Military occupation

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. The controlled territory is called occupied territory, and the ruling power is called the occupant. Occupation's intended temporary nature distinguishes it from annexation and colonialism. The occupant often establishes military rule to facilitate administration of the occupied territory, though this is not a necessary characteristic of occupation.
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 laws of occupation 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.
A dominant principle that guided combatants through much of history was to the victor belong the spoils. 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. 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.
The Hague Convention of 1907 codified these customary laws, specifically within "Laws and Customs of War on Land" (Hague IV); 18 October 1907: "Section III Military Authority over the territory of the hostile State". The first two articles of that section state:
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:
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. Nationals of a co-belligerent (allied) state which holds diplomatic ties with a belligerent nation are excluded from protection in both locations.
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.
Article 6 of GCIV restricts the length of time that most of the convention applies:
GCIV emphasised an important change in international law. The United Nations Charter (26 June 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:
Article 49 prohibits the forced mass movement of protected civilians out of or into occupied state's territory:
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. 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. 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:
Case-law regarding Article 42 of the 1907 Fourth Hague Convention reveals that interruptions of an occupying power's effective control resulting from insurgents, terrorists or guerrillas that are able to intermittently gain control over areas of the country would be immaterial to the applicability of the law of occupation, and would not alter the legal status of the occupied territory. For example, in 1948 the U.S. Military Tribunal in Nuremberg held that:
As of 2012, the physical presence of foreign troops, in the form of "boots on the ground", was considered a "sine qua non requirement of occupation".
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.
Some examples of military occupation came into existence as an outcome of World War I and World War II:
A number of post-1945 occupations have lasted more than 20 years, such as those of Namibia by South Africa, of East Timor by Indonesia, of Northern Cyprus by Turkey and of Western Sahara by Morocco. One of the world's longest ongoing occupations is Israel's occupation of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem (1967–present) and the Gaza Strip (1967–present), both Palestinian territories, as well as the Syrian Golan Heights, which was occupied in 1967 and effectively annexed in 1981.
Other prolonged occupations that have been alleged include those of the Falkland Islands/Malvinas, claimed by both Argentina and the United Kingdom (1833–present); of Tibet by PR China (1950); and of Hawaii by the United States (1893).
Examples of occupation which took place in the second half of the 20th century include:
Examples of occupation in the 21st century include: