Practice Relating to Rule 51. Public and Private Property in Occupied Territory
Section B. Immovable public property in occupied territory
Quick navigation
Hague Regulations (1899)
Article 55 of the 1899 Hague Regulations provides:
The occupying State shall only be regarded as administrator and usufructuary of the public buildings, real property, 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 usufruct. 
Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, annexed to Convention (II) with Respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 29 July 1899, Article 55.

Hague Regulations (1907)
Article 55 of the 1907 Hague Regulations provides:
The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied territory. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct. 
Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, annexed to Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907, Article 55.

Geneva Convention IV
Article 53 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides:
Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or co-operative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations. 
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 53.

Back to top
Lieber Code
Article 31 of the 1863 Lieber Code provides:
A victorious army … sequesters for its own benefit or of that of its government all the revenues of real property belonging to the hostile government or nation. The title to such real property remains in abeyance during military occupation, and until the conquest is made complete. 
Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, prepared by Francis Lieber, promulgated as General Order No. 100 by President Abraham Lincoln, Washington D.C., 24 April 1863, Article 31.

Brussels Declaration
Article 7 of the 1874 Brussels Declaration provides:
The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied territory. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct. 
Project of an International Declaration concerning the Laws and Customs of War, Brussels, 27 August 1874, Article 7.

Oxford Manual
Article 52 of the 1880 Oxford Manual provides:
C. Rules of Conduct with Regard to Property
(a) Public property
Although the occupant replaces the enemy State in the government of the invaded territory, his power is not absolute. So long as the fate of this territory remains in suspense – that is, until peace – the occupant is not free to dispose of what still belongs to the enemy and is not of use in military operation. Hence the following rules:

Art. 52. The occupant can only act in the capacity of provisional administrator in respect to real property, such as buildings, forests, agricultural establishments, belonging to the enemy State (Article 6). It must safeguard the capital of these properties and see to their maintenance. 
The Laws of War on Land, adopted by the Institute of International Law, Oxford, 9 September 1880, C(a) and Article 52.

Inter-Allied Declaration against Acts of Dispossession
The 1943 Inter-Allied Declaration against Acts of Dispossession provides: “It is important to leave no doubt whatsoever of their [the authors of the Declaration] resolution not to accept or tolerate the misdeeds of their enemies in the field of property, however these may be cloaked.” 
Inter-Allied Declaration against Acts of Dispossession Committed in Territories under Enemy Occupation or Control, as agreed between the Union of South Africa, United States of America, Australia, Belgium, Canada, China, Czechoslovak Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Greece, India, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Yugoslavia, and the French National Committee, London, 5 January 1943, also known as the London Declaration.

Back to top
Argentina
Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1969) provides:
The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied territory. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct. 
Argentina, Leyes de Guerra, RC-46-1, Público, II Edición 1969, Ejército Argentino, Edición original aprobado por el Comandante en Jefe del Ejército, 9 May 1967, § 5.014(1).

Australia
Australia’s Defence Force Manual (1994) states that, in occupied areas, “enemy public immovable property may be administered and used but it may not be confiscated”. 
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, § 1225.

Australia’s LOAC Manual (2006) states that, in occupied areas, “[e]nemy public immovable property may be administered and used but it may not be confiscated”. 
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 12.48.

The manual also states:
Military land and buildings belonging to the state, such as supply depots, arsenals, dockyards and barracks, as well as airfields, ports, railways, canals, bridges, piers, and their associated installations, remain at the disposal of the occupying power until the end of the occupation. The occupying power is liable for any waste or destruction resulting from such use. Structures of this type may only be destroyed or damaged if military operations render this absolutely necessary. 
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 12.46.

The LOAC Manual (2006) replaces both the Defence Force Manual (1994) and the Commanders’ Guide (1994).
Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) provides that, in occupied territory:
Enemy public immovable property may be administered and used but it may not be confiscated.

Real property belonging to the State which is essentially of a civil or non-military character, such as public buildings and offices, land, forests, parks, farms, and mines, may not be damaged unless their destruction is imperatively demanded by the exigencies of war. The occupant becomes the administrator of the property and is liable to use the property, but must not exercise its rights in such a wasteful or negligent way as will decrease its value. The occupant has no right of disposal or sale.
Public real property which is of an essentially military nature such as airfields and arsenals remain at the absolute disposal of the occupant. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 12-8, § 69 and p. 12-9, §§ 80 and 81.

Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states in its chapter on rights and duties of occupying powers:
1238. Confiscation
1. Confiscation is the taking of enemy public movable property without the obligation to compensate the state to which it belongs. All enemy public movable property which may be usable for military operations may be confiscated. Private property may not be confiscated. Enemy public immovable property may be administered and used but it may not be confiscated.

1243. Real Property of the State
1. Real property belonging to the State which is essentially of a civil or non-military character, such as public buildings and offices, land, forests, parks, farms, and mines, may not be damaged unless their destruction is imperatively demanded by the exigencies of war. The occupant becomes the administrator of the property and is able to use the property, but must not exercise its rights in such a wasteful or negligent way as will decrease its value. The occupant has no right of disposal or sale.
2. Public real property, which is of an essentially military nature such as airfields and arsenals remain at the absolute disposal of the occupant. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, §§ 1238 and 1243.

Germany
Germany’s Military Manual (1992) provides: “Immovable government property may only be requisitioned but not confiscated … The title to this property shall not pass to the occupying state. Upon termination of the war, the items and real estate seized shall be restored.” 
Germany, Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts – Manual, DSK VV207320067, edited by The Federal Ministry of Defence of the Federal Republic of Germany, VR II 3, August 1992, English translation of ZDv 15/2, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Handbuch, August 1992, § 557.

