Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T07:00:10.004Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Note on re Piracy Jure Gentium

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2017

Charles Fairman
Charles Fairman*
Affiliation:
Williams College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Current Notes
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 29 , Issue 3 , July 1935 , pp. 508 - 512
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1935

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 R. v. Dawson (1696), 13 St. Tr. 451, 454.

2 This journal, Supplement, Vol. 26 (1932), p. 794.

3 United States v. Smith (1820), 5 Wheat. 153, per Story, J., Livingston, J., dissenting. “Whatever may be the diversity of definitions, in other respects, all writers concur, in holding, that robbery, or forcible depredations upon the sea, animo furandi, is piracy.” The case at bar was within this definition, so it was not necessary for the court to be exhaustive. Prof. Lenoir discusses “Piracy Cases in the Supreme Court” in 25 Journ. of Crim. Law, 532 (1934).

4 L. R. [1934] A. C. 586; 51 T. L. R. 12; this journal, Vol. 29 (1935), p. 140.

5 28 Hen. VIII, c. 15.

6 Cf. Art. 3 of the Harvard Research Draft Convention on Piracy, this JOTJKNAL, Supplement, Vol. 26 (1932), p. 768.

7 C. 196. M. 70. 1927. V.

8 Ser. A. Nos. 20/21.

9 Feist v. Société intercommunale beige d'electricite\ [1933] 1 Ch. 684; [1934] A. C. 161; this journal, Vol. 28 (1934), p. 374.

10 “Changing Concepts and the Doctrine of Incorporation,” this journal, Vol. 26 (1932), p. 239.

11 (1876) 2 Ex. D. 63. 11a “The object of the common law is to solve difficulties and adjust relations in social and commercial life. It must meet, so far as it can, sets of facts abnormal as well as usual. It must grow with the development of the nation. It must face and deal with changing or novel circumstances. Unless it can do that it fails in its function and declines in its dignity and value. An expanding society demands an expanding common law.” McCardie, J., discussing, obiter, the doctrine of agency of necessity, in Prager v. Blatspiel, Stamp and Heacock, Ltd. [1924] 1 K. B. 566. The dictum in this case was later disapproved by Scrutton, L. J., in Jebara v. Ottoman Bank [1927] 2 K. B. 254, 270. Greater rigidity is maintained in the sphere of property. Cf. Keeton and Gower, “Freedom of Testation in English Law,” Iowa Law Review, Vol. 20, pp. 326, 327.

12 [1933] 1 K. B. 529; 49 T. L. R. 130.

13 [1932] A. C. 562.

14 (1916) 217 N. Y. 382.

15 He thought it had been put accurately by Lord Dunedin in Mortensen v. Peters (1906), 14 Scots. L. T. 227, this journal, Vol. 1 (1907), p. 526: “It is a trite observation that there is no such thing as a standard of international law, extraneous to the domestic law of a kingdom to which appeal may be made. International law, so far as this court is concerned is the body of doctrine regarding the international rights and duties of states which has been adopted and made part of the law of Scotland.” Lord Macmillan was of counsel in Mortensen v. Peters.