îles Chausey qu'il tenait pour
((,inhabitées», n'a rien prévu ni pour les Minquiers ni pour les
Ecréhous. Le propos du ministre de la Marine ne paraît donc pas
constituer une admission dont on puisse faire état aujourd'hui.
Il serait tout aussi exagéréd'entendre le silemcede Canning commelose sight of the fact that the dispute relates not to rival claims
to have acquired sovereignty over territory which was nz~lli%cs,
but to the interpretation of the division which \vas effected in the
Middle Ages. The fact that one State exercised its authority on
the disputed islets or on sorne of them constitutes no more than
the expression of that State's convictions with regard to its own
sovereignty over the islets, if it be not merely a reflection of its
desire, a desire without ulterior motives, to provide for the pro-
tection of its nationals in the absence of any established authority
in the region : a unilateral expression of such convictions is not
sufficient to invalidate a claim of the other State any more than
a protest by one has this effect as against the other. There was
at least a latent conflict between the two States as to the inter-
pretation of the division, a conflict which it was not open to one
of them to settle in its favour by a unilateral act. What must be
ascertained in order to arrive at an interpretation of this ancient
division which is now legally valid is, in the first place, whether
the facts invoked reveal that either Government renounced its
own claim or acknowledged that of the other Party. The discovery
of such a fact or of such an admission would be sufficient to settle
the issue. In the absence of a finding of this sort it is necessary
to ascertain m-hether the facts invoked are consistent or inconsis-
tent with the interpretation that the Treaty of 1360 placed the
disputed islets within the portion assigned to the King of England,
an interpretation so far based on the hypothesis, which is merely
one of probability, that the King of England, who held the prin-
cipal islands in 1360, also held the disputed islets.
On the first point, it is necessary to determine the effect of
the letter of September 14th, 1819, from the French Minister of
Marine, of which a copy, together with a chart, was transmitted
to the Foreign Office on June ~zth, 1820, by the French
Ambassador ;this contained a reference to the "islands of ....the
Minquiers Ivhich are in the possession of England". If it is to be
taken literally, this reference would resolve the matter in respect
of the Minquiers, but it seems to me that one cannot attribute
such authority to it. This letter was forwarded only to provide
certain clarification, in the course of negotiations relating to the
protection of oyster fisheries and not to sovereignty ;it emanated
from a Minister without authority to make decisions pertaining
to questions of territorial sovereignty and indeed it reveals certain
serious lapses of memory on the part of its author ;in London it
was considered of so little weight that Canning, when drafting
his instructions for the purpose of the ensuing negotiations, based
himself on the ground of the State's exclusive fishery rights in
its territorial waters and on that of reciprocity and, while admitting
the existence of a belt of reserved fishery around the Chausey
Islands-which he described as "uninhabitedH-made no provision
for either the Minquiers or the Ecrehos. The II-ords of the Ministerimpliquant qu'il reconnaissait ces îlots comme échappant à la
s~veraineté britannique. D'un côté comme de l'autre, les hommes
d'Etat responsables ne se posaient pas alors cette question.
Iloins explicite dans !es termes mai, de plus grande portée au
fond me paraît l'attitude des deux Gouvernements à propos d'un
incident de pêcheen 1869.A cette époque, des pêcheurs deJersej-
s'étant plaints de déprédationscommises aux Minquiers et imputées
par eux à des pêcheursfrancais, ces faits ne donnèrent pas lieà des
actes de police et de juridiction dela part des autorités de Jersey
comme c'eût étéla conséquence normale de la souveraineté britan-
nique sur ces îlots. Passant,à la demande des autorités de Jersey,
sur le plan gouvernen~ental, donc à un niveau où ceux qui avaient
à s'en occuper avaient qualiti: pour prendre parti sur une ques-
tion de souveraineté territoriale, ces plaintes firent l'objet d'une
démarche de l'ambassade britannique demandant au Gouverne-
ment francais de prendre les mesures appropriées ;ce Gouverne-
ment procéda à une enquête dont il communiqua les résultats à
l'ambassade. A cette occasion, on a donc vu le Gouvernement de
Londres prendre une attitude paraissant impliquer qu'il ne se
jugeait pas fondé àtenir les Minquiers pour possession britannique.
