Download to read offline
![[906] See the case of the Apollo in Calvo, V. § 2989.
The Declaration of London does not mention the case of spoliation
of papers, and it would therefore be the task of the International
Prize Court to evolve a uniform practice concerning the subject.
Double and False Papers.
§ 428. The highest suspicion is aroused through the fact that a
visited vessel carries double papers, or false[907]
papers, and such
vessel may certainly be seized. But the practice of the several States
has hitherto differed with regard to the question whether
confiscation is admissible for the mere fact of carrying double or
false papers. Whereas the practice of some States, as Russia and
Spain, answered the question in the affirmative, British[908]
and
American[909]
practice took a more lenient view, and condemned
such vessels only on a clear inference that the false or double papers
were carried for the purpose of deceiving the belligerent by whom
the capture was made, but not in other cases.[910]
[907] The Sarah (1801), 3 C. Rob. 330.
[908] The Eliza and Katy (1805), 6 C. Rob. 192.
[909] The St. Nicholas (1816), 1 Wheaton, 417.
[910] See Halleck, II. p. 271; Hall, § 276; Taylor, § 690.
Since the Declaration of London does not mention the case of
double or false papers, it would likewise be the task of the
International Prize Court to evolve a uniform practice.
II
CAPTURE
Hall, § 277—Lawrence, § 191—Phillimore, III. §§ 361-364—Twiss, II. §§ 166-184—
Halleck, II. pp. 362-391—Taylor, § 691—Moore, VII. §§ 1206-1214—Bluntschli, §
860—Heffter, §§ 171, 191, 192—Geffcken in Holtzendorff, IV. pp. 777-780—
Ullmann, § 196—Rivier, II. pp. 426-428—Nys, III. pp. 697-709—Calvo, V. §§ 3004-
3034—Fiore, III. Nos. 1644-1657, and Code, Nos. 1878-1889—Martens, II. §§ 126-
137—Kleen, II. §§ 203-218—Gessner, pp. 333-356—Boeck, Nos. 770-777—Dupuis,
Nos. 253-281, and Guerre, Nos. 205-217—Bernsten, § 11—Nippold, II. § 35—
Perels, § 55—Testa, pp. 243-244—Hautefeuille, III. pp. 214-299—Holland, Prize
Law, §§ 231-314—U.S. Naval War Code, articles 46-50—Atherley-Jones, Commerce
in War (1906), pp. 361-646—Hirschmann, Das internationale Prisenrecht (1912),](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/3146-250321201543-36c06feb/75/Introduction-to-Information-Systems-15th-Edition-OBrien-Test-Bank-26-2048.jpg)
![§§ 35-37—See also the monographs quoted above at the commencement of § 391,
Bulmerincq's articles on Le droit des prises maritimes in R.I. X-XIII. (1878-1881),
and the General Report presented to the Naval Conference of London on behalf of
its Drafting Committee, articles 48-54.
Grounds and Mode of Capture.
§ 429. From the statements given above in §§ 368-428 regarding
blockade, contraband, unneutral service, and visitation, it is obvious
that capture may take place either because the vessel, or the cargo,
or both, are liable to confiscation, or because grave suspicion
demands a further inquiry which can be carried out in a port only.
Both cases are alike so far as all details of capture are concerned,
and in the latter case Prize Courts may pronounce capture to be
justified, although no ground for confiscation of either vessel or
cargo, or both, has been detected.
The mode of capture is the same as described above in § 184
regarding capture of enemy vessels.[911]
[911] The Règlement international des prises maritimes, adopted by the Institute of
International Law at its meeting at Heidelberg in 1887, regulates capture in §§ 45-62;
see Annuaire, IX. (1888), p. 204.
Effect of Capture of Neutral Vessels, and their Conduct to Port.
§ 430. The effect of capture of neutral vessels is in every way
different from the effect of capture of enemy vessels,[912]
since the
purpose of capture differs in these two cases. Capture of enemy
vessels is made for the purpose of appropriating them in the
exercise of the right of belligerents to appropriate all enemy property
found on the Open Sea or in the maritime territorial belt of either
belligerent. On the other hand, neutral merchantmen are captured
for the purpose of confiscation of vessel or cargo, or both, as
punishment for certain special acts, the punishment to be
pronounced by a Prize Court after a thorough investigation into all
the circumstances of the special case. Therefore, although the effect
of capture of neutral vessels is that the vessels, the individuals, and
the goods thereon are placed under the captor's authority, her
officers and crew never become prisoners of war. They are indeed to
be detained as witnesses for the trial of the vessel and cargo, but](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/3146-250321201543-36c06feb/75/Introduction-to-Information-Systems-15th-Edition-OBrien-Test-Bank-27-2048.jpg)
![nothing stands in the way of releasing such of them as are not
wanted for that purpose. As regards passengers, if any, they have to
be released as soon as possible, with the exception of those enemy
persons who may be made prisoners of war.
[912] See above, § 185.
Regarding the conduct of captured neutral vessels to a port of a
Prize Court, the same is valid as regards conduct of captured enemy
vessels[913]
to such port.
[913] See above, § 193.
Destruction of Neutral Prizes.
§ 431. That as a rule captured neutral vessels may not be sunk,
burned, or otherwise destroyed has always been universally
recognised just as that captured enemy merchantmen may not as a
rule be destroyed. But up to the time of the agreement on the
Declaration of London it was a moot question whether the
destruction of captured neutral vessels was likewise exceptionally
allowed instead of bringing them before a Prize Court. British[914]
practice did not, as regards the neutral owner of the vessel, hold the
captor justified in destroying a vessel, however exceptional the case
may have been, and however meritorious the destruction of the
vessel may have been from the point of view of the Government of
the captor. For this reason, should a captor, for any motive whatever,
have destroyed a neutral prize, full indemnities had to be paid to the
owner, although, if brought into a port of a Prize Court,
condemnation of vessel and cargo would have been pronounced
beyond doubt. The rule was, that a neutral prize must be abandoned
in case it could not, for any reason whatever, be brought to a port of
a Prize Court. But the practice of other States did not recognise this
British rule. The question became of great importance in 1905,
during the Russo-Japanese War, when Russian cruisers sank the
British vessels Knight Commander, Oldhamia, Icona, St. Kilda, and
Hipsang, the German vessels Thea, and Tetardos, and the Danish
vessel Princesse Marie. Russia paid damages to the owners of the
vessels Icona, St. Kilda, Thea, Tetardos, and Princesse Marie,
because her Prize Courts declared that the capture of these vessels](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/3146-250321201543-36c06feb/75/Introduction-to-Information-Systems-15th-Edition-OBrien-Test-Bank-28-2048.jpg)
![was not justified, but she refused to pay damages to the owners of
the other vessels destroyed, because her Prize Courts considered
them to have been justly captured.
[914] The Actaeon (1815), 2 Dodson, 48; the Felicity (1819), 2 Dodson, 381; the Leucade
(1855), Spinks, 217. See Phillimore, III. § 333; Twiss, II. § 166; Hall, § 77; Holland,
Letters to the "Times" upon War and Neutrality (1909), pp. 140-150.
The Declaration of London proposes to settle the matter by a
compromise. Recognising that neutral prizes may not as a rule be
destroyed, and admitting only one exception to the rule, it
empowers the captor under certain circumstances and conditions to
demand the handing over, or to proceed himself to the destruction,
of contraband carried by a neutral prize which he is compelled to
abandon.
The very first rule of Chapter IV. of the Declaration of London,
headed "Destruction of Neutral Prizes," is that of article 48,
according to which, as a matter of principle, captured neutral vessels
may not be destroyed, but must be taken into a port of a Prize
Court. However, article 49 permits, as an exception to the rule, the
destruction of such a captured neutral vessel as would herself be
liable to condemnation, if the taking of the vessel into a port of a
Prize Court would involve danger to the safety of the capturing
cruiser, or to the success of the operations in which she is at the
time of capture engaged.
There is, therefore, no doubt that a neutral prize may no longer be
destroyed because the captor cannot spare a prize crew or because
a port of a Prize Court is too far distant, or the like. The only
justification for destruction of a neutral prize is danger to the captor
or his operations at the time of capture. As regards the degree of
danger required, it cannot be denied that the wording of article 49
does not provide any clue for a restrictive interpretation. But
considering that article 51 speaks of an "exceptional necessity," it is
hoped and to be expected that the International Prize Court would
give such an interpretation to article 49 as would permit a resort to
the sinking of neutral prizes in cases of absolute necessity only. Be
that as it may, according to article 49 only such neutral prizes may](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/3146-250321201543-36c06feb/75/Introduction-to-Information-Systems-15th-Edition-OBrien-Test-Bank-29-2048.jpg)
![be sunk as would be liable to confiscation if brought before a Prize
Court. Sinking of captured neutral vessels—apart from neutral
vessels which have acquired enemy character and may for this
reason be sunk under the same conditions as enemy vessels—is,
therefore, chiefly admitted in three[915]
cases, namely: (1) When—
see article 40 of the Declaration of London—the vessel carries
contraband the value of which forms more than half the value of the
cargo; (2) when a vessel has been captured for rendering those
kinds of unneutral service which are enumerated by article 45 of the
Declaration of London; (3) when—see article 21 of the Declaration of
London—a vessel has been captured for breach of blockade. In no
case, however, in which she is not liable to confiscation, may a
neutral vessel under any circumstances and conditions be destroyed;
she must always be abandoned if the capturing cruiser cannot take
her into a port of a Prize Court.
[915] Only such cases of possible confiscation of a neutral vessel are mentioned in the
text as are in accordance with the Declaration of London. The practice of some States
has hitherto admitted confiscation in other cases also, for instance, in case of deficiency,
spoliation, or defacement of ship papers, and in case of double and false papers; see
above, §§ 426-428. It will be the task of the International Prize Court to evolve a uniform
practice with regard to such cases. Likewise the text does not enumerate the cases in
which the sinking of a neutral vessel is permissible because she previously acquired
enemy character; concerning this, see above, § 89.
However this may be, when the captor feels compelled to resort to
the destruction of a neutral prize, he must place in safety all persons
found on the captured vessel, and he must take on board all the
captured ship's papers which are relevant for the purpose of
deciding the validity of the capture (article 50). And (article 51) if the
captor fails to establish the fact before the Prize Court that he
destroyed the prize in the face of an exceptional necessity, the
owners of the vessel and cargo must receive full compensation
without any examination of, and any regard to, the question as to
whether or no the capture itself was justifiable. Compensation must
likewise be paid in case the capture is held by the Prize Court to be
invalid, although the act of destruction has been held to be
justifiable (article 52). And in any case, the owners of neutral goods
not liable to condemnation which have been destroyed with the](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/3146-250321201543-36c06feb/75/Introduction-to-Information-Systems-15th-Edition-OBrien-Test-Bank-30-2048.jpg)
![Ransom and Recapture of Neutral Prizes.
§ 432. Regarding ransom of captured neutral vessels, the same is
valid as regards ransom of captured enemy vessels.[916]
[916] See above, § 195.
As regards recapture of neutral prizes,[917]
the rule ought to be
that ipso facto by recapture the vessel becomes free without
payment of any salvage. Although captured, she was still the
property of her neutral owners, and if condemnation had taken place
at all, it would have been a punishment, and the recapturing
belligerent has no interest whatever in the punishment of a neutral
vessel by the enemy.
[917] See Hautefeuille, III. pp. 366-406; Gessner, pp. 344-356; Kleen, II. § 217; Geffcken
in Holtzendorff, IV. pp. 778-780; Calvo, V. §§ 3210-3216.
But the matter of recapture of neutral prizes is not settled, no rule
of International Law and no uniform practice of the several States
being formulated regarding it. Very few treaties touch upon it, and
the municipal regulations of the different States regarding prizes
seldom mention it. According to British practice,[918]
the recaptor of a
neutral prize is entitled to salvage, in case the recaptured vessel
would have been liable to condemnation if brought into an enemy
port.
[918] The War Onskan (1799), 2 C. Rob. 299. See Holland, Prize Law, § 270.
Release after Capture.
§ 433. Besides the case in which captured vessels must be
abandoned, because they cannot for some reason or another be
brought into a port, there are cases in which they are released
without a trial. The rule is that a captured neutral vessel is to be
tried by a Prize Court in case the captor asserts her to be suspicious
or guilty. But it may happen that all suspicion is dispelled even
before the trial, and then the vessel is to be released at once. For
this reason article 246 of Holland's Prize Law lays down the rule: "If,
after the detention of the vessel, there should come to the
knowledge of the commander any further acts tending to show that
the vessel has been improperly detained, he should immediately](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/3146-250321201543-36c06feb/75/Introduction-to-Information-Systems-15th-Edition-OBrien-Test-Bank-32-2048.jpg)
![release her...." Even after she has been brought into the port of a
Prize Court, release can take place without a trial. Thus the German
vessels Bundesrath and Herzog, which were captured in 1900 during
the South African War and taken to Durban, were, after search had
dispelled all suspicion, released without trial.
That the released vessel may claim damages is a matter of course,
and article 64 of the Declaration of London precisely enacts it. But it
should be mentioned that, since Convention XII. stipulates only
appeals against judgments of National Prize Courts, the International
Prize Court would not have jurisdiction in a case of the release of a
vessel without trial, and that the question of compensation could,
therefore, be settled through the diplomatic channel only.
