Visit https://testbankfan.

com to download the full version and

explore more testbank or solutions manual

Essentials of Database Management 1st Edition

Hoffer Solutions Manual

_____ Click the link below to download _____

https://testbankfan.com/product/essentials-of-database-
management-1st-edition-hoffer-solutions-manual/

Explore and download more testbank or solutions manual at testbankfan.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.

Essentials of Database Management 1st Edition Hoffer Test

Bank

https://testbankfan.com/product/essentials-of-database-management-1st-
edition-hoffer-test-bank/

Modern Database Management 10th Edition Hoffer Solutions

Manual

https://testbankfan.com/product/modern-database-management-10th-
edition-hoffer-solutions-manual/

Modern Database Management 12th Edition Hoffer Solutions

Manual

https://testbankfan.com/product/modern-database-management-12th-
edition-hoffer-solutions-manual/

Modern Database Management 11th Edition Hoffer Solutions

Manual

https://testbankfan.com/product/modern-database-management-11th-
edition-hoffer-solutions-manual/
Modern Database Management 11th Edition Hoffer Test Bank

https://testbankfan.com/product/modern-database-management-11th-
edition-hoffer-test-bank/

Modern Database Management 12th Edition Hoffer Test Bank

https://testbankfan.com/product/modern-database-management-12th-
edition-hoffer-test-bank/

Essentials of Strategic Management 1st Edition Pitt

Solutions Manual

https://testbankfan.com/product/essentials-of-strategic-
management-1st-edition-pitt-solutions-manual/

Concepts of Database Management 8th Edition Pratt

Solutions Manual

https://testbankfan.com/product/concepts-of-database-management-8th-
edition-pratt-solutions-manual/

Concepts of Database Management 9th Edition Starks

Solutions Manual

https://testbankfan.com/product/concepts-of-database-management-9th-
edition-starks-solutions-manual/
164 Essentials of Database Management, First Edition

Chapter 6 Introduction to SQL

Chapter Overview

This chapter describes in detail what has become the standard query language for
relational database management systems, SQL. Although SQL is illustrated in this
chapter primarily through a current Oracle version (MySQL and Microsoft Access SQL
are also sometimes displayed), SQL is a widely used language that is available on all
classes of computers and with many different DBMSs.
This chapter introduces SQL and emphasizes the Data Definition Language
(DDL) and Data Manipulation Language (DML) commands. Single table queries are
covered in this chapter, and multiple-table queries are covered in Chapter 7.
Several chapters contain important prerequisite material for this chapter. Chapter
4 introduces the relational model and provides much of the background for this chapter
(including an introduction to the Data Definition Language commands). The discussion
in Chapter 5 on indexes is also important because choosing primary and secondary key
indexes is one of the few, but crucial, internal database design choices for users of
relational systems.

Chapter Objectives

Specific student learning objectives are included at the beginning of the chapter. From an
instructor’s point of view, the objectives of this chapter are to:
1. Explain SQL and show the basic operators so that the student can anticipate the
capabilities of particular SQL-based systems.
2. Provide a historical perspective of the development of SQL and its continuing
development. This perspective illustrates the benefits and risks of adopting a
standard query language.
3. Show that SQL, although a standard and a high-level language, does have some
flaws, and that SQL must evolve to include additional features.
4. Explain and illustrate the power of relational views for simplifying relational
database processing.
5. Illustrate data definition language (DDL) commands for creating tables and views
as well as modifying and dropping tables.
6. Provide examples of single table SQL queries.
7. Provide some examples of the use of functions within SQL queries.
8. Show how to establish referential integrity using SQL.
9. Illustrate the use of the group by and order by clauses.

Key Terms

Base table Data manipulation language Scalar aggregate

(DML)
Catalog Dynamic view Schema
Data control language (DCL) Materialized view Vector aggregate
Data definition language Relational DBMS (RDBMS) Virtual table
(DDL)

Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc.

 Chapter 6 165

Classroom Ideas

1. Depending on how you choose to sequence the chapters of this book, you may want
to begin lecturing on this chapter by reviewing normalization principles and
discussing why one might want to implement a fully normalized database. See the
section “Denormalization” in Chapter 5 for background on this topic. The point is to
emphasize the difference between logical and physical database designs.

2. With the variety of SQL implementations now available, we strongly recommend

that you illustrate some SQL system in class and have the students use such a
system. The Pine Valley Furniture case in the text provides rich contexts in which to
develop examples that emphasize those aspects of SQL the instructor considers most
important. We have found that students learn SQL best by seeing and doing many
examples and experimentation, so we encourage teaching SQL by example. When
teaching SQL, we often spend about 15 minutes giving an overview of the evolution
of SQL and providing some basic syntax and terminology. Then we spend between
two and six hours in live demonstrations showing simple to complex queries in a
well-designed sequence. In a computer-enabled classroom where an SQL system can
be demonstrated to and used by students, this time can be an effective, interactive
learning experience.

All the SQL queries in this chapter can be found in a Microsoft Access database
available from the publisher; you can show in class how Access SQL varies from
standard SQL, and you can show variations on the queries from this chapter. In
addition, a set of 40 lab exercise queries is available on
www.teradatauniversitynetwork.com for use with the Pine Valley Furniture
Company case. Many of these lab exercises are included already in this text. These
queries are designed to work with a database that is close to, but not exactly, the data
model in Figure 2-21.

3. Because many SQL systems include other modules (report writers, business graphics
routines, screen painters, and so forth), this chapter can be expanded to discuss
fourth-generation languages and systems prototyping. Explain that most packages
include capabilities and development tools that are more than simply a relational
DBMS and query language. If your school has joined the Oracle Academy, it may be
possible to demonstrate additional tools such as SQL Developer and/or
Designer/2000. Additionally, Oracle provides universal and free access to its
Express Edition with a Java-based application development environment, which can
easily be used on individually-owned computers.

4. One interesting discussion item is the widespread and continued use of SQL in most
types of administrative systems, regardless of the system type and architecture. SQL
has been one of the most durable components of corporate computing architectures
during the past 20-30 years and it still does not show signs of aging.

Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc.

166 Essentials of Database Management, First Edition

5. It should be emphasized that SQL is still fundamentally a programming language for

the professional programmer. That is, SQL is not really a suitable language for end-
user system development. This does not diminish its importance because it achieves
tremendous productivity gains for a professional programming staff and is used
extensively by database administrators. Many of your students are likely to hold
these positions during their careers. Other user interfaces that might permit access to
a relational database (like QBE) are more appropriate for end users.

6. The simplicity of SQL syntax leads some students to become overconfident of their
SQL prowess. It may help to develop some examples to demonstrate that logically
and syntactically correct SQL queries can be constructed that do not accomplish the
intended data manipulation and may be dangerously incorrect. For example, two
tables may be joined using common domains (for instance, positive integers) but
noncommon roles (for example, two tables can be joined on equal values of
quantity-on-hand of a product and number of employees in a department). Such
potential problems arise because the relational data model uses implicit relationships,
not explicit ones. Stress the importance of testing a query on a small, tractable set of
data before using it in a production environment.

7. The capabilities and benefits of views are not as obvious to students as you might
expect. First, many relational systems place limitations on operations that may be
performed on views (for example, no or restricted modification). Second, views are
not just the relational term for temporary table or for subschemas (from the network
model); rather, views provide a capability for simpler query writing for casual users.
Finally, views may have negative performance implications compared to temporary,
intermediate tables explicitly created by a prewritten procedure. These points should
be emphasized in lectures or assignments. Consider having students create both a
view and a temporary table (or materialized view) in SQL. In most SQL systems, a
temporary table can be created by the use of a SAVE or KEEP clause at the end of a
query, or one can use a CREATE TABLE command that has a query (rather than
column definitions) as its object. Then, the same query can be run and timed against
both the view and temporary tables. As another alternative, have students derive the
view table as part of the FROM clause of a query. One way to estimate the timing of
each approach, given small data sets, is to use the EXPLAIN command (or similar
command with your RDBMS) on each version of the query to show students how the
query would be processed using each approach.

Answers to Review Questions

1. Define each of the following key terms:

a. Base table. A table in the relational data model containing inserted raw data that
is likely to correspond to one physical file in secondary storage. The base table is
also referred to as one of the objects—such as the base tables, views, constraints,
and so on—which have been defined for a particular database by a particular
user, who owns the objects in the schema.

Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc.

 Chapter 6 167

b. Data definition language. Those commands used to define a database, including

creating, altering, and dropping tables and establishing constraints
c. Data manipulation language. Those commands used to maintain and query a
database, including updating, inserting, modifying, and querying data
d. Dynamic view. A virtual table that is created dynamically upon request by a user.
It is not a temporary table, but its definition is stored in the system catalog. The
contents of the view are materialized as a result of an SQL query that uses the
view.
f. Referential integrity constraint. An integrity constraint specifying that the value
or existence of an attribute in one relation depends on the value or existence of a
primary key in the same or another relation. Referential integrity means that a
value in the matching column on the many-side must correspond to a value in the
primary key for some row in the table on the one-side, or be null.
g. Relational DBMS (RDBMS). A database management system that manages data
as a collection of tables in which all data relationships are represented by
common values (not links) in related tables
h. Schema. A structure that contains descriptions of objects created by a user, such
as base tables, views, constraints, and so on, as part of a database
i. Virtual table. A table constructed automatically as needed by a DBMS. Virtual
tables are not maintained as real data.

2. Match the following terms to the appropriate definitions:

c view
g referential integrity constraint
h dynamic view
i SQL:2008
d null value
j scalar aggregate
a vector aggregate
b catalog
e schema
f host language

Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc.

168 Essentials of Database Management, First Edition

3. Contrast the following terms:

a. Base table; view. A view is a virtual table and is often part of an external
database. In contrast to a defined base table (relation), a view is not permanently
represented in storage. A view definition is stored, and the contents of the view
are calculated each time the view is referenced in a query. A view may join
multiple tables or views together and may contain derived (or virtual) columns,
while base tables cannot. In comparison to a temporary real table, a view
consumes very little storage space. A view is costly, however, because its
contents must be calculated each time that it is requested.
b. Catalog; schema. Schema is a structure that contains descriptions of objects
created by a user, such as base tables, views, constraints, and so on. These
objects have been defined for a particular database by a particular user, who
owns those objects in the schema. The catalog is a set of schemas, which, when
put together, constitute a description of a database. (If more than one user has
created objects in the database, combining information about all their schemas
will yield information for the entire database.)

