Practice Relating to Rule 51. Public and Private Property in Occupied Territory
Quick navigation
Hague Regulations (1899)
Article 53 of the 1899 Hague Regulations provides:
An army of occupation can only take possession of the cash, funds, and property liable to requisition belonging strictly to the State, depots of arms, means of transport, stores and supplies, and, generally, movable property of the State which may be used for military operations. 
Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, annexed to Convention (II) with Respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 29 July 1899, Article 53.

Hague Regulations (1907)
Article 53 of the 1907 Hague Regulations provides:
An army of occupation can only take possession of cash, funds, and realizable securities which are strictly the property of the State, depots of arms, means of transport, stores and supplies, and, generally, all movable property belonging to the State which may be used for military operations. 
Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, annexed to Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907, Article 53.

Back to top
Lieber Code
Article 31 of the 1863 Lieber Code provides: “A victorious army appropriates all public money, seizes all public movable property until further direction by its government.” 
Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, prepared by Francis Lieber, promulgated as General Order No. 100 by President Abraham Lincoln, Washington D.C., 24 April 1863, Article 31.

Brussels Declaration
Article 6 of the 1874 Brussels Declaration provides:
An army of occupation can only take possession of cash, funds, and realizable securities which are strictly the property of the State, depots of arms, means of transport, stores and supplies, and generally, all movable property belonging to the State which may be used for the operations of the war. 
Project of an International Declaration concerning the Laws and Customs of War, Brussels, 27 August 1874, Article 6.

Oxford Manual
Articles 50 and 51 of the 1880 Oxford Manual provide:
C. Rules of Conduct with Regard to Property
(a) Public property
Although the occupant replaces the enemy State in the government of the invaded territory, his power is not absolute. So long as the fate of this territory remains in suspense – that is, until peace – the occupant is not free to dispose of what still belongs to the enemy and is not of use in military operation. Hence the following rules:
Art. 50. The occupant can only take possession of cash, funds and realizable or negotiable securities which are strictly the property of the State, depots of arms, supplies, and, in general, movable property of the State of such character as to be useful in military operations.
Art. 51. Means of transportation (railways, boats, & c.), as well as land telegraphs and landing-cables, can only be appropriated to the use of the occupant. Their destruction is forbidden, unless it be demanded by military necessity. They are restored when peace is made in the condition in which they then are. 
The Laws of War on Land, adopted by the Institute of International Law, Oxford, 9 September 1880, C(a) and Articles 50 and 51.

Report of the Commission on Responsibility
Based on several documents supplying evidence of outrages committed during the First World War, the 1919 Report of the Commission on Responsibility lists violations of the laws and customs of war which should be subject to criminal prosecution, including “confiscation of property”. 
Report submitted to the Preliminary Conference of Versailles by the Commission on Responsibility of the Authors of the War and on Enforcement of Penalties, Versailles, 29 March 1919.

Inter-Allied Declaration against Acts of Dispossession
The 1943 Inter-Allied Declaration against Acts of Dispossession provides:
It is important to leave no doubt whatsoever of their [the authors of the Declaration] resolution not to accept or tolerate the misdeeds of their enemies in the field of property, however these may be cloaked. 
Inter-Allied Declaration against Acts of Dispossession Committed in Territories under Enemy Occupation or Control, as agreed between the Union of South Africa, United States of America, Australia, Belgium, Canada, China, Czechoslovak Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Greece, India, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Yugoslavia, and the French National Committee, London, 5 January 1943, also known as the London Declaration.

Back to top
Argentina
Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1969) provides:
An army of occupation can only take possession of cash, funds, and realizable securities which are the property of the State, depots of arms, means of transport, stores and supplies, and, generally, all movable property belonging to the State which may be used for military operations. 
Argentina, Leyes de Guerra, RC-46-1, Público, II Edición 1969, Ejército Argentino, Edición original aprobado por el Comandante en Jefe del Ejército, 9 May 1967, § 5.014(2).

Australia
Australia’s Defence Force Manual (1994) states that, in occupied areas, “confiscation is the taking of enemy public movable property without the obligation to compensate the state to which it belongs. All enemy public movable property which may be useable for the operations of war may be confiscated.” 
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, § 1225.

Australia’s LOAC Manual (2006) states that, in occupied areas, “[c]onfiscation is the taking of enemy public movable property without the obligation to compensate the state to which it belongs. All enemy public movable property which may be useable for the operations of war may be confiscated.” 
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 12.48.

Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) states:
Confiscation is the taking of enemy public movable property without the obligation to compensate the state to which it belongs. All enemy public movable property which may be usable for military operations may be confiscated. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 12-8, § 69.

Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states in its chapter on rights and duties of occupying powers:
Confiscation is the taking of enemy public movable property without the obligation to compensate the state to which it belongs. All enemy public movable property which may be usable for military operations may be confiscated. Private property may not be confiscated. Enemy public immovable property may be administered and used but it may not be confiscated. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1238.

Côte d’Ivoire
Côte d’Ivoire’s Teaching Manual (2007) provides in Book IV (Instruction of heads of division and company commanders):
An army of occupation can only take possession of cash, funds, and realizable securities which are strictly the property of the State, depots of arms, means of transport, stores and supplies, and, generally, all movable property belonging to the State which may be used for military operations. 
Côte d’Ivoire, Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre IV: Instruction du chef de section et du commandant de compagnie, Manuel de l’élève, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, p. 48.

France
France’s LOAC Manual (2001) incorporates the content of Article 53 of the 1907 Hague Regulations. 
France, Manuel de droit des conflits armés, Ministère de la Défense, Direction des Affaires Juridiques, Sous-Direction du droit international humanitaire et du droit européen, Bureau du droit des conflits armés, 2001, pp. 35–36.

Germany
Germany’s Military Manual (1992) provides:
Movable government property which may be used for military purposes shall become spoils of war … Upon seizure it shall, without any compensation, become the property of the occupying State. Such property includes, for instance, means of transport, weapons, and food supplies … The latter shall not be requisitioned unless the requirements of the civilian population have been taken into account … The requirements of the civilian population shall be satisfied first. 
Germany, Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts – Manual, DSK VV207320067, edited by The Federal Ministry of Defence of the Federal Republic of Germany, VR II 3, August 1992, English translation of ZDv 15/2, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Handbuch, August 1992, § 556.

Israel
Israel’s Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) states:
The population of occupied areas
International law governs the duty of the army and its authority over populations in occupied areas or in zones under military occupation during battle, The Fourth Geneva Convention includes a complete list of instructions that is binding upon the army in its dealings with the civilian population in an occupied area and regulate the army’s authority (for example, when is the confiscation of property permitted … and more).
The State of Israel claimed in the past that the Convention, at least in part, does not constitute customary international law, however, for political reasons it applies the humanitarian provisions of the Convention de facto, with respect to everything concerning the Occupied Territories. 
Israel, Rules of Warfare on the Battlefield, Military Advocate-General’s Corps Command, IDF School of Military Law, Second Edition, 2006, p. 28.

Italy
Italy’s IHL Manual (1991) states that, in occupied territory, “cash, funds, realizable securities, depots of arms, means of transportation, stores and in general all movable property belonging to the enemy public administration become the property of the occupying State”. 
Italy, Manuale di diritto umanitario, Introduzione e Volume I, Usi e convenzioni di Guerra, SMD-G-014, Stato Maggiore della Difesa, I Reparto, Ufficio Addestramento e Regolamenti, Rome, 1991, Vol. I, § 42; see also § 49(9).

Mexico
Mexico’s Army and Air Force Manual (2009) states:
The occupying power is prohibited from destroying … property belonging … to … the State and other public authorities and social and cooperative organizations, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations. 
Mexico, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para el Ejército y la Fuerza Área Mexicanos, Ministry of National Defence, June 2009, § 236.

New Zealand
New Zealand’s Military Manual (1992) provides that, in occupied territory, “confiscation is the taking of enemy public movable property without the obligation to compensate the State to which it belongs. All enemy public movable property which may be usable for the operations of war may be confiscated.” 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 1336.

Nigeria
Nigeria’s Manual on the Laws of War states:
Movable property in an occupied territory belonging to the enemy state may be seized only if it is useful to the conduct of war. Vehicles, signal equipment, weapons and other equipment required for immediate military use may also be seized …

All movable property, belonging to the enemy state, seized in the battlefield, becomes property of the opposing belligerent. The rules relating to the seizure of private movable property in occupied territories are also applicable to such property seized in the battlefield. 
Nigeria, The Laws of War, by Lt. Col. L. Ode PSC, Nigerian Army, Lagos, undated, §§ 27–28.

Peru
Peru’s IHL Manual (2004) states:
The occupying power has the following obligations towards occupied territories:

(2) refrain from requisitioning foodstuffs, articles or medical supplies available in the occupied territory, except for use by the occupation forces and administration personnel. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 91.c.(2); see also § 64.a.(3).

Peru’s IHL and Human Rights Manual (2010) states:
The occupying power has the following obligations towards occupied territories:

(2) refrain from requisitioning foodstuffs, medical articles or supplies available in the occupied territory, except for use by the occupation forces and administration personnel. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 82(c)(2), p. 284.

Philippines
The Joint Circular on Adherence to IHL and Human Rights (1991) of the Philippines provides: “Members of the AFP [Armed Forces of the Philippines) and PNP [Philippine National Police] shall inhibit themselves from unnecessary military/police actions that could cause destruction to … public properties.” 
Philippines, Implementation Guidelines for Presidential Memorandum Order No. 393, dated 9 September 1991, Directing the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippines National Police to Reaffirm their Adherence to the Principles of Humanitarian Law and Human Rights in the Conduct of Security/Police Operations, Joint Circular Number 2-91, Department of National Defense, Department of Interior and Local Government, 1991, 2a(4).

Russian Federation
The Russian Federation’s Regulations on the Application of IHL (2001) states in its chapter on the behaviour of forces in occupied territory: “Any destruction of property belonging … to the state or to the public authorities is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered necessary by military operations.” 
Russian Federation, Regulations on the Application of International Humanitarian Law by the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation, Moscow, 8 August 2001, § 76.

Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (2007) states:
Public movable property. An army of occupation can take possession of cash, funds and realizable securities belonging to the State, depots of arms, means of transport, stores and supplies, and, generally, all movable property belonging to the State which may be used for military operations. 
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Tomo 1, Publicación OR7–004, (Edición Segunda), Mando de Adiestramiento y Doctrina, Dirección de Doctrina, Orgánica y Materiales, 2 November 2007, § 2.7.c.(4).

Switzerland
Switzerland’s Basic Military Manual (1987) provides that, in occupied territory, “property belonging to the State or public authorities, to social or cooperative organizations, shall not be destroyed, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations”. 
Switzerland, Lois et coutumes de la guerre (Extrait et commentaire), Règlement 51.7/II f, Armée Suisse, 1987, Article 169.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK Military Manual (1958) states, regarding public property:
The occupation army is only allowed to seize cash funds and negotiable securities which are strictly State property, stores of arms, means of transport, stores of supplies, and generally, all movable property of the State which can be used for military operations.

Other movable public property, not susceptible of use for military operations, as well as that belonging to the institutions mentioned above, which is to be treated as private property must be respected and cannot be appropriated, for instance, crown jewels, pictures, collections of works of art, and archives. However, papers connected with the war may be seized, even when forming part of archives.

Where there is any doubt whether the property found in the possession of the enemy is public or private, as may frequently occur in the case of bank deposits, stores and supplies obtained from contractors, it should be considered to be public property unless and until its private character is clearly shown. 
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, §§ 612–614.

The UK LOAC Manual (2004) states:
11.88 Occupying forces may only seize three types of movable property belonging to the occupied state:
a. cash, funds and negotiable securities which are strictly the property of that state;
b. stores of arms and supplies, means of transport and other movable property which can be used for military operations, together with appliances for the transmission of news, wherever situated;
c. public revenue and taxation raised in occupied territory, although the consequence is that the occupying power becomes liable for the costs of administering the occupied territory.

11.89 Other public movable property, not of use for military purposes, must be respected and not appropriated. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, §§ 11.88.–11.89.

United States of America
The US Field Manual (1956) provides in the case of occupied territory:
Valid capture or seizure of property requires both an intent to take such action and a physical act of capture or seizure. The mere presence within occupied territory of property which is subject to appropriation under international law does not operate to vest title thereto in the occupant.

An army of occupation can only take possession of cash, funds, and realizable securities which are strictly the property of the State, depots of arms, means of transport, stores and supplies, and, generally, all movable property belonging to the State which may be used for operations of war.
All appliances, whether on land, at sea, or in the air, adapted for the transmission of news, or for the transport of persons or things, exclusive of cases governed by naval laws, depots of arms, and, generally, all kinds of ammunition of war, may be seized, even if they belong to private individuals, but must be restored and compensation fixed when peace is made.

All movable property belonging to the State susceptible of military use may be taken possession of and utilized for the benefit of the occupant’s government. Under modern conditions of warfare, a large proportion of State property may be regarded as capable of being used for military purposes. However, movable property which is not susceptible of military use must be respected and cannot be appropriated. 
United States, Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare, US Department of the Army, 18 July 1956, as modified by Change No. 1, 15 July 1976, §§ 395, 403 and 404.
[emphasis in original]
Back to top
Australia
Australia’s Criminal Code Act (1995), as amended to 2007, states with respect to war crimes that are committed in the course of an international armed conflict:
268.51 War crime – destroying or seizing the enemy’s property
(1) A person (the perpetrator) commits an offence if:
(a) the perpetrator destroys or seizes certain property; and
(b) the property is property of an adverse party; and
(c) the property is protected from the destruction or seizure under article 18 of the Third Geneva Convention, article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention or article 54 of Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions; and
(d) the perpetrator knows of, or is reckless as to, the factual circumstances that establish that the property is so protected; and
(e) the destruction or seizure is not justified by military necessity; and
(f) the perpetrator’s conduct takes place in the context of, and is associated with, an international armed conflict.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 15 years.
(2) Strict liability applies to paragraph (1)(c). 
Australia, Criminal Code Act, 1995, as amended to 2007, Chapter 8, § 268.51, p. 335.

Colombia
Colombia’s Military Penal Code (1999) provides for a prison sentence for “anyone who during military service and without proper cause, destroys … public property”. 
Colombia, Military Penal Code, 1999, Article 174.

Denmark
Denmark’s Military Criminal Code (1973), as amended in 1978, provides:
Any person who uses war instruments or procedures the application of which violates an international agreement entered into by Denmark or the general rules of international law, shall be liable to the same penalty [i.e. a fine, lenient imprisonment or up to 12 years’ imprisonment]. 
Denmark, Military Criminal Code, 1973, as amended in 1978, § 25(1).

Any person who deliberately uses war means [“krigsmiddel”] or procedures the application of which violates an international agreement entered into by Denmark or international customary law, shall be liable to the same penalty [i.e. imprisonment up to life imprisonment].  
Denmark, Military Criminal Code, 2005, § 36(2).

Georgia
Georgia’s Law on Occupied Territories (2008) states: “Limitation of Economic Activities in the Occupied Territories. 1. The following types of activities shall be prohibited in the Occupied Territories: … d) Use of national resources”. 
Georgia, Law on Occupied Territories, 2008, Article 6(1)(d).

Italy
Italy’s Law of War Decree (1938) states that, in occupied territory, “cash, funds, realizable securities, depots of arms, means of transportation, stores and in general all movable property belonging to the enemy public administration, which may be used for war operations, become the property of the [occupying] State”. 
Italy, Law of War Decree, 1938, Article 60.

Philippines
The Articles of War (1938) of the Philippines states:
All public property taken from the enemy is the property of the Government of the Philippines and shall be secured for the service thereof, and any person subject to military law who neglects to secure such property or is guilty of wrongful appropriation thereof shall be punished as a court-martial may direct. 
Philippines, Articles of War, 1938, Article 80.

Spain
Spain’s Penal Code (1995), as amended in 2010, states:
1. Anyone who in the event of an armed conflict commits or orders to be committed any of the following acts shall be punished with four to six years’ imprisonment:

h. Improperly or unnecessarily seizing movable … property in occupied territory …

2. … In all other cases mentioned in the above article, the higher sentence can be imposed when extensive and important destructions are caused to the property, objects or installations or [the acts] are of extreme gravity. 
Spain, Penal Code, 1995, as amended on 23 June 2010, Article 613(1)(h) and (2).

United States of America
Under the US Uniform Code of Military Justice (1950), members of the armed forces “shall secure all public property taken from the enemy for the service of the United States, and shall give notice and turn over to the proper authority without delay all captured or abandoned property in their possession, custody or control”. 
United States, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 1950, Article 103(a).

Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of
The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s Criminal Offences against the Nation and State Act (1945) considers that, during war or enemy occupation, “any person who … ordered or committed arson, destruction … of … public property [or] … any transport, … or other material, … or any public property” committed war crimes. 
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Criminal Offences against the Nation and State Act, 1945, Article 3(3) and (13).

Back to top
United States of America
In the Flick case before the US Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1947, the accused, the principal proprietor of a large group of German industrial enterprises (and four officials of the same group), which included coal and iron mines and steel producing plants, was charged with war crimes, inter alia, for offences against property in the countries and territories occupied by Germany. Flick was found guilty on this count of the indictment. In its judgment, the Tribunal quoted, inter alia, Article 53 of the 1907 Hague Regulations. It also found:
The only exception to the public property rule that the occupying power, or its agents, is limited by the rules of usufruct is the right to “take possession of” certain types of public property under Article 53 [of the 1907 Hague Regulations]. But the exception applied only with respect to certain named properties and “all moveable property belonging to the State which may be used for military operations”, and thus is not applicable to such properties as means of production. 
United States, Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, Flick case, Judgment, 22 December 1947.

In the Krupp case before the US Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1948, the accused, officials of the Krupp industrial enterprises occupying high positions in political, financial, industrial and economic circles in Germany, were charged with war crimes, inter alia, for the destruction and removal of property, and the seizure of machinery, equipment, raw materials and other property. The Tribunal quoted Article 53 of the 1907 Hague Regulations. It also stated that it “fully concurs with the Judgement of the I.M.T. that the [1907 Hague Convention (IV)], to which Germany was a party, had by 1939 become customary law and was, therefore, binding on Germany not only as Treaty Law but also as Customary”. 
United States, Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, Krupp case, Judgment, 30 June 1948.

In the Krauch case (The I.G. Farben Trial) before the US Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1948, the accused, officials of I.G. Farben Industrie A.G., were charged, inter alia, with war crimes for offences against property in countries and territories which came under the belligerent occupation of Germany. The charges were regarded as violations of, inter alia, Article 53 of the 1907 Hague Regulations. Some of the accused were convicted on this count. The Tribunal held:
The foregoing provisions of the Hague Regulations are broadly aimed at preserving the inviolability of property rights to both public and private property during military occupancy. They admit of exceptions of expropriation, use, and requisition, all of which are subject to well-defined limitations set forth in the articles.

The payment of a price or other adequate consideration does not, under such circumstances, relieve the act of its unlawful character. Similarly where a private individual or a juristic person becomes a party to unlawful confiscation of public … property by planning and executing a well-defined design to acquire such property permanently, acquisition under such circumstances subsequent to confiscation constitutes conduct in violation of the Hague Regulations.

[I]t is illustrative of the view that offences against property of the character described in the [1943 Inter-Allied Declaration against Acts of Dispossession] were considered by the signatory powers to constitute action in violation of existing international law. 
United States, Military Tribunal in Nuremberg, Krauch case (The I.G. Farben Trial), Judgment, 29 July 1948.

In the Von Leeb case (The German High Command Trial) before the US Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1948, the accused, former high-ranking officers in the German army and navy, were charged, inter alia, with war crimes and crimes against humanity against civilians in that they participated in atrocities such as wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages and devastation not justified by military necessity. The Tribunal stated: “Most of the prohibitions of both the Hague and Geneva Conventions, considered in substance, are clearly an expression of the accepted views of civilized nations.” It notably mentioned Article 53 of the 1907 Hague Regulations. 
United States, Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, Von Leeb case (The German High Command Trial), Judgment, 28 October 1948.

Back to top
Iraq
On the basis of the reply by Iraq’s Ministry of Defence to a questionnaire, the Report on the Practice of Iraq states that strict measures should be taken to protect cities that fall under the control of armed forces, including measures to protect and ensure the safety of public property. 
Report on the Practice of Iraq, 1998, Reply by the Ministry of Defence to a questionnaire, July 1997, Chapter 2.3.

Israel
Israel’s IDF General Staff Order No. 50.0303 of 1977 states:
Definitions
1. In this Order:
Occupied Territory – Territory outside the borders of State of Israel that was in enemy hands and passed to IDF [Israel Defense Force] control.
Area Commander – Territory for which the IDF appointed a military governor – the Military Governor. Territory for which no Military Governor was appointed – the Commander of the division whose forces are holding or securing said territory.
Seizure of property – taking over the property, including right of ownership.
Possession of property – taking over administration of property, including using it and benefiting from its produce, without having full ownership.
Land – Land of any kind and any form of possession, buildings, trees or anything else connected to the ground, such as orchards or railroads.
Movable property – Any property that is not land.
Abandoned property – Privately owned land or movable property, whose owner is unknown or had left the occupied area before the occupation or because of it.
General
2. This Order defines the powers of the military authorities regarding enemy property located in occupied territory. This Order does not relate to enemy property on the battlefield. That subject is detailed in General Staff Order 50.0301.
3. To remove all doubt, it should be clear that the provisions of this Order also apply to the police force, when operating under the command of the army owing to call up for reserve duty, or for a military or other type of mission.
4. No land or movable property in occupied territory may be seized or possessed or used without the consent of the owner unless it is necessary for the purposes of war and if allowed by the provisions of this Order.
5. When exercising his powers as per this Order, the Area Commander will take into account the needs of the civilian population of the occupied territory, and will ensure the availability of a supply of food and medical supplies.
6. The Area Commander will not exercise his powers as per this Order, except after consultation with the highest Quartermaster level in the occupied territory (representative of the General Staff-Logistic Branch, or of the command or division Quartermaster. If there is no such representative – the Formation Maintenance Officer, whose forces are in the area or are securing it).
7. In the event of doubt about the status of the property, the military legal adviser of the governing forces must be consulted before exercising powers, as per this Order, and if the governing headquarters are not yet established, with the appropriate Command Advocate.
8. No negotiations will be held with a civilian third party over compensation for property that has been seized or possessed or made use of as per this Order and no confirmations or statements will be offered to any civilian third party, except in accordance with the provisions of this Order.
9. All Commanders must ensure that their subordinates act as follows:
a. They will not commit acts of looting.
b. They will comply with the provisions of this Order and not abuse the powers it grants.
c. They shall not misuse the property covered by this Order.
10. This Order does not detract from what is stated in General Staff Order 33.0133 (Discipline – behavior in accordance with international treaties to which the State of Israel is party), rather supplements it.
11. General Staff – Logistics Branch may appoint a Commander of the Logistic Command or any other position with regard to occupied territory and grant him power to seize and take possession and give instructions regarding use of property, as specified in this command.
12. If a unit has seized land as per this Order, it will report immediately to the appropriate Command Lands Officer who will inform the Building Center and the General Staff-Logistic Branch. The latter will notify those concerned whether or not it had approved the seizure of the land.
13. The provisions of this Order shall deal with four types of property:
a. State-owned lands
b. Privately owned lands
c. State-owned movable property
d. Privately owned movable property
14. For the purpose of this Order, the movable property and lands will be considered state-owned also if owned by a corporation, where the state has shares granting it control over it or its assets or if it has the right to administer it.

Movable property owned by the occupied state
26. Instructions for handling movable goods and property of an enemy state, captured on the battlefield are detailed in General Staff Order 50.0301.
27. Occupation grants the State of Israel ownership and possession rights to movable goods owned by the occupied state that can be used for military operations (such as weapons, supplies, transportation and communication means, money and valuables and documents that are important for the war operations) and thus the IDF is entitled to seize such equipment. The Law of Movable Property, as mentioned above, is to be treated as the law of war booty, i.e. they become property of the State of Israel from the moment of seizure and should be treated according to General Staff Order 50.0301 regarding changes under the circumstances. If movable state property is held in private hands, they will be provided with confirmation of the seizure, according to clauses 30 to 37 below.
28. Movable goods that are the property of an occupied state may not be transferred or used, except according to the Order regulating handling of booty.
29. The provisions of this section do not apply to movable property that is not suitable for military use, and movable goods of the type described below that are private property and are to be treated as specified in sections 30 to 37 below:
a. Funds held by the occupied state, and which are in effect moneys belonging to people or private bodies.
b. Underwater cables linking the occupied territory with a neutral state.
c. Medical materials and medical warehouses of civilian hospitals.
d. Moveable property belonging to a local authority or movable property belonging to religious, charitable, educational, art or science institutions.
e. Art works and antiques.
Seizure of such movable property must always be approved, as specified in Section 30 below.

Obligations regarding enemy property
38. Whoever has acquired seized property, which is held or given for temporary use as per this Order, must take all measures to prevent breakage, damage or loss of the a/m property.
39. Destruction of property as mentioned above or use that compromises its integrity, are permitted only if military necessity so requires. 
Israel, IDF General Staff Order No. 50.0303, Seizure of enemy property in occupied territory, 15 July 1977, §§ 1–14, 26–29 and 38–39.

United States of America
In 1992, in its final report to Congress on the conduct of the Gulf War, the US Department of Defense stated:
In violation of [the 1907 Hague Regulations] … public (municipal and national) property was confiscated … (Confiscation of private property is prohibited under any circumstance, as is the confiscation of municipal public property. Confiscation of movable national public property is prohibited without military need and cash compensation …). 
United States, Department of Defense, Final Report to Congress on the Conduct of the Persian Gulf War, 10 April 1992, Appendix O, The Role of the Law of War, ILM, Vol. 31, 1992, p. 620.

Back to top
UN Commission on Human Rights (Independent Expert)
In 1996, in a report on the situation of human rights in Somalia, the Independent Expert of the UN Commission on Human Rights described, in a section entitled “Civil war and violations of human rights”, the practices of the different Somali factions, including the fact that the winning faction would engage in destruction of public property. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Independent Expert on Assistance to Somalia in the Field of Human Rights, Report on the situation of human rights in Somalia, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1996/14/Add.1, 10 April 1996, § 10.

Back to top
GCC Ministerial Council
In the Final Communiqué of its 36th Session in 1990, the GCC Ministerial Council emphasized that “public … establishments and property must be safeguarded in accordance with the noble stipulations of Islamic law”. It insisted that “the Iraqi authorities must ensure the protection of all public … establishments and all movable … property in the State of Kuwait”. 
GCC, Ministerial Council, 36th Session, Jeddah, 5-6 September 1990, Final Communiqué, annexed to Letter dated 6 September 1990 from Oman to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. S/21719, 6 September 1990, p. 3, preamble and § 3.

GCC Supreme Council
In the Final Communiqué of its 11th Session in 1990, the GCC Supreme Council demanded that “the Iraqi régime … must safeguard … public installations and property in accordance with Islamic law, the provisions of the 1949 Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and the international humanitarian covenants and conventions”. 
GCC, Supreme Council, 11th Session, Doha, 22–25 December 1990, Final Communiqué, annexed to Note verbale dated 26 December 1990 from Qatar to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. A/45/908, 27 December 1990, p. 3.

League of Arab States Council
In a resolution adopted in 1990, the League of Arab States Council, with reference to Islamic law, the 1949 Geneva Convention IV, the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international covenants and conventions relating to the protection of human rights, decided “to insist that the Iraqi authorities must ensure the protection of all public … establishments and all movable … property in the State of Kuwait, and to regard any measures incompatible with such a commitment as null and void”. 
League of Arab States, Council, Res. 5038, 31 August 1990, annexed to Letter dated 31 August 1990 from Qatar to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. S/21693, 31 August 1990, p. 4. (Libya opposed the resolution and Algeria, Iraq, Jordan, Mauritania, Palestine, Sudan, Tunisia and Yemen did not participate in the work of the session.)

Back to top
No data.
Back to top
Special Court for Sierra Leone
In the Sesay case before the SCSL, the accused Sesay and Kallon, senior commanders in the Revolutionary United Front (RUF), Junta and Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC)/RUF forces, and the accused Gbao, senior commander in the RUF and AFRC/RUF forces, were each charged with eight counts of crimes against humanity, eight counts of war crimes, and two counts of other serious violations of international humanitarian law. In its judgment in the case in 2009, the Trial Chamber, considering the rights of an occupying power over movable public property in the occupied territory, stated:
[T]he rights of an occupying power to seize or requisition … public property for the needs of the occupying army … are strictly limited. In particular, requisitions in kind must be in proportion to the resources of the country and must be paid for insofar as possible in cash, or alternatively a receipt must be given and the amount owed paid as soon as possible. 
SCSL, Sesay case, Judgment, 2 March 2009, § 987.
[footnotes in original omitted]
Back to top
No data.
Back to top
No data.
Quick navigation
Hague Regulations (1899)
Article 55 of the 1899 Hague Regulations provides:
The occupying State shall only be regarded as administrator and usufructuary of the public buildings, real property, forests and agricultural works belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must protect the capital of these properties, and administer it according to the rules of usufruct. 
Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, annexed to Convention (II) with Respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 29 July 1899, Article 55.

Hague Regulations (1907)
Article 55 of the 1907 Hague Regulations provides:
The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied territory. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct. 
Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, annexed to Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907, Article 55.

Geneva Convention IV
Article 53 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides:
Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or co-operative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations. 
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 53.

Back to top
Lieber Code
Article 31 of the 1863 Lieber Code provides:
A victorious army … sequesters for its own benefit or of that of its government all the revenues of real property belonging to the hostile government or nation. The title to such real property remains in abeyance during military occupation, and until the conquest is made complete. 
Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, prepared by Francis Lieber, promulgated as General Order No. 100 by President Abraham Lincoln, Washington D.C., 24 April 1863, Article 31.

Brussels Declaration
Article 7 of the 1874 Brussels Declaration provides:
The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied territory. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct. 
Project of an International Declaration concerning the Laws and Customs of War, Brussels, 27 August 1874, Article 7.

Oxford Manual
Article 52 of the 1880 Oxford Manual provides:
C. Rules of Conduct with Regard to Property
(a) Public property
Although the occupant replaces the enemy State in the government of the invaded territory, his power is not absolute. So long as the fate of this territory remains in suspense – that is, until peace – the occupant is not free to dispose of what still belongs to the enemy and is not of use in military operation. Hence the following rules:

Art. 52. The occupant can only act in the capacity of provisional administrator in respect to real property, such as buildings, forests, agricultural establishments, belonging to the enemy State (Article 6). It must safeguard the capital of these properties and see to their maintenance. 
The Laws of War on Land, adopted by the Institute of International Law, Oxford, 9 September 1880, C(a) and Article 52.

Inter-Allied Declaration against Acts of Dispossession
The 1943 Inter-Allied Declaration against Acts of Dispossession provides: “It is important to leave no doubt whatsoever of their [the authors of the Declaration] resolution not to accept or tolerate the misdeeds of their enemies in the field of property, however these may be cloaked.” 
Inter-Allied Declaration against Acts of Dispossession Committed in Territories under Enemy Occupation or Control, as agreed between the Union of South Africa, United States of America, Australia, Belgium, Canada, China, Czechoslovak Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Greece, India, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Yugoslavia, and the French National Committee, London, 5 January 1943, also known as the London Declaration.

Back to top
Argentina
Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1969) provides:
The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied territory. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct. 
Argentina, Leyes de Guerra, RC-46-1, Público, II Edición 1969, Ejército Argentino, Edición original aprobado por el Comandante en Jefe del Ejército, 9 May 1967, § 5.014(1).

Australia
Australia’s Defence Force Manual (1994) states that, in occupied areas, “enemy public immovable property may be administered and used but it may not be confiscated”. 
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, § 1225.

Australia’s LOAC Manual (2006) states that, in occupied areas, “[e]nemy public immovable property may be administered and used but it may not be confiscated”. 
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 12.48.

Military land and buildings belonging to the state, such as supply depots, arsenals, dockyards and barracks, as well as airfields, ports, railways, canals, bridges, piers, and their associated installations, remain at the disposal of the occupying power until the end of the occupation. The occupying power is liable for any waste or destruction resulting from such use. Structures of this type may only be destroyed or damaged if military operations render this absolutely necessary. 
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 12.46.

Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) provides that, in occupied territory:
Enemy public immovable property may be administered and used but it may not be confiscated.

Real property belonging to the State which is essentially of a civil or non-military character, such as public buildings and offices, land, forests, parks, farms, and mines, may not be damaged unless their destruction is imperatively demanded by the exigencies of war. The occupant becomes the administrator of the property and is liable to use the property, but must not exercise its rights in such a wasteful or negligent way as will decrease its value. The occupant has no right of disposal or sale.
Public real property which is of an essentially military nature such as airfields and arsenals remain at the absolute disposal of the occupant. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 12-8, § 69 and p. 12-9, §§ 80 and 81.

Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states in its chapter on rights and duties of occupying powers:
1238. Confiscation
1. Confiscation is the taking of enemy public movable property without the obligation to compensate the state to which it belongs. All enemy public movable property which may be usable for military operations may be confiscated. Private property may not be confiscated. Enemy public immovable property may be administered and used but it may not be confiscated.

1243. Real Property of the State
1. Real property belonging to the State which is essentially of a civil or non-military character, such as public buildings and offices, land, forests, parks, farms, and mines, may not be damaged unless their destruction is imperatively demanded by the exigencies of war. The occupant becomes the administrator of the property and is able to use the property, but must not exercise its rights in such a wasteful or negligent way as will decrease its value. The occupant has no right of disposal or sale.
2. Public real property, which is of an essentially military nature such as airfields and arsenals remain at the absolute disposal of the occupant. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, §§ 1238 and 1243.

Germany
Germany’s Military Manual (1992) provides: “Immovable government property may only be requisitioned but not confiscated … The title to this property shall not pass to the occupying state. Upon termination of the war, the items and real estate seized shall be restored.” 
Germany, Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts – Manual, DSK VV207320067, edited by The Federal Ministry of Defence of the Federal Republic of Germany, VR II 3, August 1992, English translation of ZDv 15/2, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Handbuch, August 1992, § 557.

Italy
Italy’s IHL Manual (1991) states:
All immovable property and factories located in occupied territory and belonging to the enemy public administration pass into the possession of the occupying State which, however, becomes only the administrator and usufructuary. 
Italy, Manuale di diritto umanitario, Introduzione e Volume I, Usi e convenzioni di Guerra, SMD-G-014, Stato Maggiore della Difesa, I Reparto, Ufficio Addestramento e Regolamenti, Rome, 1991, Vol. I, § 42.

Mexico
Mexico’s Army and Air Force Manual (2009) states:
The occupying power is prohibited from destroying … property belonging … to … the State and other public authorities and social and cooperative organizations, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations. 
Mexico, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para el Ejército y la Fuerza Área Mexicanos, Ministry of National Defence, June 2009, § 236.

