User:John Z/drafts/Occupied territories

oldtalk
Above should go in Disputed area article.
 * Greeks typically say that Turkey "occupies" the northern half of Cyprus
 * It's fine here. The Turkish army does occupy northern Cyprus, but at least recognizes that it is not a part of Turkey.

Stop me if I'm way off base on this. Perhaps I'm confused about the distinction (which may exist only in my head) between a frankly avowed occupation and a one-sided advocacy claim. When Germany lost the war, they had to give back France. America also eventually left Japan (after making sure they wouldn't attack other countries any more).
 * Germany occupied France during WWII and everyone called it "occupied France".
 * America occuiped Japan for 5 years after WWII and had a military government backed by "occupation forces".

Hmm... getting complex. Should we give up, or what? --Ed Poor
 * Quitting would be the same as abandoning NPOV!
 * If one keeps to some sort of fundamental understanding of what "Occupied" means the subject becomes an easy one. To me occupation is the de facto control, usually by military force of territory that does not belong to the occupier.  It can be by direct miltary action, as a result of a surrender, or as part of an international protectorate arrangement.  The de jure situation, or legal justification (if any) for the occupation is irrelevant to the fact of the occupation. Eclecticology 12:35 Aug 1, 2002 (PDT)

An example of a nation which does not occupy the land of previous inhabitants is Samoa. I changed it to "most nations". -- zero 07:44, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC) --- Not sure this is true....


 * Israel officially disputes this, saying that the territories were not legally held by any other party before coming under Israeli control in 1967.

I'm not sure that Israel does officially dispute that the West Bank is territories under miliitary occupation. Israel hasn't formally annexed the West Bank or Gaza, and the status of the territories before 1967 is irrelevant to the definition of occupied territory.

Note: I'm *not* arguing about what the state of the territories is, I am arguing about what Israel says it is.

Roadrunner

From (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.''

I am therefore reinstantiating the removed sentence.

uriber 07:41, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Israel's position is self-contradictory and ambiguous. It both says that they "should not be considered occupied" in easy to find public statements (recently - for the first 10 years, until Begin, it called the territories occupied just like anybody else), but says in legal documents unambiguously that they are occupied. So apparently Israel's opionion is that they are occupied, but thinks either (a) nobody else should think that or (b)thinks that it even though it considers them occupied, it thinks it shouldn't. Kind of absurd, but the only ways to make their statements consistent.

I altered the sentence about the Golan not being occupied, to make it clear that this is only Israel's position. The Golan is still occupied according to Security Council resolution 497 (1981), which has the weight of international law like all SC resolutions. --zero 08:18, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * The article says: [...] territory which has been formally annexed is not occupied territory even if that annexation is disputed. Are you saying this is wrong? If so - the article should be fixed. Also, on what are you basing your claim that SC resolutions are equivalent to international law? uriber 08:23, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * The fact that Security Council resolutions are binding on all UN members is in Article 25 of the UN Charter. However, that is not the issue with this article.  If anyone could get out of applying the Geneva Conventions by "formally annexing" a territory, then every occupying power would do that.  It makes no sense and I very much doubt that there is any general principle like that.  So yes, I am saying that I don't believe the statement "territory which has been formally annexed is not occupied territory even if that annexation is disputed" is accurate and I'd like to know where it comes from. -- zero 08:38, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Would you say that Tibet is occupied by China? I would not say that. Further, West Bank and Gaza are not claimed by any state except Israel. Therefore the term "occupied" is as biased as "liberated". Der Eberswalder 06:52, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * "Occupied Territory" is a formal concept under international law. "Liberated Territory" is not. It is not up to me or you to say what territories are occupied or not; it is up to legally competent bodies like the UNSC. --Zero 13:30, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * In which UNSC resolution is the term "occupied territory" clearly assigned to West Bank and Gaza? Usually the UNSC resolutions are written in a way that it leaves much space for interpretations. Der Eberswalder 06:54, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * There are countless UNSC resolutions which refer to WB&G as "occupied". Examples include 452, 592, 605, 607, 799, and many many more. See 605 for an exceptionally clear statement that uses the phrase "occupied territories" several times.  Why are you writing on these issues at all if you need to ask such an elementary question? --Zero 09:28, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I see, they are really called "occupied". Well, I thought the UN were an unbiased entity. Now I see they are not. The UN has severely lost credibility. see Der Eberswalder 16:40, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * The belief that the UN is an unbiased entity probably comes from the hope that its members generally accept the ideals expressed in its charter. But almost every country in the world is a member, and some of what America considers the world's worst violators of human rights are allowed to vote in the General Assembly and even serve on the UN's human rights panel -- which voted the United States OFF THE PANEL! Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Sudan still have slavery and condone genocide? And shouldn't a country that does that be the TARGET of a human rights panel, instead of a MEMBER of that panel? --Uncle Ed 17:51, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The link to "Palestinian Territories" just redirects back into "occupied territories"