4. Describe a relational DBMS (RDBMS), its underlying data model, data storage
structures, and manner of establishing data relationships:
a. A relational DBMS (or RDMBS) is a data management system that implements a
relational data model.
b. Data are stored in a collection of tables, and the data relationships are represented
by common values, not links.
c. The relational data model assumes that a table is a logical construct rather than a
physical construct, so a table need not correspond to a physical file of contiguous
records. The same data model may have many different possible physical
implementation structures. The storage of the database is dependent on both the
hardware and software environment. It is usually the concern of the system
administrator.
d. The power of the RDBMS is realized through relationships existing between
tables. These relationships are established by including a common column(s) in
each table where a relationship is needed.

5. Six potential benefits of achieving a widely accepted SQL standard:

a. Reduced training costs. Training in an organization can concentrate on SQL, and
a large labor pool of IS professionals trained in a common language reduces
retraining when hiring new employees.
b. Productivity. IS professionals can learn SQL thoroughly and become proficient
with it from continued use, the organization can afford to invest in tools to help
IS professionals become more productive, and programmers can more quickly
maintain existing programs because they are familiar with the language in which
programs are written.
c. Application portability. Applications can be moved from machine to machine
when each machine uses SQL. Further, it is economical for the computer

Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc.

 Chapter 6 169

software industry to develop off-the-shelf application software when there is a

standard language.
d. Application longevity. A standard language tends to remain so for a long time, so
there will be little pressure to rewrite old applications. Rather, applications will
simply be updated as the standard language is enhanced or new versions of
DBMSs are introduced.
e. Reduced dependence on a single vendor. When a nonproprietary language is
used, it is easier to use different vendors for the DBMS, training and educational
services, application software, and consulting assistance. Further, the market for
such vendors will be more competitive, which may lower prices and improve
service.
f. Cross-system communication. Different DBMSs and application programs can
more easily communicate and cooperate in managing data and processing user
programs.

6. The components and structure of a typical SQL environment:

The SQL environment includes an instance of an SQL DBMS along with
accessible databases and associated users and programs. Each database is
included in a catalog and has a schema that describes the database objects.
Information contained in the catalog is maintained by the DBMS itself, rather
than by the users of the DBMS.

7. Distinguish among data definition commands, data manipulation commands, and

data control commands:
a. The data definition language (DDL) commands of SQL are used to define a
database, including its creation and the creation of its tables, indexes, and views.
Referential integrity is also established through DDL commands. CREATE/
DROP DICTIONARY, CREATE/DROP TABLE, ALTER TABLE, CREATE/
DROP INDEX, CREATE/DROP VIEW are examples of DDL commands.
b. The data manipulation (DML) commands of SQL are used to load, update, and
query the database through the use of the SELECT command. (START
TRANSACTION, COMMIT WORK, ROLLBACK WORK, INSERT,
UPDATE, and DELETE are examples of DML commands.)
c. Data control language (DCL) commands are used to establish user access to the
database through the GRANT, ADD USER, and REVOKE commands.

8. Reasons to create a view using SQL and how a view can be used to reinforce data
security:
a. Views may simplify query commands, provide valuable data security, and
enhance programming productivity for a database.
b. Tables and columns that are not included in a view will not be obvious to the user
of the view. Restricting access to a view with GRANT and REVOKE statements
(security statements) adds a further layer of security. It should not be regarded as
the primary security layer.

Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc.

170 Essentials of Database Management, First Edition

9. Update limitations on data changes when referencing data through a view:

In general, update operations to data in a view are permitted as long as the update
is unambiguous in terms of data modification in the base table. However, when
the CREATE VIEW statement contains any of the following situations, that view
may not be updated directly.
a. The SELECT clause includes the keyword DISTINCT.
b. The SELECT clause contains expressions, including derived columns, aggre-
gates, statistical functions, and so forth.
c. The FROM clause, a subquery, or a UNION clause references more than one
table.
d. The FROM clause or a subquery references another view, which is not
updateable.
e. The CREATE VIEW command contains an ORDER BY, GROUP BY, or
HAVING clause.

10. Saving reprogramming (application maintenance) effort by using views:

When more than one program uses a view on the same base table, changes in all
the applications that relate to this particular base table will require only re-
creation of the view (outside the applications themselves). Views require
considerable run-time computer processing because the virtual table of a view is
recreated each time the view is referenced. Therefore, referencing a base table
through a view rather than directly can add considerable time to query processing,
depending on the query. This additional operational cost must be balanced against
the potential application maintenance savings from a view. A view also simplifies
query writing because queries written against the view refer to only one (virtual)
table, rather than several base tables.

11. Factors to be considered in deciding whether to create a key index for a table in SQL:
a. A key index on one column or a concatenation of columns enables rapid access
to the rows of a table in a sequence or randomly by key value.
b. Choosing to index primary and/or secondary keys may increase the speed of row
selection, table joining, and row ordering.
c. Dropping indexes will increase the speed of table updating.

12. Qualifying the ownership of a table in SQL:

Placing the ID of the owner prior to the table name and attribute name indicates
ownership of a table. For example, if the user with the User_ID of ORTEGA
owns the CUSTOMER_T table, that ownership would be indicated as
ORTEGA.CUSTOMER_T. In order for one user to be allowed to use a table in
the database owned by another user, the non-owner user must be granted
authorization to use it, usually by the database administrator.

Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc.

 Chapter 6 171

13. Changing attribute order and column heading labels in a result table:
a. Attributes are displayed in columns in the sequence in which they are listed in the
SELECT list unless the SELECT list is *, in which case all attributes from the
referenced tables are displayed in the sequence in which they are defined.
b. Use AS to specify column heading labels, e.g., SELECT CUST. CustomerName
AS NAME will result in a column heading label NAME instead of
CustomerName.

14. COUNT, COUNT DISTINCT, and COUNT(*) in SQL and the results generated
when using these:
a. COUNT tallies only those rows that contain a value; it ignores all null values.
b. COUNT DISTINCT does not return a count on all values; it only tallies once if
more than one row has equal values.
c. COUNT (*) counts all rows regardless of whether any of the rows contain null
values.
d. If we never use NULL values, COUNT and COUNT(*) will return the same
results. If our table includes no duplicates in the considered attribute values,
COUNT and COUNT DISTINCT will have the same meaning.

15. Evaluation order for the Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT) in an SQL command;
getting the operators to work in the order that you want:
a. If multiple Boolean operators are used in an SQL statement, NOT is evaluated
first, then AND, then OR.
b. With the use of parentheses around statements using standard mathematical
notation, a set of statements may be given a user-chosen specific order of
evaluation.

16. Limitations on attributes that can be selected when an SQL statement contains
GROUP BY:
Only those columns that have a single value for each group can be included.

17. HAVING clause usage: The HAVING clause is useful when you need to select results
based upon qualifications on an aggregation, such as a characteristic of a group. For
example, if we have a table with transactional sales data for salespeople, we may
want to sum up the total sales for a given period of time (an aggregate). We may then
want to produce a list of only salespeople who sold more than a certain amount, say
$1,000. This can be done using the HAVING clause.

18. IN operator usage: The IN operator is used in conjunction with the WHERE clause.
A set of valid selections for the IN operator within parentheses follows the operator
[e.g., IN (‘WA’, ‘CA’)]. The OR operator can be used to perform the same operation
as the IN operator. For example, if part of our WHERE clause is State IN (‘MA’,
‘NH’), this could be substituted with State = ‘MA’ OR State = ‘NH’.

19. SQL as set-oriented? SQL is considered a set-oriented language because it processes

sections (or sets) of table data that meet certain criteria (e.g., products that are desks

Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc.

172 Essentials of Database Management, First Edition

or tables, for instance) with other sections (or sets) of table data that meet other
criteria (e.g., products having a standard price above $300). SQL will “grab” the data
that meets the criteria, hold it in a temporary work area(s), then using logical UNION
and INTERSECTION commands find the “result set” that meets all criteria specified
by the SQL statements. A set-oriented language, like SQL, is presented in contrast to
a record-oriented language (such as C, Java, and COBOL) that must process one
record/row of a table at a time.

20. LIKE keyword usage: CREATE TABLE LIKE is a quick way to clone a table.

21. Identity column definition and usage: The identity column creates a numeric
sequence. For example, if we create the following table:
CREATE TABLE Test1_T
(ID Smallint Identity(5,2),…)
Then the first record added to Test1_T table will have 5 as its value for the ID
column. Subsequent record IDs will be incremented by 2.

This is beneficial because it allows a way to automatically generate a unique number,

such as an ID. Please note that this does not work in Oracle; IDENTITY is a SQL
Server specific command.

22. SQL clause processing order: In a SELECT statement, the processing of clauses
follows the order shown in Figure 6-9, and reproduced below:

 the FROM clause is evaluated first (sources of data)

 then:
WHERE (criteria to be met, if stated), and/or
GROUP BY (organizes rows according to values in stated column(s)), and
HAVING (finds groups meeting criteria), and
 then SELECT (particular columns to show/display), and
 then ORDER BY (sorts rows in result table).
23. SQL clause & derived table creation: A derived table can be defined in the FROM
clause of an SQL statement.
24. ORDER BY clause & sort order: In an ORDER BY clause, the columns to be sorted
can be referred to by: (1) column name from the actual table referenced in the FROM
clause, or (2) column position in the SELECT clause list.
25. CHECK clause usage: In a CREATE TABLE command, the CHECK clause allows
for validation rules for values to be inserted into the database, such as only allowing
the Product_T table to have rows of products that meet a checklist of certain
ProductFinish values (e.g., such as Cherry, Natural Ash, White Ash, Red Oak,
Natural Oak, and Walnut). In a CREATE VIEW command, the WITH CHECK
OPTION ensures that data entered into the database through a View meets the
specifications stated in the WITH CHECK OPTION element of the View definition.
For example, when a View is created with a criterion (or criteria) specification (e.g.,
all products with price > $300) and the WITH CHECK OPTION enabled, any SQL

Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc.

 Chapter 6 173

UPDATE or INSERT commands against the View that would violate the criterion of
Price needing to be $300 or more would be rejected.
26. ALTER command usage: The ALTER command may be used to add new columns,
change existing columns (name, data type, length, constraints, and default values),
delete columns, add constraints, and delete constraints of a Table. The ALTER
command may not be used with Views, nor can the ALTER command change the
order of columns within a Table.
27. Usage of both WHERE and HAVING clauses? Yes, a query may use both the
WHERE and HAVING clauses. The WHERE clause would restrict which rows are
included for processing by the query. The HAVING clause (used in conjunction with
a GROUP BY clause) determines which summarized groups are included in the result
set.

Answers to Problems and Exercises

Note to Instructor: The solutions that include SQL statements are not intended as the
definitive answer to the questions, but as possible solutions. Instructors and students will
approach the problems using different SQL capabilities, achieving results that are also
correct.