New Zealand
New Zealand’s Military Manual (1992) provides that, in the case of occupied territory:
Enemy public immovable property may be administered and used but it may not be confiscated.

Real property belonging to the State which is essentially of a civil or non-military character, such as public buildings and offices, land, forests, parks, farms, and mines, may not be damaged unless its destruction is imperatively demanded by the exigencies of war. The Occupying Power becomes the administrator and usufructuary of the property and must not exercise its rights in such a wasteful or negligent way as will decrease the property’s value. A usufructuary has no right of disposal or sale.
The Occupying Power may, however, let or utilize public land and buildings, sell the crops on public land, cut and sell timber and work the mines but he must not make a contract or lease extending beyond the conclusion of the war and the cutting or mining must not exceed what is necessary or usual. It must not constitute abusive exploitation.
Public real property which is of an essentially military nature such as airfields and arsenals remain at the absolute disposal of the Occupying Power. 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, §§ 1336 and 1341.

Nigeria
Nigeria’s Manual on the Laws of War provides:
Real property of military character belonging to the enemy State, such as fortifications, dockyards, railways and bridges, remains at the absolute disposal of the occupant until the end of the war. Such property may be destroyed if absolutely necessary for military operations.
Real property of a non-military character belonging to the enemy state such as public buildings, forests, parks and mines should not be damaged or destroyed unless it is imperatively demanded by the exigencies of war.

The temporary use of real property for military purposes during a combat operation is justified, although such use may diminish the value of the property. 
Nigeria, The Laws of War, by Lt. Col. L. Ode PSC, Nigerian Army, Lagos, undated, §§ 27 and 28.

Philippines
The Joint Circular on Adherence to IHL and Human Rights (1991) of the Philippines provides: “Members of the AFP [Armed Forces of the Philippines] and PNP [Philippine National Police] shall inhibit themselves from unnecessary military/police actions that could cause destruction to … public properties.” 
Philippines, Implementation Guidelines for Presidential Memorandum Order No. 393, dated 9 September 1991, Directing the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippines National Police to Reaffirm their Adherence to the Principles of Humanitarian Law and Human Rights in the Conduct of Security/Police Operations, Joint Circular Number 2-91, Department of National Defense, Department of Interior and Local Government, 1991, 2a(4).

Russian Federation
The Russian Federation’s Regulations on the Application of IHL (2001) states in its chapter on the behaviour of forces in occupied territory: “Any destruction of property belonging … to the state or to the public authorities is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered necessary by military operations.” 
Russian Federation, Regulations on the Application of International Humanitarian Law by the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation, Moscow, 8 August 2001, § 76.

Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (2007) states: “Immovable public property. The occupying power may administrate it in accordance with the rules of usufruct.” 
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Tomo 1, Publicación OR7–004, (Edición Segunda), Mando de Adiestramiento y Doctrina, Dirección de Doctrina, Orgánica y Materiales, 2 November 2007, § 2.7.c.(4).

Switzerland
Switzerland’s Basic Military Manual (1987) provides: The occupying State shall only be considered as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the enemy State, and situated in the occupied territory.” 
Switzerland, Lois et coutumes de la guerre (Extrait et commentaire), Règlement 51.7/II f, Armée Suisse, 1987, Article 169.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK Military Manual (1958) provides that, once a defended locality has surrendered, “it is not permissible to burn public buildings … in such a place merely because it was defended”. 
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 287.

Real property belonging to the State which is of a military character, such as strong points, arsenals, dockyards, magazines, barracks and stores, as well as railways, canals, bridges, piers, and wharves, airfields and their installations, remains at the absolute disposal of the Occupant until the end of the war. Such buildings may, however, be damaged or destroyed only when such acts are rendered absolutely necessary by military operations …
Real property belonging to the State which is essentially of a civil or non-military character, such as public buildings and offices, land, forests, parks, farms, and mines, may not be damaged unless their destruction is imperatively demanded by the exigencies of war. The Occupant becomes the administrator and usufructuary of the property, but he must not exercise his rights in such a wasteful or negligent way as will decrease its value. He has no right of disposal or sale.

The Occupant may, however, let or utilize public land and buildings, sell the crops on public land, cut and sell timber and work the mines. But he must not make a contract or lease extending beyond the conclusion of the war, and the cutting or mining must not exceed what is necessary or usual. It must not constitute abusive exploitation. 
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, §§ 608–610.

The UK LOAC Manual (2004) states:
Military land and buildings
11.85. Military land and buildings belonging to the state, such as supply depots, arsenals, dockyards and barracks, as well as airfields, ports, railways, canals, bridges, piers, and their associated installations, remain at the disposal of the occupying power until the end of the conflict. Structures of this type may only be destroyed or damaged if that is imperatively demanded by military operations.
Civilian land and buildings
11.86 Land and buildings that belong to the state but that are essentially civilian or non-military in character, such as public buildings, land, forests, parks, farms and coal mines, may not be damaged or destroyed unless that is imperatively necessitated by military operations. The occupying power is the administrator, user and, in a sense, guardian of the property. It must not waste, neglect or abusively exploit these assets so as to decrease their value. The occupying power has no right of disposal or sale but may let or use public land and buildings, sell crops, cut and sell timber and work mines. It must not enter into commitments extending beyond the conclusion of the occupation and the cutting or mining must not exceed what is necessary or usual.
Land and buildings of local authorities
11.87. Exceptionally, the property of local authorities (including, for example, that of provincial, county, municipal and parochial authorities) is treated as if it were private. Similarly, property of institutions dedicated to religion, charity, education, art and science is also treated as private property, even if it belongs to the state. The seizure, destruction or damage of such property, historic monuments and works of art or science is forbidden.
11.87.1. Examples of buildings in this latter category include places of worship, alms-houses, hospitals, schools, museums and libraries. If it is cultural property, it is protected anyway. Use of property mentioned in paragraph 11.87 for other, humanitarian purposes, such as the treatment of the wounded and sick in a church, is quite proper if suitable alternative accommodation cannot be found. Cultural property is not to be used for military purposes. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, §§ 11.85–11.87.1.

United States of America
The US Field Manual (1956) provides that, in the case of occupied territory:
Valid capture or seizure of property requires both an intent to take such action and a physical act of capture or seizure. The mere presence within occupied territory of property which is subject to appropriation under international law does not operate to vest title thereto in the occupant.

The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct.

Real property of a State which is of direct military use, such as forts, arsenals, dockyards, magazines, barracks, railways, bridges, piers, wharves, airfields, and other military facilities, remains in the hands of the occupant until the close of the war, and may be destroyed or damaged, if deemed necessary to military operations.

Real property of the enemy State which is essentially of a non-military nature, such as public buildings and offices, land, forests, parks, farms, and mines, may not be damaged or destroyed unless such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations … The occupant does not have the right of sale or unqualified use of such property. As administrator, or usufructuary, he should not exercise his rights in such a wasteful and negligent manner as seriously to impair its value. He may, however, lease or utilize public lands or buildings, sell the crops, cut and sell timber, and work the mines. The term of a lease or contract should not extend beyond the conclusion of the war. 
United States, Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare, US Department of the Army, 18 July 1956, as modified by Change No. 1, 15 July 1976, §§ 395 and 400-402.

Back to top
Australia
Australia’s Criminal Code Act (1995), as amended to 2007, states with respect to war crimes that are committed in the course of an international armed conflict:
268.51 War crime – destroying or seizing the enemy’s property
(1) A person (the perpetrator) commits an offence if:
(a) the perpetrator destroys or seizes certain property; and
(b) the property is property of an adverse party; and
(c) the property is protected from the destruction or seizure under article 18 of the Third Geneva Convention, article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention or article 54 of Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions; and
(d) the perpetrator knows of, or is reckless as to, the factual circumstances that establish that the property is so protected; and
(e) the destruction or seizure is not justified by military necessity; and
(f) the perpetrator’s conduct takes place in the context of, and is associated with, an international armed conflict.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 15 years.
(2) Strict liability applies to paragraph (1)(c). 
Australia, Criminal Code Act, 1995, as amended to 2007, Chapter 8, § 268.51, p. 335.

Colombia
Colombia’s Military Penal Code (1999) provides for a prison sentence for “anyone who, during military service and without proper cause, destroys … public property”. 
Colombia, Military Penal Code, 1999, Article 174.

Denmark
Denmark’s Military Criminal Code (1973), as amended in 1978, provides:
Any person who uses war instruments or procedures the application of which violates an international agreement entered into by Denmark or the general rules of international law, shall be liable to the same penalty [i.e. a fine, lenient imprisonment or up to 12 years’ imprisonment]. 
Denmark, Military Criminal Code, 1973, as amended in 1978, § 25(1).

Any person who deliberately uses war means [“krigsmiddel”] or procedures the application of which violates an international agreement entered into by Denmark or international customary law, shall be liable to the same penalty [i.e. imprisonment up to life imprisonment]. 
Denmark, Military Criminal Code, 2005, § 36(2).

Georgia
Georgia’s Law on Occupied Territories (2008) states:
Article 5. Property Rights to Real Estate in the Occupied Territories
1. Any transaction related to real estate property and concluded in violation of Georgian law shall be deemed void from the moment of conclusion and shall not give rise to any legal consequences.
2. The right to property is protected in the Occupied Territories and is regulated by the laws of Georgia.
Article 6. Limitation of Economic Activities in the Occupied Territories
1. The following types of activities shall be prohibited in the Occupied Territories:

d) Use of national resources. 
Georgia, Law on Occupied Territories, 2008, Articles 5 and 6(1)(d).

Italy
Italy’s Law of War Decree (1938) states that, in occupied territory “the [occupying] State may only be the administrator and usufructuary of immovable property and factories located in occupied territory and belonging to the enemy public administration”. 
Italy, Law of War Decree, 1938, Article 59.

Spain
Spain’s Penal Code (1995), as amended in 2010, states:
1. Anyone who in the event of an armed conflict commits or orders to be committed any of the following acts shall be punished with four to six years’ imprisonment:

h. Improperly or unnecessarily seizing … immovable property in occupied territory …

2. … In all other cases mentioned in the above article, the higher sentence can be imposed when extensive and important destructions are caused to the property, objects or installations or [the acts] are of extreme gravity. 
Spain, Penal Code, 1995, as amended on 23 June 2010, Article 613(1)(h) and (2).

Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of
The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s Criminal Offences against the Nation and State Act (1945) considers that, during war or enemy occupation, “any person who … ordered or committed arson, destruction … of … public property [or] … any … building or … any water supply system, public warehouse or any public property” committed war crimes. 
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Criminal Offences against the Nation and State Act, 1945, Article 3(3) and (13).

Back to top
Poland
In the Greiser case before Poland’s Supreme National Tribunal in 1946, the accused, a governor and gauleiter of the Nazi party for provinces incorporated in the German Reich, was charged with war crimes for having incited, assisted in the commission of, and committed, inter alia, acts of illegal seizure of public property in violation of Article 55 of the 1907 Hague Regulations. Notably, the accused was indicted for having taken part in “extortion and appropriation … of all public property in the territories in question”. 
Poland, Supreme National Tribunal, Greiser case, Judgment, 7 July 1946.

United States of America
In the Flick case before the US Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1947, the accused, the principal proprietor of a large group of German industrial enterprises (and four officials of the same group), which included coal and iron mines and steel producing plants, was charged with war crimes, inter alia, for offences against property in the countries and territories occupied by Germany. Flick was found guilty on this count of the indictment. The Tribunal quoted, inter alia, Article 55 of the 1907 Hague Regulations. With reference to the plants located in Ukraine and Latvia and regarded as State property, the Tribunal found:
The Dnjepr Stahl plant had been used for armament production by the Russians. The other was devoted principally to production of railroad cars and equipment. No single one of the Hague Regulations … is exactly in point, but adopting the method used by the I.M.T., we deduce from all of them, considered as a whole, the principle that State-owned property of this character may be seized and operated for the benefit of the belligerent occupant for the duration of the occupancy. The attempt of the German Government to seize them as the property of the Reich of course was not effective. Title was not acquired nor could it be conveyed by the German Government. The occupant, however, had a usufructuary privilege. Property which the Government itself could have operated for its benefit could also legally be operated by a trustee. We regard as immaterial Flick’s purpose ultimately to acquire title. To covet is a sin under the Decalogue but not a violation of the Hague Regulations nor a war crime.

The conclusion follows that, wherever the occupying power acts or holds itself out as owner of the public property owned by the occupied country, Article 55 [of the 1907 Hague Regulations] is violated. The same applies if the occupying power or its agents who took possession of public buildings or factories or plants, assert ownership, remove equipment of machinery, and ship it to their own country, or make any other use of the property which is incompatible with usufruct. 
United States, Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, Flick case, Judgment, 22 December 1947.

In the Krupp case before the US Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1948, the accused, officials of the Krupp industrial enterprises occupying high positions in political, financial, industrial and economic circles in Germany, were charged with war crimes, inter alia, for the destruction and removal of property, and the seizure of machinery, equipment, raw materials and other property. The Tribunal quoted Article 55 of the 1907 Hague Regulations. It also stated that it “fully concurs with the Judgement of the I.M.T. that the [1907 Hague Convention (IV)], to which Germany was a party, had by 1939 become customary law and was, therefore, binding on Germany not only as Treaty Law but also as Customary Law”. 
United States, Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, Krupp case, Judgment, 30 June 1948.

In the Krauch case (The I.G. Farben Trial) before the US Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1948, the accused, officials of I.G. Farben Industrie A.G., were charged, inter alia, with war crimes for offences against property in countries and territories which came under the belligerent occupation of Germany. The charges were regarded as violations of, inter alia, Article 55 of the 1907 Hague Regulations. Some of the accused were convicted on this count. The Tribunal held:
The foregoing provisions of the Hague Regulations are broadly aimed at preserving the inviolability of property rights to both public and private property during military occupancy. They admit of exceptions of expropriation, use, and requisition, all of which are subject to well-defined limitations set forth in the articles.

[I]t is illustrative of the view that offences against property of the character described in the [1943 Inter-Allied Declaration against Acts of Dispossession] were considered by the signatory powers to constitute action in violation of existing international law. 
United States, Military Tribunal in Nuremberg, Krauch case (The I.G. Farben Trial), Judgment, 29 July 1948.

Back to top
Cuba
In 2009, in a statement before the Fourth Committee of the UN General Assembly on the report of the special committee to investigate Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people and other Arabs of the occupied territories, the representative of Cuba stated:
Israel … continues its intensive colonization activities, such as the ongoing practice of confiscating large tracts of land, the construction and extension of Israeli settlements.
Israel continues its construction of the Separation Wall, in open defiance and contempt of the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice and in violation of UN General Assembly resolution ES-10/15 of 2004, which reaffirms the illegality of the construction of the separation Wall. 
Cuba, Statement by the representative of Cuba before the Fourth Committee of the UN General Assembly on Item 32: Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories, 10 November 2009, p. 2.

In 2010, in a statement before the UN General Assembly on the Palestinian question, the ambassador and permanent representative of Cuba stated:
The Occupying Power continues its intensive colonization activities, such as the ongoing practice of confiscating large tracts of land, the construction and extension of Israeli settlements and the construction of the Wall.
59% of the Wall has already been constructed and Israel continues its construction in open defiance and contempt of the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice and in violation of UN General Assembly resolution ES-10/15 of 20 July 2004, which reaffirms the illegality of the construction of the separation Wall in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
… These activities are aimed at modifying the demographic composition, character and nature of the Palestinian lands, annexing them de facto by means of confiscating large areas [of Palestinian territory].

Cuba condemns those policies and practices, which violate international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention, United Nations resolutions and the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, and we insist that Israel immediately end all of these illegal practices. 
Cuba, Statement by the ambassador and permanent representative of Cuba before the UN General Assembly on Item 37: The Palestinian Question, 29 November 2010, p. 2.

Iraq
On the basis of a reply by Iraq’s Ministry of Defence to a questionnaire, the Report on the Practice of Iraq states that strict measures should be taken to protect cities that fall under the control of armed forces, including measures to protect and ensure the safety of public property. 
Report on the Practice of Iraq, 1998, Reply by the Ministry of Defence to a questionnaire, July 1997, Chapter 2.3.

Israel
Israel’s IDF General Staff Order No. 50.0303 of 1977 states:
Definitions
1. In this Order:
Occupied Territory – Territory outside the borders of State of Israel that was in enemy hands and passed to IDF [Israel Defense Forces] control.
Area Commander – Territory for which the IDF appointed a military governor – the Military Governor. Territory for which no Military Governor was appointed – the Commander of the division whose forces are holding or securing said territory.
Seizure of property – taking over the property, including right of ownership.
Possession of property – taking over administration of property, including using it and benefiting from its produce, without having full ownership.
Land – Land of any kind and any form of possession, buildings, trees or anything else connected to the ground, such as orchards or railroads.
Movable property – Any property that is not land.
Abandoned property – Privately owned land or movable property, whose owner is unknown or had left the occupied area before the occupation or because of it.
General
2. This Order defines the powers of the military authorities regarding enemy property located in occupied territory. This Order does not relate to enemy property on the battlefield. That subject is detailed in General Staff Order 50.0301.
3. To remove all doubt, it should be clear that the provisions of this Order also apply to the police force, when operating under the command of the army owing to call up for reserve duty, or for a military or other type of mission.
4. No land or movable property in occupied territory may be seized or possessed or used without the consent of the owner unless it is necessary for the purposes of war and if allowed by the provisions of this Order.
5. When exercising his powers as per this Order, the Area Commander will take into account the needs of the civilian population of the occupied territory, and will ensure the availability of a supply of food and medical supplies.
6. The Area Commander will not exercise his powers as per this Order, except after consultation with the highest Quartermaster level in the occupied territory (representative of the General Staff-Logistic Branch, or of the command or division Quartermaster. If there is no such representative – the Formation Maintenance Officer, whose forces are in the area or are securing it).
7. In the event of doubt about the status of the property, the military legal adviser of the governing forces must be consulted before exercising powers, as per this Order, and if the governing headquarters are not yet established, with the appropriate Command Advocate.
8. No negotiations will be held with a civilian third party over compensation for property that has been seized or possessed or made use of as per this Order and no confirmations or statements will be offered to any civilian third party, except in accordance with the provisions of this Order.
9. All Commanders must ensure that their subordinates act as follows:
a. They will not commit acts of looting.
b. They will comply with the provisions of this Order and not abuse the powers it grants.
c. They shall not misuse the property covered by this Order.
10. This Order does not detract from what is stated in General Staff Order 33.0133 (Discipline – behavior in accordance with international treaties to which the State of Israel is party), rather supplements it.
11. General Staff – Logistics Branch may appoint a Commander of the Logistic Command or any other position with regard to occupied territory and grant him power to seize and take possession and give instructions regarding use of property, as specified in this command.
12. If a unit has seized land as per this Order, it will report immediately to the appropriate Command Lands Officer who will inform the Building Center and the General Staff-Logistic Branch. The latter will notify those concerned whether or not it had approved the seizure of the land.
13. The provisions of this Order shall deal with four types of property:
a. State-owned lands
b. Privately owned lands
c. State-owned movable property
d. Privately owned movable property
14. For the purpose of this Order, the movable property and lands will be considered state-owned also if owned by a corporation, where the state has shares granting it control over it or its assets or if it has the right to administer it.
State-owned land
15. Once the territory has been occupied, possession of land owned by the enemy whose territory has been occupied is transferred to the IDF, and the IDF is responsible for the administration and maintenance of the lands. The right to ownership of the land remains, however, in the hands of the enemy state.
16. As soon as possible after taking office, the Military Governor will conduct a list of lands under the ownership of the occupied state, indicating their nature, place and condition, and will send the list to the Lands Officer of the appropriate Command, who will coordinate the lists and hand them over to the General Staff-Logistic Branch. If it is not necessary or practical to register all the lands of the occupied state, the General Staff-Logistic Branch can order certain types of lands not included in the mentioned list.
17. The General Staff-Logistic Branch will instruct each Lands Commander about the modes of handling the lands owned by the enemy state.
18. The Area Commander may permit the IDF forces in the area temporary use of lands as mentioned above, for storage, storing or hospitalization or for operational purposes. Any other use of the land as mentioned above requires the approval of General Staff-Logistic Branch.
19.
a. The provisions of this paragraph do not apply to lands in the occupied area that belong to institutions dedicated to religion, charity, education, art, science or hospitalization, even if the land is owned by the state (such as churches, mosques, schools, homes for disabled and hospitals) as well as local authorities’ lands.
b. For the purpose of this Order, all assets listed in this paragraph shall be considered private property: i.e. possession of this property is not automatically transferred to the IDF and they should be treated as stated in paragraphs 20 to 25 below.
c. Such lands must be especially protected from any damage.

Obligations regarding enemy property
38. Whoever has acquired seized property, which is held or given for temporary use as per this Order, must take all measures to prevent breakage, damage or loss of the a/m property.
39. Destruction of property as mentioned above or use that compromises its integrity, are permitted only if military necessity so requires. 
Israel, IDF General Staff Order No. 50.0303, Seizure of enemy property in occupied territory, 15 July 77, §§ 1–19 and 38–39.

United States of America
In 1992, in its final report to Congress on the conduct of the Gulf War, the US Department of Defense stated:
In violation of [the 1907 Hague Regulations] … public (municipal and national) property was confiscated … [I]mmovable national public property may be temporarily confiscated under the concept of usufruct – the right to use another’s property so long as it is not damaged.

Specific Iraqi war crimes include:

– Illegal confiscation/inadequate safeguarding of Kuwaiti public property, in violation of Article 55 [of the 1907 Hague Regulations] …
– In its intentional release of oil into the Persian Gulf and its sabotage of the Al-Burqan and Ar-Rumaylah oil fields in Kuwait, unnecessary destruction in violation of [Article] 55 [of the 1907 Hague Regulations]. 
United States, Department of Defense, Final Report to Congress on the Conduct of the Persian Gulf War, 10 April 1992, Appendix O, The Role of the Law of War, ILM, Vol. 31, 1992, pp. 620, 634 and 635; see also p. 633.

Back to top
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, the UN General Assembly:
Expressing deep concern about the extensive destruction caused by the Israeli occupying forces, including the destruction of homes and properties, of religious, cultural and historical sites, of vital infrastructure and institutions of the Palestinian Authority, and of agricultural land throughout Palestinian cities, towns, villages and refugee camps. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 58/99, 9 December 2003, preamble, voting record: 150-6-19-16.

In a resolution adopted in 2003 on permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources, the UN General Assembly:
Reaffirming the principle of the permanent sovereignty of peoples under foreign occupation over their natural resources;

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the population of the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources, including land and water;
2. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, not to exploit, cause loss or depletion of or endanger the natural resources in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 58/229, 23 December 2003, preamble and §§ 1–2, voting record: 157-4-10-20.

In a resolution adopted in 2004 on Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, the UN General Assembly:
Expressing deep concern about the extensive destruction caused by the Israeli occupying forces, including of religious, cultural and historical sites, of vital infrastructure and institutions of the Palestinian Authority, and of agricultural land throughout Palestinian cities, towns, villages and refugee camps. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 59/124, 10 December 2004, preamble, voting record: 149-7-22-13.

In a resolution adopted in 2004 on permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources, the UN General Assembly:
Reaffirming the principle of the permanent sovereignty of peoples under foreign occupation over their natural resources;

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the population of the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources, including land and water;
2. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, not to exploit, damage, cause loss or depletion of or endanger the natural resources in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 59/251, 22 December 2004, preamble and §§ 1–2, voting record: 156-5-11-19.

In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine, the UN General Assembly expressed its concern over “the widespread destruction of public and private Palestinian property and infrastructure”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 60/39, 1 December 2005, preamble, voting record: 156-6-9-20.

In a resolution adopted in 2005 on permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources, the UN General Assembly:
Reaffirming the principle of the permanent sovereignty of peoples under foreign occupation over their natural resources,

Expressing its concern at the exploitation by Israel, the occupying Power, of the natural resources of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967,

2. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, not to exploit, damage, cause loss or depletion of, or endanger the natural resources in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 60/183, 22 December 2005, preamble and § 2, voting record: 156-6-8-21.

In a resolution adopted in 2005 on Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, the UN General Assembly expressed deep concern about “the continuing detrimental impact of the extensive destruction caused by the Israeli occupying forces, including … of vital infrastructure and institutions of the Palestinian Authority”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 60/107, 8 December 2005, preamble, voting record: 148-7-17-19.

In a resolution adopted in 2006 on operations of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, the UN General Assembly stated it was:
Gravely concerned about the extremely difficult living conditions being faced by the Palestine refugees in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, particularly in the refugee camps in the Gaza Strip, resulting, inter alia, from the loss of life and injury, the extensive destruction of their shelters, properties and vital infrastructure and the displacement of the Palestine refugees. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 61/114, 14 December 2006, preamble, voting record: 169-6-8-9.

In a resolution adopted in 2006 on Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, the UN General Assembly:
Expressing grave concern about the continuing systematic violation of the human rights of the Palestinian people by Israel, the occupying Power, including that arising from … the destruction of property and infrastructure,
Expressing deep concern about the vast destruction caused by the Israeli occupying forces, including of religious, cultural and historical sites, of vital infrastructure and institutions of the Palestinian Authority, and of agricultural land throughout Palestinian cities, towns, villages and refugee camps …

3. Condemns … the excessive use of force by the Israeli occupying forces against Palestinian civilians, resulting in extensive loss of life and vast numbers of injuries, including among children, massive destruction of homes, properties, agricultural lands and vital infrastructure, …

11. Emphasizes the need to preserve the Palestinian institutions and infrastructure for the provision of vital public services to the Palestinian civilian population. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 61/119, 14 December 2006, preamble and §§ 3 and 11, voting record: 157-9-14-12.

In a resolution adopted in 2006 on permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources, the UN General Assembly:
Reaffirming the principle of the permanent sovereignty of peoples under foreign occupation over their natural resources,

Reaffirming the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967,
Recalling, in this regard, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and affirming that these human rights instruments must be respected in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, as well as in the occupied Syrian Golan,
Recalling also the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and recalling further its resolution ES-10/15 of 20 July 2004,
Expressing its concern at the exploitation by Israel, the occupying Power, of the natural resources of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967,
Expressing its grave concern at the extensive destruction by Israel, the occupying Power, of agricultural land and orchards in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including the uprooting of a vast number of fruit-bearing trees,
Expressing its concern at the widespread destruction caused by Israel, the occupying Power, to vital infrastructure, including water pipelines and sewage networks, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, which, inter alia, pollutes the environment and negatively affects the natural resources of the Palestinian people,
Aware of the detrimental impact of the Israeli settlements on Palestinian and other Arab natural resources, especially as a result of the confiscation of land and the forced diversion of water resources, and of the dire economic and social consequences in this regard,
Aware also of the detrimental impact on Palestinian natural resources being caused by the unlawful construction of the wall by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, and of its grave effect on the natural resources and economic and social conditions of the Palestinian people,

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the population of the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources, including land and water;
2. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, not to exploit, damage, cause loss or depletion of, or endanger the natural resources in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan;
3. Recognizes the right of the Palestinian people to claim restitution as a result of any exploitation, damage, loss or depletion, or endangerment of their natural resources resulting from illegal measures taken by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and expresses the hope that this issue will be dealt with in the framework of the final status negotiations between the Palestinian and Israeli sides;
4. Stresses that the wall being constructed by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, is contrary to international law and is seriously depriving the Palestinian people of their natural resources, and calls in this regard for full compliance with the legal obligations mentioned in the 9 July 2004 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice and in resolution ES-10/15;

6. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, in this regard, to comply strictly with its obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law, with respect to the alteration of the character and status of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem;
7. Also calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to cease the dumping of all kinds of waste materials in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan, which gravely threaten their natural resources, namely the water and land resources, and pose an environmental hazard and health threat to the civilian populations;
8. Further calls upon Israel to cease its destruction of vital infrastructure, including water pipelines and sewage networks, which, inter alia, has a negative impact on the natural resources of the Palestinian people. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 61/184, 20 December 2006, preamble and §§ 1–4 and 6–8, voting record: 164-6-9-13.

In a resolution adopted in 2007 on the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine, the UN General Assembly expressed its concern “over the negative developments that have continued to occur in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, including … the widespread destruction of public and private Palestinian property and infrastructure”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 62/83, 10 December 2007, preamble, voting record: 161-7-5-19.

In a resolution adopted in 2007 on Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, the UN General Assembly:
Expressing grave concern about the continuing systematic violation of the human rights of the Palestinian people by Israel, the occupying Power, including that arising from … the destruction of property and infrastructure, …
Expressing deep concern also about the vast destruction caused by the Israeli occupying forces, including of religious, cultural and historical sites, of vital infrastructure and institutions of the Palestinian Authority, and of agricultural land throughout Palestinian cities, towns, villages and refugee camps, …

3. Condemns … the excessive use of force by the Israeli occupying forces against Palestinian civilians, resulting in extensive loss of life and vast numbers of injuries, including among children, massive destruction of homes, properties, agricultural lands and vital infrastructure, …

11. Emphasizes the need to preserve the Palestinian institutions and infrastructure for the provision of vital public services to the Palestinian civilian population. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 62/109, 17 December 2007, preamble and §§ 3 and 11, voting record: 156-7-11-18.

In a resolution adopted in 2007 on permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources”, the UN General Assembly:
Reaffirming the principle of the permanent sovereignty of peoples under foreign occupation over their natural resources,

Expressing its concern at the exploitation by Israel, the occupying Power, of the natural resources of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967,
Expressing its grave concern at the extensive destruction by Israel, the occupying Power, of agricultural land and orchards in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including the uprooting of a vast number of fruit-bearing trees,
Expressing its concern at the widespread destruction caused by Israel, the occupying Power, to vital infrastructure, including water pipelines and sewage networks, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, which, inter alia, pollutes the environment and negatively affects the natural resources of the Palestinian people,
Aware of the detrimental impact of the Israeli settlements on Palestinian and other Arab natural resources, especially as a result of the confiscation of land and the forced diversion of water resources, and of the dire socio-economic consequences in this regard,
Aware also of the detrimental impact on Palestinian natural resources being caused by the unlawful construction of the wall by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, and of its grave effect on the natural resources and economic and social conditions of the Palestinian people,

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the population of the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources, including land and water;
2. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, not to exploit, damage, cause loss or depletion of, or endanger the natural resources in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan;
3. Recognizes the right of the Palestinian people to claim restitution as a result of any exploitation, damage, loss or depletion, or endangerment of their natural resources resulting from illegal measures taken by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and expresses the hope that this issue will be dealt with in the framework of the final status negotiations between the Palestinian and Israeli sides;
4. Stresses that the wall being constructed by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, is contrary to international law and is seriously depriving the Palestinian people of their natural resources, and calls in this regard for full compliance with the legal obligations mentioned in the 9 July 2004 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice and in resolution ES-10/15;

6. Also calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to cease the dumping of all kinds of waste materials in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan, which gravely threaten their natural resources, namely the water and land resources, and pose an environmental hazard and health threat to the civilian populations;
7. Further calls upon Israel to cease its destruction of vital infrastructure, including water pipelines and sewage networks, which, inter alia, has a negative impact on the natural resources of the Palestinian people. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 62/181, 19 December 2007, preamble and §§ 1–4 and 6–7, voting record: 166-7-6-13.

UN Economic and Social Council
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on economic and social repercussions of the Israeli occupation on the living conditions of the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem, and the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan, ECOSOC reaffirmed “the inalienable right of the Palestinian people and the Arab population of the occupied Syrian Golan to all their natural and economic resources, and calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, not to exploit, endanger or cause loss or depletion of these resources”. 
ECOSOC, Res. 2003/59, 24 July 2003, § 5, voting record: 48-2-3.

In a resolution adopted in 2004 on economic and social repercussions of the Israeli occupation on the living conditions of the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem, and the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan, ECOSOC:
Reaffirming the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967,

Reaffirming the principle of the permanent sovereignty of peoples under foreign occupation over their natural resources,

Gravely concerned about the deterioration of the economic and living conditions of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab population of the occupied Syrian Golan and the exploitation by Israel, the occupying Power, of their natural resources,

5. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the Palestinian people and the Arab population of the occupied Syrian Golan to all their natural and economic resources, and calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, not to exploit, endanger or cause loss or depletion of these resources. 
ECOSOC, Res. 2004/54, 23 July 2004, preamble and § 5, voting record: 51-1-1.

In a resolution adopted in 2005 on economic and social repercussions of the Israeli occupation on the living conditions of the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem, and the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan, ECOSOC:
Reaffirming the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949 to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967,

Reaffirming the principle of the permanent sovereignty of peoples under foreign occupation over their natural resources,

Gravely concerned about the deterioration of the economic and living conditions of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab population of the occupied Syrian Golan and the exploitation by Israel, the occupying Power, of their natural resources,

5. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the Palestinian people and the Arab population of the occupied Syrian Golan to all their natural and economic resources, and calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, not to exploit, endanger or cause loss or depletion of these resources. 
ECOSOC, Res. 2005/51, 27 July 2005, preamble and § 5, voting record: 49-2-1.

In a resolution adopted in 2006 on economic and social repercussions of the Israeli occupation on the living conditions of the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan, ECOSOC:
Reaffirming the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967,

Reaffirming the principle of the permanent sovereignty of peoples under foreign occupation over their natural resources,

Gravely concerned about the deterioration of the economic and living conditions of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab population of the occupied Syrian Golan and the exploitation by Israel, the occupying Power, of their natural resources,

4. Calls upon Israel to restore and replace the destroyed civilian infrastructure, including the only power station, where Israeli air strikes on Gaza’s power plant have had a far reaching impact on Gaza’s hospitals, food production facilities, water and sanitation systems; as well as water networks, schools, bridges, the airport, the seaport and Palestinian ministries and institutions;

7. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the Palestinian people and the Arab population of the occupied Syrian Golan to all their natural and economic resources, and calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, not to exploit, endanger or cause loss or depletion of these resources. 
ECOSOC, Res. 2006/43, 27 July 2006, preamble and §§ 4 and 7, voting record: 45-3-3.

In a resolution adopted in 2007 on economic and social repercussions of the Israeli occupation on the living conditions of the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan, ECOSOC:
Reaffirming the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967,

Reaffirming the principle of the permanent sovereignty of peoples under foreign occupation over their natural resources,

Gravely concerned about the deterioration of the economic and living conditions of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab population of the occupied Syrian Golan and the exploitation by Israel, the occupying Power, of their natural resources,

7. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the Palestinian people and the Arab population of the occupied Syrian Golan to all their natural and economic resources, and calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, not to exploit, endanger or cause loss or depletion of these resources. 
ECOSOC, Res. 2007/26, 26 July 2007, preamble and § 7, voting record: 29-2-18.

UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Recalling the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civil Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and the Commission on Human Rights,

Asserting that the punitive measures imposed by Israel, the occupying Power, on the Palestinian civil population, including … destruction of homes and vital infrastructure, including religious, educational, cultural and historical sites, led to a steep deterioration in the socio-economic conditions, perpetuating a dire humanitarian crisis throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and affirming that these punitive measures violate the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,

2. Condemns the use of force by the Israeli occupying forces against Palestinian civilians, resulting in extensive loss of life, vast numbers of injuries and massive destruction of homes, properties, agricultural lands and vital infrastructure. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2005/7, 14 April 2005, preamble and § 2, voting record: 29-10-14.

UN Human Rights Council
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the UN Human Rights Council:
Affirming the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civil Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and to other occupied Arab territories,
Expressing deep concern at the breaches by Israel, the occupying Power, of international humanitarian law and human rights law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including … the destruction of Palestinian infrastructure, including water networks, power plants and bridges. 
UN Human Rights Council, Res. S-1/1, 6 July 2006, preamble, voting record: 29-11-5.

In a resolution adopted in 2006 on the grave situation of human rights in Lebanon caused by Israeli military operations, the UN Human Rights Council emphasized that “attacks and killings of innocent civilians and the destruction of houses, property and infrastructure in Lebanon are a breach of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, international law and international humanitarian law as well as flagrant violations of human rights”. 
UN Human Rights Council, Res. S-2/1, 11 August 2006, preamble, voting record: 27-11-8.

Back to top
GCC Ministerial Council
In the Final Communiqué of its 36th Session in 1990, the GCC Ministerial Council emphasized that “public … establishments and property must be safeguarded in accordance with the noble stipulations of Islamic law”. It insisted that “the Iraqi authorities must ensure the protection of all public … establishments and all … immovable property in the State of Kuwait”. 
GCC, Ministerial Council, 36th Session, Jeddah, 5-6 September 1990, Final Communiqué, annexed to Letter dated 6 September 1990 from Oman to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. S/21719, 6 September 1990, p. 3, preamble and § 3.

GCC Supreme Council
In the Final Communiqué of its 11th Session in 1990, the GCC Supreme Council demanded that “the Iraqi régime … must safeguard … public installations and property in accordance with Islamic law, the provisions of the 1949 Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and the international humanitarian covenants and conventions”. 
GCC, Supreme Council, 11th Session, Doha, 22-25 December 1990, Final Communiqué, annexed to Note verbale dated 26 December 1990 from Qatar to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. A/45/908, 27 December 1990, p. 3.

League of Arab States Council
In a resolution adopted in 1990, the League of Arab States Council, with reference to Islamic law, the 1949 Geneva Convention IV, the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international covenants and conventions relating to the protection of human rights, decided “to insist that Iraqi authorities must ensure the protection of all public … establishments and all … immovable property in the State of Kuwait, and to regard any measures incompatible with such a commitment as null and void”. 
League of Arab States, Council, Res. 5038, 31 August 1990, annexed to Letter dated 31 August 1990 from Qatar to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. S/21693, 31 August 1990, p. 4. (Libya opposed the resolution and Algeria, Iraq, Jordan, Mauritania, Palestine, Sudan, Tunisia and Yemen did not participate in the work of the session.)

Back to top
No data.
Back to top
No data.
Back to top
No data.
Back to top
No data.
Quick navigation
Hague Regulations (1899)
The 1899 Hague Regulations provides, in the case of occupied territories:
Art. 46. … [P]rivate property … must be respected. Private property cannot be confiscated.

Art. 52. Neither requisitions in kind nor services can be demanded from communes or inhabitants except for the necessities of the army of occupation. They must be in proportion to the resources of the country, and of such a nature as not to involve the population in the obligation of taking part in military operations against their country.
These requisitions and services shall only be demanded on the authority of the commander in the locality occupied.
The contributions in kind shall, as far as possible, be paid for in ready money; if not, their receipt shall be acknowledged.
Art. 53. … Railway plant, land telegraphs, telephones, steamers and other ships, apart from cases governed by maritime law, as well as depots of arms and, generally, all kinds of munitions of war, even though belonging to companies or to private persons, are likewise material which may serve for military operations, but they must be restored at the conclusion of peace, and indemnities paid for them. 
Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, annexed to Convention (II) with Respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 29 July 1899, Articles 46, 52 and 53.

Hague Regulations (1907)
The 1907 Hague Regulations provides, in the case of occupied territories:
Art. 46. … [P]rivate property … must be respected. Private property cannot be confiscated.

Art. 52. Requisitions in kind and services shall not be demanded from municipalities or inhabitants except for the needs of the army of occupation. They shall be in proportion to the resources of the country, and of such a nature as not to involve the inhabitants in the obligation of taking part in military operations against their own country.
Such requisitions and services shall only be demanded on the authority of the commander in the locality occupied.
Contributions in kind shall as far as possible be paid for in cash; if not, a receipt shall be given and the payment of the amount due shall be made as soon as possible.
Art. 53. … All appliances, whether on land, at sea, or in the air, adapted for the transmission of news, or for the transport of persons or things, exclusive of cases governed by naval law, depots of arms, and, generally, all kinds of munitions of war, may be seized, even if they belong to private individuals, but they must be restored and compensation fixed when peace is made. 
Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, annexed to Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907, Articles 46, 52 and 53.

Geneva Convention IV
Article 53 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides:
Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or co-operative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations. 
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 53.

Article 55, second paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides:
The Occupying Power may not requisition foodstuffs, articles or medical supplies available in the occupied territory, except for use by the occupation forces and administration personnel, and then only if the requirements of the civilian population have been taken into account. Subject to the provisions of other international Conventions, the Occupying Power shall make arrangements to ensure that fair value is paid for any requisitioned goods. 
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 55, para. 2.

Back to top
Lieber Code
Article 22 of the 1863 Lieber Code provides:
As civilization has advanced during the last centuries, so has likewise steadily advanced, especially in war on land, the distinction between the private individual belonging to a hostile country and the hostile country itself, with its men in arms. The principle has been more and more acknowledged that the unarmed citizen is to be spared in person, property, and honor as much as the exigencies of war will admit. 
Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, prepared by Francis Lieber, promulgated as General Order No. 100 by President Abraham Lincoln, Washington D.C., 24 April 1863, Article 22.
[emphasis added]
Article 37 of the 1863 Lieber Code states:
The United States acknowledge and protect, in hostile countries occupied by them, … strictly private property … This rule does not interfere with the right of the victorious invader … to appropriate property, especially houses, lands, boats or ships, and churches, for temporary and military uses. 
Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, prepared by Francis Lieber, promulgated as General Order No. 100 by President Abraham Lincoln, Washington D.C., 24 April 1863, Article 37.

Article 38 of the 1863 Lieber Code provides:
Private property … can be seized only by way of military necessity, for the support or other benefit of the army or of the United States. If the owner has not fled, the commanding officer will cause receipts to be given, which may serve the spoliated owner to obtain indemnity. 
Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, prepared by Francis Lieber, promulgated as General Order No. 100 by President Abraham Lincoln, Washington D.C., 24 April 1863, Article 38.

Brussels Declaration
The 1874 Brussels Declaration provides:
Art. 6. Railway plant, land telegraphs, steamers and other ships, apart from cases governed by maritime law, as well as depots of arms and, generally, all kinds of war material, even if belonging to companies or to private persons, are likewise material which may serve for military operations and which cannot be left by the army of occupation at the disposal of the enemy. Railway plant, land telegraphs, as well as steamers and other ships above mentioned shall be restored and compensation fixed when peace is made.

Art. 38. … [P]roperty of persons … must be respected. Private property cannot be confiscated.

Art. 40. As private property should be respected, the enemy will demand from communes or inhabitants only such payments and services as are connected with the generally recognized necessities of war, in proportion to the resources of the country, and not implying, with regard to the inhabitants, the obligation of taking part in operations of war against their country.

Art. 42. Requisitions shall be made only with the authorization of the commander in the territory occupied. For every requisition indemnity shall be granted or a receipt delivered. 
Project of an International Declaration concerning the Laws and Customs of War, Brussels, 27 August 1874, Articles 6, 38, 40 and 42.

Oxford Manual
Articles 54 to 56 and 60 of the 1880 Oxford Manual provide, with respect to private property:
If the powers of the occupant are limited with respect to the property of the enemy State, with greater reason are they limited with respect to the property of individuals.
Art. 54. Private property, whether belonging to individuals or corporations, must be respected, and can be confiscated only under the limitations contained in the following articles.
Art. 55. Means of transportation (railways, boats, & c.), telegraphs, depots of arms and munitions of war, although belonging to companies or to individuals, may be seized by the occupant, but must be restored, if possible, and compensation fixed when peace is made.
Art. 56. Impositions in kind (requisitions) demanded from communes or inhabitants should be in proportion to the necessities of war as generally recognized, and in proportion to the resources of the country.
Requisitions can only be made on the authority of the commander in the locality occupied.

Art. 60. Requisitioned articles, when they are not paid for in cash, and war contributions are evidenced by receipts. Measures should be taken to assure the “bona fide” character and regularity of these receipts. 
The Laws of War on Land, adopted by the Institute of International Law, Oxford, 9 September 1880, Articles 54, 55, 56 and 60.

Report of the Commission on Responsibility
Based on several documents supplying evidence of outrages committed during the First World War, the 1919 Report of the Commission on Responsibility lists violations of the laws and customs of war which should be subject to criminal prosecution, including “exaction of illegitimate or of exorbitant contributions and requisitions”. 
Report submitted to the Preliminary Conference of Versailles by the Commission on Responsibility of the Authors of the War and on Enforcement of Penalties, Versailles, 29 March 1919.

Inter-Allied Declaration against Acts of Dispossession
The 1943 Inter-Allied Declaration against Acts of Dispossession provides: “It is important to leave no doubt whatsoever of their [the authors of the Declaration] resolution not to accept or tolerate the misdeeds of their enemies in the field of property, however these may be cloaked.” 
Inter-Allied Declaration against Acts of Dispossession Committed in Territories under Enemy Occupation or Control, as agreed between the Union of South Africa, United States of America, Australia, Belgium, Canada, China, Czechoslovak Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Greece, India, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Yugoslavia, and the French National Committee, London, 5 January 1943, also known as the London Declaration.

Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and IHL in the Philippines
Article 3(7) of Part IV of the 1998 Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and IHL in the Philippines prohibits at any time and in any place whatsoever “the destruction of the lives and property of the civilian population”. 
Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and the National Democratic Front of the Philippines, The Hague, 16 March 1998, Part IV, Article 3(7).

Back to top
Argentina
With regard to occupied territory, Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1969) provides:
All appliances, whether on land, at sea, or in the air, adapted for the transmission of news, or for the transport of persons or things, exclusive of cases governed by naval law, depots of arms, and, generally, all kinds of munitions of war, may also be confiscated, even if they belong to private individuals, but they must be restored and compensation fixed when peace is made.

Private property cannot be confiscated.

Requisitions in kind and services shall not be demanded from municipalities or inhabitants except for the needs of the army of occupation.
They shall be in proportion to the resources of the country, and of such a nature as not to involve the inhabitants in the obligation of taking part in military operations against their own country.
Such requisitions and services shall only be demanded on the authority of the commander in the locality occupied.
Contributions in kind shall as far as possible be paid for in cash; if not, a receipt shall be given and the payment of the amount due shall be made as soon as possible …
The Occupying Power may not requisition foodstuffs, articles or medical supplies available in the occupied territory, except for use by the occupation forces and administration personnel, and then only if the requirements of the civilian population have been taken into account. Subject to the provisions of other international Conventions, the Occupying Power shall make arrangements to ensure that fair value is paid for any requisitioned goods. 
Argentina, Leyes de Guerra, RC-46-1, Público, II Edición 1969, Ejército Argentino, Edición original aprobado por el Comandante en Jefe del Ejército, 9 May 1967, §§ 5.014(2)–5.015 and 5.018.

Australia
Australia’s Commanders’ Guide (1994) states:
In rare cases, privately-owned civilian property may be requisitioned by a military force whether on a battlefield or while exercising the power granted to it as an occupier. Requisition is only lawful if the property is essential to the success of military operations, the taking does not cause unnecessary hardship or deprivation, and adequate and reasonable compensation is paid. 
Australia, Law of Armed Conflict, Commanders’ Guide, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 Supplement 1 – Interim Edition, 7 March 1994, § 610; see also § 1041.

Australia’s Defence Force Manual (1994) states that, in occupied areas:
Private property may not be confiscated.

The seizure of private movable property is governed by Article 53 [of the 1907 Hague Regulations]. By this rule all appliances adapted for the transmission of news or for the transport of persons or goods by land, sea or air, except where naval law governs, stores of arms and in general every kind of war material, even if they belong to private individuals, may be seized, but they must be restored and the indemnity fixed when peace is made.
These objects may be seized by, but they do not become the property of, the occupying power. The seizure operates merely as a transfer of the possession of the object to the occupying power while ownership remains with the private owner. In so far as the objects seized are capable of physical restoration, they must be restored at the conclusion of peace, and in so far as they have been consumed or have been destroyed or have perished, a cash indemnity must be paid when peace is made.

Requisition may be made of all commodities necessary for the maintenance of the occupying army such as: food and fuel supplies, liquor and tobacco, cloth for uniforms, leather for boots, and the like. The taking of such articles is forbidden unless they are actually required for the needs of the occupying forces. Goods or medical supplies available in the occupied territory are subject to requisition because they are needed for the forces of occupation and for administrative personnel. They may be requisitioned only after the requirements of the civilian population have been taken into account. In every case, the articles taken must be duly requisitioned, and be in proportion to the resources of the country.
Articles requisitioned should be paid for in ready money, but if this is not possible a receipt must be given for them and payment of the amount due must be made as soon as possible. Articles properly requisitioned become the property of the occupying power and pass out of the ownership of their former owner.
The prices to be paid for requisitioned supplies may be fixed by the commander of the occupying force. The prices of commodities on sale may also be regulated.
The right to billet troops on the inhabitants follows from the rights to requisition. 
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, §§ 1225–1231.

Australia’s LOAC Manual (2006) states that, in occupied areas:
12.43 Private property. Private property must be respected. Requisitions must be proportionate to the resources of the occupied territory and limited to the needs of the occupying power. Seizure is limited to public property.
12.44 Private property includes property, regardless of ownership, which is dedicated to religion, charity, education or to the arts or sciences.
12.45 The requirement to respect private property is subject to conditions necessitated by armed conflict. For example, military operations inevitably cause damage to private property and occupying forces are entitled to requisition property for necessary military purposes. Nevertheless, the principle of respect is important. Plundering and looting is subversive of military discipline. Theft and robbery remain punishable crimes in peace and war. The soldier in an enemy country must observe the same respect for civilian property as they would at home.

Confiscation
12.48 … Private property may not be confiscated …
Seizure
12.49 The seizure of private movable property is governed by H. IV. R [1907 Hague Regulations] Article 53. By this rule all appliances adapted for the transmission of news or for the transport of persons or goods by land, sea or air, except where naval law governs, stores of arms and in general every kind of war material, even if they belong to private individuals, may be seized, but they must be restored and the indemnity fixed when peace is made.
12.50 These objects may be seized by, but they do not become the property of, the occupying power. The seizure operates merely as a transfer of the possession of the object to the occupying power while ownership remains with the private owner. In so far as the objects seized are capable of physical restoration, they must be restored at the conclusion of peace, and in so far as they have been consumed or have been destroyed or have perished, a cash indemnity must be paid when peace is made.
Requisition
12.51 Requisition may be made of all commodities necessary for maintenance of the occupying army such as: food and fuel supplies, liquor and tobacco, cloth for uniforms, leather for boots, and the like. The taking of such articles is forbidden unless they are actually required for the needs of the occupying forces. Goods or medical supplies available in the occupied territory are subject to requisition because they are needed for the forces of occupation and for administrative personnel. They may be requisitioned only after the requirements of the civilian population have been taken into account. In every case, the articles taken must be duly requisitioned, and be in proportion to the resources of the country.
12.52 Articles requisitioned should be paid for in ready money, but if this is not possible a receipt must be given for them and payment of the amount due must be made as soon as possible. Articles properly requisitioned become the property of the occupying power and pass out of the ownership of their former owner.
12.53 The prices to be paid for requisitioned supplies may be fixed by the commander of the occupying force. The prices of commodities on sale may also be regulated.
12.54 The right to billet troops on the inhabitants follows from the rights to requisition. 
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, §§ 12.43–12.45 and 12.48–12.54.

Benin
Benin’s Military Manual (1995) requires that soldiers “respect, and avoid causing damage to or stealing,” civilian property. 
Benin, Le Droit de la Guerre, III fascicules, Forces Armées du Bénin, Ministère de la Défense nationale, 1995, Fascicule I, p. 16.

Burkina Faso
Burkina Faso’s Disciplinary Regulations (1994) states that, under the laws and customs of war, “wanton destruction … in particular of private property” is forbidden. 
Burkina Faso, Règlement de Discipline Générale dans les Forces Armées, Décret No. 94-159/IPRES/DEF, Ministère de la Défense, 1994, Article 35(2).

Cameroon
Cameroon’s Disciplinary Regulations (1975) states that, under the laws and customs of war, “any wanton destruction … in particular of private property” is forbidden. 
Cameroon, Règlement de discipline dans les Forces Armées, Décret No. 75/700, 6 November 1975, Article 32.

Cameroon’s Disciplinary Regulations (2007) states:
Article 32: Prohibitions
It is prohibited to soldiers in combat:

to engage in any wanton destruction or any pillage, in particular of private property, and to use any means that cause unnecessary suffering and damage;

Article 34: Protection of civilians

The utilization of the resources of the occupied territory must remain within the lawful framework of the needs of our forces of occupation. 
Cameroon, Règlement de discipline générale dans les forces de défense, Décret N° 2007/199, Président de la République, 7 July 2007, Articles 32 and 34.

Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) states: “Enemy private movable property, other than arms and military papers captured or found on a battlefield, may be appropriated only to the extent such taking is permissible in an occupied area.” 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 6-5, § 49.

Private property may not be confiscated.

The seizure of private movable property is governed by the [1907 Hague Regulations]. All appliances adapted for the transmission of news or for the transport of persons or goods by land, sea or air, stores of arms and in general every kind of war material, even if they belong to private individuals, may be seized. If seized, however, they must be restored and the indemnity fixed when peace is made.
These objects may be seized by, but they do not become the property of, the occupant. The seizure merely acts as a transfer of the possession of the object to the occupant while the ownership remains in the private owner.
Insofar as the objects seized are capable of physical restoration they must be restored at the conclusion of peace, and insofar as they have been consumed or have been destroyed or have perished a cash indemnity must be paid when peace is made.
No provision in the [1907 Hague Regulations] obliges the belligerent who effects the seizure to give a receipt, or to carry out the seizure in any formal manner, but the fact of seizure should obviously be established in some way, if only to give the owner an opportunity of claiming the compensation expressly provided for.
Requisition may be made of all commodities necessary for the maintenance of the occupying army. This includes: food and supplies, liquor and tobacco, cloth for uniforms, leather for boots, and the like. The taking of such articles is forbidden unless they are actually required for the needs of the occupying army. Even if foodstuffs, goods or medical supplies available in the occupied territory are subject to requisition because they are needed for the forces of occupation and for administrative personnel, they may be requisitioned only after the requirements of the civilian population have been taken into account. In any case, the articles taken must be duly requisitioned, and the amount taken must be in proportion to the resources of the country.
Articles requisitioned should be paid for in ready money, but if this is not possible a receipt must be given and payment of the amount due must be made as soon as possible. Articles properly requisitioned become the property of the occupant and pass out of the ownership of their former owner.
Requisitions of supplies may be made in bulk, that is, a community may be called upon to supply certain quantities, or a return may be called for from inhabitants giving the amount in their possession of which a proportion may then be requisitioned, or the householders may be requisitioned to feed or partly feed the soldiers quartered on them. In fact, any way that is convenient may be employed provided that the above-mentioned rules and the provisions of [the 1949 Geneva Convention IV] are observed.
The right to billet troops on the inhabitants follows from the right to requisition. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, pp. 12-8 and 12-9, §§ 69–77.

Canada’s Code of Conduct (2001) states:
[Respecting civilian property] is one important difference between a disciplined professional force and a band of marauders. Respect for the property rights of civilians, including civilians in the territory of the opposing force, requires discipline. If you do not obey this rule, the civilian population may turn against you. The mission may thus be jeopardised and the conflict prolonged.
You must make every effort to avoid alienating the local civilian population. Reckless destruction of civilian property and disregard for personal ownership rights will place the overall military mission at risk as well as damage the reputation of Canada and its soldiers …
The CF [Canadian Forces] may purchase or requisition property and services from the local population but only for the use of our forces. Requisitioned material should always be paid for in cash, or a receipt should be provided which then should be honoured as soon as possible. Where requisitioning is authorized, appropriate procedures will be established and published. 
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 4 June 2001, Rule 4, §§ 4–6.

Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states in its chapter on land warfare: “Enemy private movable property, other than arms and military papers captured or found on a battlefield, may be appropriated only to the extent such taking is permissible in an occupied area.” 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 623.

1238. Confiscation
1. Confiscation is the taking of enemy public movable property without the obligation to compensate the state to which it belongs. All enemy public movable property which may be usable for military operations may be confiscated. Private property may not be confiscated. Enemy public immovable property may be administered and used but it may not be confiscated.
1239. Seizure
1. The seizure of private movable property is governed by the [1907 Hague Regulations]. All appliances adapted for the transmission of news or for the transport of persons or goods by land, sea or air, stores of arms and in general every kind of war material, even if they belong to private individuals, may be seized. If seized, however, they must be restored and the indemnity fixed when peace is made.
2. These objects may be seized by, but they do not become the property of, the occupant. The seizure merely acts as a transfer of the possession of the object to the occupant while the ownership remains in the private owner.
3. Insofar as the objects seized are capable of physical restoration they must be restored at the conclusion of peace, and insofar as they have been consumed or have been destroyed or have perished, a cash indemnity must be paid when peace is made.
4. No provision in the [1907 Hague Regulations] obliges the belligerent who effects the seizure to give a receipt, or to carry out the seizure in any formal manner, but the fact of seizure should obviously be established in some way, if only to give the owner an opportunity of claiming the compensation expressly provided for.
1240. Requisition
1. Requisition may be made of all commodities necessary for the maintenance of the occupying army. This includes: food and fuel supplies, liquor and tobacco, cloth for uniforms, leather for boots, and the like. The taking of such articles is forbidden unless they are actually required for the needs of the occupying army. Even if foodstuffs, goods or medical supplies available in the occupied territory are subject to requisition because they are needed for the forces of occupation and for administrative personnel, they may be requisitioned only after the requirements of the civilian population have been taken into account. In any case, the articles taken must be duly requisitioned, and the amount taken must be in proportion to the resources of the country.
2. Articles requisitioned should be paid for in ready money, but if this is not possible a receipt must be given for them and payment of the amount due must be made as soon as possible. Articles properly requisitioned become the property of the occupant and pass out of the ownership of their former owner.
3. Requisitions of supplies may be made in bulk. A community may be called upon to supply certain quantities, or a return may be called for from inhabitants giving the amounts in their possession of which a proportion may then be requisitioned, or the householders may be requisitioned to feed or partly feed the soldiers quartered on them. In fact, any way that is convenient may be employed provided that the abovementioned rules and the provisions of [the 1949 Geneva Convention IV] are observed.
4. The right to billet troops on the inhabitants follows from the right to requisition. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, §§ 1238–1240.

Rule 4 of Canada’s Code of Conduct (2005) instructs Canadian Forces (CF) personnel: “Treat all civilians humanely and respect civilian property.” 
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 2005, Rule 4.

1. Rule # 4 deals with the protection of civilians in the theatre of operations … Their property must also be respected. In general, civilians should be treated the way you would like you and your family to be treated in the same circumstances.

4. Compliance with rule #4 is one important difference between a disciplined professional force and a band of marauders. Respect for the property rights of civilians, including civilians in the territory of the opposing force, requires discipline. If you do not obey this rule, the civilian population may turn against you. The mission may thus be jeopardised and the conflict prolonged.
5. You must make every effort to avoid alienating the local civilian population. Reckless destruction of civilian property and disregard for personal ownership rights will place the overall military mission at risk as well as damage the reputation of Canada and its soldiers. Military necessity may sometimes require the destruction of some civilian property in order to conduct operations. This destruction should not be done needlessly. The wanton destruction, theft or confiscation of civilian property is prohibited and is an offence under the Code of Service Discipline.
6. The CF may purchase or requisition property and services from the local population but only for the use of our forces. Requisitioned material should always be paid for in cash, or a receipt should be provided which then should be honoured as soon as possible. Where requisitioning is authorized, appropriate procedures will be established and published. 
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 2005, Rule 4, §§ 1 and 4–6.

Colombia
Under Colombia’s Basic Military Manual (1995), it is forbidden “to seize … personal property” of non-combatants. 
Colombia, Derecho Internacional Humanitario – Manual Básico para las Personerías y las Fuerzas Armadas de Colombia, Ministerio de Defensa Nacional, 1995, p. 29.

According to Colombia’s Instructors’ Manual (1999), the instructor must recall the theme of respect for civilian property, livestock, money and movable and immovable objects. It points out that, during the conflict in Colombia, the property of the civilian population has not been properly respected. Livestock have been killed, houses destroyed and crops devastated, all acts that military personnel must not commit. 
Colombia, Derechos Humanos & Derecho Internacional Humanitario – Manual de Instrucción de la Guía de Conducta para el Soldado e Infante de Marina, Ministerio de Defensa Nacional, Oficina de Derechos Humanos, Fuerzas Militares de Colombia, Santafé de Bogotá, 1999, pp. 30 and 31.

Colombia’s Soldiers’ Manual (1999) orders troops to respect civilian property. 
Colombia, Derechos Humanos & Derecho Internacional Humanitario – Guía de Conducta para el Soldado e Infante de Marina, Ministerio de Defensa Nacional, Oficina de Derechos Humanos, Fuerzas Militares de Colombia, Santafé de Bogotá, 1999, p. 26.

Congo
The Congo’s Disciplinary Regulations (1986) states that, under the laws and customs of war, “any wanton destruction … in particular of private property” is forbidden. 
Congo, Décret No. 86/057 du 14 janvier 1986 portant Règlement du Service dans l’Armée Populaire Nationale, 1986, Article 32(2).

Côte d’Ivoire
Côte d’Ivoire’s Teaching Manual (2007) provides in Book IV (Instruction of heads of division and company commanders):
All appliances, whether on land, at sea, or in the air, adapted for the transmission of news, or for the transport of persons or things, exclusive of cases governed by naval law, depots of arms, and, generally, all kinds of munitions of war, may be seized, even if they belong to private individuals, but must be restored and compensation fixed when peace is made. 
Côte d’Ivoire, Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre IV: Instruction du chef de section et du commandant de compagnie, Manuel de l’élève, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, p. 48.

Dominican Republic
The Dominican Republic’s Military Manual (1980) instructs troops: “Do not start fires in civilians’ homes or buildings or burn their property unless the necessities of war urgently require it. When searching dwellings in enemy towns or villages, do not take nonmilitary items.” 
Dominican Republic, La Conducta en Combate según las Leyes de la Guerra, Escuela Superior de las FF. AA. “General de Brigada Pablo Duarte”, Secretaría de Estado de las Fuerzas Armadas, May 1980, p. 10.

El Salvador
El Salvador’s Human Rights Charter of the Armed Forces orders troops to “respect the property of others”. 
El Salvador, Derechos Humanos. Decálogo de la Fuerza Armada de El Salvador, Ministerio de la Defensa Nacional, Departamento de Derecho Humanitario, undated, p. 3; see also p. 9.

France
France’s LOAC Manual (2001) incorporates the content of Articles 52 and 53 of the 1907 Hague Regulations. 
France, Manuel de droit des conflits armés, Ministère de la Défense, Direction des Affaires Juridiques, Sous-Direction du droit international humanitaire et du droit européen, Bureau du droit des conflits armés, 2001, pp. 35–36 and 109.

Germany
Germany’s Military Manual (1992) provides:
A local commander may demand contributions in kind and services (requisitions) from the population and the authorities of the occupied territory to satisfy the needs of the occupational forces … The requisitions shall be in proportion to the capabilities of the country …
Requisitions shall, on principle, be paid for in cash. If this is not possible, a receipt shall be given. Payment shall be effected as soon as possible …

Movable private property which may be used for military purposes … may only be requisitioned but not confiscated … The title to this property shall not pass to the occupying state. Upon termination of the war, the items and real estate seized shall be restored.
All private property shall be protected from permanent seizure … – except for commodities designed for consumption. 
Germany, Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts – Manual, DSK VV207320067, edited by The Federal Ministry of Defence of the Federal Republic of Germany, VR II 3, August 1992, English translation of ZDv 15/2, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Handbuch, August 1992, §§ 554–555 and 557–558.

Hungary
Hungary’s Military Manual (1992) states that civilian property in occupied territory must be respected. 
Hungary, A Hadijog, Jegyzet a Katonai, Föiskolák Hallgatói Részére, Magyar Honvédség Szolnoki Repülötiszti Föiskola, 1992, p. 97.

Indonesia
Indonesia’s Directive on Human Rights (1995) in Irian Jaya and Maluku provides: “Appropriation … of the property of the population is a criminal offence.” 
Indonesia, Directive concerning Human Rights, issued by the Commander of the Regional Military Command of Irian Jaya and Maluku, 1995, § 9(e).

Israel
Israel’s Manual on the Laws of War (1998) states:
Private property that does not belong to the state is immune to seizure and conversion to booty. Nevertheless, a military commander is allowed to seize also private property if this serves an important military need. For example, a commander may commandeer a civilian vehicle to evacuate wounded urgently or take possession of a house porch if this is necessary for carrying out surveillance. 
Israel, Laws of War in the Battlefield, Manual, Military Advocate General Headquarters, Military School, 1998, p. 63.

Israel’s Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) states:
Private property which is not governmental is immune from capture and turning into spoils of war. However, a military commander is also entitled to capture private property if it consists of weaponry or if it is something of important military use. For example, an officer can appropriate a civilian vehicle in order to evacuate the wounded urgently or capture a position on the balcony of a house if this is necessary for the purpose of creating a lookout post. 
Israel, Rules of Warfare on the Battlefield, Military Advocate-General’s Corps Command, IDF School of Military Law, Second Edition, 2006, p. 40.

Italy
Italy’s IHL Manual (1991) states, with respect to occupied territory:
Private property is respected and not subject to confiscation. The inhabitants of the occupied territory keep their property rights and the possession of their goods, with all the rights inherent thereto.
However, the occupying military authority may seize all kinds of arms and ammunitions, as well as all means of communication and transportation, including ships and aircraft, belonging to private persons, which may be used for war operations, provided that they be restored or compensated when peace is made.

The powers exercised by an occupying State, through the military Authority, in an occupied territory are the following:

(11) requisition private property in accordance with appropriate procedure and in proportion to the resources of the country. 
Italy, Manuale di diritto umanitario, Introduzione e Volume I, Usi e convenzioni di Guerra, SMD-G-014, Stato Maggiore della Difesa, I Reparto, Ufficio Addestramento e Regolamenti, Rome, 1991, Vol. I, §§ 43 and 49(11); see also § 49(9).

Mali
Mali’s Army Regulations (1979) provides that, under the laws and customs of war, “any wanton destruction … in particular of private property” is forbidden. 
Mali, Règlement du Service dans l’Armée, 1ère Partie: Discipline Générale, Ministère de la Défense Nationale, 1979, Article 36.

Mexico
Mexico’s Army and Air Force Manual (2009) states:
235. Protection of property
Article 53 of the [1949 Geneva] Convention [IV] stipulates the duty to protect property. In a way, this extends the scope of the Convention, whose principal object is the protection of persons. It is justified by the fact that certain attacks on private property are extremely detrimental to the mental and material situation of the persons concerned.
236. The occupying power is prohibited from destroying real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private individuals … except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.  
Mexico, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para el Ejército y la Fuerza Área Mexicanos, Ministry of National Defence, June 2009, §§ 235–236.

Morocco
Morocco’s Disciplinary Regulations (1974) states that, under the laws and customs of war, “any wanton destruction … in particular of private property” is forbidden. 
Morocco, Règlement de Discipline Général dans les Forces Armées Royales, Dahir No. 1-74-383 du 15 rejeb 1394, 5 August 1974, Article 25(2).

New Zealand
New Zealand’s Military Manual (1992) provides: “Enemy private movable property, other [than] arms and military papers captured or found on a battlefield, may be appropriated only to the extent such taking is permissible in an occupied area.” 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 528.

If property is of mixed ownership, that is partly owned by the State and partly owned by private persons, then, if the Occupying Power appropriates the property for its own benefit, the private owners should be compensated for their portion of the property.

Private property may not be confiscated.

The seizure of private movable property is governed by Art. 53 [of the 1907 Hague Regulations]. By this rule, all appliances adapted for the transmission of news or for the transport of persons or goods by land, sea or air, except where naval law governs, stores or arms (in general, every kind of war material, even if it belongs to private individuals), may be seized, but they must be restored and the compensation fixed when peace is made.
These objects may be seized by, but do not become the property of, the Occupying Power. The seizure operated merely as a transfer of the possession of the object to the Occupying Power while the ownership remains in the private owner. Insofar as the objects seized are capable of physical restoration they must be restored at the conclusion of peace and insofar as they have been consumed or have been destroyed or have perished, a cash indemnity must be paid when peace is made. Within this rule fall: cables, telegraph and telephone plant; television, telecommunications and radio equipment; horses, motorcars, bicycles, carts and carriages; railways and railway plant, tramways; ships in port, river and canal craft; aircraft of all descriptions, except ambulance aircraft; sporting weapons; and all kinds of property which could serve as war material.
No provision in [the 1907 Hague Regulations] obliges the belligerent who effects the seizure to give a receipt or to carry out the seizure in any formal manner, but the fact of seizure should obviously be established in some way, if only to give the owner an opportunity of claiming the compensation expressly provided for.

Requisition may be made of all commodities necessary for the maintenance of the occupying army. Within this category fall such things as: food and fuel supplies, liquor and tobacco, cloth for uniforms, leather for boots, and the like. The taking of such articles is forbidden unless they are actually required for the needs of the occupying army. Even if foodstuffs, goods or medical supplies available in the occupied territory are subject to requisition because they are needed for the forces of occupation and for administrative personnel, they may be requisitioned only after the requirements of the civilian population have been taken into account. In any case, the articles taken must be duly requisitioned and the amount taken must be in proportion to the resources of the country.
Articles requisitioned should be paid for in ready money but, if this is not possible, a receipt must be given for them and payment of the amount due must be made as soon as possible. Articles properly requisitioned become the property of the Occupying Power and pass out of the ownership of their former owner. As payment for these articles is made either at the time of requisition or becomes due at that time and is made later, a requisition may, in effect, be a compulsory sale on the order of the Occupying Power.
Requisition can only be demanded on the authority of the commander in the locality occupied. It is not necessary, however, that his order for the requisition should be produced, as the articles taken must be paid for or a receipt given. The assistance of the local authorities of the invaded territory may be invoked to obtain the supplies. When it is impossible to obtain this assistance, special parties under an officer should be detailed to collect what is required. Except in case of emergency, no one under the rank of commissioned officer is, by the regulations of practically all armies, permitted to requisition.
Requisitions of supplies may be made in bulk, that is, a community may be called upon to supply certain quantities, or a return may be called for from inhabitants giving the amounts in their possession of which a proportion may then be requisitioned, or the householders may be requisitioned to feed or partly feed the soldiers quartered on them. In fact, any way that is convenient may be employed provided that the above mentioned rules and the provisions of [the 1949 Geneva Convention IV] are observed.
The right to billet troops on the inhabitants follows from the right to requisition. The prices to be paid for requisitioned supplies may be fixed by the commander of the occupying force. The prices of commodities on sale may also be regulated. 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, §§ 1333 and 1336–1338.

