Talk:Military occupation/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

First discussion

Most of the additional examples of belligerent occupation recently added are not considered such under international law. For example the Chinese occupation of Tibet. Tibet signed away its sovereignty years ago, however much they may regret doing so now and however unjust the situation may be. Fred Bauder 18:51, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)

The heads of the Baltic states were pressured to concede their sovereignty to USSR in 1940s. By your logic that made 50 years of occupation legal? Ask them. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 19:26, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

West Bank and Gaza strip

If my memory serves me correct, these areas were part of Jordan and Egypt by the treaties establishing Israel. Therefore they should not be named as a military occupation by these nations until Israel occupied them, but vice versa.

Probably it doesn't. The UN 181 resolution called for an establishment of an independent Palestinian state in these territories (and others, which Isreal occupied in the 1948 war). Gadykozma 17:29, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

After the first Israeli-Arab war Palestinian leaders declared the independence of an all-Palestinian government. While the West Bank and Gaza were held by Arab armies (essentially Egypt and [Trans-] Jordan), these were nevertheless not recognised by anyone as being part of those countries. trans-Jordan then annexed the West Bank, becoming 'Jordan', and extended citizenship to all Palestinians and effectively ending occupation, but Egypt never made any claims to either annex Gaza, or establish a Palestinian state there. The Gaza strip was administred by Egyptian millitary until 1967. Therefore we can talk about 'occupation' in a legal sense in the context of Gaza from 1948 until 2005 (Israeli withdrawal) and in the case of the West Bank from 1948 until 1955 (correct me if the second date is wrong) and from 1967 onwards. The situation now becomes more complicated as Israel is de-facto back in the West Bank but has hinted that it will withdraw from most of the West Bank. If Israel would withdraw, and would annex the large settlement blocks near the Green line, this would (so many Israelis would argue) the end of the Israeli occupation.

As a note - effectively this end off occupation would then change the Occupied Terrirories from 'Occupied' to 'neo-colonial', but this is another Wiki-article... 81.170.3.208 19:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

"Disputed by both sides"

I removed this section — it doesn't make sense since if it fits under "Disputed to be an occupation by local population" then it would definitely also be disputed by the occupier, so in effect this category is redundant. I don't know enough about the Korean conflict so I left it under "other" until somebody who does fixes this.

Jayjg, the notrious occupation pages are historic so I moved them there. The west bank and Gaza already existed as "undisputed", please don't add duplicate entries, and please don't move it — Israel admits that they are occupied (otherwise, it would annex them). Gadykozma 13:19, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

When did Israel make this admission? Jayjg 19:12, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Actually, this was Israel's outspoken policy for at least the first 10 years of the occupation. Nowadays they don't use the term occupation, but they don't deny it (officially) either. Correct me if I'm wrong — an official quote that actively denies it will suffice (but one that just avoids using the term would not ;-)) Gadykozma 19:54, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Wow, I missed your reply, sorry for not responding. How about an official statement from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign affairs? "The West Bank and Gaza Strip are disputed territories whose status can only be determined through negotiations. Occupied territories are territories captured in war from an established and recognized sovereign. As the West Bank and Gaza Strip were not under the legitimate and recognized sovereignty of any state prior to the Six Day War, they should not be considered occupied territories." [1] Jayjg (talk)
I am not sure I should thank you for digging up this link — it really makes me want to give back my citizenship. I moved it to the disputed section. Gadykozma 16:07, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Not sure if they're right there, Gadykozma, after all (at least for the West Bank) the territory WAS annexed to Jordan before being occupied by Israel in 1967. The fact that Jordan renounced any claims in 1988 changes very little about this fact.

I know that it is the official Israeli position that these territories are 'disputed' and not 'occupied' - but does that change anythig about the falling under the conceptual definition of an occupation?! If you want them to be included under disputed rather than under occupied, could you please expend on what exactly you refer to by disputed?! Is the land disputed, the people, or is it rather their status which is disputed? Personally, I would almost agree with your criticism that it is difficult to summ the two up under military occupation, but I don't agree with your conclusion - if you look at Israeli occupational principles in the territories (read Schlomo Gazit - the carrot and the stick on this topic) you might come (or not) to the conclusion that they could just as well be Colonial territories... 195.188.241.124 10:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Guantanamo Bay

I believe Guantanamo Bay is leased not occupied? Palestine-info 09:57, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I moved it to the first "disputed" section. Gadykozma 13:19, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I never heard anyone claim that Guantanamo Bay is occupied. :) Who claims that? I'm curious. Otherwise I think it should be removed. Palestine-info 21:16, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think I heard Guantanamo Bay was leased indefinently to Batista's US-backed regime for a miniscule ammount of money considering it's size, but Castro's regime doesn't want them there and claims they never cash America's cheques. Therefore it could be considered at least a disputed occupation. I think I put it there, I can't remember. Kingal86 12:09, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Guantanamo Bay is leased. United States Military Government in Cuba ended on May 20, 1902. Hmortar 09:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hague Article 42

Does anyone object to changing the definition at the top of the page to fit Hague Convention of 1907 Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907

Section III Military Authority over the territory of the hostile 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.

-- PBS 10:11, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I feel it would be helpful if the issue of "Occupation" in the context of annexation were clarified. As I understand International Law, an annexed territory is no longer "occupied", though the annexation itself may be illegal or disputed. Jayjg (talk) 00:51, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is no annexation. Annexation is illegal, and is always regarded as such in the post-Napoleonic era. This is why the Republic of China's announced annexation of Taiwan at the Japanese surrender ceremonies on Oct. 25, 1945, (the so-called "Taiwan Retrocession Day") was/is illegal and is not recognized internationally. Hence, the ROC cannot get into the United Nations because it does not have LEGAL TITLE to the areas of "Formosa and the Pescadores." Military occupation is just military occupation, and this is what HR 42 is saying. (The opposite would be to say: "Territory is considered annexed when it is actually palced under the authority of the hostile army." ..... and indeed that was much more the norm in the eras before 1830 or so.) Hmortar 09:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It is suggested that Occupied territories be merged into this article

I have just added a link in the "See Also" section. I believe that that solves the problem. Hmortar 10:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Western Sahara occupied by Morocco

Is Western Sahara occupied by a Moroccan hostile army? --PBS 10:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Iraq

The article has Iraq listed as being annexed by the US. Last time I checked Iraq is not a part of the United States. megarockman 128.135.62.64 23:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Coalition military occupation of Iraq ended, so it should not be listed here. see United Nations Security Council Resolution 1546 and Iraqi Interim Government --PBS 11:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That the "coalition forces" are belligerently occupying Iraq should not be in question. There are over a hundred thousand troops there, and polling data shows 4/5 of Iraqis oppose them. That is the definition of an occupation. If corporate media in the US are reluctant to use the term "occupation" (although it frequently gets printed anyway), that should have no bearing here. Still, the term "occupation of iraq" (in quotes) returns over 1,400 articles in Google News. If there is some controversy about it, then that controversy could be noted (preferably in a footnote). Organ123 14:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Where is an occupation defined as the presence of foreign troops against the wishes of the population? I would have thought it would be defined as the presence of foreign troops against the wishes of the legitimate government. Hobson 22:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The foreign forces which are in Iraq are there at the invitation of the sovereign Iraq government. That means that they are not a belligerent military occupational force under the laws of war. If you think otherwise then you should find a reliable legal source which says that despite unanimous United Nations Security Council resolutions to the contrary there is a credible argument that the coalition forces represent a belligerent military occupation. IMHO it is additions information based on unsubstantiated points of view like "'coalition forces' are belligerently occupying Iraq should not be in question" causes Wikipedia not to be taken seriously by many commentators.

  • Resolution 1546 (2004) Adopted Unanimously "UN Security Council endorses formation of sovereign interim government in Iraq; welcomes end of occupation by 30 June, democratic elections by January 2005"
  • Resolution 1637 (2005) Extention of the mandate until the end of 2006. "Speaking after the vote, the United States’ representative said he was pleased that the Council had been able to come together quickly and unanimously to respond to the Iraqi Government’s request for continued support. The text responded directly to the request of the Iraqi Government, and notably, the Iraqi Mission had played a visible and substantial role in its negotiation. Substantial progress had already been made in helping to build and train the Iraqi security forces, but with much work remaining, the multinational force would continue to work with the Iraqi Government to maintain security and stability in Iraq. Stressing that the foreign forces in Iraq must maintain their temporary status in the framework of following up the political process, France’s representative said that the future government, at any time, would be able to request that the mandate be renewed or that it end. The mandate was time-limited. Unless a contrary decision was made by the Council, that mandate would expire on 31 December 2006. Moreover, the Council had foreseen that the mandate would be reviewed no later than 15 June 2006. In that time, the multinational force and the Iraqi forces would need to act in compliance with international law."
  • Resolution 1723 (2006)Security Council extends mandate of multinational force in Iraq until 21 December 2007, Unamimously adopting resolution 1723 (2006). Also Calls for Review of Force by 15 June 2007, Earlier termination of mandate if requested by Iraqi Government.

--PBS 17:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Forcing your edits into an entry is a violation of wikipedia:consensus, which is an official policy. If there is disagreement, the original consensus remains until a new consensus can be formed.
2. Wikipedia can't be taken seriously if it exists in a fantasy world where it claims that the "coalition forces" are not occupying Iraq. If a puppet ("sovereign") government invites an occupier to remain against the will of the overwhelming majority of the population, and the UN security council accepts the invitation, that doesn't mean there's no occupation. My argument above uses common sense and simple logic, based on the definition of "occupation" and the simple facts of what is occurring in Iraq. And it's not like this is original research; the term "occupation of Iraq" is used widely around the world.
3. If you like, as a compromise, we can move it into the "disputed occupations" section. But I am not willing to remove it outright. Organ123 19:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Your first point is that I am forcing my edits on a consensus is amusing. Revision as of 00:41, 2 March 2007 Jamiemock user:Jaiemock has made two edit, the first was this one. Since then you are the only editor adding the entry.

As WP:ATT says "Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material. If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." You have yet to produce a reliable attributable source that says it is a belligerent military occupation. --PBS 19:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to have brought amusement to your life. I would suggest that you consider reading Wikipedia:Civility. Jamiemock's edit lasted nearly a month, and according to Wikipedia:Consensus, "'Silence equals consent' is the ultimate measure of consensus." It's a Wikipedia policy, but for what it's worth, I agree with it.
The source I provided was a mainstream poll printed in the largest newspaper in San Francisco. Here is a huge list of media outlets that use the term.
I'll repeat my offer for a compromise -- would you be willing to put it in the "disputed occupations" section? Organ123 22:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not a matter of compromise, provide a source which states that it is a belligerent military occupation under the laws of war and we will include it in the section "Significant contemporary belligerent military occupations" to date you have not provided a reliable source that states that it is, instead you have produced a journalistic source which uses the term occupation. The journalist is not an expert in international law and he does not quote a source who is an expert stating that it is a belligerent military occupation. I have provided the UN Security council resolutions which clearly show that it is not a belligerent military occupation. See above it is up to you who whishes to include such an entry to provide an attributable source. --PBS 22:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Clearly over 4/5 of Iraqis -- the people who are being occupied -- think that there is an occupation. I provided a source for that. Iraqi opinion counts at least as much as the UN Security Council's. (In fact, I would say that Iraqi opinion is the only opinion that matters, but that's my opinion.) So if there's a dispute, it's not over whether a reputable source thinks there's an occupation. Organ123 23:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is talking about a military occupation in the legal sense. It also appears to be talking about belligerent military occupation, although the simple shorter phrase military occupation later appears. The US and UK and Iraq are not belligerents. The current occupation of Iraq does not seem to be an occupation in the legal sense, as the US and UK forces are there at the request of the UN and the agreement of Iraq. Having said all that, I am obviously not an expert on international law and I could be wrong, but the two journalists cited in the article do not appear to be experts either, and neither are anonymous civilians. It's not enough to cite a source that says something (and neither source claims the current situation is a military occupation in international law in any case). It needs to be a source which has some sort of authority - in this case I would have thought a recognised authority in international law. Hobson 00:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If this article is only about occupations in the sense of international law, then I propose that it be renamed "Military occupation (international law)". If we are talking about military occupations in general, then I feel that the voice of 80% of the occupied population should be of prime concern to us as editors. (Also, for the record, Ahmed Chalabi is not a journalist; he was Iraq's deputy prime minister from May 2005 until May 2006.) Organ123 00:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation is not needed so there is no need to re-name the article to "Military occupation (international law)". The definition of what a military occupation is given in the section "Military occupation and the laws of war". The presence of foreign troops in Iraq is not a belligerent military occupation because they are invited to be there by the internationally recognised government of a sovereign state.

