1. Sommerlad, Th., Die Rheinzölle im Mittelalter, Halle 1893, p. 43Google Scholar; Demangeon, A. et Fèbvre, L., Le Rhin, Paris 1935, p. 188.Google Scholar

2. von Nau, , Beiträge zur Kenntnis und Beförderung des Handels und der Schiffahrt, Mainz 1818, II, p. 108.Google Scholar

3. Müldener, M., Capitulation harmonique, continuée jusqu'au tenu présent, Paris 1750, pp. 74 and 76.Google Scholar

4. Fellmann, P., Staats-und völkerrechtliche Grundlagen der freien Rheinschiffahrt, Basel 1937, p. 2.Google Scholar

5. Pintor, Siotto, Le régime international de l'EscautGoogle Scholar, extrait du Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de droit international 1928, p. 13Google Scholar; Ed. Engelhardt, , Histoire du droit fluvial conventionnel, Paris 1889, p. 43.Google Scholar See for the Köver, Danube J. F., La lutte pour le Danube, Etudes Internationales, 10 1948, p. 385Google Scholar: “C'est en 1368 que le Prince Wladislaw de Valachie s'entendit avec Louis le Grand de la Maison d'Anjou, Roi de Hongrie et de Pologne, pour que les ressortissants de ce dernier puissent se livrer au négoce sur le Bas-Danube, entre les Portes de Fer et les bouches du fleuve. A la fin du XVe siècle les Osmans étendirent leur puissance jusqu'au Danube et ils ne respectèrent pas ce privilège; le Danube fut fermé à tout commerçant étranger et seul le pavillon turc devait y flotter”.

6. Grotius, , De iure belli ac pads, II, 2Google Scholar, 11 and II, a, 13:1, editto Molhuysen, P. C., Lugduni Batavorum 1919, pp. 147 and 148.Google Scholar See for an English translation W. Kelsey, Oxford 1925.

7. II, 2, 13:1, op. cit., p. 147Google Scholar: “Sic et terrae, et flumina, et si qua pars maris in proprietatem populi alicuius venit, patere débet his qui transita opus habent ad causus iustas; puta quia commercium expetunt cum gente seposita, aut edam quia quod suum est iusto bello petunt”.

8. II, 2, 13:5, op. cit., p. 149.Google Scholar

9. II, 2, 14 and II, 2, 15:1, op. cit., pp. 150–151.Google Scholar “Morari quoque aliquantisper praetervehentibus aut praetereuntibus, valetudinis, aut alia qua iusta de causa, licere débet, nam est et hoc inter utilitates innoxias”.

10. II, 17, 1, op. cit., p. 328Google Scholar, and II, 17, 12, pp. 330–331. van Eysinga, W. J. M., Gids voor de Groots De iure belli acpacis, Leyden 1945, p. 19Google Scholar, points out, that Grotius mentions the Euphrates, while the Halys was intended.

11. de Martens, , Recueil VI, p. 142.Google Scholar See Lijsen, , op. cit., p. 10.Google Scholar

12. The king of Spain agreed that the navigation of the river “shall be free only to his subjects and the citizens of the United States, unless he should extend this privilege to the subjects of other powers by special convention”. See Ch. Fenwick, G., International Law, 3d ed., New York and London 1948, pp. 388–389.Google Scholar See also Moore, John Bassett, Digest of International Law, I, Washington 1906, par. 130, p. 623Google Scholar and following ones, ‘It should be noted that the United States had agreed with Great Britain, by art. VIII of the treaty of 1782–1783, that the Mississippi, from its source to the ocean, shall forever remain free and open to the subjects of Great Britain and the citizens of the United States. “The right thus acknowledged to Great Britain was, however, based upon an inaccurate assumption that the river had its source in British territory, and it accordingly was lost when the mistake was discovered in the subsequent survey of the boundary.”

13. See inter alia van Eysinga, , Les fleuves et canaux internationaux, Bibliotheca Visseriana, tomus secundus, Lugduni Batavorium 1924, pp. 123–157.Google Scholar

14. Walther, H., general secretary of the Central Commission for the navigation of the Rhine, The international Statute of the Rhine and the Central Commission for the navigation of the RhineGoogle Scholar,-in “Transport and Communications Review”, 10–12 1949, p. 8.Google Scholar

15. See van Eysinga, , op. cit., pp. 130 and 138Google Scholar; François, J. P. A., Grondlijnen van het Volkenrecht, second ed., Zwolle 1957, p. 518Google Scholar; Winiarsky, B., Principes généraux du droit fluvial international, Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de droit international 1933 III, pp. 109 and 164–165.Google Scholar

16. van Eysinga, , op. cit., pp. 142–143Google Scholar; Moore, , Digest I, pp. 631 and following ones.Google Scholar

17. Malloy, , Treaties I, 668Google Scholar; Fenwick, , op. cit., p. 389.Google Scholar

18. Van Eysinga, , op. cit., p. 143 and following pages.Google Scholar

19. Handelingen Tweede Kamer (Dutch Parliamentary Acts) 1922–1923, Bijl. 429, p. 8.Google Scholar

20. Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, , International Law I, 8th ed., London-New York—Toronto 1955, p. 467.Google Scholar