Nigeria
Nigeria’s Military Manual (1994) provides: “[Civilian] property [shall be] safeguarded against theft and damage.” 
Nigeria, International Humanitarian Law (IHL), Directorate of Legal Services, Nigerian Army, 1994, p. 39, § 5(k).

Nigeria’s Manual on the Laws of War states:
Vehicles, signal equipment, weapons and other equipment required for immediate military use may also be seized (but if they belong to private individuals they will be restored when peace is established or indemnity would be for them).

Private property should be respected. It must not be confiscated … even if found in an occupied territory. In war it is difficult to avoid damage to private property as practically every military operation, movement or combat occasions such damage but unnecessary damage to the property of civilians must definitely be avoided.
Food, liquor and clothes of private individuals should not be requisitioned; but if they are required by the occupying army they can be taken and paid for in cash. If immediate payment is not possible a receipt must be given for them and payment of the amount due must be made as soon as possible.

The temporary use of real property for military purposes during a combat operation is justified, although such use may diminish the value of the property. For example, in addition to the necessary use of grounds during combat for marching, encampment and building strong-points, the citizens can be forced to accommodate in their houses soldiers, the sick and the wounded or keep army vehicles. Buildings may be used for observation posts, shelter, defence, etc. … If necessary, houses and fences may be destroyed to prepare a field of fire or to supply material for bridges, fuel, etc., needs essential to the army. When private property is used for accommodation of troops the owners and occupants should be given substitute accommodation. When military necessity requires the evacuation of the occupants they should be given an early warning and enable to carry with them their necessaries.
When houses of missing persons are being used they should be taken care of in their absence. [T]heir absence does not authorise … damage and a note should be left if anything is taken in case of military necessity. 
Nigeria, The Laws of War, by Lt. Col. L. Ode PSC, Nigerian Army, Lagos, undated, §§ 27–28.

Nigeria’s Soldiers’ Code of Conduct provides: “Civilian property shall be safeguarded against theft and damage.” 
Nigeria, Code of Conduct for Combatants, “The Soldier’s Rules”, Nigerian Army, undated, § 11.

Peru
Peru’s Human Rights Charter of the Security Forces (1991) instructs troops: “Do not to steal or destroy what is not yours.” 
Peru, Derechos Humanos: Decálogo de las Fuerzas del Orden, Comando Conjunto de las Fuerzas Armadas, Ministerio de Defensa, Ejército Peruano, 1991, p. 10.
It states that the property of others must be respected. 
Peru, Derechos Humanos: Decálogo de las Fuerzas del Orden, Comando Conjunto de las Fuerzas Armadas, Ministerio de Defensa, Ejército Peruano, 1991, p. 27.

Peru’s IHL Manual (2004) states:
The occupying power has the following obligations towards occupied territories:

(2) refrain from requisitioning foodstuffs, articles or medical supplies available in the occupied territory, except for use by the occupation forces and administration personnel. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 91.c.(2); see also § 64.a.(3).

a. Any air bombardment for the purpose of … destroying or damaging private property without military character or injuring non-combatants is forbidden.
b. Any air bombardment carried out for the purpose of enforcing requisitions in kind or payments of contributions in ready money is forbidden. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 172.a and b.

Peru’s IHL and Human Rights Manual (2010) states:
The occupying power has the following obligations towards occupied territories:

(2) refrain from requisitioning foodstuffs, medical articles or supplies available in the occupied territory, except for use by the occupation forces and administration personnel. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 82(c)(2), p. 284.

a. Any air bombardment for the purpose of … destroying or damaging private property without military character or injuring non-combatants is forbidden.
b. Any air bombardment carried out for the purpose of enforcing requisitions in kind or payments of contributions in ready money is forbidden. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 163(a)–(b), p. 343.

Philippines
The Soldier’s Rules (1989) of the Philippines instructs troops: “Respect other people’s property.” 
Philippines, Soldier’s Rules, in Handbook on Discipline, Annex C(I), General Headquarters, Armed Forces of the Philippines, Camp General Emilio Aguinaldo, Quezon City, 1989, § 11.

The Joint Circular on Adherence to IHL and Human Rights (1991) of the Philippines provides: “Members of the AFP [Armed Forces of the Philippines] and PNP [Philippine National Police] shall inhibit themselves from unnecessary military/police actions that could cause destruction to private … properties.” 
Philippines, Implementation Guidelines for Presidential Memorandum Order No. 393, dated 9 September 1991, Directing the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippines National Police to Reaffirm their Adherence to the Principles of Humanitarian Law and Human Rights in the Conduct of Security/Police Operations, Joint Circular Number 2-91, Department of National Defense, Department of Interior and Local Government, 1991, 2a(4).

The Philippines’ AFP Standing Rules of Engagement (2005) states:
8. General Rules for the Correct Use of Force towards Mission Accomplishment

k. Commanders will instruct their personnel on the nature of their mission to include proper actuations and decorum. This stresses the importance of proper conduct and regard for the local population and the need to respect private property and public facilities and sensitivity to local/ethnic cultures. 
Philippines, AFP Standing Rules of Engagement, Armed Forces of the Philippines, General Headquarters, Office of the Chief of Staff, 1 December 2005, § 8(k).

Russian Federation
The Russian Federation’s Regulations on the Application of IHL (2001) states in its chapter on the behaviour of forces in occupied territory: “Any destruction of property belonging individually or collectively to private persons … is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered necessary by military operations.” 
Russian Federation, Regulations on the Application of International Humanitarian Law by the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation, Moscow, 8 August 2001, § 76.

Romania
Romania’s Soldiers’ Manual (1991) instructs soldiers to respect private property, not to damage or seize it. 
Romania, Manualul Soldatului, Ghid de comportare în luptă, Asociaţia Română de Drept Umanitar (ARDU), 1991, p. 16.

South Africa
South Africa’s LOAC Manual (1996) states that soldiers must “respect civilians and their property”. 
South Africa, Presentation on the South African Approach to International Humanitarian Law, Appendix A, Chapter 4: International Humanitarian Law (The Law of Armed Conflict), National Defence Force, 1996, § 25(c).

Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (2007) states:
Private movable and immovable property. Private property cannot be confiscated. … In exceptional cases, the following may be confiscated:
- railway equipment;
- telecommunications equipment;
- merchant ships;
- stocks of weapons and munitions.
Requisitions. Only the following items may be requisitioned:
- services of medical personnel;
- medical establishments, means of transport and supplies;
- food supplies.
Such items may only be requisitioned to the extent that they are required by the army and administrative personnel and when the needs of the civilian population are covered.
Any goods requisitioned must be paid for in cash. If this is not possible, a receipt should be given and the payment of the amount due made as soon as possible.

Requisitions in kind. They can be demanded to meet the needs of the army of occupation and must be in proportion to the resources of the country. These requisitions in kind must not be such as to involve the inhabitants in supporting military operations. 
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Tomo 1, Publicación OR7–004, (Edición Segunda), Mando de Adiestramiento y Doctrina, Dirección de Doctrina, Orgánica y Materiales, 2 November 2007, § 2.7.c.(4).

Switzerland
Switzerland’s Basic Military Manual (1987) states, with respect to occupied territory: “Foodstuffs, articles or medical supplies may in principle not be requisitioned. In exceptional circumstances, the occupying Power may requisition such objects against indemnity, provided that they are used to satisfy directly the needs of the occupying forces and administration.” 
Switzerland, Lois et coutumes de la guerre (Extrait et commentaire), Règlement 51.7/II f, Armée Suisse, 1987, Article 163(1) and (2).

Togo
Togo’s Military Manual (1996) requires that soldiers “respect, and avoid causing damage to or stealing,” civilian property. 
Togo, Le Droit de la Guerre, III fascicules, Etat-major Général des Forces Armées Togolaises, Ministère de la Défense nationale, 1996, Fascicule I, p. 17.

Uganda
Uganda’s Code of Conduct (1986) instructs troops to “never take anything in the form of money or property from any member of the public” and “to pay promptly for anything you take in cash”. 
Uganda, Code of Conduct for the National Resistance Army (NRA), Legal Notice No. 1 of 1986 (Amendment), 23 August 1986, § A(2) and (3).

Uganda’s Operational Code of Conduct (1986) provides: “The offence of undermining relationship with the civilian population shall include … trespassing on civilian property; … failing to pay for goods purchased”. 
Uganda, Operational Code of Conduct for the National Resistance Army (NRA), Legal Notice No. 1 of 1986 (Amendment), 23 August 1986, § 12(c) and (e).

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK Military Manual (1958) states that, once a defended locality has surrendered, “it is not permissible to burn … private houses in such a place merely because it was defended”. 
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 287.
The manual provides:
Private property must be respected. It must not be confiscated … even if found in a captured town or other place. This prohibition embodied in the [1907 Hague Regulations] did not constitute a new rule … The rule that private property must be respected admits, however, of exceptions necessitated by the exigencies of war. In the first instance practically every operation, movement or combat occasions damage to private property. Further, the right of an army to requisition and to make use of certain property is fully admitted. What is clearly forbidden is the destruction by the Occupant of private property unless military operations render such destruction absolutely necessary and all extensive destruction and appropriation of private property not justified by military necessity, and carried out unlawfully and wantonly. Requisitions in kind must be in proportion to the resources of the country and limited to the needs of the Occupation army. Seizure is limited to certain types of property set out in [Article 53 of the 1907 Hague Regulations] which must be restored at the peace and indemnities paid.

Generally, therefore, no damage may be done that is not required by military operations. Any destruction of property whether belonging to private individuals, to the State or to social or co-operative organisations, is prohibited and “except when such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations”.

Land and buildings belonging to private individuals or commercial undertakings may not be appropriated or alienated, nor may they be used, let or hired for private or public profit.

The temporary use of land or buildings for the needs of the army is justified, even though such use may impair its value … Buildings may be used for purposes of observation, reconnaissance, cover, defence, etc., and, if necessary, houses, fences and woods may be demolished, cut down, or removed to clear a field of fire or to provide material for bridges, fuel, etc., imperatively needed by the occupying army.

The owner of property may claim neither rent for its use nor compensation for damage caused by the necessities of war. If time allows, however, a note of the use or damage should be kept, or given to the owner, so that in the event of funds being provided by either belligerent at the close of hostilities to compensate the inhabitants, there may be evidence to assist the assessors.
When troops are quartered in private dwellings some rooms should be left to the inhabitants; the latter should not be driven into the streets and left without shelter. If for military reasons, whether for operational purposes or to protect men and animals from the weather, it is imperative to remove the inhabitants, efforts should be made to give them notice and provide them with facilities for taking essential baggage with them.
When use is made of unoccupied buildings, care should be taken of the structure and internal fixtures and fittings. The fact that the owners are away does not authorise … damage. A note should be left if anything is taken. There is, however, no obligation to protect abandoned property.

The seizure of private movable property is governed by [Article 53 of the 1907 Hague Regulations]. By this rule, all appliances adapted for the transmission of news or for the transport of persons or goods by land, sea or air, except where naval law governs, stores of arms and in general every kind of war material, even if they belong to private individuals, may be seized, but they must be restored and the indemnity fixed when peace is made. These objects may be seized by, but they do not become the property of, the Occupant. The seizure operates merely as a transfer of the possession of the objects to the Occupant while the ownership remains in the private owner. Insofar as the objects seized are capable of physical restoration they must be restored at the conclusion of peace, and insofar as they have been consumed or have been destroyed or have perished a cash indemnity must be paid when peace is made. Within this rule fall: cables, telegraph, and telephone plant; television, telecommunications and radio equipment; horses, motorcars, bicycles, carts, carriages, railways and railway plant, tramways, ships in port, river and canal craft, aircraft of all descriptions, except ambulance aircraft, sporting weapons, and all kinds of property which could serve as war material. No provision in the [1907 Hague Regulations] obliges the belligerent who effects the seizure to give a receipt, or to carry out the seizure in any formal manner, but the fact of seizure should obviously be established in some way, if only to give the owner an opportunity of claiming the compensation expressly provided for.

Under [Article 52 of the 1907 Hague Regulations] requisition may be made of all commodities necessary for the maintenance of the occupying army. Within this category fall such things as: foods and fuel supplies, liquor and tobacco, cloth for uniforms, leather for boots, and the like. The taking of such articles is forbidden unless they are actually required for the needs of the occupying army. Moreover, [the 1949 Geneva Convention IV] lays down expressly that even if foodstuffs, goods or medical supplies available in the occupied territory are subject to requisition because they are needed for the forces of occupation and for administrative personnel, they may be requisitioned only after the requirements of the civilian population have been taken into account. In any case, the articles taken must be duly requisitioned, and the amount taken must be in proportion to the resources of the country.

Articles requisitioned should be paid for in ready money, but if this is not possible a receipt must be given for them and payment of the amount due must be made as soon as possible.
Articles properly requisitioned under [Article 52 of the 1907 Hague Regulations] become the property of the Occupant and pass out of the ownership of their former owner. As payment for these articles is made either at the time of requisition or becomes due at that time and is made later, a requisition under this [Article] is, in effect, a compulsory sale on the order of the Occupant.

Requisitions can only be demanded within the limits of the [1907 Hague Regulations] and [the 1949 Geneva Convention IV] on the authority of the commander in the locality occupied. However, it is not necessary that his order for the requisition should be produced, as the articles taken must be paid for or a receipt given. The assistance of the local authorities of the invaded territory may be invoked to obtain the supplies. When it is impossible to obtain this assistance special parties under an officer should be detailed to collect what is required. Except in cases of emergency, no one under the rank of commissioned officer is, by the regulations of practically all armies, permitted to requisition.

Requisitions of supplies may be made in bulk, that is, a community may be called upon to supply certain quantities, or a return may be called for from inhabitants giving the amounts in their possession of which a proportion may then be requisitioned, or the householders may be requisitioned to feed or partly feed the soldiers quartered on them. In fact, any way that is convenient may be employed provided that the above-mentioned rules and the provisions of [the 1949 Geneva Convention IV] are observed …
The right to billet troops on the inhabitants follows from the right to requisition. The prices to be paid for requisitioned supplies may be fixed by the commander of the occupying force. The prices of commodities on sale may also be regulated. Supplies in the hands of private inhabitants may not be destroyed except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations. 
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, §§ 589–595 and 597–604.

The UK LOAC Manual (2004) states:
Respect for private property
11.76. Private property must be respected. Requisitions must be proportionate to the resources of the occupied territory and limited to the needs of the occupying power. Seizure is limited to certain types of property, see paragraphs 11.77 and 11.81 [below].
11.76.1. Private property includes not only what would be regarded in common parlance as private property but also property, regardless of ownership, which is dedicated to religion, charity, education or to the arts or sciences.
11.76.2. The requirement to respect private property is subject to conditions necessitated by armed conflict …
Permanent seizure of land buildings
11.77. Land and buildings (whether belonging to private individuals or to corporations) must not be appropriated or otherwise disposed of, nor even used, leased or hired for private or public profit …

Seizure of movable property
11.81. All private movable property used for the transmission of news or to transport people or goods, whether by land, sea or air, and private arms or munitions of war may be temporarily seized but must be restored to the owners when peace is made …

Requisitioning of private property
11.83. The occupying force may requisition commodities and services needed for its maintenance. Requisitioning must take into account the needs of the civilian population. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, §§ 11.76–11.77, 11.81 and 11.83.

United States of America
The US Field Manual (1956) provides, in the case of occupied territory:
If property which is appropriated by the occupant is beneficially owned in part by the State and in part by private interests, the occupation authorities should compensate the private owners to the extent of their interest. Such compensation should bear the same relationship to the full compensation which would be paid if the property were entirely privately owned as their interest bears to the total value of the property concerned. The occupant may take what measures it deems necessary to assure that no portion of the compensation paid on account of private interests accrues to the State.
If it is unknown whether certain property is public or private, it should be treated as public property until its ownership is ascertained.

Valid capture or seizure of property requires both an intent to take such action and a physical act of capture or seizure. The mere presence within occupied territory of property which is subject to appropriation under international law does not operate to vest title thereto in the occupant.

Private property cannot be confiscated …
The foregoing prohibition extends not only to outright taking in violation of the law of war but also to any acts which, through the use of threats, intimidation, or pressure or by actual exploitation of the power of the occupant, permanently or temporarily deprive the owner of the use of his property without his consent or without authority under international law.

Immovable private enemy property may under no circumstances be seized. It may, however, be requisitioned.

If private property is seized in conformity with the preceding paragraph, a receipt therefor should be given the owner or a record made of the nature and quantity of the property and the name of the owner or person in possession in order that restoration and compensation may be made at the conclusion of the war.

The rule stated in the foregoing paragraph includes everything susceptible of direct military use, such as cables, telephone and telegraph plants, radio, television, and telecommunications equipment, motor vehicles, railways, railway plants, port facilities, ships in port, barges and other watercraft, airfields, aircraft, depots of arms, whether military or sporting, documents connected with the war, all varieties of military equipment, including that in the hands of manufacturers, component parts of or material suitable only for use in the foregoing, and in general all kinds of war material.
The destruction of the foregoing property and all damage to the same is justifiable only if it is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.

Submarine cables connecting an occupied territory with a neutral territory shall not be seized or destroyed except in the case of absolute necessity. They must likewise be restored and compensation fixed when peace is made …
The foregoing provision applies only to activities on land and does not deal with seizure or destruction of cables in the open sea.

Requisitions in kind and services shall not be demanded from municipalities or inhabitants except for the needs of the army of occupation. They shall be in proportion to the resources of the country, and of such a nature as not to involve the population in the obligation of taking part in operations of war against their country.
Such requisitions and service shall only be demanded on the authority of the commander in the locality occupied.
Contributions in kind shall, as far as possible, be paid for in cash; if not, a receipt shall be given and the payment of the amount due shall be made as soon as possible … Practically everything may be requisitioned under this article that is necessary for the maintenance of the army, such as fuel, food, clothing, building materials, machinery, tools, vehicles, furnishings for quarters, etc. Billeting of troops in occupied areas is also authorized.

The Occupying Power may not requisition foodstuffs, articles or medical supplies available in the occupied territory, except for use by the occupation forces and administration personnel, and then only if the requirements of the civilian population have been taken into account. Subject to the provisions of other international Conventions, the Occupying Power shall make arrangements to ensure that fair value is paid for any requisitioned goods.

Requisitions must be made under the authority of the commander in the locality. No prescribed method is fixed, but if practicable requisitions should be accomplished through the local authorities by systematic collection in bulk. They may be made direct by detachments if local authorities fail or if circumstances preclude resort to such authorities.

The prices of articles and services requisitioned will be fixed by agreement if possible, otherwise by military authority. Receipts should be taken up and compensation paid promptly. 
United States, Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare, US Department of the Army, 18 July 1956, as modified by Change No. 1, 15 July 1976, §§ 394(b) and (c), 395, 406–407, 409–413 and 415–416.

The US Air Force Pamphlet (1976), analysing the situation in occupied territories, recalls: “Article 46 [of the 1907] Hague Regulations confirms that private property ‘… must be respected’ and that ‘Private property cannot be confiscated’.” 
United States, Air Force Pamphlet 110-31, International Law – The Conduct of Armed Conflict and Air Operations, US Department of the Air Force, 1976, § 14-6(a).

The US Soldier’s Manual (1984) instructs troops: “Do not start fires in civilians’ homes or buildings or burn their property unless the necessities of war urgently require it. When searching dwellings in enemy towns and villages, do not take nonmilitary items.” 
United States, Your Conduct in Combat under the Law of War, Publication No. FM 27-2, Headquarters Department of the Army, Washington, November 1984, p. 23.

The US Instructor’s Guide (1985) provides:
Under the law of war, seizing and destroying certain enemy property is a crime. Assume, for example, that you are conducting a search in a built-up area. As you go from one building to another, you discover only a few weapons. But in one home you see some interesting art objects – hand-carved figures, for instance – and you decide to take one. Taking the hand-carved figure would be a crime which violates the law of war and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. You have no right to take such property. If, during that same search, you deliberately smash dishes, burn books, and scatter clothing, you would also violate the law of war by destroying property when it was not necessary, and you could be prosecuted for these crimes. 
United States, Instructor’s Guide – The Law of War, Headquarters Department of the Army, Washington, April 1985, pp. 5 and 6.

Under the US Rules of Engagement for Operation Desert Storm (1991), troops are ordered to:
Treat all civilians and their property with respect and dignity. Before using privately owned property, check to see if publicly owned property can substitute. No requisitioning of civilian property, including vehicles, without permission of a company level commander and without giving a receipt. If an ordering officer can contract the property, then do not requisition it. 
United States, Desert Storm – Rules of Engagement, Pocket Card, US Central Command, January 1991, reprinted in Operational Law Handbook, International and Operational Law Department, The Judge Advocate General’s School, United States Army, Charlottesville, Virginia, 1995, pp. 8-7 and 8-8, § H.

Back to top
Argentina
Argentina’s Law on National Defence (1966) and Decree on the Law on National Defence (1967) permit requisitions in times of emergency or extreme gravity. An indemnity must be paid. 
Argentina, Law on National Defence, 1966, Articles 36 and 37; Decree on the Law on National Defence, 1967, Articles 45 and 75.

Under Argentina’s Constitution (1994), no armed or security forces may make requisitions or require assistance of any kind. 
Argentina, Constitution, 1994, Article 17.

Australia
Australia’s Criminal Code Act (1995), as amended to 2007, states with respect to war crimes that are committed in the course of an international armed conflict:
268.51 War crime – destroying or seizing the enemy’s property
(1) A person (the perpetrator) commits an offence if:
(a) the perpetrator destroys or seizes certain property; and
(b) the property is property of an adverse party; and
(c) the property is protected from the destruction or seizure under article 18 of the Third Geneva Convention, article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention or article 54 of Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions; and
(d) the perpetrator knows of, or is reckless as to, the factual circumstances that establish that the property is so protected; and
(e) the destruction or seizure is not justified by military necessity; and
(f) the perpetrator’s conduct takes place in the context of, and is associated with, an international armed conflict.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 15 years.
(2) Strict liability applies to paragraph (1)(c). 
Australia, Criminal Code Act, 1995, as amended to 2007, Chapter 8, § 268.51, p. 335.

Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan’s Law concerning the Protection of Civilian Persons and the Rights of Prisoners of War (1995) provides that, in international and non-international armed conflicts, the destruction or annihilation of civilian movable or immovable property which is not necessary for military operations is prohibited.  
Azerbaijan, Law concerning the Protection of Civilian Persons and the Rights of Prisoners of War, 1995, Article 17(7).

Bangladesh
Bangladesh’s International Crimes (Tribunal) Act (1973) states that the “violation of any humanitarian rules applicable in armed conflicts laid down in the Geneva Conventions of 1949” is a crime. 
Bangladesh, International Crimes (Tribunal) Act, 1973, Section 3(2)(e).

Bosnia and Herzegovina
Under the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Criminal Code (1998), “the taking of an illegal and disproportionate contribution or requisition” is a war crime. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Federation, Criminal Code, 1998, Article 154(1).

Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Criminal Code (2003) states that, in time of war, armed conflict or occupation, ordering or “taking [from civilians] an illegal and disproportionate contribution or requisition”, in violation of international law, constitutes a war crime. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Criminal Code, 2003, Article 173(1)(f).

Bulgaria
Bulgaria’s Penal Code (1968), as amended, states that “a person who … appropriates, damages, destroys or unlawfully takes away property belonging to the population located in the region of military operations” commits a crime. 
Bulgaria, Penal Code, 1968, as amended, Article 404.

Canada
Canada’s National Defence Act (1985) punishes “every person who … commits any offence against the property … of any inhabitant or resident of a country in which he is serving”. 
Canada, National Defence Act, 1985, Section 77(f).

Chile
Chile’s Code of Military Justice (1925) provides that “any individual working for the Army, whether military or not, who abusively orders or commits requisitions, or who does not give receipts after lawful requisitions” commits a punishable offence. 
Chile, Code of Military Justice, 1925, Article 329.

China
China’s Law Governing the Trial of War Criminals (1946) provides that “unlawful extortion or demanding of contributions or requisitions”, “confiscation of property” and “taking money or property by force or extortion” constitute war crimes. 
China, Law Governing the Trial of War Criminals, 1946, Article 3(25), (33) and (36).

Colombia
Colombia’s Military Penal Code (1999) provides for a prison sentence for “anyone who, without any justification, orders or commits requisitions”, as well as for “anyone who requisitions without fulfilling the required formalities and without special circumstances obliging him to do so”. 
Colombia, Military Penal Code, 1999, Articles 176 and 177.

Croatia
Under Croatia’s Criminal Code (1997), “unlawful and disproportionately large contributions and requisitions” are war crimes. 
Croatia, Criminal Code, 1997, Article 158(1).

Croatia’s Criminal Code (1997), as amended to 2006, states that a war crime is committed by: “Whoever violates the rules of international law in time of war, armed conflict or occupation and orders … or imposes illegal and disproportionately-large contributions and requisitions [against the population].” 
Croatia, Criminal Code, 1997, as amended to 2006, Article 158(1).

Czechoslovakia
Czechoslovakia’s Decree No. 16 on the Punishment of Nazi Criminals (1945), as amended in 1946, punishes offences against property during the period of imminent danger to the Republic and cloaked in the form of judicial or official acts. 
Czechoslovakia, Decree No. 16 on the Punishment of Nazi Criminals as amended, 1945, Sections 8 and 9.

Czech Republic
The Czech Republic’s Criminal Code (1961), as amended in 1999, punishes a commander who intentionally “causes harm by a military operation to civil inhabitants or to their … property”. 
Czech Republic, Criminal Code, 1961, as amended in 1999, Article 262(2)(a).

Denmark
Denmark’s Military Criminal Code (1973), as amended in 1978, provides:
Any person who uses war instruments or procedures the application of which violates an international agreement entered into by Denmark or the general rules of international law, shall be liable to the same penalty [i.e. a fine, lenient imprisonment or up to 12 years’ imprisonment]. 
Denmark, Military Criminal Code, 1973, as amended in 1978, § 25(1).

Any person who deliberately uses war means [“krigsmiddel”] or procedures the application of which violates an international agreement entered into by Denmark or international customary law, shall be liable to the same penalty [i.e. imprisonment up to life imprisonment]. 
Denmark, Military Criminal Code, 2005, § 36(2).

Estonia
Estonia’s Criminal Code (1992), as amended in 1994, provides for the punishment of unlawful destruction and requisitions of property. 
Estonia, Criminal Code as amended, 1992, Section 61/2.

Ethiopia
Ethiopia’s Criminal Code (2004) states:
Article 270.- War Crimes against the Civilian Population.
Whoever, in time of … occupation organizes, orders or engages in, against the civilian population and in violation of the rules of public international law and of international humanitarian conventions:

(h) the confiscation of estates, the destruction or appropriation of property, the imposition of unlawful or arbitrary taxes or levies, or of taxes or levies disproportionate to the requirements of strict military necessity;

is punishable with rigorous imprisonment from five years to twenty-five years, or, in more serious cases, with life imprisonment or death. 
Ethiopia, Criminal Code, 2004, Article 270(h).

Gambia
The Gambia’s Armed Forces Act (1985) punishes “every person subject to this Act who … commits any offence against the property … of any inhabitant or resident of a country in which he is serving”. 
Gambia, Armed Forces Act, 1985, Section 40(f).

Georgia
Georgia’s Law on Occupied Territories (2008) states:
Article 5. Property Rights to Real Estate in the Occupied Territories
1. Any transaction related to real estate property and concluded in violation of Georgian law shall be deemed void from the moment of conclusion and shall not give rise to any legal consequences.
2. The right to property is protected in the Occupied Territories and is regulated by the laws of Georgia. 
Georgia, Law on Occupied Territories, 2008, Article 5.

Ghana
Ghana’s Armed Forces Act (1962) punishes “every person subject to the Code of Service Discipline who … commits any offence against the property … of any inhabitant or resident of a country in which he is serving”. 
Ghana, Armed Forces Act, 1962, Section 18(f).

Hungary
Hungary’s Criminal Code (1978), as amended in 1998, provides that “a military commander who, violating the rules of international law of warfare … pursues a war operation which causes serious damage to … the goods of the civilian population” commits a war crime. 
Hungary, Criminal Code, 1978, as amended in 1998, Section 160(a).

Ireland
Ireland’s Geneva Conventions Act (1962), as amended in 1998, provides that any “minor breach” of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, including violations of Article 55 of Geneva Convention IV, is a punishable offence. 
Ireland, Geneva Conventions Act, 1962, as amended in 1998, Section 4(1) and (4).

Israel
Israel’s Order regarding Security Provisions (Judea and Samaria) (2009) states the following with regard to the Israel Defense Forces’ powers of confiscation and destruction of property:
The military commander may exercise his powers pursuant to regulation 119 of the Defense Regulations (State of Emergency), 1945, regarding a house, structure or land located in the Area, [Judea and Samaria] [not only due to an act committed in the Area, but] also due to an act committed outside the Area which, if it had been committed in the Area, would allow exercising his powers pursuant to that regulation. 
Israel, Order regarding Security Provisions (Judea and Samaria), 2009, Article 264.

Italy
Italy’s Law of War Decree (1938) states, with respect to occupied territory:
Private property is not subject to confiscation.

The occupying military authority may seize all kinds of arms and ammunitions, as well as all means of communication and transportation, including ships and aircraft, belonging to private persons, which may be used for war operations, provided that they be restored or compensated when peace is made.

Requisitions in kind and services may be demanded from the local authorities and population only to satisfy the needs of the occupying forces.
They must be in proportion to the resources of the country, and of such a nature as not to involve the population in the obligation of taking part in military operations against their country.
The contributions in kind shall, as far as possible, be paid for in ready money; if not, the requisitions shall be acknowledged through the giving of a receipt and payment of the amount due must be made as soon as possible.
Requisitions cannot be demanded without the authority of the local commander of the occupying force. 
Italy, Law of War Decree, 1938, Articles 58, 60 and 62.

Italy’s Wartime Military Penal Code (1941) punishes any soldier who in enemy territory, and without authorization or necessity, imposes excessive requisitions or war contributions. 
Italy, Wartime Military Penal Code, 1941, Article 224.

Lithuania
Under Lithuania’s Criminal Code (1961), as amended in 1998, “imposing unlawful and excessively large indemnities and requisitions” in time of war, armed conflict or occupation is a war crime. 
Lithuania, Criminal Code, 1961, as amended in 1998, Article 336.

Malta
Malta’s Armed Forces Act (1970), as amended in 2000, punishes “any person subject to military law who, in any country or territory outside Malta, commits any offence against the … property of any member of the civilian population”. 
Malta, Armed Forces Act, 1970, as amended in 2000, Section 68.

Mozambique
Under Mozambique’s Military Criminal Law (1987), it is prohibited to abuse one’s military position, or the fear caused by the war, to impose excessive war contributions or to appropriate money or any movable property of the population, as well as to destroy or damage goods and other objects of the civilian population. 
Mozambique, Military Criminal Law, 1987, Articles 87 and 88.

Myanmar
Myanmar’s Defence Service Act (1959) punishes “any person subject to this Act who commits … any offence against the property or person of any inhabitant of, or resident in the country in which he is serving”. 
Myanmar, Defence Service Act, 1959, Section 66(f).

Netherlands
The Extraordinary Penal Law Decree (1943), as amended in 1947, of the Netherlands punishes whoever
during the time of [the Second World War] intentionally makes or threatens to make use of the power, opportunity or means, offered him by the enemy or by the fact of the enemy occupation, unlawfully to injure another in his possessions or unlawfully benefit himself or another. 
Netherlands, Extraordinary Penal Law Decree, 1943, as amended in 1947, Article 27.

The Definition of War Crimes Decree (1946) of the Netherlands includes “exaction of illegitimate or of exorbitant contributions and requisitions” in its list of war crimes. 
Netherlands, Definition of War Crimes Decree, 1946, Article 1.

Norway
Norway’s Military Penal Code (1902), as amended in 1981, punishes any combatant “who, with the purpose of acquiring for himself or others unwarranted gain in violation of the law, … increases rightful requisitions or … refuses to issue receipt for confiscated or requisitioned property”, as well as “anyone who contravenes or is accessory to the contravention of provisions relating to the protection of persons or property laid down in … the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949”. 
Norway, Military Penal Code, 1902, as amended in 1981, §§ 100(2) and (3) and 108(a).

Paraguay
Under Paraguay’s Penal Code (1997), the deliberate destruction of private property in time of war, armed conflict or military occupation is a war crime. 
Paraguay, Penal Code, 1997, Article 320(7).

Republic of Moldova
The Republic of Moldova’s Penal Code (1961) punishes “unlawful requisition of private property, committed against the civilian population in the area of military operations”. 
Republic of Moldova, Penal Code, 1961, Article 268.

Serbia
Serbia’s Criminal Code (2005) states that ordering or committing the “taking [of] unlawful and disproportionate contributions and requisitions” in violation of international law constitutes a war crime. 
Serbia, Criminal Code, 2005, Article 372(1).

Slovenia
Under Slovenia’s Penal Code (1994), the “imposition of unlawful and excessive contributions [or] requisitions” is a war crime. 
Slovenia, Penal Code, 1994, Article 374(1).

Spain
Spain’s Military Criminal Code (1985) punishes any soldier who “requisitions unduly or unnecessarily buildings or movable objects in occupied territory”. 
Spain, Military Criminal Code, 1985, Article 74(1).

Uganda
Uganda’s National Resistance Army Statute (1992) punishes any “person subject to military law who … commits any offence against the property … of any inhabitant or resident of a country in which he is serving”. 
Uganda, National Resistance Army Statute, 1992, Section 35(e).

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK Army Act (1955), as amended in 1971, punishes “any person subject to military law who, in any country or territory outside the United Kingdom, commits any offence against the … property of any member of the civil population”. 
United Kingdom, Army Act, 1955, as amended in 1971, Section 63.

The UK Air Force Act (1955), as amended in 1971, punishes “any person subject to air-force law who, in any country or territory outside the United Kingdom, commits any offence against the … property of any member of the civil population”. 
United Kingdom, Air Force Act, 1955, as amended in 1971, Section 63.

Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of
The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s Criminal Offences against the Nation and State Act (1945) considers that, during war or enemy occupation, “any person who … ordered or committed arson, destruction … of private … property” committed war crimes. 
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Criminal Offences against the Nation and State Act, 1945, Article 3(3).

Under the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s Penal Code (1976), as amended in 2001, “taking unlawful and disproportionately high contributions and requisitions” is a war crime. 
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Penal Code, 1976, as amended in 2001, Article 142(1).

Back to top
Bosnia and Herzegovina
In the Bijelić case in 1997, a Bosnian Serb was convicted by a Bosnian court, inter alia, of unlawful seizure of property. The trial was supported by the ICTY. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cantonal Court of Bihac, Bijelić case, Judgment, 30 April 1997.

China
In the Takashi Sakai case in 1946, a Chinese Military Tribunal found the accused, a Japanese military commander in China during the Second World War, guilty, inter alia, of “inciting or permitting his subordinates … to cause destruction of property”, notably 700 houses which were set on fire. The Tribunal said that, in so doing, “he had violated the [1907 Hague Regulations] … These offences are war crimes and crimes against humanity.” It found that Article 46 of the 1907 Hague Regulations had been violated. 
China, War Crimes Military Tribunal of the Ministry of National Defence at Nanking, Takashi Sakai case, Judgment, 29 August 1946.

The Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia, as the second instance court, entirely upholds the convincing, rational and comprehensive reasoning of the first instance Judgment and concludes that the facts were completely and correctly established. The first instance court correctly applied the criminal code by finding that the actions of the accused amounted to the criminal offence of War Crimes against Civilians in violation of Article 120(1) of the BCCRC [Basic Criminal Code of the Republic of Croatia]. 
Croatia, Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia, M.Ć. case, Judgment, 13 March 2007, p. 5.

France
During the First World War, France adopted a law to extend the jurisdiction of its courts to offences committed in invaded territory, and on this basis a number of German officers and soldiers were convicted by courts-martial, inter alia, for arson. 
J. Rampon, La justice militaire en France et le droit international humanitaire, Mémoire de DEA, Faculté de Droit, Université de Montpellier I, 1997–1998, p. 30, referring to cases of the Conseil de Guerre de Rennes, 26 February 1915 and of the Conseil de Guerre de Toulouse, 16 July 1916.

In the Szabados case before a French Military Tribunal in 1946, the accused, a former German non-commissioned officer of the 19th Police Regiment stationed in occupied France, was charged with, and found guilty of, inter alia, arson and wanton destruction of inhabited buildings. The accused ordered the inhabitants of several houses in Ugine, regarded as harbouring “terrorists”, to leave the premises, whereupon three houses were set on fire. He personally threw hand-grenades into the houses. He also took part in the destruction by dynamite of a block of three more houses which it was found difficult to set on fire. The wanton destruction of inhabited houses by fire and explosive was regarded by the court as being a crime under Article 434 of the French Penal Code. 
France, Permanent Military Tribunal at Clermont-Ferrand, Szabados case, Judgment, 23 June 1946.

In the Rust case before a French Military Tribunal in 1948, the accused, a German Obersturmführer, was charged, inter alia, with “abusive and illegal requisitioning” of French property, a case which, according to the prosecution, amounted to pillage in time of war, under Article 221 of the French Code of Military Justice and Article 2(8) of the 1944 Ordinance on Repression of War Crimes. Without giving reasons therefor, the Tribunal, however, made alterations in respect of the offences and found the accused guilty of “abusing powers conferred upon him for the purpose of requisitioning … vehicles by refusing to deliver receipts for such requisitions”. The accused was under an obligation to pay, or deliver receipts in lieu of immediate payment, for the requisition. 
France, Permanent Military Tribunal at Metz, Rust case, Judgment, 5 March 1948.

In its judgment in the Roechling case in 1948, the General Tribunal at Rastadt of the Military Government for the French Zone of Occupation in Germany held that the accused, the proprietor of a German industrial trust and Reich Commissioner for the iron industry of the departments of Moselle and Meurthe-et-Moselle, was guilty of war crimes, inter alia, for the exploitation and removal of important plant from metallurgical undertakings in occupied territories and for unlawful seizure of raw materials and commodities in those countries. The Court found that the foregoing actions amounted to a fraudulent seizure of private property belonging to the inhabitants of occupied countries, in violation of the 1907 Hague Regulations.  
France, General Tribunal at Rastadt of the Military Government for the French Zone of Occupation in Germany, Roechling case, Judgment, 30 June 1948.

Germany
In the Jorgić case in 1997, Germany’s Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf found the accused guilty of genocide committed in the context of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. In 1999, the Federal Court of Justice confirmed the judgment of first instance in most parts. Both courts referred to the taking of property, such as money and furniture, and to the destruction and arson of buildings and private houses as part of the general background in which the genocide took place. 
Germany, Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf (Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf), Jorgić case, Judgment, 26 September 1997; Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof), Jorgić case, Judgment, 30 April 1999.

Greece
In its judgment in the Prefecture of Voiotia case in 1997, Greece’s Court of First Instance of Leivadia stated:
[T]he occupant is obliged to respect, during the administration of the occupied land, the legislation of the latter (article 43 of the fourth Hague Convention 1907) as well as international law, including the provisions of the Regulation of Laws and Customs of War on Land, annexed to the fourth Hague Convention (19th October 1907) … especially the provision of article 46, according to which “… private property … must be respected”. This rule is generally accepted as constituting peremptory international customary law (jus cogens). 
Greece, Court of First Instance of Leivadia, Prefecture of Voiotia case, Judgment of 30 October 1997.

In its judgment in the Margellos case in 1999, Greece’s Court of Appeal of Athens stated:
The generally accepted rules of international law that govern the obligations of the occupying power in relation to the administration of the occupied land are included in the Regulation of Laws and Customs of War on Land, annexed to the fourth Hague Convention (19th October 1907). Although not ratified by Greece, this Regulation constitutes international customary law (see the judgement of the International Military Tribunal for Germany) … The deliberate arson and damage to property, in violation of international ius cogens rules, committed by the German occupation army against Greek civilians, are of a iure gestionis nature, because these acts do not form part of the powers that can be exercised by an occupation army. The above-mentioned rule is of a ius cogens nature and its violation deprives the foreign state of the right to claim immunity. 
Greece, Court of Appeal of Athens, Margellos case, Judgment, 1999.

Israel
In the Ayub case in 1979, Israel’s High Court heard a petition from several Arab landowners whose lands in Al-Bireh and Tubas had been requisitioned in 1970 and 1975 pursuant to orders issued by the military commander of the region. The orders stated that the military commander deemed the requisition to be necessary for military and security purposes. At the initiative of the Israeli civilian government, Jewish settlements were established on the requisitioned lands in 1978, whereupon the Arab landowners petitioned the High Court of Justice for an injunction against the requisition orders and for the return of their lands. In considering the petition, the Court held:
The 1907 Hague Convention is generally regarded as customary international law, whereas provisions of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention remain conventional in their nature. Consequently the petitioners may rely in this Court on the 1907 Hague Convention – which thus forms part of Israeli internal law – but not on provisions of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention … It therefore remained for the Court to decide whether the requisition of the petitioners’ lands violates, inter alia, Articles 23 and 46 of the Hague Regulations prohibiting confiscation of private property. It was proven to the Court that the lands in question were seized only to be used and that rental was offered to the petitioners, who retained their ownership of the lands. This kind of seizure – namely requisition – is lawful under Article 52 of the Hague Regulations … The Court also adopts von Glahn’s view regarding the question of how to deal with land which the occupant army does not really need for its own purposes but which must not be left in the possession of the owners lest it serve the interests of the enemy. 
Israel, High Court, Ayub case, Judgment, 15 March 1979.

In the Sakhwil case in 1979, a petition was filed with Israel’s High Court by two Arab women from the West Bank. The women asked the Court to issue an injunction preventing the respondent from sealing off or demolishing or expropriating the houses in which they and their families resided. One of the rooms of the second petitioner had indeed been ordered to be sealed off. The Court, taking cognizance of the purpose for which the room had served (shelter for a member of the Al-Fatah organization and hiding place for a sack of explosives), “found the argument on the illegality of the respondent’s order to be groundless”. The Court stated that the room could be lawfully sealed pursuant to Regulation 119(1) of the Defence (Emergency) Regulations of 1945, which constituted Jordanian legislation that had remained in force since the period of the British Mandate. According to the Court, Regulation 119 permitted destruction of private property in certain circumstances. The Court added that “there is no contradiction between the provisions of [the 1949 Geneva Convention IV] … and the use of the authority vested in the respondent by legislation which was in force at the time”. Consequently, the petition was rejected. 
Israel, High Court, Sakhwil case, Judgment, 6 November 1979.

In the Al-Nawar case before Israel’s High Court in 1985, Judge Shamgar held that Article 46(2) of the 1907 Hague Regulations “does not extend to property ‘actually in use by the hostile army’”. 
Israel, High Court, Al-Nawar case, Judgment, 11 August 1985.

In its judgment in the Hess case in 2004, Israel’s High Court of Justice stated:
9. Sequestration of land is likely to be a necessary step for carrying out the authority and responsibilities of the military commander. It is likely to be needed both in order to realize military and security needs, and in order to realize the commander’s duty to protect the interests of the civilian population of the area.
The Laws of War, in international law, prohibit sequestration or destruction of private property in territory held in belligerent occupation, unless it is necessary for combat. According to Regulation 23(g) of the Hague Regulations, the occupying power is not allowed
“To destroy or seize the enemy’s property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war“. [emphasis added by Court]
Regulation 52 of the Hague Regulations instructs that sequestration of land in the occupied territory is not to be carried out, except for the needs of the army. This provision has been interpreted in a wide fashion in caselaw, as including sequestration for erecting military positions and outposts, as well as for paving roads in order to protect the Israeli residents living in the area (HCJ 24/91 Timraz v. The Commander of IDF Forces in Judea and Samaria, 45 PD (2) 325; HCJ 2717/96 Wafa, at p. 856; HCJ 401/88 Abu Riyan v. The Commander of IDF Forces in Judea and Samaria, 42 PD (2) 767).
As for article 53 of the Geneva Convention, it prohibits destruction by the occupying force, of any real or personal property belonging to an individual or the state, subject to the following exception:
“except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations”.
In J. Pictet’s interpretative commentary of the Geneva Convention (of 1958, p. 302), he explains the nature of said exception, stating:
The prohibition of destruction of property situated in occupied territory is subject to an important reservation: it does not apply in cases ‘where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations’. The occupying forces may therefore undertake the total or partial destruction of certain private or public property in the occupied territory when imperative military requirements so demand. Furthermore, it will be for the occupying power to judge the importance of such military requirements. It is therefore to be feared that bad faith in the application of the reservation may render the proposed safeguard valueless; for unscrupulous recourse to the clause concerning military necessity would allow the occupying power to circumvent the prohibition set forth in the convention. The occupying power must therefore try to interpret the clause in a reasonable manner: whenever it is felt essential to resort to destruction, the occupying authorities must try to keep a sense of proportion in comparing the military advantages to be gained with the damage done”. [emphasis added by Court]
In the spirit of that interpretation, before he decides to sequester or destroy property of civilians in the occupied territory, the military commander is required by international law to exercise most stringent discretion. He is permitted to do so when imperative military-security needs require it, and when the sequestration proportionally balances between the importance of the military need and the intensity of the damage expected to be caused to the property owner by the sequestration. In the framework of this balance he must examine, inter alia, the existence of alternatives likely to prevent the impingement upon the rights of the individual (Timraz, at paragraph 4; HCJ 834/78 Salame v. The Minister of Defense, 33 PD (1) 471). Such sequestration of land is also possible in extreme situations, in which it is necessary in order to provide for the basic humanitarian needs of the population living in the area; thus, for example, the need to expropriate land for the paving of roads and access routes to various locations in the area has been recognized. In exceptional cases, even a certain extent of harm to individual property for granting appropriate protection to other constitutional human rights of the population living in the area is also possible, when those rights stand opposite to the property right of the individual in a given case. However, withstanding the test of proper balance, required by the standards of constitutional law, will always be a condition for the legal validity of such harm.
Alongside the rules of international law, the rules of internal Israeli law that apply to the military commander require him to refrain from harming the property of the residents of the area unless such harm is intended to attain an objective located within his authority, and an imperative need requires it. This authority of his, both from the standpoint of international law and from the standpoint of Israeli public law, must be exercised for a proper purpose, reasonably, and proportionally, while carefully and precisely weighing the necessity of the desired objective and the nature of the harm involved in attaining it, as well as its scope.
10. This Court performs judicial review of the legality of the exercise of the discretion of the commander of the area, as an official in a public capacity pursuant to law. In this review, the Court does not replace the discretion of the commander with its own discretion, nor does it purport to be an expert in security and military issues instead of the commander (HCJ 302/72 Hilo v. The Government of Israel, 27 PD (2) 169). According to international law as well, the military commander is granted broad discretion to decide regarding the level of intensity of the need (Hyde, International Law, 2d ed, Vol 3, Para. 656, p. 1802). The role of judicial review is guarding the boundaries, and ensuring compliance with the legal rules that serve as borders of the discretion of the commander of the area (Ajuri, at paragraph 30; HCJ 619/78 Altaliya v. The Minister of Defense, 33 PD (3) 505, 512). The examination of the legality of the exercise of the area commander’s discretion – including ensuring that his acts are based upon relevant reasons, are reasonable, and are proportional, considering the entirety of the circumstances of the case at hand – must be stringent (HCJ 1005/89 Aga v. The Commander of IDF Forces, 44 PD (1) 536, 539).

Property Rights
17. The right of private property in the land and buildings subject to the sequestration order is a protected constitutional right. It is recognized in international law, including in the Hague Convention and the Geneva Convention. It has been recognized as having constitutional status in Israel in Article 3 of Basic Law: Human Dignity and Freedom (HCJ 2390/96 Karasik v. The State of Israel, 55 PD (2) 625, 712, 716; CA 5546/97 The Local Planning and Construction Committee v. Holtzman, 55 PD (4) 629, 641). Even during war an individual’s property right does not expire (Gosin, at paragraph 4). The right of property has additional weight when dealing with a person’s house of residence (LCA 214/88 Tawil v. Deutsch, 44 PD (3) 752, 754). In this case, we are not dealing with inhabited houses of residence, as the buildings scheduled for demolition were abandoned years ago. The buildings in this case are buildings of archeological value, whose historic value is worth protecting (HCJ 270/87 Kando v. The Minister of Defense, 43 PD (1) 738, 742). The commander of the area has a duty, pursuant to the rules of international law, including the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, The Hague, 14 May 1954, to protect cultural property in occupied territory, including treasures of archeological value. He must act on this matter according to the fundamental principles of administrative law.
A person’s property right is not an absolute right. It is a relative right. It is vulnerable to impingement when that is necessary in order to advance other worthy cultural objectives, including the advancement of other constitutional basic rights of other people (Ajuri, at p. 365). What is the permissible scope of impingement upon a property right, as a constitutional right, in that type of competition of rights?

In issuing the sequestration order, the commander of the area wished to perform a proportional balancing between the conflicting constitutional rights, in order to allow the exercise of the freedom of worship at a holy place, in conditions of relative security for the worshippers walking along the route.
All the alternatives to the worshippers’ walking to the cave, instead of the “prayers’ path”, were examined, and it was found that every other alternative involves costs that are much higher, in terms of the security risks for the worshippers and for the impingement and damage expected to be caused to the local residents. As the “prayers’ path” was found to be the preferential alternative, the commander of the area restricted the impingement upon private property along the sides of the route to the minimum possible. In the northern segment, he restricted the widening of the route to 2 meters on each side. In the southern segment of the route he restricted the widening to a total road width of 4 meters. This widening will allow only one-way traffic on the part of rescue vehicles, as opposed to the possibility of two-way traffic that had been considered previously. This restriction lessens the impingement upon property on one hand, and sets the security means for the worshippers at the necessary minimum only, on the other hand. All of the buildings to which the sequestration order applies are abandoned. One house that was found to be inhabited was removed from the application of the sequestration order, and the route was altered as a result. The cutback of the widening of the southern segment of the road today requires partial demolition of two buildings and of a part of a third, which have not been inhabited for many years. The demolition does not involve evacuating people from their homes. The demolition is supposed to be supervised by professionals in the area of building restoration and archeology, in order to protect the cultural-historic aspects of the environs to the extent possible. The property owners have a right to be paid rent and compensation for the sequestration and the demolition. The sequestration order is restricted in time. When the security situation changes and the area will be tranquil, the assumption is that the order will not be extended, and the property sequestered will be able to be returned to its owners.
The balancing between the competing constitutional rights is not easy, and is not obvious in the circumstances of this case. It involves aspects of the freedom of human expression, through expression of religious faith and worship, against rights and values regarding connections to land and property; beyond all that is the general value of responsibility for human life. The balancing point between the entirety of these factors is not easily located. However, ultimately, it seems that the sequestration order, in its narrow version, withstands the constitutional test, by making a relative balance between the constitutional rights. It allows exercise of the freedom of worship, while providing relative protection and security to the worshippers, which, in turn, is made possible by a limited impingement upon the scope of the conflicting private property right, along with monetary compensation. It does not violate accepted values in society, and it is done for a proper purpose, and does not stray beyond the required proportionality. If the commander of the area had refrained from a relative impingement upon the property rights, that would have meant prevention of security means which are necessary for protecting those walking on the route. In that scenario, that might have required absolute prevention of exercise of the worshippers’ right to come to the cave on Sabbaths and holidays, due to concern of a lack of sufficient security means for ensuring their safety. Such prevention would have constituted an absolute and improper violation of the freedom to worship at a holy place, and a severe impingement upon the freedom of movement and access required in order to exercise the freedom of religion. Alternatively, it might have led to permitting the worshippers to walk on the route without the special security means required under the circumstances, while increasing the imminent danger to the lives and safety of men, women and children walking along the route – at times in the thousands. These alternatives create great difficulty. Against that background, preservation of the freedom of worship in conditions of relative safety of the worshippers, alongside a relative impingement upon property rights of the property owners along the route, which was limited to a minimum, withstands, in the special circumstances of this case, the conditions of the constitutional balancing in a way that does not deviate from the standard of reasonableness.
Thus, I find no cause for intervention in the discretion of the commander of the area in issuing the sequestration order in its narrow version, according to which the order is to be amended. 
Israel, High Court of Justice, Hess case, Judgment, 4 March 2004, §§ 9–10 and 17.

In its decision in the Albassiouni case in 2004, Israel’s High Court of Justice stated:
In their application for an interlocutory order, the petitioners contend that the respondent is demolishing houses in the Philadelphi route without giving the possessor of the houses an opportunity to state their case. In response, respondent’s counsel explained that, in the area of the Philadelphi route there has been, and is taking place at this very time, complicated and hard combat. Bands of terrorists operating in the field use these structures as places of shelter. In coping with the terrorist bands, the IDF [Israel Defense Forces] must strike at these structures, while making every effort to prevent injury to innocent civilians. The respondent contends that the action does not involve demolition of houses as deterrence, but demolition of structures for immediate and imperative military needs. The IDF does not know the particulars of the owners of the houses in the area, and that, under the circumstances prevailing in the field, granting the right to be heard to possessors of the houses is not feasible. His response also points out that, so long as the houses involved are not abandoned, the army intends to demolish them to prevent terrorists from using them as convenient positions from which to fire, with the army taking especial care to evacuate the houses of their occupants prior to demolishing them.
After studying the application and the response, I decide to grant a restricted provisional order that shall remain in force until another decision is given. The order prohibits the respondent from carrying out pre-planned demolition of any of the petitioners’ houses, which, according to the description given by their counsel, are all situated in Block O on the border of Rafah, Egypt, near the Salah Aldin gate, but this order does not prevent the demolition of a house caused during the course of combat actions, or destruction of a house whose destruction is necessitated by immediate and imperative military necessity to prevent real danger to IDF soldiers operating in the area. 
Israel, High Court of Justice, Albassiouni case, Judgment, 14 May 2004.

In its judgment in the Beit Sourik Village Council case in 2004, Israel’s High Court of Justice stated:
27. We accept that the military commander cannot order the construction of the Separation Fence if his reasons are political. The Separation Fence cannot be motivated by a desire to “annex” territories to the state of Israel. The purpose of the Separation Fence cannot be to draw a political border. In Duikat, at 17, this Court discussed whether it is possible to seize land in order to build a Jewish civilian town, when the purpose of the building of the town is not the security needs and defense of the area (as it was in Ayoob), but rather based upon a Zionist perspective of settling the entire land of Israel. This question was answered by this Court in the negative. The Vice-President of this Court, Justice Landau, quoted the Prime Minister (the late Mr. Menachem Begin), regarding the right of the Jewish people to settle in Judea and Samaria. In his judgment, Justice Landau stated:
The view regarding the right of the Jewish people, expressed in these words, is built upon Zionist ideology. However, the question before this Court is whether this ideology justifies the taking of the property of the individual in an area under control of the military administration. The answer to that depends upon the interpretation of article 52 of the Hague Regulations. It is my opinion that the needs of the army mentioned in that article cannot include, by way of any reasonable interpretation, national security needs in broad meaning of the term.

32. The petitioners’ second argument is that the construction of the Fence in the area is based, in large part, on the seizure of land privately owned by local inhabitants, that this seizure is illegal, and that therefore the military commander has no authority to construct the obstacle. We cannot accept this argument. We found no defect in the process of issuing the orders of seizure, or in the process of granting the opportunity to appeal them. Regarding the central question raised before us, our opinion is that the military commander is authorized – by the international law applicable to an area under belligerent occupation – to take possession of land, if this is necessary for the needs of the army. See articles 23(g) and 52 of the Hague Convention; article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. He must, of course, provide compensation for his use of the land. See HCJ 606/78 Ayoob v. Minster of Defense; HCJ 401/88 Abu Rian v. Commander of the IDF Forces in the Area of Judea and Samaria; Timraz. Indeed, on the basis of the provisions of the Hague Convention and the Geneva Convention, this Court has recognized the legality of land and house seizure for various military needs, including the construction of military facilities (HCJ 834/78 Salama v. Minister of Defense), the paving of detour roads (HCJ 202/81 Tabib v. Minister of Defense; Wafa), the building of fences around outposts (Timraz), the temporary housing of soldiers (HCJ 290/89 Jora v. Commander of IDF Forces in Judea and Samaria), the ensuring of unimpaired traffic on the roads of the area (Abu Rian), the construction of civilian administration offices (HCJ 1987/90 Shadid v. Commander of IDF Forces in the Area of Judea and Samaria), the seizing of buildings for the deployment of a military force, (HCJ 8286/00 Association for Civil Rights in Israel v. Commander of the IDF Forces in the Area of Judea and Samaria). Of course, regarding all of these acts, the military commander must consider the needs of the local population. Assuming that this condition is met, there is no doubt that the military commander is authorized to take possession of land in areas under his control. The construction of the Separation Fence falls within this framework. The infringement of property rights is insufficient, in and of itself, to take away the authority to build it. It is permitted, by the international law applicable to an area under belligerent occupation, to take possession of an individual’s land in order to erect a separation fence upon it, on the condition that this is necessitated by military needs. To the extent that construction of the Fence is a military necessity, it is permitted, therefore, by international law …

35. The approach of this Court is well anchored in the humanitarian law of public international law. This is set forth in Regulation 46 of the Hague Regulations and Article 46 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Regulation 46 of the Hague Regulations provides:
Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected. Private property cannot be confiscated.

The rules in Regulation 46 of the Hague Regulations and in Article 27 of the Fourth Geneva Convention cast a double obligation upon the military commander: he must refrain from actions that injure the local inhabitants. This is his “negative” obligation. He must take the legally required actions in order to ensure that the local inhabitants shall not be injured. This is his “positive” obligation … In addition to these fundamental provisions, there are additional provisions that deal with specifics, such as the seizure of land. See Regulation 23(g) and 52 of the Hague Regulations; Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. These provisions create a single tapestry of norms that recognize both human rights and the needs of the local population as well security needs from the perspective of the military commander. Among these conflicting norms, a proper balance must be found. What is that balance?

Proportionality
36. The problem of balancing security and liberty is not specific to the discretion of a military commander of an area under belligerent occupation. It is a general problem in the law, both domestic and international. Its solution is universal. It is found deep in the general principles of law, which include reasonableness and good faith. See B. Cheng, General Principles of Law as Applied By International Courts and Tribunals (1987); T. Meron, Human Rights and Humanitarian Norms as Customary Law (1989); S. Rosenne, The Perplexities of Modern International Law 63 (2002). One of these foundational principles, which balances the legitimate objective with the means for achieving it, is the principle of proportionality. According to this principle, the liberty of the individual can be limited (in this case, the liberty of the local inhabitants under belligerent occupation), on the condition that the restriction is proportionate. This approach applies to all types of law. In the framework of the petition before us, its importance is twofold: first, it is a basic principle in international law in general and specifically in the law of belligerent occupation; second, it is a central standard in Israeli administrative law, which applies to the area under belligerent occupation …

41. The first subtest is that the objective must be related to the means. The means that the administrative body uses must be constructed to achieve the precise objective that the administrative body is trying to achieve. The means used by the administrative body must rationally lead to the realization of the objective. This is the “appropriate means” or “rational means” test. According to the second subtest, the means used by the administrative body must injure the individual to the least extent possible. In the spectrum of means that can be used to achieve the objective, the least injurious means must be used. This is the “least injurious means” test. The third test requires that the damage caused to the individual by the means used by the administrative body in order to achieve its objectives must be of proper proportion to the gain brought about by that means. That is the “proportionate means” test (or proportionality “in the narrow sense.”) The test of proportionality “in the narrow sense” is commonly applied with “absolute values,” by directly comparing the advantage of the administrative act with the damage that results from it. However, it is also possible to apply the test of proportionality in the narrow sense in a “relative manner.” According to this approach, the administrative act is tested vis-à-vis an alternate act, whose benefit will be somewhat smaller than that of the former one. The original administrative act is disproportionate in the narrow sense if a certain reduction in the advantage gained by the original act – by employing alternate means, for example – ensures a substantial reduction in the injury caused by the administrative act.
42. It is possible to say that the means used by an administrative authority are proportionate only if all three subtests are satisfied. Satisfaction of one or two of these subtests is insufficient. All three of them must be satisfied simultaneously. Not infrequently, there are a number of ways that the requirement of proportionality can be satisfied. In these situations a “zone of proportionality” must be recognized (similar to a “zone of reasonableness.”) Any means chosen by the administrative body that is within the zone of proportionality is proportionate. See Ben-Atiyah, at 13; HCJ 4769/95 Menachem v. Minister of Transportation, at 258.

58. The second subtest examines whether it is possible to attain the security objectives of the Separation Fence in a way that causes less injury to the local inhabitants. There is no doubt – and the issue is not even disputed – that the route suggested by the members of the Council for Peace and Security causes less injury to the local inhabitants than the injury caused by the route determined by the military commander. The question is whether the former route satisfies the security objective of the security Fence to the same extent as the route set out by the military commander. We cannot answer this question in the affirmative. The position of the military commander is that the route of the Separation Fence, as proposed by members of the Council for Peace and Security, grants less security than his proposed route. By our very determination that we shall not intervene in that position, we have also determined that there is no alternate route that fulfills, to a similar extent, the security needs while causing lesser injury to the local inhabitants. In this state of affairs, our conclusion is that the second subtest of proportionality, regarding the issue before us, is satisfied.
59. The third subtest examines whether the injury caused to the local inhabitants by the construction of the Separation Fence stands in proper proportion to the security benefit from the Security Fence in its chosen route. This is the proportionate means test (or proportionality “in the narrow sense”). Concerning this topic, Professor Y. Zamir wrote:
The third element is proportionality itself. According to this element, it is insufficient that the administrative authority chose the proper and most moderate means for achieving the objective; it must also weigh the benefit reaped by the public against the damage that will be caused to the citizen by this means under the circumstances of the case at hand. It must ask itself if, under these circumstances, there is a proper proportion between the benefit to the public and the damage to the citizen. The proportion between the benefit and the damage – and it is also possible to say the proportion between means and objective – must be proportionate.
Zamir, id., at 131.
This subtest weighs the costs against the benefits. See Stamka, at 776. According to this subtest, a decision of an administrative authority must reach a reasonable balance between communal needs and the damage done to the individual. The objective of the examination is to determine whether the severity of the damage to the individual and the reasons brought to justify it stand in proper proportion to each other. This judgment is made against the background of the general normative structure of the legal system, which recognizes human rights and the necessity of ensuring the provision of the needs and welfare of the local inhabitants, and which preserves “family honour and rights” (Regulation 46 of the Hague Regulations). All these are protected in the framework of the humanitarian provisions of the Hague Regulations and the Geneva Convention. The question before us is: does the severity of the injury to local inhabitants, by the construction of the Separation Fence along the route determined by the military commander, stand in reasonable (proper) proportion to the security benefit from the construction of the Fence along that route?
60. Our answer is that [the] relationship between the injury to the local inhabitants and the security benefit from the construction of the Separation Fence along the route, as determined by the military commander, is not proportionate. The route disrupts the delicate balance between the obligation of the military commander to preserve security and his obligation to provide for the needs of the local inhabitants. This approach is based on the fact that the route which the military commander established for the Security Fence – which separates the local inhabitants from their agricultural lands – injures the local inhabitants in a severe and acute way, while violating their rights under humanitarian international law. Here are the facts: more than 13,000 farmers (falahin) are cut off from thousands of dunams of their land and from tens of thousands of trees which are their livelihood, and which are located on the other side of the Separation Fence. No attempt was made to seek out and provide them with substitute land, despite our oft repeated proposals on that matter. The separation is not hermetic: the military commander announced that two gates will be constructed, from each of the two villages, to its lands, with a system of licensing. This state of affairs injures the farmers severely, as access to their lands (early in the morning, in the afternoon, and in the evening), will be subject to restrictions inherent to a system of licensing. Such a system will result in long lines for the passage of the farmers themselves; it will make the passage of vehicles (which themselves require licensing and examination) difficult, and will distance the farmer from his lands (since only two daytime gates are planned for the entire length of this segment of the route). As a result, the life of the farmer will change completely in comparison to his previous life. The route of the Separation Fence severely violates their right of property and their freedom of movement. Their livelihood is severely impaired. The difficult reality of life from which they have suffered (due, for example, to high unemployment in that area) will only become more severe.
61. These injuries are not proportionate. They can be substantially decreased by an alternate route, either the route presented by the experts of the Council for Peace and Security, or another route set out by the military commander. Such an alternate route exists. It is not a figment of the imagination. It was presented before us. It is based on military control of Jebel Mukatam, without “pulling” the Separation Fence to that mountain. Indeed, one must not forget that, even after the construction of the Separation Fence, the military commander will continue to control the area east of it. In the opinion of the military commander – which we assume to be correct, as the basis of our review – he will provide less security in that area. However, the security advantage reaped from the route as determined by the military commander, in comparison to the proposed route, does not stand in any reasonable proportion to the injury to the local inhabitants caused by this route. Indeed, the real question in the “relative” examination of the third proportionality subtest is not the choice between constructing a Separation Fence which brings security but injures the local inhabitants, or not constructing a Separation Fence, and not injuring the local inhabitants. The real question is whether the security benefit reaped by the acceptance of the military commander’s position (that the Separation Fence should surround Jebel Mukatam) is proportionate to the additional injury resulting from his position (with the Fence separating local inhabitants from their lands). Our answer to this question is that the military commander’s choice of the route of the Separation Fence is disproportionate. The gap between the security provided by the military commander’s approach and the security provided by the alternate route is minute, as compared to the large difference between a Fence that separates the local inhabitants from their lands, and a Fence which does not separate the two (or which creates a separation which is smaller and possible to live with). Indeed, we accept that security needs are likely to necessitate an injury to the lands of the local inhabitants and to their ability to use them. International humanitarian law on one hand, however, and the basic principles of Israeli administrative law on the other, require making every possible effort to ensure that injury will be proportionate. Where construction of the Separation Fence demands that inhabitants be separated from their lands, access to these lands must be ensured, in order to minimize the damage to the extent possible.
62. We have reached the conclusion that the route of the Separation Fence, which separates the villages of Beit Likia and Beit Anan from the lands which provide the villagers with their livelihood, is not proportionate. This determination affects order Tav/103/03, which applies directly to the territory of the mountain itself, and leads to its annulment. This determination also affects order Tav/104/03 which applies to the route west of it, which turns in towards the village of Beit Likia, in order to reach the mountain. The same goes for the western part of order Tav/84/03, which descends from the mountain in a southeasterly direction. The eastern part of the latter order was not a matter of significant dispute between the parties, but as a result of the annulment of the aforementioned orders, it should be examined anew. 
Israel, High Court of Justice, Beit Sourik Village Council case, Judgment, 30 June 2004, §§ 27, 32, 35–36, 41–42 and 58–62.

In its judgment in the Municipality of Bethlehem case in 2005, Israel’s High Court of Justice stated:
[T]he general power of the military commander to requisition land on the basis of the provisions of the Regulations Concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, which are appended to the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907 (hereafter: “the Hague Convention”) and the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 1949 (hereafter: “the Fourth Geneva Convention”), when the conditions under international and Israeli law are satisfied, has been recognized by this court in a series of judgments (see, for example, Beit Sourik Village Council v. Government of Israel [1], at para. 32; HCJ 940/04 Abu Tir v. IDF Commander in Judaea and Samaria [2], at para. 10; HCJ 10356/02 Hass v. IDF Commander in West Bank [3], at paras. 8–9; HCJ 401/88 Abu Rian v. IDF Commander in Judaea and Samaria [4], at p. 770; HCJ 24/91 Timraz v. IDF Commander in Gaza Strip [5], at pp. 333–335; HCJ 2717/96 Wafa v. Minister of Defence [6], at p. 856). 
Israel, High Court of Justice, Municipality of Bethlehem case, Judgment, 3 February 2005, § 8.

