banks.1 These are but examples of the wholesale seizure of private property practised by Germany and her allies in the countries which they occupied.2 However, reparation has to be made under the Armistices and Treaties of Peace. Thus Germany must effect 'restitution in cash of cash taken away, seized or sequestrated, and also restitution of animals, objects of every nature, and securities taken away, seized, or sequestrated, in the cases in which it proves possible to identify them in territory belonging to Germany or her allies,'3 and pay compensation for 'damage in respect of all property wherever situated belonging to any of the Allied or Associated States or their nationals (with the exception of naval and military works or materials) which has been carried off, seized, injured, or destroyed by the acts of Germany or her allies.' 4 on the § 144. Private enemy property on the battlefield Booty is no longer in every case an object of booty.5 Arms, Battle horses, and military papers may indeed be appropriated, field even if they are private property, as may also private means of transport, such as carts and other vehicles which an enemy has made use of. But letters, cash, jewellery, and other articles of value found upon the dead, wounded, and prisoners must, according to Article 14 of the Hague Regulations and Article 4 of the Geneva Convention, be handed over to the Bureau of Information regarding Prisoners of War, which must Cash 1 See Garner, ii. § 399. was also apparently taken by the Russians from private banks during their occupation of Lemberg; see Cybichowski in Z.I., xxvi. (1916), at p. 470. See also below, § 147. See also the account of the removal by the Russians of valuables, pictures, and other property from Lemberg during their occupation given by Cybichowski in Z.I., xxvi. (1916), at pp. 445, 468. Article 238. Article 244, Annex 1. See above, § 139, and Article 4 of Private into a gerent's transmit them to those interested. Through Article 14 of the Hague Regulations and Article 4 of the Geneva Convention it becomes apparent that nowadays private enemy property found on the battlefield, other than military papers, arms, horses, and the like, is no longer booty, although individual soldiers often take as much spoil as they can get. It is impossible for the commander to bring the offender to justice in every case.1 § 145. Such is the position of private property found Property by a belligerent on enemy territory; different, however, brought is the case of enemy private property brought into the Belli- territory of a belligerent during war. Since such proTerritory. perty found there at the outbreak of war may not be confiscated, and private property found on enemy territory is nowadays likewise, as a rule, exempt from confiscation, there can be no doubt that private enemy property brought into a belligerent's territory during time of war may not, as a rule, be confiscated.3 On the other hand, a belligerent may prohibit the withdrawal of articles of property which can be used by the enemy for military purposes, such as arms, ammunition, provisions, and the like. And by analogy with Article 53 of the Hague Regulations, there can be no doubt that a belligerent may seize such articles and use them for military purposes, provided that he restores them at the conclusion of peace and pays compensation for them. 1 During the Russo-Japanese War, Japan carried out to the letter the stipulation of Article 14 of the Hague Regulations. Through the intermediary of the French Embassies in Tokio and St. Petersburg, all valuables found on the Russian dead and seized by the Japanese were handed over to the Russian Government. 2 See above, § 102. The case of enemy merchantmen seized in a belligerent's territorial waters is, of course, an exception, as is also the case of enemy goods found by a belligerent on one of his own merchantmen and seized in one of his ports. See above, § 102, and below, §§ 177 n., 197 n. VII REQUISITIONS AND CONTRIBUTIONS Vattel, iii. § 165-Hall, § 140-140*-Lawrence, § 180-Westlake, ii. pp. 106113-Maine, p. 200-Twiss, ii. § 64-Halleck, ii. pp. 68-70-Taylor, §§ 538-539-Moore, vii. § 1146-Bluntschli, §§ 653-655-Heffter, § 131Lueder in Holtzendorff, iv. pp. 500-510-Ullmann, § 183-Bonfils, Nos. 1207-1226-Despagnet, Nos. 587-590-Pradier-Fodéré, vii. Nos. 30483064-Rivier, ii. pp. 324-327-Nys, iii. pp. 328-392-Calvo, iv. §§ 22312284-Fiore, iii. Nos. 1394, 1473-1476, and Code, Nos. 1565, 1614-1620 -Martens, ii. § 120-Longuet, §§ 110-114-Mérignhac, iii". pp. 427-459 -Pillet, pp. 215-235-Zorn, pp. 283-315-Kriegsbrauch, pp. 61-63Holland, War, Nos. 111-112-Bordwell, pp. 314-324-Meurer, ii. §§ 5664-Spaight, pp. 381-408-Ariga, §§ 116-122-Garner, ii. §§ 387-394, and in A.J., xi. (1917), pp. 74-112-Land Warfare, §§ 416-425-Thomas, Des Requisitions militaires (1884)-Keller, Requisition und Kontribution (1898)-Pont, Les Réquisitions militaires du Temps de Guerre (1905)— Albrecht, Requisitionen von neutralem Privateigentum, etc. (1912), pp. 1-24—Gregory, Contributions and Requisitions in War (1915)—Borchard, § 105-Ferrand, Des Réquisitions en matière de Droit international public (1917)-Risley in the Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation, New Ser. ii. (1900), pp. 214-223. War. § 146. Requisitions and contributions in war are war must the outcome of the eternal principle that war must support support war.1 This means that every belligerent may make his enemy pay, as far as possible, for the continuation of the war. But this principle, though it is as old as war, and will only die with war itself, has not the same effect in modern times on the actions of belligerents as it formerly had. For thousands of years, belligerents used to appropriate all private and public enemy property they could obtain, and, when modern International Law grew up, this practice found legal sanction. But after the end of the seventeenth century, this practice grew milder, under the influence of the experience that the provisioning of armies in enemy territory became more or less impossible when the inhabitants were treated according to the old principle. 1 Concerning the controversy as and contributions, see Albrecht, op. to the justification of requisitions cit., pp. 18-21, Although belligerents retained, in strict law, the right to appropriate all private as well as all public property, it became usual to abstain from enforcing this right, and in lieu thereof to impose contributions of cash and requisitions in kind upon the inhabitants of the invaded country. When this usage developed, no belligerent ever thought of paying in cash for requisitions, or giving a receipt for them. But in the nineteenth century another practice became usual; and commanders often gave a receipt for contributions and requisitions, in order to avoid abuse, and to prevent further demands for fresh contributions and requisitions by succeeding commanders without knowledge of the former impositions. And there are cases during the nineteenth century on record in which belligerents actually paid in cash for all requisitions they made. The usual practice at the end of the nineteenth century was that commanders always gave a receipt for contributions, and that they either paid in cash for requisitions, or acknowledged them by receipt, so that the inhabitants could be indemnified by their own Government after conclusion of peace. However, no restriction whatever was imposed upon commanders with regard to the amount of contributions and requisitions, or with regard to the proportion between the resources of a country and the burden imposed. The Hague Regulations made a progressive settlement of the question by enacting rules which put it wholly on a new basis. That war must support war remains a principle under these regulations also. But they were widely influenced by the demand that the enemy State as such, and not the private enemy individuals, should be made to support the war, and that 1 An excellent sketch of the historical development of the practice of requisitions and contributions is given by Keller, Requisition und Kontribution (1898), pp. 5-26. only so far as the necessities of war demanded it, should contributions and requisitions be imposed. Although, therefore, certain public moveable property and the produce of public immoveables may be appropriated as heretofore,1 requisitions must be paid for in cash or, if this is impossible, acknowledged by receipt. tions in ing. § 147. Requisition is the name for the demand for Requisithe supply of all kinds of articles necessary for an Kind, and army, such as provisions for men and horses, clothing, Quarteror means of transport. Requisition of certain services may also be made, but they will be treated 2 together with occupation, requisitions in kind only being within the scope of this section. Now, what articles may be demanded by an army cannot once for all be laid down, as they depend upon its actual needs. According to Article 52 of the Hague Regulations, requisitions may be made from municipalities as well as from inhabitants, but so far only as they are really necessary for the army.3 They may not be made by individual soldiers or officers, but only by the commander in the locality. All requisitions must be paid for in cash, and if this is impossible, they must be acknowledged by receipt, and the payment of the amount must be made as soon as possible. The principle that requisitions must be paid for by the enemy is thereby 4 1 See above, §§ 134, 137. * See below, § 170. 3 Article 52 was entirely ignored by the Germans while they occupied Belgium and part of France during the World War, for they made requisitions, not only for the needs of the army of occupation, but for the needs of Germany in general. See details in Ferrand, op. cit., pp. 434-444, and Garner, ii. §§ 393, who concludes that as the blockade of Germany became more effective, and her own domestic stocks of raw materials were reduced, the policy of requisition in the occupied territories was pushed to the extreme limit. By VOL. II. the spring of 1918 it appears to have See Garner, ii. § 393, who quotes |