Solutions are presented with SQL syntax that should work in most Oracle installations
(unless noted otherwise; for example, some examples follow the MS Access syntax).
Solutions may need to be modified for a particular Oracle installation or if you are using
a different relational database management system (e.g., Teradata) to illustrate the use of
SQL commands. The solutions in this chapter and the following chapter use the naming
conventions for tables, relations, attributes/columns, and views as shown in the textbook
chapters, although Oracle SQL is not Upper/Lower case sensitive except when querying
metadata (e.g., table names).

1. Database descriptions:
Note: A particular SQL system may restrict the length of column names or may not
permit embedded spaces in names. The following answer may not be acceptable to
the SQL system you use; please modify the grammar accordingly.

CREATE TABLE Student_T (

StudentID NUMBER NOT NULL,
StudentName VARCHAR2(25),
CONSTRAINT Student_PK PRIMARY KEY (StudentID));

CREATE TABLE Faculty_T (

FacultyID NUMBER NOT NULL,
FacultyName VARCHAR2(25),
CONSTRAINT Faculty_PK PRIMARY KEY (FacultyID));

Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc.

174 Essentials of Database Management, First Edition

CREATE TABLE Course_T (

CourseID CHAR(8) NOT NULL,
CourseName VARCHAR2(15),
CONSTRAINT Course_PK PRIMARY KEY (CourseID));

CREATE TABLE Section_T (

SectionNo NUMBER NOT NULL,
Semester CHAR(7) NOT NULL,
CourseID CHAR(8),
CONSTRAINT Section_PK PRIMARY KEY(SectionNo,
Semester),
CONSTRAINT Section_FK FOREIGN KEY (CourseID)
REFERENCES Course_T (CourseID));

CREATE TABLE Qualified_T

(FacultyID NUMBER NOT NULL ,
CourseID CHAR(8) NOT NULL,
DateQualified DATE,
CONSTRAINT IsQualified_PK PRIMARY KEY (FacultyID,
CourseID),
CONSTRAINT QualifiedFaculty_FK FOREIGN KEY (FacultyID)
REFERENCES Faculty_T (FacultyID),
CONSTRAINT QualifiedCourse_FK FOREIGN KEY (CourseID)
REFERENCES Course_T (CourseID));

CREATE TABLE Registration_T

(StudentID NUMBER NOT NULL,
SectionNo NUMBER NOT NULL,
Semester CHAR(7) NOT NULL,
CONSTRAINT IsRegistered_PK PRIMARY KEY (StudentID,
SectionNo, Semester),
CONSTRAINT StudentIsRegistered_FK FOREIGN
KEY(StudentID)
REFERENCES Student_T(StudentID),
CONSTRAINT CourseIsRegistered_FK FOREIGN KEY
(SectionNo, Semester)
REFERENCES Section_T(SectionNo, Semester));

2. Creating a view
CREATE VIEW Student_V AS
SELECT StudentID, StudentName
FROM Student_T;

3. Referential integrity & SQL clause usage in DDL

See the SECTION_FK constraint in the DDL for the SECTION table in Problem and
Exercise 1 above.

Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc.

 Chapter 6 175

4. SQL Definition commands

a.
ALTER TABLE Student_T
ADD Class VARCHAR2(5);
b.
DROP TABLE Registration_T;
c.
ALTER TABLE Faculty_T
MODIFY FacultyName VARCHAR2(40);

Note: CHANGE instead of MODIFY also usually works.

5. SQL commands: INSERT, DELETE, UPDATE

a.
INSERT
INTO Student_T (StudentID, StudentName)
VALUES (65798, 'Lopez');
b.
DELETE
FROM Student_T
WHERE StudentID = 65798;
c.
UPDATE Course_T
SET CourseName = 'Introduction to Relational Databases'
WHERE CourseID = 'ISM 4212';

6. SQL queries
a.
SELECT StudentID, StudentName
FROM Student_T
WHERE StudentID < 50000;
b.
SELECT FacultyName
FROM Faculty_T
WHERE FacultyID = 4756;
c.
SELECT MIN(SectionNo)
FROM Registration_T
WHERE Semester = 'I-2008';

Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc.

176 Essentials of Database Management, First Edition

7. SQL queries
a.
SELECT COUNT(*)
FROM Registration_T
WHERE SectionNo = 2714 AND Semester = 'I-2008 ';
b.
SELECT FacultyID,CourseID,DateQualified
FROM Qualified_T
WHERE DateQualified >= '01-JAN-1993';

8. SQL queries
a. We assume all the question wishes in the result set are the Student IDs. The
Database course is ISM 4212, which is Section 2714 in the Registration_T table,
and the Networking course is ISM 4930, which is Section 2715 in the
Registration_T table:
SELECT StudentID,COUNT(*)
FROM Registration_T
WHERE SectionNo IN (2714,2715)
GROUP BY StudentID
HAVING COUNT(*) > 1;

b. In answering this question, we assume we are not interested in seeing those

instructors who can teach neither course, but rather only those who can teach one
but not the other course. To find those instructors who cannot teach either course
requires SQL capabilities introduced in Chapter 7:
SELECT FacultyID,COUNT(*)
FROM Qualified_T
WHERE CourseID IN ('ISM 3113', 'ISM 3112')
GROUP BY FacultyID
HAVING COUNT(*) = 1;

c. Using Chapter 6 SQL tools, a user could use two single table queries over the
SECTION table and then manually inspect the results to find the courses that are
taught in first semester but not in the second semester. This manual inspection
solution works moderately well when there are few rows in the tables. Another
possible manual solution is to list all the courses sorted by CourseID and
Semester from the SECTION table, and then manually inspect the entries to find
those with only first semester offerings. Again, this approach works moderately
well if there are few rows in the tables.

Using some Chapter 7 tools, the following query could be used to find the
requested information from the database:

SELECT CourseID, Semester

FROM Section_T
WHERE Semester = 'I-2008' AND
CourseID NOT IN (
SELECT CourseID
FROM Section_T

Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc.

 Chapter 6 177

WHERE Semester = 'II-2008'

);

9. SQL queries
a.
SELECT DISTINCT CourseID
FROM Section_T;
b.
SELECT StudentName
FROM Student_T
ORDER BY StudentName;
c.
SELECT SectionNo,Semester,StudentID
FROM Registration_T
WHERE Semester = 'I-2008'
ORDER BY SectionNo,Semester,StudentID;
d.
SELECT CourseID,CourseName
FROM Course_T
ORDER BY CourseID;

Problems 10 – 15 are based on Figure 6-11, Adult Literacy program

10. a. Query: How many tutors have status of Temp Stop?

SELECT COUNT(TutorID) AS NUMTSTOP
FROM Tutor
WHERE Status = 'Temp Stop';

b. Query: Which tutors are active?

SELECT TutorID
FROM Tutor
WHERE Status = 'Active';

11. Query: What are TutorIDs for tutors who have not yet tutored anyone?
Using Chapter 6 tools, a user could formulate two single table queries over the
database and then manually inspect the query results to find the required
information. For instance, a query over the TUTOR table will provide TutorIDs
of all Tutors and a query of DISTINCT TutorIDs from the MATCH_HISTORY
table will provide a listing of all currently matched Tutors. By manual inspection
of these two query result lists, one can find the “missing” TutorIDs from the
MATCH_HISTORY table. For a database such as this one, with a small number
of rows, a user could still find the information easily. As tables grow in size, such
a multiple step manual inspection process becomes less feasible as a practical
matter.

Using Chapter 7 tools, the following query could be used to get the information:

Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc.

178 Essentials of Database Management, First Edition

SELECT TutorID
FROM Tutor
WHERE TutorID NOT IN (
SELECT TutorID
FROM MATCH_HISTORY);

12. Query: How many students are matched with someone in first five months of
year?
SELECT COUNT(StudentID)
FROM Match_History
WHERE StartDate BETWEEN '01-JAN-2008' AND
'31-MAY-2008';

13. Query: Which student has highest Read score?

SELECT Read, StudentID
FROM Student
ORDER BY Read DESC;

Note to Instructor: For #14 and #15, be sure the student realizes that a null value in
EndDate means that a student is still studying in the program and should be included in
the calculation. This is a good opportunity for the student to discover that a calculated
field can be quite useful where null values can be expected. You may want to emphasize
that this query will not update the base table and these null values will remain until a
student leaves the program.

14. This answer is shown in MS ACCESS SQL and uses the NZ function, which is
not covered in the text, to deal with the null dates. If no date is entered as an end
date in the dialog box, today’s date is inserted automatically for null values. As
the NZ function is used here, it will return the number of days the student has
studied into the calculated field.

Query: How long had each student studied in the adult literacy program?
SELECT StudentID, StartDate, EndDate,
DateDiff(‘d’,[StartDate],NZ([EndDate], NZ
[Enter date for blank records], Date()))) AS
TotalDays
FROM Match_History;

15. Query: What is the average length of time a student stayed (or has stayed) in the
program?
This query needs to use the TotalDays information calculated in #14, but as the
average function aggregates all rows, a two-step query will be needed to complete
the problem. This problem also demonstrates using a query as the base for another
query rather than working from a base table.

a. Query: (Answer assumes this query is named CH6P15_First Query.)

Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc.

 Chapter 6 179

SELECT DateDiff(‘d’,[StartDate],NZ([EndDate], NZ
[Enter date for blank records], Date()))) AS
TotalDays
FROM Match_History;

b. Query:
SELECT AVG(TotalDays) AS [AverageTime]
FROM CH6P15_FirstQuery;

Note to instructor: Problems and Exercises 16 – 43 are based on the extended version of
the Pine Valley Furniture Company database. (BigPVFC.mdb is the MS Access file
version of this database; this is also available on Teradata student resources.) Please note
that this version of the database has a different structure than that in the textbook version
of the database (e.g., the salesperson information is in the extended version but not in the
textbook version). Some of the field names may also have changed due to the reserved
words of the DBMS in the version you are using. When you first use the database, check
the table definitions to see what the exact field names and table structures are for the
DBMS that you are using.

16. Add attribute to Product_T table

ALTER TABLE Product_T
ADD QtyOnHand NUMBER(5) CHECK (QtyOnHand >=0);

17. Enter sample data: Students should answer this exercise using a series of
UPDATE commands to SET values for this new field in each existing row of the
Product_T table. If using Oracle and the CHECK option, students should receive
error messages if they attempt to enter negative values for QtyOnHand values.

18. Add Order to Order_T table: Students should answer this exercise using INSERT
commands to enter new rows into the Order_T and OrderLine_T tables.