Italy
Italy’s IHL Manual (1991) states:
All immovable property and factories located in occupied territory and belonging to the enemy public administration pass into the possession of the occupying State which, however, becomes only the administrator and usufructuary. 
Italy, Manuale di diritto umanitario, Introduzione e Volume I, Usi e convenzioni di Guerra, SMD-G-014, Stato Maggiore della Difesa, I Reparto, Ufficio Addestramento e Regolamenti, Rome, 1991, Vol. I, § 42.

Mexico
Mexico’s Army and Air Force Manual (2009) states:
The occupying power is prohibited from destroying … property belonging … to … the State and other public authorities and social and cooperative organizations, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations. 
Mexico, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para el Ejército y la Fuerza Área Mexicanos, Ministry of National Defence, June 2009, § 236.

New Zealand
New Zealand’s Military Manual (1992) provides that, in the case of occupied territory:
Enemy public immovable property may be administered and used but it may not be confiscated.

Real property belonging to the State which is essentially of a civil or non-military character, such as public buildings and offices, land, forests, parks, farms, and mines, may not be damaged unless its destruction is imperatively demanded by the exigencies of war. The Occupying Power becomes the administrator and usufructuary of the property and must not exercise its rights in such a wasteful or negligent way as will decrease the property’s value. A usufructuary has no right of disposal or sale.
The Occupying Power may, however, let or utilize public land and buildings, sell the crops on public land, cut and sell timber and work the mines but he must not make a contract or lease extending beyond the conclusion of the war and the cutting or mining must not exceed what is necessary or usual. It must not constitute abusive exploitation.
Public real property which is of an essentially military nature such as airfields and arsenals remain at the absolute disposal of the Occupying Power. 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, §§ 1336 and 1341.

Nigeria
Nigeria’s Manual on the Laws of War provides:
Real property of military character belonging to the enemy State, such as fortifications, dockyards, railways and bridges, remains at the absolute disposal of the occupant until the end of the war. Such property may be destroyed if absolutely necessary for military operations.
Real property of a non-military character belonging to the enemy state such as public buildings, forests, parks and mines should not be damaged or destroyed unless it is imperatively demanded by the exigencies of war.

The temporary use of real property for military purposes during a combat operation is justified, although such use may diminish the value of the property. 
Nigeria, The Laws of War, by Lt. Col. L. Ode PSC, Nigerian Army, Lagos, undated, §§ 27 and 28.

Philippines
The Joint Circular on Adherence to IHL and Human Rights (1991) of the Philippines provides: “Members of the AFP [Armed Forces of the Philippines] and PNP [Philippine National Police] shall inhibit themselves from unnecessary military/police actions that could cause destruction to … public properties.” 
Philippines, Implementation Guidelines for Presidential Memorandum Order No. 393, dated 9 September 1991, Directing the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippines National Police to Reaffirm their Adherence to the Principles of Humanitarian Law and Human Rights in the Conduct of Security/Police Operations, Joint Circular Number 2-91, Department of National Defense, Department of Interior and Local Government, 1991, 2a(4).

Russian Federation
The Russian Federation’s Regulations on the Application of IHL (2001) states in its chapter on the behaviour of forces in occupied territory: “Any destruction of property belonging … to the state or to the public authorities is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered necessary by military operations.” 
Russian Federation, Regulations on the Application of International Humanitarian Law by the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation, Moscow, 8 August 2001, § 76.

Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (2007) states: “Immovable public property. The occupying power may administrate it in accordance with the rules of usufruct.” 
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Tomo 1, Publicación OR7–004, (Edición Segunda), Mando de Adiestramiento y Doctrina, Dirección de Doctrina, Orgánica y Materiales, 2 November 2007, § 2.7.c.(4).

Switzerland
Switzerland’s Basic Military Manual (1987) provides: The occupying State shall only be considered as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the enemy State, and situated in the occupied territory.” 
Switzerland, Lois et coutumes de la guerre (Extrait et commentaire), Règlement 51.7/II f, Armée Suisse, 1987, Article 169.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK Military Manual (1958) provides that, once a defended locality has surrendered, “it is not permissible to burn public buildings … in such a place merely because it was defended”. 
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 287.

The manual also states:
Real property belonging to the State which is of a military character, such as strong points, arsenals, dockyards, magazines, barracks and stores, as well as railways, canals, bridges, piers, and wharves, airfields and their installations, remains at the absolute disposal of the Occupant until the end of the war. Such buildings may, however, be damaged or destroyed only when such acts are rendered absolutely necessary by military operations …
Real property belonging to the State which is essentially of a civil or non-military character, such as public buildings and offices, land, forests, parks, farms, and mines, may not be damaged unless their destruction is imperatively demanded by the exigencies of war. The Occupant becomes the administrator and usufructuary of the property, but he must not exercise his rights in such a wasteful or negligent way as will decrease its value. He has no right of disposal or sale.

The Occupant may, however, let or utilize public land and buildings, sell the crops on public land, cut and sell timber and work the mines. But he must not make a contract or lease extending beyond the conclusion of the war, and the cutting or mining must not exceed what is necessary or usual. It must not constitute abusive exploitation. 
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, §§ 608–610.

