Practice Relating to Rule 51. Public and Private Property in Occupied Territory
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory in 2004, Malaysia stated:
136. … [T]he construction of the Wall is causing enormous destruction of property and natural resources. Article 46 of the Hague Regulations states that private property “must be respected”, while Article 55 provides that the occupying State “must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct.”
137. In addition, under Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention destruction of property is prohibited, unless absolutely necessary for military operations. Article 147 includes “extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly” among the grave breaches of the Convention …
138. Even if one were to acknowledge the right of the Occupying Power to take security measures, Malaysia is firmly of the view that these have to meet the fundamental criteria of necessity, proportionality and observance of international humanitarian law. The scale and nature of the Wall as currently constructed and scheduled to operate is not in accordance with such requirements and is hence in flagrant violation of international humanitarian law.
In 2012, during the consideration of the status of the 1977 Additional Protocols by the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, a statement of the delegation of Malaysia was summarized by the Committee in its records as follows:
[The delegate of Malaysia] said that … Israel, as the [O]ccupying Power in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, had failed to ensure that the people of Palestine lived a life free of misery, by blatantly disregarding international law, including the  Geneva Conventions … Its list of violations included … demolition of homes.