In its judgment in the Zaharan Yunis Muhammad Mara’abe case in 2005, the Supreme Court of Israel stated:
16. It is sometimes necessary, in order to erect a separation fence, to take possession of land belonging to Palestinian residents. Is the military commander authorized to do so? The answer is that if it is necessary for military needs, the military commander is authorized to do so. So we ruled in The Beit Sourik Case:
“… the military commander is authorized – by the international law applicable to an area under belligerent occupation – to take possession of land, if that is necessary for the needs of the army. … He must, of course, provide compensation for his use of the land. Of course, … the military commander must also consider the needs of the local population. Assuming that this condition is met, there is no doubt that the military commander is authorized to take possession of land in areas under his control. The construction of the separation fence falls within this framework, on the condition that it is necessary from a military standpoint. To the extent that the fence is a military necessity, infringement of private property rights cannot, in and of itself, negate the authority to build it. … Indeed, the obstacle is intended to take the place of combat military operations, by physically blocking terrorist infiltration into Israeli population centers (Id., at p. 832).
It is worth noting that construction of the separation fence is unrelated to expropriation or confiscation of land. The latter are prohibited by regulation 46 of The Hague Regulations (see HCJ 606/78 Iyub v. The Minister of Defense, 33(2) P.D. 113, 122; hereinafter – The Iyub case). Construction of the fence does not involve transfer of ownership of the land upon which it is built. The construction of the fence is done by way of taking possession. Taking of possession is temporary. The seizure order orders its date of termination. Taking of possession is accompanied by payment of compensation for the damage caused. Such taking of possession – which is not related in any way to expropriation – is permissible according to the law of belligerent occupation (see regulations 43 and 52 of The Hague Regulations, and §53 of The Fourth Geneva Convention: see The Iyub case, at p. 129; HCJ 834/78 Salame v. The Minister of Defense, 33(1) P.D. 471, 472; The Iyub case, at p. 122; HCJ 401/88 Abu Rian v. The Commander of IDF Forces in the Judea and Samaria Area, 42(2) P.D. 767, 770; HCJ 290/89 Jora v. The Military Commander of the Judea and Samaria Area, 43(2) P.D. 116, 118; HCJ 24/91 Timraz v. The Commander of IDF Forces in the Gaza Strip Area, 45(2) P.D. 325, 333 – hereinafter The Timraz Case; HCJ 7957/04 Mara’abe v. The Prime Minister of Israel 11 1890/03 The Bethlehem Municipality v. The State of Israel – The Ministry of Defense (yet unpublished) – hereinafter The Bethlehem Municipality Case; HJC 10356/02 - Hess v. Commander of the IDF Forces in the West Bank, 58 (3) P.D. 443, 456 – hereinafter The Hess Case; see also D. Kretzmer “The Advisory Opinion: The Light Treatment of International Humanitarian Law” 99 A.J.I.L. 88, 97 (2005) – hereinafter Kretzmer; N. Keidar “An Examination of the Authority of Military Commander to requisition Privately Owned Land for the Construction of the Separation Barrier” 38 Isr. L. Rev. 247 (2005) – hereinafter Keidar). Pursuant to regulation 52 of The Hague Regulations, the taking of possession must be for “needs of the army of occupation”. Pursuant to §53 of The Fourth Geneva Convention, the taking of possession must be rendered “absolutely necessary by military operation”. G. Von Glahn discussed the legality of taking possession of land, stating:
“Under normal circumstances an occupier may not appropriate or seize on a permanent basis any immovable private property but on the other hand a temporary use of land and buildings for various purposes appears permissible under a plea of military necessity” (G. von Glahn, The Occupation of Enemy Territory: A Commentary on the Law and Practice of Belligerent Occupation 186 (1957)).
The key question is, of course, whether taking possession of land is rendered “absolutely necessary by military operation” (on this question see Imseis “Critical Reflections on the International Humanitarian Law Aspects of the ICJ Wall Advisory Opinion”, 99 A.J.I.L. 102 (2005), and Keidar, at p. 247). This issue is for the military commander to decide. J.S. Pictet discussed this point, stating:
“[I]t will be for the Occupying Power to judge the importance of such military requirements” (J.S. Pictet, Commentary IV Geneva Convention - Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War 302 (1958); hereinafter - Pictet).
Of course, the military commander’s discretion is subject to judicial review by this Court (see The Timraz Case, at p. 335).
17. In The Beit Sourik Case and preceding case law, the Supreme Court held that the authority to take possession of land for military needs is anchored not only in regulations 43 and 52 of The Hague Regulations and in §53 of The Fourth Geneva Convention, but also in regulation 23(g) of The Hague Regulations. The Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice at the Hague determined that the second part of The Hague Regulations, in which regulation 23(g) is found, applies only during the time that hostilities are occurring, and that therefore it does not apply to the construction of the fence (paragraph 124). The International Court of Justice added that the third part of The Hague Regulations – which includes regulations 43 and 52 – continues to apply, as it deals with military government (§125). This approach of the International Court of Justice cannot detract from this Court’s approach regarding the military commander’s authority to take possession of land for constructing the fence. HCJ 7957/04 Mara’abe v. The Prime Minister of Israel 12 This authority is anchored, as mentioned, in regulations 43 and 52 of The Hague Regulations and in §53 of The Fourth Geneva Convention. Regarding the principled stance of the International Court of Justice, we note the following two points: first, there is a view – to which Pictet himself adheres – by which the scope of application of regulation 23(g) can be widened, by way of analogy, to cover belligerent occupation as well (see Pictet, at p. 301; G. Schwarzenberger 2 International Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals: the Law of Armed Conflict 253, 314 (1968). Second, the situation in the territory under belligerent occupation is often fluid. Periods of tranquility and calm transform into dynamic periods of combat. When combat takes place, it is carried out according to the rules of international law. “This combat is not being carried out in a normative void. It is being carried out according to the rules of international law, which determine principles and rules for the waging of combat” (see HCJ 3451/02 Almandi v. The Minister of Defense, 56(3) P.D. 30, 34; see also HCJ 3114/02 Barakeh, M.K. v. The Minister of Defense, 56(3) P.D. 11, 16). In such a situation, in which combat activities are taking place in the area under belligerent occupation, the rules applicable to belligerent occupation, as well as the rules applicable to combat activities, will apply to these activities (see The Marab Case; HCJ 7015/02 Ajuri v. The Commander of IDF forces in the West Bank, 56(6) P.D. 352, and Watkin “Controlling the Use of Force: A Role of Human Rights Norms in Contemporary Armed Conflict” 98 A.J.I.L. 1, 28 (2004)). Regulation 23(g) of The Hague Regulations will apply in such a situation in territory under belligerent occupation, due to the combat activities taking place in it. 
Israel, Supreme Court, Zaharan Yunis Muhammad Mara’abe case, Judgment, 15 September 2005, §§ 16–17

In its judgment in the Hebron Local Council case in 2006, Israel’s High Court of Justice stated:
4. … There is no need to discuss at length the authority of the military commander to requisition land under the laws of belligerent occupation, where military needs require execution of such action. This power, which is enshrined in the Hague Convention of 1907, in the humanitarian parts of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and in principles of Israeli public law, has been recognized by this court in a line of past decisions (see, for example, HCJ 10356/02, Hass v. Commander of IDF Forces in the West Bank, P. D. 58 (3) 443 (hereafter – Hass); HCJ 1890/03, Municipality of Bethlehem v. State of Israel (not reported), para. 8; HCJ 7862/04, Abu-Daher v. Commander of IDF Forces in Judea and Samaria (not yet reported), para. 7–8); HCJ 7957/04, Marab’e v. Prime Minister of Israel (not yet reported), para. 14). The provisions relating to seizing possession of land by the military commander, among them articles 23(g), 43, and 52 of the Hague Regulations and article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, restrict infringement of the right of property of a person to cases in which imperative military necessity requires it (for example, in the language of article 52 of the Hague Regulations, where requisition of land is allowed only for the “needs of the army of occupation”) while the exception found at the end of article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention uses the language “rendered absolutely necessary by military operations”). The provisions relating to the exception for “imperative military necessity” or “rendered absolutely necessary by military operations” has been discussed often in the case law. The meaning given these expressions is not limited to active combat needs, but also to actions taken by security forces to safeguard the lives of soldiers and civilians living in the region. Thus, it was held that various security actions, such as guarding military outposts (HCJ 24/91, Timraz c. Commander of IDF Forces in the Gaza Strip, P. D. 45 (2) 325 (hereafter – Timraz), housing of soldiers in friction areas (HCJ 290/89, Juha v. Military Commander for Judea and Samaria, P. D. 43 (2) 116) and guarding main transportation arteries or routes along which worshipers move (HCJ 401/88, Abu-Rian v. Commander of IDF Forces in Judea and Samaria, P. D. 54 (4) 626; Hass, supra) also come within the category of “imperative military necessity,” and can therefore justify requisition of land by the military commander. Indeed, study of the petitioners’ claims indicates that they do not dispute this power of the military commander.
5. The principle arguments of the petitioners are directed, therefore, against the judgment of the military commander in ordering requisition of the land. It should be mentioned that these decisions are subject, as are all decisions of a governmental authority, to review of this court (see, for example, Hass, 458; HCJ 2056/04, Beit Sourik Village Council v. The Government of Israel, P. D. 58 (5) 807, 842–846). However, we observe that it may well be that there are disagreements over the scope of the review of such decisions. Our opinion is that in the cases before us, there was no defect in the actions of the military commander that justify our intervention. As will be explained immediately, we did not find substance in the arguments raised by the petitioners with respect to the failure to give a right to be heard, with respect to taking into account extraneous considerations, and regarding the lack of reasonableness that characterized, in their opinion, the military commander’s decisions.
One argument of the petitioners is that they were not given the right to state their case prior to receiving the decisions relating to requisition of the land. The existence of this right – which is available to every concerned person who is liable to be harmed by acts of governmental authorities – is not disputed. However, in the present cases, we do not believe that the petitioners were denied the possibility of stating their case before the governmental authorities. It should be recalled that, immediately following publication of the orders that designated the land for requisition, tours were made in the field by army officials and the holders of rights in the land. After that, the petitioners were given the possibility of raising their objections to the military commander. Some of the objections even led to meaningful changes in the army’s plans, when at a later stage, a certain change was made, at the request of the petitioners in HCJ 5968/05, in the route that was to be built around one of the camps (see the respondents’ statement of 30 January 2006). In these circumstances, we are satisfied that the landowners’ right to be heard was met (on this point, compare and see Hass, at p. 454; HCJ 1890/03, supra, para. 10).

7. Another condition for approving the requisition orders relates to the reasonableness of the military commander’s decision. The rule is that the military commander, in ordering the requisition of land, must exercise his authority in accord with the tests of reasonableness and proportionality that this court has delineated in its decisions (Hass, 458; HCJ 7015/02, Ajuri v. Commander of IDF Forces in the West Bank, P. D. 56 (6) 352, 375–377). I would say: a reasonable and proportionate relationship must be found between the military objective underlying the decision to requisition the land and the harm that is liable to be caused to residents of the region as a result of that action. It should be recalled that, in exercising his judgment whether to order the requisition of land for military purposes, the military commander is required to balance the army’s imperative security interests, on the one hand, and the needs of the local population, on the other hand. 
Israel, High Court of Justice, Hebron Local Council case, Judgment, 1 March 2006, §§ 4–5 and 7.

In its judgment in the Murar case in 2006, Israel’s High Court of Justice stated:
The relevant criteria when exercising the power to close areas
14. … The petition before us concerns agricultural areas that are owned by Palestinian inhabitants and that are closed by the order of the military commander. Therefore, the right to security and the protection of physical integrity is opposed by considerations concerning the protection of the rights of the Palestinian inhabitants, and in view of the nature of the case before us, we are speaking mainly of the right to freedom of movement and property rights.

[T]he residents in the territories held under belligerent occupation have a protected right to their property. In our case, there is no dispute that we are speaking of agricultural land and agricultural produce in which the petitioners have property rights. Therefore, when the petitioners are denied access to land that is their property and they are denied the possibility of cultivating the agricultural produce that belongs to them, their property rights and their ability to enjoy them are thereby seriously violated.
15. Thus we see that the considerations that the military commander should take into account in the circumstances before us include, on the one hand, considerations of protecting the security of the inhabitants of the territories and, on the other hand, considerations concerning the protection of the rights of the Palestinian inhabitants. The military commander is required to find the correct balance between these opposite poles.

16. There is no doubt that in cases where the realization of human rights creates a near certainty of the occurrence of serious and substantial harm to public safety, and when there is a high probability of harm to personal security, then the other human rights yield to the right to life and physical integrity (HCJ 292/83 Temple Mount Faithful v. Jerusalem District Police Commissioner [13], at p. 454; Hass v. IDF Commander in West Bank [3], at p. 465 {76}). Indeed, in principle, where there is a direct conflict, the right to life and physical integrity will usually prevail over the other human rights, including also the right to freedom of movement and property rights. The court addressed this principle in HCJ 7052/03 Adalah Legal Centre for Arab Minority Rights in Israel v. Ministry of Interior [14], where it said:
“When there is a direct confrontation and there is a concrete risk to security and life, the public interest indeed overrides protected human rights, and the same is the case where there is a concrete likelihood of a risk to life.” (para. 11 of my opinion [14]).

Protecting the security of Palestinian farmers

24. The question of denying a person access to certain land, when he has a right of access to it, for the purpose of protecting his security and for the purpose of preserving public order is not new in Israel and it has been considered in our case law several times (see, for example, Temple Mount Faithful v. Jerusalem District Police Commissioner [13]; HCJ 2725/93 Salomon v. Jerusalem District Commissioner of Police [16]; HCJ 531/77 Baruch v. Traffic Comptroller, Tel-Aviv and Central Districts [17]; HCJ 5016/96 Horev v. Minister of Transport [18]).

[A]ssuming that the violation of the Palestinians’ right of access to their land is done for the proper purpose of protecting their lives, we should consider whether the closure of the agricultural areas to the Palestinians in order to protect them is a proportionate violation of their rights. After studying the written pleadings and hearing the arguments of the parties, we have reached the conclusion that in the prevailing circumstances the exercising of the military commander’s power to close land to Palestinians for the purpose of protecting them is disproportionate. Of course, no one disputes that closing the area and preventing the access of Palestinians to their land does achieve a separation between them and the Israeli inhabitants and thereby protects the Palestinian farmers. But the use of the power of closure for the purpose of protecting the Palestinian inhabitants violates the right of the Palestinian inhabitants to freedom of movement and their property rights to a disproportionate degree and it does not satisfy the subtests of the principle of proportionality. …
25. … A policy that denies Palestinian inhabitants access to land that belongs to them in order to achieve the goal of protecting them from attacks directed at them is like a policy that orders a person not to enter his own home in order to protect him from a robber who is waiting for him there in order to attack him. In the circumstances of the case before us, it is not rational that this policy should be the sole solution to the situation in the area, since it violates the rights of the Palestinian farmers to freedom of movement and their property rights disproportionately.

It is clear therefore that the use of the measure of closing the area to the Palestinian farmers when the purpose is to protect the Palestinians themselves is not an appropriate use of the aforesaid measure, and it is contrary to our sense of justice. This situation is not proper and therefore the use of the measure of closing areas as the standard and only measure for protecting Palestinian inhabitants who are attacked on their land is a use that is disproportionate and inconsistent with the duties imposed on the military commander.

Denying access – summary
28. The inescapable conclusion is therefore that the manner in which the military commander exercised his discretion to deny Palestinians access to agricultural areas that belong to them, in order to realize the purpose of protecting their security, is not consistent with the proportionate measure test that governs the respondents, and therefore it is unacceptable. As a rule, the military commander should carry out his duty to protect the security of the Palestinian inhabitants in another manner, and not by closing the agricultural areas, provided that his command responsibility is not prejudiced. The conflict areas, which are closed to the Palestinians in order to protect the Palestinians themselves, should therefore remain open to the movement of Palestinians and the respondents should adopt all the measures that are required in order to ensure the security of the Palestinians farmers in those areas. The protection of the Palestinians should be afforded by providing proper security, giving clear instructions to the military forces and the police with regard to how they should act, and imposing restrictions that will be effective against those persons who harass the Palestinians and break the law. With regard to the closure of areas belonging to Palestinian inhabitants when the purpose that is being sought is the protection of the Israeli inhabitants against terrorist activity, in such a case the measure of closure may be proportionate, provided that the military commander exercises his power on the smallest scale possible and while observing the rules set out above.
Law enforcement in the territories of Judaea and Samaria

33. … [T]he protection of the security and property of the local inhabitants is one of the most fundamental duties imposed on the military commander in the territories.

Therefore, notwithstanding the difficulty in giving judicial directions in this matter, we have seen fit to address in general the principles that should guide the respondents in dealing with this matter. First, action should be taken to ensure the security of the Palestinian farmers when they go to work on the land and, if necessary, to protect them when the agricultural work is being carried out. Second, clear and unequivocal instructions should be given to the forces operating in the field as to how to act in order not to prevent those inhabitants who are entitled thereto from having access to their land, unless there is a lawful ground for doing so. Third, forces should be deployed in order to protect the property of the Palestinian inhabitants. Fourth, complaints that are made by the Palestinian inhabitants should be investigated on their merits and the investigation should be completed as soon as possible. Investigations should be made immediately when information is received with regard to acts of harassment, and patrols should be deployed by the army and the police in order to discover such acts.

Summary
35. The result is that we declare that except in cases of a concrete need, which arises from reliable information or real warnings in the field, the military commander should, as a rule, refrain from closing areas in a manner that prevents the Palestinian inhabitants from having access to their land for their own protection, since the use of this measure in these circumstances is disproportionate. Adopting the measure of closing areas, which should be restricted to the absolute minimum, may be proportionate only when it is done in order to protect the Israeli inhabitants, subject to the restrictions and the conditions that we discussed in paras. 20–21 above. 
Israel, High Court of Justice, Murar case, Judgment, 26 June 2006, §§ 14–16, 24–25, 28, 33 and 35.
[emphasis in original]
In its judgment in the Mayor of Dahariya case in 2006, Israel’s High Court of Justice stated:
12. According to the laws of belligerent occupation, the military commander is empowered to order erection of a concrete barrier, and, for that purpose, to take possession of land belonging to Palestinian residents. This power arises only when the reason underlying the decision is military-security. Under article 52 of the Hague Regulations, the requisition of land must be for the needs of the military occupation. Under article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, the taking must be rendered absolutely necessary by military operations The military commander is empowered to seize land and build the concrete barrier also to protect the lives and security of Israelis living in Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria, even though the Israelis living in the area are not “protected persons” within the meaning of the expression in article 4 of the Fourth Geneva Convention This is the situation also in the petition before us. Indeed, the normative framework for deciding the matter before us is identical to the normative framework that was set for the hearing of petitions regarding the separation fence in Beit Sourik and Alfe Menashe (see, also, HCJ 4938/04, Shuqba Village Council v. The Prime Minister (not yet reported); HCJ 1348/05, Dr. Shaher ‘Abd al Qader Shatiyah v. State of Israel (not yet reported) (hereafter – Ariel); HCJ 1998/06, Beit Ariyeh Local Council v. Minister of Defense (not yet reported (hereafter Beit Ariyeh). The principles guiding the military commander in building the separation fence apply also to his decision to seize land for another protective action, such as building the concrete barrier that is the subject of this petition.
13. In considering the decision to erect the barrier, the military commander must weigh a number of considerations. The first consideration is the military-security consideration, which involves protection of the security of the state and of the army. The second consideration involves the well-being of the protected residents in the area. The military commander must protect the human dignity, the lives, and the security of each of them. Third, the military commander must protect the human dignity, lives, and security of Israelis living in Israeli communities in the area. These considerations clash with each other. The military commander must balance the clashing considerations. Indeed, “The law of belligerent occupation recognizes the authority of the military commander to maintain security in the area and to protect the security of his country and her citizens. However, it imposes conditions on the use of this authority. This authority must be properly balanced against the rights, needs, and interests of the local population” (Beit Sourik, p. 833; and see Alfe Menashe, paragraph 29; Tene, paragraph 10).
14. The balance between the security needs and the interests of Palestinian residents and Israeli citizens is not simple. The responsibility and authority to balance between them is imposed on the military commander. A major criterion in this balancing is “proportionality,” with its three subtests. First, a rational connection between the means chosen and the objective to be achieved is required. Second, the means chosen must harm the infringed rights the least. The question is whether, among the means available to achieve the security purpose, the means that causes the least harm has been chosen. “The obligation to choose the least harmful means does not amount to the obligation to choose the measure that is absolutely the least harmful. The obligation is to choose, of the reasonable options that are available, the least harmful. One must therefore compare the rational possibilities, and choose the possibility that, in the concrete circumstances, is capable of achieving the proper purposes with a minimal violation of human rights” (HCJ 7052/03, Adalah – The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel v. Minister of the Interior (not yet reported) (hereafter: Adalah), paragraph 68.) Third, it is necessary that the means chosen properly balance the purpose underlying its operation and the rights being violated (see Adalah, paragraphs 64–75); Beit Sourik, p. 841; Ariel, paragraph 22; HCJ 2942/05, Mantsur v. State of Israel (not yet reported), paragraph 23). In balancing proportionality, the military commander’s discretion is not absolute. His decision must be one that a reasonable military commander would make (see Alfe Menashe, paragraph 32 and the sources cited there). His decision is subject to judicial review. However, the Supreme Court, sitting as the High Court of Justice, does not substitute the discretion of the military commander with its own. This court exercises judicial review of the legality of exercise of the military commander’s discretion. In making this review, “we do not turn ourselves into experts in security affairs. We do not substitute the security considerations of the military commander with our own security considerations. We take no position regarding the way security affairs are run. Our task is to guard the borders and to maintain the boundaries of the military commander’s discretion” (Beit Sourik, pp. 842–843, and see Tene, paragraph 11; Beit Ariyeh, paragraph 8l; Ariel, paragraph 22). The court does not enter the shoes of the military official making the decision. The judicial review examines whether the actions and decisions of the military commander conform to the law. 
Israel, High Court of Justice, Mayor of Dahariya case, Judgment, 14 December 2006, §§ 12–14.

In its judgment in the Hassin case in 2010, involving a request by a Palestinian applicant for the return of money seized from him under the authority of the commander of the Israel Defense Forces in the West Bank when the applicant was held in administrative detention, the Military Court of Appeals for Judea and Samaria stated:
Where the military commander chooses to seize and confiscate property the rights of which belong to a resident of the region, he may exercise his authority in a few ways. He can act under section 120 of the Defense Regulations. He may also exercise his powers under section 80 of the Order Regarding Security Provisions (No. 378) (Judea and Samaria), 5730 – 1970 (hereafter: Order Regarding Security Provisions). However, I should observe that, in these circumstances, the decision to act by virtue of the Defense Regulations is somewhat problematic, in particular since they are draconian regulations that were drafted in an emergency, and courts prefer to avoid them where possible.

The legislative enactment that the military commander chose, as noted above, to use is section 120 of the Defense Regulations, which states:
The High Commissioner may by order direct the forfeiture to the Government of Palestine of all or any property of any person as to whom the High Commissioner is satisfied that he has committed, or attempted to commit, or abetted the commission of, or been an accessory after the fact to the commission of' any offence against these Regulations involving violence or intimidation or any Military Court offence

The right of property
There cannot be any dispute that the order that was given by virtue of section 120 seriously harms the applicant’s right of property.
As every beginner knows, the right of property is a basic right in every liberal system of law, and has also been enshrined in international law and in the constitutions of many countries:
The right of property is a cornerstone of the liberal regime. It grabbed a prominent place in the liberal ideology, as surety for the fulfillment of other rights (P’nina Lahav, “The Strength and the Task: The Supreme Court in its First Decade,” Iyuney Mishpat 14:479, 498 (5759 – 1999)).
This right is enshrined in article 46 of the Hague Regulations, of 1907, which establish the rights of protected persons in occupied territory:
… and private property … must be respected.
Private property cannot be confiscated.
The Fourth Geneva Convention, of 1949, too, in the part dealing with occupied territory, states [Article 53] … that the occupying power must protect the private property of protected persons:
Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.
The right of property is also recognized in international law in contexts other than that of occupied territory. It is enshrined in article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as follows:
1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
This right, as we know, has also been widely protected in constitutions of many countries, among them Israel, where the right is given supra-statutory status and is enshrined in the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, section 3 of which states:
There shall be no violation of the property of a person.

We clearly see from various provisions in international conventions that the right of property is a protected right. However, we cannot conclude from this that international law prohibits any harm to the property of protected persons. I am of the opinion that protected rights in international law, too, are not absolute rights (as has been held at times regarding basic rights in Israel), and that situations might arise in which, when balancing the right of property against contradictory rights and interests, the right of property of protected persons will be denied. The Fourth Geneva Convention establishes an exception to protection of the right of property, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not state “No one shall be deprived of his property,” but that “No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.” Thus, deprivation of property that is not a result of arbitrary action might be permissible. …
It should be remembered that confiscation of property by virtue of section 120 of the Defense Regulations is not incidental to a criminal proceeding, but is only an administrative proceeding. Therefore, and given the unequivocal wording, especially in the Geneva Convention whereby a person is not to be deprived arbitrarily of his property, the question arises whether confiscation of private property in an administrative proceeding without judicial supervision, even if for a proper purpose, comports with the provisions of the conventions on the obligation of the occupying power to protect the property rights of protected persons.

Legal status of military courts in the region

The Fourth Geneva Convention, which contains provisions relating to protection of protected persons, provides that confiscation of their property is prohibited. The Convention also requires the establishment of military courts. On the other hand, it does not deal with the obligation of the state to enable protected persons to gain access to its state courts, including the court authorized to conduct judicial review of the actions of the executive arm, which includes the commander of the forces in the occupied territory. Since the Convention does not contain this obligation, and given my conclusion that the Convention does not allow the taking of property of a person without judicial review, the inescapable conclusion is that the military courts, whose establishment is required by the Convention, are the entity that has the authority to conduct the aforesaid judicial review.

Invalidation of the law or interpretation of it
Now that we have held that the military courts are authorized to conduct judicial review under section 120 of the Defense Regulations, the question is: what is the decision resulting from this review? Must one conclude that we invalidate the regulation, in that it contradicts the provisions of international law, or should we reach a different result?

Conclusion
… I hold that the military court has the authority to conduct judicial review of orders issued by the military commander by virtue of section 120 of the Defense Regulations …
In light of the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the authority for providing relief in matters such as the kind before us should be the military court sitting in the first instance, with each side being entitled to appeal its decision to the Military Court of Appeals. 
Israel, Military Court of Appeals for Judea and Samaria, Hassin case, Judgment, 21 November 2010, pp. 3–4, 12–13 and 21–25.
[emphasis in original]
Japan
In its judgment in the Religious Organisation Hokekyoji case in 1956, a Japanese District Court emphasized that occupying armed forces must observe the 1907 Hague Regulations, notably the fact that, in accordance with Article 46, “private property cannot be confiscated”. 
Japan, District Court of Chiba, Religious Organisation Hokekyoji case, Judgment, 10 April 1956.

In its judgment in the Takada case in 1959, a Japanese District Court stated: “There is no doubt that the principle of the respect for private property is an established custom of international law.” 
Japan, District Court of Tokyo, Takada case, Judgment, 28 January 1959.

In its judgment in the Suikosha case in 1966, a Japanese District Court considered that the prohibition of confiscation of private property as contained in Article 46 of the 1907 Hague Regulations was part of customary international law. 
Japan, District Court of Tokyo, Suikosha case, Judgment, 28 February 1966.

Netherlands
In its judgment on appeal in the Esau case in 1949, the Special Court of Cassation of the Netherlands considered that the removal of scientific instruments and gold from factories in the Netherlands was unlawful unless the property fell within one of the categories of goods which the occupant was exceptionally entitled to seize from private individuals by virtue of Article 53 of the 1907 Hague Regulations. The Court held that the term “munitions of war” used in Article 53 should not be extended to materials and apparatus such as boring machines, lathes, lamps, tubes and gold, but they could be for technical or scientific reasons. Accordingly, the Court concluded that, with the exception of the short wave transmitter, none of the goods could be deemed to be excepted from the general inviolability of private property in war. 
Netherlands, Special Court of Cassation, Esau case, Judgment on Appeal, 21 February 1949.

In the Fiebig case before the Special Criminal Court at The Hague in the Netherlands in 1949, the accused, a delegate of the Minister of the Reich for Armaments and Munitions, was charged with, and convicted of, illegal requisitions. In its judgment, the Court emphasized that the requisitions were not covered by Article 23(g) of the 1907 Hague Regulations and that they constituted a violation of Article 52 of the 1907 Hague Regulations. Clearly, according to the Court, Article 23(g) could not be construed as authorizing the systematic removal of Dutch property to Germany and the emptying of factories, warehouses and private houses. Article 52 was violated because most of the removed commodities did not serve the necessities of the occupying army but supported the general war effort of Germany. Furthermore, no authorization of requisition was granted by the military commander. In addition, the requisitioned property did not fall within the category of private property susceptible of seizure in accordance with Article 53 of the 1907 Hague Regulations. 
Netherlands, Special Criminal Court at The Hague, Fiebig case, Judgment, 28 June 1949.

Poland
In the Greiser case before Poland’s Supreme National Tribunal in 1946, the accused, a governor and gauleiter of the Nazi party for provinces incorporated in the German Reich, was charged with war crimes for having incited, assisted in the commission of, and committed, inter alia, acts of systematic and illegal deprivation of the Polish population of its private property, in contravention of Articles 46, 52 and 55 of the 1907 Hague Regulations. Notably, the accused was charged with having taken part in “extortion and appropriation of the movables of Polish citizens, … in the territories in question … either by seizure, confiscation or by simply depriving of them persons being deported”. 
Poland, Supreme National Tribunal, Greiser case, Judgment, 7 July 1946.

United States of America
In the Flick case before the US Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1947, the accused, the principal proprietor of a large group of German industrial enterprises (and four officials of the same group), which included coal and iron mines and steel producing plants, was charged with war crimes, inter alia, for offences against property in the countries and territories occupied by Germany. Flick was found guilty on this count of the indictment. The Tribunal quoted, inter alia, Articles 46, 52 and 53 of the 1907 Hague Regulations. In respect of the seizure and management of private property, the Tribunal affirmed:
The seizure of Rombach [a plant in occupied Alsace] in the first instance may be defended upon the ground of military necessity. The possibility of its use by the French, the absence of responsible management and the need for finding work for the idle population are all factors that the German authorities may have taken into consideration. Military necessity is a broad term. Its interpretation involves the exercise of some discretion. If after seizure the German authorities had treated their possession as conservatory for the rightful owners’ interests, little fault could be found with the subsequent conduct of those in possession.

But some time after the seizure the Reich Government in the person of Goering, Plenipotentiary for the Four Year Plan, manifested the intention that it should be operated as the property of the Reich. This is clearly shown by the quoted statement in the contract which Flick signed. It was, no doubt, Goering’s intention to exploit it to the fullest extent for the German war effort. We do not believe that this intent was shared by Flick. Certainly what was done by his company in the course of its management falls far short of such exploitation. Flick’s expectation of ownership caused him to plough back into the physical property the profits of operation. This policy ultimately resulted to the advantage of the owners. In all of this we find no exploitation either for Flick’s present personal advantage or to fulfil the aims of Goering.

While the original seizure may not have been unlawful, its subsequent detention from the rightful owners was wrongful. For this and other damage they may be compensated.

In this case, Flick’s acts and conduct contributed to a violation of [Article 46 of the 1907 Hague Regulations] that is, that private property must be respected. Of this there can be no doubt. But his acts were not within his knowledge intended to contribute to a programme of “systematic plunder” conceived by the Hitler regime and for which many of the major war criminals have been punished. If they added anything to this programme of spoliation, it was in a very small degree. 
United States, Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, Flick case, Judgment, 22 December 1947.

In the Krupp case before the US Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1948, the accused, officials of the Krupp industrial enterprises occupying high positions in political, financial, industrial and economic circles in Germany, were charged with war crimes, inter alia, for the destruction and removal of property, and the seizure of machinery, equipment, raw materials and other property. The Tribunal quoted Articles 46 and 52 of the 1907 Hague Regulations. It also stated that it “fully concurs with the Judgement of the I.M.T. that the [1907 Hague Convention (IV)], to which Germany was a party, had by 1939 become customary law and was, therefore, binding on Germany not only as Treaty Law but also as Customary Law”. The Tribunal further stated that Articles 46 and 52 of the 1907 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 economy of the belligerently occupied territory is to be kept intact, except for the carefully defined permissions given to the occupying authority – permissions which all refer to the army of occupation. Just as the inhabitants of the occupied territory must not be forced to help the enemy in waging the war against their own country or their own country’s allies, so must the economic assets of the occupied territory not be used in such a manner.

When discriminatory laws are passed which affect the property rights of private individuals, subsequent transactions based on those laws and involving such property will in themselves constitute violations of Article 46 of the Hague Regulations.

Another erroneous contention put forward by the Defence is that the laws and customs of war do not prohibit the seizure and exploitation of property in belligerently occupied territory so long as no definite transfer of title was accomplished. The Hague Regulations are very clear on this point. Article 46 stipulates that “private property … must be respected.” However, if, for example, a factory is being taken over in a manner which prevents the rightful owner from using it and deprives him from lawfully exercising his prerogative as owner, it cannot be said that his property “is respected” under Article 46 as it must be.

The general rule contained in Article 46 is further developed in Articles 52 and 53. Article 52 speaks of the “requisitions in kind and services” which may be demanded from municipalities or inhabitants, and it provides that such requisitions and services “shall not be demanded except for the needs of the Army of Occupation.” As all authorities are agreed, the requisitions and services which are here contemplated and which alone are permissible, must refer to the needs of the Army of Occupation. It has never been contended that the Krupp firm belonged to the Army of Occupation. For this reason alone, the “requisitions in kind” by or on behalf of the Krupp firm were illegal. All authorities are again in agreement that the requisitions in kind and services referred to in Article 52, concern such matters as billets for the occupying troops and the occupation authorities, garages for their vehicles, stables for their horses, urgently needed equipment and supplies for the proper functioning of the occupation authorities, food for the Army of Occupation, and the like. 
United States, Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, Krupp case, Judgment, 30 June 1948.

In the Krauch case (The I.G. Farben Trial) before the US Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1948, the accused, officials of I.G. Farben Industrie A.G., were charged, inter alia, with war crimes for offences against property in countries and territories which came under the belligerent occupation of Germany. The charges were regarded as violations of, inter alia, Articles 46, 52 and 53 of the 1907 Hague Regulations. Some of the accused were found guilty of this count. The Tribunal held:
The foregoing provisions of the Hague Regulations are broadly aimed at preserving the inviolability of property rights to both public and private property during military occupancy. They admit of exceptions of expropriation, use, and requisition, all of which are subject to well-defined limitations set forth in the articles. Where private individuals, including juristic persons, proceed to exploit the military occupancy by acquiring private property against the will and consent of the former owner, such action, not being expressly justified by any applicable provision of the Hague Regulations, is in violation of international law.

The payment of a price or other adequate consideration does not, under such circumstances, relieve the act of its unlawful character. Similarly where a private individual or a juristic person becomes a party to unlawful confiscation of … private property by planning and executing a well-defined design to acquire such property permanently, acquisition under such circumstances subsequent to confiscation constitutes conduct in violation of the Hague Regulations.

[I]t is illustrative of the view that offences against property of the character described in the [1943 Inter-Allied Declaration against Acts of Dispossession] were considered by the signatory powers to constitute action in violation of existing international law.

[W]ith respect to private property, these provisions relate to plunder, confiscation, and requisition which, in turn, imply action in relation to property committed against the will and without the consent of the owner … If, in fact, there is no coercion present in an agreement relating to the purchase of industrial enterprises or interests equivalent thereto, even during time of military occupancy, and if, in fact, the owner’s consent is voluntarily given, we do not find such action to be a violation of the Hague Regulations … On the other hand, when action by the owner is not voluntary because his consent is obtained by threats, intimidation, pressure, or by exploiting the position and power of the military occupant under circumstances indicating that the owner is being induced to part with his property against his will, it is clearly a violation of the Hague Regulations. 
United States, Military Tribunal in Nuremberg, Krauch case (The I.G. Farben Trial), Judgment, 29 July 1948.