III
TRIAL OF CAPTURED NEUTRAL VESSELS
Lawrence, §§ 188-190—Maine, p. 96—Manning, pp. 472-483—Phillimore, III. §§ 433-
508—Twiss, II. §§ 169-170—Halleck, II. pp. 393-429—Taylor, §§ 563-567—
Wharton, III. §§ 328-330—Moore, VII. §§ 1222-1248—Wheaton, §§ 389-397—
Bluntschli, §§ 841-862—Heffter, §§ 172-173—Geffcken in Holtzendorff, IV. pp. 781-
788—Ullmann, § 196—Bonfils, Nos. 1676-1691—Despagnet, Nos. 677-682 bis—
Rivier, II. pp. 353-356—Nys, III. pp. 710-718—Calvo, V. §§ 3035-3087—Fiore, III.
Nos. 1681-1691, and Code, Nos. 1890-1929—Martens, II. §§ 125-126—Kleen, II.
§§ 219-234—Gessner, pp. 357-427—Boeck, Nos. 740-800—Dupuis, Nos. 282-301,
and Guerre, Nos. 218-223—Nippold, II. § 35—Perels, §§ 56-57—Testa, pp. 244-247
—Hautefeuille, III. pp. 299-365—Atherley-Jones, Commerce in War (1906), pp.
361-594—Hirschmann, Das internationale Prisenrecht (1912), § 38—See also the
monographs quoted above at the commencement of § 391, and Bulmerincq's
articles on Le droit des prises maritimes in R.I. X.-XIII. (1878-1881).
Trial of Captured Vessels a Municipal Matter.
§ 434. Although belligerents have, under certain circumstances,
according to International Law, the right to capture neutral vessels,
and although they have the duty to bring these vessels for trial
before a Prize Court, such trials are in no way an international
matter. Just as Prize Courts—apart from the proposed International
Prize Court—are municipal[919]
institutions, so trials of captured
neutral vessels by these Prize Courts are municipal matters. The](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/3146-250321201543-36c06feb/75/Introduction-to-Information-Systems-15th-Edition-OBrien-Test-Bank-33-2048.jpg)
![neutral home States of the vessels are not represented and, directly
at any rate, not concerned in the trial. Nor is, as commonly
maintained, the law administered by Prize Courts International Law.
These Courts apply the law of their country. The best proof of this is
the fact that the practice of the Prize Courts of the several countries
has hitherto differed in many points. Thus, for instance, the question
what is and what is not contraband, and, further, the question when
an attempt to break blockade begins and when it ends, have
hitherto been differently answered by the practice of different
States.
[919] See above, § 192. The matter is regulated so far as Great Britain is concerned by
the Naval Prize Act, 1864 (27 and 28 Vict. ch. 25) and the Prize Courts Act, 1894 (57 and
58 Vict. ch. 39). The Règlement international des prises maritimes, adopted in 1887 at
Heidelberg by the Institute of International Law, provides in §§ 63-118 detailed rules
concerning the organisation of Prize Courts and the procedure before them; see
Annuaire, IX. (1888), p. 208.
Many writers, however, maintain that Prize Courts are
International Courts, and that the law administered by these courts
is International Law. Lord Stowell again and again[920]
emphatically
asserted it, and the vast majority of English and American writers[921]
follow him. But it is to be expected that the recognition of the
difference between Municipal and International Law, as expounded
above, Vol. I., §§ 20-25, and of the fact that States only, and neither
their Courts nor officials nor citizens, are subjects of International
Law, will lead to the general recognition of the fact that the law
applied by National Prize Courts is not and cannot be International
Law.
[920] The Maria (1799), 1 C. Rob. 340; the Recovery (1807), 6 C. Rob. 341; the Fox and
others (1811), Edwards, 311.
[921] See, for instance, Halleck, II. p. 411; Maine, p. 96; Manning, p. 472; Phillimore, III.
§§ 433-436; Hall, § 277. On the other hand, Holland, Studies, p. 199; Westlake, II. p.
289; and Scott, Conferences, p. 467, distinctly agree with me.
And matters will remain as they are even after the establishment
of the International Prize Court and ratification of the Declaration of
London. The law of this Declaration is certainly International Law,
but it will be binding only upon the States, and they, on their part,
must embody it in their Municipal Law so that their Prize Courts are](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/3146-250321201543-36c06feb/75/Introduction-to-Information-Systems-15th-Edition-OBrien-Test-Bank-34-2048.jpg)
![obliged to administer such a law in prize cases as is in conformity
with the Declaration of London. It will be the task of the
International Prize Court[922]
to control the National Prize Courts in
that direction. A State which is a party to the Declaration and would
nevertheless order its Prize Courts to apply a law which is in
opposition to the Declaration of London, would commit an
international delinquency, but its Prize Courts would be obliged to
apply such law.
[922] Trial before this Court is, of course, an international matter.
Result of Trial.
§ 435. The trial of a captured neutral ship can have one or more
of five results:—vessel and cargo can be condemned,[923]
or the
vessel alone, or the cargo alone; and the vessel and cargo can be
released either with or without costs and damages. Costs and
damages must be allowed when capture was not justified, and, after
the ratification of the Declaration of London and the establishment
of the International Prize Court, an appeal may, according to article
64 of the Declaration of London and article 4 of Convention XII., be
brought before the International Prize Court if costs and damages
are refused or inadequately allowed by a Prize Court. But it must be
emphasised that capture might be justified, as, for instance, in the
case of spoliation of papers, although the Prize Court did not
condemn the vessel, and, further, that costs and damages are never
allowed in case a part only of the cargo is condemned, although the
vessel herself and the greater part of the cargo are released. That,
in case the captor is unable to pay the costs and damages allowed
to a released neutral vessel, his Government has to indemnify the
vessel, there ought to be no doubt, for a State bears "vicarious"
responsibility[924]
for internationally injurious acts of its naval forces.
[923] It would seem to be obvious that condemnation of the vessel involves the loss of
the vessel at the date of capture; see Andersen v. Marten, L.R. (1907) 2 K.B. 248.
[924] See above, vol. I. § 163.
Trial after Conclusion of Peace.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/3146-250321201543-36c06feb/75/Introduction-to-Information-Systems-15th-Edition-OBrien-Test-Bank-35-2048.jpg)
![§ 436. It is a moot question whether neutral vessels captured
before conclusion of peace may be tried after the conclusion of
peace.[925]
I think that the answer must be in the affirmative, even if
a special clause is contained in the Treaty of Peace, which stipulates
that captured but not yet condemned vessels of the belligerents
shall be released. A trial of neutral prizes is in any case necessary for
the purpose of deciding the question whether capture was justified
or not, and whether, should condemnation not be justified, the
neutral vessels may claim costs and indemnities. Thus, after the
conclusion of the Abyssinian War, in December 1896, the Italian
Prize Commission, in the case of the Doelwijk,[926]
claimed the right
to try the vessel in spite of the fact that peace had been concluded
between the time of capture and trial, declared the capture of the
vessel and cargo to have been justified, but pronounced that, peace
having been concluded, confiscation of vessel and cargo would no
longer be lawful.
[925] See Perels, § 57, p. 309, in contradistinction to Bluntschli, § 862. But there is, of
course, no doubt that a belligerent can exercise an act of grace and release such prizes.
Thus, in November 1905, at the end of the Russo-Japanese War, the Mikado proclaimed
the unconditional release of all neutral prizes captured after the signing but before the
ratification of the Peace of Portsmouth. Thereby, three German vessels, two English, and
one Norwegian escaped confiscation, which in strict law—see above, p. 534, note 4—
would have been justified.
[926] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XXVIII. pp. 66-90.
Different from the question whether neutral prizes may be tried
after the conclusion of peace is the other question whether they may
be condemned to be confiscated. In the above-mentioned case of
the Doelwijk the question was answered in the negative, but I
believe it ought to have been answered in the affirmative.
Confiscation of vessel and cargo having the character of a
punishment, it would seem that the punishment may be inflicted
after the conclusion of peace provided the criminal act concerned
was consummated before peace was concluded. But nothing, of
course, stands in the way of a belligerent taking a more lenient view
and ordering his Prize Courts not to pronounce confiscation of
neutral vessels after the conclusion of peace.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/3146-250321201543-36c06feb/75/Introduction-to-Information-Systems-15th-Edition-OBrien-Test-Bank-36-2048.jpg)
![The Declaration of London does not settle either the former or the
latter question, and it would therefore be the task of the
International Prize Court to evolve a uniform practice in the cases
concerned.
Protests and Claims of Neutrals after Trial.
§ 437. Hitherto, if a trial led to condemnation, and if the latter was
confirmed by the Court of Appeal, the matter as between the captor
and the owner of the captured vessel and cargo was finally settled.
But the right of protection,[927]
which a State exercises over its
subjects and their property abroad, may nevertheless have been the
cause of diplomatic protests and claims on the part of the neutral
home State of a condemned vessel or cargo, in case the verdict of
the Prize Courts was considered to be not in accordance with
International Law or formally or materially unjust. It is through such
protests and claims that the matter, which was hitherto a mere
municipal one, became of international importance. And history
records many instances of cases of interposition of neutral States
after trials of vessels which had sailed under their flags. Thus, for
instance, in the famous case of the Silesian Loan,[928]
it was the fact
that Frederick II. of Prussia considered the procedure of British Prize
Courts regarding a number of Prussian merchantmen captured
during war between Great Britain and France in 1747 and 1748 as
unjust, which made him in 1752 resort to reprisal and cease the
payment of the interest of the Silesian Loan. The matter was
settled[929]
in 1756, through the payment of £20,000 as indemnity by
Great Britain. Thus, further, after the American Civil War, articles 12-
17 of the Treaty of Washington[930]
provided the appointment of
three Commissioners for the purpose, amongst others, of deciding
all claims against verdicts of the American Prize Courts. And when in
1879, during war between Peru and Chili, the German vessel Luxor
was condemned by the Peruvian Courts, Germany interposed and
the vessel was released.[931]
[927] See above, vol. I. § 319.
[928] See above, § 37.
[929] See Martens, Causes Célèbres, II. p. 167.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/3146-250321201543-36c06feb/75/Introduction-to-Information-Systems-15th-Edition-OBrien-Test-Bank-37-2048.jpg)
![[930] See Martens, N.R.G. XX. p. 698.
[931] See above, § 404.
The ratification of the Declaration of London and the
establishment of the International Prize Court would finally do away
with such grave international disputes.
CHAPTER VII
THE INTERNATIONAL PRIZE COURT
I
PROPOSALS FOR INTERNATIONAL PRIZE COURTS
Geffcken in Holtzendorff, IV. pp. 785-788—Boeck, Nos. 743-764—Dupuis, No. 289,
and Guerre, Nos. 224-231—Higgins, pp. 432-435—Lémonon, pp. 280-293—
Nippold, I. § 15—Trendelenburg, Lücken im Völkerrecht (1870), pp. 49-53—
Gessner, Kriegführende und neutrale Mächte (1877), pp. 52-58—Bulmerincq and
Gessner in R.I. XI. (1879), pp. 173-191, and XIII. (1881), pp. 260-267.
Early Projects.
§ 438. Numerous inconveniences must naturally result from a
condition of International Law which has hitherto prevailed and
according to which the Courts of the belligerent whose forces had
captured neutral vessels exercised jurisdiction without any control by
neutrals. Although, as shown above in § 437, neutrals frequently
interfered after a trial and succeeded in obtaining recognition for
their claims in face of the verdicts of Prize Courts, great
dissatisfaction has long been felt at the condition of matters hitherto
obtaining, and proposals have been made for so-called mixed Prize
Courts.
The first proposal of this kind was made in 1759 by Hübner,[932]
who suggested a Prize Court composed of judges nominated by the
belligerent and of consuls or councillors nominated by the home
State of the captured neutral merchantmen.
[932] De la saisie des bâtiments neutres (1759), vol. II. p. 21.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/3146-250321201543-36c06feb/75/Introduction-to-Information-Systems-15th-Edition-OBrien-Test-Bank-38-2048.jpg)
![A somewhat similar proposal was made by Tetens[933]
in 1805.
[933] Considérations sur les droits réciproques des puissances belligérantes et des
puissances neutres sur mer, avec les principes du droit de guerre en général (1805), p.
163.
Other proposals followed until the Institute of International Law
took up the matter in 1875, appointing, on the suggestion of
Westlake, at its meeting at the Hague, a Commission for the purpose
of drafting a Projet d'organisation d'un tribunal international des
prises maritimes. In the course of time there were mainly two
proposals before the Institute, Westlake's and Bulmerincq's.
Westlake proposed[934]
that Courts of Appeal should be instituted
in each case of war, and each Court should consist of three judges—
one to be nominated by the belligerent concerned, another by the
home State of the neutral prizes concerned, and the third by a
neutral Power not interested in the case. According to Westlake's
proposal there would therefore have to be instituted in every war as
many Courts of Appeal as neutrals concerned.
[934] See Annuaire, II. (1878), p. 114.