On ne pourrait écarter cette interprétation que si l'on considérait
qu'il a agi là dans un esprit de modération, avec le souci de ne
pas aggraver un incident minime, à propos duquel il s'agissait
surtout de faire apparaître si l'accusation avancée reposait sur
quelque fondement.
Gn fait analogue s'est produit en 1929, également à propos des
Minquiers, quand Le Roux y eut entrepris une construction à la
suite d'un bail à lui consenti par l'administration francaise. Les
autorités britanniques ne cherchèrent pas davantage à l'en em-
pêcherpar l'exercice des pouvoirs de police et de juridiction qu'elles
prétendent posséder aux Minquiers au titre de la souveraineté
territoriale. Le Gouvernement britannique s'adressa au Gouverne-
ment français, lui demandant d'empêcherLe Roux de continuer
la construction commencée, ce qui fut fait. En cette affaire, aucun
des deux Gouvernements n'est allé jusqu'au bout de sa thèse
touchant sa souveraineté sur les Minquiers. Leur esprit commun
de modération ne peut préjudicier ni à l'un, nià l'autre.
Il ne me semble pas qu'on soit autorisé à déduire de ces faits
ni d'autres de mêmeordre la renonciation par l'un ou l'autre Etat
à sa propre prétention à la souveraineté sur les îlots litigieux,
l'admission de la prétention adverse.of Marine would not therefore appear to amount to an admission
upon which reliance can be placed at the present day. It would
be equally wrong to construe Canning's silence upon this point
as implying an acknowledgment by him that these islets were
outside British sovereignty. For neither of the responsible statesmen
did this question arise at that time.
Though in terms less explicit, the attitude of the two Govern-
ments with regard to a fishery incident in 1869 seems to me to be
of greater significance so far as the substance is concerned. Some
Jersey fishermen had then complained of certain depredations
committed on the Alinquiers for which they blamed French fisher-
men. But these facts did not give rise to any police acts or any
exercise of jurisdiction on the part of the Jersey authorities such
as might normally have followed from the British possession of
sovereignty over these islets. These complaints were deait with,
at the request of the Jersey authorities, on a governmental level,
that is to say, on a level where those who had to deal with them
had authority to decide questions of territorial sovereignty. The
complaints were the subject of a dénzarcheby the British Embassy
which requested the French Government to take appropriate
measures ;the latter Government undertook an enquiry the results
of u-hich it communicated to the Embassy. It can thus be seen
that on this occasion the Government in London adopted an
attitude which would seem to imply that it did not consider itself
entitled to regard the Minquiers as a British possession. Such an
interpretation can be avoided only if it be considered that that
Government was then acting in a spirit of moderation desiring
not to aggravate a trifling incident with regard to which the most
important point was to ascertain whether the charge that had
been made had any basis in fact.
There was a similar incident in 1929, again in connection with
the Ifinquiers, when one Le Roux started building there after a
lease had been granted to him by the French Administration.
Xgain the British authorities did not attempt to prevent him
by the exercise of the police or jurisdictional powers which they
claimed to possess on the Minquiers by virtue of territorial
sovereignty. The British Government addressed itself to the
French Government,requesting it to prevent Le Roux from carrying
on with the building he had started, and this was done. In this
case neither of the two Governments went as far as its contentions
in relation to sovereignty over the RiIinquiers.The spirit of mode-
ration which they both displayed can prejudice neither the one
nor the other.
It does not seem to me that one would be entitled to conclude
from these facts, or from other facts of a similar nature, that
there was any renunciation by either State of its claim to sover-
eignty over the disputed islets, or any acknowledgment of the
rival claim.82 MIXQUIERS ET ÉCRÉHOUS (OPIN. INDIV. M. BASDEVANT)
Il faut alors rechercher si les faits invoqués de part et d'autre
sont de nature à confirmer ou à infirmer l'interprétation selon
laquelle le partage médiévala fait tomber les îlots litigieux dans
le lot du roi d'Angleterre. C'est là rechercher non la naissance
d'un titre nouveau à son profit mais la confirmation d'une inter-
prétation probable, mais encore incertaine, de ce partage.
