Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vpsfw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T00:32:19.804Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Captured Enemy Property: Booty of War and Seized Enemy Property

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 April 2017

William Gerald Downey Jr.
William Gerald Downey Jr.*
Affiliation:
Chief, International Law Branch, Judge Advocate General's Office,Department of the Army
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In an address before the 1949 annual meeting of the American Society of International Law this writer remarked that the laws governing captured enemy property have never been codified or collected in one place and are very difficult to find and apply. The lack of a handy tool in the field of captured property has been noted at times by others, including Professor H. A. Smith, formerly a colonel with the British 21st Army Group, who observed that the “law of booty is almost unwritten” and Judge Manley O. Hudson, who wrote some years ago in an editorial in this JOURNAL that the “literature on captured property and war booty seemed inadequate.”

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 44 , Issue 3 , July 1950 , pp. 488 - 504
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1950

Access options

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

References

1 Proceedings, 1949, p. 104.

2 Col. H. A. Smith, “Booty of War,” XXIII British Yearbook of International Law (1946), p. 227.

3 Manley O. Hudson, “A Soldier’s Property in War,” this JOURNAL, Vol. 26 (1932),pp. 340, 342.

4 See 80th Cong., 2d Sess., Eeport of a Subcommittee of the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, Questions of Ownership of Captured Horses (Washington, D. C: Government Printing Office, 1948).

5 See Oppenheim, International Law, Vol. II, §§ 133-145; Feilchenfeld, The International Economic Law of Belligerent Occupation, pp. 51-61, 93-107; Spaight, War Bights on Land, pp. 410-418.

6 Ibid.

7 John Bassett Moore, International Law and Some Current Illusions, p. 21.

8 Swiss National Insurance Co. v. Miller, 267 TJ. S. 42 (1924).

9 Black’s Law Dictionary (3d ed.), p. 1447.

10 Daniel H. Lew, “Manchurian Booty and International Law,” this JOURNAL, Vol. 40 (1946), p. 584, at 586.

11 Belli, De Be Militari et Bello Tractatus (Translation, Vol. II, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1936), p. 106; Grotius, On the Law of War and Peace (Translation, Vol. I l l , Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1925), p. 672; Vattel, The Law of Nations (Translation, Vol. I l l , Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1916), p. 292.

12 Calvo, Le Droit International Théoretique et Pratique, Vol. IV, p. 240; Fiore, Nouveau Droit International Public, Vol. III , pp. 1381-1382; Davis, The Elements of International Law, p. 310; Hyde, International Law, Vol. III, pp. 806-809; Oppenheim.’s International Law (Lauterpacht, 6th ed.), Vol. II, p. 310.

13 Heffter, Das Europäische Völherrecht der Gegenwart (8th ed.), § 135.

14 Oppenheim, op. cit., p. 316.

15 Keller, Requisition und Kontribution, pp. 5-26.

16 Art. 52, Regulations respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, annexed to Hague Convention IV of Oct. 18, 1907, 36 Stat. 2277; Department of State, Treaty Series, No. 539; 2 Malloy’s Treaties 2269.

17 Oakes v. U. 8. (1898), 174 IT. S. 778, 786; Brown v. TJ. S. (1814), 8 Cranch 110; Oppenheim, op. cit., Vol. II , p. 307; Spaight, War Rights on Land, p. 198; Wheaton’s International Law (7th ed.), p. 307; Ware v. Hylton (1814), 3 Dall. 199, 226; Field Manual 27-10, par. 327; Davis, op. cit., p. 310; Hague Convention IV, 36 Stat. 2277; Geneva (Prisoners of War) Convention, 47 Stat. 202; Geneva (Red Cross) Convention, 47 Stat. 2074.

18 For text of Article of War 80, see below, p. 499.

19 4 Bulletin of the Judge Advocate General of the Army (hereafter referred to as Bull. JAG) (1945) 338.

