The Dominion. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1912. FREEDOM OF THE AIR.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1619, 10 December 1912, Page 4

The Dominion. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1912. FREEDOM OF THE AIR.

—c, — Perhaps no more striking evidence of the remarkable progress that has been made in aerial navigation could be found than is afforded by the necessity which is considered to have arisen for arriving at some definite understanding on the question of the "sovereignty of the air." Recently Sir H. -Erle Richards, Professor of International Law and Diplomacy at Oxford University, delivered a public lecturo on the subject, which, he said, he considered a faiatter of importance and urgency in view of 're'c'en!t"developments. The particular developments tho learned professor had in mind are not mentioned, but probably they, related as much to the mysterious visit ; of l an airship which had a little' time before passed over London and caused a great deal of comment, as they did to any recent marked successes in the flight of aircraft. At an International Conference held in Paris in 1910 consideration was given to the question of the right of aircraft to travel where the owners pleased, but no agreement could be arrived at. Professor Sir H. Erle Richards, however, had no doubts on the subject. He held that the question was covered, or as he preferred to put it, was concluded, by a principle of international law which was fundamental in the determination of the extent of State sovereignty, and must apply as much to the air space above State territory as to the territory itself. This principle is that sovereign States are entitled to all those rights which are necessary for the_ preservation and protection. of their territories; and in view of the possibilities of aerial warfare, the right of absolute control over the air, he argued, is essential for that purpose. It is, of course, very clear, as was pointed out by the lecturer, that if the air were free to any owner of an aircraft, tho defensive works and military dispositions' of every State would be exposed to the view of any air-vessel aoove it, and that in time of war there would arise grave difficulties as to the rights of belligerents to the air space above neutral States. The opposite contention, that is, that the air is free, and that States have no sovereignty over air, finds most favour on the Continent. Professor Sir H. Erle Richards could find no support for it in any principle of international law or municipal law, or in any practice of nations. The utmost that could be claimed for it was that it followed the practice of the freedom of the high seas. But even here the advocates of freedom of the air are confronted with arguments that appear unanswerable. Even the freedom of the high seas is restricted; for it ends at a three-mile limit from the shore, or at any other point at which it conflicts with the right of self preservation of the States. The suggestion has been made, and in one case at least has been put into effect, that a_ limit should be imposed as to the height at which airships should be permitted to fly over a foreign State. _ This, howeVer, does not meet the objections raised by those who claim _ the right of States to the sovereignty to the air. Where is the limit to be fixed ? The Institute of International Law, which favours the freedom of the air, does not venture to suggest that airships should fly across the territory of another State at a short distance from the surface. Only tho upper region is to be free. A township in Florida has passed aji ordinance claiming jurisdiction up to the height of 20 kilometres. Why stop at that point? asks tho London "Times.'" Why not at a point much nearer the earth? Is the limit of territorial jurisdiction to bo constantly changing with the erection of high structures, or with the increased range of artillery? "If," as Dr.Heseltine [in his volume of the "Law of the Air"] pertinently asks, "Krupp invents a gun that will hurl projectiles 20,000 metres, instead of 11,500 metres, as at present, is the air zone of sovereignty to Ixi raised all over tho world?" . . . M. Panchille, and {ho many other writers who have of late ail-, vocated the fresdom of the air, have been the unconscious slaves of a deceptive analogy. They have in mind the three-mile belt of sea nearest to the shore which every State treat? a-s, in many respects, a part of its territory, and tho opeu sea beyond, which belongs to no one. They have shirred over tho great differences between the rwrl.il no ran that t« obowi and _tliQ gw of water &rauud usr-ia- wrtSouJarl.

the fact that, while the chief danger to n country and its people oomts from tho ships nearest to it, it may bo just tho opposite with aerial navies; the .higher they are abovo the surface the moro destructive the effect of projectiles falling from tliem. There can bo no user of tho air which dots not appreeiflbly affect tho safety or interest of tlio State. One of the most important of tho points raised in favour of the freedom of the air is that restrict it would mean the prevention of the development of air transit. Professor Sir H. Erle Richards denies this. Sovereignty of the air would not prevent the development of air transit, he contends, anv more than sovereignty of the earth has prevented the development of land transit. Up to the present the weight of opinion so far expressed appears to have favoured the freedom of the air, with the right of tho States to take measures for the protection of the lives and property of their inhabitants.