Dr. SHEN Jiaying2025-08-282025-08-282024Law and History Review, 2024, vol. 42(4), pp. 915-935.0738-24801939-9022http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11861/24779<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>The 1892 collision between the British merchant ship <jats:italic>Ravenna</jats:italic> and the Japanese torpedo boat <jats:italic>Chishima</jats:italic> generated a three-year legal debate over jurisdiction in territorial waters. Challenging the conventional notion that the coastal State enjoyed full sovereignty over its maritime territory, this article argues that contested jurisdiction in territorial waters was ubiquitous at the turn of the twentieth century. In addition to imperialism, which played a pivotal role in transforming the coastal waters of semi-colonial countries into overlapping legal zones, political speculations and the absence of a uniform legal standard also put the coastal State's assertion of maritime sovereignty into question. On the one hand, semi-colonial states, such as the Meiji government, sometimes strategically avoided asserting maritime sovereignty when they deemed it appropriate for national interests. On the other hand, there was also a wide cleavage of opinions among Western powers regarding coastal jurisdiction. Scrutinizing the entangled currents of imperialism, political speculations and maritime laws in the Chishima case, this article contributes to the burgeoning scholarship on the polycentric oceanic world by displaying the rarely discussed contested jurisdiction in territorial waters before World War II.</jats:p>enPeer Reviewed Journal Article10.1017/S073824802400035X