If one was to ask the man in the back of the Buenos Aires omnibus if the Malvinas were under military occupation they would probably say yes, but that does not make it true. One would probably get that answer for many areas of the world where there is a territorial dispute, but such answers are subjective and would turn this into a list of disputed territories not an article on military occupation. Using the criteria that you (Organ123) we end up with a very strange situation over the occupation of Iraq. During the invasion of Iraq and initial occupation (when the recognised government of Iraq opposed the occupation and it was a belligerent military occupation), before it went pear shaped, the majority of the Iraqi population were probably in favour of the occupation. So by your new definition that was not a belligerent occupation, it only became one when an opinion pole showed that the majority in Iraq thought the coalition forces should leave even though they are there by the invitation of the legitimate government of Iraq. --PBS 08:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion Iraq is not occupied. Was Ethopia occupied during the war with Siad Barre's Somalia, when the Soviet Union sent 'advisors' there? No. Is Kosovo occupied by KFOR? No. Afganistan by ISAF? No. The international troops in Iraq are there to help the legal, sovereign government of the country. Whether the international troops are doing that in an efficient way, and whether the government of Iraq is acting in the interests of its people by allowing the troops to stay is a separate issue, and has nothing to do with military occupation. Do list, though, the initial invasion and occupation of Iraq under Hussein, as military occupation - it will be a good example for young readers who are unfamiliar with earlier occupations. --User:Krator (t c) 09:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It is listed under List of military occupations with an entry of:
I removed Iraq from the list. I stated my reasons in the edit summary, and above, but I feel the necessity to add another reason, because I noticed the last edit summary (of an edit that adds Iraq back in), which states that:
"Cited a columnist and Ahmad Chalabi, as well as the 4/5 opposition figure."
Citing a columnist and Ahmad Chalabi is obviously not enough, as these are people who have an interest in presenting the situation one way or the other, and aren't representing the majority of the Iraqi population.
The opposition figure source reads as follows: "[...] while nearly 4 out of 5 oppose the presence of coalition forces in Iraq." This is not something that shows Iraq is occupied by the US and the UK. I wrote earlier: "Whether the international troops are doing that in an efficient way, and whether the government of Iraq is acting in the interests of its people by allowing the troops to stay is a separate issue, and has nothing to do with military occupation."
--User:Krator (t c) 11:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
1) Since the only definition given is about the "laws of war," a disambiguation is needed. Everyone opposing me here is arguing from a strict perspective of international law, and not based on an "occupation" in a general sense.
2) It seems like PBS is arguing that 4/5 of Iraqis may think they're occupied, but they're actually wrong because the United Nations Security Council says so. That argument can only work if we adopt an extremely narrow definition of "occupation", which, given the title of this article, it doesn't seem like we're doing.
3) Krator says: "The international troops in Iraq are there to help the legal, sovereign government of the country." That's a lot to assume, since again, if you ask 4/5 of Iraqis, they'll probably disagree, or if they do agree, it'll be because they think the "sovereign government" is a sham. I'm not discussing the "efficiency" here; I'm discussing whether or not the "coalition forces" are there at the request of the Iraqis or not. In a legal sense, by the "sovereign government," they apparently are. However, in a realistic sense, by the overwhelming majority of the occupied population, they are decidedly not.
So I propose that either we rename the page to indicate that we're only talking in narrow legal terms, or we include Iraq. Organ123 15:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is a need to move the page or to include Iraq on this page. Personally I think that using the definitions provided by international humanitarians law and United Nations Security Council resolutions is the better way to go, but I would like you (Organ123) to answer my points on the muddle we would end up in if we followed your idea. Using your definition the initial phases of the invasion and military occupation of Iraq were probably quite popular, so it follows that this was not a military occupation by your definition. As by your definition the military occupation did not start until there was a clear majority against foreign intervention in Iraq, when do you think the military occupation started? --PBS 17:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your argument here, but I don't need to respond to those particular points to be correct. Regardless of when the occupation started, and regardless of whether a "muddle" might occur, I don't think what you're saying refutes the fact: when 4/5 of a population opposes the presence of a foreign army in its country, that means a highly relevant segment thinks the presence is a "belligerent occupation" (at least in a non-legal sense of the term); where by belligerent, I mean "in an aggressive or hostile manner, such as engaging in combat," and by "occupation" I mean "one nation's military occupies all or part of the territory of another nation." I don't think this point can be accurately disputed. For that reason, I propose again that either the article title change, or we include Iraq. Organ123 18:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to persuade me to agree with you you are going to have to answer the question of when the Iraq occupation started. The definition laid out in Hague IV and described in Military occupation#Military occupation and the laws of war: "42. Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army... Art. 43. The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant". (My emphasis) Neither of these conditions are met in Iraq today. --PBS 18:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I'll be able to persuade you or anyone else by getting into an argument about when the Iraq occupation started. (If you're curious, my personal opinion is that I've never seen evidence that Iraqi population was clamoring for the US to invade in 2003, so the whole effort has been illegitimate from day one. Early polls showed deep skepticism among Iraqis about the US's intentions, and over time that skepticism has blossomed into the general disgust we see today. The US was not invited into Iraq initially. So I think the occupation started in March, 2003.) My strongest argument at the moment is the one in my above entry. I understand that the narrow definition described above may imply that Iraq is not occupied -- in which case, I'm proposing that if we want to keep Iraq off the list, the title be changed to "Military occupation (international law)" Organ123 19:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
The article already makes it clear that it is defining what consititutes an occupation by reference to military law. Most of the article is a discussion of various conventions and the UN Charter. Hobson 21:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

So in your opinion the invasion and occupation should at first be defined using Hague "The US was not invited into Iraq initially" but then you want to junk Hague and go over to your roll your own definition about public opinion as expressed in opinion polls. I reiterate, the article name is fine and the section "Military occupation and the laws of war" explains to those who do not know what a military occupation is. --PBS 20:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

1) Regarding Hobson's comment -- I agree, and that's why I think the article is misnamed.
2) Regarding Philip's comment -- I was referring to being "invited" metaphorically by the general population, not by the puppet government; sorry if I was unclear, but what I meant to get across is consistent with what I've been saying. The general Iraqi population in early 2003, as far as I can tell, was not clamoring for the coalition forces to invade and stick around for four years. I won't indulge the above topic any further because I think it's an irrelevant tangent. I haven't made my own definitions here. I took wikipedia's definitions of "belligerent" and "occupation" and applied them to the situation in Iraq, where over 80% of the civilians oppose "coalition" military presence. Philip is insisting on limiting the definition of "occupation" to a narrow, legal definition, even though the title of this article makes no implication that that's the only definition we can use. Again, this is not my original research, as there are a great deal of recent sources that correctly use the same term ("occupation") to describe the situation. Organ123 02:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Occupation is as disambiguation page which links to this page for "the periods of time following a nation's territory invasion by controlling enemy troops"; and Belligerent says "Belligerency is a term used in international law to indicate the status of two or more entities, generally sovereign states, being engaged in a war." It goes on to talk about an insergency, but in this case the insergency is against an internationally recognised government of a soverign state which has requested the help of other states to aid it against an insergency. So where are the Wikipedia definitions of "belligerent" and "occupation" that you are referring to? --PBS 09:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Organ123 leaving discussion ... I think I've already put too much energy into this and I can see that as I am outnumbered and we do not seem near to compromise, and I am frustrated with some behavior, I am more or less wasting my time. I am taking this page off my watchlist. For the record, I have not changed my stance at all and I hope someday my views that Iraq is occupied will prevail on this page, as they have in the world at large. But for now I think there are better ways to use my energy. Thank you. Organ123 16:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

third opinions

[Note: Organ123's original wording has been restored, and his comments were originally in the section above.]

I would like to call attention to PBS's post on Krator's talk page, asking Krator to make an edit during this dispute knowing that Krator's opinion was similar to his. Soliciting others with similar viewpoints to your own to make edits during disputes is akin to advertising and the spirit of meatpuppet solicitation, and does not support neutrality in articles. I would ask that in the future people do not ask others to make such edits during disputes. Organ123 04:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I made a request for a third opinion as at the time I made the request only you and I were involved in this discussion. Krator was the one who responded to that request so asking Krator to make an edit to stop an edit war was not an unreasonable thing to do. I will say no more about this issue on this page, as this talk page is only meant to be used to discuss the article's development (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines). --PBS 08:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Organ123, please keep it civil please. PBS asked me to make an edit to follow up on my third opinion, which was a good thing to do - I normally don't edit pages I give a third opinion on, because a third opinion tends to be a tie-breaker, or present new arguments that solve the conflict. This clearly isn't the case here, so I have to ask you to ask for, in order, comments, and then mediation - and leave the page like it is now while awaiting more opinions. --User:Krator (t c) 09:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I encourage PBS to read the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, where it states: "Never edit someone's words to change their meaning." I'll assume good faith however in his (perhaps accidental) deletion of my words "I would like to call attention to" and his placement of them under a different heading than I intended. I have been nothing but civil in this lengthy debate. Please understand my frustration when I see that the person opposing me has solicited another to make an edit on his behalf. I'm not going to ask for comments and mediation; I'm done with this, I just wanted to call attention to it. Organ123 15:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

On further thought, if you feel this discussion would be more appropriate on Philip's talk page, then I won't complain if someone moves this text there; still, I have nothing more to say on this. I just wanted to point it out and suggest that it not be repeated. Organ123 15:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The deletion " I would like to call attention to" was accidental and I apologise for making the mistake. --PBS 09:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Nagorno-Karabakh

Is there an attritbal souce (quoting a UN resolution or whatever) that Nagorno-Karabakh is under a beligerant military occupation by Armenia and that it is claimed to be so by Azerbaijan? -- PBS 08:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

OK got one: Mr David Atkinson, United Kingdom, European Democrat Group, (Rapporteur) The conflict over the Nagorno-Karabakh region dealt with by the OSCE Minsk Conference, Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, 29 November 2004 --PBS 10:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


Western Sahara

Western Sahara falls in the category of "Disputed to be a military occupation by nation of dominant military forces in area". Morocco considers the territory to be his and not occupied. Please stop this. The category description applies perfectly to the situation. --A Jalil 12:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge Law of occupation into this article.

I suggest that we merge Law of occupation into this article. I do not think that there is very much worth copying over because it is an American centric article and most of the content is not global enough. So this is mainly a request to make the other article a redirect to this one until such time as the section "Military occupation and the laws of war" grows so large that it needs a separate article. --PBS (talk) 12:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

As no one else has chimed in, I have redirected Law of occupation to this page. --PBS (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

"Belonging to a state"

Does anybody have a citation for the definition which requires that occupied territory belong to a state when it is seized by a hostile army? The Palestinian territories are universally regarded as occupied even though the West Bank and Gaza were not considered to belong to the states which controlled them prior to 1967. Same with East Timor. <eleland/talkedits> 18:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

West Papua

The addition'a bias speaks for itself. I will contact the author to have it made neutral.Ngchen (talk) 22:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

The definition given at the top of the page is:

Belligerent or military occupation occurs when one nation's military garrisons all or part of a foreign nation during an invasion or after a war.