19. PVFC queries: Although the data in this table is sparsely populated and the
answers to these questions can be found by simple inspection of the table values,
encourage the students to write SQL to derive the results:

a. SELECT COUNT(*)
FROM WorkCenter_T;

b. SELECT WorkCenterLocation
FROM WorkCenter_T;

20. Employees whose name begins with “L”:

Query:
SELECT EmployeeID,EmployeeName
FROM Employee_T
WHERE EmployeeName LIKE 'L%';

Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc.

180 Essentials of Database Management, First Edition

21. Employees hired during 1999:

Query:
SELECT EmployeeName
FROM Employee_T
WHERE EmployeeDateHired BETWEEN '01-JAN-1999'
AND '31-DEC-1999';

22. Customers who live in California or Washington, ordered by descending zip code:

Query:
SELECT CustomerID, CustomerName
FROM Customer_T
WHERE CustomerState IN ('WA', 'CA')
ORDER BY CustomerPostalCode DESC;

OR

SELECT CustomerID, CustomerName

FROM Customer_T
WHERE CustomerState = 'WA' OR
CustomerState = 'CA'
ORDER BY CustomerPostalCode DESC;

23. All raw materials made of cherry and 12 x 12 dimensions:

Note: The query shown here is an Oracle query. If using MS-Access, simply
replace the single quotes with double quotes.

Query:
SELECT MaterialID, MaterialName
FROM RawMaterial_T
WHERE Material = 'Cherry' AND
Thickness ='12' AND
Width = '12';

24. Material ID, name, material, standard cost, and thickness for raw materials made
of cherry, pine, or walnut. Order the list by material, standard cost, and
thickness:

Note: The query shown here is an Oracle query. If using MS-Access, simply
replace the single quotes with double quotes. Also, an alternative solution is to
use the OR operator rather than the IN operator, as in Problem & Exercise 22
above.

Query:
SELECT MaterialID,
MaterialName, Material,
MaterialStandardPrice, Thickness
FROM RawMaterial_T

Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc.

 Chapter 6 181

WHERE Material IN ('Cherry', 'Pine', 'Walnut')

ORDER BY Material, MaterialStandardPrice, Thickness;

25. Display the product line ID and the average standard price for all products in
each product line:

Query:
SELECT ProductLineID, AVG(ProductStandardPrice)
FROM Product_T
GROUP BY ProductLineID;

26. For every product that has been ordered, display the product ID and the total
quantity ordered (label this result TotalOrdered). List the most popular product
first and the least popular last:
Query:
SELECT ProductID,
SUM(OrderedQuantity) AS TotalOrdered
FROM OrderLine_T
GROUP BY ProductID
ORDER BY SUM(OrderedQuantity) DESC;

27. Customer ID and total number of orders placed:

Query:
SELECT CustomerID,
COUNT(OrderID) AS TotOrders
FROM Order_T
GROUP BY CustomerID;

28. Each salesperson’s list of customers, by ID:

Query:
SELECT DISTINCT SalespersonID,
CustomerID
FROM Order_T
ORDER BY SalespersonID;

29. Display the product ID and the number of orders placed for each product. Show
the results in decreasing order, and label result column NumOrders:

Query:
SELECT ProductID,
COUNT(ProductID) AS NumOrders
FROM OrderLine_T
GROUP BY ProductID
ORDER BY COUNT(ProductID) DESC;

Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc.

182 Essentials of Database Management, First Edition

30. Customer ID and total orders placed in 2010:

In MS-Access, the query would be written as follows:

SELECT Order_T.CustomerID,
COUNT(Order_T.OrderID) AS
TotOrders
FROM Order_T
WHERE (((Order_T.OrderDate) Between #1/1/2010# And
#12/31/2010#))
GROUP BY Order_T.CustomerID;

In Oracle, the query would be written as follows:

SELECT CustomerID,
COUNT(OrderID) AS TotOrders
FROM Order_T
WHERE OrderDate Between '01-Jan-2010' AND
'31-Dec-2010'
GROUP BY CustomerID;

31. Total number of orders for each salesman:

Query:
SELECT SalespersonID,
COUNT(OrderID) AS TotalOrders
FROM Order_T
GROUP BY SalespersonID;

32. Customer ID and total orders placed if more than two orders were placed:

Query:
SELECT CustomerID,
COUNT(OrderID) as TotOrders
FROM Order_T
GROUP BY CustomerID
HAVING COUNT(OrderID) > 2;

33. All sales territories that have more than one salesman: (Note: We also show the
number of salespeople for each territory.)

Query:
SELECT TerritoryID,
COUNT(SalespersonName)
AS NumSalesPeople
FROM Salesperson_T
GROUP BY TerritoryID
HAVING COUNT(SalespersonName) > 1;

34. ProductID of most frequently ordered product:

Note: Because subqueries have not been covered yet, the student should just order
the query by the total orders and report on the top ProductID (or ProductIDs if

Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc.

 Chapter 6 183

more than one):

Query:
SELECT ProductID,
COUNT(*) AS NumOrders
FROM OrderLine_T
GROUP BY ProductID
ORDER by COUNT(*) DESC;

An alternate approach in SQL-Server or MS-Access is to use the TOP predicate:

Query:
SELECT TOP 1 ProductID,
COUNT(*) AS NumOrders
FROM OrderLine_T
GROUP BY ProductID;

35. For every territory having more than one salesman, display TerritoryID and the
number of salespersons in the territory:
Query:
SELECT SalesTerritoryID,
COUNT(*) AS NumSalesPersons
FROM Salesperson_T
GROUP BY SalesTerritoryID
HAVING COUNT(*) > 1;

36. Number of orders for each salesperson except salespersons 3, 5, and 9:

Query:
SELECT SalespersonID, COUNT(*)
FROM Order_T
WHERE SalespersonID NOT IN (3, 5, 9)
GROUP BY SalespersonID;

37. Each salesperson’s number of orders placed for each month of 2010.
The solution is shown here in both MS-Access and Oracle:

MS-Access
SELECT SalespersonID, month(OrderDate) AS Month,
COUNT(OrderID) as TotalOrders
FROM Order_t
WHERE OrderDate BETWEEN #01/01/2010# and #12/31/2010#
GROUP BY SalespersonID, month(OrderDate)
ORDER BY SalespersonID,month(OrderDate);

Oracle
SELECT SalespersonID,
TO_CHAR(OrderDate, 'MON') AS Month,
COUNT(OrderID) AS TotalOrders

Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc.

Exploring the Variety of Random
Documents with Different Content
warships; (3) the Convention (VIII.) concerning the laying of
automatic submarine contact mines; (4) the Convention (IX.)
concerning the bombardment by naval forces; (5) the Convention
(XI.) concerning restrictions on the exercise of the right of capture in
maritime war.
[355] See above, vol. I. § 32.
[356] See above, § 68, p. 83, note 1.

II
ATTACK AND SEIZURE OF ENEMY VESSELS

Hall, §§ 138 and 148—Lawrence, § 182—Westlake, II. pp. 133-140, 307-331—

Phillimore, III. § 347—Twiss, II. § 73—Halleck, II. pp. 105-108—Taylor, §§ 545-546
—Moore, VII. §§ 1175-1183, &c.,—Walker, § 50, p. 147—Wharton, III. § 345—
Bluntschli, §§ 664-670—Heffter, §§ 137-139—Ullmann, § 188—Bonfils, Nos. 1269-
1271, 1350-1354, 1398-1400—Despagnet, Nos. 650-659—Rivier, § 66—Nys, III.
pp. 467-478—Pradier-Fodéré, VIII. Nos. 3155-3165, 3176-3178—Calvo, IV. §§
2368-2378—Fiore, III. Nos. 1414-1424, and Code, Nos. 1643-1649—Pillet, pp.
120-128—Perels, § 35—Testa, pp. 155-157—Lawrence, War, pp. 48-55, 93-111—
Ortolan, II. pp. 31-34—Boeck, Nos. 190-208—Dupuis, Nos. 150-158, and Guerre,
Nos. 74-112—U.S. Naval War Code, articles 13-16—Bernsten, §§ 7-8.

Importance of Attack and Seizure of Enemy Vessels.

§ 180. Whereas in land warfare all sorts of violence against enemy
individuals are the chief means, in sea warfare attack and seizure of
enemy vessels are the most important means. For together with
enemy vessels, a belligerent takes possession of the enemy
individuals and enemy goods thereon, so that he can appropriate
vessels and goods, as well as detain those enemy individuals who
belong to the enemy armed forces as prisoners of war. For this
reason, and compared with attack and seizure of enemy vessels,
violence against enemy persons and the other means of sea warfare
play only a secondary part, although such means are certainly not
unimportant. For a weak naval Power can even restrict the
operations of her fleet to mere coast defence, and thus totally
refrain from directly attacking and seizing enemy vessels.

Attack when legitimate.

 § 181. All enemy men-of-war and other public vessels, which are
met by a belligerent's men-of-war on the High Seas or within the
territorial waters of either belligerent,[357] may at once be attacked,
and the attacked vessel may, of course, defend herself by a counter-
attack. Enemy merchantmen may be attacked only if they refuse to
submit to visit after having been duly signalled to do so. And no duty
exists for an enemy merchantman to submit to visit; on the contrary,
she may refuse it, and defend herself against an attack. But only a
man-of-war is competent to attack men-of-war as well as
merchantmen, provided the war takes place between parties to the
Declaration of Paris, so that privateering is prohibited. Any
merchantman of a belligerent attacking a public or private vessel of
the enemy would be considered and treated as a pirate, and the
members of the crew would be liable to be treated as war
criminals[358] to the same extent as private individuals committing
hostilities in land warfare. However, if attacked by an enemy vessel,
a merchantman is competent to deliver a counter-attack and need
not discontinue her attack because the vessel which opened
hostilities takes to flight, but may pursue and seize her.
[357] But not, of course, in territorial waters of neutral States; see the De Fortuyn (1760),
Burrell 175.
[358] See above, § 85, and below, § 254. Should a merchantman, legitimately—after
having been herself attacked—or illegitimately, attack an enemy vessel, and succeed in
capturing her, the prize, on condemnation, becomes droits of Admiralty and, therefore,
the property of the British Government; see article 39 of the Naval Prize Act, 1864, and
article 44 of the Naval Prize Bill introduced in 1911.
It must be specially mentioned that an attack upon enemy vessels
on the sea may be made by forces on the shore. For instance, this is
done when coast batteries fire upon an enemy man-of-war within
reach of their guns. Enemy merchantmen, however, may not be
attacked in this way, for they may only be attacked by men-of-war
after having been signalled in vain to submit to visit.

Attack how effected.

