Onderstaande tekst is niet 100% betrouwbaar

§ 573.


allied State as its own Subjects would be to a single belligerent State, with relation to intercourse with the enemy.

Thirdly, where such illegal intercourse is proved between allied citizens and the enemy, their property engaged in such intercourse, whether ship or cargo, is subject to capture by any alhed belhgerent, and is subject to condemnation in that belligerent's own Prize Courts.

Fourthly, when such intercourse in fact takes place, the property of the persons engaged in it is confiscable, whether they were acting honestly and with bona fides or not."

Chacune de ces quatre theses est, ensuite, appuyée par un exposé des décisions rendues dans les guerres du passé et des opinions des principaux auteurs sur le droit des gens :

„The rule embodied in the proposition first mentioned was authoritatively stated by Lord Stowell in The Hoop, as follows : „In my opinion there exists a general rule in the maritime jurisprudence of this country by which all subjects trading with the public enemy, unless with the permission of the Sovereign, is interdicted. It is not a principle peculiar to the maritime law of this country ; it is laid down by Bynkershoek as a universal principle of law — Ex natura belli commercia inter hostes cessare non est dubitandum. Quamvis nulla specialis sit commerciorum prohibitio, ipso tarnen jure belli commercia esse vetita ipsae indictiones beüorum satis

declarant, etc In my opinion no principle ought to be held more

sacred than that this intercourse cannot subsist on any other footing than that of the direct permission of the State. Who can be insensible to the consequences that might follow if every person in t'me of war had a right to carry on a commercial intercourse with the enemy, and, under colour of that, had the means of carrying on any other species of intercourse he might think fit ?"

And, after an exhaustive review of numerous authorities, he added: „The cases which I have produced prove that the rule has been rigidly enf orced ; . . . . that it has been enf orced where strong claim not merely of convenience, but almost of necessity, excused it on behalf of the individual; that it has been enf orced where cargoes have been laden before the war, but where the parties have not used all possible diligence to countermand the voyage after the first notice of hostüities ; and that it has been enforced not only against the subjects of the Crown, but likewise against those of its allies in the war, upon the supposition that the rule was founded on a strong and universal principle, which aüied States in war had a right to notice and apply mutually to each other's subjects." "

Ensuite, la Com: de Londres passé a la notion plus ample, „the more general and fundamental conception of the ülegality of intercourse with the enemy apart from the element of commerce, and falling short of the act of trading".

„In The Cosmopolite [1801] Lord Stowell states therulein quite general terms thus: „It is perfectly well known that by war all eommunication