Military occupation, also called belligerent occupation or simply occupation, is temporary hostile control exerted by a ruling power's military apparatus over a sovereign territory that is outside of the legal boundaries of that ruling power's own sovereign territory.[1][2][3][4] The controlled territory is called occupied territory, and the ruling power is called the occupant.[5] Occupation's intended temporary nature distinguishes it from annexation and colonialism.[4][6] The occupant often establishes military rule to facilitate administration of the occupied territory, though this is not a necessary characteristic of occupation.[7]
The rules of occupation are delineated in various international agreements—primarily the Hague Convention of 1907, the Geneva Conventions, and also by long-established state practice. The relevant international conventions, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and various treaties by military scholars provide guidelines on topics concerning the rights and duties of the occupying power, the protection of civilians, the treatment of prisoners of war, the coordination of relief efforts, the issuance of travel documents, the property rights of the populace, the handling of cultural and art objects, the management of refugees, and other concerns that are highest in importance both before and after the cessation of hostilities during an armed conflict. A country that engages in a military occupation and violates internationally agreed-upon norms runs the risk of censure, criticism, or condemnation. In the contemporary era, the practices of occupations have largely become a part of customary international law, and form a part of the law of war.
Since World War II and the establishment of the United Nations, it has been common practice in international law for occupied territory to continue to be widely recognized as occupied in cases where the occupant attempts to alter—with or without support or recognition from other powers—the expected temporary duration of the territory's established power structure, namely by making it permanent through annexation (formal or otherwise) and refusing to recognize itself as an occupant. Additionally, the question of whether a territory is occupied or not becomes especially controversial if two or more powers disagree with each other on that territory's status; such disputes often serve as the basis for armed conflicts in and of themselves.
Occupation and the laws of war
A dominant principle that guided combatants through much of history was "to the victory belong the spoils".[8]Emer de Vattel, in The Law of Nations (1758), presented an early codification of the distinction between annexation of territory and military occupation, the latter being regarded as temporary, due to the natural right of states to their "continued existence".[8] According to Eyal Benvenisti's The International Law of Occupation, Second Edition (2012), "The foundation upon which the entire [modern] law of occupation is based is the principle of inalienability of sovereignty through unilateral action of a foreign power, [and from this principle] springs the basic structural constraints that international law imposes upon the occupant."[9]
The Hague Convention of 1907 codified these customary laws, specifically within "Laws and Customs of War on Land" (Hague IV); October 18, 1907: "Section III Military Authority over the territory of the hostile State".[10] The first two articles of that section state:
Art. 42. Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
Art. 43. The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.
In 1949 these laws governing the occupation of an enemy state's territory were further extended by the adoption of the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV). Much of GCIV is relevant to protected civilians in occupied territories and Section III: Occupied territories is a specific section covering the issue. Under GCIV, protected civilians in general are:[11]
those "who ... find themselves ... in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals".[12] This generally refers to civilians of an enemy state, including refugees, and stateless persons.
neutral citizens in occupied territory regardless of diplomatic status
refugees of the occupying power prior to hostilities who cannot be arrested, prosecuted, or deported from occupied territory except for crimes committed after the conflict or beforehand which are also crimes under the law of the occupied state that would permit peacetime extradition as defined under Article 70[13]
Nationals of an enemy state not a signatory or acceded to GCIV are not protected by it. Neutral citizens who are in the home territory of a belligerent nation if their country of origin has diplomatic ties or elsewhere outside occupied territory are not protected.[nb 1] Nationals of a co-belligerent (allied) state which holds diplomatic ties with a belligerent nation are excluded from protection in both locations.[11]
On whether the definition of military occupation applies to anywhere else, the 2023 United States Department of Defense (DOD)'s Law of War Manual states "the law of belligerent occupation generally does not apply to (1) mere invasion; (2) liberation of friendly territory; (3) non-international armed conflict; or (4) post-war situations (except for certain provisions of the GC [IV])." The DOD's statement is consistent with the definitions provided by Article 42 of the 1907 Fourth Hague Convention and Article 4 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.[16]
Article 6 of GCIV restricts the length of time that most of the convention applies:
The present Convention shall apply from the outset of any conflict or occupation mentioned in Article 2.