§ 182. One mode of attack which was in use at the time of sailing
ships, namely, boarding and fighting the crew, which can be
described as a parallel to assault in land warfare, is no longer used,
but if an instance occurred, it would be perfectly lawful. Attack is
nowadays effected by cannonade, torpedoes, and, if opportunity
arises, by ramming; and nothing forbids an attack on enemy vessels
by launching projectiles and explosives from air-vessels, provided the
belligerents are not parties to the Declaration—see above, § 114—
which prohibits such attacks. As a rule attacks on merchantmen will
be made by cannonade only, as the attacking vessel aims at seizing
her on account of her value. But, in case the attacked vessel not
only takes to flight, but defends herself by a counter-attack, all
modes of attack are lawful against her, just as she herself is justified
in applying all modes of attack by way of defence.
As regards attack by torpedoes, article 1 No. 3 of Convention VIII.
of the Second Peace Conference enacts that it is forbidden to use
torpedoes which do not become harmless if they miss their mark.
Submarine Contact Mines.
§ 182a. A new mode of attack which requires special attention[359]
is that by means of floating mechanical, in contradistinction to so-
called electro-contact, mines. The latter need not specially be
discussed, because they are connected with a battery on land, can
naturally only be laid within territorial waters, and present no danger
to neutral shipping except on the spot where they are laid. But
floating mechanical mines can be dropped as well in the Open Sea
as in territorial waters; they can, moreover, drift away to any
distance from the spot where they were dropped and thus become a
great danger to navigation in general. Mechanical mines were for the
first time used, and by both parties, in the Russo-Japanese War
during the blockade of Port Arthur in 1904, and the question of their
admissibility was at once raised in the press of all neutral countries,
the danger to neutral shipping being obvious. The Second Peace
Conference took the matter up and, in spite of the opposing views of
the Powers, was able to produce the Convention (VIII.) concerning
the laying of automatic submarine contact mines. This Convention
comprises thirteen articles and was signed, although by some only
with reservations, by all the Powers represented at the Conference,
except China, Montenegro, Nicaragua, Portugal, Russia, Spain, and
Sweden. Most of the signatory States have already ratified, and
Nicaragua has since acceded. The more important stipulations of this
Convention are the following:—
(1) Belligerents[360] are forbidden to lay unanchored automatic
contact mines, unless they be so constructed as to become harmless
one hour at most after those who laid them have lost control over
them, and it is forbidden to lay anchored automatic contact mines
which do not become harmless as soon as they have broken loose
from their moorings (article 1).
(2) It is forbidden to lay automatic contact mines off the coasts
and ports of the enemy, with the sole object of intercepting
commercial navigation (article 2).[361]
(3) When anchored automatic contact mines are employed, every
possible precaution must be taken for the security of peaceful
navigation. The belligerents must provide, as far as possible, for
these mines becoming harmless after a limited time has elapsed,
and, where the mines cease to be under observation, to notify the
danger zones as soon as military exigencies permit, by notice to
mariners, which must also be communicated to the Governments
through the diplomatic channel (article 3).
(4) At the close of the war, each Power must remove the mines
laid by it. As regards anchored automatic contact mines laid by one
of the belligerents off the coasts of the other, their position must be
notified to the other party by the Power which laid them, and each
Power must proceed with the least possible delay to remove the
mines in its own waters (article 5).
(5) The Convention remains in force for seven years, but, unless
denounced, it continues in force afterwards (article 11). According to
article 12, however, the contracting Powers agree to reopen the
question of the employment of automatic contact mines after six and
a half years unless the Third Peace Conference has already taken up
and settled the matter.
[359]See Lawrence, War, pp. 93-111; Wetzstein, Die Seeminenfrage im Völkerrecht
(1909); Rocholl, Die Frage der Minen im Seekrieg (1910); Barclay, pp. 59 and 158;
 Lémonon, pp. 472-502; Higgins, pp. 328-345; Boidin, pp. 216-235; Dupuis, Guerre, Nos.
331-358; Scott, Conferences, pp. 576-587; Martitz in the Report of the 23rd Conference
(1906) of the International Law Association, pp. 47-74; Stockton in A.J. II. (1908), pp.
276-284.
[360] As regards neutrals, see below, § 363a.
[361] France and Germany have signed with reservations against article 2.
There is no doubt that the stipulations of Convention VIII. are
totally inadequate to secure the safety of neutral shipping, and it is
for this reason that Great Britain added the following reservation in
signing the Convention:—"In placing their signatures to this
Convention the British plenipotentiaries declare that the mere fact
that the said Convention does not prohibit a particular act or
proceeding must not be held to debar His Britannic Majesty's
Government from contesting its legitimacy." It is to be hoped that
the Third Peace Conference will produce a more satisfactory
settlement of the problem. The Institute of International Law studied
the matter at its meetings at Paris in 1910 and at Madrid in 1911,
and produced a Règlementation[362] internationale de l'usage des
mines sous-marines et torpilles, comprising nine articles, of which
the more important are the following:—
(1) It is forbidden to place anchored or unanchored automatic
mines in the Open Sea (the question of the laying of electric contact
mines in the Open Sea being reserved for future consideration).
(2) Belligerents may lay mines in their own and in the enemy's
territorial waters, but it is forbidden (a) to lay unanchored automatic
contact mines which do not become harmless one hour at most after
those who laid them have lost control over them; (b) to lay anchored
automatic contact mines which do not become harmless as soon as
they have broken loose from their moorings.
(3) A belligerent is only allowed to lay mines off the coasts and
ports of the enemy for naval and military purposes, he is not allowed
to lay them there in order to establish or maintain a commercial
blockade.
(4) If mines are laid, all precautions must be taken for the safety
of peaceful navigation, and belligerents must, in especial, provide
that mines become harmless after a limited time has elapsed. In
case mines cease to be under observation the belligerents must, as
soon as military exigencies permit, notify the danger zones to
mariners and also to the Governments through the diplomatic
channel.
(5) The question as to the laying of mines in straits is reserved for
future consideration.
(6) At the end of the war each Power must remove the mines laid
by it. As regards anchored automatic contact mines laid by one of
the belligerents off the coasts of the other, their position must be
notified to the other party by the Power which laid them, and each
Power must proceed with the least possible delay to remove the
mines in its own waters. The Power whose duty it is to remove the
mines after the war must make known the date at which the
removal of the mines is complete.
(7) A violation of these rules involves responsibility on the part of
the guilty State. The State which has laid the mines is presumed to
be guilty unless the contrary is proved, and an action may be
brought against the guilty State, even by individuals who have
suffered damage, before the competent International Tribunal.
[362] See Annuaire, XXIV. (1911), p. 301.

Duty of giving Quarter.

§ 183. As soon as an attacked or counter-attacked vessel hauls
down her flag and, therefore, signals that she is ready to surrender,
she must be given quarter and seized without further firing. To
continue an attack although she is ready to surrender, and to sink
her and her crew, would constitute a violation of customary
International Law, and would only as an exception be admissible in
case of imperative necessity or of reprisals.

Seizure.
§ 184. Seizure is effected by securing possession of the vessel
through the captor sending an officer and some of his own crew on
board the captured vessel. But if for any reason this is impracticable,
the captor orders the captured vessel to lower her flag and to steer
according to his orders.
Effect of Seizure.
§ 185. The effect of seizure is different with regard to private
enemy vessels, on the one hand, and, on the other, to public
vessels.
Seizure of private enemy vessels may be described as a parallel to
occupation of enemy territory in land warfare. Since the vessel and
the individuals and goods thereon are actually placed under the
captor's authority, her officers and crew, and any private individuals
on board, are for the time being submitted to the discipline of the
captor, just as private individuals on occupied enemy territory are
submitted to the authority of the occupant.[363] Seizure of private
enemy vessels does not, however, vest the property finally in the
hands of the belligerent[364] whose forces effected the capture. The
prize has to be brought before a Prize Court, and it is the latter's
confirmation of the capture through adjudication of the prize which
makes the appropriation by the capturing belligerent final.[365]
[363] Concerning the ultimate fate of the crew, see above, § 85.
[364] It is asserted that a captured enemy merchantman may at once be converted by
the captor into a man-of-war, but the cases of the Ceylon (1811) and the Georgina
(1814), 1 Dodson 105 and 397, which are quoted in favour of such a practice, are not
decisive. See Higgins, War and the Private Citizen (1912), pp. 138-142.
[365] See below, § 192.

On the other hand, the effect of seizure of public enemy vessels is

their immediate and final appropriation. They may be either taken
into a port or at once destroyed. All individuals on board become
prisoners of war, although, if perchance there should be on board a
private enemy individual of no importance, he would probably not be
kept for long in captivity, but liberated in due time.
As regards goods on captured public enemy vessels, there is no
doubt that the effect of seizure is the immediate appropriation of
such goods on the vessels concerned as are enemy property, and
these goods may therefore be destroyed at once, if desirable.
Should, however, neutral goods be on board a captured enemy
public vessel, it is a moot point whether or no they share the fate of
the captured ship. According to British practice they do, but
according to American practice they do not.[366]
[366]See, on the one hand, the Fanny (1814), 1 Dodson, 443, and, on the other, the
Nereide (1815), 9 Cranch, 388. See also below, § 424, p. 542 note 2.

Immunity of Vessels charged with Religious, Scientific, or Philanthropic Mission.

§ 186. Enemy vessels engaged in scientific discovery and
exploration were, according to a general international usage in
existence before the Second Peace Conference of 1907, granted
immunity from attack and seizure in so far and so long as they
themselves abstained from hostilities. The usage grew up in the
eighteenth century. In 1766, the French explorer Bougainville, who
started from St. Malo with the vessels La Boudeuse and L'Étoile on a
voyage round the world, was furnished by the British Government
with safe-conducts. In 1776, Captain Cook's vessels Resolution and
Discovery, sailing from Plymouth for the purpose of exploring the
Pacific Ocean, were declared exempt from attack and seizure on the
part of French cruisers by the French Government. Again, the French
Count Lapérouse, who started on a voyage of exploration in 1785
with the vessels Astrolabe and Boussole, was secured immunity from
attack and seizure. During the nineteenth century this usage became
quite general, and had almost ripened into a custom; examples are
the Austrian cruiser Novara (1859) and the Swedish cruiser Vega
(1878). No immunity, however, was granted to vessels charged with
religious or philanthropic missions. A remarkable case occurred
during the Franco-German war. In June, 1871, the Palme, a vessel
belonging to the Missionary Society of Basle, was captured by a
French man-of-war, and condemned by the Prize Court of Bordeaux.
The owners appealed and the French Conseil d'État set the vessel
free, not because the capture was not justified but because equity
demanded that the fact that Swiss subjects owning sea-going
vessels were obliged to have them sailing under the flag of another
State, should be taken into consideration.[367]
[367] See Rivier, II. pp. 343-344; Dupuis, No. 158; and Boeck, No. 199.
 The Second Peace Conference embodied the previous usage
concerning immunity of vessels of discovery and exploration in a
written rule and extended the immunity to vessels with a religious or
philanthropic mission, for article 4 of Convention XI. enacts that
vessels charged with religious, scientific, or philanthropic missions
are exempt from capture.
It must be specially observed that it matters not whether the
vessel concerned is a private or a public vessel.[368]
[368] See U.S. Naval War Code, article 13. The matter is discussed at some length by
Kleen, II. § 210, pp. 503-505. Concerning the case of the English explorer Flinders, who
sailed with the vessel Investigator from England, but exchanged her for the Cumberland,
which was seized in 1803 by the French at Port Louis, in Mauritius, as she was not the
vessel to which a safe-conduct was given, see Lawrence, § 185.

