Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T15:16:51.817Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

10 - Seizure and use of property in occupied territories

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2011

Yoram Dinstein
Yoram Dinstein
Affiliation:
Tel-Aviv University
Get access

Summary

General observations

The prohibition of spoliation

497. As formulated by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, the underlying principle regarding seizure and use of property in occupied territories is as follows:

under the rules of war, the economy of an occupied country can only be required to bear the expense[s] of the occupation, and these should not be greater than the economy of the country can reasonably be expected to bear.

In the I.G. Farben trial (part of the ‘Subsequent Proceedings’ at Nuremberg), an American Military Tribunal stated in 1948 that the Nazi occupation had entailed unlawful spoliation of both public and private property in occupied Europe, in a systematic and widespread manner, in total violation of LOIAC. In the Krupp trial, another American Military Tribunal added:

The Articles of the Hague Regulations … are clear and unequivocal. Their essence is: if, as a result of war action, a belligerent occupies territory of the adversary, he does not, thereby, acquire the right to dispose of property in that territory, except according to the strict rules laid down in the Regulations.

The distinction between public and private property

498. The protection accorded to property in occupied territories covers all types of assets found there, but a critical distinction is generally drawn between private and public (or State) ownership, with a preferential treatment granted to private property.

Type
Chapter
Information
The International Law of Belligerent Occupation , pp. 210 - 237
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2009

Access options

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

References

Robinson, J., ‘Transfer of Property in Enemy Occupied Territory’, 39 American Journal of International Law216, 218 (1945)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verzijl, J.H.W., International Law in Historical Perspective, vol. IX, 185–8 (1978)
Rosenne, S., ‘The Jaffa-Jerusalem Railway Arbitration (1922)’, 28 Israel Yearbook on Human Rights239, 243 (1998)Google Scholar
Freeman, A.V., ‘General Note on the Law of War Booty’, 40 American Journal of International Law795, 801 (1946)Google Scholar
Hall, W.E., A Treatise on International Law 504 (8th edn, Higgins, A.P. ed., 1924)
Leigh, M., ‘Department of State Memorandum of Law on Israel's Right to Develop New Oil Fields in Sinai and the Gulf of Suez’, 16 International Legal Materials733, 742 (1977)Google Scholar
Scobbie, I., ‘Natural Resources and Belligerent Occupation: Mutation through Permanent Sovereignty’, Human Rights, Self-Determination and Political Change in the Occupied Palestinian Territories221, 238 (Bowen, S. ed., 1997)Google Scholar
Langenkamp, R.D. and Zedalis, R.D., ‘What Happens to the Iraqi Oil?: Thoughts on Some Significant, Unexamined International Legal Questions Regarding Occupation of Oil Fields’, 14 European Journal of International Law417, 429 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clagett, B.M. and Johnson, Jr. O.T., ‘May Israel as a Belligerent Occupant Lawfully Exploit Previously Unexploited Oil Resources of the Gulf of Suez?’, 72 American Journal of International Law558, 574–5 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
‘B’, ‘The Case of the Singapore Oil Stocks’, 5 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 85, 94–5 (1956)
Duruigbo, E., ‘Permanent Sovereignty and People's Ownership of Natural Resources in International Law’, 38 George Washington International Law Review33, 43–50 (2006)Google Scholar
Skubiszewski, K., ‘Use of Force by States. Collective Security. Law of War and Neutrality’, Manual of Public International Law739, 833–4 (Sørensen, M. ed., 1968)Google Scholar
Downey, W.G., ‘Captured Enemy Property: Booty of War and Seized Enemy Property’, 44 American Journal of International Law488, 499 (1950)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummings, E., ‘Oil Resources in Occupied Arab Territories under the Law of Belligerent Occupation’, 9 Journal of International Law and Economics533, 576–7 (1974)Google Scholar
Franklin, W.M., ‘Municipal Property under Belligerent Occupation’, 38 American Journal of International Law383, 390–2, 395–6 (1944)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toman, J., The Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict70, 79 (UNESCO, 1996)
Francioni, F., ‘Au-delà des Traités: L'Emergence d'un Nouveau Droit Coutumier pour la Protection du Patrimonie Culturel’, 111 Revue Générale de Droit International Public19, 27 (2007)Google Scholar
Cheng, B., General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals41–2 n. 41 (1953)
Stone, J., Legal Controls of International Conflict: A Treatise on the Dynamics of Disputes – and War – Law 709 (Rev. ed., 1959)
Farleigh, C.A., ‘The Validity of Acts of Enemy Occupation Authorities Affecting Property Rights’, 35 Cornell Law Quarterly89, 107 (1949–50)Google Scholar
Smith, H.A., ‘Booty of War’, 23 British Year Book of International Law227, 228–9 (1946)Google Scholar
Lauterpacht, E., ‘The Hague Regulations and the Seizure of Munitions de Guerre’, 32 British Year Book of International Law218, 242 (1955–6)Google Scholar
Bordwell, P., The Law of War between Belligerents: A History and Commentary326 (1908)
Higgins, A.P., War and the Private Citizen: Studies in International Law 60 (1912)
Bullock, C. Ll., ‘Angary’, 3 British Year Book of International Law99, 122–5 (1922–3)Google Scholar
Lauterpacht, H., ‘Angary and Requisition of Neutral Property’, 27 British Year Book of International Law455, id. (1950)Google Scholar
Harley, J.E., ‘The Law of Angary’, 13 American Journal of International Law267, 283–4 (1919)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×