Bulmerincq proposed[935]
that two Courts should be instituted in
each war for all prize cases, the one to act as Prize Court of the First
Instance, the other to act as Prize Court of Appeal; each Court to
consist of three judges, one judge to be appointed by each
belligerent, the third judge to be appointed in common by all neutral
maritime Powers.
[935] See R.I. XI. (1879), pp. 191-194.
Finally, the Institute agreed, at its meeting at Heidelberg in 1887,
upon the following proposal, which is embodied in §§ 100-109 of the
Règlement international des prises maritimes:[936]
—At the beginning
of a war each belligerent institutes a Court of Appeal consisting of
five judges, the president and one of the other judges to be
appointed by the belligerent, the three remaining to be nominated
by three neutral Powers, and this Court to be competent for all prize
cases.
[936] Annuaire, IX. (1887), p. 239.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/3146-250321201543-36c06feb/75/Introduction-to-Information-Systems-15th-Edition-OBrien-Test-Bank-39-2048.jpg)
![No further step was taken in the matter during the nineteenth
century. But, during the South African War, the conviction became
general that the exclusive jurisdiction of belligerents over captured
neutral vessels is incompatible with the modern condition of the
oversea commerce of neutrals. At the Second Peace Conference of
1907, therefore, Germany, as well as Great Britain, brought forward
a project for real International Prize Courts.
German Project of 1907.
§ 439. The German project[937]
was embodied in a draft of thirty-
one articles dealing in three chapters with "Competence in Prize
Cases," "Organisation of the International Prize Court," and
"Procedure before the International Prize Court," and made the
following proposals:—National Prize Courts should only be
competent in the first instance, every appeal to go to the
International Prize Court, and the latter to be competent not only in
case of capture of neutral vessels, but in every case of capture of
merchantmen. At the beginning of every war an International Prize
Court should be established, but, in case there were more than two
parties to a war, as many International Prize Courts should be
established as there were couples of States fighting against each
other. Each Court every time it sat should consist of five judges,
three of whom should be members of the Permanent Court of
Arbitration at the Hague, and two should be admirals. The admirals
should belong to the navies of the belligerents, but the three
members of the Permanent Court of Arbitration should be chosen by
neutral Powers, each belligerent authorising one neutral Power to
select one member, and these two neutrals to appoint a third neutral
Power which would select the third member. The Court should sit at
the Hague, have its first meeting when the first appeal case arose,
and be dissolved after the conclusion of peace. The International
Bureau of the Permanent Court of Arbitration should serve as the
Registry of every International Prize Court. Each belligerent and the
owners of the captured vessels or cargoes should have the right to
bring an appeal before the International Prize Court.
[937] Deuxième Conférence, Actes, II. p. 1071.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/3146-250321201543-36c06feb/75/Introduction-to-Information-Systems-15th-Edition-OBrien-Test-Bank-40-2048.jpg)
![British Project of 1907.
§ 440. The British project[938]
was embodied in a draft of sixteen
articles, and made the following proposals:—The International Prize
Court should be competent in such cases only as directly concerned
a neutral Power or its subjects, an appeal to be brought before the
International Court only after the case had been decided by the
highest National Prize Court of the belligerent concerned. Neutral
Powers only, and not their subjects, should have the right to enter
an appeal, and each neutral Power should represent its subjects
concerned in a prize case. In contradistinction to the German
project, the British draft proposed the establishment once for all of a
Permanent International Prize Court, each Power whose mercantile
marine at the date of the signature of the proposed convention
exceeded a total of 800,000 tons, should, within three months from
the date of ratification, nominate a prominent jurist as a member of
the Court, and another as his deputy. The President of the Court
should be nominated by the signatory Powers in their alphabetical
order, should remain in office one year only, and should have a
casting vote. If a legal question were to be decided which had
already been provided for in a convention between the parties in
dispute, the Court should base its decision on such convention. In
the absence of such a convention, and if all civilised nations were
agreed on a point of legal interest, the Court should base its decision
thereon, otherwise the Court should decide according to the
principles of International Law.
[938] Deuxième Conférence de la Paix, Actes, II. p. 1076.
Convention XII. of the Second Peace Conference.
§ 441. The Second Peace Conference, after having studied and
discussed the German and the British projects, produced the
"Convention (XII.) respecting the establishment of an International
Prize Court" which, on the whole, follows more closely the lines of
the British project, but includes several features of the German, and
others which originate neither with the British nor the German
project. It comprises fifty-seven articles and is divided into four parts
headed respectively "General Provisions" (articles 1-9), "Constitution](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/3146-250321201543-36c06feb/75/Introduction-to-Information-Systems-15th-Edition-OBrien-Test-Bank-41-2048.jpg)
![2. Bulgaria Montenegro
3. Chili Nicaragua
4. Denmark Norway
5. Mexico Cuba
6. Persia China
7. Portugal Spain
Sixth Year
1. Belgium Holland
2. Chili Salvador
3. Denmark Norway
4. Mexico Ecuador
5. Portugal Spain
6. Servia Bulgaria
7. Siam China
The deciding tribunal elects its President and Vice-President by an
absolute majority of the votes cast, but after two ballots the election
is made by a bare majority, and, in case the votes are equal, by lot
(article 19).
The judges—as well as the deputies when they sit—receive, while
carrying out their duties, a salary of one hundred Netherland florins
(about £8, 4s.) per diem, besides travelling expenses. The salaries
and travelling expenses are to be paid by the International Bureau of
the Permanent Court of Arbitration, and the judges must not receive
any other remuneration either from their own Government or from
any other Power (article 20).
The belligerent captor, as well as a neutral Power which is herself,
or whose national is, a party, may appoint a naval officer of high
rank to sit as Assessor, but he has no voice in the decision. If more
than one neutral Power is concerned in a case, they must agree
among themselves, if necessary by lot, on the naval officer to be
appointed as Assessor (article 18).
The seat[939]
of the deciding tribunal is at the Hague, and it may
not, except in the case of force majeure, be transferred elsewhere](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/3146-250321201543-36c06feb/75/Introduction-to-Information-Systems-15th-Edition-OBrien-Test-Bank-46-2048.jpg)
![without the consent of both belligerents (article 21). When the Court
is not sitting, the duties conferred on it by certain articles of
Convention XII. are discharged by a delegation of three judges
appointed by the Court; this delegation comes to a decision by a
majority of votes, and its members must, of course, reside at the
Hague while they fulfil their duties (article 48).
[939] The working-order (ordre intérieur) of the International Prize Court is to be drawn
up by the Court itself; see details in article 49.
The deciding tribunal determines what language it will itself use
and what languages may be used before it, but in all cases the
official language of the National Courts which have had cognisance
of the case may be used before it (article 24).
For all notices to be served, in particular on the parties, witnesses,
or experts, the deciding tribunal may apply direct to the Government
of the State on whose territory the service is to be carried out. The
same rule applies in the case of steps to be taken to procure
evidence. The Court is equally entitled to act through the Power on
whose territory it holds its sitting. Notices to be given to parties in
the place where the Court sits may be served through the
International Bureau (article 27).
Administrative Council and International Bureau.
§ 444. The Administrative Council of the Permanent Court of
Arbitration at the Hague serves at the same time as the
Administrative Council of the International Prize Court, but only
representatives of the Powers who are parties to Convention XII.
shall be members of it (article 22).
The International Bureau of the Permanent Court of Arbitration
acts as Registry of the International Prize Court and must place its
offices and staff at the disposal of the Court. This Bureau has the
custody of the archives and carries out the administrative work, and
its General Secretary acts as Registrar of the International Prize
Court. The secretaries necessary to assist the Registrar, translators,
and shorthand writers are appointed by the International Prize Court
(article 23).](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/3146-250321201543-36c06feb/75/Introduction-to-Information-Systems-15th-Edition-OBrien-Test-Bank-47-2048.jpg)
![Agents, Counsel, Advocates, and Attorneys.
§ 445. Belligerent as well as neutral Powers concerned in a case
may appoint special Agents to act as intermediaries between
themselves and the International Prize Court, and they may also
engage Counsel or Advocates to defend their rights and interests
(article 25).
Private individuals concerned in a case are compelled to be
represented before the Court by an Attorney, who must either be an
Advocate qualified to plead before a Court of Appeal or a High Court
of one of the contracting States, or a lawyer practising before a
similar Court, or, lastly, a Professor of Law at one of the higher
teaching centres of those countries (article 26).
Competence.
§ 446. The general principle underlying the rules of Convention
XII. concerning the competence of the International Prize Court is
that on the whole, although not exclusively, the Court is competent
in cases where neutrals are directly or indirectly concerned. The
International Prize Court is, as a rule, a Court of Appeal, all prize
cases must, in the first instance, be decided by a National Prize
Court of the captor, although the Municipal Law of the country
concerned may provide that a first appeal must likewise be decided
by a National Prize Court. The second appeal may never by decided
by a National, but must always be decided by the International Prize
Court. However, should the National Court of the First Instance or
the National Court of Appeal fail to give final judgment within two
years from the date of capture, the case may be carried direct to the
International Prize Court (articles 2 and 6).
An appeal against the judgments of National Prize Courts may be
brought before the International Court: (1) when the judgment
concerns the property of a neutral Power or a neutral individual;[940]
(2) when the judgment concerns enemy property and relates to (a)
cargo on board a neutral vessel, (b) an enemy vessel captured in the
territorial waters of a neutral Power, provided such Power has not
made the capture the subject of diplomatic claim, and (c) a claim](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/3146-250321201543-36c06feb/75/Introduction-to-Information-Systems-15th-Edition-OBrien-Test-Bank-48-2048.jpg)
![based upon the allegation that the seizure has been effected in
violation, either of the provisions of a convention in force between
the belligerent Powers, or of an enactment issued by the belligerent
captor. In any case, the appeal may be based on the ground that the
judgment was wrong either in fact or in law (article 3).
[940] Since the question of enemy or neutral character of individuals—see above, § 88—is
for some parts controversial, the International Prize Court would have to decide the
controversy.
The following Powers and individuals are entitled[941]
to bring an
appeal before the International Prize Court:—
(1) Neutral Powers, if the judgment injuriously affects their
property or the property of their subjects, or if the capture is alleged
to have taken place in the territorial waters of such Powers (article 4,
No. 1).
(2) Neutral individuals,[942]
if the judgment injuriously affects their
property. But the home State of such an individual may intervene
and either forbid him to bring the appeal before the International
Prize Court, or itself undertake the proceedings in his place (article
4, No. 2).
(3) Subjects of the enemy, if the judgment injuriously affects their
cargoes on neutral vessels, or if it injuriously affects their property in
case the seizure is alleged to have been effected in violation, either
of the provisions of a convention in force between the belligerent
Powers, or of an enactment issued by the belligerent captor (article
4, No. 3).
(4) Subjects of neutral Powers or of the enemy deriving rights
from the rights of such individuals as are themselves qualified to
bring an appeal before the International Prize Court, provided they
have intervened in the proceedings of the National Court or Courts
concerned. Individuals so entitled may appeal separately to the
extent of their interests (article 5, first paragraph).
(5) Subjects of neutral Powers or of the enemy deriving rights
from the rights of a neutral Power whose property was the subject of
the judgment. Individuals so entitled may likewise appeal separately
to the extent of their interest, provided they have intervened in the](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/3146-250321201543-36c06feb/75/Introduction-to-Information-Systems-15th-Edition-OBrien-Test-Bank-49-2048.jpg)
![proceedings of the National Court or Courts concerned (article 5,
second paragraph).
[941] But note article 51 of Convention XII.
[942] See above, vol. I. § 289, p. 365.
What Law to be applied.
§ 447. As regards the law to be applied by the International Prize
Court, article 7 of Convention XII. contains the following provisions
and distinctions:—
(1) If a question of law to be decided be covered by a treaty in
force between the belligerent captor and a Power which is itself, or
whose subject is, a party to the proceedings, the Court must apply
the provisions of such treaty.
(2) In absence of such provisions, the Court must apply the rules
of International Law.
(3) If there be no generally recognised rules of International Law
which could be applied, the Court must base its decision on the
general principles of justice and equity.
(4) If—see article 3, No. 2 (c) of Convention XII.—the ground of
appeal be the violation of an enactment issued by the belligerent
captor, the Court must apply such enactment.
(5) The Court is empowered to disregard failure, on the part of an
appellant, to comply with the procedure laid down by the Municipal
Law of the belligerent captor, if it is of opinion that the
consequences of such Municipal Law are unjust or inequitable.
The very wide powers of the International Prize Court with regard
to the law to be applied by it, have been considerably narrowed
down by the fact that the Declaration of London provides a code of
Prize Law, which in time will be universally accepted, but those
powers are still very wide.
III
PROCEDURE IN THE INTERNATIONAL PRIZE COURT](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/3146-250321201543-36c06feb/75/Introduction-to-Information-Systems-15th-Edition-OBrien-Test-Bank-50-2048.jpg)
Introduction to Information Systems 15th Edition OBrien Test Bank
- 1. Download the fullversion and explore a variety of test banks or solution manuals at https://testbankfan.com Introduction to Information Systems 15th Edition OBrien Test Bank _____ Tap the link below to start your download _____ https://testbankfan.com/product/introduction-to-information- systems-15th-edition-obrien-test-bank/ Find test banks or solution manuals at testbankfan.com today!