Ainsi que je l'ai déjà indiqué en me référant à la convention
de 1839 et à l'interprétation libérale qu'elle a reçue en pratique,
on ne peut rien tirer, à cet égard, des faits de pêcheni des faits
se rattachant à l'exercice de celle-ci.
De nombreux faits non contestés dans leur réalitésinon dans
les déductions qu'on a prétendu en tirer, montrent que les autorités
de Jersey ont, depuis longtemps, maintes fois et ,de façon suivie,
porté leur attention sur ce qui se passait aux Ecréhous et aux
Minquiers et ont agi en conséquence. Elles l'ont fait par des actes
de juridiction, de police et d'administration. Dans ces actes de
juridiction, j'hésiteraisà voir des actes de juridiction territoriale.
Les faits auxquels ils se rapportaient, se passant sur des îlots qui
ne sont pas beaucoup plus que des émergences de la mer et où ne
se trouvait aucune autorité établie, pouvaient aisément fournir
occasion à une extension de compétence tout comme si le délit
avait été commis ou l'épaverecueillie en haute mer. Lord Finlay,
dans son opinion sur l'arrêt no 9, a indiqué cette extension de com-
pétence pour les affaires maritimes (C. P. J. I.,sérieA, no IO, p. 51).
La juridiction a étéexercée à l'égardde Jersiais ; lors de l'incident
de 1869 et lors de l'affaire Le Roux, plutôt que de la mettre en
action, il a étéfait recours par le Gouvernement britannique à
l'action des autorités françaises, ce qui contredit ce caractère
essentiel de la compétence territoriale de s'exercer à l'égard de
tous. Des opérations de recensement s'étendant à des personnes
se trouvant dans les îlots ou à des faits qui y sont accomplis
n'impliquent pas l'exercice d'une compétence territoriale ; il en
est de mêmede l'imposition à Jersey de Jersiais pour des biens
possédéspar eux dans les îlots ; rien n'interdit à un État d'imposer
ses ressortissants pour des avoirs situés à l'étranger ou de dresser
la statistique de faits accomplis à l'étranger. L'établissement par
les autorités de Jersey d'un bureau de douane dans les îlots aurait
par lui-mêmeun caractère, semble-t-il, plus accusé ; mais, d'une
part, aucun renseignement n'a étéfourni sur les opérations effec-
tuées par ce bureau, d'autre part on peut lire dans un document
de 1886 produit par le Royaume-Uni que ((les pataches de la
douane [française] vont une fois par semaine aux Écréhous ));
enfin, l'on ne doit pas oublier que la pratique internationale admet
ou tolère le contrôle douanier exercé par un Etat au delà de ses
eaux territoriales. It thus becomes necessarÿ to enquire whether the facts invoked
on either side are such as to confirm or invalidate the interpretation
according to which the medieval division resulted in the disputed
islets being included in the portion of the King of England. We
are not here concerned to seek the birth of any new title enuring
to him, but rather confirmation of the correctness of a probable,
though uncertain, interpretation of this division.
As 1 have indicated, when 1 referred to the 1839 Convention
and to the liberal constructioo which in practice Ras given to it,
no conclusion can be drawn in this connection from the fishery
acts or from acts connected with fishing.