That definition does not seem to apply to Northern Ireland.
Bobblewik  (talk) 20:02, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Britain invaded Ireland. It withdrew its garrisons to the northeast of the island in 1922. It still maintains those garrisons.

Lapsed Pacifist 02:25, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • What is Britain and when did Britain invade Ireland?
  • Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and is recognised as such by the international community including the Republic of Ireland. PBS 11:24, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Replying to LP's editorial comment - then it should be on a list of most militarized areas. "Occupation" has an accepted and defined meaning in international law, that in part - how it ends - depends on the state of international law at the time. In classical international law, there was a right of conquest, and a conqueror could proclaim that it owned a territory just because it had conquered it, and everybody else would accept it. That is what happened in Ireland. It couldn't happen now because this "right" no longer is recognized, and every state on Earth consents to treaties - the UN charter among others - that deny this "right." You might have a case that for the short time between English conquest and proclamation that it annexed Ireland, that it was occupied according to the standards of the time, but not more than that.--John Z 01:14, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


The British army has bases in Ireland that the people who live near don't want there. They have had to continually reinforce these bases over the past thirty years to protect them and the lives of the soldiers who are based in them. People who live near the bases have launched scores of bomb and mortar attacks on them, and have killed hundreds of those British soldiers. No-one is arguing that the international community does'nt consider Northern Ireland part of the United Kingdom. What's pertinent here is whether the British military presence in Ireland amounts to occupation or not. Given the violent and sustained opposition to it, I believe it does.

Lapsed Pacifist 4 July 2005 16:46 (UTC)

I have not seen a source which argues that the situation in NI meets the criteria for belligerent military occupation. You say "I believe it does", but have you any disinterested credible sources which says that it is a belligerent military occupation? PBS 4 July 2005 18:15 (UTC)


The best. The troops' own operations and tactics, and their behaviour towards the people who live in the areas they occupy. In certain places it is too dangerous for them to travel by road, forcing them to rely on helicopters. Without the force of arms, the British government would be unable to extend its writ to many areas it currently can.

Lapsed Pacifist 4 July 2005 23:56 (UTC)

Even pre-1995 when the situation was similar to that which you discribe, when minority of people in NI activly fought or resisted the army, it was never an internal military occupation (as martial law was not declared). The definition and the examples consists of "Belligerent military occupations" which NI is not. PBS 5 July 2005 08:27 (UTC)


I find it hard to swallow that the conditions in which the British army went about its duties does not constitute military occupation. They base themselves in areas where the local population consider them an occupying force, even those who have'nt tried to kill any of them. That's good enough for me.

Lapsed Pacifist 5 July 2005 08:48 (UTC)

Not every bad thing is an occupation. It's fine to call it tantamount to occupation, or as bad as an occupation, but without confusing words and people you cannot call it an occupation. There have been many (tyrannical) governments in the past century that treated (some or practically all) their own people in ways as bad or even worse, but were still the recognized authority, who no one said was "occupying" their nation. You might have a good case for there being British occupation of Ireland during the Anglo-Irish War, because there was martial law in a real, recognized shooting war that ended up with the rebels becoming a government. This points up to how the word is used. You cannot have an occupation without a war. No war, no occupation. Would you call what is happening now or recently a war?--John Z 5 July 2005 09:37 (UTC)


The recent conflict was not much different in ferocity than the Anglo-Irish War. I don't agree that an ongoing war is necessary for military occupation, it's the size and nature of the presence that would decide that. The "authority" of the British government in Northern Ireland may be recognised internationally, but it is not recognised as legitimate by hundreds of thousands of people who live there, and who consider the British army an army of occupation.

Lapsed Pacifist 5 July 2005 09:52 (UTC)

But then you are just using a different definition of occupation from the one that is universally used in international law and in this article. For there to be an occupation, legitimacy or the size and nature of the presence, or even recognition is not important. That there must have been an actual war is. Occupation is a de facto term - it says nothing about who is right or wrong, who is behaving badly, whether the occupation is justified or not. It just means there is or was a war, and now there is military control (and no clear and definite end to the military control by a recognized peace treaty). If hundreds of thousands of people felt that they were really at war, and behaved like they were, your case would be better. I have no particular problem with anybody calling the British army an army of occupation as long as they don't say it fits under the usual definition or think that such a statement belongs in an encyclopedia that uses the usual definition. - --John Z 5 July 2005 10:21 (UTC)


So for you it comes down to whether or not the conflict there was a war? Republican paramilitary groups (and their supporters) contend there was, as this increases their legitimacy. The British government deny it, for the opposite reason. I don't agree that the size of the military presence and the tactics and behaviour of the troops (i.e. that they act just like an army of occupation) should not be taken into account. That would be like an article on war crimes that only considered those who were brought to book.

Lapsed Pacifist 5 July 2005 10:44 (UTC)


I must say I'm at a loss. Is there a war on the Kurils I've completely missed? Is there currently martial law in Northern Cyprus?

Lapsed Pacifist 6 July 2005 16:51 (UTC)

See Cyprus#Reunification, Cyprus dispute#Invasion and Division, 1974 and the section in this article called "Military occupation and the laws of war" GCIV Articles 6,47,48.
See Kuril Islands dispute. Personally if I was making up the list I would probably not include them because although they are held by Russia as a result of a military attack which took place after the United Nations was founded, it happened before GCIV (1949). But the situation is a legal mess and is not as clear cut as it is in Cyprus.
I am supprised that you did not use "Chechnya recognised internationally as part of Russia" as an example because it is a better fit to the situation in NI. I think it ought to be deleted, althought it differs from NI in the scale of the conflict (which I think most would describe as a war) and the severity of the damage [2][3]. Operation Motorman is in no way comparable to the Russians attack on Grozny which suffered an artillery attack simlar to those of World War II PBS 6 July 2005 18:23 (UTC)


"Personally if I was making up the list..." You are. You and I both. I am already familiar with the two scenarios I mentioned. The point I was making is that every situation is different. Since it was already obvious from the section title that use of the term "military occupation" is disputed, I saw no reason not to revert it.

Lapsed Pacifist 6 July 2005 18:45 (UTC)

I am not making the list up, I've been removing things from the list on this page for about 6 months! PBS 6 July 2005 19:03 (UTC)


When I first came to this article, I put Northern Ireland under "Disputed to be a military occupation by local population", as this seemed the most appropriate section to me at the time. I moved it to the next section when you expressed your dissatisfaction with that. To my mind either is appropriate.

Lapsed Pacifist 6 July 2005 20:50 (UTC)

I still haven't seen where it meets the definition of a military occupation; where was the war? Jayjg (talk) 6 July 2005 21:12 (UTC)

All of the others are associated with wars. In addition, and this is an important test of whether things belong on such a list, is that there are organizations and their lawyers who say such and such is a military occupation. If you can find a legal reference that presents an argument that NI is a case of military occupation, I'll stop objecting - and then put it in with the reference. That's the way WIkipedia does things. I'd really like to see the argument though. In contentious matters like these, people come up with remarkable and strained arguments, but there is a limit, and I think no legal expert would say something like that - it just doesn't jibe with the legal mind.--John Z 7 July 2005 08:02 (UTC)

See http://www.32csm.netfirms.com/unsubmission.html.

Lapsed Pacifist 7 July 2005 14:22 (UTC)

There's no argument there for it being a military occupation. They just use the word loosely, not as a legal term, as you are doing. What is more, it is clear that they do not think it fits in the strict definition of a military occupation used here, otherwise they would be referring to violations of the Hague and Geneva conventions. In addition, by referring to the military occupation of Ireland in times when there was a recognized right of conquest, they again make it clear that they are using the word loosely. Again, this says nothing about the merits of the case of Ireland vs Britain, it just says that if one is being strict, one should not put it in this classification - as the writers of this document make clear as they do not even mention the law of belligerent occupation. --John Z 7 July 2005 21:14 (UTC)


There's no reason not to distinguish between de jure and de facto occupations in the article itself. As long as it's made clear that whether or not a conflict exists, the occupations referred to are not considered such in a strict legal sense, I don't see the problem.

Lapsed Pacifist 7 July 2005 21:55 (UTC)

The web site you gave contains an article by the 32 County Sovereignty Committee which is not a disinterested party! And as John Z has pointed out "There's no argument there for it being a military occupation". Do you have a credible source from a disinterested party which states that in 2005 the situation in Northern Ireland is a "belligerent military occupation" by the British Army, or that NI is under "military occupation" by the British Army? PBS 8 July 2005 14:24 (UTC)


No-one claimed they were disinterested. There is still a strong argument for it being a military occupation, but obviously since the Republic changed its territorial claim the constitutional side of the argument has weakened. I'll state it again, the British army's methods in much of the region make it clear they are an occupying force. This is as plain as day, for anyone willing to research it.

Lapsed Pacifist 8 July 2005 19:18 (UTC)

Northern Ireland is not under military occupation. Northern Ireland is democratic British territory (ARK 2004 survey). British troops are currently stationed in regions of Northern Ireland known to be terrorist (particularly IRA)strongholds, such as south Armagh. They are there due to the perceived terrorist threat from those areas.
Troop numbers in Northern Ireland have been reduced dramatically in recent years - many see this as appeasment by the British government to Sinn Fein (the IRA's political wing) in order to encourage the IRA to disband. The withdrawals of British troops continue, despite the fact that the IRA still has not disbanded, nor has been seen to transparently decommision its weapons fully, has been linked to major spying operations, linked to training Colombian rebels, money laundering, and involved in major robberys (most notable being the £26m Northern Bank). British troops used to line border controls between Northern Ireland an the Republic of Ireland, but in recent times these are practically non-existant. At the height of the Northern Ireland 'troubles' in the 1970s British troops were present in an attempt to keep the peace and try to stabilise the poor security situation - Lapsed Pacifist will most likely reply to this with something different such as "collusion" with Loyalists etc., but should most likely be ignored.
Lapsed Pacifist (Special:Contributions/Lapsed_Pacifist) is begining to build a reputation for himself as a zealous Irish republican who likes to spread IRA propaganda. He has notably contributed to many articles, including biographies of IRA volunteers. (This may be personal, but I feel it is needed). All references to Northern Ireland should be deleted immediately. I do not know enough about the Chechnya/Russia situation so cannot commment on that issue.
Jonto 19:55, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


You're helping my argument. The British army has a presence in "IRA strongholds" which amounts to a de facto military occupation of those areas. The British government would be unable to extend its writ to these areas without the military presence. They still man the border, I believe The Parachute Regiment is currently there.

Lapsed Pacifist 20:23, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense. These "IRA strongholds" are small areas of perceived IRA terrorist threat to the security of Northern Ireland and the UK as a whole. They cannot be classified as "occupying" these areas because their main presence is in the form of watchtowers - they do not cordon off the entire area of south Armagh and prevent innocent people from entering or leaving the area, or prevent people going about their daily business. The troops are there to uphold security - this does not constitute a "military occupation". I do not deny there may be still some troops on the border, but it is very rare to ever be stopped when crossing nowadays, and having troops on border controls is hardly uncommon throughout the world.

Jonto 20:39, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


South Armagh is half of a whole county, and it's only one of the areas concerned. I'm not convinced there would be much of a threat from there to the security of the United Kingdom were the British army to up sticks and leave, and I believe their definition of "innocent people" tends to be rather narrow. Nor am I convinced that they don't often prevent people going about their daily business. I'm sure accounts of life there are available online. Soldiers at border controls are not a notable feature in most of Western Europe.

Lapsed Pacifist 20:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Again, LP, the onus is on you to prove your case, which I don't think you have done, or will ever do. The reason why there are no armed border controls throughout most of western Europe is due to something called the Schengen Treaty, which neither the UK or Republic Ireland are a part of. Try crossing the border from Canada to the US and I'm sure you'll find a very different story. Jonto 21:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


I don't believe it is. Have you researched any accounts of life in South Armagh?

Lapsed Pacifist 17:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Warning sarcasm follows) OOOOOohhh those poor people of South Armagh - they're treated soo badly by those big bad British. Those big bad watchtowers emit all that bad radiation and kill all our sheep and prevent us form sleeping at night (Believe it or not this is one of the most recent ridiculous excuses of victimhood to come from the area as reported by the BBC). We love going down to the dole office and claiming all our benefits that the big bad British taxpayer gives us though.

No, and no I am not going to research South Armagh. You have not proven your case and will not do so because it is widely accepted that you do not have one. Jonto 21:55, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

LP - I know what "de facto" means - I am not stupid. The term "de facto military occupation" does NOT apply to Northern Ireland. Jonto 21:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

If someone insists on Northern Ireland as a Military Occupation I'm going to add some other occupations: "United States" (wrested from the native Americans by military force) "England" (bloodily conquered by the Normans and never returned) and a whole pile of others. DJ Clayworth 21:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Um, Texas was annexed quite peacefully by the United States fifteen years before the War of Northern Aggression. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 15:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
And don't forget Ireland, conquered by the Gaels. Jayjg (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
And the most egregious of all, the occupation of the Conch Republic, by Florida. Long live the Republic!!!--JW1805 22:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


Indeed. All of these arguments are interesting, but when was the last time a U.S. soldier was killed by a Native American brave or a Mexican soldier, or a Norman knight by a Saxon one? I'm afraid my knowledge of the Gaelic invasion and the Floridian occupation are a bit hazy, so I'll reserve comment on those. Jonto, the term does not apply to all of the six counties, hence my qualification.

Lapsed Pacifist 22:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Surely a compromise could be reached in this apparent revert war about Northern Ireland/Ulster/Six Counties/North of Ireland or whatever. Maybe it could be mentioned that some of the Republican minority in Northern Ireland consider British rule to be a military occupation and this part of the population considered the IRA resistance fighters, but this is not the position of the Unionist majority, or the British or Irish governments. It could then be mentioned that Northern Ireland is considered by the UN to be part of the United Kingdom.

I'm not a Nationalist and, since I live in England, I detest the Provisional IRA, especially for deliberately massacring civilians up and down the country. However it seems pretty obvious England originally invaded, occupied and colonised Ireland centries ago, creating the horrible, sectarian mess which led to the 1970-98 guerrilla war or "Troubles".

On the subject of South Armargh/Crossmaglen I read a book about the South Armargh Brigade and have come to the conclusion that South Armargh should have been made part of the Republic of Ireland, since almost everyone in that region seemed to detest British rule. It would have spared the lives of all sides: British soldiers, RUC officers, Catholic and Protestant civilians and IRA guerrillas. Although part of the premise of the book was that South Armagh had historically resisted all outside authority and not just the Brits per se, surely the South Armagh Brigade wouldn't have declared war on the Gardai (Irish police).

Maybe a compromise could be made on Chechnya, although in constrast to Northern Ireland I would have thought a majority of Chechens would support independence from Russia, or at least a lot of the population, and historically support for independence has been strong ever since tsarist Russia invaded. Unless they've forgiven the Kremlin for destroying Grozny a few times and Stalin for deporting the entire population. (BTW, in case your wondering, I do support the Chechan separatists). Kingal86 13:35, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I do not think that a compromise is the corrct thing to do here. If credible disinterested sources can be supplied that the territories of Northern Ireland or Chechnya are under current belligerent military occupation, then they should be included here. But without sourcese they should not. PBS 10:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


If those sources were available, then the separate section would not be necessary.

Lapsed Pacifist 11:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

This report from the BBC regional analyst Tom de Waal on Friday, October 22, 1999 , states that Grozny was under Russian military occupation in 1996 which ended some time before the article was written. But it implies that that ended and given the age of the report does not it does not make clear if the area is currently under RMO.
In This 2004 BBC report that Chechen figures like Aslan Maskhadov (who has since died) have "at various times in the past, he has hinted that he might moderate Chechnya's demands for independence if the Russians ended their military occupation." However the BBC in this report: Q&A: The Chechen conflict and Timeline: Chechnya do not themselves use the term "military occupation" for the situation during the second Chechnya war.
Given the traditional U.S. ambivalence over N.I. is there any equivelent in the heavy weight US news media which suggests that at any time over the 35 years that NI was under military occupation and that it is still is under military occupation? PBS 13:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


I doubt it. Certainly not all of it. No reason that should constrain us, though.

Lapsed Pacifist 14:03, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

There's obviously a large amount of Chechen opinion that their situation amounted to an occupation, and a significant amount of Irish republican opinion, as put forward by Lapsed Pacifist, that British rule in Northern Ireland ammounted to an occupation. This could be mentioned without claiming there actually is or was an occupation. Kingal86 20:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

User: GDD 0143, 2nd August 2005

The political borders in Ireland have all been set by treaty.

Firstly by agreement between The 'Provisonal' Dail in 1921, the 'Government of Ireland Act 1922, then by the Treaty of Rome in 1949.

The 1972 Border referendum held in Northern Ireland had an overwhelming majority voting to remain part of the UK.

The Good Friday Agreement (voted on by both the North and South)allowed the entire island to say that the people of Northern Ireland had the right to 'self-determination' with regards to the border.

The activities of 'anti-treaty' forces, the IRA, the Provisional IRA and offshoots have been by a minority who were not prepared to accept democracy. Their stated ambition is to form an 'Irish Democratic Socialist (Marxist) government,' not to free the people of the North from the imaginary 'yoke of slavery' put forward by propaganda. Unfortunately too many people believe that if you hear something often enough it is true. In this case it patently isn't. The British Army is in Northern Ireland at the request of the Northern Ireland people, in support of the police force.

Now that the Provisional IRA have surrendered the British Government (with Stormont temporarily prorogued) have announced that the use of troops to support the police will be wound down, eventually finishing on 1st August 2007.

Henceforth the argument of 'occupation' is a redundant one - in 'any' case. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.41.187.103 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


The statement on Northern Ireland as it stands is clearly ludicrous, whichever side of the argument one is on:
"Ireland, 6 counties in the North are illegally occupied by England."
Come on! There is no such political entity as 'England', '6 counties in the north of Ireland' is a pro-Republican statement in itself and 'Illegally occupied' is a matter of opinion, not a legally established fact. Honestly, this sentence could have been lifted straight from the Sinn Fein website. I will ammend it to make it more a) factually accurate and b) neutral. Psidogretro (talk) 00:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Iraq (2)

I deleted this edit and removed Iraq from the list, for the reasons see the section Iraq higher up this page. --PBS (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Western POV

This is English Wiki, not Western Wiki

      The only double statndard is the arrogance of the writer  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.63.119 (talk) 01:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


-G

Gaza Strip

Is the Gaza strip still under military occupation? --PBS 18:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I did dig up a few sources on this some time ago at the talk page for the Gaza Strip. Feel free to take a look.[4]. Since then, I have not seen any change in use of terminology from parties such as the UN, i.e. they still call both the West Bank and Gaza Strip the Occupied Palestinian Territories (often with "including East Jerusalem"). --Cybbe 21:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


Technically, not since December 2005. Israel however hold ultimate control. Since Israel has reoccupied parts of the Strip, its status remains open to discusison, ultimate peace treaty pending. 81.170.3.208 19:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


  • They (West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem) are called the "occupied territories" for a reason; it's implied military pressure oversees them (even if there is no large number of troops and tanks to quell unrest, they bring in more when needed).

There are factual errors about East Jerusalem. "East Jerusalem was annexed by Israel in 1967 (incorporated into Israeli "Basic Law" in 1980) but the annexation is not recognized by the UN or European Union". East Jerusalem IS recognised as illegal occupation by BOTH the UN and the EU. The UN has been unwavering on all territory gained since the 1967 war and the EU, just read the newspapers, is talking right now about making East Jerusalem the capital of Palestine.

Media sources - Regarding the UN "The situation in the occupied East Jerusalem remains of grave concern" [5]

- Regarding the EU "the EU did not recognise Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem" [6] * —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.41.225 (talk) 14:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Historical occupations

This section should be removed as the list could include almost every war in history and as a small selective list is wide open to bias. Here are a few example (all started as occupations althought some morphed into something else):

  • Occupation of parts of Great Britain by Rome, 54 BC
  • Occupation of parts of Great Britain by Rome, 43 AD
  • Norman occupation of England in 1066
  • Occupation of parts of Belgium by France in 1815
  • Occupation of parts of France by the Seventh Coalition in 1815
  • German occupation of Belguim and parts of France in 1914-1918

Does anyone disagree with removing the section? if so why and how can the section be defined to make the list a managable length without bias? --PBS 11:00, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Which would you consider relevant occupations, only current ones? Jayjg (talk) 00:51, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just on going ones would be one possibility, or perhaps a definition of since Hague IV (1907) or since GCIV (1949) or since GC Protocol I (1977), or since the founding of the UN (because of its charter changing the rules of war (can not declare war) and the use of UN mandated forces). But the trouble with taking any of these dates is that it is still wide open to bias and one does not need to be a rocket scientist to see why. I think the the best solution would be to replace the list with a short paragraph saying something like:

In most wars some territory is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army, most end with the cessation of hostilities. In some cases the occupied territory is returned and in others the land remains under the control of the occupying power but usually not as military occupied territory. PBS 11:53, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I added a little to the definition because it rules out a historically very important case of military occupation, that of the South in the US Civil War. The Lieber Code[7] (he had a son fighting in each army by the way) was a, if not the, model of the later European codifications of the laws of war, especially of the laws of belligerent occupation. The part on Syria was also wrong or misleading. The Syrian presence was never recognized by any state or international organization to be a military occupation as it by no stretch of the imagination fit the Hague definition.--John Z 15:46, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Belligerent occupation → Military occupation

"Military occupation" is by far the more common term, per google and common sense--Pharos 19:52, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC).

Support —Michael Z. 2005-01-28 01:08 Z

  • I think the problem here is that "Belligerent occupation" is the technical term used in International Law, whereas "Military occupation" is the common term. Jayjg (talk) 02:21, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, and I think in titles we should go for common terms over legalese that very few people have ever heard of.--Pharos 07:30, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Though belligerent once did merely mean those who are "waging war," the connotations of unacceptable levels of inappropriate and aggressive behavior— "belligerence"— are quite consciously being employed here. Raw POV. Please say it again, clearly. --Wetman 00:11, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    I understand all the words, but... Please say it again, clearly. —Michael Z. 2005-01-29 07:18 Z
IMO One could be under military occupation of a military which was not a belligerent but a neutral power, for example when the UN sets up a demarcation line. One can also be under a belligerent occupation which is not military occupation, for example if there has been an armistices, but no peace treaty, and unilateral annexation had taken place which allows a belligerent to govern without military rule -- (probably de facto not de jure since Geneva IV). Having looked at the article, particularly the examples, I guess that what was meant was "belligerent military occupation" or in the words of Hague: "Military authority over the territory of a hostile state". I'd think that "military occupation" would be a better name as people usually mean Hauge's wording when they use that shorthand. PBS 10:17, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment "Though belligerent once did merely mean those who are "waging war," the connotations of unacceptable levels of inappropriate and aggressive behavior— "belligerence"— are quite consciously being employed here. Raw POV. Please say it again, clearly." Words fail me. What part of "waging war" do you not understand? Why do you consider the word "merely" to be appropriate here? Why do you not consider warfare to be aggressive behavior? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:21, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Note: I did not suggest the change for this reason, only becuse "belligerent occupation" is a very uncommon term among non-experts in international law.--Pharos 01:28, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. ADH (t&m) 02:46, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, though I think the article should make it clear that the technical term is "Belligerent occupation" Jayjg (talk) 00:56, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Don't you mean "Belligerent military occupation" ? PBS 13:37, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Neutralitytalk 06:40, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Point of reference There is also something called "friendly occupation." That occurs when there is a territorial cession in a peace treaty. When the peace treaty comes into effect, the the military troops of the occupying power have not yet left the area. In fact, they may stay around for years. That was exactly the situation which occurred in Puerto Rico, Guam, the Philippines, and Cuba after the Spanish American War. Cuba is the best example. The peace treaty came into effect on April 11, 1899, bu the end of United States Military Government in Cuba only occurred on May 20, 1902. Hmortar 09:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
    I think in these cases you have to look at post 1949, (GCIV and the annexation clauses), it is usually a UN mandated force which hangs around. Berlin was one example, which remained under military occupation, but there was no peace treaty and when there was one the locals, who had not been allowed to express an opinion before, asked the occupiers to leave. I suppose you could look at Egypt and the Gaza Strip before 1967 but I am not sure if it was a military occupation. For it to be a military occupation there would have to be military law as the supreme law in the territory as it was in Berlin. --PBS 10:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Clarification Berlin was not a territorial cession. So I don't think that PBS's comments are relevant in this regard. I would still stress that under the broad scope of military occupation there is a category called "friendly occupation." This is because military occupation is conducted under military government, and in the case of a territorial cession in peace treaty after war, there has to be the formation of a LOCAL civil government to supplant the military government (of the occupying power) in order to consider the military occupation to be ended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmortar (talk • contribs) 12:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

"Ryukyu Islands"

  1. Ryūkyū Islands — previously garrisoned by the United States, claimed and administered by Japan

Listed under "Disputed to be an occupation by nation of dominant military forces in area"

Does anyone claim Okinawa to be "occupied"? As far as I know, everyone involved, the Japanese, the Americans, and the Okinawans themslves, agrees that Okinawa is a legitimate part of Japan today.