- 2. We believe theseproducts will be a great fit for you. Click the link to download now, or visit testbankfan.com to discover even more! Management Information Systems 10th Edition Obrien Test Bank https://testbankfan.com/product/management-information-systems-10th- edition-obrien-test-bank/ Management Information Systems 10th Edition OBrien Solutions Manual https://testbankfan.com/product/management-information-systems-10th- edition-obrien-solutions-manual/ Introduction to Information Systems 16th Edition Marakas Test Bank https://testbankfan.com/product/introduction-to-information- systems-16th-edition-marakas-test-bank/ Concepts of Database Management 8th Edition Pratt Test Bank https://testbankfan.com/product/concepts-of-database-management-8th- edition-pratt-test-bank/
- 3. Fundamentals of FinancialManagement 12th Edition Brigham Test Bank https://testbankfan.com/product/fundamentals-of-financial- management-12th-edition-brigham-test-bank/ Essential Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences 1st Edition Privitera Test Bank https://testbankfan.com/product/essential-statistics-for-the- behavioral-sciences-1st-edition-privitera-test-bank/ Discovering Computers Essentials 2018 Digital Technology Data and Devices 1st Edition Vermaat Solutions Manual https://testbankfan.com/product/discovering-computers- essentials-2018-digital-technology-data-and-devices-1st-edition- vermaat-solutions-manual/ Abnormal Psychology 14th Edition Butcher Test Bank https://testbankfan.com/product/abnormal-psychology-14th-edition- butcher-test-bank/ Marketing Management 3rd Edition Marshall Test Bank https://testbankfan.com/product/marketing-management-3rd-edition- marshall-test-bank/
- 4. Java Foundations 3rdEdition John Lewis Test Bank https://testbankfan.com/product/java-foundations-3rd-edition-john- lewis-test-bank/
- 5. c6 Student: ___________________________________________________________________________ 1. Acommon application of middleware is to allow programs written for access to one database to access another database. True False 2. A change in technology often induces social, political, and economic system changes long before a critical mass of users is reached. True False 3. The telecommunications industry has changed from a deregulated market to government-regulated monopolies. True False 4. Middleware is an essential component of any IT infrastructure because it allows disparate systems to be isolated. True False 5. Business-to-business electronic commerce websites can be used by businesses to establish strategic relationships with their customers and suppliers. True False 6. The Internet has a central computer system that is the most powerful in the world. True False 7. The Internet provides electronic discussion forums and bulletin board systems that are formed and managed by special-interest newsgroups. True False
- 6. 8. Booking areservation over the Internet costs an airline about 50 percent less than booking the same reservation over the telephone. True False 9. An extranet is a network inside an organization that uses Internet technologies to provide an Internet-like environment within the enterprise. True False 10. Intranets seldom have much impact on communications and collaboration within an enterprise. True False 11. Software that is installed on intranet Web servers can be accessed by employees within the company or by external business partners who are using Web browsers, if access is allowed by the company. True False 12. If access to data is not restricted with passwords and other security mechanisms, the integrity of the data can be easily compromised. True False 13. An extranet is a network inside a company that uses Internet technologies to provide a private Internet-like network environment to the firm. True False 14. Web browser technology makes customer and supplier access of intranet resources a lot easier and faster than with previous business methods. True False 15. Supersol discovered that sharing business intelligence with their competition improved the quality of the goods in their warehouses. True False
- 7. 16. A client/servernetwork of several interconnected local area networks can replace a large mainframe-based network with many end user terminals. True False 17. The network-centric concept views the PC as the central computing resource of any computing environment. True False 18. In the central server architecture of P2P networking, the P2P software connects your PC to a central server with the directory of all users of the network. True False 19. In the pure peer-to-peer architecture of P2P networking, the P2P software connects your PC to a central server with the directory of all users of the network. True False 20. The Internet, as originally conceived in the late 1960s, was a pure peer-to-peer system. True False 21. The unique achievement of Napster was the empowerment of the peers, in association with a central index, to quickly and efficiently locate available content. True False 22. Output from analog devices must be converted into digital form in order to input it into a computer. True False 23. Today, ordinary telephone wire is the least used medium for telecommunications. True False 24. Newly developed optical routers will be able to send optical signals up to 2,500 miles without regeneration. True False
- 8. 25. Communications satellitescan use microwave radio as their telecommunications medium. True False 26. According to the Real World case, in the Nevada Department of Corrections out of date information poses a threat to security. True False 27. According to the Real World case, in the Nevada Department of Corrections the issue of latency was never an issue because they decided to use a satellite system. True False 28. PCS phone systems cost substantially more to operate and use than cellular systems, but have lower power consumption requirements. True False 29. Wi-Fi is faster and less expensive than Standard Ethernet and other common wire-based LAN technologies. True False 30. A Bluetooth chip is designed to replace cables; it takes the information normally carried by a cable and transmits it to a receiver Bluetooth chip. True False 31. In frequency division multiplexing (FDM), a multiplexer effectively divides one high-speed channel into multiple high-speed channels. True False 32. Multiplexers work to increase the number of transmissions possible, while also increasing the number of physical data channels. True False 33. Telecommunications and network management software can reside in communications processors, such as multiplexers and routers. True False
- 9. 34. Mainframe-based widearea networks frequently use telecommunications monitors or teleprocessing monitors. True False 35. The Open System Interconnection (OSI) model was officially adapted as an international standard by the International Organization of Standards (ISO). True False 36. The Internet uses a system of telecommunications protocols that have become so widely used that they are now accepted as a network architecture. True False 37. An IP address is expressed as four decimal numbers separated by periods, such as 127.154.95.6. True False 38. IP addressing can identify a particular PC connected to the Internet, but not the network to which it is attached. True False 39. Skype software allows telephone conversations through a PC and over the Internet instead of a separate phone connection. True False 40. Each IP address is divided into three address classes, which are A, B, and C. Class C addresses are normally owned by large Internet service providers or major corporations. True False 41. New technologies are extending IP addresses beyond computers to TVs, toasters, and coffeemakers. True False 42. Developed to work Internet2, IPv6 increases the IP address size from 32 bits to 256 bits to support more levels of the address hierarchy. True False
- 10. 43. IPv6 supportsover 300 trillion trillion trillion addresses. True False 44. Voice over IP is a technology that allows a remote worker to function as if he or she were directly connected to a regular telephone network, even while at home or in a remote office. True False 45. Skype users can call to any non-computer-based landline or mobile telephone in the world for just pennies a minute. True False 46. "Bandwidth" is typically measured in characters per second (CPS). True False 47. Narrow-band channels typically use microwave, fiber optics, or satellite transmission. True False 48. Frame relay technology is slower than X.25 and not as well suited to handle the heavy communications traffic of interconnected local area networks. True False 49. Although we tend to think of the FCC as the oversight body for radio and television, it is equally involved in all aspects of data and voice communications. True False 50. Regular telephone service relies on Packet Switching, while the Internet relies on Circuit Switching. True False 51. Packet Switching involves dividing a message into multiple packets which are transmitted over a network to the receiver. True False
- 11. 52. The Internetis owned by the government of the United States. True False 53. Telecommunications and network technologies are internetworking and revolutionizing _______________. A. business and society B. business and globalization C. society and politics D. globalization and politics 54. Which of the following statements best defines a network? A. The usefulness or utility that comes from linking computers together B. An interrelated or interconnected chain, group, or system C. Computers linked together via cabling or wireless technology D. A group of individuals linked via hardware and software 55. A network with 100 nodes has 9,900 possible connections. A network with 1,000 nodes has _______________ possible connections. A. 9,900,000 B. 999,000 C. 99,000 D. over one million 56. Metcalfe's law states that: A. The usefulness or utility of a network equals the square of the number of users B. More network nodes equals more usefulness to network members C. Networks with too many nodes rapidly lose their effectiveness D. The usefulness or utility of a network equals the number of users times the number of nodes 57. Open systems are a recent telecommunications trend. Open systems: A. Use common standards for hardware, software, applications, and networking B. Create a computing environment that is easily accessed by end users and their networked computer systems C. Provide greater connectivity, and a high degree of network interoperability D. All of the choices are correct.
- 12. 58. Programming thatserves to "glue together" or mediate between two separate, and usually already existing, programs is known as _______________. A. front-line software B. software handshaking C. middleware D. back-line software 59. Local and global telecommunications networks are rapidly converting to digital transmission technologies. Digital technology provides all of the following benefits over analog technology except: A. Much lower error rates B. Equivalent transmission speeds C. Movement of larger amounts of information D. Greater economy 60. Telecommunications networks now play vital and pervasive roles in Web-enabled _______________. A. e-business processes B. electronic commerce C. enterprise collaboration D. All of the choices are correct. 61. Which of the following statements regarding Internet2 is true? A. Internet2, like the first Internet, is open to all users B. Internet2 uses the same infrastructure as the current Internet, so it will be easy to learn C. The purpose of Internet2 is to build a roadmap that can be followed during the next stage of innovation for the current Internet D. Internet2 will someday replace the original Internet 62. Most of the institutions and commercial partners on the Internet2 network are connected via _______________, a network backbone that will soon support throughput of 10 Gbps. A. Abilene B. Phoenix C. Enterprise D. Indiana
- 13. 63. Traveling salespeopleand those at regional sales offices can use the Internet, extranets, and other networks to transmit customer orders from their laptop or desktop PCs, thus breaking _______________ barriers. A. physical B. competition C. structural D. geographic 64. Telecommunications-based business applications can help a company overcome all of the following barriers to business success except: A. Time barriers B. Geographic barriers C. Human resource barriers D. Cost barriers 65. All of the following statements about the Internet revolution are true except: A. The Internet has become the largest and most important network today, and has evolved into a global information superhighway B. The central computer system of the Internet is the most powerful communications center in the world C. The Internet is constantly expanding, as more and more businesses and other organizations join its global web D. The Internet does not have a headquarters or governing body 66. Which of the following statements regarding Internet Service Providers is correct? A. ISPs provide individuals and organizations with access to the Internet for a fee B. ISPs are independent organizations; they have no connection to one another C. ISPs are no longer necessary for access to the Internet D. ISPs provide an indirect connection between a company's networks and the Internet 67. ISPs are connected to one another through network _______________. A. touch points B. portals C. access points D. hubs 68. Which of the following is a key business use of the Internet? A. Internet websites for interactive marketing and electronic commerce B. E-mail, file transfer, and discussion forums C. Intranet links with remote employee sites D. All of the choices are correct.
