No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Destruction of Neutral Property on Enemy Vessels
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 May 2017
Extract
In 1785 Prussia ratified a treaty with the United States providing in its twenty-third article 1 that in case of war between the contracting powers:
All merchant and trading vessels employed in exchanging the products of different places, and thereby rendering the necessaries, conveniences, and comforts of human life more fiasy to be obtained, and more general, shall be allowed to pass free and unmolested; and neither of the contracting Powers shall grant or issue any commission to any private armed vessels, empowering them to take or destroy such trading vessels or interrupt such commerce.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of International Law 1917
References
1 Malloy, Treaties, p. 1484; Moore, Digest of International Law, 7: 461.
2 Prussian Royal Order, May 19, 1866, Gesetz-Sammlung für die Königlichen Preussischen Staaten, 1866, p. 238; Moore, 7: 467.
3 Ordinance of North German Union, July 18, 1870, Bundesgesetzblatt, 1870, p. 485; repealed by German Ordinance, Jan. 19, 1871, Reichesgesetzblatt, 1871, p. 8; F. Perels, Das internationale öffentliche Seerecht der Gegenwart, 2d ed., Berlin, 1903, p. 200.
4 Deuxibme conference internationale de la paix, Actes et documents, 3: 834; Naval War College publications, 13: 126.
5 Convention, Prussia and Russia, 1800, Martens, Recueil des principaux traités, 7: 188; Moore, 7: 560.
6 Martens, Nouveau Recueil Général de Traités, 15: 791; Moore, 7: 562.
7 Perels, op. cit. p. 200; H. Wehberg, Capture in War on Land and Sea, trans. J. M. Robertson, London, 1911, is throughout an appeal for the abolition of prize right.
8 The Glitra, Oberprisengericht, Berlin, July 10, 1915, Zeitschrift für Völkerrecht, 9: 399; this Journal, 10: 921.
9 The Indian Prince, Oberprisengericht, Berlin, May 15, 1916, this Journal, 10: 930.
10 Malloy, pp. 1499, 1481, 1491.
11 Article 12 of the treaty of 1785 providing for “free ships free goods” was held to have no application. Art. 13 of the treaty of 1799, which provides for the preemption rather than confiscation of contraband articles, states that “no such articles carried in the vessels or by the subjects or citizens of either party, to the enemies of the other, shall be deemed contraband so as to induce confiscation or condemnation and loss of property to individuals.” The American owner of the cargo claimed that the alternative referred to goods belonging to “subjects or citizens” and on the high seas in enemy vessels. The court pointed out that, in the first place, the English version was a mistranslation of the French which read “à bord des vaisseaux des sujets ou citoyens de l'une des parties,” and hence would furnish no grounds at all for a claim for goods on enemy vessels. Even taking the English version, the court thought it could only refer to actual carriage by the “subjects or citizens,” that is, transportation in vessels owned by them.
12 Report of British Commissioners on the Silesian Loan Controversy, 1753, British and Foreign State Papers, 20:889; Moore, 7:603; the Flad Oyen, 1 Rob. 135 (1799); the Maria, 1 Rob. 350 (1799); the Schooner Adeline, 9 Cranch 244; the Paquete Habana, 175 IT. S. 677 (1901); the Marie Glaeser, L. R. (1914), P. 218. See also Moore, 7: 598.
13 The Fox, Edw. Adm. 312 (1811); the Zamora, L. R. (1916), 2 A. G. 77, this Journal, 10: 560.
14 H. Bonfils, Manuel de Droit International Public, 6th ed., Paris, 1912, p. 851, and authorities there cited. See also Cushing v. U. S., 22 Ct. CI. 1, Scott, Cases, p. 929; Commissioner Pinckney, in the Betsey (U. S.) v. Great Britain, Moore, Int. Arb., 3:3182; Dana, Notes to Wheaton, p. 480.
15 The Batavier V, Prisengericht, Hamburg, June 1, 1915, Dutch Orange Book, October, 1915, p. 106. The opinion in this respect was repeated verbatim in the case of the Zaanstrom on the same day, ibid., p. 115.
16 The Elida, Oberprisengericht, Berlin, May 18, 1915, Zeit. für Völk. 9: 109, this Journal, 10: 916.
17 Reichsgesetzblatt, 1914, p. 275. A convenient translation has been published by C. H. Huberich and R. King, The Prize Code of the German Empire as in Force July 1, 1915, New York, 1915.
