This discussion would not be complete without mention of the massive expulsion and confiscation of property of Jews by Arabs and other Muslims in the previous century:
“The Jewish exodus from Arab lands refers to the 20th century expulsion or mass departure of Jews, primarily of Sephardi and Mizrahi background, from Arab and Islamic countries. The rate of emigration accelerated after the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. According to United Nations statistics, 856,000 Jewish residents fled their homes after 1948.”
Please excuse my absence. My internet has been down. Thank you for the interesting comments.
Perhaps my OP is wrong. Is the taking of private land by armed force more common than I thought? Is it legally permissible to transfer private land ownership by conquest? As an American, I am not used to the idea. (Yes, I know, American Indians.) Certainly the flag in front of the post office changes, but does the title to a farm or house change?
As I pointed out earlier, international law does not recognize conquest as a means for a state to acquire territory. With respect to these individuals,
It’s probably more common than I thought, if that helps. This is a different question than the one above.
I think this is usually dealt with by treaty when property is acquired. The right of return is another bit of international law that deals with private property rights of refugees.
In some cases, land owner rights are preserved when deals are cut to end wars. The case I am familiar with are Spanish land grants which are still held by decendants of those granted the land by the King of Spain, in New Mexico (part of the USA)
There is incentive to do such, as insurections tend to be very messy, and it is generally cheaper and more effective to placate and assimilate the residents than to try to control them by force.
My ISP went down again. Thank you all again. Let me see if the other discussion has calmed down. I intend to make a good-faith effort to let sleeping dogs lie.