- 14. 69. Applications thatuse the Internet and Internet-based technologies are typically less expensive to _______________ than traditional systems. A. develop B. operate C. maintain D. All of the choices are correct. 70. Most companies are building e-business and e-commerce websites to achieve all of the following goals except: A. Generate new revenue from online sales B. Increase foot traffic at brick and mortar locations C. Reduce transaction costs D. Increase the loyalty of existing customers via Web customer service and support 71. All of the following would typically be supported by an organization's intranet information portal except: A. Communication and collaboration B. Business operations and management C. Web publishing D. Recruitment 72. The comparative _______________ of publishing and accessing multimedia business information internally via intranet websites has been one of the primary reasons for the explosive growth in the use of intranets in business. A. attractiveness B. lower cost C. ease D. All of the choices are correct. 73. Based on the information presented in the text, telecommunications terminals are best described as: A. Any input/output device that uses telecommunications networks to transmit or receive data, including telephones B. Devices that support data transmission and reception between terminals and computers C. Channels over which data are transmitted and received D. Programs that control telecommunications activities and manage the functions of telecommunications networks
- 15. 74. The textlists five basic categories of components in a telecommunications network. One of these categories includes telecommunications processors, which: A. Support data transmission and reception between terminals and computers B. Are channels over which data are transmitted and received C. Consist of programs that control telecommunications activities and manage the functions of telecommunications networks D. Include input/output terminals 75. The five basic categories of components in a telecommunications network include: A. Protocols, telecommunications channels, computers, telecommunications control software, and modems B. Terminals, telecommunications processors, telecommunications channels, computers, and telecommunications control software C. Terminals, telecommunications channels, computers, and modems D. Terminals, telecommunications processors, computers, modems, and protocols 76. A network that covers a large geographic distance, such as a state or a country, is considered a _______________ network. A. client/server B. local area C. small area D. wide area 77. Which of the following best describes a local area network? A. A network that covers a large geographic area, such as a city or state B. A network that connects computers within a limited physical area, such as inside a single building C. A network that covers no more than a single state D. A private network that uses the Internet as its main backbone 78. To communicate over a network, each PC usually has a circuit board called a _______________. A. printed circuit card B. modem C. router D. network interface card
- 16. 79. All ofthe following statements about a virtual private network are correct except: A. Uses the Internet as its main backbone network B. Connects the intranets of a company's different locations, or establishes extranet links between a company and its customers, suppliers, and business partners C. Relies on modem, twisted-pair wire, and router technology D. Relies on network firewalls, encryption, and other security features to provide a secure network 80. All the following describe a VPN except: A. A VPN uses the Internet as its main backbone network. B. A VPN relies on network firewalls, encryption, and other Internet and intranet security features. C. A VPN uses the Internet to establish secure intranets between its distant offices and locations. D. A VPN is available for use by anyone with access to the Internet. 81. Older, traditional mainframe-based business information systems are called _______________ systems. A. historical B. standard C. legacy D. application 82. Most Linux distributions are released via BitTorrent to help with _______________ needs. A. security B. bandwidth C. user registration D. file compression 83. In telecommunications networks, twisted-pair wire: A. Is the least commonly used medium B. Facilitates mobile data communication C. Is used for both voice and data transmission D. Is commonly laid on the floors of lakes and oceans 84. A communications medium that consists of one or more central wires surrounded by thick insulation is called _______________ cable. A. coaxial B. fiber optic C. twisted-pair D. packet-transmission
- 17. 85. Compared tocoaxial cable, standard twisted-pair telephone lines: A. Support lower data transmission speeds B. Are virtually the same as coaxial cable in speed and service provided C. Have less interference and distortion because of their insulation D. None of the choices are correct. 86. Fiber optics uses cables consisting of one or more hair-thin filaments of __________ fiber wrapped in a protective jacket. A. glass B. plastic C. ceramic D. nylon 87. Fiber optics is regarded as the communications media of the future, primarily due to its _______________. A. availability B. greater speed and capacity C. lower installation costs D. greater compatibility with existing communications media 88. As it relates to telecommunications media, the problem of the last mile is: A. A low voltage drop at the end of the line B. Tying into older technology C. Finding the money to complete the project D. None of the choices is correct. 89. The Nevada Department of Corrections uses which of the following technologies to distribute and deliver its information? A. Fibre optic cables B. Satellite system C. T1 lines D. All of the choices are correct. 90. Which of the following technologies transmits data at the fastest rate? A. Modem B. Cable modem C. ISDN D. Home satellite
- 18. 91. An internetworkingunit that connects networks with somewhat dissimilar communications aspects is a _______________. A. bridge B. router C. gateway D. hub 92. In a telecommunications network, a hub is a communications processor that: A. Connects two LANS based on the same network standards or protocols B. Connects different communications architectures C. Facilitates port switching D. None of the choices are correct. 93. In a telecommunications network, a gateway is a communications processor that: A. Is used for port switching B. Connects different communications architectures C. Connects two LANS based on the same network standards or protocols D. Connects LANs to Wi-Fi networks 94. In telecommunications networks, multiplexers: A. Convert digital signals to analog and vice versa B. Allow a single communications channel to carry multiple simultaneous data transmissions C. Include bridges, routers, hubs, and gateways, which interconnect a local area network with other local and wide area networks D. Make connections between communications circuits in a network 95. Network management package functions include all of the following except: A. Managing network resources and traffic to avoid congestion B. Providing security C. Informing network administrators of potential problems before they occur D. All of the choices are functions of network management packages. 96. Security is a top concern of network management today, so telecommunications software must provide all of the following except: A. Authentication B. Central processing C. Firewalls D. Encryption
- 19. 97. A networkconfiguration that consists of a central computer system with a number of smaller computers tied directly to it, but not to each other, is a _______________ network. A. bus B. ring C. central processing D. star 98. Which of the following best describes how star, ring, and bus networks differ? A. Performance and reliability B. Performance, reliability, and cost C. Reliability and cost D. Performance and cost 99. A(n) _______________ is a standard set of rules and procedures for the control of communication in a network. A. amplification B. algorithm C. protocols D. transponders 100. Which one of the following statements regarding a telecommunications network is false? A. A protocol is a standard set of rules and procedures for the control of communications in a network B. The communications control information needed for "handshaking" between terminals and computers is a protocol C. A protocol deals with the control of data transmission/reception in a network D. Protocols are not applicable to hardware, such as cables and modems 101. The _______________ layer in an OSI model provides communications services for end users. A. application B. data link C. network D. transport 102. In an OSI model, the _______________ layer does the routing and forwarding. A. physical B. data link C. network D. application
- 20. 103. When IPwas first standardized, the specification required that each system attached to the Internet be assigned a unique, _______________ Internet address value. A. 4-bit B. 8-bit C. 16-bit D. 32-bit 104. All of the following statements regarding Internet telephony are correct except: A. It is often referred to as voice over IP or VOIP B. It involves using an Internet connection to pass voice data using IP instead of a standard public telephone network C. It incurs standard long-distance telephone call charges D. It demands a very well-configured network to run smoothly 105. Communications channels such as microwave, fiber optics, or satellite transmission that provide high-speed transmission rates typically use _______________ channels. A. broadband B. narrow-band C. wireless D. voice-band 106. ATM (asynchronous transfer mode) is an emerging high-capacity __________ switching technology. A. node B. packet C. cell D. network 107. VoIP works by digitizing a voice signal, chopping it into __________, and then sending them over a company's computer network or the Internet, much like data or email. A. bits B. packets C. characters D. waves 108. IPv4, the current Internet addressing protocol, can accommodate about _______________ addresses. A. 4 trillion B. 4 billion C. 4 million D. None of the above
- 21. 109. _______________ systemsare information systems that use common standards for hardware, software, applications, and networking. ________________________________________ 110. Open systems provide greater _______________. That is, the ability of networked computers and other devices to easily access and communicate with each other and share information. ________________________________________ 111. Internet2 is all about high-speed telecommunications and infinite _______________. ________________________________________ 112. We can think of the _______________ as a network made up of millions of smaller, private networks, each with the ability to operate independent of, or in harmony with, all the other millions of connected networks. ________________________________________ 113. Companies can create private secure Internet links between themselves, called _______________ private networks. ________________________________________ 114. A communications network is any arrangement where a sender transmits a message to a receiver over a _______________, consisting of some type of medium. ________________________________________ 115. Devices such as modems, switches, and routers, which support data transmission and reception between terminals and computers, are known as telecommunications _______________. ________________________________________ 116. Thin clients provide a browser-based user interface for processing small application programs called _______________. ________________________________________
- 22. 117. Network computingis sometimes called a _______________ client/server model, because it consists of thin clients, application servers, and database servers. ________________________________________ 118. The terms analog and _______________ refer to the methods used to convert information into an electrical signal so that it can be transmitted or processed. ________________________________________ 119. If the temperature being measured by an electronic analog thermometer is 83 degrees, the analog system would put out __________ volts. ________________________________________ 120. Dense wave division multiplexing (DWDM) can split a strand of glass fiber into _____ channels, which enables each strand to carry 5 million calls. ________________________________________ 121. Terrestrial microwave involves earthbound microwave systems that transmit high-speed _______________ signals in a line-of-sight path between relay stations spaced approximately 30 miles apart. ________________________________________ 122. All cellular and PCS telephone systems divide a geographic area into small areas, or __________, typically from one to several square miles in area. ________________________________________ 123. Smart telephones, pagers, PDAs, and other portable communications devices have become very thin clients in _______________ networks. ________________________________________ 124. The WAP standard specifies how Web pages in HTML and XML are translated into a wireless markup language (WML) by __________ software. ________________________________________
- 23. 125. _______________ arethe most common type of communications processor. ________________________________________ 126. A modem converts digital signals into analog frequencies and then back again. This process is known as modulation and _______________. ________________________________________ 127. The main idea in OSI is that the process of communication between two endpoints in a telecommunication network can be divided into _______________. ________________________________________ 128. The first part of an Internet address identifies the network on which the host resides, while the second part identifies the particular __________ on the given network. ________________________________________ 129. Regular telephone service relies on circuit _______________, in which a switch opens a circuit to establish a link between a sender and receiver. It remains open until the communication session is completed. ________________________________________ 130. In the X.25 protocol, packets are _____ characters long, while in frame relay technology they are of variable length. ________________________________________
- 24. c6 Key 1. (p.213) A common application of middleware is to allow programs written for access to one database to access another database. TRUE AACSB: Technology Bloom: Knowledge Difficulty: Medium Learning Objective: 3 OBrien - Chapter 06 #1 2. (p. 211) A change in technology often induces social, political, and economic system changes long before a critical mass of users is reached. FALSE Until a critical mass of users is reached, a change in technology only affects the technology. AACSB: Technology Bloom: Knowledge Difficulty: Medium Learning Objective: 3 OBrien - Chapter 06 #2 3. (p. 211) The telecommunications industry has changed from a deregulated market to government-regulated monopolies. FALSE The opposite is true; the telecommunications industry has gone from government-regulated monopolies to a deregulated market. AACSB: Technology Bloom: Knowledge Difficulty: Medium Learning Objective: 3 OBrien - Chapter 06 #3
- 25. Another Random ScribdDocument with Unrelated Content
- 26. [906] See thecase of the Apollo in Calvo, V. § 2989. The Declaration of London does not mention the case of spoliation of papers, and it would therefore be the task of the International Prize Court to evolve a uniform practice concerning the subject. Double and False Papers. § 428. The highest suspicion is aroused through the fact that a visited vessel carries double papers, or false[907] papers, and such vessel may certainly be seized. But the practice of the several States has hitherto differed with regard to the question whether confiscation is admissible for the mere fact of carrying double or false papers. Whereas the practice of some States, as Russia and Spain, answered the question in the affirmative, British[908] and American[909] practice took a more lenient view, and condemned such vessels only on a clear inference that the false or double papers were carried for the purpose of deceiving the belligerent by whom the capture was made, but not in other cases.[910] [907] The Sarah (1801), 3 C. Rob. 330. [908] The Eliza and Katy (1805), 6 C. Rob. 192. [909] The St. Nicholas (1816), 1 Wheaton, 417. [910] See Halleck, II. p. 271; Hall, § 276; Taylor, § 690. Since the Declaration of London does not mention the case of double or false papers, it would likewise be the task of the International Prize Court to evolve a uniform practice. II CAPTURE Hall, § 277—Lawrence, § 191—Phillimore, III. §§ 361-364—Twiss, II. §§ 166-184— Halleck, II. pp. 362-391—Taylor, § 691—Moore, VII. §§ 1206-1214—Bluntschli, § 860—Heffter, §§ 171, 191, 192—Geffcken in Holtzendorff, IV. pp. 777-780— Ullmann, § 196—Rivier, II. pp. 426-428—Nys, III. pp. 697-709—Calvo, V. §§ 3004- 3034—Fiore, III. Nos. 1644-1657, and Code, Nos. 1878-1889—Martens, II. §§ 126- 137—Kleen, II. §§ 203-218—Gessner, pp. 333-356—Boeck, Nos. 770-777—Dupuis, Nos. 253-281, and Guerre, Nos. 205-217—Bernsten, § 11—Nippold, II. § 35— Perels, § 55—Testa, pp. 243-244—Hautefeuille, III. pp. 214-299—Holland, Prize Law, §§ 231-314—U.S. Naval War Code, articles 46-50—Atherley-Jones, Commerce in War (1906), pp. 361-646—Hirschmann, Das internationale Prisenrecht (1912),
