legitimation of the captor and the nationality of the captured vessel and her goods. And after modern International Law had grown up, it was a recognised customary rule that in time of war the Admiralty of maritime belligerents should be obliged to institute a Court[381] or Courts whenever a prize was captured by public vessels or privateers in order to decide whether the capture was lawful or not. These Courts were called Prize Courts. This institution has come down to our times, and nowadays all maritime States either constitute permanent Prize Courts, or appoint them specially in each case of an outbreak of war. The whole institution is essentially one in the interest of neutrals, since belligerents want to be guarded by a decision of a Court against claims of neutral States regarding alleged unjustified capture of neutral vessels and goods. The capture of any private vessel, whether _prima facie_ belonging to an enemy or a neutral, must, therefore, be submitted to a Prize Court. Article 1 of Convention XII. (as yet unratified) of the Second Peace Conference now expressly enacts the old customary rule that "the validity of the capture of a merchantman or its cargo, when neutral or enemy property is involved, is decided before a Prize Court." It must, however, be emphasised that the ordinary Prize-Courts are not International Courts, but National Courts instituted by Municipal Law, and that the law they administer is Municipal Law,[382] based on custom, statutes, or special regulations of their State. Every State is, however, bound by International Law to enact only such statutes and regulations[383] for its Prize Courts as are in conformity with International Law. A State may, therefore, instead of making special regulations, directly order its Prize Courts to apply the rules of International Law, and it is understood that, when no statutes are enacted or regulations are given, Prize Courts have to apply International Law. Prize Courts may be instituted by belligerents in any part of their territory or the territories of allies, but not on neutral territory. It would nowadays constitute a breach of neutrality on the part of a neutral State to allow the institution on its territory of a Prize Court.[384] [Footnote 379: I follow the excellent summary of the facts given by Twiss, II. §§ 74-75, but Marsden's articles in _The English Historical Review_, XXIV. (1909), p. 675, XXV. (1910), p. 243, XXVI. (1911), p. 34, must likewise be referred to.] [Footnote 380: The first case that is mentioned as having led to judicial proceedings before the Admiral in England dates from 1357; see Marsden, _loc. cit._ XXIV. (1909), p. 680.] [Footnote 381: In England an Order in Council, dated July 20, 1589, first provided that all captures should be submitted to the High Court of Admiralty; see Marsden, _loc. cit._ XXIV. (1909), p. 690.] [Footnote 382: See below, § 434.]