Conduct of hostilities: maritime
in The contemporary law of armed conflict
Abstract only
Log-in for full text

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

manchesterhive requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals - to see content that you/your institution should have access to, please log in through your library system or with your personal username and password.

If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/extracts and download selected front and end matter. 

Institutions can purchase access to individual titles; please contact for pricing options.


If you have an access token for this content, you can redeem this via the link below:

Redeem token

Problems have arisen since the adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). If it is suggested that UNCLOS constitutes lex generalis it must be indicated that it cannot invalidate any rights arising under lex specialis such as the law of armed conflict, unless there is incontrovertible evidence in the text that it was intended to override such lex specialis. When deciding whether a ship was trading with an enemy port, or whether its cargo was intended for an adverse party, Prize Courts developed the doctrines of continuous voyage and ultimate destination. In maritime warfare only properly authorised combatants are permitted to participate in warlike activities. By Hague Convention VI enemy merchant ships in ports of the adverse party at the outbreak of hostilities were allowed to depart and were granted a period of grace for the purpose.


All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 172 18 4
Full Text Views 57 0 0
PDF Downloads 11 2 1