- 27. §§ 35-37—See alsothe monographs quoted above at the commencement of § 391, Bulmerincq's articles on Le droit des prises maritimes in R.I. X-XIII. (1878-1881), and the General Report presented to the Naval Conference of London on behalf of its Drafting Committee, articles 48-54. Grounds and Mode of Capture. § 429. From the statements given above in §§ 368-428 regarding blockade, contraband, unneutral service, and visitation, it is obvious that capture may take place either because the vessel, or the cargo, or both, are liable to confiscation, or because grave suspicion demands a further inquiry which can be carried out in a port only. Both cases are alike so far as all details of capture are concerned, and in the latter case Prize Courts may pronounce capture to be justified, although no ground for confiscation of either vessel or cargo, or both, has been detected. The mode of capture is the same as described above in § 184 regarding capture of enemy vessels.[911] [911] The Règlement international des prises maritimes, adopted by the Institute of International Law at its meeting at Heidelberg in 1887, regulates capture in §§ 45-62; see Annuaire, IX. (1888), p. 204. Effect of Capture of Neutral Vessels, and their Conduct to Port. § 430. The effect of capture of neutral vessels is in every way different from the effect of capture of enemy vessels,[912] since the purpose of capture differs in these two cases. Capture of enemy vessels is made for the purpose of appropriating them in the exercise of the right of belligerents to appropriate all enemy property found on the Open Sea or in the maritime territorial belt of either belligerent. On the other hand, neutral merchantmen are captured for the purpose of confiscation of vessel or cargo, or both, as punishment for certain special acts, the punishment to be pronounced by a Prize Court after a thorough investigation into all the circumstances of the special case. Therefore, although the effect of capture of neutral vessels is that the vessels, the individuals, and the goods thereon are placed under the captor's authority, her officers and crew never become prisoners of war. They are indeed to be detained as witnesses for the trial of the vessel and cargo, but
- 28. nothing stands inthe way of releasing such of them as are not wanted for that purpose. As regards passengers, if any, they have to be released as soon as possible, with the exception of those enemy persons who may be made prisoners of war. [912] See above, § 185. Regarding the conduct of captured neutral vessels to a port of a Prize Court, the same is valid as regards conduct of captured enemy vessels[913] to such port. [913] See above, § 193. Destruction of Neutral Prizes. § 431. That as a rule captured neutral vessels may not be sunk, burned, or otherwise destroyed has always been universally recognised just as that captured enemy merchantmen may not as a rule be destroyed. But up to the time of the agreement on the Declaration of London it was a moot question whether the destruction of captured neutral vessels was likewise exceptionally allowed instead of bringing them before a Prize Court. British[914] practice did not, as regards the neutral owner of the vessel, hold the captor justified in destroying a vessel, however exceptional the case may have been, and however meritorious the destruction of the vessel may have been from the point of view of the Government of the captor. For this reason, should a captor, for any motive whatever, have destroyed a neutral prize, full indemnities had to be paid to the owner, although, if brought into a port of a Prize Court, condemnation of vessel and cargo would have been pronounced beyond doubt. The rule was, that a neutral prize must be abandoned in case it could not, for any reason whatever, be brought to a port of a Prize Court. But the practice of other States did not recognise this British rule. The question became of great importance in 1905, during the Russo-Japanese War, when Russian cruisers sank the British vessels Knight Commander, Oldhamia, Icona, St. Kilda, and Hipsang, the German vessels Thea, and Tetardos, and the Danish vessel Princesse Marie. Russia paid damages to the owners of the vessels Icona, St. Kilda, Thea, Tetardos, and Princesse Marie, because her Prize Courts declared that the capture of these vessels
- 29. was not justified,but she refused to pay damages to the owners of the other vessels destroyed, because her Prize Courts considered them to have been justly captured. [914] The Actaeon (1815), 2 Dodson, 48; the Felicity (1819), 2 Dodson, 381; the Leucade (1855), Spinks, 217. See Phillimore, III. § 333; Twiss, II. § 166; Hall, § 77; Holland, Letters to the "Times" upon War and Neutrality (1909), pp. 140-150. The Declaration of London proposes to settle the matter by a compromise. Recognising that neutral prizes may not as a rule be destroyed, and admitting only one exception to the rule, it empowers the captor under certain circumstances and conditions to demand the handing over, or to proceed himself to the destruction, of contraband carried by a neutral prize which he is compelled to abandon. The very first rule of Chapter IV. of the Declaration of London, headed "Destruction of Neutral Prizes," is that of article 48, according to which, as a matter of principle, captured neutral vessels may not be destroyed, but must be taken into a port of a Prize Court. However, article 49 permits, as an exception to the rule, the destruction of such a captured neutral vessel as would herself be liable to condemnation, if the taking of the vessel into a port of a Prize Court would involve danger to the safety of the capturing cruiser, or to the success of the operations in which she is at the time of capture engaged. There is, therefore, no doubt that a neutral prize may no longer be destroyed because the captor cannot spare a prize crew or because a port of a Prize Court is too far distant, or the like. The only justification for destruction of a neutral prize is danger to the captor or his operations at the time of capture. As regards the degree of danger required, it cannot be denied that the wording of article 49 does not provide any clue for a restrictive interpretation. But considering that article 51 speaks of an "exceptional necessity," it is hoped and to be expected that the International Prize Court would give such an interpretation to article 49 as would permit a resort to the sinking of neutral prizes in cases of absolute necessity only. Be that as it may, according to article 49 only such neutral prizes may
- 30. be sunk aswould be liable to confiscation if brought before a Prize Court. Sinking of captured neutral vessels—apart from neutral vessels which have acquired enemy character and may for this reason be sunk under the same conditions as enemy vessels—is, therefore, chiefly admitted in three[915] cases, namely: (1) When— see article 40 of the Declaration of London—the vessel carries contraband the value of which forms more than half the value of the cargo; (2) when a vessel has been captured for rendering those kinds of unneutral service which are enumerated by article 45 of the Declaration of London; (3) when—see article 21 of the Declaration of London—a vessel has been captured for breach of blockade. In no case, however, in which she is not liable to confiscation, may a neutral vessel under any circumstances and conditions be destroyed; she must always be abandoned if the capturing cruiser cannot take her into a port of a Prize Court. [915] Only such cases of possible confiscation of a neutral vessel are mentioned in the text as are in accordance with the Declaration of London. The practice of some States has hitherto admitted confiscation in other cases also, for instance, in case of deficiency, spoliation, or defacement of ship papers, and in case of double and false papers; see above, §§ 426-428. It will be the task of the International Prize Court to evolve a uniform practice with regard to such cases. Likewise the text does not enumerate the cases in which the sinking of a neutral vessel is permissible because she previously acquired enemy character; concerning this, see above, § 89. However this may be, when the captor feels compelled to resort to the destruction of a neutral prize, he must place in safety all persons found on the captured vessel, and he must take on board all the captured ship's papers which are relevant for the purpose of deciding the validity of the capture (article 50). And (article 51) if the captor fails to establish the fact before the Prize Court that he destroyed the prize in the face of an exceptional necessity, the owners of the vessel and cargo must receive full compensation without any examination of, and any regard to, the question as to whether or no the capture itself was justifiable. Compensation must likewise be paid in case the capture is held by the Prize Court to be invalid, although the act of destruction has been held to be justifiable (article 52). And in any case, the owners of neutral goods not liable to condemnation which have been destroyed with the
- 31. vessel, may alwaysand under all circumstances and conditions claim damages (article 53). Thus many safeguards have been established against arbitrariness in resorting to the destruction of neutral prizes. On the other hand, it would seem to be going too far to insist on the captor letting the prize go with her contraband on board, if he be compelled to abandon the prize. For this reason article 54 empowers the captor of a neutral vessel herself not liable to confiscation, to demand the handing over, or to proceed himself to the destruction, of any goods liable to confiscation found on board, if the taking of the vessel into a port of a Prize Court would involve danger to the captor or to the success of the operations in which he is at the time of capture engaged. Details concerning such destruction have been given above in § 406a (2).
- 32. Ransom and Recaptureof Neutral Prizes. § 432. Regarding ransom of captured neutral vessels, the same is valid as regards ransom of captured enemy vessels.[916] [916] See above, § 195. As regards recapture of neutral prizes,[917] the rule ought to be that ipso facto by recapture the vessel becomes free without payment of any salvage. Although captured, she was still the property of her neutral owners, and if condemnation had taken place at all, it would have been a punishment, and the recapturing belligerent has no interest whatever in the punishment of a neutral vessel by the enemy. [917] See Hautefeuille, III. pp. 366-406; Gessner, pp. 344-356; Kleen, II. § 217; Geffcken in Holtzendorff, IV. pp. 778-780; Calvo, V. §§ 3210-3216. But the matter of recapture of neutral prizes is not settled, no rule of International Law and no uniform practice of the several States being formulated regarding it. Very few treaties touch upon it, and the municipal regulations of the different States regarding prizes seldom mention it. According to British practice,[918] the recaptor of a neutral prize is entitled to salvage, in case the recaptured vessel would have been liable to condemnation if brought into an enemy port. [918] The War Onskan (1799), 2 C. Rob. 299. See Holland, Prize Law, § 270. Release after Capture. § 433. Besides the case in which captured vessels must be abandoned, because they cannot for some reason or another be brought into a port, there are cases in which they are released without a trial. The rule is that a captured neutral vessel is to be tried by a Prize Court in case the captor asserts her to be suspicious or guilty. But it may happen that all suspicion is dispelled even before the trial, and then the vessel is to be released at once. For this reason article 246 of Holland's Prize Law lays down the rule: "If, after the detention of the vessel, there should come to the knowledge of the commander any further acts tending to show that the vessel has been improperly detained, he should immediately
- 33. release her...." Evenafter she has been brought into the port of a Prize Court, release can take place without a trial. Thus the German vessels Bundesrath and Herzog, which were captured in 1900 during the South African War and taken to Durban, were, after search had dispelled all suspicion, released without trial. That the released vessel may claim damages is a matter of course, and article 64 of the Declaration of London precisely enacts it. But it should be mentioned that, since Convention XII. stipulates only appeals against judgments of National Prize Courts, the International Prize Court would not have jurisdiction in a case of the release of a vessel without trial, and that the question of compensation could, therefore, be settled through the diplomatic channel only. III TRIAL OF CAPTURED NEUTRAL VESSELS Lawrence, §§ 188-190—Maine, p. 96—Manning, pp. 472-483—Phillimore, III. §§ 433- 508—Twiss, II. §§ 169-170—Halleck, II. pp. 393-429—Taylor, §§ 563-567— Wharton, III. §§ 328-330—Moore, VII. §§ 1222-1248—Wheaton, §§ 389-397— Bluntschli, §§ 841-862—Heffter, §§ 172-173—Geffcken in Holtzendorff, IV. pp. 781- 788—Ullmann, § 196—Bonfils, Nos. 1676-1691—Despagnet, Nos. 677-682 bis— Rivier, II. pp. 353-356—Nys, III. pp. 710-718—Calvo, V. §§ 3035-3087—Fiore, III. Nos. 1681-1691, and Code, Nos. 1890-1929—Martens, II. §§ 125-126—Kleen, II. §§ 219-234—Gessner, pp. 357-427—Boeck, Nos. 740-800—Dupuis, Nos. 282-301, and Guerre, Nos. 218-223—Nippold, II. § 35—Perels, §§ 56-57—Testa, pp. 244-247 —Hautefeuille, III. pp. 299-365—Atherley-Jones, Commerce in War (1906), pp. 361-594—Hirschmann, Das internationale Prisenrecht (1912), § 38—See also the monographs quoted above at the commencement of § 391, and Bulmerincq's articles on Le droit des prises maritimes in R.I. X.-XIII. (1878-1881). Trial of Captured Vessels a Municipal Matter. § 434. Although belligerents have, under certain circumstances, according to International Law, the right to capture neutral vessels, and although they have the duty to bring these vessels for trial before a Prize Court, such trials are in no way an international matter. Just as Prize Courts—apart from the proposed International Prize Court—are municipal[919] institutions, so trials of captured neutral vessels by these Prize Courts are municipal matters. The
- 34. neutral home Statesof the vessels are not represented and, directly at any rate, not concerned in the trial. Nor is, as commonly maintained, the law administered by Prize Courts International Law. These Courts apply the law of their country. The best proof of this is the fact that the practice of the Prize Courts of the several countries has hitherto differed in many points. Thus, for instance, the question what is and what is not contraband, and, further, the question when an attempt to break blockade begins and when it ends, have hitherto been differently answered by the practice of different States. [919] See above, § 192. The matter is regulated so far as Great Britain is concerned by the Naval Prize Act, 1864 (27 and 28 Vict. ch. 25) and the Prize Courts Act, 1894 (57 and 58 Vict. ch. 39). The Règlement international des prises maritimes, adopted in 1887 at Heidelberg by the Institute of International Law, provides in §§ 63-118 detailed rules concerning the organisation of Prize Courts and the procedure before them; see Annuaire, IX. (1888), p. 208. Many writers, however, maintain that Prize Courts are International Courts, and that the law administered by these courts is International Law. Lord Stowell again and again[920] emphatically asserted it, and the vast majority of English and American writers[921] follow him. But it is to be expected that the recognition of the difference between Municipal and International Law, as expounded above, Vol. I., §§ 20-25, and of the fact that States only, and neither their Courts nor officials nor citizens, are subjects of International Law, will lead to the general recognition of the fact that the law applied by National Prize Courts is not and cannot be International Law. [920] The Maria (1799), 1 C. Rob. 340; the Recovery (1807), 6 C. Rob. 341; the Fox and others (1811), Edwards, 311. [921] See, for instance, Halleck, II. p. 411; Maine, p. 96; Manning, p. 472; Phillimore, III. §§ 433-436; Hall, § 277. On the other hand, Holland, Studies, p. 199; Westlake, II. p. 289; and Scott, Conferences, p. 467, distinctly agree with me. And matters will remain as they are even after the establishment of the International Prize Court and ratification of the Declaration of London. The law of this Declaration is certainly International Law, but it will be binding only upon the States, and they, on their part, must embody it in their Municipal Law so that their Prize Courts are
- 35. obliged to administersuch a law in prize cases as is in conformity with the Declaration of London. It will be the task of the International Prize Court[922] to control the National Prize Courts in that direction. A State which is a party to the Declaration and would nevertheless order its Prize Courts to apply a law which is in opposition to the Declaration of London, would commit an international delinquency, but its Prize Courts would be obliged to apply such law. [922] Trial before this Court is, of course, an international matter. Result of Trial. § 435. The trial of a captured neutral ship can have one or more of five results:—vessel and cargo can be condemned,[923] or the vessel alone, or the cargo alone; and the vessel and cargo can be released either with or without costs and damages. Costs and damages must be allowed when capture was not justified, and, after the ratification of the Declaration of London and the establishment of the International Prize Court, an appeal may, according to article 64 of the Declaration of London and article 4 of Convention XII., be brought before the International Prize Court if costs and damages are refused or inadequately allowed by a Prize Court. But it must be emphasised that capture might be justified, as, for instance, in the case of spoliation of papers, although the Prize Court did not condemn the vessel, and, further, that costs and damages are never allowed in case a part only of the cargo is condemned, although the vessel herself and the greater part of the cargo are released. That, in case the captor is unable to pay the costs and damages allowed to a released neutral vessel, his Government has to indemnify the vessel, there ought to be no doubt, for a State bears "vicarious" responsibility[924] for internationally injurious acts of its naval forces. [923] It would seem to be obvious that condemnation of the vessel involves the loss of the vessel at the date of capture; see Andersen v. Marten, L.R. (1907) 2 K.B. 248. [924] See above, vol. I. § 163. Trial after Conclusion of Peace.