18 Perels, op. cit. p. 299.
19 British Parliamentary Papers, 1909, Misc. No. 5, p. 99; Nav. War. Col. pub. 11: 13.
20 British Parl. Pap., 1909, Misc. No. 5, p. 171; Nav. War. Col. pub. 11: 79.
21 Supra, pp. 362-364.
22 Huberich and King, op. cit. pp. xii, xvi.
23 The opinions in these two cases are identical. Arrêt du Conseil d'État, 1872, pp. 777-778; Dalloz, Rept. Gen., 1872, 3: 94.
24 Charles DeBoeck, De la Propriété Privée Ennemie sous Pavilion Ennemi, Paris, 1882, sec. 146, p. 146.
25 C. Dupuis, Le Droit de la Ouerre Maritime d'après les Doctrines Anglaises Contemporaines, Paris, 1899, p. 340.
26 C. Calvo, Le Droit International théorique et pratique, 5th ed., Paris, 1896, sec. 3033, 5: 279.
26 Percy Bordwell, The Law of War between Belligerents, Chicago, 1908, p. 226.
28 J. B. Atlay, note to Wheaton, 4th English ed., London, 1904, p. 507.
29 L. A. Atherley-Jones and Hugh H. L. Bellot, Commerce in War, London, 1907, p. 717.
30 W. E. Hall, International Law, 4th ed., p. 744.
31 L. Oppenheim, International Law, 2d ed., London, 1912, 2: 244.
32 Wehberg, op. cit. p. 189. Perels, op. cit. p. 299, also insists on the necessity of compensation.
33 The Instruction Complimentaire to instructions of July 28, 1870, art. 20 (Freeman Snow, Cases on International Law, p. 572) provided: “If compelling circumstances force a cruiser to stroy a prize, because its preservation compromises its own safety or the success of its operations, it is necessary to take care to preserve all the papers on board and other elements necessary to permit the judgment of the prize and the establishment of the indemnity to be awarded to neutrals whose property, non-confiscable, may have been destroyed. One ought to use this right of destruction only with the greatest caution.” DeBoeck, op. cit. p. 146, notices the failure of the court to apply this instruction.
34 Reichsgesetzblatt, 1871, p. 8; Perels, op. cit. p. 200. See also Moore, 7:468.
35 Perels, op. cit. p. 200, after stating the actual reason for the repeal of the order, notes than many publicists have wrongly attributed the withdrawal of general immunity to the failure of France to provide for reciprocity. See Twiss, Des droits des belligérants sur mer depuis la Declaration de Paris, Rev. de Droit Int., 16: 113.
36 In his first edition (1882), after describing the cases in which destruction is legal, Perels says that the Desaix destroyed the German vessels “ohne eine dieser Voraussetzungen.” In his 2d edition (1903) he relegates the matter to a footnote and modified the statement to “ohne hinreichende grttnde."
37 Hall, op. cit. p. 744.
38 DeBoeck, op. cit. sec. 146, p. 146.
39 Depuis, op. cit. p. 340.
40 Calvo, op. cit. sec. 3033, 5: 279.
41 Bordwell, op. cit. p. 226.
42 British Pari. Pap., 1909, Misc. No. 5, p. 102, Nav. War. Col. pub. 11: 77.
43 British Parl. Pap., 1909, Misc. No. 5, p. 30.
44 British Parl. Pap., 1909, Misc. No. 5, p. 38, Misc. No. 4, p. 9. See also instructions to British delegates, Misc. No. 4, p. 28, Nav. War. Col. pub. 11: 69, 75.
45 British Parl. Pap., 1909, Misc. No. 5, pp. 99, 171; Nav. War. Col. pub. 11: 73, 79.
46 British Parl. Pap. 1909, Misc. No. 5, p. 276; Nav. War. Col. pub. 11: 80.
47 Nav. War. Col. pub. 9: 153.
48 Dec. of London, Arts. 21, 43. See also Hague Convention, VI. 1907, Arts. 2, 3.
49 Moore, 7: 619.
50 Moore, 7: 519; Nav. War Col. pub. 11: 54.
51 Deuxième conférence Internationale de la paix, Actes et documents, 3: 898; Nav. War Col. pub. 11:62.
52 British Parl. Pap, 1909, Misc. No. 5, p. 268; Nav. War Col. pub. 11: 77.
53 Dec. of London, Arts. 48-54; Nav. War Col. pub. 5:62; 11:51; Moore, 7:516.
54 German Prize Code, Art. 112, Supra, p. 364.
55 Wehberg, op. cit. p. 96. The original edition of this work, entitled Das Beuterecht im Land-und Seekriege, was published in Tübingen, 1909. The references are to the English translation.
