Talk:Military occupation

Tibet
Tibet is included in both the occupations and disputed occupations lists, I removed it from the occupations list because of the reason stated at the top of this page. Say1988 02:33, 25 March 2005  (UTC)

First paragraph of body
I propose the following revision to the first paragraph in the body of the article to give a better sense of how land and property dominated by combat were handled before the 18th century, and to present brief historic and modern conceptualizations of occupation. (I provided an extended section of Benvenisti's source I quoted, because the entire source paragraph does a great job explaining the underlying relationships of occupation.) This revision removes mention of the Napoleonic wars, since they aren't mentioned in the source. Any feedback?


 * A dominant principle that guided combatants through much of history was "to the victory belong the spoils". Emerich de Vattel, in The Law of Nations (1758), presented an early codification of the distinction between annexation of territory and military occupation, the latter being regarded as temporary, due to the natural right of states to their "continued existence". According to Eyal Benvenisti's The International Law of Occupation, Second Edition (2012), "The foundation upon which the entire [modern] law of occupation is based is the principle of inalienability of sovereignty through unilateral action of a foreign power, [and from this principle] springs the basic structural constraints that international law imposes upon the occupant."
 * Dotyoyo (talk) 06:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Dotyoyo (talk) 06:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I applied this change to the article on 2024-04-25. Dotyoyo (talk) 01:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Language of lede
The lede is a real brain-teaser and tongue twister. For example, take the phrase "with the ruling power being the occupant". And so on. I am not a native speaker so I dont dare to rewrite the lede (beyond one simplification), but I urge y'all to make it mode digestable. Now it looks to me like a text of a limited warranty :-) (What??? a redlink? :-) - Altenmann >talk 18:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There are two ruling powers involved in such situations: that of occupied and that of occupant. I am pretty much sure there are internationally accepted definitions and wikipedia does not have to invent their own weird language (not found in sources, by the way; e.g., the first footnote says simply "a power <...> that power has no sovereign title").
 * "outside of the legal boundaries of that ruling power's own sovereign territory" - This circumlocution sounds dubious: For example, for Nazi Germany, Reichsgau Wartheland was quite nicely within Nazi-defined legal boundaries. And it is only clarified a bit after reading below: "to keep in place only temporarily". Again, General Government indeed was "only temporarily", intended to be taken care of later.
 * " military government <...> though this is not a necessary precondition for occupation to take place" - this cannot be described as "precondition" but rather "characteristic", "attribute", etc.. Not to say that "necessary precondition" is a tautology.