NATIONALITY OF GOODS CAPTURED AT SEA 435
. I Er re RE Ta I et re TR ee
By Article 60, the transfer of enemy goods to a non-enemy
person during the course of a voyage after the outbreak of war,
is invalid so far as the rights of captors are concerned ; that is,
hey retain their enemy character until they reach their destina-
ion. This provision is different from that relating to the trans
er of ships after the outbreak of war in that it pronounces abso
lutely the invalidity of transfers of goods made in transitu,
whereas in the case of ships it creates only a presumption of
invalidity which in some cases is rebuttable. This rule is also
in accordance with the general practice and prize iuripridence
and 1s based upon considerations of justice and equity.
Sec. 329. Rules Embodied in Prize Regulations. While
the Declaration of London left open the question of the test to
be applied in determining the neutral or enemy character of the
owner of goods, the majority of the belligerent powers had al-
ready promulgated before the outbreak of the war, or did so
during the war, prize regulations which laid down the rule
which they proposed to observe. Among those which made
he nationality of the owner the sole or primary test were Ger-
many,’ France,> Italy,® Japan, and Russia.’ Among those
which, on the other hand, adopted the rule of domicile were
China,® Great Britain,” and the United States® Roumania
adopted the rule of domicile but at the same time applied the
rule of nationality in the case of enemy subjects domiciled in
neutral territory.® The prize regulations of Austria-Hungary
did not lay down a definite rule for the determination of the
question.®
t should be observed that during the World War both Great
Britain and France departed from their traditional rules, in
their legislation respecting trade with the enemy. Thus France,
where nationality was regarded as the primary test for the de-
i Se Em mon
* Prize Code, Sec. 20 b. But in case the owner had no nationality or
possessed neutral as well as enemy nationality, the character of the goods
were to be determined by the domicile of the owner.
structions I of poids Art. 28 giiztionality adopted as the
sole test.
Rules of March 25, 1917, Art. 21. +Nationality the sole test.
Law of 1914 relative to naval war, Art. 21. But domicile was made the
test in case of double nationality. In adopting the criterion of nationality
Japan departed from the principle formerly maintained by her.
* Prize regulations of 1895 (Art. 10) ; in effect during the World War.
* Regulations governing capture at sea, Article 4, re
"The British government did not issue a code of prize regulations but in
various Orders in Council, notably that of March 15, 1915, relative to re-
prisals against Germany, the traditional English rule of domicile was laid
aown.
Instructions, 1917, Art. 59. “Commercial” domicile of the owner.
od., Art. 53. Cited by Verzijl, p. 439 © Nienstbuch, Art. 45.
