Onderstaande tekst is niet 100% betrouwbaar

883

§ 508.

extension of the principle does not appear to me to have any foundation In my view, to apply it to these cases involves no extension, certainly not an ünreasonable or unwarrantable one. The rule is simple and broad. If the person who is the owner of confiscable contraband goods laden on board a vessel has also goods belonging to him which are not contraband on the same vessel, the latter — sometimes called innocent goods — are subject to capture and condemnation as well as the contraband goods The rule has come from ancient times right down to the days of the Déclaration of London, and has been applied in all maritime wars for at any rate, a century and a half. It has been stated in the Suprème Court of Amenca.... It was incorporated in the Prize Regulations of Tapanin 1904, in article 43 ... . —

It was urged that the doctrine had been adopted in order to impose an additional punishment upon persons carrying on trade in contraband and that bona fide neutral purchasers at whose risk the goods might bé should not come within the reach of such a punishment. By this I think was meant that neutrals who had honestly entered into contracts to purchase, even if they had not become the owners, should somehow be protected from the possible results of the exercise of a belügerent's right of capture. How is a Court of Prize to investigate where the particular loss or „punishment" would fall ? It may be that the intending purchaser loses nothing, that the loss would fall in toto upon underwriters, or re-insurers m one or more countries. Enquiries such as these will not be embarked upon by a Prize Court, any more than enquiries as to hens mortgage, or charges. It deals with the tangible goods as they are found m the vessels. It has direct means of deciding who are the owners of goods afloat in time of war, and it wül not leave the highroadto wander m a maze of by-ways " [Comp. cette même argumentation en d'autres parties du droit des prises : § 209 et § 245.]

[Voir aussi: Hilding (873a), Rena etc. (n66«) et Parana (1168).] Cette décision fut confirmée en appel: Kronprinsessan Margareta, Rena, Parana and Hilding (1365), voir ci-dessus § 506.

c) Le navire transportant la contrebande.

508. D'après l'article 40 de la Déclaration de Londres „la confiscation du navire transportant de la contrebande est permise, si cette contrebande forme, soit par sa valeur, soit par son poids, soit par son volume, soit par son fret, plus dela moitié de la cargaison." Cette règle qui constitue une innovation vis-a-vis des droits nationaux divergents, en vigueur jusqu'ici, a été adoptée par les belbgérants dès le commencement de la guerre et eüe a été maintenue expressément même par les trois d'entre eux qui, plus tard, ont dénoncé formeüement 1'appücabüité de la Déclaration de Londres. Voir:

Sluiten