Transfer of Property in Enemy Occupied Territory

International law was no more prepared for the dynamics of the present war than was the Maginot school of military strategy. International lawyers had given little serious thought to the legal problems which total war would bring. Consequently, while international arrangements were concluded on special questions (e.g. on aerial warfare), the main body of the 1907 Hague Convention, including the section dealing with military occupation,remained unchanged. Military occupation was still conceived of as a temporary phenomenon with limited objectives. But totalitarian warfare as waged by the Axis powers has had unlimited objectives, aimed at nothing less than the complete political and economic subjugation of the occupied territory. In practice the enemy has recognized no restraints of either law or custom save the threat of immediate retaliation. Far from “respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country,” as the Hague regulations require, the Axis has systematically destroyed the political and legal order in the occupied territories. It has substituted quislings in the place of duly constituted local authorities, and has employed them for economic as well as political ends

Adversary · Convention · Economics · International humanitarian law · International law · Nothing · Order (exchange · Phenomenon · Political science · Politics · Property (philosophy · International Law and Aviation · International Law and Human Rights · Law · Philosophy

• The Protection of the Right to Property in Occupied Territories

  Open Access•Loukis G Loucaides•International and Comparative Law…•2004

  Add to list

• Trading with the Enemy in World War II

  Martin Domke•Harvard Law Review•1944

  Add to list