The Occupation Of Enemy Territory

Since the mid-19th century military powers and various writers have tried to define the notion of belligerent occupation and, in particular, the beginning thereof. There are many situations in which a state of occupation is controversial or even denied. When is control so effective that an invasion turns into a state of belligerent occupation? What is the minimum area of a territory that can be occupied; a town, a hamlet, a house or what about a hill taken by the armed forces? This paper examines what seems to be an important gap of the Fourth Geneva Convention: contrary to the Hague Regulations of 1907 it does not provide a definition of belligerent occupation. It is argued that the Fourth Geneva Convention follows its own rules of applicability and that therefore the provisions relative to occupied territories apply in accordance with the “functional beginning” of belligerent occupation approach from the moment that a protected person finds him or herself in the hands of the enemy. Henry Dunant Prize 2010 from the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights (ADH Geneva)

Originally published: Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1993.

A detailed and highly authoritative critical commentary appraising the vitally important United States Department of Defense Law of War Manual.

This monograph analyses the historical evolution of the laws of occupation as a special branch of international humanitarian law (IHL), focusing on the extent to which this body of law has been transformed by its interaction with the development of international human rights law. It argues that a large part of the laws of occupation has proved to be malleable while being able to accommodate changing demands of civilians and any other persons affected by occupation in modern context. Its examinations have drawn much on archival research into the drafting documents of the instruments of IHL, including the aborted Brussels Declaration 1874, the 1899/1907 Hague Regulations, the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1977 Additional Protocol I. After assessing the complementary relationship between international human rights law and the laws of occupation, the book examines how to provide a coherent explanation for an emerging framework on the rights of individual persons affected by occupation. It engages in a theoretical appraisal of the role of customary IHL and the Martens clause in building up such a normative framework.