Does anyone here seriously wish to argue that: (a) the consequence of occupation is not a central concern in the ongoing conflict, (b) the consequence of occupation raises no issues in international law, or (c) the consequence of occupation does not have far-reaching consequences in global affairs? Because unless you're willing to argue one or more of those points, this is totally a non-issue. The present wording (Ling.Nut's version) is completely non-controversial. Furthermore, no source is required to state self-evident truths disputed by precisely nobody.