 |
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 own country.
“These requisitions and services
shall only be demanded on the authority of the Commander in the locality
occupied.
“The requisitions in kind shall, as far as possible, be
paid for in ready money; if not, a receipt shall be given and the payment of
the amount due shall be made as soon as possible.
“Art. 53. 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, all movable property of the
State which may be used for military operations.
“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, apart from cases governed by
maritime law, as well as depots of arms and, generally, all kinds of war
material, even though belonging to Companies or to private persons, are
likewise material which may serve for military individuals, but they must be
restored at the conclusion of peace, and indemnities paid for them.
|
|
| * * * * * * * * * * |
“Art. 55. The occupying
State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of the public
buildings, real estate, 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
usafruct.” |
| 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 public or private property by planning and executing a
well-defined design to acquire such property permanently, acquisition under
|
1132 |
. 