- 36. § 436. Itis a moot question whether neutral vessels captured before conclusion of peace may be tried after the conclusion of peace.[925] I think that the answer must be in the affirmative, even if a special clause is contained in the Treaty of Peace, which stipulates that captured but not yet condemned vessels of the belligerents shall be released. A trial of neutral prizes is in any case necessary for the purpose of deciding the question whether capture was justified or not, and whether, should condemnation not be justified, the neutral vessels may claim costs and indemnities. Thus, after the conclusion of the Abyssinian War, in December 1896, the Italian Prize Commission, in the case of the Doelwijk,[926] claimed the right to try the vessel in spite of the fact that peace had been concluded between the time of capture and trial, declared the capture of the vessel and cargo to have been justified, but pronounced that, peace having been concluded, confiscation of vessel and cargo would no longer be lawful. [925] See Perels, § 57, p. 309, in contradistinction to Bluntschli, § 862. But there is, of course, no doubt that a belligerent can exercise an act of grace and release such prizes. Thus, in November 1905, at the end of the Russo-Japanese War, the Mikado proclaimed the unconditional release of all neutral prizes captured after the signing but before the ratification of the Peace of Portsmouth. Thereby, three German vessels, two English, and one Norwegian escaped confiscation, which in strict law—see above, p. 534, note 4— would have been justified. [926] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XXVIII. pp. 66-90. Different from the question whether neutral prizes may be tried after the conclusion of peace is the other question whether they may be condemned to be confiscated. In the above-mentioned case of the Doelwijk the question was answered in the negative, but I believe it ought to have been answered in the affirmative. Confiscation of vessel and cargo having the character of a punishment, it would seem that the punishment may be inflicted after the conclusion of peace provided the criminal act concerned was consummated before peace was concluded. But nothing, of course, stands in the way of a belligerent taking a more lenient view and ordering his Prize Courts not to pronounce confiscation of neutral vessels after the conclusion of peace.
- 37. The Declaration ofLondon does not settle either the former or the latter question, and it would therefore be the task of the International Prize Court to evolve a uniform practice in the cases concerned. Protests and Claims of Neutrals after Trial. § 437. Hitherto, if a trial led to condemnation, and if the latter was confirmed by the Court of Appeal, the matter as between the captor and the owner of the captured vessel and cargo was finally settled. But the right of protection,[927] which a State exercises over its subjects and their property abroad, may nevertheless have been the cause of diplomatic protests and claims on the part of the neutral home State of a condemned vessel or cargo, in case the verdict of the Prize Courts was considered to be not in accordance with International Law or formally or materially unjust. It is through such protests and claims that the matter, which was hitherto a mere municipal one, became of international importance. And history records many instances of cases of interposition of neutral States after trials of vessels which had sailed under their flags. Thus, for instance, in the famous case of the Silesian Loan,[928] it was the fact that Frederick II. of Prussia considered the procedure of British Prize Courts regarding a number of Prussian merchantmen captured during war between Great Britain and France in 1747 and 1748 as unjust, which made him in 1752 resort to reprisal and cease the payment of the interest of the Silesian Loan. The matter was settled[929] in 1756, through the payment of £20,000 as indemnity by Great Britain. Thus, further, after the American Civil War, articles 12- 17 of the Treaty of Washington[930] provided the appointment of three Commissioners for the purpose, amongst others, of deciding all claims against verdicts of the American Prize Courts. And when in 1879, during war between Peru and Chili, the German vessel Luxor was condemned by the Peruvian Courts, Germany interposed and the vessel was released.[931] [927] See above, vol. I. § 319. [928] See above, § 37. [929] See Martens, Causes Célèbres, II. p. 167.
- 38. [930] See Martens,N.R.G. XX. p. 698. [931] See above, § 404. The ratification of the Declaration of London and the establishment of the International Prize Court would finally do away with such grave international disputes. CHAPTER VII THE INTERNATIONAL PRIZE COURT I PROPOSALS FOR INTERNATIONAL PRIZE COURTS Geffcken in Holtzendorff, IV. pp. 785-788—Boeck, Nos. 743-764—Dupuis, No. 289, and Guerre, Nos. 224-231—Higgins, pp. 432-435—Lémonon, pp. 280-293— Nippold, I. § 15—Trendelenburg, Lücken im Völkerrecht (1870), pp. 49-53— Gessner, Kriegführende und neutrale Mächte (1877), pp. 52-58—Bulmerincq and Gessner in R.I. XI. (1879), pp. 173-191, and XIII. (1881), pp. 260-267. Early Projects. § 438. Numerous inconveniences must naturally result from a condition of International Law which has hitherto prevailed and according to which the Courts of the belligerent whose forces had captured neutral vessels exercised jurisdiction without any control by neutrals. Although, as shown above in § 437, neutrals frequently interfered after a trial and succeeded in obtaining recognition for their claims in face of the verdicts of Prize Courts, great dissatisfaction has long been felt at the condition of matters hitherto obtaining, and proposals have been made for so-called mixed Prize Courts. The first proposal of this kind was made in 1759 by Hübner,[932] who suggested a Prize Court composed of judges nominated by the belligerent and of consuls or councillors nominated by the home State of the captured neutral merchantmen. [932] De la saisie des bâtiments neutres (1759), vol. II. p. 21.
- 39. A somewhat similarproposal was made by Tetens[933] in 1805. [933] Considérations sur les droits réciproques des puissances belligérantes et des puissances neutres sur mer, avec les principes du droit de guerre en général (1805), p. 163. Other proposals followed until the Institute of International Law took up the matter in 1875, appointing, on the suggestion of Westlake, at its meeting at the Hague, a Commission for the purpose of drafting a Projet d'organisation d'un tribunal international des prises maritimes. In the course of time there were mainly two proposals before the Institute, Westlake's and Bulmerincq's. Westlake proposed[934] that Courts of Appeal should be instituted in each case of war, and each Court should consist of three judges— one to be nominated by the belligerent concerned, another by the home State of the neutral prizes concerned, and the third by a neutral Power not interested in the case. According to Westlake's proposal there would therefore have to be instituted in every war as many Courts of Appeal as neutrals concerned. [934] See Annuaire, II. (1878), p. 114. Bulmerincq proposed[935] that two Courts should be instituted in each war for all prize cases, the one to act as Prize Court of the First Instance, the other to act as Prize Court of Appeal; each Court to consist of three judges, one judge to be appointed by each belligerent, the third judge to be appointed in common by all neutral maritime Powers. [935] See R.I. XI. (1879), pp. 191-194. Finally, the Institute agreed, at its meeting at Heidelberg in 1887, upon the following proposal, which is embodied in §§ 100-109 of the Règlement international des prises maritimes:[936] —At the beginning of a war each belligerent institutes a Court of Appeal consisting of five judges, the president and one of the other judges to be appointed by the belligerent, the three remaining to be nominated by three neutral Powers, and this Court to be competent for all prize cases. [936] Annuaire, IX. (1887), p. 239.
- 40. No further stepwas taken in the matter during the nineteenth century. But, during the South African War, the conviction became general that the exclusive jurisdiction of belligerents over captured neutral vessels is incompatible with the modern condition of the oversea commerce of neutrals. At the Second Peace Conference of 1907, therefore, Germany, as well as Great Britain, brought forward a project for real International Prize Courts. German Project of 1907. § 439. The German project[937] was embodied in a draft of thirty- one articles dealing in three chapters with "Competence in Prize Cases," "Organisation of the International Prize Court," and "Procedure before the International Prize Court," and made the following proposals:—National Prize Courts should only be competent in the first instance, every appeal to go to the International Prize Court, and the latter to be competent not only in case of capture of neutral vessels, but in every case of capture of merchantmen. At the beginning of every war an International Prize Court should be established, but, in case there were more than two parties to a war, as many International Prize Courts should be established as there were couples of States fighting against each other. Each Court every time it sat should consist of five judges, three of whom should be members of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague, and two should be admirals. The admirals should belong to the navies of the belligerents, but the three members of the Permanent Court of Arbitration should be chosen by neutral Powers, each belligerent authorising one neutral Power to select one member, and these two neutrals to appoint a third neutral Power which would select the third member. The Court should sit at the Hague, have its first meeting when the first appeal case arose, and be dissolved after the conclusion of peace. The International Bureau of the Permanent Court of Arbitration should serve as the Registry of every International Prize Court. Each belligerent and the owners of the captured vessels or cargoes should have the right to bring an appeal before the International Prize Court. [937] Deuxième Conférence, Actes, II. p. 1071.
- 41. British Project of1907. § 440. The British project[938] was embodied in a draft of sixteen articles, and made the following proposals:—The International Prize Court should be competent in such cases only as directly concerned a neutral Power or its subjects, an appeal to be brought before the International Court only after the case had been decided by the highest National Prize Court of the belligerent concerned. Neutral Powers only, and not their subjects, should have the right to enter an appeal, and each neutral Power should represent its subjects concerned in a prize case. In contradistinction to the German project, the British draft proposed the establishment once for all of a Permanent International Prize Court, each Power whose mercantile marine at the date of the signature of the proposed convention exceeded a total of 800,000 tons, should, within three months from the date of ratification, nominate a prominent jurist as a member of the Court, and another as his deputy. The President of the Court should be nominated by the signatory Powers in their alphabetical order, should remain in office one year only, and should have a casting vote. If a legal question were to be decided which had already been provided for in a convention between the parties in dispute, the Court should base its decision on such convention. In the absence of such a convention, and if all civilised nations were agreed on a point of legal interest, the Court should base its decision thereon, otherwise the Court should decide according to the principles of International Law. [938] Deuxième Conférence de la Paix, Actes, II. p. 1076. Convention XII. of the Second Peace Conference. § 441. The Second Peace Conference, after having studied and discussed the German and the British projects, produced the "Convention (XII.) respecting the establishment of an International Prize Court" which, on the whole, follows more closely the lines of the British project, but includes several features of the German, and others which originate neither with the British nor the German project. It comprises fifty-seven articles and is divided into four parts headed respectively "General Provisions" (articles 1-9), "Constitution
- 42. of the InternationalPrize Court" (articles 10-27), "Procedure in the International Prize Court" (articles 28-50), and "Final Provisions" (articles 51-57). The Convention was signed by all the Powers represented at the Conference, except Brazil, China, Domingo, Greece, Luxemburg, Montenegro, Nicaragua, Roumania, Russia, Servia, and Venezuela. Ten States—namely, Chili, Cuba, Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, Persia, Salvador, Siam, Turkey, and Uruguay— entered a reservation against article 15 of the Convention because they did not agree with the principle of the composition of the Court embodied in this article. As eleven States did not sign the Convention and ten of the signatory States refused to accept the composition of the Court as regulated by article 15, it cannot be said that the Convention is based on universal agreement. Yet the fact that, with the exception of Russia, all the Great Powers and a great number of the minor Powers have signed it without a reservation, offers sufficient guarantee for the success of the Court when once established. Nothing prevents a future Peace Conference from making such alterations in the Convention as would meet the wishes of the Powers which at present refuse to sign the Convention or to accept article 15. It should be mentioned that, according to article 55, the Convention remains in force for twelve years from the date it comes into force, and is to be tacitly renewed for six years, unless denounced one year at least before the expiry of the period for which it is in force. And article 57 stipulates that two years before the expiration of the period for which it is in force, any contracting Power may demand a modification of the provisions concerning its own participation in the composition of the Court. The demand must be addressed to the Administrative Council which, on its part, must examine it and submit proposals as to the measures to be adopted to all the contracting Powers. These Powers must, with the least possible delay, inform the Administrative Council of their decision. The result is at once, or at any rate one year and thirty days before the expiry of the period of two years, to be communicated to the
- 43. Power which madethe demand for a modification of the provisions concerning its participation in the composition of the Court. II CONSTITUTION AND COMPETENCE OF THE INTERNATIONAL PRIZE COURT Westlake, II. pp. 288-297—Lawrence, § 192—Ullmann, § 196—Bonfils, Nos. 14401- 14403—Despagnet, Nos. 683-683 bis—Fiore, Code, Nos. 1897-1901—Dupuis, Guerre, Nos. 232-276—Bernsten, § 14—Lémonon, pp. 293-335—Higgins, pp. 435- 444—Barclay, Problems, pp. 105-108—Scott, Conferences, pp. 466-511—Nippold, I. §§ 16-19—Fried, Die zweite Haager Konferenz (1908), pp. 121-130—Lawrence, International Problems (1908), pp. 132-159—Hirschmann, Das internationale Prisenrecht (1912), §§ 39-41—Gregory, White, and Scott in A.J. II. (1908), pp. 458-475, and 490-506, and V. (1911), pp. 302-324—Donker Curtius in R.I. 2nd Ser. XI. (1909), pp. 5-36. Personnel. § 442. The International Prize Court consists of judges and deputy judges, a judge who is absent or prevented from sitting being replaced by a deputy (article 14). The judges and the deputies are appointed by the contracting Powers from among jurists of known proficiency in maritime International Law, and of the highest moral reputation, each Power appointing one judge and one deputy for a period of six years (articles 10 and 11). The judges are all of equal rank and have precedence according to the date of the notification of their appointment to the Administrative Council of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague, but, if they sit by rota in conformity with article 15, paragraph 2, they have precedence according to the date on which they entered upon their duties, and, when the date is the same, the senior takes precedence; deputies rank after the judges (article 12). The judges—and the deputies when taking the places of judges—must, when outside their own country, be granted diplomatic privileges and immunities in the performance of their duties; they must, before taking their seats, take an oath, or make a solemn affirmation, before the Administrative Council, that they will discharge their duties impartially and conscientiously (article 13). No judge or deputy judge
