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.