Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-02T05:05:29.619Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Municipal Property under Belligerent Occupation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 April 2017

William M. Franklin
William M. Franklin*
Affiliation:
Columbia University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

One of the most interesting and perplexing of the Hague Regulations of the Rules of Land Warfare of 1907 is Article 56 of Section III.., In the prevailing English version the article in question reads as follows:

The property of municipalities, that of institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, even when State property, shall be treated as private property. All seizure or destruction of, or wilful damage to, institutions of this character, historic monuments, works of art and science, is forbidden, and should be made the subject of legal proceedings

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 38 , Issue 3 , July 1944 , pp. 383 - 396
Copyright
Copyright © by the American Society of International Law 1944

Access options

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

References

1 This is the text as it appears in the United States War Department’s Basic Field Manual, Rules of Land Warfare, FM 27–10, pp. 81–82. The French text of the article, which is the only official text, was adopted in its present form by the Hague Conference of 1899 and was repeated without alteration by the Conference of 1907. This official text reads as follows:

“Les biens des communes, ceux des établissements consacrés aux cultes, à la charité et à l’instruction, aux arts et aux sciences, même appartenant à l’Etat, seront traités comme la propriété privée.

“Toute saisie, déstruction ou dégradation interdionelle de semblables établissements, de monuments historiques, d’oeuvres d’art et de science, est interdite et doit être poursuivie.”

2 E.g. Mérignac, A., La Conférence internationale de la Paix, Paris, 1900, p. 239 Google Scholar; Holls, F. W., The Peace Conference at the Hague, New York, 1900, p. 156 Google Scholar; Wilson, G. G. and Tucker, G. F., International Law, New York, 1901, p. 240 Google Scholar; James Brown, Scott, The Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907, Baltimore, 1909, vol. 1, p. 539 Google Scholar; Hall, W. E., A Treatise on International Law, Oxford, 1917, p. 444 Google Scholar; Garner, James W., International Law and the World War, New York, 1920, vol. 1, pp. 434–435 Google Scholar; Paul, Fauchille, Traité de Droit International Public, Paris, 1921, vol. 2, p. 249 Google Scholar; Charles Cheney, Hyde, International Law, Boston, 1922, vol. 2, p. 397 Google Scholar; Oppenheim, L., International Law, London, 1926, 4th ed., p. 263 Google Scholar; Luis, Freyre, Derecho Internacional Publico, Buenos Aires, 1940, pp. 353–354 Google Scholar; Hackworth, Green H., Digest of International Law, Washington, 1943, vol. 6, p. 413 Google Scholar. Three writers of note who have dealt with the rules of land warfare at considerable length appear to have considered Article 56 so obvious as not even to require mention; see Otfried, Nippold, Die zweite Haager Friendenskonferenz, Leipzig, 1908 Google Scholar; Fenwick, Charles G., International Law, New York, 1934 Google Scholar; De Bustamante y Sirven, Antonio S., Manual de Derecho International Publico, Habana, 1942 Google Scholar, 2nd ed.

3 Albert, Mechelynck, La Convention de la Haye, Ghent, 1915, p. 438 Google Scholar.

4 Pillet, A., Les Lois Actualles de la Guerre, Paris, 1901, p. 254 Google Scholar.

5 John, Westlake, International Law, Cambridge, England, 1913, part II, p. 121 Google Scholar.

8 Christian, Meurer, Das Kriegsrecht der Haager Konferenz, Munich, 1907, Vol. 2, p. 319 Google Scholar.

7 Max, Huber, “La 'propriété publique en cas de guerre sur terre” (trans. by Pilet, M.), Revue Générale de Droit International Public, Vol. XX, 1913, pp. 680–686 Google Scholar.

8 Ernst, Feilchenfeld, The International Economic Law of Belligerent Occupation, Washington, 1942, p. 104 Google Scholar.

9 City of Wtodzimierz v. Polish Treasury, Annual Digest of Public International Law Cases, vol. 1931–1932, pp. 449–450 Google Scholar; City of Pärnu v. Pärnu Loan Society, the same, Vol. 1935–1937, p. 503.

10 Scott, James B., The Proceedings of the Hague Peace Conferences, New York, 1921, Vol. III, pp. 17 Google Scholar, 240–252; see also report of the Drafting Committee of the 1907 Conference, the same, Vol. I, 1920, pp. 575–576 Google Scholar.

11 The same, Conference of 1899, pp. 563–564, 566. The only alteration made by the 1899 Conference was the insertion of the verb “est interdite” in the second paragraph of the article and the dropping of a redundant phrase following the word “paursuivie”. This modification somewhat strengthened but otherwise in no way altered the original meaning of the text.

12 The text of Lieber’s Code may be conveniently found in the appendix to the 1901 edition of Wilson and Tucker, as cited.

13 For discussion of the importance of the Allied decision to restore these objets d’art, see Henry, Wheaton, Elements of International Law, 8th ed. with notes by Dana, R. H. Jr., Boston, 1866, pp. 431–432 Google Scholar; 447–449; Fauchille, work cited, pp. 251–252; Garner, work cited, Vol. 1, pp. 434–435.

14 For influence of Lieber’s Code on the Brussels Conference see Scott, J. B., The Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907, Baltimore, 1909, vol. 1, p. 545 Google Scholar; also this Journal, Amos Hershey, S., “International Law since the Peace of Westphalia” Vol. 6 (1912), p. 52 Google Scholar.

15 Actes de la Conférence de Bruxelles de 1874, Paris, Librairie des publications législatives, 1874, p. 5; to be subsequently cited as Actes.