Immunity of Fishing-boats and small boats employed in local Trade.

§ 187. Coast fishing-boats, in contradistinction to boats engaged in
deep-sea fisheries, were, according to a general, but not universal,
custom in existence during the nineteenth century, granted immunity
from attack and seizure so long and in so far as they were unarmed
and were innocently employed in catching and bringing in fish.[369]
As early as the sixteenth century treaties were concluded between
single States stipulating such immunity to each other's fishing-boats
for the time of war. But throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries there were instances of a contrary practice, and Lord
Stowell refused[370] to recognise in strict law any such exemption,
although he recognised a rule of comity to that extent. Great Britain
has always taken the standpoint that any immunity granted by her
to fishing-boats was a relaxation[371] of strict right in the interest of
humanity, but revocable at any moment, and that her cruisers were
justified in seizing enemy fishing-boats unless prevented therefrom
by special instructions on the part of the Admiralty.[372] But at the
Second Peace Conference she altered her attitude, and agreed to
the immunity not only of fishing vessels, but also of small boats
employed in local trade. Article 3 of Convention XI. enacts,
therefore, that vessels employed exclusively in coast fisheries, and
small boats employed in local trade, are, together with appliances,
rigging, tackle, and cargo, exempt from capture.
 [369] The Paquette Habana (1899), 175, United States, 677. See U.S. Naval War Code,
article 14; Japanese Prize Law, article 3 (1).
[370] The Young Jacob and Joanna (1798), 1 C. Rob, 20.
[371] See Hall, § 148.
[372] See Holland, Prize Law, § 36.

It must be specially observed that boats engaged in deep-sea

fisheries and large boats engaged in local trade do not enjoy the
privilege of immunity from capture, and that the fishing vessels and
small boats employed in local trade lose that privilege in case they
take any part whatever in hostilities. And article 3 expressly
stipulates that belligerents must not take advantage of the harmless
character of the said boats in order to use them for military purposes
while preserving their peaceful appearance.

Immunity of Merchantmen at the Outbreak of War on their Voyage to and from a

Belligerent's Port.
§ 188. Several times at the outbreak of war during the nineteenth
century belligerents decreed that such enemy merchantmen as were
on their voyage to one of the former's ports at the outbreak of war,
should not be attacked and seized during the period of their voyage
to and from such port. Thus, at the outbreak of the Crimean War,
Great Britain and France decreed such immunity for Russian vessels,
Germany did the same with regard to French vessels in 1870,[373]
Russia with regard to Turkish vessels in 1877, the United States with
regard to Spanish vessels in 1898, Russia and Japan with regard to
each other's vessels in 1904. But there is no rule of International
Law which compels a belligerent to grant such days of grace, and it
is probable that in future wars days of grace will not be granted. The
reason is that the steamboats of many countries are now built,
according to an arrangement with the Government of their home
State, from special designs which make them easily convertible into
cruisers, and that a belligerent fleet cannot nowadays remain
effective for long without being accompanied by a train of transport-
vessels, colliers, repairing-vessels, and the like.[374]
[373] See, however, above, § 178, p. 222.
[374] This point is ably argued by Lawrence, War, pp 54-55.
 In case, however, merchantmen, other than those constructed on
special lines in order to make them easily convertible into cruisers,
are, at the outbreak of war, on their voyage to an enemy port and
are ignorant of the outbreak of hostilities, article 3 of Convention VI.
[375]
of the Second Peace Conference must find application. They
may not, therefore, be confiscated, but may only be captured on
condition that they shall be restored after the conclusion of peace,
or that indemnities shall be paid for them if they have been
requisitioned or destroyed.
[375] See above, § 102a, Nos. 3 and 4.

Vessels in Distress.
§ 189. Instances have occurred when enemy vessels which were
forced by stress of weather to seek refuge in a belligerent's harbour
were granted exemption from seizure.[376] Thus, when in 1746,
during war with Spain, the Elisabeth, a British man-of-war, was
forced to take refuge in the port of Havanna, she was not seized, but
was offered facility for repairing damages, and furnished with a safe-
conduct as far as the Bermudas. Thus, further, when in 1799, during
war with France, the Diana, a Prussian merchantman, was forced to
take refuge in the port of Dunkirk and seized, she was restored by
the French Prize Court. But these and other cases have not created
any rule of International Law whereby immunity from attack and
seizure is granted to vessels in distress, and no such rule is likely to
grow up, especially not as regards men-of-war and such
merchantmen as are easily convertible into cruisers.
[376] See Ortolan, II. pp. 286-291; Kleen, II. § 210, pp. 492-494.

Immunity of Hospital and Cartel Ships.

§ 190. According to the Hague Convention, which adapted the
principles of the Geneva Convention to warfare on sea, hospital ships
are inviolable, and therefore may be neither attacked nor seized; see
below in §§ 204-209. Concerning the immunity of cartel ships, see
below in § 225.
Immunity of Mail-boats and of Mail-bags.
 § 191. No general rule of International Law exists granting enemy
mail-boats immunity from attack and seizure, but the several States
have frequently stipulated such immunity in the case of war by
special treaties.[377] Thus, for instance, Great Britain and France by
article 9 of the Postal Convention of August 30, 1860, and Great
Britain and Holland by article 7 of the Postal Convention of October
14, 1843, stipulated that all mail-boats navigating between the
countries of the parties shall continue to navigate in time of war
between these countries without impediment or molestation until
special notice be given by either party that the service is to be
discontinued.
[377] See Kleen, II. § 210, pp. 505-507.
Whereas there is no general rule granting immunity from capture
to enemy mail-boats, enemy mail-bags do, according to article 1 of
Convention XI., enjoy the privilege of such immunity, for it is there
enacted that the postal correspondence of neutrals or belligerents,
whether official or private in character, which may be found on board
a neutral[378] or enemy ship at sea, is inviolable, and that, in case the
ship is detained, the correspondence is to be forwarded by the
captor with the least possible delay. There is only one exception to
this rule of article 1, for correspondence destined to or proceeding
from a blockaded port does not enjoy the privilege of immunity.
[378] See below, §§ 319 and 411.
It must be specially observed that postal correspondence, and not
parcels sent by parcel post, are immune from capture.

III
APPROPRIATION AND DESTRUCTION OF ENEMY MERCHANTMEN

Hall, §§ 149-152, 171, 269—Lawrence, §§ 183-191—Westlake, II. pp. 156-160—

Phillimore, III. §§ 345-381—Twiss, II. §§ 72-97—Halleck, II. pp. 362-431, 510-526
—Taylor, §§ 552-567—Wharton, III. § 345—Wheaton, §§ 355-394—Moore, VII. §§
1206-1214—Bluntschli, §§ 672-673—Heffter, §§ 137-138—Geffcken in Holtzendorff,
IV. pp. 588-596—Ullmann, § 189—Bonfils, Nos. 1396-1440—Despagnet, Nos. 670-
682—Pradier-Fodéré, VIII. Nos. 3179-3207—Rivier, II. § 66—Calvo, IV. §§ 2294-
2366, V. §§ 3004-3034—Fiore, III. Nos. 1426-1443, and Code, Nos. 1693-1706—
Martens, II. §§ 125-126—Pillet, pp. 342-352—Perels, §§ 36, 55-58—Testa, pp. 147-
 160—Valin, Traité des prises, 2 vols. (1758-60), and Commentaire sur l'ordonnance
de 1681, 2 vols. (1766)—Pistoye et Duverdy, Traité des prises maritimes, 2 vols.
(1854-1859)—Upton, The Law of Nations affecting Commerce during War (1863)—
Boeck, Nos. 156-209, 329-380—Dupuis, Nos. 96-149, 282-301—Bernsten, § 8—
Marsden, Early Prize Jurisdiction and Prize Law in England in The English Historical
Review, XXIV. (1909), p. 675; XXV. (1910), p. 243; XXVI. (1911) p. 34—Roscoe,
The Growth of English Law (1911), pp. 92-140. See also the literature quoted by
Bonfils at the commencement of No. 1396.

