 |
industrial firms from within the aggressor's country may swoop over
the occupied territory and utilize property there - is utterly alien to the
laws and customs of warfare as laid down in the Hague Regulations, and is
clearly declared illegal by them because the Hague Regulations repeatedly and
unequivocally point out that requisitions may be made only for the needs of,
and on the authority of, the army of occupation.
There is one important
exception, contained in Article 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 ammunition of war, may be seized,
even if they belong to private individuals, but must be restored and
compensation fixed when peace is made.” |
The offense of spoliation is committed even if no definite alleged
transfer of title was accomplished. The reason why the Hague Regulations do not
permit the exploitation of economic assets (except to the limited extent
outlined) for the war effort of the occupant, are clear and compelling. If an
economic asset which, under the rules of warfare, is not subject to
requisition, is nevertheless exploited during the period of hostilities for the
benefit of the enemy, the very things result which the law wants to prevent,
namely —
a. the owners and the economy as a whole as well as the
population are deprived of the respective assets;
b. the war effort of
the enemy is unfairly and illegally strengthened;
c. the products
derived from the spoliation of the respective asset are being used, directly or
indirectly, to inflict losses and damages to the peoples and property of the
remaining (non-occupied) territory of the respective belligerent, or to the
peoples and property of its allies.
The defendants cannot as a legal
proposition successfully contend that, since the acts of spoliation of which
they are charged were authorized and actively supported by certain German
governmental and military agencies or persons, they escape liability for such
acts. It is a general principle of criminal law that encouragement and support
received from other wrongdoers is not excusable. It is still necessary to
stress this point as it is essential to point out that acts forbidden by the
laws and customs of warfare cannot become permissible through the use of
complicated legal constructions. The defendants are charged with plunder on a
large scale. Many of the acts of plunder were com- […mitted] |
__________
* Ibid., pp. 33 and
34.
1346 |
. 
