The Laws of War, Affecting Commerce and ShippingThomson, H. Byerley (Henry Byerley)
History
The Laws of War, Affecting Commerce and Shipping
Thomson, H. Byerley (Henry Byerley)
Maritime law; War (International law); War, Maritime (International law)
A neutral subject is at liberty to put his goods on board a merchant
vessel, though belonging to a belligerent, subject nevertheless to the
rights of the enemy who may capture the vessel; who has no right,
according to modern practice, to condemn the neutral property. Neither
will the goods of the neutral be subject to condemnation, although a
rescue should be attempted by the crew of the captured vessel, for
that is an event which the merchant could not have foreseen.[159]
[Sidenote: Neutral Goods on _Armed_ Hostile Vessels.]
In America, Neutral Goods laden on an _Armed_[160] Belligerent Vessel
are still protected, but in England it is different. "If the neutral,"
says Sir Wm. Scott,
"puts his goods on board a ship of force, which will be
defended by force, he betrays an intention to resist
visitation and search, and so far adheres to the
belligerent, and withdraws himself from his protection of
neutrality."[161]
[Sidenote: The Sale and Purchase of Vessels by Neutrals.]
The Purchase of Ships from the enemy, is a liberty that has not been
denied to neutral merchants, though by the regulation of France, it is
entirely forbidden. The rule that this country has been content to
apply is, that property so transferred, must be _bonâ fide_ and
absolutely transferred; there must be a sale divesting the enemy of
all further interest in it; and that any thing tending to continue his
interest, vitiates a contract of this description altogether.[162]
Russia is reported to have several vessels of war in different parts
of the world; some of these vessels have been sold, and others are
said to be in the process of sale. I shall cite what Sir Wm. Scott
says, on a case nearly similar.
"There have been many cases of enemy _merchant vessels_
driven into ports out of which they could not escape, and
there sold, in which after much discussion, and some
hesitation of opinion, the validity of the purchase has been
sustained. But whether the purchase of a vessel, _built for
war_, and employed as such, and rendered incapable of acting
as a ship of war, by the arms of the other belligerent, and
driven into a neutral port for shelter; whether the purchase
of such a ship can be allowed, which shall enable the enemy
so far to rescue himself from the disadvantage into which he
has fallen, as to have the value restored to him by a
neutral purchaser, is a question on which I shall wait for
the authority of a superior court, before I admit the
validity of such a transfer."[163]
It has been said that the sale must be absolute and unconditional; so
that a sale under a condition to re-convey at the end of the war, is
invalid.[164] Similarly, where the seller is bound by his own
government under a penalty not to sell, except upon a condition of
restitution at the end of the war, and the purchaser undertook to
exonerate the seller, the sale was held invalid.[165]
SECTION II.
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.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account