Formerly occupied by the USA, beginning Sept. 7, 1945. Later raised to the status of United Nations trusteeship, with the United States as the sole administering authority, according to the terms of Article 3 of the April 28, 1952 Treaty of San Francisco. Sovereignty returned to Japan as of May 15, 1972. See http://www.taiwanbasic.com/key/milgovchart1x.htm Hmortar (talk) 07:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Taiwan

Taiwan is is currently occupied by the ROC.

Taiwan is not under occupation. Taiwan was ceded to Japan in Treaty of Shimonoseki in 1895, 1945 ROC reclaimed sovereignty over Taiwan based on Cairo Declaration, Potsdam Declaration, Japanese Instrument of Surrender. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Redcloud822 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

There are parts of this article that are written in a way that clearly favors Taiwan independence. Two of the "further reading" external links in my opinion go to sites that are not reliable. Before deleting them, I want to get some input from a hopefully more neutral point-of-view in order to avoid a conflict of interest. Ngchen 01:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC) The sites in question argue in favor of Taiwan being currently under occupation.(fixed Ngchen 11:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC))

AFAICT Taiwan is not mentioned in this article. There is no section called "external links" so what is it that you are referring to? --PBS 10:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
OK I had a read of them. The first one should go because anything before Hague 1907 is confusing. The second one is more tricky it was not until I read in the parent URL that "The ROC government occupied Taiwan (Formosa) on behalf of the Allied Powers (led by the United States) pending a peace treaty with Japan, which would change the legal status of Taiwan (Formosa)." that I realized that this was a court case argument and as such is a one sided POV. I happen to disagree with the concept that the Allies of World War II were led by the USA and I think that legally that can not be substantiated. So as far as I am concerned the second should go because it is a one side of a court case and hence confusing unless one realizes that. --PBS 13:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I have found a number of authoritative references on the internet which fully support the often heard claim that "Taiwan is not Chinese territory." See -- http://www.taiwanbasic.com/nstatus/taiwannc.htm Hmortar (talk) 12:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
So if Taiwan ever becomes part of the PRC, it would still be considered occupied territory, and the PRC would be kicked out of the UN? Uh, yeah, right! AFAIK, the UN does not dispute Chinese control of Taiwan; the current question is which China controls it - the ROC or PRC. - BilCat (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

A previous poster has claimed that in 1945 the Republic of China reclaimed sovereignty over Taiwan based on Cairo Declaration, Potsdam Declaration, Japanese Instrument of Surrender. This is incorrect. A Memorandum from Sec. of State (Acheson) to Sec. of Defense (Marshall), dated Nov. 11, 1950, regarding "The Question of Formosa" clarified " . . . that no formal act restoring sovereignty over these territories to China has yet occurred; . . . " See Foreign Relations of the United States http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=goto&id=FRUS.FRUS1950v06&isize=M&submit=Go+to+page&page=555 Hmortar (talk) 07:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Examples of military occupations

As of Jan. 24, 2010, This section reads as follows:

In most wars some territory is placed under the authority of the hostile army.

I would hold that this statement complies with NPOV.

Most military occupations end with the cessation of hostilities.

Unfortunately, the historical record does not bear this statement out. Importantly, we must differentiate between territories based on whether they became "territorial cessions" in a peace treaty. We also have to remember that military occupation is conducted under military government. ( Military government is the form of administration by which an occupying power exercises governmental authority over occupied territory.)

Japan from WWII is the first type of example, the surrender of Japanese troops was Sept. 2, 1945, the peace treaty came into effect April 28, 1952, and so the military occupation of metropolitan Japan ended. This means that United States Military Government (USMG) in Japan ended, being supplanted by a fully functioning Japanese civil government. But we have to remember that metropolitan Japan was not a territorial cession.

California is the second type of example. In the Mexican American War, the military occupation of California began on Jan. 13, 1847, the peace treaty came into effect on July 4, 1848, but the military occupation only ended on Dec. 20, 1849. It was only on this date that USMG was supplanted by a civil government for California.

In some cases the occupied territory is returned and in others the land remains under the control of the occupying power but usually not as militarily occupied territory.

As in the situation of California, the control of the occupying power over the territory means that it is still occupied, even though the peace treaty has already come into effect.

I propose that the necessary corrections/amendments be made to this section of Examples of military occupations in the main article. Comments?? Hmortar (talk) 08:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

One can not use military occupations before the UN Charter and the promulgation of GCIV as an example of the situation today. See the ICRC commentary on GCIV. -- PBS (talk) 10:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

In the United States, the concept of "territory under military occupation" goes back to Revolutionary War days, and there are US Supreme Court cases that discuss various legal issues which arose in connection with those occupations. The point of this is to say that the basic formulation and conceptualization involved in "military occupation" were a part of customary law in the USA long before they were to some extent codified in the Hague and Geneva Conventions. As explained in the Wiki article Military government, military government is the form of administration by which an occupying power exercises governmental authority over occupied territory. To put this another way, territory under military government is occupied territory.

In dealing with any situation of military occupation, we should clarify: (1) When did the occupation begin? (2) Who is the occupying power? (3) When did the occupation end? The rule for military government, as given in Birkhimer's opus Military Government and Martial Law is that military government continues until legally supplanted. Supplanted by what? Supplanted by a fully recognized civil government for the territory in question.

This type of "basic forumulation and conceptualization" does not change, whether you are talking about military occupations before or after the 1907 Hague Conventions or 1949 Geneva Conventions.

So, now in our Wiki we have the sentence

In some cases the occupied territory is returned and in others the land remains under the control of the occupying power but usually not as militarily occupied territory.

I can't see that that is true. Where is the citation or reference for such a statement? If the territory is under the control of the occupying power, it therefore under the jurisdiction of the occupying power's military government, and is therefore occupied territory. In the situations which are not territorial cessions in a peace treaty, then the military occupation does of course end with the coming into force of the peace settlement. This is the formulation that most people are familiar with. This is what happened in Iraq, and there was a formal announcement of the end of the occupation. After that date, it is no longer a military occupation. (If the "foreign troops" are still there, that is on a separate legal basis, and we no longer speak of the "occupying power.") However, we must not overlook that in the situation of territorial cessions, it would be impossible for such a military occupation to end with the coming into force of the peace treaty, because at that time there is no recognized local "civil government" in place which can serve to supplant the military government of the occupying power. Hmortar (talk) 14:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

You write that ""basic formulation and conceptualization" does not change" but it has. Before World War II the concept of what was a military occupation could be interpreted several ways. The Hostages Trial and other cases came to the conclusion that Military occupation does not necessarily entail military government but the capacity to impose government on the occupied territory at any time. The ICRC commentary on Article 47 of GCIV explains this in more detail. This is coupled with the UN charter and the rights of peoples to self-determination,(something which if one reads the treaties in the Final Act of the Congress of Vienna was not the norm 200 years ago) means that territory can now be in a state of limbo for many years, but a look at the list of military occupations show that most military occupations do end relatively quickly.
You also wrote "However, we must not overlook that in the situation of territorial cessions, it would be impossible for such a military occupation to end with the coming into force of the peace treaty, because at that time there is no recognized local "civil government" in place which can serve to supplant the military government of the occupying power.", but due to self-determination territory is only ceded if the local population want it (as in the case of East Timor) in which case there is often a third party (often a UN designated force) which handles the transition. -- PBS (talk) 05:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

In regard to the Hostages Trial and other cases, which you hold -- came to the conclusion that "Military occupation does not necessarily entail military government but the capacity to impose government on the occupied territory at any time ...." I don't see that in the decision anywhere. The fact is that the administrative authority for the occupation can be delegated to recognized co-belligerents (aka "Allies"), whether those are another country's troops, or local insurgents. So the military government of the (principal) occupying power is still there. And you have a subordinate occupying power as well. It becomes a situation of proxy occupation.

Additionally, with all due respect, I think you are approaching this from an exceedingly "liberal" point of view, and I say this because you appear to be one of the people who regard "self determination under the UN Charter" as a right. In my modest opinion, such a position is unsupportable, and a violation of NPOV. For verifiable evidence I offer the information on the Wiki page List of states with limited recognition, and in particular I note those "states" which have been unable to enter the UN: Nagorno-Karabakh, Somaliland, Transnistria, Abkhazia, Republic of China on Taiwan, Northern Cyprus, Palestine, Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, South Ossetia, etc. I believe that there are others as well.

If "self determination under the UN Charter" was a right, then there would be no need for any discussion, screening, or voting on a MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION to the UN, it would just be a question of filing the relevant paperwork and submitting it . . . . acceptance of the application would be automatic. Obviously, at the present time, that is not the way the UN works. Look at the situation of the ROC on Taiwan, which applied every year from 1991 to 2007, under various names, and in the last few years the UN even rejected their APPLICATION documents without even breaking the seal on the envelopes, sending them back upopened. In such situations, it is also noteworthy to point out that under the UN Charter there is no legal recourse of any kind.

Hence, while I am trying to maintain a friendly tone of discussion and not be insulting, I cannot see that your attempted rebuttal of my observations with the doctrine of "self determination under the UN Charter" is very strong. I would suggest that you re-evaluate your premises on this point.

As regards whether most military occupations end very quickly or not, I don't think that is particularly relevant to anything I have said. The historical record shows that some military occupations have gone on for several decades. I think you still need to recognize that (in American English usage), military occupation is conducted under military government, and military government continues until legally supplanted. Given these tenets, I am also unsure about what you mean when you say that "territory can now be in a state of limbo for many years." Hmortar (talk) 09:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we are talking past each other. Before the concern with national self determination, territory and the people who lived in the territory were passed around between states much as commercial takeovers are done in the corporate sector today. If one see territory only as a possession of a state, then acquiring more territory to increase ones power/wealth or to obtain a defensible frontier etc can be done without consulting the local population. In such a cases the ethnic make up of the local population is of little concern (other than as a security issue) so whether the local population is shipped out or flooded with people from the invading state makes little difference to the states ownership of the territory. If however the the right to self determination is important then the need for the provisions in GCIV against the movement of people comes paramount in determining what are the wishes of the local population (this is one of the arguments against Northern Cyprus being recognised).
German occupation and government of other countries territory was more complicated and covered more than simple military government (see for example the Hlučín Area area of the Moravian-Silesian Region), and yes military occupation continues legally until supplanted, but the question is when is it legally supplanted? Today that is probably either when the two belligerents agree (and the UN concurs) when the UN or some other internationally arbitration forum says it is. Hence the problems with Kosovo, the UN (security council) is split.
In the previous structure, a state won a war and annexed some territory as used to happen with Alsace-Lorraine all the time. Now however the loosing state goes to the UN and even if as happened with parts of the Golan Heights, the occupying power declares it has annexed the territory (and puts in whatever government it thinks fit) the UN continues to insist that the territory is under military occupation (ie the territory is in a state of limbo). -- PBS (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

As I stated before: "Military government continues until supplanted by a fully recognized civil government for the territory." You appear to have missed this point. Kosovo is secession, which apparently the UN is not recognizing, again offering more VERIFIABLE PROOF that there is no "right to self-determination under the UN Charter." (You failed to comment on this aspect.)