Prize Courts.
§ 192. It has already been stated above, in § 185, that the
capture of a private enemy vessel has to be confirmed by a Prize
Court, and that it is only through the latter's adjudication that the
vessel becomes finally appropriated. The origin[379] of Prize Courts is
to be traced back to the end of the Middle Ages. During the Middle
Ages, after the Roman Empire had broken up, a state of lawlessness
established itself on the High Seas. Piratical vessels of the Danes
covered the North Sea and the Baltic, and navigation of the
Mediterranean Sea was threatened by Greek and Saracen pirates.
Merchantmen, therefore, associated themselves for mutual
protection and sailed as a merchant fleet under a specially elected
chief, the so-called Admiral. They also occasionally sent out a fleet of
armed vessels for the purpose of sweeping pirates from certain parts
of the High Seas. Piratical vessels and goods which were captured
were divided among the captors according to a decision of their
Admiral. During the thirteenth century the maritime States of Europe
themselves endeavoured to keep order on the Open Sea. By-and-by
armed vessels were obliged to be furnished with Letters Patent or
Letters of Marque from the Sovereign of a maritime State and their
captures submitted to the official control of such State as had
furnished them with their Letters. A board, called the Admiralty, was
instituted by maritime States, and officers of that Board of Admiralty
exercised control over the armed vessels and their captures,
inquiring in each case[380] into the legitimation of the captor and the
nationality of the captured vessel and her goods. And after modern
International Law had grown up, it was a recognised customary rule
that in time of war the Admiralty of maritime belligerents should be
obliged to institute a Court[381] or Courts whenever a prize was
captured by public vessels or privateers in order to decide whether
the capture was lawful or not. These Courts were called Prize Courts.
This institution has come down to our times, and nowadays all
maritime States either constitute permanent Prize Courts, or appoint
them specially in each case of an outbreak of war. The whole
institution is essentially one in the interest of neutrals, since
belligerents want to be guarded by a decision of a Court against
claims of neutral States regarding alleged unjustified capture of
neutral vessels and goods. The capture of any private vessel,
whether prima facie belonging to an enemy or a neutral, must,
therefore, be submitted to a Prize Court. Article 1 of Convention XII.
(as yet unratified) of the Second Peace Conference now expressly
enacts the old customary rule that "the validity of the capture of a
merchantman or its cargo, when neutral or enemy property is
involved, is decided before a Prize Court." It must, however, be
emphasised that the ordinary Prize-Courts are not International
Courts, but National Courts instituted by Municipal Law, and that the
law they administer is Municipal Law,[382] based on custom, statutes,
or special regulations of their State. Every State is, however, bound
by International Law to enact only such statutes and regulations[383]
for its Prize Courts as are in conformity with International Law. A
State may, therefore, instead of making special regulations, directly
order its Prize Courts to apply the rules of International Law, and it
is understood that, when no statutes are enacted or regulations are
given, Prize Courts have to apply International Law. Prize Courts
may be instituted by belligerents in any part of their territory or the
territories of allies, but not on neutral territory. It would nowadays
constitute a breach of neutrality on the part of a neutral State to
allow the institution on its territory of a Prize Court.[384]
[379] I follow the excellent summary of the facts given by Twiss, II. §§ 74-75, but
Marsden's articles in The English Historical Review, XXIV. (1909), p. 675, XXV. (1910), p.
243, XXVI. (1911), p. 34, must likewise be referred to.
[380] The first case that is mentioned as having led to judicial proceedings before the
Admiral in England dates from 1357; see Marsden, loc. cit. XXIV. (1909), p. 680.
[381] In England an Order in Council, dated July 20, 1589, first provided that all captures
should be submitted to the High Court of Admiralty; see Marsden, loc. cit. XXIV. (1909),
p. 690.
 [382] See below, § 434.
[383] The constitution and procedure of Prize Courts in Great Britain are governed by the
Naval Prize Act, 1864 (27 and 28 Vict. ch. 25), and the Prize Courts Act, 1894 (57 and 58
Vict. ch. 39). The Naval Prize Bill introduced by the British Government in 1911, although
accepted by the House of Commons, was thrown out by the House of Lords.—It should
be mentioned that the Institute of International Law has in various meetings occupied
itself with the whole matter of capture, and adopted a body of rules in the Règlement
international des Prises Maritimes, which represent a code of Prize Law; see Annuaire,
IX. pp. 218-243, but also XVI. pp. 44 and 311.
[384]See below, § 327, and article 4 of Convention XIII. of the Second Peace
Conference.
Whereas the ordinary Prize Courts are national courts, Convention
XII.—as yet unratified—of the Second Peace Conference, provides
for the establishment of an International[385] Prize Court at the
Hague, which, in certain matters, is to serve as a Court of Appeal in
prize cases. In these cases jurisdiction in matters of prize is
exercised, in the first instance, by the Prize Courts of belligerents
(article 2), but, according to article 6, the national Prize Courts may
not deal with any case in which there is a second appeal; since such
cases necessarily come before the International Prize Court at the
second appeal. This means that belligerents, besides Prize Courts of
the first instance, may set up a Prize Court of Appeal, but they may
not set up a second Court of Appeal above the first, except in cases
in which the International Prize Court has no jurisdiction.
[385] See above, vol. I. § 476a, and below, §§ 442-447.
It must be specially observed that the proposed International Prize
Court—see articles 3 and 4—is, in the main, a Court to decide
between belligerents and neutrals, and not between two
belligerents.

Conduct of Prize to port of Prize Court.

§ 193. As soon as a vessel is seized she must be conducted to a
port where a Prize Court is sitting. As a rule the officer and the crew
sent on board the prize by the captor will navigate the prize to the
port. This officer can ask the master and crew of the vessel to assist
him, but, if they refuse, they may not be compelled thereto. The
captor need not accompany the prize to the port. In the exceptional
case, however, where an officer and crew cannot be sent on board
and the captured vessel is ordered to lower her flag and to steer
according to orders, the captor must conduct the prize to the port.
To which port a prize is to be taken is not for International Law to
determine; the latter says only that the prize must be taken straight
to a port of a Prize Court, and only in case of distress or necessity is
delay allowed. If the neutral State concerned gives permission,[386]
the prize may, in case of distress or in case she is in such bad
condition as prevents her from being taken to a port of a Prize
Court, be taken to a near neutral port, and, if admitted, the
capturing man-of-war as well as the prize enjoy there the privilege
of exterritoriality. But as soon as circumstances allow, the prize must
be conducted from the neutral port to that of the Prize Court, and
only if the condition of the prize does not at all allow this, may the
Prize Court give its verdict in the absence of the prize after the ship
papers of the prize and witnesses have been produced before it.
[386]See below, § 328, and articles 21-23 of Convention XIII. of the Second Peace
Conference.
The whole of the crew of the prize are, as a rule, to be kept on
board and to be brought before the Prize Court. But if this is
impracticable, several important members of the crew, such as the
master, mate, or supercargo, must be kept on board, whereas the
others may be removed and forwarded to the port of the Prize Court
by other means of transport. The whole of the cargo is, as a rule,
also to remain on board the prize. But if the whole or part of the
cargo is in a condition which prevents it from being sent to the port
of the Prize Court, it may, according to the needs of the case, either
be destroyed or sold in the nearest port, and in the latter case an
account of the sale has to be sent to the Prize Court. All neutral
goods amongst the cargo are also to be taken to the port of
adjudication, although they have now, according to the Declaration
of Paris, to be restored to their neutral owners. But if such neutral
goods are not in a condition to be taken to the port of adjudication,
they may likewise be sold or destroyed, as the case may require.

Destruction of Prize.
 § 194. Since through adjudication by the Prize Courts the
ownership of captured private enemy vessels becomes finally
transferred to the belligerent whose forces made the capture, it is
evident that after transfer the captured vessel as well as her cargo
may be destroyed. On the other hand, it is likewise evident that,
since a verdict of a Prize Court is necessary before the appropriation
of the prize becomes final, a captured merchantman must not as a
rule be destroyed instead of being conducted to the port of a Prize
Court. There are, however, exceptions to the rule, but no unanimity
exists in theory or practice as regards those exceptions. Whereas
some[387] consider the destruction of a prize allowable only in case of
imperative necessity, others[388] allow it in nearly every case of
convenience. Thus, the Government of the United States of America,
on the outbreak of war with England in 1812, instructed the
commanders of her vessels to destroy at once all captures, the very
valuable excepted, because a single cruiser, however successful,
could man a few prizes only, but by destroying each capture would
be able to continue capturing, and thereby constantly diminish the
enemy merchant fleet.[389] During the Civil War in America the
cruisers of the Southern Confederated States destroyed all enemy
prizes because there was no port open for them to bring prizes to.
And during the Russo-Japanese War, Russian cruisers destroyed
twenty-one captured Japanese merchantmen.[390] According to
British practice,[391] the captor is allowed to destroy the prize in only
two cases—namely, first, when the prize is in such a condition as
prevents her from being sent to any port of adjudication; and,
secondly, when the capturing vessel is unable to spare a prize crew
to navigate the prize into such a port. The Règlement international
des prises maritimes of the Institute of International Law
enumerates in § 50 five cases in which destruction of the capture is
allowed—namely (1) when the condition of the vessel and the
weather make it impossible to keep the prize afloat; (2) when the
vessel navigates so slowly that she cannot follow the captor and is
therefore exposed to an easy recapture by the enemy; (3) when the
approach of a superior enemy force creates the fear that the prize
might be recaptured by the enemy; (4) when the captor cannot
spare a prize crew; (5) when the port of adjudication to which the
prize might be taken is too far from the spot where the capture was
made. Be that as it may,[392] in every case of destruction of the
vessel the captor must remove crew, ship papers, and, if possible,
the cargo, before the destruction of the prize, and must afterwards
send crew, papers, and cargo to a port of a Prize Court for the
purpose of satisfying the latter that both the capture and the
destruction were lawful.
[387] See, for instance, Bluntschli, § 672.
[388] See, for instance, Martens, § 126, who moreover makes no difference between the
prize being an enemy or a neutral ship.
[389] U.S. Naval War Code (article 14) allows the destruction "in case of military or other
necessity."
[390]See Takahashi, pp. 284-310.
[391]The Actaeon (1815), 2 Dod. 48; the Felicity (1819), 2 Dod. 381; the Leucade
(1855), Spinks, 217. See also Holland, Prize Law, §§ 303-304.
[392]The whole matter is thoroughly discussed by Boeck, Nos. 268-285; Dupuis, Nos.
262-268; and Calvo, V. §§ 3028-3034. As regards destruction of a neutral prize, see
below, § 431.
But if destruction of a captured enemy merchantman can as an
exception be lawful, the question as to indemnities to be paid to the
neutral owners of goods carried by the destroyed vessel requires
attention. It seems to be obvious that, if the destruction of the
vessel herself was lawful, and if it was not possible to remove her
cargo, no indemnities need be paid. An illustrative case happened
during the Franco-German War. On October 21, 1870, the French
cruiser Dessaix seized two German merchantmen, the Ludwig and
the Vorwärts, but burned them because she could not spare a prize
crew to navigate the prizes into a French port. The neutral owners of
part of the cargo claimed indemnities, but the French Conseil d'État
refused to grant indemnities on the ground that the action of the
captor was lawful.[393]
[393]See Boeck, No. 146; Barboux, p. 153; Calvo, V. § 3033; Dupuis, No. 262; Hall, §
269. Should the International Prize Court at the Hague be established, article 3 of
Convention XII. of the Second Peace Conference would enable the owners of neutral
goods destroyed with the destroyed enemy merchantmen that carried them to bring the
question as to whether they may claim damages before this Court.
 Ransom of Prize.
§ 195. Although prizes have as a rule to be brought before a Prize
Court, International Law nevertheless does not forbid the ransoming
of the captured vessel either directly after the capture or after she
has been conducted to the port of a Prize Court, but before the
Court has given its verdict. However, the practice of accepting and
paying ransom, which grew up in the seventeenth century, is in
many countries now prohibited by Municipal Law. Thus, for instance,
Great Britain by section 45 of the Naval Prize Act, 1864, prohibits
ransoming except in such cases as may be specially provided for by
an Order of the King in Council.[394] Where ransom is accepted, a
contract of ransom is entered into by the captor and the master of
the captured vessel; the latter gives a so-called ransom bill to the
former, in which he promises the amount of the ransom. He is given
a copy of the ransom bill for the purpose of a safe-conduct to
protect his vessel from again being captured, under the condition
that he keeps the course to such port as is agreed upon in the
ransom bill. To secure the payment of ransom, an officer of the
captured vessel can be detained as hostage, otherwise the whole of
the crew is to be liberated with the vessel, ransom being an
equivalent for both the restoration of the prize and the release of her
crew from captivity. So long as the ransom bill is not paid, the
hostage can be kept in captivity. But it is exclusively a matter for the
Municipal Law of the State concerned to determine whether or no
the captor can sue upon the ransom bill, if the ransom is not
voluntarily paid.[395] Should the capturing vessel, with the hostage or
the ransom bill on board, be captured herself and thus become a
prize of the enemy, the hostage is liberated, the ransom bill loses its
effect, and need not be paid.[396]
[394] Article 40 of the Naval Prize Bill of 1911 runs as follows:—
(1) His Majesty in Council may, in relation to any war, make such orders as may seem
expedient according to circumstances for prohibiting or allowing, wholly or in certain
cases or subject to any conditions or regulations or otherwise as may from time to time
seem meet, the ransoming or the entering into any contract or agreement for the
ransoming of any ship or goods belonging to any of His Majesty's subjects, and taken as
prize by any of His Majesty's enemies.
 (2) Any contract or agreement entered into, and any bill, bond, or other security given
for ransom of any ship or goods, shall be under the exclusive jurisdiction of the High
Court as a Prize Court (subject to appeal to the Supreme Prize Court) and if entered into
or given in contravention to any such Order in Council shall be deemed to have been
entered into or given for an illegal consideration.
(3) If any person ransoms or enters into any contract or agreement for ransoming any
ship or goods, in contravention of any such Order in Council, he shall for every such
offence be liable to be proceeded against in the High Court at the suit of His Majesty in
his office of Admiralty, and on conviction to be fined, in the discretion of the Court, any
sum not exceeding five hundred pounds.
[395] See Hall, § 151, p. 479:—"The English Courts refuse to accept such arrangements
(for ransom) from the effect of the rule that the character of an alien enemy carries with
it a disability to sue, and compel payment of the debt indirectly through an action
brought by the imprisoned hostage for the recovery of his freedom." The American
Courts, in contradistinction to the British, recognise ransom bills. See on the one hand,
the case of Cornu v. Blackburne (1781), 2 Douglas, 640, Anthon v. Fisher (1782), 2
Douglas, 649 note, the Hoop, 1 C. Rob. 201; and, on the other, Goodrich and De Forest
v. Gordon (1818), 15 Johnson, 6.
[396] The matter of ransom is treated with great lucidity by Twiss, II. §§ 180-183; Boeck,
Nos. 257-267; Dupuis, Nos. 269-277.

