## Facts

- After the 1948 war, Israel and Jordan concluded a general armistice agreement that drew an armistice line and adjusted control over certain territories.
- Samara and other private claimants asserted ownership of land located in an area that came under Israeli control following the armistice arrangements.
- The Custodian of Absentee Property classified the land as “absentee property” under the Absentees’ Property Law, 1950, asserting that the land vested in the Custodian/State.
- The claimants sued to have their private ownership recognized and to prevent the Custodian from treating the land as vested absentee property.
- The lower court ruled for the private owners.
- The Custodian appealed to the Supreme Court of Israel (civil appeal).

## Issues

1. Whether an armistice agreement not incorporated into domestic legislation can, by itself, extinguish, transfer, or otherwise alter private property rights under Israeli law.
2. Whether the Custodian may treat land as “absentee property” based solely on territorial adjustments and cross-border status arising from the armistice arrangements.
3. How courts should apply an unincorporated international agreement when doing so would affect private rights, including rights in land.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court rejected the Custodian’s argument that the armistice agreement, standing alone, changed private property rights in domestic law.
- The Court held that the armistice agreement, as an international instrument not implemented by legislation, did not itself vest the claimants’ land in the Custodian or the State.
- The Court held that classification and vesting as “absentee property” must rest on the statutory criteria of the Absentees’ Property Law, not merely on the armistice line or territorial exchange.
- The Court therefore did not allow the Custodian to rely solely on the armistice arrangements to defeat the claimants’ asserted title.

## Legal Principles

- An international agreement not incorporated through domestic legislation does not, by itself, form part of municipal law in a way that can modify or extinguish private rights.
- Armistice agreements primarily govern inter-state relations and the cessation of hostilities; absent domestic implementation, they do not operate as instruments transferring or terminating private property rights.
- State authority to vest property as “absentee property” must be shown within the statutory framework; courts require a clear domestic legal basis before derogating from private property rights.

## Conclusion

The court limited the domestic legal effect of an unincorporated armistice agreement, holding that private land rights could not be displaced and property could not be vested as absentee property solely by reference to armistice-based territorial adjustments; any interference with private title required satisfaction of the statutory conditions set by the Absentees’ Property Law.


Custodian of Absentee Property v. Samara (Isr. S. Ct.) CA 25/55, 10 P.D. 1825 (1956)