The UK LOAC Manual (2004) states:
Military land and buildings
11.85. Military land and buildings belonging to the state, such as supply depots, arsenals, dockyards and barracks, as well as airfields, ports, railways, canals, bridges, piers, and their associated installations, remain at the disposal of the occupying power until the end of the conflict. Structures of this type may only be destroyed or damaged if that is imperatively demanded by military operations.
Civilian land and buildings
11.86 Land and buildings that belong to the state but that are essentially civilian or non-military in character, such as public buildings, land, forests, parks, farms and coal mines, may not be damaged or destroyed unless that is imperatively necessitated by military operations. The occupying power is the administrator, user and, in a sense, guardian of the property. It must not waste, neglect or abusively exploit these assets so as to decrease their value. The occupying power has no right of disposal or sale but may let or use public land and buildings, sell crops, cut and sell timber and work mines. It must not enter into commitments extending beyond the conclusion of the occupation and the cutting or mining must not exceed what is necessary or usual.
Land and buildings of local authorities
11.87. Exceptionally, the property of local authorities (including, for example, that of provincial, county, municipal and parochial authorities) is treated as if it were private. Similarly, property of institutions dedicated to religion, charity, education, art and science is also treated as private property, even if it belongs to the state. The seizure, destruction or damage of such property, historic monuments and works of art or science is forbidden.
11.87.1. Examples of buildings in this latter category include places of worship, alms-houses, hospitals, schools, museums and libraries. If it is cultural property, it is protected anyway. Use of property mentioned in paragraph 11.87 for other, humanitarian purposes, such as the treatment of the wounded and sick in a church, is quite proper if suitable alternative accommodation cannot be found. Cultural property is not to be used for military purposes. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, §§ 11.85–11.87.1.

United States of America
The US Field Manual (1956) provides that, in the case of occupied territory:
Valid capture or seizure of property requires both an intent to take such action and a physical act of capture or seizure. The mere presence within occupied territory of property which is subject to appropriation under international law does not operate to vest title thereto in the occupant.

The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct.

Real property of a State which is of direct military use, such as forts, arsenals, dockyards, magazines, barracks, railways, bridges, piers, wharves, airfields, and other military facilities, remains in the hands of the occupant until the close of the war, and may be destroyed or damaged, if deemed necessary to military operations.

Real property of the enemy State which is essentially of a non-military nature, such as public buildings and offices, land, forests, parks, farms, and mines, may not be damaged or destroyed unless such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations … The occupant does not have the right of sale or unqualified use of such property. As administrator, or usufructuary, he should not exercise his rights in such a wasteful and negligent manner as seriously to impair its value. He may, however, lease or utilize public lands or buildings, sell the crops, cut and sell timber, and work the mines. The term of a lease or contract should not extend beyond the conclusion of the war. 
United States, Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare, US Department of the Army, 18 July 1956, as modified by Change No. 1, 15 July 1976, §§ 395 and 400-402.

Back to top
Australia
Australia’s Criminal Code Act (1995), as amended in 2007, states with respect to war crimes that are committed in the course of an international armed conflict:
268.51 War crime – destroying or seizing the enemy’s property
(1) A person (the perpetrator) commits an offence if:
(a) the perpetrator destroys or seizes certain property; and
(b) the property is property of an adverse party; and
(c) the property is protected from the destruction or seizure under article 18 of the Third Geneva Convention, article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention or article 54 of Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions; and
(d) the perpetrator knows of, or is reckless as to, the factual circumstances that establish that the property is so protected; and
(e) the destruction or seizure is not justified by military necessity; and
(f) the perpetrator’s conduct takes place in the context of, and is associated with, an international armed conflict.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 15 years.
(2) Strict liability applies to paragraph (1)(c). 
Australia, Criminal Code Act, 1995, as amended on 1 November 2007, taking into account amendments up to Act No. 177 of 2007, Chapter 8, § 268.51, p. 335.

Colombia
Colombia’s Military Penal Code (1999) provides for a prison sentence for “anyone who, during military service and without proper cause, destroys … public property”. 
Colombia, Military Penal Code, 1999, Article 174.

Denmark
Denmark’s Military Criminal Code (1973), as amended in 1978, provides:
Any person who uses war instruments or procedures the application of which violates an international agreement entered into by Denmark or the general rules of international law, shall be liable to the same penalty [i.e. a fine, lenient imprisonment or up to 12 years’ imprisonment]. 
Denmark, Military Criminal Code, 1973, as amended in 1978, § 25(1).

Denmark’s Military Criminal Code (2005) provides:
Any person who deliberately uses war means [“krigsmiddel”] or procedures the application of which violates an international agreement entered into by Denmark or international customary law, shall be liable to the same penalty [i.e. imprisonment up to life imprisonment]. 
Denmark, Military Criminal Code, 2005, § 36(2).

Georgia
Georgia’s Law on Occupied Territories (2008) states:
Article 5. Property Rights to Real Estate in the Occupied Territories
1. Any transaction related to real estate property and concluded in violation of Georgian law shall be deemed void from the moment of conclusion and shall not give rise to any legal consequences.
2. The right to property is protected in the Occupied Territories and is regulated by the laws of Georgia.
Article 6. Limitation of Economic Activities in the Occupied Territories
1. The following types of activities shall be prohibited in the Occupied Territories:

d) Use of national resources. 
Georgia, Law on Occupied Territories, 2008, Articles 5 and 6(1)(d).

Italy
Italy’s Law of War Decree (1938) states that, in occupied territory “the [occupying] State may only be the administrator and usufructuary of immovable property and factories located in occupied territory and belonging to the enemy public administration”. 
Italy, Law of War Decree, 1938, Article 59.

