Prize Courts and Ownership of Enemy Property
The enemy properties seized in sea on violation of rules of blockade or contraband are called ‘prize’. But simply by seizing such properties or ships as prize, belligerent states doesn’t acquire ownership over them. In order to acquire ownership over such goods or ships, the general practice is that goods or ships are produced before courts which are called “Prize Courts”.
These courts determine the validity of seizure of goods or ships. If they decide that goods or ships have been validly seized, then the belligerent states which seized them acquire ownership. Such goods are called lawful prize.
Nature of Prize Court
Prize Courts are national courts. They acquire validity from State Law. They are not international courts. They derive authority from national orders and notifications. Prize courts are national courts but decide cases in accordance with rules and principles of international law. They are open for all nations but cannot be instituted in neutral territory.
Jurisdiction
The Prize Courts derive their jurisdiction from the belligerent state which establishes them. The belligerent states establish these courts because it is necessary for them to get validity of goods seized by them.
Law Applied by Prize Courts
Prize courts are national courts but they decide cases in accordance with international law. They apply international law as followed and applied in that particular state. In cases where provisions of international law are inconsistent with provisions of statute laid down by Parliament, then they apply the law laid down by Parliament.
The Appam Case
The Appam was a British ship which was seized by German ships during the 1st World War. The German officers took the ship under their control, placed it under their authority, and took it to the nearest American port. Till this time, America was a neutral state. The German officers requested the Secretary of America to detain the ship and its crew, but America rejected this request and released the crew.
Subsequently, the owners of the ship, Appam, filed a suit in the Admiralty Court of America for recovery of the ship and its cargoes. The owner of the ship contended that:
- Taking of the ship as a prize to a neutral port was contrary to laws of neutrality.
- It was contrary to American laws.
In reply to the above-mentioned contentions, respondent Germany contended that:
- Taking of ship seized as a prize to a neutral port is not contrary to international law.
- Detention of ship in neutral port is beyond jurisdiction of judicial court.
- Proceedings have been started against Appam in a prize court of appropriate jurisdiction in Germany.
Decision
The American court decided the case in favour of the owners of the ship. The court held that taking Appam to the American port was a violation of American neutrality. It was also a violation of international law as applied in America. Lastly, the court laid down that it had jurisdiction to decide the case because it involved violation of neutrality of America.
Loss of Prize
- When prize escapes through being rescued by its own crew.
- When the captor intentionally abandons it.
- When it is re-captured.
