5cjxburmr

States may authorize their military commanders to limit travel and trade within their areas ofoperations for security purposes. During armed conflict, States have exercised their authority tolimit intercourse with the enemy in order to avoid supporting the enemy’s war effort and in orderto speak with one voice in communications with the enemy State.In particular, the traditional rule of non-intercourse notifies a State’s nationals and otherpersons subject to its jurisdiction that they may be liable to punishment by that State under itsdomestic law and war powers if they communicate with or support the State’s enemies in warwithout proper authorization. 3Exceptions to the general rule of non-intercourse (such as communication with enemyforces or permission to trade or travel between territories that are controlled by forces hostile toone another) have been granted on behalf of individuals only with the approval of theGovernment or the highest military authority. 412.1.1.1 Limitations on the Belligerent’s Authority to Regulate Intercourse. Abelligerent’s authority to regulate intercourse between territory it controls and territory controlledby the enemy is subject to certain limitations.Insofar as restrictions on travel and trade imposed by a belligerent affect neutral rights,such restrictions may be limited by the law of neutrality. An Occupying Power’s authority tocontrol travel and trade during belligerent occupation is addressed by the law of occupation. 5regulations in question as nothing more than the exercise of this power. It does not belong to the same category asthe power to levy and collect taxes, duties, and excises. It belongs to the war powers of the government, just asmuch so as the power to levy military contributions, or to perform any other belligerent act.”).3 For example, 10 U.S.C. § 904 (“Any person who-- (1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition,supplies, money, or other things; or (2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligenceto, or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly; shallsuffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct. This section does notapply to a military commission established under chapter 47A of this title.”); Amos T. Akerman, Attorney General,Unlawful Traffic with Indians, Jul. 19, 1871, 13 OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 470, 471-72 (1873) (“But Iobserve that General Sherman, in his letter, refers to the parties apprehended by the military as having been captured‘while engaged in unlawful traffic with hostile Indians;’ and the papers submitted show that a portion of the propertyemployed in this trade consisted of ammunition. Now, if the Indians to whom the captured persons were thussupplying ammunition, &c., were in open and notorious hostility to the United States at the time, and, therefore,properly came within the description of public enemies, the parties apprehended would seem to be amenable to trialand punishment by court-martial under the 56th article of war, which applies to persons who are not, as well as topersons who are, in the military service.”); LIEBER CODE art. 86 (“Contraventions of this rule [of non-intercourse]are highly punishable.”).4 1956 FM 27-10 (Change No. 1 1976) 450 (“Exceptions to this rule, whether by safe-conduct, license to trade,exchange of mails, or travel from one territory into the other, are made on behalf of individuals only with theapproval of the Government or the highest military authority.”); LIEBER CODE art. 86 (“Exceptions to this rule,whether by safe-conduct, or permission to trade on a small or large scale, or by exchanging mails, or by travel fromone territory into the other, can take place only according to agreement approved by the government, or by thehighest military authority.”).5 Refer to § 11.12 (Movement of Persons in Occupied Territory); § 11.23.4 (Regulation of External Trade).823