SS Doron
| Jurisdiction | Egipto |
| Date | 16 April 1959 |
| Court | Obsolete Court (Egypt) |
(Abdel Ghani Yehia, Hamed Sultan, Ali Sadek Abou Heif and Al-Dabet Al-Azim El Said Sayeh Gad.)
Warfare at sea Restrictions on right of capture Coastal fishing vessels and vessels employed in local trade Such vessels engaged in assisting the enemy Hague Convention No. XI of 1907 The law of the United Arab Republic.
The Facts.On the night of September 22/23, 1957, the Doron was detected two and a half miles from the coast of the United Arab Republic by a marine guard of the United Arab Republic authorities. The vessel carried no flag indicating her nationality, she was travelling very slowly, and all navigation lights were extinguished except for a small light at the stern above a fishing net which lay on the water. As soon as the patrol approached, various solid objects (which were not identified) were thrown into the sea from the Doron. The vessel was owned by Agricultural Investments Company Ltd., of Tel Aviv (Israel), and was registered in Haifa (Israel). The crew of six consisted of the captain, who was allegedly an Italian national, and five men who were found to be part of the military reserve of Israel. The boat was fitted out for trawling and a small quantity of fish was found on board. Also on board were a powerful radio transmitter and receiver, a bathometer and cases containing luminous signals not ordinarily used by fishing boats. The boat was seized, and brought before the Prize Court.
Held: that the seizure was valid. A fishing vessel belonging to enemy nationals and engaging in activities of assistance to the enemy was liable to seizure, notwithstanding the terms of Article 3 of Convention No. XI signed at The Hague in 1907, which only apply to craft exclusively devoted to coastal fishing or purely local navigation.
The Court, after setting out the facts, said: From the foregoing it results that the boat belonged to a company identified by its nationality and by its home port with the Zionist troops occupying Palestine; that there exists legally a state of war between Palestine and the United Arab Republic; that the boat was seized by public authorities of the said Republic within the territorial waters under conditions giving rise to suspicion and in a state fitted to supply the war effort. The State may, therefore, seize this boat and confiscate it as Prize, such action being consecrated by usage and the rules of public international law of maritime war, and established by international...
To continue reading
Request your trial