Grotius, III. c. 5--Vattel, III. §§ 73, 160-164--Hall, §§ 136-138--Westlake, II. pp. 102-107--Lawrence, § 171--Maine, pp. 192-206--Manning, pp. 179-183--Twiss, II. §§ 62-71--Halleck, II. pp. 58-68--Moore, VII. § 1148--Taylor, §§ 529-536--Wharton, III. § 340--Wheaton, §§ 346, 352-354--Bluntschli, §§ 644-651A--Heffter, §§ 130-136--Lueder in Holtzendorff, IV. pp. 488-500--G. F. Martens, II. §§ 279-280--Ullmann, § 183--Bonfils, Nos. 1176-1193--Despagnet, Nos. 592-596--Pradier-Fodéré, VII. Nos. 2989-3018--Rivier, II. pp. 306-314--Nys, III. pp. 296-308--Calvo, IV. §§ 2199-2214--Fiore, III. Nos. 1389, 1392, 1393, 1470, and Code, Nos. 1557-1560--Martens, II. § 120--Longuet, § 96--Mérignhac, pp. 299-316--Pillet, pp. 319-340--_Kriegsbrauch_, pp. 57-60--Holland, _War_, No. 113--_Land Warfare_, §§ 426-432--Meurer, II. §§ 65-69--Spaight, pp. 410-418--Zorn, pp. 243-270--Rouard de Card, _La guerre continentale et la propriété_ (1877)--Bluntschli, _Das Beuterecht im Krieg, und das Seebeuterecht insbesondere_ (1878)--Depambour, _Des effets de l'occupation en temps de guerre sur la propriété et la jouissance des biens publics et particuliers_ (1900)--Wehberg, _Das Beuterecht im Land und Seekrieg_ (1909; an English translation appeared in 1911 under the title _Capture in War on Land and Sea_)--Latifi, _Effects of War on Property_ (1909). [Sidenote: Appropriation of all the Enemy Property no longer admissible.] § 133. Under a former rule of International Law belligerents could appropriate all public and private[270] enemy property they found on enemy territory. This rule is now obsolete. Its place is taken by several rules, since distinctions are to be made between moveable and immoveable property, public and private property, and, further, between different kinds of private and public property. These rules must be discussed _seriatim_. [Footnote 270: It is impossible for a treatise to go into historical details, and to show the gradual disappearance of the old rule. But it is of importance to state the fact, that even during the nineteenth century--see, for instance, G. F. Martens, II. § 280; Twiss, II. § 64; Hall, § 139--it was asserted that in strict law all private enemy moveable property was as much booty as public property, although the growth of a usage was recognised which under certain conditions exempted it from appropriation. In the face of articles 46 and 47 of the Hague Regulations these assertions have no longer any basis, and all the text-books of the nineteenth century are now antiquated with regard to this matter.] [Sidenote: Immoveable Public Property.]