text: Chapter 2
  This prohibition extends to offers of rewards for the killing or wounding of all enemies, including
  specific individuals or a class of enemy persons (for example, officers). This rule, however, would not
  prohibit offering rewards for the capture unharmed of enemy personnel generally or of particular enemy
  personnel. Similarly, this rule does not prohibit offering rewards for information that may be used by
  combatants to conduct military operations that attack enemy combatants.
  TREATMENT OF ENEMY PROPERTY
  Outside the context of attacks, certain rules apply to the seizure and destruction of enemy property:
  * Enemy property may not be seized or destroyed unless imperatively demanded by the necessities
  of war (HR art. 23(g)).
  * Public movable property and certain types of private movable property may customarily be
  captured as war booty.
  * Pillage is prohibited.
  * Feasible precautions must be taken to mitigate the burden on civilians, but there is no obligation
  to compensate the owners of enemy property that is lawfully damaged.
  * Enemy private movable property that is not susceptible of direct military use may be appropriated
  only to the extent that such taking is permissible in occupied areas. Owners should be given
  receipts and compensation paid, when feasible.
  See also paragraphs 6-95 through 6-128 for treatment of enemy property during occupation.
  DEFINITION OF ENEMY PROPERTY
  Enemy property includes all property located in enemy territory regardless of its ownership.
  ENEMY PROPERTY—MILITARY NECESSITY STANDARD
  Enemy property may not be seized or destroyed unless imperatively demanded by the necessities of
  war (HR, art. 23(g)). In particular, devastation or destruction may not be pursued as an end in itself. The
  measure of permissible seizure or destruction of enemy property is found in the strict necessities of war. The
  seizure or destruction of enemy property must have a reasonable connection to the overcoming of enemy
  forces. The necessities of war may imperatively demand seizing or destroying enemy property in order to
  support military operations or to diminish the enemy’s ability to conduct or sustain operations.
  Supporting Military Operations
  The military necessity standard may justify seizing or destroying enemy property to support military
  operations in many types of scenarios. The following examples are illustrative:
  * Using enemy land for the construction of military bases, air fields, or other facilities to support
  military operations;
  * Using enemy buildings to billet military personnel and others supporting them, to house the
  wounded and sick, for observation and reconnaissance, for concealment and cover, or for
  defensive purposes;
  * Demolishing, cutting down, or removing enemy walls, forests, crops, or buildings to clear a field
  of fire, to construct bridges, to furnish firewood for billeted military forces, or to provide
  construction material; and
  * Seizing means of transportation for use in military operations.
  Diminishing the Enemy’s Ability to Conduct or Sustain Operations
  Under the principle of military necessity, seizing or destroying enemy property is permissible to
  diminish the enemy’s ability to conduct or sustain military operations. Thus, LOAC permits seizing or
  destroying enemy property such as railways, lines of communication, and other war-fighting and war-
  sustaining infrastructure.