However, (in my view) of more relevance to the discussion of military occupation issues is the situation of territorial cessions after war. You have mentioned the subject of annexation, however there is no annexation. There is military occupation, and military occupation does not transfer sovereignty. Hence, any announced act of annexation is a war crime. That seems simple enough, but you seem confused about this aspect. PBS said that: " . . . . the occupying power declares it has annexed the territory (and puts in whatever government it thinks fit) the UN continues to insist that the territory is under military occupation (ie the territory is in a state of limbo)." Why don't you reference the laws of war to solve this problem? As I stated above, there is no annexation. It continues to be a military occupation. You might want to read Chapter 6 of "The Law of Land Warfare" published by the U.S. Dept. of the Army.

To return to the original discussion, now in our Wiki we have the sentence

In some cases the occupied territory is returned and in others the land remains under the control of the occupying power but usually not as militarily occupied territory. I can't see that that is true. Where is the citation or reference for such a statement? If the territory is under the control of the occupying power, it therefore under the jurisdiction of the occupying power's military government, and is therefore occupied territory. Look what happened in Iraq (a non-territorial cession). The sovereignty was transferred by the occupying power to the locally formed (and fully recognized) civil government. Hence, this sentence in WIKI needs to be changed. I suggest changing to

In some cases the administrative authority for the occupied territory is transferred to a locally formed civil government fairly quickly, thus ending the military occupation.

In other situations, particularly those involving territorial cessions, the land remains under the control of the occupying power as occupied territory after the coming into force of the peace treaty until a locally formed civil government is formed, recognized, and considered capable of taking charge of all relevant governmental functions, whereupon the administrative authority for the territory is transferred to this civil government, thus ending the military occupation. Hmortar (talk) 04:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I still think we are talking past each other. Let us salami slice it. When I say "UN charter and the rights of peoples to self-determination" I mean it as in Self-determination#The UN Charter. Do you disagree with that section? -- PBS (talk) 07:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
The key issue is that occupied territory is under "military government" and "military government" continues until legally supplanted. Hence, for situations involving territorial cessions, the land remains under the control of the occupying power as occupied territory after the coming into force of the peace treaty until a locally formed civil government is formed, recognized, and considered capable of taking charge of all relevant governmental functions, whereupon the administrative authority for the territory is transferred to this civil government, thus ending the military occupation.
There is little need to drag the discussion into the realm of self-determination under the UN Charter. We are discussing military occupation. We would not be talking past each other if we could focus on the issue at hand. Hmortar (talk) 10:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted your change for two reasons "Most military occupations end with the coming into force of the peace settlement" not true it is usually with the "cessation of hostilities", as most wars are technically "armed conflicts" not wars so there is no peace settlement at the end of them. Perhaps we should use the term "close of military operations (GCIV art.6)". Second "however in the situations of territorial cessions the occupied territory ..." I have no idea what " territorial cessions" is meant to mean. -- PBS (talk) 21:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, here is a CHART which has a compilation of the details for numerous military occupations which later became territorial cessions in a peace treaty. See http://www.taiwanbasic.com/key/milgovchart1x.htm (Of course, in the situation of the Ryukyus it was elevated to a UN Trusteeship, however still under USMG jurisdiction.) Hmortar (talk) 10:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
AFAICT all those occupations were prior to the ratification of GCIV, and many of them are prior to the Hague conventions. If one goes back that far then a much are much better states to look at for territorial seizures, eg: Britain, France, Germany, Russia which were always annexing to their empires all sorts of territories after capturing them during a war (Ask any Pole about the partitions and reconstitutions of Poland from about 1800 through to 1945). But post WWII with the advent of the United Nations and international treaties such as GCIV, we live by different norms. -- PBS (talk) 10:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Now you are diverting the conversation into a discussion of "annexation." That is exactly what I am not doing because Aaccording to the international norms clearly recognized on this CHART, and later codified in the Hague and Geneva Conventions, territory placed under the authority of foreign military forces is "occupied," it cannot be considered annexed.

You said -- But post WWII with the advent of the United Nations and international treaties such as GCIV, we live by different norms. WHAT DIFFERENT NORMS? The situations on this CHART do not violate the modern customary norms at all. It is a question of clarifying WHEN the military occupation ends.

The problem, as I have repeatedly pointed out, is that much of the commentary in this Wiki article on military occupation does not take into account the situation of militarily occupied territories which later become territorial cessions in a peace treaty. You continue to ignore this issue, and just keep repeating your tired old arguments over and over.

The type of "basic forumulation and conceptualization" as given in this CHART does not change, whether you are talking about military occupations before or after the 1907 Hague Conventions or 1949 Geneva Conventions. Hmortar (talk) 14:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Correlation between military occupation and suicide bombings

This section is highly misleading. It is talking about one specific or perhaps two military occupations compared to hundreds that have taken place since 1907. So what is the correlation? Particularly as one can point to Sri Lanka were there were many suicide bombers but it was in a civil war not a foreign military occupation. -- PBS (talk) 01:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I propose that the section is removed. -- PBS (talk) 21:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Military occupation in the lead

I think that there are two problems with this edit. The first is that it does not include military occupation in a non international conflict such as a civil war (Where the Government will claim it has always had sovereignty over the territory under military occupation) hence the term in Hague IV of "hostile army". The second problem is that the wording is inaccurate as "effective control" is not a treaty definition. If a front line moves forward the captured territory is then under effective control but as the territory my be recaptured in a counter attack it is not under authority (see Hague IV Art. 42).

The wording in the lead was a summary of Hague IV and because it was in the lead and a summary of text in the article, it did not carry a citation but one could easily have one supplied. -- PBS (talk) 11:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the Hague convention is a primary source. In contrast, the text proposed by me has been written based on three reliable secondary sources. The article in general contains almost no citations to reliable secondary sources, so that may pose significant original research problems. I am trying to fix that issue. BTW, under "certain power" the source I used doesn't mean only a foreign power. It specifies that that may be one or several states or an international organization.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
It is not the "certain power" but the rest of the sentence "over a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity" that excludes the possibility of military occupation by the government forces in a civil war. Also you have not addressed the problems with the wording of "effective control" as opposed to authority. The thing is that these phrases matter because if one reads the commentaries on the treaty negotiations the nuances between of "authority" and "control" will be explained, and if they had meant control they would have used it. -- PBS (talk) 15:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
The full quote from one of three sources used by me says:
"a currently common definition for occupation is ‘effective control of a certain power (be it one or several states or an international organization), over a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity, without the volition of the actual sovereigns of that territory’. Edelstein adds that this refers to temporary control of the territory by a state that does not claim the right for permanent sovereignty over the territory. This distinguishes occupation from colonialism or annexation, where the occupant does not necessarily intend to vacate the territory in the future"
If I read it correctly, that is a commonly accepted interpretation of the Hague convention, so, to the best of my understanding of our policy, we need to stick with it, even if it is in an apparent contradiction with the Convention's text (which is a primary source). I also think it is quite necessary to keep the second part, because, per Edelstein, annexed territories are not deemed occupied any more (be it legal or illegal annexation) if the annexing entity claims sovereignty over it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Regarding civil wars, I understand your point. I think, the solution may be to find some source that deals with this issue specifically, and to add the explanation about occupation during the civil wars. I'll try to do that, although I think the problem is artificial: during civil wars the conflict occurs within the same state, so the question of sovereignty simply does not appear.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
With regard to Edelstein's view about the temporary nature of occupations, I am surprised that you have omitted Roberts view that occupations can be prolonged indefinitely, given our discussions elsewhere.
"Roberts (1990) argued that the legal definition of occupation is based on an implied assumption that it is a temporary state that may end or change status within a short period of time. Accordingly, he suggested that ‘prolonged occupation’ must be regarded as a category that is entirely distinct from temporary military occupation. He defined prolonged occupation as lasting more than five years and continuing even when military hostilities subside or cease. In addition, prolonged occupation raises legal questions concerning the aims of the occupier, who may intend to change the status of the occupied territory. This situation may occasionally lead to pressure from the international community calling for termination of the occupation"
--Nug (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
You are right, Roberts correctly noted that the period of occupation may last long. However, on the page p. 47 of his article "Prolonged Military Occupation: The Israeli-Occupied Territories Since 1967" (Am. J. Int'l L., 1990) he noted that the provisional character of such occupation is implicitly assumed by all parties. Therefore, I see no contradiction between Roberts and Edelstein here: occupation is temporary (although may last long) - annexation is deemed permanent, during occupation the occupant does not claim sovereignty over occupied territory (although may have such intention) - annexation is always accompanied by the claim of the right for permanent sovereignty.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

"annexed territories are not deemed occupied any more (be it legal or illegal annexation) if the annexing entity claims sovereignty over it." Not true according to the Recross commentaries on GCVI [8]:

"Consequently occupation as a result of war, while representing actual possession to all appearances, cannot imply any right whatsoever to dispose of territory. As long as hostilities continue the Occupying Power cannot therefore annex the occupied territory, even if it occupies the whole of the territory concerned. A decision on that point can only be reached in the peace treaty. That is a universally recognized rule which is endorsed by jurists and confirmed by numerous rulings of international and national courts."

--PBS (talk) 22:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You correctly identified the issue: occupied territories are seen (by both an occupier and an occupied) as having a status, which is different from that of the occupier's mainland, and cannot be annexed by force. However, we have a problem here. What if such annexation de facto occurred, and, despite its illegality, the annexed territory is placed under home jurisdiction by the annexing party? The answer is not so straightforward, and I never found in literature a direct and unequivocal statement that illegal annexation is tantamount to prolonged occupation.
In any event, we again have a conflict between the primary source (a Red Cross official document) and the secondary source (the article in a scholarly journal). I am not sure I know the best way to resolve this situation.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
A Red Cross commentary is not a primary source it is a cometary on a primary source (the treaty). -- PBS (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
In addition, we have to keep in mind that human history started not in August 1949, and that most occupations in human history took place before that date. "Military occupation" is a term that is frequently being used in various history articles, so I think the article should reflect both post- and pre-1949 situation.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Really Paul, how can you in claim "I never found in literature a direct and unequivocal statement that illegal annexation is tantamount to prolonged occupation" when we have discussed this issue extensively in the past. In a response to a thread in which you were involved in back in January 2011 I presented a source that directly and unequivocally makes a statement that illegal annexation is tantamount to prolonged occupation[9],[10], then I had to remind you again in October 2011[11], and here your are claiming yet again there are no sources to address this. Any neutral observer would have to wonder whether your memory is severely impaired or you are being intellectually dishonest. --Nug (talk) 10:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
United Nations Security Council Resolution 497 text "Reaffirming that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible, in accordance with the United Nations Charter, the principles of international law, and relevant Security Council resolutions, ... Determines that all the provisions of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 continue to apply ..." You can't get much more unequivocal statement than that. -- PBS (talk) 11:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Four new sources used for the recent edit.