21. Fenwick, , op. cit., pp. 389–390Google Scholar; Moore, , op. cit., par. 131Google Scholar; Reid, M. D., International Servitudes in law and practice, p. 153Google Scholar; Winiarsky, , op. cit., pp. 140, 167, 183Google Scholar; Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, , op. cit., p. 467.Google Scholar

22. de Martens, N. R. G. 2nd ser., 29, p. 587; Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, , op. cit., p. 467Google Scholar; van Eysinga, , op. cit., p. 144Google Scholar; Hackworth, Green Haywood, Digest of International Law I, pp. 603–608.Google Scholar

23. Van Eysinga, , op. cit., pp. 133 and 134.Google Scholar

24. See Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, , op. cit., pp. 465–466.Google Scholar

25. François, , Grondlijnen, p. 32.Google Scholar

26. Article 331.

27. Van Eysinga, , op. cit., p. 126.Google Scholar

28. See The International Law Quarterly 1948, II p. 727.Google Scholar

29. There are several difficulties. Concerning article 41 Prigrada, Anthony, International agreements concerning the Danube (New York 1953Google Scholar, mimeographed, p. 17) states: “In the Soviet view, the principle of free navigation and equal treatment applied only on the river. Vessels entering ports for loading and discharge were to be entitled to use loading and unloading facilities on the basis of agreements concluded with the appropriate transportation and expeditionary agencies. In practice, this meant that non-riparian vessels would be entirely at the mercy of Soviet-sponsored navigation companies.” So gives article 45 a regulation concerning the settlement of disputes, which will not in all cases guarantee impartiality.

See also Köver, op. cit.; Kunz, Josef L., The Danube régime and the Belgrade Conference, A. J. I. L. 1949, pp. 104–113Google Scholar; Wegener, W., Die internationale Donau, Göttingen 1951Google Scholar; Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, , op. cit., pp. 468–470Google Scholar; François, , Grondlijnen, pp. 532–534Google Scholar; Hajnal, Henri, Le droit du Danube international, 1929.Google Scholar

30. Annuaire de l'Institut de droit international 1887–1888, p. 157.Google Scholar

31. Annuaire de l'Institut 1934, pp. 167–172 and 174Google Scholar; see inter alia Niemeyers Zeitschrift für internationales Reiht, 50 Band 1935, pp. 201Google Scholar and foll.; Zeitschrift für Völkerrecht, 19 Band 1935, pp. 365 and foil.Google Scholar

32. Judgment of September 10, 1929, Publications of the Permanent Court of International Justice, series A no. 23, pp. 26–27.Google Scholar

33. SirLauterpacht, Hersch, The development of international law by the International Court, London 1958, p. 234.Google Scholar

34. See for the text of Convention and Statute: League of Motions Treaty Series, vol. 7, pp. 36–63Google Scholar; A. J. I. L. 1924, suppl., pp. 151–165; League of Nations Publications, Barcelona Conference, Verbatim Records and Texts relating to the Convention on the Régime of Navigable Waterways of International Concern (1921); Knauth, 's Benedict on Admiralty, 7th ed., 1958, vol. 6, p. 336Google Scholar and foll. See “L'oeuvre de Barcelone, exposée par quelques-uns de ses auteurs”, avec une préface de Gabriel Hariotaux, président de la Conférence; Corthésy, Fernand, Etude de la Convention de Barcelone sur le régime des voies navigables d'intéret international, Paris 1927.Google Scholar

35. Concerning the signification of the words “jusqu'à la mer” see von Nau, passim; van Eysinga, , La Commission Centrale pour la navigation du Rhin, Leyden 1935, pp. 25 and foil.Google Scholar

36. See Fortuin, H., Het akkoord tussen Nederland, België en Frankrijk betreffende de Nederlandse en Belgische grate zeehavens, Economisch-Statistische Berichten, 3d 04 1939.Google Scholar

37. See the sentences of March 28, 1950 (N.J. 1950 no. 633)Google Scholar; January 25, 1952 (N.J. 1952 no. 125Google Scholar, concerning the so-called Stop of Lobith); May 4, 1954 (N.J. 1954 no. 382).Google Scholar

38. See Convention Revisée pour la Navigation du Rhin (in “Rheinurkunden”, The Hague, Munich and Leipzig, vol. II; or “Les Actes du Rhin”, Ed. de La Navigation du Rhin, Strasbourg 1947)Google Scholar, articles 1, 4 and 3; and Statute of Barcelona, articles 3, 4 and 7.