Spain
Spain’s Penal Code (1995), as amended in 2010, states:
1. Anyone who in the event of an armed conflict commits or orders to be committed any of the following acts shall be punished with four to six years’ imprisonment:

h. Improperly or unnecessarily seizing … immovable property in occupied territory …

2. … In all other cases mentioned in the above article, the higher sentence can be imposed when extensive and important destructions are caused to the property, objects or installations or [the acts] are of extreme gravity. 
Spain, Penal Code, 1995, as amended on 23 June 2010, Article 613(1)(h) and (2).

Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of
The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s Criminal Offences against the Nation and State Act (1945) considers that, during war or enemy occupation, “any person who … ordered or committed arson, destruction … of … public property [or] … any … building or … any water supply system, public warehouse or any public property” committed war crimes. 
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Criminal Offences against the Nation and State Act, 1945, Article 3(3) and (13).

Back to top
Poland
In the Greiser case before Poland’s Supreme National Tribunal in 1946, the accused, a governor and gauleiter of the Nazi party for provinces incorporated in the German Reich, was charged with war crimes for having incited, assisted in the commission of, and committed, inter alia, acts of illegal seizure of public property in violation of Article 55 of the 1907 Hague Regulations. Notably, the accused was indicted for having taken part in “extortion and appropriation … of all public property in the territories in question”. 
Poland, Supreme National Tribunal, Greiser case, Judgment, 7 July 1946.

United States of America
In the Flick case before the US Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1947, the accused, the principal proprietor of a large group of German industrial enterprises (and four officials of the same group), which included coal and iron mines and steel producing plants, was charged with war crimes, inter alia, for offences against property in the countries and territories occupied by Germany. Flick was found guilty on this count of the indictment. The Tribunal quoted, inter alia, Article 55 of the 1907 Hague Regulations. With reference to the plants located in Ukraine and Latvia and regarded as State property, the Tribunal found:
The Dnjepr Stahl plant had been used for armament production by the Russians. The other was devoted principally to production of railroad cars and equipment. No single one of the Hague Regulations … is exactly in point, but adopting the method used by the I.M.T., we deduce from all of them, considered as a whole, the principle that State-owned property of this character may be seized and operated for the benefit of the belligerent occupant for the duration of the occupancy. The attempt of the German Government to seize them as the property of the Reich of course was not effective. Title was not acquired nor could it be conveyed by the German Government. The occupant, however, had a usufructuary privilege. Property which the Government itself could have operated for its benefit could also legally be operated by a trustee. We regard as immaterial Flick’s purpose ultimately to acquire title. To covet is a sin under the Decalogue but not a violation of the Hague Regulations nor a war crime.

The conclusion follows that, wherever the occupying power acts or holds itself out as owner of the public property owned by the occupied country, Article 55 [of the 1907 Hague Regulations] is violated. The same applies if the occupying power or its agents who took possession of public buildings or factories or plants, assert ownership, remove equipment of machinery, and ship it to their own country, or make any other use of the property which is incompatible with usufruct. 
United States, Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, Flick case, Judgment, 22 December 1947.

In the Krupp case before the US Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1948, the accused, officials of the Krupp industrial enterprises occupying high positions in political, financial, industrial and economic circles in Germany, were charged with war crimes, inter alia, for the destruction and removal of property, and the seizure of machinery, equipment, raw materials and other property. The Tribunal quoted Article 55 of the 1907 Hague Regulations. It also stated that it “fully concurs with the Judgement of the I.M.T. that the [1907 Hague Convention (IV)], to which Germany was a party, had by 1939 become customary law and was, therefore, binding on Germany not only as Treaty Law but also as Customary Law”. 
United States, Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, Krupp case, Judgment, 30 June 1948.

In the Krauch case (The I.G. Farben Trial) before the US Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1948, the accused, officials of I.G. Farben Industrie A.G., were charged, inter alia, with war crimes for offences against property in countries and territories which came under the belligerent occupation of Germany. The charges were regarded as violations of, inter alia, Article 55 of the 1907 Hague Regulations. Some of the accused were convicted on this count. The Tribunal held:
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.

[I]t is illustrative of the view that offences against property of the character described in the [1943 Inter-Allied Declaration against Acts of Dispossession] were considered by the signatory powers to constitute action in violation of existing international law. 
United States, Military Tribunal in Nuremberg, Krauch case (The I.G. Farben Trial), Judgment, 29 July 1948.

Back to top
Iraq
On the basis of a reply by Iraq’s Ministry of Defence to a questionnaire, the Report on the Practice of Iraq states that strict measures should be taken to protect cities that fall under the control of armed forces, including measures to protect and ensure the safety of public property. 
Report on the Practice of Iraq, 1998, Reply by the Ministry of Defence to a questionnaire, July 1997, Chapter 2.3.

