these may be. Conveyances, however, must be written, signed and attested either by two witnesses or a notary. Apparently they cannot be signed by an agent. Contracts made in Spitzbergen are good in point of form if valid according to any of, possibly, four laws-those of the nationality or domicile of any of the parties. If a contract made elsewhere ought to be interpreted according to the law of Spitzbergen, the law of the last domicile of the defendant is to be applied. (It must be remembered, however, that domicile does not mean domicile.)

Crime is likewise, in principle, dealt with by the national Courts of the accused. But this is subject to the power of the police to inflict penalties for breaches of the Convention. and of the Commissioners' edicts, within the terms of the latter, which are limited to imposing three months' imprisonment, a thirty-guinea fine, and confiscation. Summary injunctions ad interim may be granted against serious damage, and steps may be taken for the preservation of successions.

No real rights can be acquired in Spitzbergen beyond a right of occupation and exploitation. This is an irritating example of the fondness of Continental lawyers for highsounding and meaningless declarations. The occupation and exploitation is practically another name for property. Anyone may acquire it except that a State can only acquire it for scientific, philanthropic or religious purposes. (But is not the formation of labour colonies-i.e., emigration-philanthropic ?). The process of acquirement is by setting out boundaries on the spot; and these must not be "manifestement démesurée." The applicant is then to hand in a written request to the judicial authorities, stating his name, "domicile," and nationality, and the date of delimitation (this is to be authenticated by two disinterested witnesses)—and the purpose for which the land is to be utilised. Plans or sketches must accompany this; also appropriate fees. The request of the subject of a non-adhering State will be

summarily rejected. Other requests may be opposed judicially; but after a year a provisional certificate of registration will be issued out. The land must be "put in use within six further years. This is to be verified by the report of two disinterested witnesses and the proprietor, who is here called specifically "possesseur." No provision is made as to non-forfeiture for a partial failure to turn the premises to account. As it must always be very hard to determine whether every square pole of ground is being economically utilised (especially allowing for room for expansion), the appropriator does not seem to have fixity of tenure. At the same time, the right is transmissible by sale, exchange, gift, legacy, succession and otherwise-accordingly it is clear that we have not here the situation contemplated by the ancient Russians, who, as Mr. Rastorgoueff told us in the August number of the Law Magazine, regarded the land as properly subject to no private ownership. It is easy to say that there is “no such thing as ownership" and that the land is "all public"; but if private heritable rights are created in the soil, these declarations are rather like sounding brass. So long, it may be added, as a transmission of title remains unregistered, the previous possessor will be regarded as in lawful possession— which may create a difficulty in the case when he is deceased. If land is allowed to go out of use, there appears to be no provision for the resumption of the claim by the occupying Powers. Mr. Ure's ideal conception of property, according to which an owner who is not using his property to the best advantage should be "forced to do so," is thus not proposed in all its sweet simplicity for Spitzbergen. The following restrictions are, however, placed upon initial occupation:— (1) Landing may not be effected by utilising other persons' private harbour-works and apparatus; (2) The public have a general right-of-way in all directions, except in the "neighbourhood" of dwellings, houses, stores, factories

and apparatus installed for the utilisation of the land; (3) The public have a like general right of hunting and fishing, and of taking eggs and wild fowl (except in similar situations), and of erecting appropriate huts and engines, provided they cause no "gêne démesurée" to the proprietor "possessor." Scientific expeditions have the same privilege; (4) The Commission, so long as no "inconvenient démesurée" is caused, may construct or authorise docks, telegraphs, telephones, and, in general, all installations serviceable to commerce, and all methods of transmitting power, and may take suitable building sites, and may prevent the destruction of arctic plants. Apparently this can be done without compensation; in other cases of expropriation an indemnity is to be paid; (5) Harbours are not susceptible of occupation by individuals.

Special dispositions are made regarding the relations of employers and workmen. To be obligatory on the latter, contracts must be in writing, and submitted to the employee twenty-four hours before employment. In case of illness, the employer must provide medical attendance until the invalid is well enough to be sent home at his expense. Compensation for accidents must be paid, unless the accident is imputable to the injured workman. Truck is not forbidden, except in alcohol.

The use of poison is prohibited for fishing and hunting, and of explosives for fishing. A close time is instituted for foxes, polar bears, reindeer, &c., from 1st May to 15th September, and for eider ducks throughout the year. Licences may be granted for scientific purposes,

nevertheless.

Difficulties of interpretation or application of the Convention are formally referred to the Hague Tribunal. Or, rather, the Powers" declare their fixed intention" of so referring them-which may not mean quite the same thing.

A most important provision (Art. 73) regulates the rights

of those who have already established stations in Spitzbergen. "Occupation" is to be recognised; but the occupying stranger is to register his right of occupation with the authorities within a year of the signature of the Convention. He must at the same time say how he proposes to use the premises; but no power is reserved to eject him if the use indicated does not prove agreeable to the Commissioners. In cases of disputed occupation, the Governments of the disputants are to decide the case within two years, otherwise the local magistrate will decide it on grounds of right and justice evolved by himself.

An appendix provides that the Governments of preConvention settlers may have their rights referred to arbitration, under the auspices of the three Powers associated for this purpose, with Britain, Germany and the United States, and an umpire named by a majority or else by Switzerland.

Non-signatory Powers are admitted to sign the Convention, on application to Norway. But they would often be better advised to ignore it, and to make their own independent occupation. The Convention may be denounced after eighteen years, and what the position would be then it is difficult to say. The triple occupation would still remain a fact, though devoid of a juridical basis, and would produce its natural consequences.

It will be seen that there still remain loop-holes for argument. Third parties are not concluded, except within the limits of effective occupation. The rights of pre-Convention settlers are left to be determined by no ascertained law: can such rights over-ride the Convention provisions regarding land? Can they be the subject of entail and limited estates of mortgage and trust? The rights of the new occupier are not clear: does he forfeit them if he fails to use the premises as he said he intended to? is he bound to indicate some economic use?-or may he say he intends

to use the land for a use which interests his private fancies alone? As the Commission are the sole judges of what is manifestement démesurée-i. e., of what is the proper extent of his occupation-they can apparently please themselves as to what use they will allow.

While rendering homage to the spirit in which the work has been entered upon, and to the care with which it has been accomplished, one may consider that by far the simplest and most effective plan would have been either to annex the islands to Iceland or to establish a Sovereign Commission which should be absolutely free to do its best for the proper administration of the place. This is a plan which would be free from all difficulties and ambiguity, and, as such, it has features which cannot but recommend it. A triple control is always a dubious benefit to a land (Samoa is a classic example). And what if Russia and Norway were at war?-or if some fourth Power were at war with Russia?

THETA.

VIII. CURRENT NOTES ON INTERNATIONAL

LAW.

The Balkan Crisis.

Article 23 of the Treaty of Berlin, to which provision so large a measure of attention is now devoted, is understood to have been incorporated in the Treaty at the instance of the Commission of which the moving spirit was Lord Edmund Fitzmaurice (now Lord Fitzmaurice). According to its terms, "The Sublime Porte undertakes that . . . regulations analogous [to those of Crete], and adapted to the requirements of each locality, save as regards the fiscal immunities accorded to Crete, shall similarly be introduced in the other districts of Turkey in Europe for which no special organisation has been provided by the present Treaty. The Sublime Porte shall appoint special commissions, on which