Why does this article only discuss lands occupied by the United States and Canada as occupied Native American territories? Wouldn't every single country in the Western Hemisphere be considered occupied territory? RickK 04:44, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yes. But that would be logical, and this is Wikipedia. We don't do logic here, haven't you heard? -Penta 05:27, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Does anyone know why the British Indian Ocean Territory is not considered to be occupied? The UK government lied that there were no inhabitants there, expelled the residents to Mauritius/Seychelles/Maldives, etc., and then built a military base. That doesn't count as occupation under international law? Hard to believe. --Sesel 21:38, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

How is Tibet considered "occupied" under international law? --Jiang 10:13, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

POV Tag
In light of the vigorous consensus-building and dispute resolution attempts in Talk sections of articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, I am removing the POV tags. If someone has a any further problems not already covered in Talk then by all means restore the tag but please start a new section and bring forth your concerns for consensus building. These perpetual NPOV tags are unreasonable.--A. S. A. 09:17, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

The scope of this article
This article states:

''Because military occupation is often considered illegitimate, the term is often used to refer to territories whose government one considers illegitimate. This usage is not technically accurate under international law because territory which has been formally annexed is not occupied territory even if that annexation is disputed. This opinion is not universally adopted, and bodies such as the United Nations Security Council frequently describe as "occupied" territories which have been annexed in the event that the annexation is not accepted.''

''A list of disputed territories and areas said to be under occupation are discussed in their own article, disputed territory. That entry discusses the issue in regards to many nations such as Israel, Morocco, and others.''

Clearly, this article claims to describe only territories that have not been annexed or otherwise integrated by a country. This would include the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. Nearly all territories that are disputed are called "occupied" by the side that disputes but does not control them, and those territories is covered under another article: Territorial dispute. Just from eastern Asia, examples would include not just Tibet but also Xinjiang, Liancourt Rocks, Senkaku Islands, southern Kurile Islands, Paracel Islands, Spratly Islands, Arunachal Pradesh, Kashmir, Aksai Chin, Sabah, southern Thailand, Aceh, Papua... which are all called "occupied" by some POV or other. These are all outside the scope of this article. -- ran (talk) 14:32, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * States can exist independent of other states recognition (as a reply to your edit comment), and even if Tibet wasnt a state (a claim I dont agree with), that doesn't mean the conquest didn't lead to an occupation. The current article is a bit inaccurate, annexation is a unilateral act and may be considered null and void under international law, thus making annexed territory still considered occupied under IL (the SC has done this on a few occations). Also, see article 47 of Geneva IV, unilateral annexation is not a way to get a way from responsibilities an occupant has. Also, the fact that a territory is "disputed" politically speaking doesnt mean it cant be considered occupied. Occupied is a distinct status given to territories under IL, "disputed" is not in the same category. Occupations may be disputed or thay may not, disputed territories may be both occupied and not. The article states "considered Occupied Territories under International Law", territories may still be disputed and falling within this category. The other examples given are also "disputed", this does not change it's status under IL. --Cybbe 18:00, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, then please tell me why the following do not belong: Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia, Liancourt Rocks, Senkaku Islands, southern Kurile Islands, Karafuto (Japan's position continues to be that it's occupied by Russia), Ryukyu Islands (some Chinese nationalist groups consider Japan's annexation of the Ryukyus in the 19th century as a military invasion and occupation of a Chinese tributary state), Paracel Islands, Spratly Islands, Pratas Islands, Arunachal Pradesh, Sikkim, Kashmir, Aksai Chin, Sabah, southern Thailand, Montagnard territories of Vietnam, Aceh, Maluku Islands, Papua. All of the above are considered to be occupied by some group, and many of them were indeed occupied by their current controlling power through a unilateral military act (e.g. southern Kuriles). And these are just examples from eastern Asia. Why does this article not talk about all of the above? If you want to change the definition, then these should be included.

Actually, it would help if you offered a clear and unambiguous definition of "occupied territory" instead of the one given, especially the difference between that and "disputed territory". -- ran (talk) 00:23, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

I would go on to add that the entirety of the current list (Palestine, Cyprus, Western Sahara) seems to be slanted towards a few well-known / popular separatist or irredentist movements, while leaving out all other separatist or irredentist movements that exist all over the world. Territorial dispute has a much fairer and more comprehensive list. The list provided here is POV and should be completely removed, unless a separate definition can be provided for "occupied". -- ran (talk) 00:35, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

I think the sentence cited from the article above is misleading. Not all of the occupations are illegitimate. And quite often, the occupation is legitimate due to the act of war. U.S. Army's Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare's chapter 6 provides the legal sources and regulations for the military occupation. Before the sovereignty return, Iraq would be a good example of territory under legitimate U.S. military occupation. This is not to argue that the Iraq war is an legitimate one. I belive the article failed to tell us what are the legitimate occupation and thus caused the confusion. I have no intention to argue that many occupation are deemed as illegitimate, especiall those perpetuating occupations. If you read that chapter 6, you will learn that peace treaties are supposed to be signed ASAP to complete the occupation. I belive that there is still a clear disctinction between occupations and disputed territories and perhaps this is something could to work on in the article.--Mababa 03:53, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The article could be more precise on that point, there certainly are so called "legitimate" occupations, more so than annexations (speaking in modern terms). As for a definition for occupation, the one used in the "Hague Convention respecting the Laws and Customs of War at Land" says:


 * "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.".