Israel
Israel’s IDF General Staff Order No. 50.0303 of 1977 states:
Definitions
1. In this Order:
Occupied Territory – Territory outside the borders of State of Israel that was in enemy hands and passed to IDF [Israel Defense Forces] control.
Area Commander – Territory for which the IDF appointed a military governor – the Military Governor. Territory for which no Military Governor was appointed – the Commander of the division whose forces are holding or securing said territory.
Seizure of property – taking over the property, including right of ownership.
Possession of property – taking over administration of property, including using it and benefiting from its produce, without having full ownership.
Land – Land of any kind and any form of possession, buildings, trees or anything else connected to the ground, such as orchards or railroads.
Movable property – Any property that is not land.
Abandoned property – Privately owned land or movable property, whose owner is unknown or had left the occupied area before the occupation or because of it.
General
2. This Order defines the powers of the military authorities regarding enemy property located in occupied territory. This Order does not relate to enemy property on the battlefield. That subject is detailed in General Staff Order 50.0301.
3. To remove all doubt, it should be clear that the provisions of this Order also apply to the police force, when operating under the command of the army owing to call up for reserve duty, or for a military or other type of mission.
4. No land or movable property in occupied territory may be seized or possessed or used without the consent of the owner unless it is necessary for the purposes of war and if allowed by the provisions of this Order.
5. When exercising his powers as per this Order, the Area Commander will take into account the needs of the civilian population of the occupied territory, and will ensure the availability of a supply of food and medical supplies.
6. The Area Commander will not exercise his powers as per this Order, except after consultation with the highest Quartermaster level in the occupied territory (representative of the General Staff-Logistic Branch, or of the command or division Quartermaster. If there is no such representative – the Formation Maintenance Officer, whose forces are in the area or are securing it).
7. In the event of doubt about the status of the property, the military legal adviser of the governing forces must be consulted before exercising powers, as per this Order, and if the governing headquarters are not yet established, with the appropriate Command Advocate.
8. No negotiations will be held with a civilian third party over compensation for property that has been seized or possessed or made use of as per this Order and no confirmations or statements will be offered to any civilian third party, except in accordance with the provisions of this Order.
9. All Commanders must ensure that their subordinates act as follows:
a. They will not commit acts of looting.
b. They will comply with the provisions of this Order and not abuse the powers it grants.
c. They shall not misuse the property covered by this Order.
10. This Order does not detract from what is stated in General Staff Order 33.0133 (Discipline – behavior in accordance with international treaties to which the State of Israel is party), rather supplements it.
11. General Staff – Logistics Branch may appoint a Commander of the Logistic Command or any other position with regard to occupied territory and grant him power to seize and take possession and give instructions regarding use of property, as specified in this command.
12. If a unit has seized land as per this Order, it will report immediately to the appropriate Command Lands Officer who will inform the Building Center and the General Staff-Logistic Branch. The latter will notify those concerned whether or not it had approved the seizure of the land.
13. The provisions of this Order shall deal with four types of property:
a. State-owned lands
b. Privately owned lands
c. State-owned movable property
d. Privately owned movable property
14. For the purpose of this Order, the movable property and lands will be considered state-owned also if owned by a corporation, where the state has shares granting it control over it or its assets or if it has the right to administer it.
State-owned land
15. Once the territory has been occupied, possession of land owned by the enemy whose territory has been occupied is transferred to the IDF, and the IDF is responsible for the administration and maintenance of the lands. The right to ownership of the land remains, however, in the hands of the enemy state.
16. As soon as possible after taking office, the Military Governor will conduct a list of lands under the ownership of the occupied state, indicating their nature, place and condition, and will send the list to the Lands Officer of the appropriate Command, who will coordinate the lists and hand them over to the General Staff-Logistic Branch. If it is not necessary or practical to register all the lands of the occupied state, the General Staff-Logistic Branch can order certain types of lands not included in the mentioned list.
17. The General Staff-Logistic Branch will instruct each Lands Commander about the modes of handling the lands owned by the enemy state.
18. The Area Commander may permit the IDF forces in the area temporary use of lands as mentioned above, for storage, storing or hospitalization or for operational purposes. Any other use of the land as mentioned above requires the approval of General Staff-Logistic Branch.
19.
a. The provisions of this paragraph do not apply to lands in the occupied area that belong to institutions dedicated to religion, charity, education, art, science or hospitalization, even if the land is owned by the state (such as churches, mosques, schools, homes for disabled and hospitals) as well as local authorities’ lands.
b. For the purpose of this Order, all assets listed in this paragraph shall be considered private property: i.e. possession of this property is not automatically transferred to the IDF and they should be treated as stated in paragraphs 20 to 25 below.
c. Such lands must be especially protected from any damage.

Obligations regarding enemy property
38. Whoever has acquired seized property, which is held or given for temporary use as per this Order, must take all measures to prevent breakage, damage or loss of the a/m property.
39. Destruction of property as mentioned above or use that compromises its integrity, are permitted only if military necessity so requires. 
Israel, IDF General Staff Order No. 50.0303, Seizure of enemy property in occupied territory, 15 July 77, §§ 1–19 and 38–39.

United States of America
In 1992, in its final report to Congress on the conduct of the Gulf War, the US Department of Defense stated:
In violation of [the 1907 Hague Regulations] … public (municipal and national) property was confiscated … [I]mmovable national public property may be temporarily confiscated under the concept of usufruct – the right to use another’s property so long as it is not damaged.

Specific Iraqi war crimes include:

– Illegal confiscation/inadequate safeguarding of Kuwaiti public property, in violation of Article 55 [of the 1907 Hague Regulations] …
– In its intentional release of oil into the Persian Gulf and its sabotage of the Al-Burqan and Ar-Rumaylah oil fields in Kuwait, unnecessary destruction in violation of [Article] 55 [of the 1907 Hague Regulations]. 
United States, Department of Defense, Final Report to Congress on the Conduct of the Persian Gulf War, 10 April 1992, Appendix O, The Role of the Law of War, ILM, Vol. 31, 1992, pp. 620, 634 and 635; see also p. 633.

