Angary

Angary is the right of a belligerent state, under international law, to seize, use, or destroy neutral property found within its territory, or territory under its military control, in cases of urgent military necessity, subject to the obligation to fully compensate the neutral owner.

Details:

The right of angary is an ancient custom, rooted in the necessities of warfare. It represents a recognized exception to the general principle of respecting the property of neutral states and their citizens in times of war. While the principle of neutrality seeks to shield non-participating states from the ravages of conflict, the right of angary acknowledges that under exceptional circumstances, military needs may override this protection, provided that compensation is paid.

Key Conditions and Considerations:

• Military Necessity: The seizure or destruction of neutral property must be demonstrably necessary for immediate and pressing military objectives. A mere convenience is insufficient justification.
• Neutral Property: The right applies to property owned by nationals of neutral states. Enemy property can be seized without the obligation to compensate the enemy owner.
• Location: The property must be located within the belligerent state's territory or territory under its military control. The right of angary generally does not extend to property on the high seas or in neutral territory.
• Full Compensation: The belligerent state is obligated to provide full and fair compensation to the neutral owner for the loss or damage suffered due to the exercise of angary. The amount of compensation is typically determined through negotiation or arbitration.
• Proportionality: While military necessity is paramount, the action taken should be proportionate to the threat or need. Unnecessary destruction or excessive seizure would be considered a violation of international law.

Historical Usage:

The right of angary has been invoked in various conflicts throughout history, including both World Wars. However, its exercise has become less common in recent times due to the increasing emphasis on the protection of neutral rights and the development of alternative methods for procuring resources in wartime.

Contemporary Relevance:

The right of angary remains a recognized principle of international law, although its application in contemporary conflicts is subject to significant scrutiny and debate. The potential for abuse and the complexities of determining military necessity and fair compensation have led to calls for stricter limitations on its exercise. The development of alternative procurement strategies and increased emphasis on the protection of civilian property under international humanitarian law have further contributed to its diminished practical significance.