Onderstaande tekst is niet 100% betrouwbaar

8 161.


awkshewed herself tobea neutral.... [suivent quelques arguments] ..

What did the Government of Egypt themselves eonsider to be their status ? The Décision of S. E. the Regent and his Ministers (the Khedive the reigning sovereign of Egypt under the suzerainty of the Sultan of Turkey, was absent at Constantinople at this time, and was subsequently deposed), pubbshed on August 6, 1914, is of considerable assistance in coming to a conclnsion on this matter.... [suivent quelques détaüs] .. . . In this Décision they admit that their country is liable to attack by Germany the enemy of Great Britain and take, not the part of Germany, as was the case of Turkey, but side with, and put themselves, <so to speak, under the safe custody of Great Britain. Surely this is fairly conclusive evidence that Egyptian ports were no longer neutral ports, but if not to all intents and purposes British ports, at least their alues or cobeHigerents of Great Britain .... f , , .

Next to be considered is the view that Great Brjtam took of the status of Egypt. — By the Hague Convention No. XIII of 1907, m article 4, it iTlaid down that „A Prize Court cannot be established by a belligerent on neutral territory...." But in Egypt a Pnze Court has been established by Great Britain... . Incidentally I may say that f or the purposes of my argument in this case it is not necessary to find that Egypt is either a British dominion, possession, or colony, because, as steted by Pitt Cobbett in his book on International Law, vol. U. p. 192, „ki prineiple it would seem that a Prize Court may rightly be established ia the territory of an ally or co-beDigerent." It rnight perhaps be urged that the treaties with Turkey regarding capitulations (which by the way Turkey has abolished without the consent of the other contractmg parties) would give the right to Great Britain to establish a Pnze Court in Egypt; but for various reasons I am of opinion that they would not. . .

We have now the evidence of both States before us; that of the Regent and Ministers of Egypt, who declare that all ships captured m Iigyptian ports shaU be handed over for judgment in the British Pnze Court and we have the Act of Parliament instituting the Pnze Court m Egypt, which they had no power to do, unless Egypt was either an aHy 01rcobelhgerent or possession. I cannot, therefore, avoid finding that Fort Said at the period in question (aoüt 1914) was not a neutral port. It necessary I arn prepared to find that it was a port of an ally.

La position de la cour des prises britannique dans le cadre du système judiciaire en Egypte se trouve exposée dans la décision relative au Lützow, n°. 6 (989) : '

„The question is somewhat comphcated by the fact that this Pnze Court is established in a country where treaties of extra-terntonahty are stül in existence and being recognised and acted upon.

The judicial administration of Egypt is divided amongst three separate svstems of Tribunals: (a) the Native Tribunals, ^ich deal witii all civü and criminal matters between native sub]ects; (t>) the Mixed Tribunals, estabüshed by the Khedive of Egypt in 1875, with the consent