In the Von Leeb case (The German High Command Trial) before the US Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1948, the accused, former high-ranking officers in the German army and navy, were charged, inter alia, with war crimes and crimes against humanity against civilians in that they participated in atrocities such as wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages and devastation not justified by military necessity. The Tribunal stated: “Most of the prohibitions of both the Hague and Geneva Conventions, considered in substance, are clearly an expression of the accepted views of civilized nations.” It notably mentioned Articles 46 and 52 of the 1907 Hague Regulations. The Tribunal found that the accused gave orders to seize or destroy foodstuffs and other property, such as cattle and horses, but the evidence did not show that these measures were not warranted by military necessity. The Tribunal emphasized that military necessity “does [not] justify the seizure of property or goods beyond that which is necessary for the use of the army of occupation” and stated:
The devastation prohibited by the Hague Rules and the usages of war is that not warranted by military necessity. This rule is clear enough but the factual determination as to what constitutes military necessity is difficult. Defendants in this case were in many-instances in retreat under arduous conditions wherein their commands were in serious danger of being cut off. Under such circumstances, a commander must necessarily make quick decisions to meet the particular situation of his command. A great deal of latitude must be accorded to him under such circumstances. What constitutes devastation beyond military necessity in these situations requires detailed proof of an operational and tactical nature. We do not feel that in this case the proof is ample to establish the guilt of any defendant herein on this charge. 
United States, Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, Von Leeb case (The German High Command Trial), Judgment, 28 October 1948.

In its judgment in the John Schultz case in 1952, the US Court of Military Appeals listed arson as a crime “universally recognized as properly punishable under the law of war”. 
United States, Court of Military Appeals, John Schultz case, Judgment, 5 August 1952.

Back to top
Cuba
In 2009, in a statement before the Fourth Committee of the UN General Assembly on the report of the special committee to investigate Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people and other Arabs of the occupied territories, the representative of Cuba stated:
Israel … continues its intensive colonization activities, such as the ongoing practice of confiscating large tracts of land, the construction and extension of Israeli settlements.
Israel continues its construction of the Separation Wall, in open defiance and contempt of the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice and in violation of UN General Assembly resolution ES-10/15 of 2004, which reaffirms the illegality of the construction of the separation Wall. 
Cuba, Statement by the representative of Cuba before the Fourth Committee of the UN General Assembly on Item 32: Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories, 10 November 2009, p. 2.

In 2010, in a statement before the UN General Assembly on the Palestinian question, the ambassador and permanent representative of Cuba stated:
The Occupying Power continues its intensive colonization activities, such as the ongoing practice of confiscating large tracts of land, the construction and extension of Israeli settlements and the construction of the Wall.
59% of the Wall has already been constructed and Israel continues its construction in open defiance and contempt of the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice and in violation of UN General Assembly resolution ES-10/15 of 20 July 2004, which reaffirms the illegality of the construction of the separation Wall in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
… These activities are aimed at modifying the demographic composition, character and nature of the Palestinian lands, annexing them de facto by means of confiscating large areas [of Palestinian territory].

Cuba condemns those policies and practices, which violate international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention, United Nations resolutions and the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, and we insist that Israel immediately end all of these illegal practices. 
Cuba, Statement by the ambassador and permanent representative of Cuba before the UN General Assembly on Item 37: The Palestinian Question, 29 November 2010, p. 2.

Egypt
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory in 2004, Egypt stated:
It is indisputable that the occupying force may not seize private properties in the occupied territory since such private properties in the occupied territory are not deemed by any means as war gains. The occupying force may not seize such properties, as it should respect and protect them, whether they be moveable assets or real estates. Article 46 of The Hague Regulations stressed the necessity of respecting private properties in an occupied territory and the forbiddance of confiscating same, as it states:
“Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected. Private property cannot be confiscated.” 
Egypt, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, 28 January 2004, p. 25.

[T]he construction of the separation wall … will annex large portions of private and public property of the Palestinian people. This runs counter to the express provision of Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which provides:
“Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.” 
Egypt, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, 28 January 2004, p. 34.
[emphasis added by Egypt]
France
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory in 2004, France stated:
40. … [O]ne of the most serious breaches of the rules of international humanitarian law resulting from the construction of the wall along the chosen route no doubt concerns, prima facie, the property destruction caused by it, which is referred to in the Secretary-General’s Report.
41. On this subject international law calls for account to be taken of two considerations. First, it requires compensation which effectively makes good the entire injury suffered by the owners of the property in question. Second, it allows for account to be taken of “necessities of war”.
42. It is forbidden by Article 23 (g) of the Hague Regulations of 1907 “to destroy or seize the enemy’s property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war”. Article 53 of the Fourth Convention of 1949 provides:
“Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.” In addition, under Article 147 of the Convention, “grave breaches” include the “extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly”.
43. By their wording, these prohibitions are not absolute and are subject to military necessity. It is important to note however that in these three provisions necessity is described in particularly strict terms: it must be “imperative” or “absolutely necessary”. It will be for the Court to make its own determination on this point. 
France, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, 30 January 2004, §§ 40–43.

Germany
Working documents for the German army state that an army of occupation is allowed to appropriate goods from the civilian population if this is necessary to satisfy the needs of the army. 
Germany, Materialien zur Weiterbildung im Kriegsvölkerrecht: Kampfführung und Schutz der Zivilbevölkerung, Zentrum Innere Führung, Koblenz, 1988, p. 36.

Honduras
In 1995, during a debate in the UN Security Council concerning the situation in the former Yugoslavia, Honduras condemned the practice of “ethnic cleansing”, inter alia, “through … confiscation of property and destruction of homes, we have seen in Bosnian and Croatian territory the systematic elimination of one ethnic group by another. All of these acts deserve the condemnation and repudiation of the international community.” 
Honduras, Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.3591, 9 November 1995, p. 6.

Iraq
On the basis of a reply by Iraq’s Ministry of Defence to a questionnaire, the Report on the Practice of Iraq states that strict measures should be taken to protect cities that fall under the control of armed forces, including measures to protect and ensure the safety of private property.  
Report on the Practice of Iraq, 1998, Reply by the Ministry of Defence to a questionnaire, July 1997, Chapter 2.3.

Ireland
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory in 2004, Ireland stated:
The construction of the wall involves destruction by Israel, as the Occupying Power, of real and personal property in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Such destruction is prohibited by Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, absent circumstances rendering such destruction absolutely necessary by military operations. Furthermore, such destruction breaches Article 23(g) of the Hague Regulations concerning the laws and customs of war on land of 19 October 1907, which states that: “it is especially forbidden: (g) to destroy or seize the enemy’s property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war.” The construction of the wall might arguably breach Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which makes “extensive destruction and appropriation of property” a “grave breach” of the Convention if it is “not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly”. 
Ireland, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, 30 January 2004, § 2.8.

In 2008, in a written response to a question on foreign conflicts, Ireland’s Minister for Foreign Affairs stated:
Ireland and its EU partners have consistently urged the Israeli Government to cease all activities in in the Occupied Territories, including … the demolition of Palestinian homes, which are contrary to international law and which threaten to make any solution based on the co-existence of two viable States physically impossible. 
Ireland, Dáil Eireann (House of Deputies), Minister for Foreign Affairs, Written Answers – Foreign Conflicts, Dáil Eireann debate Vol. 662 No. 4, 7 October 2008.

In 2009, in a written response to a question on foreign conflicts, Ireland’s Minister for Foreign Affairs stated:
Many Palestinians in East Jerusalem are unable to demonstrate legal title to their homes, because of the historical vicissitudes of the administration of the city. … Unlike Israelis in similar circumstances, Palestinians found to be in breach of planning rules often find that their entire property is ordered to be demolished, and the inhabitants evicted, in some cases from homes they lived in long before Israel occupied the area.
… At the same time, illegal Israeli settlements continue to flourish with little or no official interference, and indeed benefit from the provision of substantial infrastructure to support them.
These linked policies leave Palestinians in East Jerusalem and its environs in a state of great insecurity. There is great concern, which I share, that the intended effect of these policies is to alter the demographic character of parts of occupied East Jerusalem, and to cut the area as a whole off from the rest of the West Bank. Such a policy is not only manifestly unjust and illegal under international law, but presents a serious and growing obstacle to the achievement of a final overall peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinian people. 
Ireland, Dáil Eireann (House of Deputies), Minister for Foreign Affairs, Written Answers – Foreign Conflicts (2), Dáil Eireann debate Vol. 677 No. 3, 10 March 2009.

Israel
Israel’s IDF General Staff Order No. 50.0303 of 1977 states:
Definitions
1. In this Order:
Occupied Territory – Territory outside the borders of State of Israel that was in enemy hands and passed to IDF [Israel Defense Forces] control.
Area Commander – Territory for which the IDF appointed a military governor – the Military Governor. Territory for which no Military Governor was appointed– the Commander of the division whose forces are holding or securing said territory.
Seizure of property – taking over the property, including right of ownership.
Possession of property – taking over administration of property, including using it and benefiting from its produce, without having full ownership.
Land – Land of any kind and any form of possession, buildings, trees or anything else connected to the ground, such as orchards or railroads.
Movable property – Any property that is not land.
Abandoned property – Privately owned land or movable property, whose owner is unknown or had left the occupied area before the occupation or because of it.
General
2. This Order defines the powers of the military authorities regarding enemy property located in occupied territory. This Order does not relate to enemy property on the battlefield. That subject is detailed in General Staff Order 50.0301.
3. To remove all doubt, it should be clear that the provisions of this Order also apply to the police force, when operating under the command of the army owing to call up for reserve duty, or for a military or other type of mission.
4. No land or movable property in occupied territory may be seized or possessed or used without the consent of the owner unless it is necessary for the purposes of war and if allowed by the provisions of this Order.
5. When exercising his powers as per this Order, the Area Commander will take into account the needs of the civilian population of the occupied territory, and will ensure the availability of a supply of food and medical supplies.
6. The Area Commander will not exercise his powers as per this Order, except after consultation with the highest Quartermaster level in the occupied territory (representative of the General Staff-Logistic Branch, or of the command or division Quartermaster. If there is no such representative – the Formation Maintenance Officer, whose forces are in the area or are securing it).
7. In the event of doubt about the status of the property, the military legal adviser of the governing forces must be consulted before exercising powers, as per this Order, and if the governing headquarters are not yet established, with the appropriate Command Advocate.
8. No negotiations will be held with a civilian third party over compensation for property that has been seized or possessed or made use of as per this Order and no confirmations or statements will be offered to any civilian third party, except in accordance with the provisions of this Order.
9. All Commanders must ensure that their subordinates act as follows:
a. They will not commit acts of looting.
b. They will comply with the provisions of this Order and not abuse the powers it grants.
c. They shall not misuse the property covered by this Order.
10. This Order does not detract from what is stated in General Staff Order 33.0133 (Discipline – behavior in accordance with international treaties to which the State of Israel is party), rather supplements it.
11. General Staff – Logistics Branch may appoint a Commander of the Logistic Command or any other position with regard to occupied territory and grant him power to seize and take possession and give instructions regarding use of property, as specified in this command.
12. If a unit has seized land as per this Order, it will report immediately to the appropriate Command Lands Officer who will inform the Building Center and the General Staff-Logistic Branch. The latter will notify those concerned whether or not it had approved the seizure of the land.
13. The provisions of this Order shall deal with four types of property:
a. State-owned lands
b. Privately owned lands
c. State-owned movable property
d. Privately owned movable property
14. For the purpose of this Order, the movable property and lands will be considered state-owned also if owned by a corporation, where the state has shares granting it control over it or its assets or if it has the right to administer it.

Privately owned lands
20. The occupation itself does not grant the State of Israel or the IDF the rights to own or possess land that is private property (including the property of public institutions and local authorities, as stated in paragraph 19 above, who are in occupied territory).
21. The Area Commander may allow the IDF forces in occupied territory the temporary use of lands as mentioned above, but only for necessary military purposes that are required for war such as: storage, hospitals and operational activity. The wording of the written permit will be as stated in Annex A to this Order.
22. Houses of worship may be used only as hospitals or clinics. Any other use requires prior approval from the regional Command. The regional Command will approve as mentioned above only if it is concluded that it is necessary and refraining to give the approval and will significantly harm the IDF’s war efforts.
23. Expropriation of land as mentioned above shall be made in accordance with international law will only be made after consultation with the Area Legal Advisor.
24. The area commander will not allow use of hospitals except for temporary use in order to treat wounded and sick troops, provided proper arrangements have been to satisfy the needs of the civilian population in the area. Seizing a hospital solely for the needs of the army is permitted only in emergency cases, and after adequate arrangements have been made for the civilian patients in the hospital, and the hospitalization needs of the population have been provided for.
25. A person who owns or possesses property is not entitled to compensation for the use of such property, unless the General Staff-Logistic Branch instructs otherwise. After the use, and provided it is possible under the circumstances of the time and place, the Area Commander, or an officer authorized to do so by him, will provide him with confirmation of the use, while detailing the period and scope of use and damages, if any, were caused to the property (see sample of confirmation of use in Annex B to this Order.)

Movable property that is private property
30. Occupation does not grant the State of Israel or the IDF any rights of ownership or possession of movable goods which are private property (including movable goods of the types listed in paragraph 29 above, which must not be seized or used, except in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 31 below).
31. War equipment – including weapons, means of transmitting information such as telephones, telegraph equipment, vehicles, vessels (except vessels exempted from seizure according to maritime law). Private property may be seized only if it is war equipment, necessary for directly managing a war. Movable property, as noted, will be returned after the military operations or compensation paid for them.
32. Movable property that is private property may be seized, if it is not intended for direct military use, but is needed to be used by IDF troops in the occupied territory, on condition that the needs of the civilian population in the area are first taken into account. Movable property of this type include: food, fuel, clothing, tobacco and medicines, as outlined in subsection 37 below.
33. No movable property may be seized, as per this section, other than by a written order of the local military commander. A receipt must be given in return for movable property. Logistics Branch personnel who seize property are authorized to pay cash for it and must pay in full and at a fair price.
34. The seizure will be carried out upon written seizure order, issued by the commander authorized to do so by the Area Commander in five copies (on the form as shown in the example in Annex C to this Order.) The distribution of the order will be as follows:
a. First copy – for the active holder of the moveable property before seizure.
b. Second copy – for the party carrying out the seizure.
c. Third copy – for Commander of the unit for which use the moveable property was seized.
d. Fourth copy – for the General Staff - Logistic Branch
e. Fifth copy – for the Ministry of Defense.
35. The seizure will be carried out if possible, by an officer or senior NCO.
36. It is absolutely forbidden to seize moveable property that is not war equipment or other moveable property needed by the IDF forces in the occupied territory, and certainly not jewelry or property of artistic or historic value (such as pictures and sculptures). See in this regard the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Assets during Armed Conflict (annex 62 to General Staff Orders).
37. Medical materials and storerooms in civilian hospitals must not be seized as long as they are needed by the civilian population.
Obligations regarding enemy property
38. Whoever has acquired seized property, which is held or given for temporary use as per this Order, must take all measures to prevent breakage, damage or loss of the a/m property.
39. Destruction of property as mentioned above or use that compromises its integrity, are permitted only if military necessity so requires.
Abandoned property
40. The Formation Maintenance Officer will make sure that abandoned property of residents of occupied territory is treated in accordance with the provisions of General Staff-Logistic Branch.
41. In the absence of special instruction of the General Staff-Logistic Branch the Maintenance Officer will make sure action is taken to prevent loss or theft of property.
42. In the event of abandoned property the following will be done:
a. Abandoned property taken by the IDF will be documented.
b. Appropriate action will be taken to leave authorized abandoned property in its place or concentrate it in one place.
c. The property will be handed over to the person responsible for abandoned property in the area, the minute such an appointment is made by the Regional Commander. 
Israel, IDF General Staff Order No. 50.0303, Seizure of enemy property in occupied territory, 15 July 77, §§ 1–14, 20–25 and 30–42.

In 2009, in a report on Israeli operations in Gaza between 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009 (the “Gaza Operation”, also known as “Operation Cast Lead”), Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated:
441. … Israeli forces were instructed to operate carefully at all times, and to minimise collateral damage to the extent possible. For purposes of the Law of Armed Conflict, the extent of the damage to private property and infrastructure is not itself indicative of a violation. Rather, as already explained, in each case it must be considered whether a legitimate military purpose existed and if the damage to property was proportional to this aim. …
442. … The Law of Armed Conflict allows the destruction of private property where, as here, it is a matter of military necessity. …

445. It should be emphasised that IDF orders and directions, dealing with the destruction of private property and applicable in the Gaza Operation, stressed that all demolition operations should be carried out in a manner that would minimise to the greatest extent possible the damage caused to any property not used by Hamas and other terrorist organisations in the fighting. 
Israel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Operation in Gaza 27 December 2008–18 January 2009: Factual and Legal Aspects, 29 July 2009, §§ 441–442 and 445.

In January 2010, in an update of its July 2009 report on Israeli operations in Gaza between 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009, Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated:
… Under the Law of Armed Conflict, the occurrence of damage to civilian property … during an operational activity does not necessarily indicate nor even imply criminal misconduct. Rather, criminal responsibility for violation of the Law of Armed Conflict requires evidence that military personnel intended to harm civilians or clearly foresaw that excessive harm to civilians would result, when balanced against the anticipated military advantage. 
Israel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Gaza Operation Investigations: An Update, 29 January 2010, § 51.
[emphasis in original; footnotes in original omitted]
In July 2010, in a second update of its July 2009 report on Israeli operations in Gaza between 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009, Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated:
121. These incidents [involving damage to private property] highlight the difficulties posed by terrorist groups that operate within densely populated civilian areas and near economic facilities. During the Gaza Operation, Israeli forces made extensive efforts to avoid civilian casualties and unnecessary damage to civilian property. Even so, fighting an adversary that deliberately made use of civilian buildings to store ammunition, mount attacks, and conceal combatants – as well as booby-trapping civilian buildings with explosives along the expected path of advancing forces –created enormous operational dilemmas. Israel has acknowledged that significant damage was caused to civilian property as a result of the events of the Gaza Operation. …

154. In the aftermath of the Gaza Operation, the destruction of private property and infrastructure by ground forces was the subject of one of the five special command investigations ordered by the IDF [Israel Defense Forces] Chief of General Staff. One of the lessons learned from this investigation was that there should be a set of clear rules and guidelines to assist commanders in making such decisions.
155. Accordingly, upon the Chief of the General Staff’s instructions, a new Standing Order on Destruction of Private Property for Military Purposes was formulated. This new standing order, entered into force in October 2009, and addresses in clear terms when and under what circumstances civilian structures and agricultural infrastructure may legitimately be demolished in circumstances of imperative military necessity. It clarifies the applicable legal criteria and limitations and allocates specific command responsibility and hierarchical authority for decision-making. 
Israel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Gaza Operation Investigations: Second Update, 19 July 2010, §§ 121 and 154–155.

Jordan
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory in 2004, Jordan stated:
5.230 The construction of the wall has two major impacts on the rights of the inhabitants of the occupied Palestinian territories including in and around East Jerusalem to enjoy the effective ownership of their land and property. First, the construction of the wall requires that a strip of land, on average some 50–70 metres wide, be taken away from its owners and put at the disposal of the occupying authorities; second, the existence of the wall prevents the inhabitants of the area being able to attend to their properties which lie on the other side of the wall from that on which they reside.
5.231 These consequences fall to be assessed in the light of the Hague Regulations and the Fourth Geneva Convention, considered also with the general principles of international law governing the expropriation of property.
5.232 Article 23(g) of the Hague Regulations makes it
“especially forbidden … (g) to destroy or seize the enemy’s property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war”.
5.233 If this rule is applicable during the conduct of armed conflict, it will apply a fortiori in times of occupation; nor can it be used to justify the seizure or destruction of property by the Israeli authorities, for the occupation has not yet ended …

5.237 Notwithstanding the clear content and purport of the applicable rules of international law, the Government of Israel has engaged and continues to engage in policies and practices of expropriation and destruction of property, both generally and in relation to the wall.

5.251 The expropriation of Palestinian land is not only unlawful according to international humanitarian law and the regime applicable to occupation, but also by reference to international standards protecting the rights and interests of property owners.
5.252 The responsibility of the State of Israel for the expropriation and denial of effective ownership arises from the fact that it exercises control over Palestinian territory. Although Israel has at times stated that its actions in respect to property have resulted in no change of ownership, in practice the consequences are equivalent to a denial of all the proprietary rights normally incidental to ownership.
5.253 This is clear, when Israeli actions are compared with international standards governing liability for expropriation, whether under general international law, or within specific treaty regimes. 
Jordan, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, 30 January 2004, §§ 5.230–5.233, 5.237, and 5.251–5.253.
[emphasis in original]
Kuwait
In 1990, in a letter to the UN Secretary-General, Kuwait accused the Iraqi occupation forces of burning and destroying homes. 
Kuwait, Letter dated 8 September 1990 to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. S/21730, 9 September 1990.

Malaysia
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. 
Malaysia, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, 30 January 2004, §§ 136–138.

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 [1949] Geneva Conventions … Its list of violations included … demolition of homes. 
Malaysia, Statement by the delegation of Malaysia before the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly on the Status of the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and relating to the protection of victims of armed conflict, 22 October 2012, as published in the summary record of the 15th meeting, 24 December 2012, UN Doc. A/C.6/67/SR.15, § 47.

Russian Federation
In 1995, during a debate in the UN Security Council concerning the situation in the former Yugoslavia, the Russian Federation declared: “The continuing large-scale violations of the rights of the Serbian population in the former Sectors West, North and South – including burnings … of homes … – are causing serious concern.” 
Russian Federation, Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.3591, 9 November 1995, p. 8.

Saudi Arabia
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory in 2004, Saudi Arabia stated:
18. Both the 1907 Hague Regulations and the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 make clear that the occupying Power has a general duty to respect and protect private property. Article 46 of the 1907 Hague Regulations states the simple proposition:
“Private property cannot be confiscated.”
Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 likewise states:
“Any destruction by the occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons … is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.”
… [T]he Separation Wall cannot be excused as an absolute necessity … in all events it is not a military operation within the meaning of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, but a disproportionate security measure.

35. … [T]he confiscation of private property by the occupying Power is illegal under humanitarian law, and … cannot be justified by the argument of necessity. Moreover, the confiscation of private property is carried out without meaningful legal recourse and wantonly. Such actions by an occupying Power constitute a “grave breach” of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949. Article 147 states:
“Grave breaches … shall be those involving any of the following acts: … extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.”
36. The confiscations are … wanton because the occupying Power carries out these confiscations with no regard to their humanitarian impact.  
Saudi Arabia, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, 30 January 2004, §§ 18 and 35–36.

28. The Separation Wall is not a military necessity that absolves the occupying Power of its duties to the protected civilian population of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around Jerusalem, under international humanitarian law. The Separation Wall does not meet the test of necessity in international law, whether it is viewed generally or in terms of military requirements.
29. The International Law Commission’s Draft Articles on State Responsibility set forth the applicable tests for judging whether an argument of necessity may excuse an illegal act. Article 25 provides:
1. Necessity may not be invoked by a State as a ground for precluding the wrongfulness of an act not in conformity with an international obligation of that State unless the act:
2. In any case, necessity may not be invoked by a State as a ground for precluding wrongfulness if:
30. This understanding of the meaning of “necessity” in international law clearly rebuts any and all arguments of the occupying Power that the Separation Wall is necessary and thus excuses its illegal acts … in all events, the occupying Power may not evoke necessity as its occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around Jerusalem, and its illegal settlements therein, have manifestly “contributed to the situation of necessity.” This general understanding of the legal meaning of “necessity” in international law is fully applicable in humanitarian law where “military necessity” is provided for. 
Saudi Arabia, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, 30 January 2004, pp. 17–18.

South Africa
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory in 2004, South Africa stated:
48. The Separation Wall, as described in detail in the report of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the situation of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (E/CN.4/2004/6), has resulted in vast expropriation of land and has destroyed homes, shops, schools, water networks and agricultural land belonging to Palestinians. These acts are expressly prohibited by Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention which states that “any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations”.
49. The justification put forth by the Government of Israel for such a contravention of the aforementioned Article 53 and the construction of the Separation Wall itself, is that the purpose of the Separation Wall is for the security of Israel and such destruction or seizure of Palestinian property is demanded by the necessities of war, as permitted by Article 23 of the Hague Regulations of 1907. It must be made clear that the concept of “military necessity” does not release a state from the obligations of complying with international humanitarian law. The Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols have already struck the balance between the demands made on the law of the conduct of war and the requirements of humanity. 
South Africa, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, 30 January 2004, p. 19, §§ 48–49.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2003, in reply to a written question in the House of Lords, the UK Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, wrote:
While the building of a separation wall for security reasons does not necessarily contravene international law, we do consider some aspects related to the construction of the “security fence” in the West Bank to be illegal. We do not believe that the route of the fence is determined by security requirements. We therefore conclude that much of the demolition and confiscation of Palestinian property associated with its construction violates the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits such measures unless absolutely necessary. We are concerned that the lack of access for Palestinian owners to land on the west of the security fence results in the de facto appropriation of this territory by Israel.
The military orders, which requisition land for the fence, allow the owners of the property to request rental fees or compensation. 
United Kingdom, House of Lords, Written answer by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Hansard, 10 July 2003, Vol. 651, Written Answers, col. WA52.

In 2005, in a written answer to a question concerning “the Israeli security wall”, the UK Minister of State for the Middle East, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, stated:
We fully recognise Israel’s right to self-defence. A barrier is a reasonable way to achieve this. But the barrier’s route should be on or behind the Green Line, and not on occupied territory. Construction of the barrier on Palestinian land is illegal. 
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Written answer by the Minister of State for the Middle East, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Hansard, 10 October 2005, Vol. 437, Written Answers, col. 122W.

In 2006, in a written answer to a question in the House of Commons concerning “representations the Government has made to the Israeli Government on Israel taking more Palestinian land for settlements”, the UK Minister of State for the Middle East, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, stated:
We will continue to raise our concerns over the settlements and the barrier with the Israeli Government at all levels.
Our ambassador in Tel Aviv last raised our concerns about settlements and impact of the barrier in East Jerusalem with the Director General of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 19 December 2005. He also raised Palestinian access to the Jordan Valley on 2 March with the Israeli Prime Minister’s Special Adviser.

We also fully recognise Israel’s right to self-defence. A barrier is a reasonable way to achieve this. But the barrier’s route should be on or behind the Green Line, and not on occupied territory. Construction of the barrier on Palestinian land is illegal. 
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Written answer by the Minister of State for the Middle East, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Hansard, 13 March 2006, Vol. 443, Written Answers, cols. 1905W.

In 2006, in a written answer to a question in the House of Commons concerning, inter alia, “what the outcome was of discussions with EU partners and others on seeking compliance with the ruling of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) of 9 July 2004”, the UK Minister of State for the Middle East, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, stated:
The UK continues to make representations to the Israeli government regarding the routing of the barrier. While Israel is entitled to take measures to strengthen their security, the routing of the barrier on occupied land is contrary to international law.
We agree with the broad conclusion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), that building a barrier along the current route is unlawful. We supported UN General Assembly Resolution Emergency Session 10/15 which acknowledged the ICJ Advisory Opinion of 9 July 2004 on the legal consequences of the construction of the barrier in the occupied Palestinian territory. 
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Written answer by the Minister of State for the Middle East, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Hansard, 2 November 2006, Vol. 451, Written Answers, col. 667W.

In 2007, in a written answer in the House of Lords to a question concerning the situation in the occupied Palestinian territories, the UK Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, wrote:
We also call on Israel to route the barrier on or behind the Green Line and freeze all settlement activity and dismantle all outposts built since 2001. The routing of the barrier and the construction of settlements on occupied land is illegal. We continue to raise these issues with the Israeli Government. 
United Kingdom, House of Lords, Statement by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Hansard, 8 January 2007, Vol. 688, Debates, col. WA29.

In 2007, in a written answer in the House of Commons to a question concerning plans by the Government of Israel to change the routing of the barrier in the occupied Palestinian territories, the UK Minister of State for the Middle East, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, wrote:
We are concerned at reports that the Israeli government are considering changing the route of the barrier to incorporate two west bank settlements. We fully recognise Israel’s right to self-defence, but the barrier’s route should be on or behind the green line and not on occupied territory. Construction of the barrier on Palestinian land is illegal. 
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Statement by the Minister of State for Middle East, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Hansard, 5 February 2007, Vol. 456, Written Answers, col. 672W.

In 2007, during a debate in the House of Lords, the UK Government Spokesman for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office stated:
… the Government of Israel have a responsibility to ensure the security of their people. They have a right to self-defence. If they want to build a barrier … they are entitled to do so. But that barrier must be on or behind the green line. Any barrier on occupied land contravenes international law and must come down. 
United Kingdom, House of Lords, Statement by the Government Spokesman for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Hansard, 3 July 2007, Vol. 693, Debates, col. 986–987.

In 2010, in a written answer to a question in the House of Commons, the UK Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs stated that “with few exceptions, house demolitions in occupied territory, including in East Jerusalem, are in direct contravention of article 53 of the [1949] fourth Geneva convention.” 
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Written Answer by the Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Hansard, 7 June 2010, Vol. 511, Written Answers, col. 27W.

United States of America
In 1992, in its final report to Congress on the conduct of the Gulf War, the US Department of Defense stated: “In violation of [the 1907 Hague Regulations] … private … property was confiscated … (Confiscation of private property is prohibited under any circumstance …).” 
United States, Department of Defense, Final Report to Congress on the Conduct of the Persian Gulf War, 10 April 1992, Appendix O, The Role of the Law of War, ILM, Vol. 31, 1992, p. 620.

Back to top
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1990 following Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, the UN Security Council condemned “the treatment by Iraqi forces of Kuwaiti nationals, including … mistreatment of … property in Kuwait in violation of international law”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 670, 25 September 1990, preamble, voting record: 14-1-0.

In a resolution adopted in 1995 on violations of international humanitarian law in the former Yugoslavia, the UN Security Council expressed its deep concern “at reports … of serious violations of international humanitarian law … including burning of houses”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1019, 9 November 1995, preamble, voting record: 15-0-0.

In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question, the UN Security Council:
Reiterating the obligation of Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949,

1. Calls on Israel to respect its obligations under international humanitarian law, and insists, in particular, on its obligation not to undertake demolition of homes contrary to that law. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1544, 19 May 2004, preamble and § 1, voting record: 14-0-1.

In 1995, in a statement by its President on the situation in Croatia, the UN Security Council stated that it was “concerned by the reports of human rights violations including the burning of houses” and demanded that the government of Croatia “immediately investigate all such reports and take appropriate measures to put an end to such acts”. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/1995/44, 7 September 1995, p. 1.

In January 1996, in a statement by its President on the situation in Croatia, the UN Security Council strongly condemned “the violations of international humanitarian law and human rights in the former sectors North and South in the Republic of Croatia, … including systematic and widespread … arson and other forms of destruction of property”. The Council further urged the Government of Croatia “to make every effort to arrest all perpetrators and bring them promptly to trial”. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/1996/2, 8 January 1996, p. 1.

In December 1996, in a statement by its President on the situation in Croatia, the UN Security Council deplored “the continued failure by the Government of Croatia to safeguard effectively … property rights [of Croatian Serb refugees], especially the situation where many of those Serbs who have returned to the former sectors have been unable to regain possession of their properties”. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/1996/48, 20 December 1996, p. 1.

UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1995 on the situation of human rights in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), the UN General Assembly condemned “violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, including … the burning … of houses”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 50/193, 22 December 1995, § 6, voting record: 144-1-20-20.

In a resolution adopted during an emergency special session in 2003 entitled “Illegal Israeli actions in Occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory”, the UN General Assembly:
Reiterating its opposition to settlement activities in the Occupied Territories and to any activities involving the confiscation of land, disruption of the livelihood of protected persons and the de facto annexation of land,

1. Demands that Israel stop and reverse the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, which is in departure of the Armistice Line of 1949 and is in contradiction to relevant provisions of international law. 
UN General Assembly, Res. ES-10/13, 21 October 2003, preamble and § 1, voting record: 144-4-12-31.

In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine, the UN General Assembly affirmed that “the construction by Israel of a wall inside the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, is in contravention of relevant provisions of international law”.  
UN General Assembly, Res. 58/21, 3 December 2003, preamble, voting record: 160-6-5-20.

In a resolution adopted during an emergency special session in 2003 entitled “Illegal Israeli actions in Occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory”, the UN General Assembly:
Reaffirming the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention as well as Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem,
Recalling the Regulations annexed to the Hague Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land of 1907,

Gravely concerned at the commencement and continuation of construction by Israel, the occupying Power, of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, which is in departure from the Armistice Line of 1949 (Green Line) and which has involved the confiscation and destruction of Palestinian land and resources, the disruption of the lives of thousands of protected civilians and the de facto annexation of large areas of territory, and underlining the unanimous opposition by the international community to the construction of that wall,

1. Decides, in accordance with Article 96 of the Charter of the United Nations, to request the International Court of Justice, pursuant to Article 65 of the Statute of the Court, to urgently render an advisory opinion on the following question:
What are the legal consequences arising from the construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, as described in the report of the Secretary-General, considering the rules and principles of international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions? 
UN General Assembly, Res. ES-10/14, 8 December 2003, preamble and § 1, voting record: 90-8-74-19.

In a resolution adopted in 2003 on Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, the UN General Assembly:
Concerned about the continuing systematic violation of the human rights of the Palestinian people by Israel, the occupying Power, including … the confiscation of land,

Expressing deep concern about the extensive destruction caused by the Israeli occupying forces, including the destruction of homes and properties, of religious, cultural and historical sites, of vital infrastructure and institutions of the Palestinian Authority, and of agricultural land throughout Palestinian cities, towns, villages and refugee camps. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 58/99, 9 December 2003, preamble, voting record: 150-6-19-16.