There are numerous facts, the existence of which has not been
challenged-although there is disagreement as to the conclusions
to be drawn therefrom-which show that the Jersey authorities
have for a long time, on repeated occasions and in a consistent
manner, concerned themselves with what was happening on the
Ecrehos and the Minquiers and have acted accordingly. They
have done so by the assumption of jurisdiction and by police and
administrative acts. 1 have some hesitation in regarding the
assumption of jurisdiction as the assumption of territorial juris-
diction. The facts to which the jurisdiction related occurred on
islets which are not much more than emerged rocks on which
there was no established authority, and they could thus easily
fumish the occasion for an extension of jurisdiction just as if the
wrong had been committed or the wreckage had been gathered
on the high seas. Lord Finlay, in his opinion in Judgment No. 9,
referred to this extension of jurisdiction in maritime cases (P.C.I.J.,
Series A, No. IO,p. 51). Jurisdiction was exercised with regard
to Jerseymen ;at the time of the incident of 1869 and in the case
of Le Roux, instead of applying jurisdiction, recourse was had by
the British Government to action by the French authorities.
Such recourse is inconsistent with the essential characteristic
of territorial jurisdiction which is its exercise in respect of al1
perçons. Census operations extending to persons on the islets or
to acts carried out there do not imply the exercise of a territorial
competence ; the same is true of rates imposed upon Jerseymen,
in Jersey, in respect of property belongirig to them on the islets ;
there is nothing to prevent a State's taxation of its nationals in
respect of property abroad or its compilation of statistics of facts
occurring abroad. The setting up of a custom-house on the islets
by the Jersey authorities would seem to be more significant ; but,
in the first place, no information relating to operations carried
on there has been submitted and, secondly, we read in a document
of 1886 produced by the United Kingdom that "[French] customs
cutters go once a week to the Ecrehos". Finally, it must not
be forgotten that international practice recognizes or tolerates
customs control carried out by a State outside its territorial waters.
39 Que si, d'autre part, les Jersiais ont fait dresser à Jersey et
dans la forme qui y est accoutumée leurs actes d'acquisition ou
de cession de biens dans les îlots, il faut voir en cela moins un
exercice de l'autorité publique sur ces îlots que le recours au seul
moyen pratique qui fût à la disposition des intéressés.
Du moins les faits ci-dessus brièvement relatés et d'autres
faits analogues montrent que, depuis longtemps et d'une manière
suivie, les autorités de Jersey ont pris intérêtà ce qui se passait
aux Ecréhous et aux Minquiers e$ qu'elles ont agi à ce propos
dans la mesure et de la manière correspondant à la nature de
ces îlots et à l'utilisation dont ils sont l'objet. Elles l'ont fait
sans se heurter à une action concurrente et encore moins exclusive
de la part des autorités françaises. Ces dernières se sont montrées
beaucoup plus réservées.On ne peut reprocher au Gouvernement
français d'avoir recherché parfois un règlement du différend par
voie de transaction, mais on ne peut êtreinsensible ni aux hési-
tations qu'il a longtemps éprouvées à avancer sa thèse ni à l'absten-
tion au moins relative de? autorités françaises à agir à l'égard
de ce qui se passait aux Ecréhous et aux Minquiers.
Des faits ainsi alléguéset, en particulier, de l'action des autorités
de Jersey non gênéepar une action concurrente de la part des
autorités françaises, on peut déduire une confirmation ex Post
facto du caractère raisonnable de l'hypothèse précédemment
énoncée selon laquelle le roid'Angleterre, tenant les îles prjncipales
en 1360, était en situation d'exercer son pouvoir sur les Ecréhous
et les Minquiers, qu'il les tenait au sens du traité.
Ces mêmesfaits font apparaître que, sans établissement d'une
autorité locale propre aux îlots litigieux, il y a eu, dans la mesure
correspondant à la nature de ceux-ci, une activité plus grande,
plus suivie des autorités de Jersey que de la part des autorités
françaises, et ainsi une tradition de rattachement des îlots à
Jersey s'est établie. De cela se dégage l'interprétation que la
pratique a donnéedu partage de 1360, interprétation apparaissant
déjà avant l'ouverture de la controverse entre les deux Gouver-
nements sur la souveraineté et qui s'est maintenue en pratique
au cours de cette controverse. Ladite inter~rétation confirme
celle ci-dessus avancée.
Ainsi le Royaume-Uni a, à l'époquemoderne et contemporaine,
tenu les îlots litigieux de sorte que l'hypothèse selon laquelle le
roi d'Angleterre les tenait autrefois apparaît comme raisonnable.