In the territory of Parties to the conflict, the application of the present Convention shall cease on the general close of military operations.
In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after the general close of military operations; however, the Occupying Power shall be bound, for the duration of the occupation, to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory, by the provisions of the following Articles of the present Convention: 1 to 12, 27, 29 to 34, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53, 59, 61 to 77, 143.
GCIV emphasised an important change in international law. The United Nations Charter (June 26, 1945) had prohibited war of aggression (See articles 1.1, 2.3, 2.4) and GCIV Article 47, the first paragraph in Section III: Occupied territories, restricted the territorial gains which could be made through war by stating:
Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.
Article 49 prohibits the forced mass movement of protected civilians out of or into occupied state's territory:
Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive. ... The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
Protocol I (1977): "Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts" has additional articles which cover occupation but many countries including the U.S. are not signatory to this additional protocol.
In the situation of a territorial cession as the result of war, the specification of a "receiving country" in the peace treaty merely means that the country in question is authorized by the international community to establish civil government in the territory. The military government of the principal occupying power will continue past the point in time when the peace treaty comes into force, until it is legally supplanted.
"Military government continues until legally supplanted" is the rule, as stated in Military Government and Martial Law, by William E. Birkhimer, 3rd edition 1914.
Article 42 under Section III of the 1907 Fourth Hague Convention specifies that a "[t]erritory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army." This definition does not rely on a subjective perception, but rather on the "territory's de facto submission to the authority" of the occupant.[17] Article 2 of the Geneva Conventions indicates that the definition applies to "all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting party", even if no armed resistance is encountered.[18] The form of administration by which an occupying power exercises government authority over occupied territory is called military government.
There does not have to be a formal announcement of the beginning of a military government, nor is there any requirement of a specific number of people to be in place, for an occupation to commence. Birkhimer writes:
No proclamation of part of the victorious commander is necessary to the lawful inauguration and enforcement of military government. That government results from the fact that the former sovereignty is ousted, and the opposing army now has control. Yet the issuing such proclamation is useful as publishing to all living in the district occupied those rules of conduct which will govern the conqueror in the exercise of his authority. Wellington, indeed, as previously mentioned, said that the commander is bound to lay down distinctly the rules according to which his will is to be carried out. But the laws of war do not imperatively require this, and in very many instances it is not done. When it is not, the mere fact that the country is militarily occupied by the enemy is deemed sufficient notification to all concerned that the regular has been supplanted by a military government. (p. 61)
Concept of effective control
The survey of the case-law regarding Article 42[nb 2] of the 1907 Fourth Hague Convention reveals that the duration of effective control by the occupying power and its encounter with insurgents, terrorists or guerrillas that are able to exercise control over certain areas of the country are immaterial to the applicability of the law of occupation and do not alter the legal status of the occupied territory.[19] For example, in 1948 the U.S. Military Tribunal in Nuremberg held that:
In belligerent occupation the occupying power does not hold enemy territory by virtue of any legal right. On the contrary, it merely exercises a precarious and temporary actual control.[19]
End of occupation and authority shift
According to Eyal Benvenisti, occupation can end in a number of ways, such as: "loss of effective control, namely when the occupant is no longer capable of exercising its authority; through the genuine consent of the sovereign (the ousted government or an indigenous one) by the signing of a peace agreement; or by transferring authority to an indigenous government endorsed by the occupied population through referendum and which has received international recognition".[20]
Other prolonged occupations that have been alleged include those of the Falkland Islands/Malvinas, claimed by Argentina, by the United Kingdom (1833–present), of Tibet by PR China (1950), and of Hawaii by the United States (1893). The War Report makes no determination as to whether belligerent occupation is occurring in these cases.[23]
Examples of occupation which took place in the second half of the 20th century include:
↑ GCIV only applies the protection of neutral citizens in either occupied territory or in the home territory of a belligerent nation if their country of origin has no diplomatic ties. It was never intended to protect such nationals anywhere else in the world.[14] Thus, the protection of neutral nationals who are outside the two locations mentioned in the preceding sentence are governed by the 1907 Fifth and 13th Hague Conventions.[15]
↑ According to article 42 of the 1907 Fourth Hague Convention, "[t]erritory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation applies only to the territory where such authority is established, and in a position to assert itself."[19]
Related Research Articles
The West Bank, so called due to its location relative to the Jordan River, is the larger of the two Palestinian territories that comprise the State of Palestine. A landlocked territory near the coast of the Mediterranean Sea in the Levant region of West Asia, it is bordered by Jordan and the Dead Sea to the east and by Israel to the south, west, and north. Since 1967, the territory has been under Israeli occupation, which has been regarded illegal under the law of the international community.
The Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, more commonly referred to as the Fourth Geneva Convention and abbreviated as GCIV, is one of the four treaties of the Geneva Conventions. It was adopted in August 1949, and came into force in October 1950. While the first three conventions dealt with combatants, the Fourth Geneva Convention was the first to deal with humanitarian protections for civilians in a war zone. There are currently 196 countries party to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, including this and the other three treaties.
The occupied Palestinian territories, also referred to as the Occupied Palestinian Territory and the Palestinian territories, consist of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip—two regions of the former British Mandate for Palestine that have been occupied by Israel since the Six-Day War of 1967. These territories make up the State of Palestine, which was self-declared by the Palestine Liberation Organization in 1988 and is recognized by 146 out of 193 UN member states.
An unlawful combatant, illegal combatant or unprivileged combatant/belligerent is a person who directly engages in armed conflict in violation of the laws of war and therefore is claimed not to be protected by the Geneva Conventions. The International Committee of the Red Cross points out that the terms "unlawful combatant", "illegal combatant" or "unprivileged combatant/belligerent" are not defined in any international agreements. While the concept of an unlawful combatant is included in the Third Geneva Convention, the phrase itself does not appear in the document. Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention does describe categories under which a person may be entitled to prisoner of war status. There are other international treaties that deny lawful combatant status for mercenaries and children.
Combatant is the legal status of a person entitled to directly participate in hostilities during an armed conflict, and may be intentionally targeted by an adverse party for their participation in the armed conflict. Combatants are not afforded immunity from being directly targeted in situations of armed conflict and can be attacked regardless of the specific circumstances simply due to their status, so as to deprive their side of their support.
Non-combatant is a term of art in the law of war and international humanitarian law to refer to civilians who are not taking a direct part in hostilities; persons, such as combat medics and military chaplains, who are members of the belligerent armed forces but are protected because of their specific duties ; combatants who are placed hors de combat; and neutral persons, such as peacekeepers, who are not involved in fighting for one of the belligerents involved in a war. This particular status was first recognized under the Geneva Conventions with the First Geneva Convention of 1864.
United Nations Security Council resolution 446, adopted on 22 March 1979, concerned the issue of Israeli settlements in the "Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem". This refers to the Palestinian territories of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip as well as the Syrian Golan Heights.
The international law bearing on issues of Arab–Israeli conflict, which became a major arena of regional and international tension since the birth of Israel in 1948, resulting in several disputes between a number of Arab countries and Israel.
Israel has occupied the Golan Heights of Syria and the Palestinian territories since the Six-Day War of 1967. It has previously occupied the Sinai Peninsula of Egypt and southern Lebanon as well. Prior to 1967, control of the Palestinian territories was split between Egypt and Jordan, which occupied the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, respectively. The Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories and the Golan Heights, where Israel has transferred parts of its population and built large settlements, is the longest military occupation in modern history.