In a resolution adopted during an emergency special session in 2004 entitled “Advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem”, the UN General Assembly:
Recalling the Regulations annexed to the Hague Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land of 1907,
Recalling also the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949, and relevant provisions of customary law, including those codified in Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions,
Recalling further the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child,

Recalling also the resolutions of its tenth emergency special session on illegal Israeli actions in Occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory,

Recalling its resolution ES-10/13 of 21 October 2003, in which it demanded that Israel stop and reverse the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem,
Recalling also its resolution ES-10/14 of 8 December 2003, in which it requested the International Court of Justice to urgently render an advisory opinion on the following question:
“What are the legal consequences arising from the construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, as described in the report of the Secretary-General, considering the rules and principles of international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention, of 1949, and relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions?”,
Having received with respect the advisory opinion of the Court on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, rendered on 9 July 2004,
Noting in particular that the Court replied to the question put forth by the General Assembly in resolution ES-10/14 as follows:
“A. The construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, and its associated regime, are contrary to international law;
“B. Israel is under an obligation to terminate its breaches of international law; it is under an obligation to cease forthwith the works of construction of the wall being built in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, to dismantle forthwith the structure therein situated, and to repeal or render ineffective forthwith all legislative and regulatory acts relating thereto, in accordance with paragraph 151 of this Opinion;
“C. Israel is under an obligation to make reparation for all damage caused by the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem;
“D. All States are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction; all States Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 have in addition the obligation, while respecting the United Nations Charter and international law, to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law as embodied in that Convention;
“E. The United Nations, and especially the General Assembly and the Security Council, should consider what further action is required to bring to an end the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and the associated regime, taking due account of the present Advisory Opinion.”,
Noting that the Court concluded that “the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law”,
Noting also the statement made by the Court that “Israel and Palestine are under an obligation scrupulously to observe the rules of international humanitarian law, one of the paramount purposes of which is to protect civilian life” …

1. Acknowledges the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 9 July 2004 on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem;
2. Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, comply with its legal obligations as mentioned in the advisory opinion;
3. Calls upon all States Members of the United Nations to comply with their legal obligations as mentioned in the advisory opinion;

6. … emphasizes that both Israel and the Palestinian Authority are under an obligation scrupulously to observe the rules of international humanitarian law;
7. Calls upon all States parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention to ensure respect by Israel for the Convention, and invites Switzerland, in its capacity as the depositary of the Geneva Conventions, to conduct consultations and to report to the General Assembly on the matter, including with regard to the possibility of resuming the Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention. 
UN General Assembly, Res. ES-10/15, 20 July 2004, preamble and §§ 1–3 and 6–7, voting record: 150-6-10-25.

In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine, the UN General Assembly:
Recalling the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and recalling also its resolution ES-10/15 of 20 July 2004,

Reaffirming also that the construction by Israel, the occupying Power, of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, and its associated regime, are contrary to international law,

7. Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, comply with its legal obligations, as mentioned in the advisory opinion, and calls upon all States Members of the United Nations to comply with their legal obligations as mentioned in the advisory opinion. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 59/31, 1 December 2004, preamble and § 7, voting record: 161-7-10-13.

In a resolution adopted in 2004 on operations of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, the UN General Assembly:
Affirming the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem,

Gravely concerned about the increased suffering of the Palestine refugees, including that resulting from … extensive destruction and damage to their shelters and properties. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 59/119, 10 December 2004, preamble, voting record: 163-6-7-15.

In a resolution adopted in 2004 on Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, the UN General Assembly:
Concerned about the continuing systematic violation of the human rights of the Palestinian people by Israel, the occupying Power, including that arising from … the confiscation of land, the establishment and expansion of settlements, the construction of the wall inside the Occupied Palestinian Territory in departure from the Armistice Line of 1949, the destruction of property and all other actions by it designed to change the legal status, geographical nature and demographic composition of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem,

Expressing deep concern about the extensive destruction caused by the Israeli occupying forces, including of religious, cultural and historical sites, of vital infrastructure and institutions of the Palestinian Authority, and of agricultural land throughout Palestinian cities, towns, villages and refugee camps,

6. Condemns also … the widespread demolition of homes by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Rafah refugee camp in May 2004 and in the Jabaliya refugee camp in October 2004. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 59/124, 10 December 2004, preamble and § 6, voting record: 149-7-22-13.

In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine, the UN General Assembly expressed its concern over “the widespread destruction of public and private Palestinian property and infrastructure”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 60/39, 1 December 2005, preamble, voting record: 156-6-9-20.

In a resolution adopted in 2005 on operations of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, the UN General Assembly:
Affirming the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem,
Aware of the continuing needs of the Palestine refugees throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory and in the other fields of operation, namely Jordan, Lebanon and the Syrian Arab Republic,
Gravely concerned about the extremely difficult living conditions being faced by the Palestine refugees in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, including in the Rafah and Jabaliya refugee camps, resulting, inter alia, from loss of life and injury, extensive destruction and damage to their shelters and properties, and displacement,

8. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to comply fully with the provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 60/102, 8 December 2005, preamble and § 8, voting record: 159-6-3-23.

In a resolution adopted in 2005 on Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, the UN General Assembly:
Expressing grave concern about the continuing systematic violation of the human rights of the Palestinian people by Israel, the occupying Power, including that arising from … the confiscation of land, the establishment and expansion of settlements, the construction of the wall inside the Occupied Palestinian Territory in departure from the Armistice Line of 1949, the destruction of property and all other actions by it designed to change the legal status, geographical nature and demographic composition of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem,

Expressing deep concern about the extensive destruction caused by the Israeli occupying forces, including of religious, cultural and historical sites, of vital infrastructure and institutions of the Palestinian Authority, and of agricultural land throughout Palestinian cities, towns, villages and refugee camps. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 60/107, 8 December 2005, preamble, voting record: 148-7-17-19.

In a resolution adopted in 2005 on permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources, the UN General Assembly expressed its concern at “the extensive destruction by Israel, the occupying Power, of agricultural land and orchards in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including the uprooting of a vast number of fruit-bearing trees”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 60/183, 22 December 2005, preamble, voting record: 156-6-8-21.

In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the international year of deserts and desertification, 2006, the UN General Assembly expressed its deep concern “at the extensive destruction by Israel, the occupying Power, of agricultural land and orchards in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including the uprooting of a vast number of fruit-bearing trees”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 60/200, 22 December 2005, preamble, voting record: 120-1-47-23.

In a resolution adopted in 2006 on the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine, the UN General Assembly,
Recalling the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and recalling also its resolution ES-10/15 of 20 July 2004,

Expressing its concern over the tragic events that have occurred in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, since 28 September 2000, including … the widespread destruction of public and private Palestinian property and infrastructure …

11. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to comply strictly with its obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law, and that it cease all of its measures that are contrary to international law and unilateral actions in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, that are aimed at altering the character and status of the Territory, including via the de facto annexation of land, and thus at prejudging the final outcome of peace negotiations;
12. Demands accordingly that Israel, the occupying Power, comply with its legal obligations under international law, as mentioned in the advisory opinion and as demanded in resolutions ES-10/13 of 21 October 2003 and ES-10/15 of 20 July 2004 and, inter alia, that it immediately cease its construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and calls upon all States Members of the United Nations to comply with their legal obligations, as mentioned in the advisory opinion. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 61/25, 1 December 2006, preamble and §§ 11–12, voting record: 157-7-10-18.

In a resolution adopted in 2006 on Jerusalem, the UN General Assembly:
Recalling the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and recalling resolution ES-10/15 of 20 July 2004,
Expressing its grave concern in particular about the continuation by Israel, the occupying Power, of illegal settlement activities, including the so-called E-1 plan, and its construction of the wall in and around East Jerusalem . 
UN General Assembly, Res. 61/26, 1 December 2006, preamble, voting record: 157-6-10-19.

In a resolution adopted in 2006 on operations of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, the UN General Assembly:
Affirming the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem,
Aware of the continuing needs of the Palestine refugees throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory and in the other fields of operation, namely Jordan, Lebanon and the Syrian Arab Republic,
Gravely concerned about the extremely difficult living conditions being faced by the Palestine refugees in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, particularly in the refugee camps in the Gaza Strip, resulting, inter alia, from the loss of life and injury, the extensive destruction of their shelters, properties and vital infrastructure and the displacement of the Palestine refugees,

10. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to comply fully with the provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 61/114, 14 December 2006, preamble and § 10, voting record: 169-6-8-9.

In a resolution adopted in 2006 on Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, the UN General Assembly:
Expressing deep concern about the vast destruction caused by the Israeli occupying forces, including … of agricultural land throughout Palestinian cities, towns, villages and refugee camps,

3. Condemns … the excessive use of force by the Israeli occupying forces against Palestinian civilians, resulting in extensive loss of life and vast numbers of injuries, including among children, massive destruction of homes, properties, agricultural lands and vital infrastructure. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 61/119, 14 December 2006, preamble and § 3, voting record: 157-9-14-12.

In a resolution adopted in 2007 on the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine, the UN General Assembly expressed its concern “over the negative developments that have continued to occur in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, including … the widespread destruction of public and private Palestinian property and infrastructure”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 62/83, 10 December 2007, preamble, voting record: 161-7-5-19.

In a resolution adopted in 2007 on Jerusalem, the UN General Assembly:
Recalling the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and recalling resolution ES-10/15 of 20 July 2004,

Expressing its grave concern in particular about the continuation by Israel, the occupying Power, of illegal settlement activities, including the so-called E-1 plan, its construction of the wall in and around East Jerusalem. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 62/84, 10 December 2007, preamble, voting record: 160-6-7-19.

In a resolution adopted in 2007 on Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, the UN General Assembly:
Expressing deep concern about the vast destruction caused by the Israeli occupying forces, including … of agricultural land throughout Palestinian cities, towns, villages and refugee camps, …

3. Condemns … especially the excessive use of force by the Israeli occupying forces against Palestinian civilians, which have caused extensive loss of life and vast numbers of injuries, including among children, massive destruction of homes, properties, agricultural lands and vital infrastructure. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 62/109, 17 December 2007, preamble and § 3, voting record: 156-7-11-18.

In a resolution adopted in 2007 on operations of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, the UN General Assembly:
Affirming the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem,
Aware of the continuing needs of the Palestine refugees throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory and in the other fields of operation, namely Jordan, Lebanon and the Syrian Arab Republic,
Gravely concerned about the extremely difficult living conditions being faced by the Palestine refugees in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, particularly in the refugee camps in the Gaza Strip, resulting, inter alia, from the loss of life and injury, the extensive destruction of their shelters, properties and vital infrastructure, the displacement of the Palestine refugees, the prolonged closures and socio-economic decline,

10. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to comply fully with the provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 62/104, 17 December 2007, preamble and § 10, voting record: 170-6-3-13.

UN Economic and Social Council
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on economic and social repercussions of the Israeli occupation on the living conditions of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem, and the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan, ECOSOC:
3. Demands the complete cessation of all acts of violence, including all acts of terror, provocation, incitement and destruction;
4. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to end its occupation of Palestinian cities and other populated centres, to end all kinds of closures and to cease destruction of homes and economic facilities and agricultural fields. 
ECOSOC, Res. 2003/59, 24 July 2003, §§ 3–4, voting record: 48-2-3.

In a resolution adopted in 2004 on economic and social repercussions of the Israeli occupation on the living conditions of the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem, and the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan, ECOSOC:
Reaffirming the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967,

Gravely concerned at the extensive destruction by Israel, the occupying Power, of agricultural land and orchards in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, during the recent period, including, and in particular, as a result of the construction of the wall,
Acknowledging the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,

3. Demands the complete cessation of all acts of violence, including all acts of terror, provocation, incitement and destruction;
4. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to end its occupation of Palestinian cities, towns and other populated centres, to end the imposition of all forms of closure and curfew and to cease its destruction of homes and properties, economic institutions and agricultural fields;
5. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the Palestinian people and the Arab population of the occupied Syrian Golan to all their natural and economic resources, and calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, not to exploit, endanger or cause loss or depletion of these resources. 
ECOSOC, Res. 2004/54, 23 July 2004, preamble and §§ 3–5, voting record: 51-1-1.

In a resolution adopted in 2005 on economic and social repercussions of the Israeli occupation on the living conditions of the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem, and the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan, ECOSOC:
Reaffirming the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949 to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967,

Gravely concerned at the extensive destruction by Israel, the occupying Power, of agricultural land and orchards in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, during the recent period, including, and in particular, as a result of its unlawful construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem,
Recalling the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, recalling also General Assembly resolution ES-10/15, and stressing the need to comply with the obligations mentioned therein,

3. Demands the complete cessation of all acts of violence, including all acts of terror, provocation, incitement and destruction;
4. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to end its occupation of Palestinian cities, towns and other populated centres, to cease its destruction of homes and properties, economic institutions and agricultural fields and to end the imposition of all forms of closure and curfew, which impede efforts aimed at the amelioration of the economic and social conditions and the development of the Palestinian people;
5. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the Palestinian people and the Arab population of the occupied Syrian Golan to all their natural and economic resources, and calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, not to exploit, endanger or cause loss or depletion of these resources;

7. Stresses that the wall being constructed by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, is contrary to international law and is seriously debilitating to the economic and social development of the Palestinian people, and calls in this regard for full compliance with the legal obligations mentioned in the 9 July 2004 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice and in General Assembly resolution ES-10/15. 
ECOSOC, Res. 2005/51, 27 July 2005, preamble and §§ 3–5 and 7, voting record: 49-2-1.

In a resolution adopted in 2006 on economic and social repercussions of the Israeli occupation on the living conditions of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan, ECOSOC stated it was:
Gravely concerned at the extensive destruction by Israel, the occupying Power, of agricultural land and orchards in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and, in particular, as a result of its construction of the wall, contrary to international law, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem. 
ECOSOC, Res. 2006/43, 27 July 2006, preamble, voting record: 45-3-3.

In a resolution adopted in 2007 entitled “Economic and social repercussions of the Israeli occupation on the living conditions of the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan”, ECOSOC:
Reaffirming the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967,

Gravely concerned at the extensive destruction by Israel, the occupying Power, of agricultural land and orchards in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and, in particular, as a result of its construction of the wall, contrary to international law, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem,
Recalling the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, recalling also General Assembly resolution ES-10/15, and stressing the need to comply with the obligations mentioned therein,

4. Calls upon Israel to restore and replace civilian properties, vital infrastructure, agricultural lands and governmental institutions that have been damaged or destroyed as a result of its military operations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory;

6. Calls upon all parties to respect the rules of international humanitarian law and to refrain from violence against the civilian population in accordance with the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949;
7. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the Palestinian people and the Arab population of the occupied Syrian Golan to all their natural and economic resources, and calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, not to exploit, endanger or cause loss or depletion of these resources;
8. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to cease the dumping of all kinds of waste materials in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan, which gravely threaten their natural resources, namely, water and land resources, and pose an environmental hazard and health threat to the civilian populations;

10. Stresses that the wall being constructed at an accelerated pace by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, is contrary to international law and is isolating East Jerusalem and dividing up the West Bank and is seriously debilitating to the economic and social development of the Palestinian people, and calls in this regard for full compliance with the legal obligations mentioned in the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 9 July 2004 and in General Assembly resolution ES -10/15. 
ECOSOC, Res. 2007/26, 26 July 2007, preamble and §§ 4, 6–8 and 10, voting record: 29-2-18.

UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 1993, the UN Commission on Human Rights condemned “the ongoing Israeli violations of human rights in southern Lebanon consisting, in particular, in … the demolition of … homes [of civilians and] the confiscation of their property”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1993/67, 10 March 1993, § 1, voting record: 50-1-0.

In a resolution adopted in 1996 on the situation of human rights in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Condemns in the strongest terms all violations of human rights and international humanitarian law during the conflict, in particular in areas which were under the control of the self-proclaimed Bosnian and Croatian Serb authorities, in particular massive and systematic violations, including, inter alia, … burning … of houses [and] shelling of residential areas.  
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1996/71, 23 April 1996, § 1, adopted without a vote.

In a resolution adopted in 1998 on the situation of human rights in southern Lebanon and western Bekaa, the UN Commission on Human Rights deplored “the destruction of … dwellings [of Lebanese citizens], the confiscation of their property” and called upon Israel “to put an immediate end to such practices”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1998/62, 21 April 1998, § 1, voting record: 52-1-0

In a resolution adopted in 2000 on the situation in Chechnya, the UN Commission on Human Rights deplored “the suffering inflicted on the civilian population by all parties, including the serious and systematic destruction of installations and infrastructure, contrary to international humanitarian law”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2000/58, 25 April 2000, preamble, voting record: 25-7-19.

In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Affirms anew that the demolition by the Israeli occupying forces of at least thirty thousand Palestinian houses, facilities and property is a grave violation of articles 33 and 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and that levelling farmlands, uprooting trees and destroying the infrastructure of Palestinian society constitute grave violations of the provisions of international humanitarian law and a form of collective punishment against the Palestinian people. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2003/6, 15 April 2003, § 15, voting record: 33-5-15.

In a resolution adopted in 2003 on Israeli settlements in the occupied Arab territories, the UN Commission on Human Rights expressed its grave concern:
At the continuing Israeli settlement activities, including the illegal installation of settlers in the occupied territories and related activities, such as the expansion of settlements, the expropriation of land, the demolition of houses, the confiscation and destruction of property, the expulsion of Palestinians and the construction of bypass roads, which change the physical character and demographic composition of the occupied territories, including East Jerusalem, and constitute a violation of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War; settlements are a major obstacle to peace and to the creation of an independent, viable, sovereign and democratic Palestinian State in accordance with Security Council resolution 1397 (2002) of 12 March 2002. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2003/7, 15 April 2003, § 2(b), voting record: 50-1-2.

In a resolution adopted in 2004 on Israeli settlements in the occupied Arab territories, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Mindful that Israel is a party to the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, which is applicable de jure to Palestinian and all Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including East Jerusalem, and recalling the declaration adopted by the Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention, held in Geneva on 5 December 2001,

2. Expresses its grave concern at:

(b) The continuing illegal Israeli settlement activities in the occupied territories and related activities, such as the expansion of settlements, the expropriation of land, the demolition of houses, the confiscation and destruction of property, the expulsion of Palestinians and the construction of bypass roads, which change the physical character and demographic composition of the occupied territories, including East Jerusalem, and constitute a violation of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, settlements are a major obstacle to peace and to the creation of an independent, viable, sovereign and democratic Palestinian State in accordance with Security Council resolution 1397 (2002) of 12 March 2002. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2004/9, 15 April 2004, preamble and § 2(b), voting record: 27-2-24.

In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Taking into consideration the provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949 (Fourth Geneva Convention), the provisions of Additional Protocol I thereto of 1977 and the Hague Convention IV, of 18 October 1907, and Annexed Regulations respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land,
Recalling resolutions of the Security Council, the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights relating to the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, since the 5 June 1967 war,
Reaffirming the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the Palestinian territories occupied since the June 1967 war, including East Jerusalem,

Gravely concerned at the construction of the Israeli wall inside the Occupied Palestinian Territory, aimed at expropriating further Palestinian lands by force …

7. Condemns once again the expropriation of Palestinian homes in Jerusalem, Hebron and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory … and calls upon the Government of Israel to put an end immediately to these practices;

15. Affirms anew that the demolitions carried out by the Israeli occupying forces of at least 30,000 Palestinian houses, facilities and property constitute grave violations of articles 33 and 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and that acts of levelling farmlands, uprooting trees and destroying what is left of the Palestinian infrastructure constitute a form of collective punishment to which Palestinians are subjected, grave violations of the provisions of international humanitarian law and war crimes according to international law;

19. Strongly condemns the construction of the Israeli wall inside the Occupied Palestinian Territory, in the West Bank, as it constitutes a new Israeli pretext for the forcible confiscation of further Palestinian lands. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2004/10, 15 April 2004, preamble and §§ 7, 15 and 19, voting record: 31-7-15.

In a resolution adopted in 2005 on Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Mindful that Israel is a party to the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, which is applicable de jure to Palestinian and all Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including East Jerusalem and the Syrian Golan, and recalling the declaration adopted by the Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention, held in Geneva on 5 December 2001,

3. Expresses its grave concern at:
(a) The continuing Israeli settlement and related activities, in violation of international law, including the expansion of settlements, the expropriation of land, the demolition of houses, the confiscation and destruction of property, the expulsion of Palestinians and the construction of bypass roads, which change the physical character and demographic composition of the occupied territories, including East Jerusalem and the Syrian Golan, and constitute a violation of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and in particular article 49 of that Convention; settlements are a major obstacle to the establishment of a just and comprehensive peace and to the creation of an independent, viable, sovereign and democratic Palestinian State. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2005/6, 14 April 2005, preamble and § 3(a), voting record: 39-2-12.

In a resolution adopted in 2005 on Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Recalling the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civil Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and the Commission on Human Rights,

Asserting that the punitive measures imposed by Israel, the occupying Power, on the Palestinian civil population, including collective punishment, border closures and severe restrictions on the movement of people and goods, arbitrary arrests and detentions, destruction of homes and vital infrastructure, including religious, educational, cultural and historical sites, led to a steep deterioration in the socio-economic conditions, perpetuating a dire humanitarian crisis throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and affirming that these punitive measures violate the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,
Recalling the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice and General Assembly resolution ES-10/15 of 20 July 2004, and reaffirming the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force,
Noting in particular the court’s reply, including that the construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, and its associated regime, are contrary to international law,
Welcoming the decision of the Secretary-General to establish a register of damage caused by the construction of the wall and its associated regime in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem,
Condemning the continued systematic violations of the human rights of the Palestinian people by Israel, the occupying Power, arising from the settlements, the construction of the wall inside the Occupied Palestinian Territory in departure from the Armistice Line of 1949, the destruction of property and all other actions designed to change the legal status, geographical nature and demographic composition of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem,

1. Reiterates that all actions and punitive measures taken by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, in violation of the relevant provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and contrary to the relevant resolutions of the Security Council, are illegal and have no validity, and thereby demands that Israel, the occupying Power, comply fully with its provisions and cease immediately all measures and actions taken in violation and in breach of the Convention, including extrajudicial executions;
2. Condemns the use of force by the Israeli occupying forces against Palestinian civilians, resulting in extensive loss of life, vast numbers of injuries and massive destruction of homes, properties, agricultural lands and vital infrastructure;

8. Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, comply with its legal obligations under international law, as mentioned in the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice and as demanded in resolution ES-10/15 and resolution ES-10/13 of 21 October 2003, and that it cease the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, dismantle forthwith the structure situated therein, repeal or render ineffective all legislative and regulatory acts relating thereto, and make reparation for all damage caused by the construction of the wall. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2005/7, 14 April 2005, preamble and §§ 1–2 and 8, voting record: 29-10-14.

UN Human Rights Council
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on the grave situation of human rights in Lebanon caused by Israeli military operations, the UN Human Rights Council:
Emphasizing that attacks and killings of innocent civilians and the destruction of houses, property and infrastructure in Lebanon are a breach of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, international law and international humanitarian law as well as flagrant violations of human rights. 
UN Human Rights Council, Res. S-2/1, 11 August 2006, preamble, voting record: 27-11-8.

In a resolution adopted in 2006 on human rights violations emanating from Israeli military incursions in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including the recent one in northern Gaza and the assault on Beit Hanoun, the UN Human Rights Council denounced “the Israeli massive destruction of Palestinian homes, property and infrastructure in Beit Hanoun”.  
UN Human Rights Council, Res. S-3/1, 15 November 2006, § 3, voting record: 32-8-6.

In a resolution adopted in 2006 on Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan, the UN Human Rights Council:
Mindful that Israel is a party to the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, which is applicable de jure to Palestinian and all Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including East Jerusalem and the Syrian Golan, and recalling the declaration adopted by the Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention, held in Geneva on 5 December 2001,

2. Expresses its grave concern at:
(a) The continuing Israeli settlement and related activities, in violation of international law, including … the expropriation of land, the demolition of houses, the confiscation and destruction of property …

7. Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, comply fully with its legal obligations, as mentioned in the Advisory Opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice. 
UN Human Rights Council, Res. 2/4, 27 November 2006, preamble and §§ 2(a) and 7, voting record: 45-1-1.

UN Secretary-General
In 1995, in a report concerning the conflict in the former Yugoslavia, the UN Secretary-General noted that UNCRO continued to document serious violations of the human rights of the Croatian Serbs who had remained in the sectors reconquered by the Croatian army, including the burning of houses. 
UN Secretary-General, Report pursuant to Security Council Resolutions 981 (1995), 982 (1995) and 983 (1995), UN Doc. S/1995/987, 23 November 1995, § 7.

In 1996, in a report on UNOMIL in Liberia, the UN Secretary-General reported that his “Special Representative has, on several occasions, … exhorted Liberian faction leaders to exert proper command and control over their combatants so that the … property of civilians can be protected and human rights abuses stopped”. 
UN Secretary-General, Fifteenth progress report on UNOMIL, UN Doc. S/1996/47, 23 January 1996, § 28.

In 1996, in a report on the situation of human rights in Croatia, the UN Secretary-General reported:
Since the end of November 1995, the incidence of human rights violations, including acts of … arson … committed in the former Sectors West, North and South has continued to decline … The Government of Croatia eventually responded with a series of measures intended to protect its citizens’ human rights, and these initiatives seem to have begun to have a positive effect. 
UN Secretary-General, Further report on the situation of human rights in Croatia pursuant to Security Council Resolution 1019 (1995), UN Doc. S/1996/109, 14 February 1996, § 6.

In 1998, in a report on the situation in Sierra Leone, the UN Secretary-General noted:
From all parts of the country there are reports of … destruction of residential and commercial premises and property. It will remain important to document these actions with a view to tackling issues of impunity and as an element in the process of promoting reconciliation and healing of society. 
UN Secretary-General, Fifth report on the situation in Sierra Leone, UN Doc. S/1998/486, 9 June 1998, § 37.

UN Commission on Human Rights (Special Rapporteur)
In 1996, in a report on the situation of human rights in the Sudan, the Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights listed as “grave violations of human rights” the indiscriminate killing of civilians during raids by the army and by the Popular Defence Forces (PDF), which were regularly accompanied by the burning of houses. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Sudan, Report, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1996/62, 20 February 1996, § 96(a).

UN Commission on Human Rights (Independent Expert)
In 1996, in a report on the situation of human rights in Somalia, the Independent Expert of the UN Commission on Human Rights described, in a section entitled “Civil war and violations of human rights”, the practices of the different Somali factions, including the fact that the winning faction would engage in destruction of private property. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Independent Expert on Assistance to Somalia in the Field of Human Rights, Report, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1996/14/Add.1, 10 April 1996, § 10.

Back to top
GCC Supreme Council
In the Final Communiqué of its 10th Session in 1989, the GCC Supreme Council appealed for “an end to the Israelis’ oppressive measures, including … the demolishing of houses, which run counter to the principles of human rights and international norms and conventions”. 
GCC, Supreme Council, 10th Session, Muscat, 18–21 December 1989, Final Communiqué, annexed to Letter dated 29 December 1989 from Oman to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. A/45/73-S/21065, 2 January 1990, p. 4.

GCC Ministerial Council
In the Final Communiqué of its 36th Session in 1990, the GCC Ministerial Council emphasized that “civilians in the Kuwaiti territory under Iraqi occupation must be respected and the integrity of their lives and property ensured” and that “private establishments and property must be safeguarded in accordance with the noble stipulations of Islamic law”. It insisted that “the Iraqi authorities must ensure the protection of all … private establishments and all movable and immovable property in the State of Kuwait”. 
GCC, Ministerial Council, 36th Session, Jeddah, 5–6 September 1990, Final Communiqué, annexed to Letter dated 6 September 1990 from Oman to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. S/21719, 6 September 1990, p. 3, preamble and § 3.

GCC Supreme Council
In the Final Communiqué of its 11th Session in 1990, the GCC Supreme Council demanded:
The Iraqi régime must respect the status of civilians and ensure the safety of their lives and property and must safeguard private … installations and property in accordance with Islamic law, the provisions of the 1949 Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and the international humanitarian covenants and conventions. 
GCC, Supreme Council, 11th Session, Doha, 22–25 December 1990, annexed to Note verbale dated 26 December 1990 from Qatar to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. A/45/908, 27 December 1990, p. 3.

League of Arab States Council
In a resolution adopted in 1990, the League of Arab States Council, with reference to Islamic law, the 1949 Geneva Convention IV, the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international covenants and conventions relating to the protection of human rights, decided “to insist that the Iraqi authorities must ensure the protection of all … private establishments and all movable and immovable property in the State of Kuwait, and to regard any measures incompatible with such a commitment as null and void”.  
League of Arab States, Council, Res. 5038, 31 August 1990, annexed to Letter dated 31 August 1990 from Qatar to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. S/21693, 31 August 1990, p. 4. (Libya opposed the resolutions and Algeria, Iraq, Jordan, Mauritania, Palestine, Sudan, Tunisia and Yemen did not participate in the work of the session.)

League of Arab States
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory in 2004, the League of Arab States stated:
This destruction of private property is a violation of art. 53 of the Fourth Convention. That provision prohibits “any destruction by the occupying power of real or persona1 property … except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations”. Property was destroyed, indeed, in cases where the exception clause just cited was not applied. That exception clause does not refer to security or military necessity in general. It only provides for those exceptions which are necessitated by actual military operations. But the destruction, in the case of the wall, is not necessitated by military operations of the Israel defence force. It is explained by a perceived need to stop single individual actions by actors which do not belong to a party to the conflict, which is a different matter. Therefore, the destruction of property which took place to facilitate building the wall is not covered by the exception clause of art. 53 and is, thus, unlawful.
Private property is also protected by art. 52 of the Hague Regulations. That provision, however, does not even mention destruction, it being implied that the destruction of property as a measure taken by the occupying power (as distinguished from measure during combat) is simply ruled out. As to measures of requisition, they are limited to those “for the necessities of the army of occupation”. This includes, first of all, logistical needs. If one [accepts] the idea that it includes also security needs, those are limited to the needs of the army of occupation. This excludes taking into consideration purported security needs of an (unlawful!) civilian presence of the occupying power. [emphasis in original]

“Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly” constitutes a grave breach of the Fourth Convention (article 147). It has been shown above that there was, in connection with the construction of the wall, destruction of property … not justified by military necessity. It was conducted in violation of article 53 of the Fourth Convention, thus unlawfully. This destruction must also be qualified as “wanton”. Consequently, these destructions constitute a grave breach of the Fourth Convention. 
League of Arab States, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, 30 January 2004, pp. 86–87 and 108–109.

As a matter of law, it has to be emphasized … that “security considerations” or “military necessity” do not constitute catch all justifications for any violation of international humanitarian law. Various rules of international humanitarian law recognize military necessity or similar concepts as a legal consideration limiting the scope of the humanitarian obligation. But the balance between military and humanitarian considerations is carefully struck in each of those provisions. It is, thus, in the interpretation of each of the relevant rules of international humanitarian law that the question whether military considerations might justify a measure taken by an occupying power has to be analysed in detail. 
League of Arab States, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, 30 January 2004, p. 83.

Back to top
International Conference of the Red Cross (1986)
The 25th International Conference of the Red Cross in 1986 adopted a resolution on respect for IHL in armed conflicts and action by the ICRC for persons protected by the 1949 Geneva Conventions in which it deplored “the destruction of civilian housing in violation of the laws and customs of war”. 
25th International Conference of the Red Cross, Geneva, 23–31 October 1986, Res. I, preamble.

Inter-Parliamentary Conference (1993)
In a resolution adopted in 1993 on respect for IHL and support for humanitarian action in armed conflicts, the 90th Inter-Parliamentary Conference condemned the destruction of civilian houses and property.  
90th Inter-Parliamentary Conference, Canberra, 13–18 September 1993, Resolution on Respect for International Humanitarian Law and Support for Humanitarian Action in Armed Conflicts, preamble.

International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia
In 1996, in a report submitted to the UN Security Council on the activities of the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia, the Co-Chairmen of the Steering Committee stated with respect to the remaining Serb population in the Krajina that “human rights violations, including burning … of abandoned property … were brought to the attention of the Croatian Government at the highest levels on a number of occasions, together with the serious criticisms from the international community”. 
International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia, Co-Chairmen of the Steering Committee, Final biannual report, UN Doc. S/1996/4, 2 January 1996, Annex, § 10.

Back to top
Special Court for Sierra Leone
In the Sesay case before the SCSL, the accused Sesay and Kallon, senior commanders in the Revolutionary United Front (RUF), Junta and Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC)/RUF forces, and the accused Gbao, senior commander in the RUF and AFRC/RUF forces, were each charged with eight counts of crimes against humanity, eight counts of war crimes, and two counts of other serious violations of international humanitarian law. In its judgment in the case in 2009, the Trial Chamber, in considering the rights of an occupying power over private property in the occupied territory, stated:
[T]he rights of an occupying power to seize or requisition private … property for the needs of the occupying army … are strictly limited. In particular, requisitions in kind must be in proportion to the resources of the country and must be paid for insofar as possible in cash, or alternatively a receipt must be given and the amount owed paid as soon as possible. 
SCSL, Sesay case, Judgment, 2 March 2009, § 987.
[footnotes in original omitted]
Human Rights Committee
In its concluding observations on the second periodic report of Israel in 2003, the Human Rights Committee noted its concern at Israel’s policy of the targeted demolition of private property and homes in the Occupied Territories:
While fully acknowledging the threat posed by terrorist activities in the Occupied Territories, the Committee deplores what it considers to be the partly punitive nature of the demolition of property and homes in the Occupied Territories. In the Committee’s opinion the demolition of property and houses of families some of whose members were or are suspected of involvement in terrorist activities or suicide bombings contravenes the obligation of the State party to ensure without discrimination the right not to be subjected to arbitrary interference with one’s home (art. 17 [of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]), freedom to choose one’s residence (art. 12 [of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]), equality of all persons before the law and equal protection of the law (art. 26 [of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]), and not to be subject to torture or cruel and inhuman treatment (art 7 [of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]) .
The State party should cease forthwith the above practice. 
Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations on the second periodic report of Israel, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/78/ISR, 21 August 2003, § 16.
[emphasis in original]
Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission
In its Central Front (Eritrea’s Claim) partial award in 2004, the Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission, in considering the responsibilities of an occupying power relating to private property in occupied territory, stated:
[T]he Occupying Power … was responsible … for respecting private property … Consequently, [it] is liable for permitting the unlawful looting and stripping of buildings in the town during the period of its occupation. [It] is not liable for damages to the town caused by combat or for looting and stripping of buildings that occurred either before or after its occupation of the town. 
Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission, Central Front, Eritrea’s Claim, Partial Award, 28 April 2004, § 67.

Back to top
ICRC
In a communication to the press issued in 1993 on the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the ICRC denounced “blatant violations of the basic principles of international humanitarian law”, including the fact that “civilian property, particularly houses, is destroyed and burned by the combatants”. 
ICRC, Communication to the Press No. 93/16, Bosnia-Herzegovina: The ICRC appeals for humanity, Geneva, 16 June 1993.

In a communication to the press issued in 2001, the ICRC reminded the parties to the conflict in Afghanistan of “the requirement that persons not taking part in hostilities must be treated with humanity in all circumstances: … their property must be respected”. 
ICRC, Communication to the Press No. 01/47, Afghanistan: ICRC calls on all parties to the conflict to respect international humanitarian law, 24 October 2001.

Back to top
No data.
Article 31 of the 1863 Lieber Code provides: “A victorious army appropriates all public money, seizes all public movable property until further direction by its government.” 
Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, prepared by Francis Lieber, promulgated as General Order No. 100 by President Abraham Lincoln, Washington D.C., 24 April 1863, Article 31.