  • A Roberts. Prolonged Military Occupation: The Israeli-Occupied Territories Since 1967 - Am. J. Int'l L., 1990, p. 47.
  • Eyāl Benveniśtî. The international law of occupation. Princeton University Press, 2004. ISBN 0691121303, 9780691121307, p. xvi
  • Eran Halperin, Daniel Bar-Tal, Keren Sharvit, Nimrod Rosler and Amiram Raviv. Socio-psychological implications for an occupying society: The case of Israel. Journal of Peace Research 2010; 47; 59
  • David M. Edelstein. Occupational Hazards: Why Military Occupations Succeed or Fail. Journal of Peace Research 2010; 47; 59

But they are a selective bunch and I think the way they have been cited advance a position that individual cited texts do not seem to contain. None of the issues that have been raised about this have been addressed and the sources have not been used to summarise occupation but to synthesise a description that does not exist in all of them.

  1. "Military occupation is effective provisional control": No, it is "effective control" to to allow the the exercise of authority over a territory (See for example Public International Law.-Belligerent military occupation-- meaning, commencement, and cessation (Philipines Law Journal, Volume 30 number 4 pp 702-704).
  2. "a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity". See my comment above about civil war. Further there is no mention of a hostile army in that so it does not accurately describe what a military occupation is for situations such as Namibia under South African control.
  3. "without the volition of the actual sovereign" Not sure what that means as in normal English invasion by a hostile army would usually be considered a volition of sovereign.
  4. "The territory then becomes occupied territory." This sentence does not make sense.
  5. "The intrinsically temporary nature of occupation, when no claim for permanent sovereignty is made by the occupying entity, distinguishes occupation from both colonialism or annexation." This is false it does not matter what claim is made. (see the comments by Nug and the quote from United Nations Security Council Resolution 497.

-- PBS (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the current lead as written is too narrow, given that Roberts defined 18 different types of occupation, both temporary and prolonged, while Guggenhiem distinguishes between three broad types of occupation: a) belligerent occupation sensu stricto, ie during actual hostilities, b) occupation following an armistice, and c) belligerent occupation sui generis. --Nug (talk) 18:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Nug, you are definitely not right. Roberts does not define 18 different forms of occupation, he defines just 17, AFAIK. In addition, we all agreed elsewhere that "occupation sui generis" does not refer to any specific form of occupation, because different authors used those words (only twice, as far as I know) to describe such different cases as occupation of Germany and annexation of the Baltic states. Neither Guggenhiem nor Malksoo implied that there was something in common between those two events, so to claim that "occupation sui generis" refers to some concrete type of occupation is pure synthesis.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
@PBS. Regarding your notion about synthesis, we need to maintain the balance between following what the sources say and copyright violation. Yes, I took the following paragraph as a base:
"Accordingly, a currently common definition for occupation is ‘effective control of a certain power (be it one or several states or an international organization), over a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity, without the volition of the actual sovereigns of that territory’ (Benvenisty, 1993: 4). Edelstein (2004) adds that this refers to temporary control of the territory by a state that does not claim the right for permanent sovereignty over the territory. This distinguishes occupation from colonialism or annexation, where the occupant does not necessarily intend to vacate the territory in the future (see Lustick, 1993)." (Halperin et al).
The author start with Benvenisty's definition, and add to that Edelstein's and Lustick's amendments (it seems to me that Halperin et al also support the Benvenisty-Edelstein-Lustick's definition). In addition, according to Roberts' (see Chapter II) "an important, but implicit assumption of the law of military occupation is its provisional character". I could not place this text into the lede, I needed to make it shorter, and to change wording. However, I believe, I added no statements to the lede that are not explicitly stated by any of the sources I used. However, if you find that the wording has been transmitted incorrectly, feel free to modify it (provided that the main Benvenisty-Edelstein-Lustick-Roberts theses will remain in the lede).
Regarding your "effective control", this wording comes from the source used by me. I also saw the same fording in other sources. However, if you believe the wording does not adequate reflects what majority sources say, explain please how do you propose to modify it.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Paul, Roberts defines 17 forms in 1985 and in 1990 added an additional form of ‘prolonged occupation’ as a category that is entirely distinct from the previous 17 (you even cite his paper introducing the 18th form Prolonged Military Occupation: The Israeli-Occupied Territories Since 1967). 17 + 1 = 18, no? You omit Guggenhiem's three way classification of sensu stricto/post-armistice/sui generis occupation. --Nug (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Frankly speaking, you were probably right about prolonged occupation as the 18th type, however, I still cannot understand how concretely that could affect the lede: nowhere did Roberts question the provisional character of occupation as a general phenomenon, and nowhere did he write about "prolonged occupation" as something permanent.
Regarding Guggenheim, I think you are not right: his sui generis is not a separate type of occupation, he used this is a term specifically for post-WWII occupation of Germany (and, off the top of my head, Japan). And the fact that Malksoo used the same term for the Baltic states (where no debellatio took place) is a clear indication that it is just an ad hoc term, not a specific category.
In any event, I still cannot understand what relation all those details have to the general issue we discuss. --Paul Siebert (talk) 01:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Sui generis is a separate type of occupation, it is any occupation that does not fit the standard definition sensu stricto. --Nug (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
No. To demonstrate falseness of this thesis, let's analyse two existing examples of the usage of this term: by Malksoo and by Guggenheim. Malksoo's idea was that, since the Baltic states were annexed peacefully, but forcefully, this annexation was illegal, and they could be considered as occupied, however that was "occupation sui generis". By contrast Guggenheim discusses quite different situation, namely a state of debellatio in Germany and Japan. Debellatio is a situation when the state institutes had been totally destroyed as a result of hostilities (that was especially the case for Germany, and in lesser extent, for Japan). In this situation, the defeated state is considered as not existing any more, so the Hague conventions are not applicable to this case, and the victors were allowed to do whatever they wanted there: to annex it, or to otherwise assume sovereign power over it. This situation cannot be considered as occupation (Eyāl Benveniśtî. The international law of occupation. Princeton University Press, 2004 ISBN 0691121303, 9780691121307, p. 92), hence the term "occupation sui generis". I believe Malksoo neither implied that there was a state of debellatio in the Baltic states in 1940 (or 1944), nor he even recognized the fact of hostilities between the USSR and the Baltic states in 1940 (when the annexation had occurred). Therefore, we have no clear evidences that those two author used the term "occupation sui generis" not is just an ad hoc term, but as the term with very specific (and universal) meaning.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
The term "sui generis" is nowhere to be found in Eyāl Benveniśtî's book, and his discussion of debellatio was in general terms and concludes that it did not apply to Japan, so citing his book in relation to "occupation sui generis" is misleading and proves that what you argue is WP:SYNTHESIS. Your argument that the occupation sui generis of Germany and Japan broke their state continuity is also your WP:SYNTHESIS, Krystyna Marek in Identity and continuity of states in public international law directly addresses this point on p74 and asserts that the continuity of the German and Japanese states were not broken. --Nug (talk) 00:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
The source that directly links "debellatio" with "occupation sui generis" is Kunz (The Status of Occupied Germany under International Law: A Legal Dilemma. The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 3, No. 4 (Dec., 1950), pp. 538-565). He argues that
"As the Allies had absolutely ruled out any form of agreement, Kelsen pointed out that a belligerent occupation could not permit the carrying-out of the Allied war aims in conformity with international law. Hence he emphasized that the only legal basis would be debellatio. Germany, Kelsen stated, will cease to exist on account of her conquest and subjugation; the victors will occupy ex-Germany in a condominium sovereignty; this will allow them to act as sovereigns; here a firm legal basis will also be given to the announced Allied intention to bring the principal war criminals to trial."
That creates the legal problem:
"Whereas some writers have thus constructed ad hoc theories, have invented new law to fit the facts, others have tried to put the situation on the Procrustes bed of well-known legal institutions, such as simple belligerent occupation, that do not fit the unique facts. Some-in despair, so to speak-have come to the conclusion that the present occupation of Germany is an occupatio sui generis, which of course is no legal solution at all, but merely an acknowledgment that there is no solution. Finally, many writers hold, in varying forms, that the occupation of Germany is an occupatio imperii."
In other words, the term "occupation sui generis" is just an euphemism that some authors used to reflect the problems with description of the legal status of occupied Germany. However, if, as you argue, Marek appeared to be able to demonstrate that state continuity of the occupied Germany was not interrupted, then this legal dilemma is considered as having been successfully resolved now, so the term "occupation sui generis" may be considered as an obsolete term. Btw, I never saw the examples of usage of this term (in a context of Germany) by modern writers, so the later Roberts's classification (17 types + "prolonged occupation") should be considered as exhaustive.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Your claim that the term "occupation sui generis" is just an euphemism that is considered an obsolete term is just your personal OR. This search shows that it is an ongoing topic of discussion particularly in German language scholarship[12]. --Nug (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the Austrian google search gives some interesting documents, including the Marek's opinion that this isolated historical occurrence is hardly sufficient to create a new customary rule. More importantly, google scholar source give just few results [13], [14]. These data are more adequate, because gscholar, by contrast to google, filters out most non-scholarly sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
@PBS I believe I addressed your concern about synthesis. Regarding your other comments, your "they are a selective bunch" needs in some explanations. Do you believe I am cherry-picking sources? If yes, then what is the ground for such a conclusion? Please elaborate on that.
Re #1 Already addressed: Halperin et al combined the views of Benvenisty with Edelstein-Lustick amendments. Roberts also points at provisional character of occupation.
Re #2 As I already wrote, I think this issue is artificial, because I am not sure the term "occupation" can be applied to internal conflicts. I failed to find any source that discusses this issue. If you have some, please, give me a reference.
Re #3 The wording has been taken from the source I used.
Re #4 The wording has been taken from the previous version of the lede. I myself do not think this sentence is needed.
Re #5 This is not false, this statement is supported by several reliable sources. A quote from one of them has been provided above.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Paul Siebert

Please see Talk:Military occupation#Military occupation in the lead -- PBS (talk) 11:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

[search of Google Scholar mentioned on another page]

I was thinking more along the lines of a book search :-) eg (from the first 10 returned):
--PBS (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Interesting reading, however, it tells nothing about occupation. Yes, we know is that Geneva convention does regulate civil wars, however, I never saw the term "military occupation" applied to the control of the state's own territory by one of the rival party.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
See here (pages 21,22) "Military Government and Martial Law" I am not sure of the date but it is post the Hague conventions that are mentioned elsewhere in the book. -- PBS (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
That is a good source that explains everything. However, the source provided by you does not change the general concept, it just specifies that the rebel forces are seen as foreign for the purpose of the military occupation law. Therefore, we do not need to change anything, we just need to add this explanation to the already existing text.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, we should go back to the previous wording. As I said above the sources you have selected are mainly about one specific issue which is complicated by the legal position regarding the sovereignty of the Palestinian territories. The previous wording was less specific, but said the same thing. -- PBS (talk) 09:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Cannot agree with you. The source provided by you (and used by me) seems to have no connection to the Palestinian issue, however, it also tells about occupation of foreign territory only. As you can see, the book provided by you analyses the difference between the occupation regime and the martial law, the former is introduced in foreign territories only (and the territories occupied by rebels is treated as foreign) and the latter is purely domestic.
In addition, not all sources used by me deal with the Palestinian issue. Thus, the scope of the Edelstein's article is wide, and it embraces a large number of cases.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Edelstein "embraces" two dozen specific cases. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 18:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Edelstein

I've improved the text in the lede attributed to Edelstein to reflect the substance and spirit of his statement. As it was, the prior text was incomplete and substituted "intrinsic" (fundamental nature thereof) for where Edelstein used the word "intent" (motivation and/or expectation of occupier).