20 Smith, loc. cit., p. 235.

21 4 Bull. JAG (1945) 390.

22 Oakes v. U. S., supra; Porte v. U. S., Devereaus' Eeports (Ct. Cls., 1856), p. 109, $ 433; Wheaton's International Law, p. 307; Halleck, International Law, p. 366; Lawrence, Principles of International Law (6th ed.), p. 430.

23 Lamar v. Browne (1875), 92 IT. 8. 187, 195; Young v. V. S. (1877), 97 TJ. S. 39, 60;Wheaton, supra; Davis, supra, p. 211; 3 Phillimore, International Law, p. 213.

24 Hannis Taylor, A Treatise on International Public Law, p. 540.

25 CSJAGA 1949/1355, March 2, 1949. Mas. opinion.

26 Calvo, op. cit., Vol. IV, § 2210, translation supplied.

27 Ibid., § 2208.

28 Ibid., § 2210.

29 IX Selected Opinions, OMGUS, 57, 60.

30 6 Bull. JAG (1947) 238-239.

31 See Field Manual 27-10, pars. 188-190.

32 See Arts. 14-18. Arts. 33-37 of the Geneva (Sick and Wounded) Convention of August 12, 1949, have similar provisions pertaining to mobile and fixed sanitary installations as well as aircraft used as hospital transports.

33 See Art. 56. In respect of the present immunity from capture of works of art and science and historical monuments, it is interesting to note that Richard E. Baxter in General Orders 100, The Code and its Origin (still in MSS), has pointed out that Francis Lieber was of the belief that works of art and science should be seized “for the sake of chastisement.” Fortunately such views did not prevail.

34 See Art. 6. Art. 18 of the Geneva (Prisoners of War) Convention of August 12, 1949, contains similar provisions. None of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 have been ratified by the United States.

35 See note 5 above and sources cited therein.

36 CSJAGA 1949/2472, March 25, 1949. Mss. opinion.

37 X Selected Opinions, OMGUS, 50.

38 Field Manual 27-10, par. 326.

39 Ibid., par. 330.

40 Ibid., par. 322.

41 4 Bull. JAG (1945) 390.

42 Wheaton, op. cit., pp. 313-314; Kisley, Law of War, pp. 141-142.

43 See authorities cited in notes 17, 22, 23, supra.

44 36 Stat. 2277.

45 JAGA 1947/4808, May 23, 1947. Mss. opinion.

46 JAGR 1946/3392, Aug. 30, 1946. Mss. opinion.

47 Mat Fransais c. Mablissements Monmousseau, Cour d’Appel d’Origans, this JOTJBNAL, Vol. 43 (1949), p. 819.

48 See authorities cited in note 5, supra.

49 36 Stat. 2277, Department of State, Treaty Series, No. 539.

50 2 Oppenheim 317-318.

51 Field Manual 27-10, pars. 337, 338, 339, 340.

52 Annual Digest of Public International Law Cases, 1925-1926, Case No. 365.

53 Ibid., p. 479.

54 2 Oppenheim, note, p. 319.

55 Laurent v. Le Jeune, Annual Digest, 1919-1922, Case No. 343.

56 Ibid., p. 482.

57 Tesdorpf v. German State, Annual Digest, 1923-1924, Case No. 340.

58 8 Bull. JAG (1949) 109.

59 Article I, see. 8, el. 11.

60 Public Law 759, 80th Cong.j 10 U.S.C. 1551.

61 6 Halsbury's Laws of England (2d ed.), p. 528.

62 War Office, Manual of Military Law, 1929, p. 333.

63 Digest of Opinions of the Judge Advocate General, 1912, p. 1060.

64 43 Stat. 597.

65 3 Bull. JAG (1944) 381.

66 See note 13, supra.

67 Department of State Bulletin, Vol. 8, No. 184 (January 2, 1943), p. 21.

68 See note 2, supra.