International Law. A Treatise. Volume 2 (of 2): War and Neutrality. Second EditionOppenheim, L. (Lassa)
History
International Law. A Treatise. Volume 2 (of 2): War and Neutrality. Second Edition
Oppenheim, L. (Lassa)
International law
(7) A violation of these rules involves responsibility on the part of
the guilty State. The State which has laid the mines is presumed to be
guilty unless the contrary is proved, and an action may be brought
against the guilty State, even by individuals who have suffered damage,
before the competent International Tribunal.
[Footnote 362: See _Annuaire_, XXIV. (1911), p. 301.]
[Sidenote: Duty of giving Quarter.]
§ 183. As soon as an attacked or counter-attacked vessel hauls down her
flag and, therefore, signals that she is ready to surrender, she must be
given quarter and seized without further firing. To continue an attack
although she is ready to surrender, and to sink her and her crew, would
constitute a violation of customary International Law, and would only as
an exception be admissible in case of imperative necessity or of
reprisals.
[Sidenote: Seizure.]
§ 184. Seizure is effected by securing possession of the vessel through
the captor sending an officer and some of his own crew on board the
captured vessel. But if for any reason this is impracticable, the captor
orders the captured vessel to lower her flag and to steer according to
his orders.
[Sidenote: Effect of Seizure.]
§ 185. The effect of seizure is different with regard to private enemy
vessels, on the one hand, and, on the other, to public vessels.
Seizure of _private_ enemy vessels may be described as a parallel to
occupation of enemy territory in land warfare. Since the vessel and the
individuals and goods thereon are actually placed under the captor's
authority, her officers and crew, and any private individuals on board,
are for the time being submitted to the discipline of the captor, just
as private individuals on occupied enemy territory are submitted to the
authority of the occupant.[363] Seizure of private enemy vessels does
not, however, vest the property finally in the hands of the
belligerent[364] whose forces effected the capture. The prize has to be
brought before a Prize Court, and it is the latter's confirmation of
the capture through adjudication of the prize which makes the
appropriation by the capturing belligerent final.[365]
[Footnote 363: Concerning the ultimate fate of the crew, see above, §
85.]
[Footnote 364: It is asserted that a captured enemy merchantman may at
once be converted by the captor into a man-of-war, but the cases of the
_Ceylon_ (1811) and the _Georgina_ (1814), 1 Dodson 105 and 397, which
are quoted in favour of such a practice, are not decisive. See Higgins,
_War and the Private Citizen_ (1912), pp. 138-142.]
[Footnote 365: See below, § 192.]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account