5cjxburmr

• cultural property. 445In certain cases, there is an affirmative obligation to prohibit and prevent pillage. 4465.17.4.1 Pillage – Definition and Notes on Terminology. Pillage is the taking ofprivate or public movable property (including enemy military equipment) for private or personaluse. 447 It does not include an appropriation of property justified by military necessity. 448 Forexample, if ordinary requisitions are unavailable, the taking of food does not constitutepillage. 449 Pillage also has been referred to as “looting” 450 and “plunder.” 4515.17.4.2 History of Pillage. In the medieval era, pillage served as a form ofcompensation for private armies, but it ceased to be regarded as lawful with the widespreadadoption of standing armies at the end of the Eighteenth Century. The prohibition on pillage has,in part, been intended to maintain discipline among the armed forces. 452 For example, a member445 Refer to § 5.18.6 (Prohibition Against and Prevention of Theft, Pillage, Misappropriation, or Acts of Vandalism,and Prohibition Against Requisition of Foreign Cultural Property).446 Refer to § 5.18.6.1 (Obligation to Stop or Prevent Theft, Pillage, or Misappropriation of, and Acts of VandalismAgainst, Cultural Property); § 7.4.2 (Affirmative Measures to Protect Against Pillage and Ill-Treatment); § 17.14.3(Search, Collection, and Protection of the Wounded, Sick, Shipwrecked, and Dead).447 10 U.S.C. § 950t(5) (“(5) PILLAGING.--Any person subject to this chapter who intentionally and in the absence ofmilitary necessity appropriates or seizes property for private or personal use, without the consent of a person withauthority to permit such appropriation or seizure, shall be punished….”). Consider ROME STATUTE, ELEMENTS OFCRIMES, art. 8(2)(b)(xvi), Official Records of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of the InternationalCriminal Court, First session, New York, ICC-ASP/1/3, 112, 145-6 (Sept. 3-10, 2002) (defining the elements of thewar crime of pillaging as including (1) appropriation of property, (2) intent “to deprive the owner of the propertyand to appropriate it for private or personal use,” and (3) “appropriation … without the consent of the owner”).448 Consider ROME STATUTE, ELEMENTS OF CRIMES art. 8(2)(b)(xvi), Official Records of the Assembly of StatesParties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, First session, New York, ICC-ASP/1/3, 112, 146footnote 47 (Sept. 3-10, 2002) (“As indicated by the use of the term ‘private or personal use’, appropriationsjustified by military necessity cannot constitute the crime of pillaging.”).449 LAUTERPACHT, II OPPENHEIM’S INTERNATIONAL LAW 405 (§143) (“If there is no time for ordinary requisitions toprovide food, forage, clothing, and fuel, or if the inhabitants of a locality have fled so that ordinary requisitionscannot be made, a belligerent must take these articles wherever he can get them, and he is justified in so doing.”).Refer to § 11.18.7 (Requisitions of Private Enemy Property).450 10 U.S.C. § 903 (“(b) Any person subject to this chapter who- ... (3) engages in looting or pillaging; shall bepunished as a court-martial may direct.”); MANUAL FOR COURTS-MARTIAL IV-40 (27.c.(4)) (2012) (“‘Looting orpillaging’ means unlawfully seizing or appropriating property which is located in enemy or occupied territory.”).451 See, e.g., MANUAL FOR COURTS-MARTIAL IV-35 (23.c.(6)(b)) (2012) (“‘Plunder or pillage’ means to seize orappropriate public or private property unlawfully.”); Prosecutor v. Jelisić, ICTY Trial Chamber, IT-95-10-T,Judgment, 48-49 (Dec. 14, 1999) (noting that “[p]lunder is defined as the fraudulent appropriation of public orprivate funds belonging to the enemy or the opposing party perpetrated during an armed conflict and related thereto”and confirming the guilt of the accused on the charge of plunder because he “stole money, watches, jewellery andother valuables from the detainees upon their arrival at Luka camp by threatening those who did not hand over theirpossessions with death”).452 1958 UK MANUAL 589 (noting that the prohibitions contained in Hague IV Regulations “did not constitute newrules at the time they were promulgated” and that “it has for a long time past been embodied in the regulations ofevery civilized army, for nothing is more demoralizing to troops or more subversive of discipline than plundering.”).267