Whether or not this is germane at all to the lede is a separate question, but we can debate that now that the source is appropriately represented. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 18:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I had to revert you, because that is not what the source says. Edelstein says:
"The intended temporary duration of occupation distinguishes it from both annexation and colonialism."
In Edelstein's view the difference between occupation and annexation is quite concrete, so your attempt to make a distinction vague goes against what the source says. However, I agree that "intended" would be more adequate word to transmit Edelstein's thought (frankly speaking, I found the word "intrinsic" somewhere else, so if I'll be able to find that source I'll re-add this word again).--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Edelstein excluded certain types of occupations in his analysis, such as where the occupier intended permanent control:
"I also exclude two other types of occupations from this analysis. First, wartime occupations straddle the line between military occupation and annexation. Although German control of France during World War II is usually referred to as an occupation, this was only apparent once Germany had been defeated. Germany intended on maintaining control of France, not simply occupying it temporarily."
Thus Edelstein's paper uses a subset of occupations to derive the difference between "annexation" as permanent and "occupation" as temporary. Now that we know Edelstein acknowledges another type of occupation that has the permanency characteristics of an annexation. There fore we cannot Use Edelstein to make generalised claims applicable to all types of military occupation, thus I have removed text from the lede. --Nug (talk) 21:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
You twisted what the source says. Edelstein'd definition precedes the discussion of the subset of occupation, and nothing in the source allows us to conclude that the author derived his definition from the subset. Moreover, other sources treat his definition as general, so this your statement is your personal original research. Taking into account that that argument has already been presented elsewhere, and that you have read and understood that, I conclude your last post is not a good faith edit.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
PS. I warned you that you twist what the source says. Please, do not remove sourced and relevant material, because it is disruptive.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

"The intrinsically temporary nature of occupation, when no claim for permanent sovereignty is made by the occupying entity" There seems to be a confusion over occupation and military occupation. They are not the same thing. For example Koreans occupy Liancourt Rocks. But it is not a military occupation (the area is not under military law). The sovereignty of the rocks is disputed and as such both Korea and Japan claim permanent sovereignty of the rocks. It is possible for the occupying entity to make claims of permanent sovereignty and the region to still be under military occupation. For example when the Iraqis invaded Kuwait Saddam Hussain claimed sovereignty over the territory of Kuwait but it was not recognised by the UN and so remained a military occupation. But this is a detail which is thrown up because of the problems with the lead trying to say that military occupation is something it is not. See my comments with references in the previous section. The major problem with the lead created by Paul Siebert's edit earlier in the year is that it confuses a power with sovereignty. As such concentrating on the minutia of what Edelstein writes does not help with the problem that the lead is not generalised to military occupation and confuses occupation in general with military occupation. It gets even more complicated when one factors in the Hostages Trial (see previous comments on the talk page). Powers in control of armed forces do not have to be recognised as sovereign to be powers, that is a very clear distinction that the current lead no longer puts forward. For example the communists in China during World War II placed large tracts of land under their military occupation, but they were not a recognised sovereign nation but either the Axis or Allied powers. In another example during the Nigerian Civil War both sides military occupied territory. Eg "Having occupied the northern areas of Biafra populated by non-ibo minorities ... the Federal army's offensive stalled ... The small Biafran Army overran and occupied all of the Mid West Region"(Aleksandar Pavković, Peter Radan, Creating New States: Theory and Practice of Secession) -- PBS (talk) 15:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The article discusses military occupations only, and Edelestein's article is also devoted to military occupations. Therefore, I am not sure I understand your arguments about non-military and military occupations.
Regarding Kuwaut, see Edelstein's discussion of this case and the case of France. In both cases, military defeat of Iraq and Germany, accordingly, do not allow Edelstein to discuss legal consequences of Iraqi and German claims.
Regarding your third point (if I understand you correctly, you discuss occupation by rebel forces) we discussed that case before. You provided the source that says that insurgents are treated as foreign powers in this case. Unfortunately, it is not clear from the text of this source if it discusses some national law or internationally recognised law. In any event, if you think this case should be discussed separately, let's think how to improve the existing text.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Never the less, both Germany and Iraq militarily occupied France and Kuwait respectively, your changes overly narrow the definition to the extent that these occupations and many others such as occupation of parts of China by Japan during the Sino-Japanese War (Since Edelstein also excludes this from his definition) would have to be removed from List of military occupations. --Nug (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Military occupation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Economy of occupation

Götz Aly, Hitler's Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State describes the Nazi system of plunder of occupied countries, which included financing of occupation. The financing should be mentioned as allowed by the Hague.Xx236 (talk) 08:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Swapped image

I was bold and changed the image illustrating this article. The original image hat been taken from the article list of military occupations. However, a request for comment on that article places some of the content of that page (including the image) into doubt. In addition, the original image is also problematic because 1) it can become outdated pretty fast, and 2) it ignores conflicts in less reported on parts of the world, such as the Sudan-South Sudan conflict. Instead, it is easier to use a (hopefully) non-controversial alternative image. OtterAM (talk) 00:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

The RFC resulted in consensus that the West Bank, including EJ, is properly listed as currently occupied. Please do not misrepresent that discussion. Your reasons here are based on nothing. What is outdated in showing an example of an occupied place when it is, or maybe one day was, occupied? nableezy - 02:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Problematic image in lead

I have removed one out of the three images in the lead because because 1) whether or not it represents a military occupation is disputable, 2) it is of a politicized nature that may give too much weight to one aspect of the topic, and 3) there are many other images that are available for illustration without touching on controversy. Before this change there were three images illustrating the lead: the U.S. forces occupying Iraq after the 2003 Iraq War, Allied forces occupying Japan after the second World War, and Israeli troops at the Huwwara checkpoint. I have removed the third.

The Coalition occupation of Iraq and the Allied occupation of Japan were both considered to be military occupations by all sides and they were run according to the rules of military occupation, so it is not controversial to call them occupations. In contrast, Israeli presence in the West Bank/Judea and Samaria is based on the 2002 Oslo Accords rather than on the rules of military occupation, and Israel considers the West Bank to be "disputed territory" rather than "occupied territory" because the territories were not recognized as belonging to a state (i.e. Jordan) before they were captured by Israel in 1967. While some do consider the West Bank to be occupied territory others do not and it is not a standard "military occupation" in any case. This situation makes the issue fuzzy enough that this image is not a good illustration for the lead given that there are other more clear cut examples that can be used.

The second problem is that this image would give too much weight to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in an article that is supposed to be about a world-wide topic. For example, a search of the text of the article yields 15 matches for the world "Israel", while only 6 matches for "United States" or "U.S.", only 2 matches for "Russia" and 1 for the "Soviet Union", only 2 matches for "United Kingdom", only 2 references to the Allies of WWII, no references occupations by the Axis in WWII, and only 2 references to the Coalition occupation of Iraq. Given that the Israel-Palestinian conflict is a relatively low-intensity conflict by world standards and doesn't really affect too many people, this appears to be a bias in the article.

Given that there is no need for this image and that the use of the image has problems, it should not be included as the main illustration for this topic.

OtterAM (talk) 02:17, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

You have a collection of unsourced views on why "Judea and Samaria" is not really occupied. That is a fine opinion for you to hold, however this is an encyclopedia article, and one in which we use due weight among reliable sources to make these determinations. The Israeli occupation of the West Bank is not something that is in dispute, even the Israeli Supreme Court has affirmed that the West Bank is held under military occupation. Beyond the edit-warring, and the ARBPIA violation, your entire premise here is that your personal political viewpoints should be enforced on an encyclopedia article. Im sorry to be the one to tell you that no that is not how this works. Kindly self-revert. nableezy - 02:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
The Isreali supreme court actually did not affirm that - it concluded the law of military occupation applies as the Israeli government itself chose to apply it (this is an irrelevant point - but you are incorrect). The image is introduced in the lede is not representative of an occupation (and similar images exists for some high-risk border checkpoints not under occupation - e.g. the Israeli side of Erez), and there is no need for multiple images in the lede. Icewhiz (talk) 07:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Since 1967, Israel has been holding the areas of Judea and Samaria (hereinafter – the area) in belligerent occupation. nableezy - 16:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
That is not the point. The point is that this is not even an image that is representative of the issue of this article. The image shows a bordercrossing, which is something all countries have, even in the complete absence of military occupation. Debresser (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
In addition, several editors have removed this image, which shows a clear lack of consensus for its inclusion. I know that personal opinions are far more important than consensus, but still, for decorum's sake... Debresser (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
The point? You mean we shouldnt have an image for what is the longest running example of the topic of this article? Thats a border crossing? In occupied territory? Where there is no border? Oh, what a surprise, a number of people who consistently attempt to wipe anything about Israel's occupation from this encyclopedia object to an image of that occupation. Shocked I am, truly shocked. nableezy - 22:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
And how shocked should I be that somebody demanding BRD be respected in one article is at another one breaking that very process. Shocked! nableezy - 22:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Who says that that picture was taken in occupied territory? Perhaps it was taken at the border! Debresser (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Click on the picture, this shit is not that complicated. It is an image of the Huwwara checkpoint, south of Nablus. You see a border anywhere near there? nableezy - 19:27, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
In that case I see that my objection was not justified. Not the most illustrative picture perhaps, but relevant. Debresser (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I moved the image of the West Bank to where it discusses the West Bank's occupation. You all are really pushing the boundaries of AGF here, demanding that what this article says is the longest running example of a military occupation not be illustrated in any way. It is unequivocally not in dispute that the West Bank is occupied territory. Dishonest portrayals of discussions elsewhere notwithstanding, it is trivially easy to source that to a literal thousand sources. A collection of users dont like that Israel isnt shown as a beacon of light for all humanity? Sorry. nableezy - 18:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:25, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Naming

Wouldn't this article be better named Military occupation?

google hits:

  • "Military occupation": 360,000
  • "Belligerent occupation": 6,520
    • that's 55 to 1

It seems from the text that this was in fact the original name of the article, and it was only changed for some obscure reason. --Pharos 07:10, 16 November 2004 (UTC)

It's been over a month and noone has responded. Does anyone object/agree to moving this article to the overwhelmingly more common term?--Pharos 03:14, 26 December 2004 (UTC)

Kashmir is Occupied By India

I tried to add Kashmir in the list of millitary occupations(historical) and my proof (source) is this article but they are reverting/undoing my changes. I want to know why you have double standards? Why in one page/this page you mention Kashmir as occupied by India but won't allow me to add Kashmir in the list of millitary occupations? Answer please?? Jean787 (talk) 16:09, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I actually just removed it from here. Are we also going to put up that Kashmir is occupied by Pakistan?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

October 2023

@Hippo43: Can you please explain this content removal with an edit summary that says text not supported by the source? M.Bitton (talk) 22:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I thought it was clear - the source does not support the text. It is only part of the quote used in the work cited, and the quote is not used in that source to support the text that was in this article. Taking a partial quote out of context and using it to support something which it did not support in the original work is original research.
Please stop re-adding material that is not properly sourced. I made 4 edits removing unsourced material, each with an edit summary which was clear enough. 2 edits were removing entirely unsourced material, and one was removing material referencing an obviously non-reliable and tagged source. You reverted them all without a real explanation.
If you disagree, can you please explain why? Remembering that the onus to provide reliable sources is on the editor who wants to add material. // Hippo43 (talk) 00:53, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
No, you weren't clear and seeing as you already removed sourced content while claiming that it wasn't, I had every reason to ask you why you removed the quote. Also, why didn't you tag it or god forbid, try to put it into context instead of just removing everything (something that a bot can easily do)? M.Bitton (talk) 01:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
The diff that you referred to had a correct, if brief, edit summary. The material was unsourced and original research.
Yes, you could query why I removed it, but restoring 4 separate pieces of unsourced material was not justified at all.
Why didn't I tag it or put it into context? Because I didnt want to. The article is better without it. I see you have tried to reinsert it again, when it clearly does not relate to or support the text above. // Hippo43 (talk) 01:40, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Do you realize that you reverted my edit while I was in the middle of adding more to it? Anyway, I will make it very simple for you: I will definitely add more tomorrow and if you revert again, you'll take a trip to ANI (that's a promise). M.Bitton (talk) 01:44, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
How would I have known that? Am I supposed to be a mind reader?
I note that you have not addressed the points I made about your earlier blanket reverts.
Regarding that quote, it does not refer to the duration of the occupation, so does not belong in that section.
If you add relevant content that is appropriately sourced and well written, I won't have any need to fix it. // Hippo43 (talk) 01:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Military_occupation/Archive_1&oldid=1221484217"