Military Occupation: Warfare's Grasp, Strategies, Control, and Conquest in Conflict Zones

By Fouad Sabry

What is Military Occupation

Military occupation, also called belligerent occupation or simply occupation, is the temporary 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 then known as the occupied territory, with the ruling power being the occupant. Occupation is distinguished from annexation and colonialism on the basis that it is a power structure that the ruling power intends to keep in place only temporarily. In many cases, the occupant may establish a military government to facilitate the administration of the occupied territory, though this is not a necessary precondition for occupation to take place.

How you will benefit

(I) Insights, and validations about the following topics:

Chapter 1: Military occupation

Chapter 2: Israeli settlement

Chapter 3: West Bank

Chapter 4: Palestinian territories

Chapter 5: Unlawful combatant

Chapter 6: Combatant

Chapter 7: Judea and Samaria Area

Chapter 8: List of military occupations

Chapter 9: United Nations Security Council Resolution 446

Chapter 10: Occupation of the Gaza Strip by the United Arab Republic

(II) Answering the public top questions about military occupation.

Who this book is for

Professionals, undergraduate and graduate students, enthusiasts, hobbyists, and those who want to go beyond basic knowledge or information for any kind of Military Occupation.

• Language: English
• Publisher: One Billion Knowledgeable
• Release date: Jun 20, 2024

Book preview

Chapter 1: Military occupation

Army occupation, often known as belligerent occupation or just occupation, is the effective military control exercised by a governing power over a territory that is located outside of that power's sovereign jurisdiction. Other names for military occupation include occupation.

The regulations governing occupation are outlined in a number of international conventions, the most important of which being the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Hague Convention of 1907. Additionally, the rules of occupation are defined by state practice. The relevant international conventions, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Commentaries, and other treaties by military scholars provide guidelines on such topics as rights and duties of the occupying power, protection of civilians, treatment of prisoners of war, coordination of relief efforts, issuance of travel documents, property rights of the populace, handling of cultural and art objects, management of refugees, and other concerns which are very important both before and after the cessation of hostilities. When a nation forms an occupation and then violates rules that have been agreed upon by the international community, that nation stands the risk of being criticized, condemned, or censured. In the modern period, the practices of occupations have essentially become a part of customary international law, and they are also a component of the laws that govern war.

Over the course of the second half of the 18th century and beyond, international law has evolved to differentiate between the occupation of a country and the acquisition of territory through invasion and annexation. It is stated in the first two articles of that section that:

When a territory is genuinely placed under the jurisdiction of an enemy army, that territory is deemed to be occupied, as stated in Article 42.Only in the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised does the occupation extend to cover the entire territory.

Art. 43. The authority of the legal power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore and safeguard, to the greatest extent possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws that are currently in effect in the nation.

The Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV) was ratified in 1949, which resulted in the expansion of the norms that govern the occupation of land belonging to an adversary state. A significant portion of the General Convention on the International Civil and Political Rights (GCIV) is pertinent to protected persons in occupied territories, and Section III: Occupied areas is a special section that addresses the subject.

Article 6 places limitations on the amount of time that the majority of GCIV is applicable:

Immediately upon the beginning of any conflict or occupation that is stated in Article 2, the present Convention will come into effect.

It is the responsibility of the parties to the conflict to ensure that the application of the present Convention is terminated after military operations have been completed in their entirety.

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.

One of the most significant shifts in international law was highlighted by GCIV. GCIV Article 47, the first paragraph in Section III: Occupied territories, restricted the territorial gains that may be obtained through conflict by saying that wars of aggression were outlawed by the United Nations Charter, which was adopted on June 26, 1945. See articles 1.1, 2.3, and 2.4 for more information:

By any change introduced, as a 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, protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived of the benefits of the present Convention in any circumstance or in any manner whatsoever. This Convention prohibits any such deprivation.

According to Article 49, it is illegal to coerce large groups of persons from leaving or entering the territory of an occupied state:

Individual or mass forceful transfers, as well as deportations of protected individuals from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to the territory of any other country, whether occupied or not, are forbidden, regardless of the reason for the transfer or deportation. The Occupying Power is prohibited from deporting or transferring any portion of its own civilian population into the territory that 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 that describe occupation; nevertheless, a large number of countries, including the United States, have not signed this additional protocol.

In the event that a territorial cession occurs as a consequence of a war, the inclusion of the phrase receiving country in the peace treaty merely indicates that the nation in question has been granted permission by the world community to establish a civil government in the territory in question. After the peace treaty enters into force, the military administration of the primary occupying power will continue to operate until it is officially replaced. This will continue until the peace treaty is legally replaced.

The concept that military government continues until legally supplanted is mentioned in the third edition of Military authority and Martial Law, which was published in 1914 by William E. Birkhimer.

[T]erritory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army, as stated in Article 42 of the Hague Convention on Land Warfare, which was signed in 1907. In the context of occupied territory, the term military government refers to the administrative structure that allows an occupying power to exercise government authority over the territory. Neither the Hague Conventions nor the Geneva Conventions provide a clear definition of the term invasion or differentiate between the various types of it. A further expansion of this was made by Article 2 of the Geneva Conventions, which included circumstances in which there was no armed resistance met.

When it comes to the beginning of an occupation, there is no requirement that a particular number of people be in position, nor is there a requirement that a public statement of the beginning of a military administration be made. Writings by Birkhimer:

When it comes to the lawful inauguration and enforcement of military administration, there is no requirement for a proclamation of part of the victorious commander. The establishment of that administration is the consequence of the old sovereignty being overthrown and the opposing army gaining control of the situation. Nevertheless, the publication of such a proclamation is beneficial because it includes the publication of the standards of conduct that will govern the conqueror in the exercise of his authority to all of the people who live in the region that is occupied. In point of fact, Wellington stated that the commander is obligated to clearly define the guidelines that would be followed in order to carry out his will, as was described earlier. Nevertheless, this is not something that is required under the laws of war, and in a great number of cases, it is not carried out. When this is not the case, the sheer fact that the country is militarily occupied by the enemy is considered to be adequate notification to all those who are concerned that the regular government has been replaced by a military government. The pages 25–26

In the rules of war, the phrase the occupying power is most accurately expressed as the principal occupying power, or alternately, as the occupying power. This is the most appropriate way to express the meaning of the phrase. Specifically, this is due to the fact that the law of agency is always accessible (a principal – agent relationship is in existence when the administrative power for the occupancy of certain territories is transferred to other troops).

That definition is not always applicable outside of those contexts that can be analyzed by analogy as being related to warlording, despite the fact that it does relate more generally to all possible types of military coalitions. This is due to the fact that the law of agency is a very general pattern, which is primarily applicable in this case as the means of regulating the relationships between the aforementioned powers. However, it is a question in which considerations of logistics are sometimes to be taken into consideration.

In the majority of situations, which are regulated by the application of the stated and contemporary laws of war, delegation to agencies typically tends to relate to organizations that are responsible for civilian affairs. Regarding the other circumstances, judicial considerations such as the ones mentioned above continue to be purely consensual amongst the aforementioned powers. To give just one example, the United States Military Tribunal in Nuremberg stated in 1948 that:

In the case of belligerent occupation, the force that is occupying the area does not have any legal authority to hold the land of the enemy. To the contrary, it just exercises a control