Loss of Prize, especially Recapture.

§ 196. A prize is lost—(1) when the captor intentionally abandons
her, (2) when she escapes through being rescued by her own crew,
or (3) when she is recaptured. Just as through capture the prize
becomes, according to International Law, the property of the
belligerent whose forces made the capture, provided a Prize Court
confirms the capture, so such property is lost when the prize vessel
becomes abandoned, or escapes, or is recaptured. And it seems to
be obvious, and everywhere recognised by Municipal Law, that as
soon as a captured enemy merchantman succeeds in escaping, the
proprietorship of the former owners revives ipso facto. But the case
is different when a captured vessel, whose crew has been taken on
board the capturing vessel, is abandoned and afterwards met and
taken possession of by a neutral vessel or by a vessel of her home
State. It is certainly not for International Law to determine whether
or not the original proprietorship revives through abandonment. This
is a matter for Municipal Law. The case of recapture is different from
escape. Here too Municipal Law has to determine whether or no the
former proprietorship revives, since International Law lays down the
rule only that recapture takes the vessel out of the property of the
enemy and brings her into the property of the belligerent whose
forces made the recapture. Municipal Law of the individual States
has settled the matter in different ways. Thus, Great Britain, by
section 40 of the Naval Prize Act, 1864, enacted that the recaptured
vessel, except when she has been used by the captor as a ship of
war, shall be restored to her former owner on his paying one-eighth
to one-fourth, as the Prize Court may award, of her value as prize
salvage, no matter if the recapture was made before or after the
enemy Prize Court had confirmed the capture.[397] Other States
restore a recaptured vessel only when the recapture was made
within twenty-four hours[398] after the capture occurred, or before
the captured vessel was conducted into an enemy port, or before
she was condemned by an enemy Prize Court.
[397] Article 30 of the Naval Prize Bill introduced in 1911 simply enacts that British
merchantmen or goods captured by the enemy and recaptured by a British man-of-war
shall be restored to the owner by a decree of the Prize Court.
[398] So, for instance, France; see Dupuis, Nos. 278-279.

Fate of Prize.
§ 197. Through being captured and afterwards condemned by a
Prize Court, a captured enemy vessel and captured enemy goods
become the property of the belligerent whose forces made the
capture. What becomes of the prize after the condemnation is not
for International, but for Municipal Law to determine. A belligerent
can hand the prize over to the officers and crew who made the
capture, or can keep her altogether for himself, or can give a share
to those who made the capture. As a rule, prizes are sold after they
are condemned, and the whole or a part of the net proceeds is
distributed among the officers and crew who made the capture. For
Great Britain this distribution is regulated by the "Royal Proclamation
as to Distribution of Prize Money" of August 3, 1886.[399] There is no
doubt whatever that, if a neutral subject buys a captured ship after
her condemnation, she may not be attacked and captured by the
belligerent to whose subject she formerly belonged, although, if she
is bought by an enemy subject and afterwards captured, she might
be restored[400] to her former owner.
[399] See Holland, Prize Law, pp. 142-150.
[400] See above, § 196.

Vessels belonging to Subjects of Neutral States, but sailing under Enemy Flag.
§ 198. It has been already stated above in § 89 that merchantmen
owned by subjects of neutral States but sailing under enemy flag are
vested with enemy character. It is, therefore, evident that they may
be captured and condemned. As at present no non-littoral State has
a maritime flag, vessels belonging to subjects of such States are
forced to navigate under the flag of another State,[401] and they are,
therefore, in case of war exposed to capture.
[401] See above, vol. I. § 261.

Effect of Sale of Enemy Vessels during War.

§ 199. Since enemy vessels are liable to capture, the question
must be taken into consideration whether the fact that an enemy
vessel has been sold during the war to a subject of a neutral or to a
subject of the belligerent State whose forces seized her, has the
effect of excluding her appropriation. It is obvious that, if the
question is answered in the affirmative, the owners of enemy vessels
can evade the danger of having their property captured by selling
their vessels. The question of transfer of enemy vessels must,
therefore, be regarded as forming part of the larger questions of
enemy character and has consequently been treated in detail above,
§ 91.

Goods sold by and to Enemy Subjects during War.

§ 200. If a captured enemy vessel carries goods consigned by
enemy subjects to subjects of neutral States, or to subjects of the
belligerent whose forces captured the vessel, they may not be
appropriated, provided the consignee can prove that he is the owner.
As regards such goods found on captured enemy merchantmen as
are consigned to enemy subjects but have been sold in transitu to
subjects of neutral States, no unanimous practice of the different
States is in existence. The subject of goods sold in transitu must—in
the same way as the question of transfer of enemy vessels—be
considered as forming part of the larger question of enemy
character. It has, for this reason, been treated above, § 92.

IV
VIOLENCE AGAINST ENEMY PERSONS

See the literature quoted above at the commencement of § 107. See also Bonfils,
Nos. 1273-12733

Violence against Combatants.

§ 201. As regards killing and wounding combatants in sea warfare
and the means used for the purpose, customary rules of
International Law are in existence according to which only those
combatants may be killed or wounded who are able and willing to
fight or who resist capture. Men disabled by sickness or wounds, or
such men as lay down arms and surrender or do not resist capture,
must be given quarter, except in a case of imperative necessity or of
reprisals. Poison, and such arms, projectiles, and materials as cause
unnecessary injury, are prohibited, as is also killing and wounding in
a treacherous way.[402] The Declaration of St. Petersburg[403] and the
Hague Declaration prohibiting the use of expanding (Dum-Dum)[404]
bullets, apply to sea warfare as well as to land warfare, as also do
the Hague Declarations concerning projectiles and explosives
launched from balloons, and projectiles diffusing asphyxiating or
deleterious gases.[405]
[402] See the corresponding rules for warfare on land, which are discussed above in §§
108-110. See also U.S. Naval War Code, article 3.
[403] See above,§ 111.
[404] See above, § 112.
[405] See above, §§ 113 and 114.

All combatants, and also all officers and members of the crews of
captured merchantmen, could formerly[406] be made prisoners of war.
According to articles 5 to 7 of Convention XI. of the Second Peace
Conference—see above in § 85—such members of the crews as are
subjects of neutral States may never be made prisoners of war; but
the captain, officers, and members of the crews who are enemy
subjects, and, further, the captain and officers who are subjects of
neutral States may be made prisoners of war in case they refuse to
be released on parole. As soon as such prisoners are landed, their
treatment falls under articles 4-20 of the Hague Regulations; but as
long as they are on board, the old customary rule of International
Law, that prisoners must be treated humanely,[407] and not like
convicts, must be complied with. The Hague Convention for the
adaptation of the Geneva Convention to sea warfare enacts,
however, some particular rules concerning the shipwrecked, the
wounded, and the sick who, through falling into the hands of the
enemy, become prisoners of war.[408]
[406] This was almost generally recognised, but was refused recognition by Count
Bismarck during the Franco-German War (see below, § 249) and by some German
publicists, as, for instance, Lueder in Holtzendorff, IV. p. 479, note 6.
[407] See Holland, Prize Law, § 249, and U.S. Naval War Code, articles 10, 11.
[408] See below, § 205.

Violence against Non-combatant Members of Naval Forces.

§ 202. Just as military forces consist of combatants and non-
combatants, so do the naval forces of belligerents. Non-combatants,
as, for instance, stokers, surgeons, chaplains, members of the
hospital staff, and the like, who do not take part in the fighting, may
not be attacked directly and killed or wounded.[409] But they are
exposed to all injuries indirectly resulting from attacks on or by their
vessels. And they may certainly be made prisoners of war, with the
exception of members of the religious, medical, and hospital staff,
who are inviolable according to article 10 of the Hague Convention
for the adaptation to maritime warfare of the principles of the
Geneva Convention.[410]
[409] See U.S. Naval War Code, article 3.
[410] See below, § 209.

Violence against Enemy Individuals not belonging to the Naval Forces.

§ 203. Since and so far as enemy individuals on board an attacked
or seized enemy vessel who do not belong to the naval forces do not