(1) According to article 46 of the Declaration[150] a neutral merchantman acquires enemy character by taking a direct part in the hostilities, by being in the exclusive employment of the enemy government, and by being at the time exclusively intended either for the transport of troops or for the transmission of intelligence for the enemy. And it must be emphasised that the act by which a neutral merchantman acquires enemy character need not necessarily be committed after the outbreak of war, for she can, even before the outbreak of war, to such a degree identify herself with a foreign State that, with the outbreak of war against such State, enemy character devolves upon her ipso facto, unless she severs her connexion with the State concerned. This is, for instance, the case of a foreign merchantman which in time of peace has been hired by a State for the transport of troops or of war material, and is carrying out her contract in spite of the outbreak of war.[151]
(2) According to article 63 of the Declaration a neutral merchantman acquires enemy character ipso facto by forcibly resisting the legitimate exercise of the right of visitation and capture on the part of a belligerent cruiser (see details below, § [422]).
(3) According to British practice—adopted by America and Japan[152]—neutral merchantmen likewise acquire enemy character by violating the so-called rule of 1756,[153] in case they engage in time of war in a trade which the enemy prior to the war reserved exclusively for merchantmen sailing under his own flag. The Declaration of London has neither rejected nor accepted this rule of 1756, for article 57 stipulates expressly that the case where a neutral vessel is engaged in a trade which is closed in time of peace, remains unsettled. It would, therefore, according to article 7 of Convention XII. of the Second Peace Conference, be the task of the proposed International Prize Court to settle this point.
Of whatever kind may be the case of the acquisition of enemy character on the part of a neutral vessel, the following four rules apply to all cases of such neutral vessels as have acquired enemy character:—(a) all enemy goods on board may now be confiscated, although when they were first shipped the vessels concerned were neutral; (b) all goods on board will now be presumed to be enemy goods, and the owners of neutral goods will have to prove the neutral character of the latter; (c) the stipulations of articles 48 and 49 of the Declaration of London concerning the sinking of neutral prizes do not apply, because these vessels are now enemy vessels; (d) no appeal may be brought from the national prize courts to the International Prize Court, except with regard to the one question only, whether the vessel concerned has been justly considered to have acquired enemy character (see article 4 of Convention XII. of the Second Hague Peace Conference, concerning the establishment of an International Prize Court).
[151] The case of the Kow-shing ought here to be mentioned, although it has now lost its former importance:—
On July 14, 1894, the Kow-shing, a British ship, was hired at Shanghai by the Chinese Government to serve as a transport for eleven hundred Chinese soldiers and also for arms and ammunition from Tien-tsin to Korea. She was met on July 25 near the island of Phung-do, in Korean waters, by the Japanese fleet; she was signalled to stop, was visited by some prize officers, and, as it was apparent that she was a transport for Chinese soldiers, she was ordered to follow the Japanese cruiser, Naniwa. But although the British captain of the vessel was ready to comply with these orders, the Chinese on board would not allow it. Thereupon the Japanese opened fire and sank the vessel. As formerly hostilities could be commenced without a previous declaration of war the action of the Japanese was in accordance with the rules of International Law existing at the time. But in consequence of Convention III. of the Second Peace Conference which requires a declaration of war before the opening of hostilities, such action nowadays would not be justifiable. See Hall, § 168*; Takahashi, pp. 27-51; Holland, Studies, pp. 126-128.
[152] See the case of the Montara in Takahashi, p. 633.
[153] See below, § [289], and Higgins, War and the Private Citizen (1912), pp. 169-192.
Enemy Character of Goods.