Panzrmahn -- You asked: 1.
Would the actions of the victorious Allied troops in getting "souvenirs" which were private property (e.g. personal wristwatches, cutleries, swords or other objects of cultural/historical value) the defeated Axis troops or civilians by forceful coercion (under the threat of physical or psychological harm to the latter) constitute a violation of the Hague Convention and thus a war crime?
"Souvenir" collections are common to all victorious troops, and have been for hundreds, if not thousands of years. The practice is not generally classed as a war crime, but as common theft, punishable by the military code of the army to which the soldier belongs and the criminal law of the location where the theft takes place.
2.
Would utilization of items from dead bodies (such as clothing or boots) vital to survival of the individual or a group of persons who is not responsible for those the dead people and had no choice but to obtained them from the bodies of killed people nearby if the items are present nearby constitutes a violation of the above-mentioned Hague Convention with respect to private property? For example, the famous photograph shot of the German troops removing the boots of the dead American troops during the Battle of the Bulge.
The practice of robbing the dead is not regulated by the 1907 Hague IV convention. It is, however, a violation of the customs and usages of war. In former times persons caught robbing the dead were summarily shot on sight or hanged. Modernly, the preferred practice is to give them a trial before they are shot or hanged.
Note that uniforms and equipment of dead persons are not usually the personal property of the slain, but belong to the army which issued them.
3.
The confiscation of German scientific patents during and after the war without any suitable compensation to the patent holder. I recalled that the Allies created a legal of Act of doing so (Alien Property Act) but how would that be consistent with the application of the Hague Convention which the Allied Nations has signed as well as ratified it. Wouldn't this be contradictory to the Hague Convention since it is stated that private property must be respected and patents by their respective inventors are also considered some sort of intellectual "private property"?
This issue depends on whether the patents were private property, their location when seized, and the circumstances of the seizure.
The issue of private property – Patents confer upon an inventor the right to collect royalties for the use of his invention within a fixed period of time, and depending on certain conditions which can be extinguished. The patent is conferred by a country, and whether any other country recognizes it depends on whether the invention and the right is one recognized by some international convention. Patents held by governments are not private property. If the patent-holder is a corporation which is owned entirely or in part by the state, or has been nationalized for the war effort, the right of the inventor to collect royalties may not exist.
The location and circumstances of the seizure - The right of a sovereign to seize the property and persons of enemy aliens within his own realm has been recognized since Roman times. The same is true of the right of a sovereign to seize persons and property of enemy aliens on the high seas. Seizures of the property of enemy aliens can also result from the terms of peace treaties, as reparations. Disagreements and adjustments are/were usually handled by claims commissions, international arbitration or an international civil court, depending on when the seizures took place.
See also Article 53 of the 1907 Hague IV convention annex:
Art. 53. An army of occupation can only take possession of cash, funds, and realizable securities which are strictly the property of the State, depots of arms, means of transport, stores and supplies, and, generally, all movable property belonging to the State which may be used for military operations.
All appliances, whether on land, at sea, or in the air, adapted for the transmission of news, or for the transport of persons or things, exclusive of cases governed by naval law, depots of arms, and, generally, all kinds of munitions of war, may be seized, even if they belong to private individuals, but must be restored and compensation fixed when peace is made.
http://fletcher.tufts.edu/multilaterals/texts/BH036.txt
Your questions (1) and (2) have little if anything to do with this topic, and as for (3), we have an open thread at:
Robbery of German patents by western allies in WWII
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=44023
See also my post at Western Allies Looting
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 435#625435
so if you want to continue the discussion of these questions, please use an existing thread for (1) and (3) and/or create a new one for (2), and we can get back to cultural treasures on this thread.