Back to top
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, the UN General Assembly:
Expressing deep concern about the extensive destruction caused by the Israeli occupying forces, including the destruction of homes and properties, of religious, cultural and historical sites, of vital infrastructure and institutions of the Palestinian Authority, and of agricultural land throughout Palestinian cities, towns, villages and refugee camps. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 58/99, 9 December 2003, preamble, voting record: 150-6-19-16.

In a resolution adopted in 2003 on permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources, the UN General Assembly:
Reaffirming the principle of the permanent sovereignty of peoples under foreign occupation over their natural resources;

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the population of the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources, including land and water;
2. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, not to exploit, cause loss or depletion of or endanger the natural resources in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 58/229, 23 December 2003, preamble and §§ 1–2, voting record: 157-4-10-20.

In a resolution adopted in 2004 on Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, the UN General Assembly:
Expressing deep concern about the extensive destruction caused by the Israeli occupying forces, including of religious, cultural and historical sites, of vital infrastructure and institutions of the Palestinian Authority, and of agricultural land throughout Palestinian cities, towns, villages and refugee camps. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 59/124, 10 December 2004, preamble, voting record: 149-7-22-13.

In a resolution adopted in 2004 on permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources, the UN General Assembly:
Reaffirming the principle of the permanent sovereignty of peoples under foreign occupation over their natural resources;

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the population of the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources, including land and water;
2. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, not to exploit, damage, cause loss or depletion of or endanger the natural resources in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 59/251, 22 December 2004, preamble and §§ 1–2, voting record: 156-5-11-19.

In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine, the UN General Assembly expressed its concern over “the widespread destruction of public and private Palestinian property and infrastructure”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 60/39, 1 December 2005, preamble, voting record: 156-6-9-20.

In a resolution adopted in 2005 on permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources, the UN General Assembly:
Reaffirming the principle of the permanent sovereignty of peoples under foreign occupation over their natural resources,

Expressing its concern at the exploitation by Israel, the occupying Power, of the natural resources of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967,

2. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, not to exploit, damage, cause loss or depletion of, or endanger the natural resources in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 60/183, 22 December 2005, preamble and § 2, voting record: 156-6-8-21.

In a resolution adopted in 2005 on Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, the UN General Assembly expressed deep concern about “the continuing detrimental impact of the extensive destruction caused by the Israeli occupying forces, including … of vital infrastructure and institutions of the Palestinian Authority”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 60/107, 8 December 2005, preamble, voting record: 148-7-17-19.

In a resolution adopted in 2006 on operations of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, the UN General Assembly stated it was:
Gravely concerned about the extremely difficult living conditions being faced by the Palestine refugees in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, particularly in the refugee camps in the Gaza Strip, resulting, inter alia, from the loss of life and injury, the extensive destruction of their shelters, properties and vital infrastructure and the displacement of the Palestine refugees. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 61/114, 14 December 2006, preamble, voting record: 169-6-8-9.

In a resolution adopted in 2006 on Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, the UN General Assembly:
Expressing grave concern about the continuing systematic violation of the human rights of the Palestinian people by Israel, the occupying Power, including that arising from … the destruction of property and infrastructure,
Expressing deep concern about the vast destruction caused by the Israeli occupying forces, including of religious, cultural and historical sites, of vital infrastructure and institutions of the Palestinian Authority, and of agricultural land throughout Palestinian cities, towns, villages and refugee camps …

3. Condemns … the excessive use of force by the Israeli occupying forces against Palestinian civilians, resulting in extensive loss of life and vast numbers of injuries, including among children, massive destruction of homes, properties, agricultural lands and vital infrastructure, …

11. Emphasizes the need to preserve the Palestinian institutions and infrastructure for the provision of vital public services to the Palestinian civilian population. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 61/119, 14 December 2006, preamble and §§ 3 and 11, voting record: 157-9-14-12.

In a resolution adopted in 2006 on permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources, the UN General Assembly:
Reaffirming the principle of the permanent sovereignty of peoples under foreign occupation over their natural resources,

Reaffirming the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967,
Recalling, in this regard, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and affirming that these human rights instruments must be respected in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, as well as in the occupied Syrian Golan,
Recalling also the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and recalling further its resolution ES-10/15 of 20 July 2004,
Expressing its concern at the exploitation by Israel, the occupying Power, of the natural resources of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967,
Expressing its grave concern at the extensive destruction by Israel, the occupying Power, of agricultural land and orchards in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including the uprooting of a vast number of fruit-bearing trees,
Expressing its concern at the widespread destruction caused by Israel, the occupying Power, to vital infrastructure, including water pipelines and sewage networks, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, which, inter alia, pollutes the environment and negatively affects the natural resources of the Palestinian people,
Aware of the detrimental impact of the Israeli settlements on Palestinian and other Arab natural resources, especially as a result of the confiscation of land and the forced diversion of water resources, and of the dire economic and social consequences in this regard,
Aware also of the detrimental impact on Palestinian natural resources being caused by the unlawful construction of the wall by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, and of its grave effect on the natural resources and economic and social conditions of the Palestinian people,

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the population of the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources, including land and water;
2. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, not to exploit, damage, cause loss or depletion of, or endanger the natural resources in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan;
3. Recognizes the right of the Palestinian people to claim restitution as a result of any exploitation, damage, loss or depletion, or endangerment of their natural resources resulting from illegal measures taken by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and expresses the hope that this issue will be dealt with in the framework of the final status negotiations between the Palestinian and Israeli sides;
4. Stresses that the wall being constructed by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, is contrary to international law and is seriously depriving the Palestinian people of their natural resources, and calls in this regard for full compliance with the legal obligations mentioned in the 9 July 2004 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice and in resolution ES-10/15;

6. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, in this regard, to comply strictly with its obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law, with respect to the alteration of the character and status of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem;
7. Also calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to cease the dumping of all kinds of waste materials in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan, which gravely threaten their natural resources, namely the water and land resources, and pose an environmental hazard and health threat to the civilian populations;
8. Further calls upon Israel to cease its destruction of vital infrastructure, including water pipelines and sewage networks, which, inter alia, has a negative impact on the natural resources of the Palestinian people. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 61/184, 20 December 2006, preamble and §§ 1–4 and 6–8, voting record: 164-6-9-13.