- 44. may, during thetenure of his office, appear as agent or advocate before the International Prize Court, nor act for one of the parties in any capacity whatever (article 17). Attention should be drawn to the fact that the Court, if once established, will be permanent, and the judges, if once appointed, will always be at hand, although in time of peace they will not sit. Deciding Tribunal. § 443. The judges appointed by the contracting Powers do not, as a body, decide the appeal cases brought before the Court. From among the great number of judges appointed, a deciding tribunal is formed which is composed of fifteen judges, nine of whom constitute a quorum; and a judge who is absent or prevented from sitting is replaced by a deputy (article 14). The judges appointed by Great Britain, Germany, the United States of America, Austria- Hungary, France, Italy, Japan, and Russia are always summoned to sit, but the judges appointed by the remaining contracting Powers are only in rotation summoned to sit, and their duties may successively be performed by the same person, since the same individual may be appointed as judge by several of these Powers (article 15). If a belligerent Power has, according to the rota, no judge sitting in the deciding tribunal, it has a right to demand that the judge appointed by it shall take part in the settlement of all cases arising from the war, and lots shall then be drawn to decide which of the judges entitled to sit by rota shall withdraw, but the judge of the other belligerent party does not take part in the drawing of lots (article 16). No judge may sit who has been a party, in any way whatever, to the sentence pronounced by the National Prize Court against which the appeal has been made, or who has taken part in the case as counsel or advocate for one of the parties (article 17). The summoning by rota of the judges appointed by the minor Powers takes place according to the following list:— Judges Deputy Judges First Year 1. Argentina Paraguay
- 45. 2. Colombia Bolivia 3.Spain Spain 4. Greece Roumania 5. Norway Sweden 6. Holland Belgium 7. Turkey Persia Second Year 1. Argentina Panama 2. Spain Spain 3. Greece Roumania 4. Norway Sweden 5. Holland Belgium 6. Turkey Luxemburg 7. Uruguay Costa Rica Third Year 1. Brazil Domingo 2. China Turkey 3. Spain Portugal 4. Holland Greece 5. Roumania Belgium 6. Sweden Denmark 7. Venezuela Haiti Fourth Year 1. Brazil Guatemala 2. China Turkey 3. Spain Portugal 4. Peru Honduras 5. Roumania Greece 6. Sweden Denmark 7. Switzerland Holland Fifth Year 1. Belgium Holland
- 46. 2. Bulgaria Montenegro 3.Chili Nicaragua 4. Denmark Norway 5. Mexico Cuba 6. Persia China 7. Portugal Spain Sixth Year 1. Belgium Holland 2. Chili Salvador 3. Denmark Norway 4. Mexico Ecuador 5. Portugal Spain 6. Servia Bulgaria 7. Siam China The deciding tribunal elects its President and Vice-President by an absolute majority of the votes cast, but after two ballots the election is made by a bare majority, and, in case the votes are equal, by lot (article 19). The judges—as well as the deputies when they sit—receive, while carrying out their duties, a salary of one hundred Netherland florins (about £8, 4s.) per diem, besides travelling expenses. The salaries and travelling expenses are to be paid by the International Bureau of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, and the judges must not receive any other remuneration either from their own Government or from any other Power (article 20). The belligerent captor, as well as a neutral Power which is herself, or whose national is, a party, may appoint a naval officer of high rank to sit as Assessor, but he has no voice in the decision. If more than one neutral Power is concerned in a case, they must agree among themselves, if necessary by lot, on the naval officer to be appointed as Assessor (article 18). The seat[939] of the deciding tribunal is at the Hague, and it may not, except in the case of force majeure, be transferred elsewhere
- 47. without the consentof both belligerents (article 21). When the Court is not sitting, the duties conferred on it by certain articles of Convention XII. are discharged by a delegation of three judges appointed by the Court; this delegation comes to a decision by a majority of votes, and its members must, of course, reside at the Hague while they fulfil their duties (article 48). [939] The working-order (ordre intérieur) of the International Prize Court is to be drawn up by the Court itself; see details in article 49. The deciding tribunal determines what language it will itself use and what languages may be used before it, but in all cases the official language of the National Courts which have had cognisance of the case may be used before it (article 24). For all notices to be served, in particular on the parties, witnesses, or experts, the deciding tribunal may apply direct to the Government of the State on whose territory the service is to be carried out. The same rule applies in the case of steps to be taken to procure evidence. The Court is equally entitled to act through the Power on whose territory it holds its sitting. Notices to be given to parties in the place where the Court sits may be served through the International Bureau (article 27). Administrative Council and International Bureau. § 444. The Administrative Council of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague serves at the same time as the Administrative Council of the International Prize Court, but only representatives of the Powers who are parties to Convention XII. shall be members of it (article 22). The International Bureau of the Permanent Court of Arbitration acts as Registry of the International Prize Court and must place its offices and staff at the disposal of the Court. This Bureau has the custody of the archives and carries out the administrative work, and its General Secretary acts as Registrar of the International Prize Court. The secretaries necessary to assist the Registrar, translators, and shorthand writers are appointed by the International Prize Court (article 23).
- 48. Agents, Counsel, Advocates,and Attorneys. § 445. Belligerent as well as neutral Powers concerned in a case may appoint special Agents to act as intermediaries between themselves and the International Prize Court, and they may also engage Counsel or Advocates to defend their rights and interests (article 25). Private individuals concerned in a case are compelled to be represented before the Court by an Attorney, who must either be an Advocate qualified to plead before a Court of Appeal or a High Court of one of the contracting States, or a lawyer practising before a similar Court, or, lastly, a Professor of Law at one of the higher teaching centres of those countries (article 26). Competence. § 446. The general principle underlying the rules of Convention XII. concerning the competence of the International Prize Court is that on the whole, although not exclusively, the Court is competent in cases where neutrals are directly or indirectly concerned. The International Prize Court is, as a rule, a Court of Appeal, all prize cases must, in the first instance, be decided by a National Prize Court of the captor, although the Municipal Law of the country concerned may provide that a first appeal must likewise be decided by a National Prize Court. The second appeal may never by decided by a National, but must always be decided by the International Prize Court. However, should the National Court of the First Instance or the National Court of Appeal fail to give final judgment within two years from the date of capture, the case may be carried direct to the International Prize Court (articles 2 and 6). An appeal against the judgments of National Prize Courts may be brought before the International Court: (1) when the judgment concerns the property of a neutral Power or a neutral individual;[940] (2) when the judgment concerns enemy property and relates to (a) cargo on board a neutral vessel, (b) an enemy vessel captured in the territorial waters of a neutral Power, provided such Power has not made the capture the subject of diplomatic claim, and (c) a claim
- 49. based upon theallegation that the seizure has been effected in violation, either of the provisions of a convention in force between the belligerent Powers, or of an enactment issued by the belligerent captor. In any case, the appeal may be based on the ground that the judgment was wrong either in fact or in law (article 3). [940] Since the question of enemy or neutral character of individuals—see above, § 88—is for some parts controversial, the International Prize Court would have to decide the controversy. The following Powers and individuals are entitled[941] to bring an appeal before the International Prize Court:— (1) Neutral Powers, if the judgment injuriously affects their property or the property of their subjects, or if the capture is alleged to have taken place in the territorial waters of such Powers (article 4, No. 1). (2) Neutral individuals,[942] if the judgment injuriously affects their property. But the home State of such an individual may intervene and either forbid him to bring the appeal before the International Prize Court, or itself undertake the proceedings in his place (article 4, No. 2). (3) Subjects of the enemy, if the judgment injuriously affects their cargoes on neutral vessels, or if it injuriously affects their property in case the seizure is alleged to have been effected in violation, either of the provisions of a convention in force between the belligerent Powers, or of an enactment issued by the belligerent captor (article 4, No. 3). (4) Subjects of neutral Powers or of the enemy deriving rights from the rights of such individuals as are themselves qualified to bring an appeal before the International Prize Court, provided they have intervened in the proceedings of the National Court or Courts concerned. Individuals so entitled may appeal separately to the extent of their interests (article 5, first paragraph). (5) Subjects of neutral Powers or of the enemy deriving rights from the rights of a neutral Power whose property was the subject of the judgment. Individuals so entitled may likewise appeal separately to the extent of their interest, provided they have intervened in the
- 50. proceedings of theNational Court or Courts concerned (article 5, second paragraph). [941] But note article 51 of Convention XII. [942] See above, vol. I. § 289, p. 365. What Law to be applied. § 447. As regards the law to be applied by the International Prize Court, article 7 of Convention XII. contains the following provisions and distinctions:— (1) If a question of law to be decided be covered by a treaty in force between the belligerent captor and a Power which is itself, or whose subject is, a party to the proceedings, the Court must apply the provisions of such treaty. (2) In absence of such provisions, the Court must apply the rules of International Law. (3) If there be no generally recognised rules of International Law which could be applied, the Court must base its decision on the general principles of justice and equity. (4) If—see article 3, No. 2 (c) of Convention XII.—the ground of appeal be the violation of an enactment issued by the belligerent captor, the Court must apply such enactment. (5) The Court is empowered to disregard failure, on the part of an appellant, to comply with the procedure laid down by the Municipal Law of the belligerent captor, if it is of opinion that the consequences of such Municipal Law are unjust or inequitable. The very wide powers of the International Prize Court with regard to the law to be applied by it, have been considerably narrowed down by the fact that the Declaration of London provides a code of Prize Law, which in time will be universally accepted, but those powers are still very wide. III PROCEDURE IN THE INTERNATIONAL PRIZE COURT
- 51. See the literaturequoted above at the commencement of § 442. Entering of Appeal. § 448. As a rule there are two ways of entering an appeal against the judgment of a National Prize Court, namely, either by a written declaration made in the National Court against whose judgment the appeal is directed, or by a written or telegraphic declaration addressed to the International Bureau. In either case the appeal must be entered within one hundred and twenty days from the day the judgment was delivered or notified (article 28). But the appeal must be addressed to the International Bureau only, if a party intends to carry a case direct to the International Prize Court on account of the National Courts having failed to give final judgment within two years from the date of capture, and in such case the appeal must be entered within thirty days from the expiry of the period of two years (article 30). If the appeal has been entered in the National Court, this Court must, without considering the question as to whether the appeal was entered in time, transmit within seven days the record of the case to the International Bureau. On the other hand, if the declaration of appeal has been sent to the International Bureau, this Bureau must immediately, if possible by telegraph, send information to the National Court concerned which must within seven days transmit the record of the case to the Bureau. And should the appeal be entered by a neutral individual, the International Bureau must immediately by telegraph inform the Government of the respective individual in order to enable such Government to come to a decision as to whether it will—see article 4, No. 2—prevent the individual from going on with the appeal, or will undertake proceedings in his stead (article 29). If the appeal has not been entered in time, the Court must reject it without discussion of the merits of the case. But the Court may grant relief from the effect of this rule and admit the appeal, if the appellant is able to show that he was prevented by force majeure from entering the appeal in time, and that he has entered the appeal
- 52. within sixty daysafter the circumstances which prevented him from entering it earlier ceased to operate (article 31). If the appeal has been entered in time, a certified copy of the notice of appeal must officially be transmitted to the respondent by the Court; if the Court is not sitting, its delegation of three judges must act for it (articles 32 and 48). If in addition to the parties who are before the Court through an appeal having been entered, there are other parties concerned who are entitled to appeal, or if in the case referred to in article 29, third paragraph, the Government which has received notice of an appeal has not announced its decision, the Court may not deal with the case until either the period of one hundred and twenty days from the day the judgment of the National Prize Court has been delivered or notified, or the period of thirty days from the expiry of two years from the date of capture has expired (article 31). Pleadings and Discussion. § 449. The procedure, which follows the entry of an appeal and the preliminary steps in consequence thereof, comprises two distinct phases, namely, written pleadings and oral discussion. (1) The written pleadings consist of the deposit and exchange of cases, counter-cases, and, if necessary, of replies, the order of which, as also the periods within which they must be delivered, must be fixed by the Court or its delegation of three judges (article 48), and to which all papers and documents the parties intend to make use of must be annexed. The Court must communicate a certified copy of every document produced by one party to the other party (article 34). (2) After the close of the pleadings the Court must fix a day for a public sitting on which the discussion is to take place (article 35). The discussion is under the direction of the President or Vice- President, or, in case both of these are absent or cannot act, of the senior judge present; but the judge appointed by a belligerent party may never preside (article 38). The discussion takes place with open doors, but a Government which is a party may demand that the
- 53. Welcome to ourwebsite – the perfect destination for book lovers and knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world, offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth. That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to self-development guides and children's books. More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading. Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and personal growth every day! testbankfan.com