of its terms--Views of British Government as to inclusion of banks--Question of the Eddystone, the Bell Rock, the Seven-Stones Rocks--Discussion as to limit under the Conventions and under the Law of Nations--Anglo-Danish Convention, 1901, respecting the Faröes and Iceland 604 CHAPTER IV. THE MODERN PRACTICE OF STATES AND THE OPINIONS OF RECENT PUBLICISTS. Apparent discrepancy between general practice and the opinions of publicists--No state has formally defined the extent of its territorial sea--Practice in Germany--Denmark--Two limits enforced--Russia--The White Sea--France--Belgium--Netherlands--Austria-Hungary--Italy--Greece--British Colonies--Japan--United States of America--Chile--Argentina--Uruguay--Three-mile limit generally adopted for fisheries--Exceptions in four European states--Spain and Portugal claim six miles--Repudiated by British Government--Discontent in Spain and Portugal--Norway and Sweden--Special Scandinavian limits--Fjords reserved--Vestfjord--Varangerfjord--Discussion of Norwegian limit--Rejection of three-mile boundary--Recent Norwegian laws--The three-mile limit is an Anglo-American doctrine--Opinions of modern publicists--Calvo, Bluntschli, Phillimore, Halleck, Lawrence, Bishop, Woolsey, Dana, Twiss, Fiore, Pradiere-Fodéré, Perels, Ferguson, Desjardins, Kleen, Aschehoug, de Martens, Hall, Oppenheim--The limit under the Law of Nations is the range of guns--Declarations of the International Law Association and the Institut de Droit International--Three miles insufficient--Six miles proposed for fisheries, &c--The zone or line of respect for neutrality to be declared by each state 650 CHAPTER V. THE INADEQUACY OF THE THREE-MILE LIMIT FOR FISHERY REGULATIONS.