In a resolution adopted in 2007 on the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine, the UN General Assembly expressed its concern “over the negative developments that have continued to occur in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, including … the widespread destruction of public and private Palestinian property and infrastructure”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 62/83, 10 December 2007, preamble, voting record: 161-7-5-19.

In a resolution adopted in 2007 on Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, the UN General Assembly:
Expressing grave concern about the continuing systematic violation of the human rights of the Palestinian people by Israel, the occupying Power, including that arising from … the destruction of property and infrastructure, …
Expressing deep concern also about the vast destruction caused by the Israeli occupying forces, including of religious, cultural and historical sites, of vital infrastructure and institutions of the Palestinian Authority, and of agricultural land throughout Palestinian cities, towns, villages and refugee camps, …

3. Condemns … the excessive use of force by the Israeli occupying forces against Palestinian civilians, resulting in extensive loss of life and vast numbers of injuries, including among children, massive destruction of homes, properties, agricultural lands and vital infrastructure, …

11. Emphasizes the need to preserve the Palestinian institutions and infrastructure for the provision of vital public services to the Palestinian civilian population. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 62/109, 17 December 2007, preamble and §§ 3 and 11, voting record: 156-7-11-18.

In a resolution adopted in 2007 on permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources”, the UN General Assembly:
Reaffirming the principle of the permanent sovereignty of peoples under foreign occupation over their natural resources,

Expressing its concern at the exploitation by Israel, the occupying Power, of the natural resources of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967,
Expressing its grave concern at the extensive destruction by Israel, the occupying Power, of agricultural land and orchards in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including the uprooting of a vast number of fruit-bearing trees,
Expressing its concern at the widespread destruction caused by Israel, the occupying Power, to vital infrastructure, including water pipelines and sewage networks, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, which, inter alia, pollutes the environment and negatively affects the natural resources of the Palestinian people,
Aware of the detrimental impact of the Israeli settlements on Palestinian and other Arab natural resources, especially as a result of the confiscation of land and the forced diversion of water resources, and of the dire socio-economic consequences in this regard,
Aware also of the detrimental impact on Palestinian natural resources being caused by the unlawful construction of the wall by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, and of its grave effect on the natural resources and economic and social conditions of the Palestinian people,

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the population of the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources, including land and water;
2. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, not to exploit, damage, cause loss or depletion of, or endanger the natural resources in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan;
3. Recognizes the right of the Palestinian people to claim restitution as a result of any exploitation, damage, loss or depletion, or endangerment of their natural resources resulting from illegal measures taken by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and expresses the hope that this issue will be dealt with in the framework of the final status negotiations between the Palestinian and Israeli sides;
4. Stresses that the wall being constructed by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, is contrary to international law and is seriously depriving the Palestinian people of their natural resources, and calls in this regard for full compliance with the legal obligations mentioned in the 9 July 2004 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice and in resolution ES-10/15;

6. Also calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to cease the dumping of all kinds of waste materials in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan, which gravely threaten their natural resources, namely the water and land resources, and pose an environmental hazard and health threat to the civilian populations;
7. Further calls upon Israel to cease its destruction of vital infrastructure, including water pipelines and sewage networks, which, inter alia, has a negative impact on the natural resources of the Palestinian people. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 62/181, 19 December 2007, preamble and §§ 1–4 and 6–7, voting record: 166-7-6-13.

UN Economic and Social Council
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on economic and social repercussions of the Israeli occupation on the living conditions of the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem, and the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan, ECOSOC reaffirmed “the inalienable right of the Palestinian people and the Arab population of the occupied Syrian Golan to all their natural and economic resources, and calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, not to exploit, endanger or cause loss or depletion of these resources”. 
ECOSOC, Res. 2003/59, 24 July 2003, § 5, voting record: 48-2-3.

In a resolution adopted in 2004 on economic and social repercussions of the Israeli occupation on the living conditions of the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem, and the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan, ECOSOC:
Reaffirming the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967,

Reaffirming the principle of the permanent sovereignty of peoples under foreign occupation over their natural resources,

Gravely concerned about the deterioration of the economic and living conditions of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab population of the occupied Syrian Golan and the exploitation by Israel, the occupying Power, of their natural resources,

5. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the Palestinian people and the Arab population of the occupied Syrian Golan to all their natural and economic resources, and calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, not to exploit, endanger or cause loss or depletion of these resources. 
ECOSOC, Res. 2004/54, 23 July 2004, preamble and § 5, voting record: 51-1-1.