16 Actes … , p. 28.

17 It is interesting to speculate on the General’s motives. Perhaps von Voigts-Rhetz or his legal advisor, Dr. Bluntschli, recalled that a considerable number of the art objects seized by Napoleon had belonged to communes and various local bodies. Or perhaps the suggestion was motivated by the ideology of the Kulturkampf, as a result of which a large number of social functions formerly carried on by the churches were being taken over by the local civil governments. We know that the Kulturkampf was at its height in the summer of 1874 and that Dr. Bluntschli was an outspoken supporter of Bismarck’s policies vis-à-vis the Church. See Kissling, J. W., Geschichte des Kulturkampfes im Deutschen Reiche, Freiburg in Breisgau, 1916, vol. 3, pp. 159–160 Google Scholar; also Georges, Goyau, Bismarck et l’église, Paris, 1911, Vol. 2, pp. 202–203 Google Scholar.

18 Actes … , p. 28.

19 E.g. see remarks of the General concerning “right” of bombardment (Actes … , p. 9), “right” to use force against recalcitrant prisoners of war (p. 13), “right” to treat as war criminals those who take arms in a levée en masse (p. 33), the “impossibility” of paying cash for requisitions (p. 35), etc.

20 Actes … , p. 28.

21 British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. LXV, 1881, pp. 1037, 1074–1075; the original version of the Russian project as circulated to the foreign offices of Europe did not contain the word “artistiques”; the same, pp. 1006–1007. In order to judge the significance of the silence of the British delegate respecting the addition of the word “communes” it is worth recalling that the British delegate attended the Conference only on the specific provisos that the conference would not discuss maritime law and would not commit Great Britain to any “new obligations or engagements of any kind in regard to general principles.” The same, Vol. LXVI, p. 445, the Earl of Derby to Lord A. Loftus.

22 Actes … , p. 44.

23 The same.

24 Actes … , p. 56. This text is actually the final and official French version of what came to be Article 56 of the Hague Conventions, except for the subsequent insertion of the verb “est interdite” and the dropping of the redundant final phrase “par l’autorité compétente.” Above, note 11, p. 385.

25 This is the distinction to which Albert Mechelynck called attention, see above, p. 384.

26 Actes … , p. 50.

27 The same. The italics are those of the present writer.

28 The same.

29 Bluntschli, J. C., Das Moderne Völkerrecht der Civilisirten Staten, Nördlingen, 1878, p. 365 Google Scholar. Present writer’s translation of portion cited: “Since communes primarily have a social and cultural significance, their properties are removed from the general rule of occupation. If the commune, however, also possesses military installations, then the latter would naturally be subject to the military authority of the enemy.”

30 Above, p. 384.

31 British and Foreign State Papers, 1861, Vol. LXV, p. 1076.

32 Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1875, Vol. II, p. 1017.

33 The same, 1899, p. 546; British Parliamentary Papers, 1899, Misc. No. 1, “Correspondence respecting the Peace Conference at the Hague,” p. 334.

34 Holland, T. E., The Laws and Customs of War on Land as defined by the Hague Convention of 1899, London, 1904 Google Scholar, issued by the War Office.

35 Huber, as cited, p. 686. Since Huber cited these words in English, such a translation undoubtedly exists, although the present writer was unable to find it.

36 “ The official French text remained unchanged in 1907 but for some unknown reason, to which no reference is made in the Proceedings of the Conference, the American, British and Spanish translations changed “communes” to “municipalities”; cf. British Parliamentary Papers, Misc. No. 1, 1908, “Correspondence respecting the Second Peace Conference at the Hague,” Cd. 3857, p. 90; also Scott, J. B., The Hague Conventions and Declarations of 1899 and 1907, New York, 1915, p. 127 Google Scholar; see also p. 127 in the French and Spanish editions of the same work.

37 This Journal, Vol. 1 (1907), Supplement, p. 97; Pitt Cobbett, Leading Cases on International Law, London, 1924, Vol. 2, p. 172; Westlake, as cited, p. 121.

38 The expression “bienes communales” was actually used in the 1899 Spanish translation of the article, while the phrase “propriété collective” was used in referring to the subject of Article 8 by M. deMartens of Russia, the president of the Second Commission and Second Subcommission; see Scott, , Proceedings of the Hague Peace Conferences, 1899, p. 488 Google Scholar.

39 FM 27–10, Rules of Land Warfare, p. 84. Neither at Brussels nor at the Hague was there any discussion of the word “municipalities” in connection with Article 52.

40 Actes … , pp. 35–36.

41 FM 27–10, Rules of Land Warfare, p. 83. For Brussels Conference text see Actes … , p. 61.

42 Cf. above, p. 391.

43 FM 27–10, p. 82.

44 Actes … , p. 4.

45 The same, p. 25, remarks of the Swiss delegate Colonel Hammer; p. 49, remarks of the Russian delegate M. Martens.

46 FM 27–10, Rides of Land Warfare, p. 77.

47 Actes … , p. 44.

48 This assumption was the basis for the original Article 4 of the Brussels Project which was voted down in 1899. It was well expressed in the words of Baron Baude, the leading French delegate to the Brussels Conference:

“… il existe une différence entre les fonctionnaires du gouvernement et les fonctionnaires municipaux. Les premiers doivent se retirer devant l’ennemi; les seconds, au contraire, ne peuventséparerleur sort decelui de la ville.” See Actes … , p. 23 and p. 61 (text of Art. 4).

49 Scott, , Proceedings of the Hague Peace Conferences, 1899, p. 523 Google Scholar.