En mêmetemps la pratique a interprétéle partage médiévaldans
le sens d'une attribution au roi d'Angleterre de ces îlots. Tout
cela, cependant, s'est fait non en des termes absolus mais avec
des nuances ; les autorités britanniques ont agi avec modéra-
tion, hésitant à exercer dans leur plénitude les droits auxquels le IrlIXQCIERÇ ATD ECREHOS (ISDIV. OPIS. 31. B.ISDEVAXT)
83
If, moreover, Jerseymen prepared Iheir instruments of purchase
or conveyance of property on the islets in Jersey and in the forms
usual there, this 1s to be regarded less as an exercise of public
authority over these islets than as an adoption of the only practical
means available to those concerned.
At least the facts briefly mentioned above and other similar
facts shon- that for a long time and in a consistent manner the
Jersey authorities have taken an interest in what mas happening
on the Ecrehos and the hiinquiers and that they took action in
this connection to an extent and in a way appropriate to the
character of these islets and the use which \vas made of them.
They did this without encountering any competing action, still
less any exclusive action, on the part of the French authorities.
The latter displayed a far greater reserve. The French Government
cannot be reproached for having sometimes sought a settlement
of the dispute by rr.eans of compromise, but it is impossible not
to have regard to the hesitation it showed for a long time to press
its contentions and to the at least relative abstention of the Frericli
authorities from taking action with regard to what was happening
on the Ecrehos and the Minquiers.
From the facts tl-ius alleged and, in particular, from the action
of the Jersey authorities, unimpeded by competing action on the
part of the French authorities, it is possible to deduce some e3i
post facto confirmation of the reasonableness of the hypothesis
previously stated, according to which the King of England, who
held the principal islands in 1360, \vas in a position to exercise
power over the Ecrehos and the Minquiers and that he held these
islets within the meaning of the Treaty.
From these same facts it appears that, in the absence of the
establishment of a separate local authority on the disputed islets,
there mTas,to the extent permitted by the character of these islets,
greater and more continuous activity on the part of the Jersej-
authorities than on the part of the French authorities and that
in this way a tradition of the attachment of the islets to Jersej-
has gron7n up. This reveals the interpretation which in practice
has been given to the division of 1360. An interpretation alreadj-
inanifested before the birth of controversy between the two Govern-
ments as to sovereignty which has subsisted in practice throughout
the course of this controversy. This interpretation confirins the
interpretation previously advanced.
Thus the United Kingdom has, in modern tiines and at thc
present day, held the disputed islets so that the hg-pothesis that
the King of England formerly held them appears to be reasonable.
lt the same time the medieval division has beeil interpreted in
practice in the sense of an attribution of the islets to the King
of England. Al1 thiç, howerer, was done not in absolute terms
but in a somewhat flexible manner ;the British authorities have
acted with moderation, hesitating to exercise the full rights n-hichRoyaume-Uni prétend aujourd'hui, s'adressant aux autorités fran-
çaises plutôt que d'agir envers des Français. Pour maince qu'a
établila pratique sur la base d'actes anciens et d'une interprétation
libérale, ces nuances devraient aussi êtremaintenues. Mais il n'a
étédemandé àla Cour ni par le compromis, ni dans les écritures,
ni au cours des débats, de prescrire semblable maintien.
Cela étant et en présence des données ci-dessus rappelées, la.
décision énoncéepar l'arrêt me parait justifiée.
(Signé )ASDEVANT.the Cnited Kingdom now claims, addressing themselves to the
French authorities in preference to taking action against French-
men. In order to maintain what has been established by practice
on the basis of ancient instruments and of a liberal interpretation,
this flexibility should likewise be maintained. But the Court has
not been asked either in the Special Agreement or in the written
proceedings or in the course of the arguments to prescribe such
a maintenance.
This being so, and in the light of the facts referred to above,
the decision set forth in the Judgment appears to me to be justified.
Individual Opinion of Judge Basdevant (translation)