In a resolution adopted in 2005 on economic and social repercussions of the Israeli occupation on the living conditions of the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem, and the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan, ECOSOC:
Reaffirming the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949 to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967,

Reaffirming the principle of the permanent sovereignty of peoples under foreign occupation over their natural resources,

Gravely concerned about the deterioration of the economic and living conditions of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab population of the occupied Syrian Golan and the exploitation by Israel, the occupying Power, of their natural resources,

5. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the Palestinian people and the Arab population of the occupied Syrian Golan to all their natural and economic resources, and calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, not to exploit, endanger or cause loss or depletion of these resources. 
ECOSOC, Res. 2005/51, 27 July 2005, preamble and § 5, voting record: 49-2-1.

In a resolution adopted in 2006 on economic and social repercussions of the Israeli occupation on the living conditions of the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan, ECOSOC:
Reaffirming the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967,

Reaffirming the principle of the permanent sovereignty of peoples under foreign occupation over their natural resources,

Gravely concerned about the deterioration of the economic and living conditions of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab population of the occupied Syrian Golan and the exploitation by Israel, the occupying Power, of their natural resources,

4. Calls upon Israel to restore and replace the destroyed civilian infrastructure, including the only power station, where Israeli air strikes on Gaza’s power plant have had a far reaching impact on Gaza’s hospitals, food production facilities, water and sanitation systems; as well as water networks, schools, bridges, the airport, the seaport and Palestinian ministries and institutions;

7. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the Palestinian people and the Arab population of the occupied Syrian Golan to all their natural and economic resources, and calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, not to exploit, endanger or cause loss or depletion of these resources. 
ECOSOC, Res. 2006/43, 27 July 2006, preamble and §§ 4 and 7, voting record: 45-3-3.

In a resolution adopted in 2007 on economic and social repercussions of the Israeli occupation on the living conditions of the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan, ECOSOC:
Reaffirming the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967,

Reaffirming the principle of the permanent sovereignty of peoples under foreign occupation over their natural resources,

Gravely concerned about the deterioration of the economic and living conditions of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab population of the occupied Syrian Golan and the exploitation by Israel, the occupying Power, of their natural resources,

7. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the Palestinian people and the Arab population of the occupied Syrian Golan to all their natural and economic resources, and calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, not to exploit, endanger or cause loss or depletion of these resources. 
ECOSOC, Res. 2007/26, 26 July 2007, preamble and § 7, voting record: 29-2-18.

UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Recalling the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civil Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and the Commission on Human Rights,

Asserting that the punitive measures imposed by Israel, the occupying Power, on the Palestinian civil population, including … destruction of homes and vital infrastructure, including religious, educational, cultural and historical sites, led to a steep deterioration in the socio-economic conditions, perpetuating a dire humanitarian crisis throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and affirming that these punitive measures violate the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,

2. Condemns the use of force by the Israeli occupying forces against Palestinian civilians, resulting in extensive loss of life, vast numbers of injuries and massive destruction of homes, properties, agricultural lands and vital infrastructure. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2005/7, 14 April 2005, preamble and § 2, voting record: 29-10-14.

UN Human Rights Council
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the UN Human Rights Council:
Affirming the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civil Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and to other occupied Arab territories,
Expressing deep concern at the breaches by Israel, the occupying Power, of international humanitarian law and human rights law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including … the destruction of Palestinian infrastructure, including water networks, power plants and bridges. 
UN Human Rights Council, Res. S-1/1, 6 July 2006, preamble, voting record: 29-11-5.

In a resolution adopted in 2006 on the grave situation of human rights in Lebanon caused by Israeli military operations, the UN Human Rights Council emphasized that “attacks and killings of innocent civilians and the destruction of houses, property and infrastructure in Lebanon are a breach of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, international law and international humanitarian law as well as flagrant violations of human rights”. 
UN Human Rights Council, Res. S-2/1, 11 August 2006, preamble, voting record: 27-11-8.

Back to top
GCC Ministerial Council
In the Final Communiqué of its 36th Session in 1990, the GCC Ministerial Council emphasized that “public … establishments and property must be safeguarded in accordance with the noble stipulations of Islamic law”. It insisted that “the Iraqi authorities must ensure the protection of all public … establishments and all … immovable property in the State of Kuwait”. 
GCC, Ministerial Council, 36th Session, Jeddah, 5-6 September 1990, Final Communiqué, annexed to Letter dated 6 September 1990 from Oman to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. S/21719, 6 September 1990, p. 3, preamble and § 3.

GCC Supreme Council
In the Final Communiqué of its 11th Session in 1990, the GCC Supreme Council demanded that “the Iraqi régime … must safeguard … public installations and property in accordance with Islamic law, the provisions of the 1949 Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and the international humanitarian covenants and conventions”. 
GCC, Supreme Council, 11th Session, Doha, 22-25 December 1990, Final Communiqué, annexed to Note verbale dated 26 December 1990 from Qatar to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. A/45/908, 27 December 1990, p. 3.

League of Arab States Council
In a resolution adopted in 1990, the League of Arab States Council, with reference to Islamic law, the 1949 Geneva Convention IV, the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international covenants and conventions relating to the protection of human rights, decided “to insist that Iraqi authorities must ensure the protection of all public … establishments and all … immovable property in the State of Kuwait, and to regard any measures incompatible with such a commitment as null and void”. 
League of Arab States, Council, Res. 5038, 31 August 1990, annexed to Letter dated 31 August 1990 from Qatar to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. S/21693, 31 August 1990, p. 4. (Libya opposed the resolution and Algeria, Iraq, Jordan, Mauritania, Palestine, Sudan, Tunisia and Yemen did not participate in the work of the session.)

Back to top
No data.
Back to top
No data.
Back to top
No data.
Back to top
No data.