During the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel occupied the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, the Golan Heights, and the Sinai Peninsula. The Sinai Peninsula was returned to full sovereignty of Egypt in 1982 as a result of the Egypt–Israel peace treaty. The United Nations Security Council and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) both describe the West Bank and Western Golan Heights as "occupied territory" under international law, and the Supreme Court of Israel describes them as held "in belligerent occupation", however Israel's government calls the West Bank "disputed" rather than "occupied" and argues that since Israel's unilateral disengagement plan of 2005, it does not militarily occupy the Gaza Strip, a statement rejected by the United Nations Human Rights Council and Human Rights Watch because Israel continues to maintain control of its airspace, waters and borders.
Annexation, in international law, is the forcible acquisition and assertion of legal title over one state's territory by another state, usually following military occupation of the territory. In current international law, it is generally held to be an illegal act. Annexation is a unilateral act where territory is seized and held by one state, as distinct from the complete conquest of another country, and differs from cession, in which territory is given or sold through treaty.
The Geneva Conventions are international humanitarian laws consisting of four treaties and three additional protocols that establish international legal standards for humanitarian treatment in war. The singular term Geneva Convention colloquially denotes the agreements of 1949, negotiated in the aftermath of the Second World War (1939–1945), which updated the terms of the two 1929 treaties and added two new conventions. The Geneva Conventions extensively define the basic rights of wartime prisoners, civilians and military personnel; establish protections for the wounded and sick; and provide protections for the civilians in and around a war-zone.
Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, as well as in the Syrian Golan Heights, are illegal under international law. These settlements are in violation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and in breach of international declarations. In a 2024 ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) relating to the Palestinian territories, the court reaffirmed the illegality of the settlements and called on Israel to end its occupation, cease its settlement activity, and evacuate all its settlers.
Abu Dis is a Palestinian town in the Jerusalem Governorate of the Palestinian National Authority bordering Jerusalem. Since the 1995 Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, Abu Dis has been part of "Area B", under joint Israeli and Palestinian control. According to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS) census, Abu Dis had a population of 10,782 in 2007.
The Israeli Military Governorate was a military governance system established following the Six-Day War in June 1967, in order to govern the civilian population of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula and the western part of Golan Heights. The governance was based on the Fourth Geneva Convention, which provides guidelines for military rule in occupied areas. East Jerusalem was the only exception from this order, and it was added to Jerusalem municipal area as early as 1967, and extending Israeli law to the area effectively annexing it in 1980. During this period, the UN and many sources referred to the military governed areas as Occupied Arab Territories.
Protected persons is a legal term under international humanitarian law and refers to persons who are under specific protection of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, their 1977 Additional Protocols, and customary international humanitarian law during an armed conflict.
The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) declared the establishment of the State of Palestine on November 15, 1988. As of June 2024, the State of Palestine is recognized as a sovereign state by 145 of the 193 member states of the United Nations. It is a non-member observer state at the United Nations since November 2012. This limited status is largely due to the United States, a permanent member of the Security Council with veto power, has consistently used its veto or threatened to do so to block Palestine’s full membership to UN. The existence of a state of Palestine is recognized by the states that have established bilateral diplomatic relations with it. There is a wide range of views on the legal status of the State of Palestine, both among international states and legal scholars.
Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories, which has continued since 1967 and is the longest military occupation in modern history, has become illegal under international law. This illegality encompasses the West Bank, including Israeli-annexed East Jerusalem, as well as the blockaded Gaza Strip, which remains to be considered occupied under international law despite the 2005 Israeli disengagement. Israel's policies and practices in the occupied West Bank, including the construction and expansion of Israeli settlements, have amounted to de facto annexation that is illegal under international law.
References
↑ Bracka, J. (2021). Transitional Justice for Israel/Palestine: Truth-Telling and Empathy in Ongoing Conflict. Springer series in transitional justice. Springer International Publishing AG. ISBN978-3-030-89435-1. Today, the widely accepted definition of occupation is 'the effective control of a power (be it one or more states or an international organization, such as the United Nations) over a territory to which that power has no sovereign title, without the volition of the sovereign of that territory'
↑ Roberts, Adam (1990). "Prolonged Military Occupation: The Israeli-Occupied Territories Since 1967". American Journal of International Law. 84 (1). Cambridge University Press (CUP): 44–103. doi:10.2307/2203016. ISSN0002-9300. JSTOR2203016. S2CID145514740.