39. Publications of the Permanent Court of Intern. Justice, series B no. 14, pp. 64, 65 and 66.Google Scholar

40. Publications of the P. C. I. J., series A/B no. 63, p. 83.Google Scholar

41. Nederlandse Jurisprudentie 1935, pp. 5 and 11Google Scholar; Weekblad van het Recht, no. 12849. See also Nederlands Juristenblad 1936, pp. 706–711 and 725–731.Google Scholar

42. It is possible to make here several distinctions, but this would go beyond the scope of this treatise. See Convention revisée pour la Navigation du Rhin, Annexe au Modus Vivendi du 4 mai 1936 (Strasbourg 1939), articles 3–7 and article 4 of the “Protocole de Clôture”. See also Denzler, H. W., Die Cabotage im Rahmen der internationalen Verkehrsfreiheit unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Reinschifahrt, thèse de doctorat, Basle 1954, p. 68.Google Scholar

43. Oeffentlicher Anzeiger für das Vereinigte Wirtschaftsgebiet no. 10, 02, 1949.Google Scholar

44. Verbal Note of the Federal Republic of October 27, 1953; see also “Runder-lass” April 15, 1954, point 3.

45. See inter alia Kraus-Scheuner, , Questions juridiques relatives à la navigation du Rhin, Frankfurt am Main 1956Google Scholar; Müller, W., La liberté de la navigation rhénane en dangerGoogle Scholar, publication no. 3 de l'Association Bâloise pour la Navigation Suisse, Ed. Navigation et Trafic Mondial S. A., Basle 1953; Denzler, op. cit.; van der Hoeven, H., De Rijnvaartakten en de Cabotage, thesis University Utrecht 1956Google Scholar, reviewed by van Eysinga, , Sparsa Collecta, Leyden 1958, pp. 516–518Google Scholar, and Fortuin, , Internationale Spectator, XI no. 11, pp. 338–348Google Scholar, and Rechtsgeleerd Magazijn Themis 1957, pp. 430–438.Google Scholar This thesis has been translated in the German language (1957) and published by the Netherlands-German Chamber of Commerce at The Hague. (Die Rheinschiffahrtsverträge und die Cabotage).

46. Du régime conventionnel des fleuves internationaux, études et projet de règlement général, Paris 1879, p. 103.Google Scholar

47. Annuaire de l'Institut 1934, p. 174.Google Scholar

48. Van Eysinga, , Bibliotheca Visseriana II, p. 132.Google Scholar

49. Forming parts of the General Convention of the Berlin Conference of 1885.

50. Annuaire de l'Institut 1887–1888, p. 182.Google Scholar See van Eysinga, op. cit., p. 132.Google Scholar

51. Annuaire 1934, pp. 167 and 173.Google Scholar

52. Publications P. C. I. J., series A no. 23, p. 27.Google Scholar

53. See van Eysinga, , op. cit., pp. 153–154Google Scholar; van Eysinga, , La Commission Centrale pour la Navigation du Rhin, pp. 8Google Scholar and foll.; van Eysinga, , De oorsprong van. de moderne internationale rivierencommissie, mededelingen Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen, afd. Letterkunde, deel 74, serie B., Amsterdam 1932, pp. 268–281.Google Scholar

54. Confer articles 43–46 Convention of Mannheim.

55. “Notons que, si les grandes puissances seules sont représentées dans la Commission à côté de l'état riverain, ce sont aussi ces grandes puissances qui entreprennent tout l'aménagement du fleuve”, van Eysinga, , Bibl. Viss. II, p. 155.Google Scholar

56. See François, , Handboek van het Volkenrecht I, 2nd ed., Zwolle 1949, pp. 1039–1041Google Scholar; François, Grondlijnen, pp. 532Google Scholar and foll.; Kunz, , op. cit., pp. 105 and foll.Google Scholar; Wegener, , op. cit., p. 41.Google Scholar

57. pp. 20–21.

58. Op. cit., p. 156.

59. Koninklijk Besluit (Royal Decree), 15th 09 1923Google Scholar, Staatsblad no. 456.Google Scholar See also “Tractatenblad van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden”; 1955 no. 161, pp. 62–64.Google Scholar

60. Confer article 10 sub 6, article 13 and the beginning of article 22. See van Eysinga, , op. cit., pp. 156–157Google Scholar; Winiarsky, , op.cit., p. 200Google Scholar; Corthésy, , op. cit., p. 118 and foll.Google Scholar

61. See article 9 of the draft of the “Institut de droit international” of 1934.Google Scholar

62. See Wehle, Louis B., International Administration of European Inland Waterways, Am. Journal of International Law, vol. 40 no. 1, 01 1946Google Scholar; Wohl, Paul, International Control of European Waterways, termed vital to peace, 25th 08 1945Google Scholar, The Christian Science Monitor.

63. See the Survey of international agreements providing for compulsory adjudication or other third-party determination of disputes concerning the regulation and use of international watercourses, prepared for members of the Permanent Committee on the Law Governing International Rivers of the Inter-American Bar Association by Brice McAdoo Clagett.

64. Cf. Quint, A. W., Internationaal rivierenrecht betreffende gebruik tot andere doeleinden dan de scheepvaart, Amsterdam 1930, pp, 39–44.Google Scholar