56 Ibid. p. 59.
57 Wehberg, op. cit. p. 96.
58 American State Papers, Naval Affairs, 1: 373-376. Moore, 7: 516.
59 Scott, Cases, p. 932.
60 Moore, 7:520; S. Takahashi, International Law Applied to the Eusso-Japanese War, New York, 1908, p. 310 et seq.
61 J. W. Garner, Some Questions of International Law in the European War, this Journal, 9: 594, 10:12.
62 Annuaire de l'institut de Droit international, 6: 221; Moore, 7: 526.
63 British Parl. Pap., 1909, Misc. No. 4, p. 28; Misc. No. 5, pp. 99, 101; Nav. War Col. pub. 11: 69.
64 Perels, op. cit. p. 200.
65 Dupuis, op. cit., p. 333, gives one of the fullest discussions of the destruction ' of enemy prizes.
66 De Boeck, op. cit. sec. 146, p. 146.
67 Calvo, op. cit. sec. 3033, 5: 279.
68 Hall, op. cit. p. 744.
69 Bordwell, op. cit. p. 226.
70 Nav. War Col. pub. 5: 72, 121; 11: 52.
71 René Valin, Nouau Ccmmentaire sur l'Ordonnance de la Marine du mois d'Août 1681, 2 vols., La lElochelle, 1766, liv. iii, tit. ix, art. 18. The commentator thinks that this would be interpreted leniently in case of military necessity for destruction. See also Pistoye et Duverdy, Traité des Prises maritimes, Paris, 1855, 1: 265, 269; Depuis, op. cit. p. 339.
72 Instruction Complementaire to instructions of July 28, 1870, Art. 20, Snow, Cases, p. 572.
73 Instructions, Dec. 19, 1912, Art. 28; Nav. War Col. pub. 13: 192.
74 “Before the ship or goods can be disposed of by the captor, there must be a regular judicial proceeding, wherein both parties may be heard, and condemnation thereupon as prize, in a court of admiralty, judging by the law of nations and treaties.” British Report on the Silesian Loan Controversy, 1753, Moore, 7: 603. Oakes v. U. S., 174 U. S. 778, 786 (1899); the Appam, this Journal, 10: 826 (1916); U. S. Naval Instructions, 1898, Art. 24 (For. Rel. 1898, p. 781); Stockton, Naval War Code, 1900-1904, Art. 49 (Nav. War Col. pub. 5:114); Moore, 7: 623. In a few cases, American courts have held that title to enemy prizes passes on firm possession without judicial condemnation. The Mary Ford, 3 Dall. 188 (1795); the Adventure, 8 Cranch 221 (1814); the Resolution, 2 Dall. 1 (1781).
75 Holland, Manual of Naval Prize Law, 1888, Arts. 303-304; Nav. War Col. pub. 5:64.
76 Instructions, 1898, Art. 28; 1900-1904, Arts. 49-50; Nav. War Col. pub. 5:66.
77 Instructions, 1894, Art. 22; 1904, Art. 9; Nav. War Col. pub. 5: 65.
78 Instructions, 1895, Art. 21; 1901, Art. 40; Nav. War Col. pub. 5: 66.
79 Prize Ordinance, 1909, Art. 112.
80 In the case of the Glitra, the court remarked that prior to the Declaration of Paris, neutral goods in enemy vessels were subject to capture and that the Declaration was adopted to mitigate this practice. (Supra pp. 359-360.) This is believed to be incorrect. The third article of the Declaration of Paris was simply declaratory of a rule of international law dating from the Middle Ages, and the only exceptions which existed were in the case of specific treaties declaring “enemy ships, enemy goods” as an offset to the concession of “free ships, free goods.” See Consolato del Mare, Chap. 273, H. Wheaton, History of the Law of Nations in Europe and America, New York, 1845, p. 63; Report of British Commissioners on the Silesian Loan, 1753, Moore, 7: 603; T. J. Lawrence, The Principles of International Law, 4th ed., New York, 1910, sec. 242, p. 657.