↑ Eyal Benvenisti. The international law of occupation. Princeton University Press, 2004. ISBN978-0-691-12130-7, p. 43
↑ Stirk, Peter (2009). The Politics of Military Occupation. Edinburgh University Press. p.44. ISBN9780748636716. The significance of the temporary nature of military occupation is that it brings about no change of allegiance. Military government remains an alien government whether of short or long duration, though prolonged occupation may encourage the occupying power to change military occupation into something else, namely annexation
↑ Roberts, Adam (1985). "What is a Military Occupation?". British Yearbook of International Law. 55: 249–305. doi:10.1093/bybil/55.1.249.
1 2 Cole, Babaloba (1974). "Property and the Law of Belligerent Occupation: A Reexamination". World Affairs. 137 (1): 66–85. JSTOR20671544.
↑ Benvenisti, Eyal (2012). The International Law of Occupation, Second Edition. Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. p.6. ISBN978-0-19-958889-3. The foundation upon which the entire law of occupation is based is the principle of inalienability of sovereignty through unilateral action of a foreign power, whether through the actual or the threatened use of force, or in any way unauthorized by the sovereign. Effective control by foreign military force can never bring about by itself a valid transfer of sovereignty. Because occupation does not transfer sovereignty over the territory to the occupying power, international law must regulate the inter-relationships between the occupying force, the ousted government, and the local inhabitants for the duration of the occupation. From the principle of inalienable sovereignty over a territory springs the basic structural constraints that international law imposes upon the occupant. The occupying power is thus precluded from annexing the occupied territory or otherwise unilaterally changing its political status; instead, it is bound to respect and maintain the political and other institutions that exist in that territory for the duration of the occupation. The law authorizes the occupant to safeguard its interests while administering the occupied area, but also imposes obligations on the occupant to protect the life and property of the inhabitants and to respect the sovereign interests of the ousted government.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
↑ Eyal Benvenisti (23 February 2012). The International Law of Occupation. OUP Oxford. p.56. ISBN978-0-19-163957-9. The conditions that define when occupation begins also identify when it ends. Obviously, occupation can end in a number of ways: with the loss of effective control, namely when the occupant is no longer capable of exercising its authority; through the genuine consent of the sovereign (the ousted government or an indigenous one) by the signing of a peace agreement; or by transferring authority to an indigenous government endorsed by the occupied population through referendum and which has received international recognition.
↑ Weill, Sharon (2014). The Role of National Courts in Applying International Humanitarian Law. Oxford University Press. p.22. ISBN9780199685424. Although the basic philosophy behind the law of military occupation is that it is a temporary situation, modern occupations have well demonstrated that ‘rien ne dure comme le provisoire’. A significant number of post-1945 occupations have lasted more than two decades, such as the occupations of Namibia by South Africa and of East Timor by Indonesia, as well as the ongoing occupations of Northern Cyprus by Turkey and of Western Sahara by Morocco. The Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories, which is the longest in all occupation's history, has already entered its fifth decade.
Occupied territory – the legal issues, legal provisions regarding occupation of territory by hostile power and implications for people protected by IHL.
David Kretzmer, Occupation of Justice: The Supreme Court of Israel and the Occupied Territories. State University of New York Press, 2002. ISBN0-7914-5338-3, 0-7914-5337-5
Sander D. Dikker Hupkes, What Constitutes Occupation? Israel as the occupying power in the Gaza Strip after the Disengagement, Leiden: Jongbloed 2008, 110 pp., ISBN978-90-70062-45-3Openacces
FM 27-10 "The Law of Land Warfare", Department of the Army, Washington, D.C., 18 July 1956. (This manual supersedes FM 27–10, 1 October 1940, including C 1, 15 November 1944. Changes required on 15 July 1976, have been incorporated within this document.) Chapter 6, Occupation
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