 * Article 2 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 (common of the four), also has a definition for when that treaty applies. These two definitions combined are the best "legal" definitions we have, as for the 1907-convention (also referred to as Hague IV), it is considered customary IL (e.g. the Nuremberg trials). --Cybbe 21:03, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * You'd have to define "hostile" too. Jayjg (talk) 21:24, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * No. Or, by other words, hostile is not an ambiguous term in this context. The enemy army in a war is per definition "hostile", at least in terms of jus in bello. To speak of a friendly army in this context is ludicrous. Also, when this convention was written, there was little difference between so called legal and illegal use of force (e.g. war), so both armies are "hostile", only from each others POV. And the laws of war (jus in bello) applies equally, regardless of who the belligerent is considered to be. Just search through the convention on "hostile", its used extensively to describe the enemy power. --Cybbe 18:56, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * Are the Golan Heights "under the authority of a hostile army"? Jayjg (talk) 22:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Occupations could be classified into belligerent occupation and friendly occupation. Friendly occupation, or the "civil affairs administration of a military government", may be specified as covering the point in time when the peace treaty comes into effect until the point when the military government of the principal occupying power ends. Not all occupation are belligerent occupation. I am not familiar with the situation of Golan Heights.--Mababa 23:39, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The Golan Heights were certainly placed under the authority of a hostile army i 67, and you'd have to take into consideration the Geneve Convention too (art.2 specifies when it shall apply). As for the Golan Heights, I am sure you are familiar with UNSC resolutions on the matter of Israels annexation. I said I would see what this book said on the matter some time ago, it included case studies of East-Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, her conclusions were that they are still considered occupied under IL. --Cybbe 13:12, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I think you'd have a hard time arguing that the Golan Heights are now under the authority of a "hostile" army". Jayjg (talk)  17:19, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I never did. But the definition says "placed under", and it were in 67. And article 2 and 47 of Geneva IV may also be of interest. Besides, this is not just my interpretation, it is the one found in the book referred to and the one UNSC has decided upon. --Cybbe 08:56, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

All of this debate on the Golan Heights is moot. For what all here seem to agree on is simply incorrect. The Golan Heights were not formally annexed in 1981, and this error should be fixed throughout Wikipedia. "Effectively annexed" has been used in this situation, but formally annexed is just not true. Israel would have had to issued a proclamation or sent diplomatic notes - basically EXPLICITLY said "The Golan is part of Israel" and it did not. The Golan Heights Law does not say Israel is annexing them, nor did SC 497 claim it did. This is not a controversial issue, just one that sloppy authors make mistakes about. (Two non-sloppies : Chomsky and Julius Stone  - a real odd couple! :-).

ARTICLE:

"territory which has been formally annexed is not occupied territory even if that annexation is disputed."

Is simply wrong, and should be excised from the article. "This opinion is not universally adopted" is too weak. "This opinion is universally not adopted" is better. I believe it comes from some editor's misreading of his source.

The UN Security Council, a body with the power to create international law - particularly when it addresses itself to matters of war - could hardly be said to be wrong on such a matter, anyways; it is absurd to set up Wikipedia as a higher authority on the meaning of terms in international law than the Security Council or the International Court of Justice - or the universal opinion of all states.

As Cybbe points out, 4GC 47 among other effectively disproves this opinion - calling occupations "annexations" has no legal effect. A country cannot effectively break a treaty by just changing the agreed-on meaning of words; if it could, the 4th Geneva Convention would be a dead letter and have no meaning at all.

This is a logical consequence of the modern doctrines of non-recognition of illegal acts - the Stimson Doctrine (I've got to write an article on this), and the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war.

In the (bad) old days, grabbing territory by war was hunky-dory, so nobody protested occupations being turned into annexations - what was illegal about it? - and peace treaties - under duress often - invariably regularized the situation, so there was no such problem of "alleged /anticipated annexations." But nowadays no state has the unilateral right to evade its international obligations by unilaterally making a verbal change about what it calls territory it has acquired through war. In any case, this is only perhaps applicable for Israel for the case of Jerusalem.

In particular, read the invaluable and universally-considered-authoritative commentary edited by Jean Pictet http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebCOMART?openview

In particular the one for the 4th GC 47(4) http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/b466ed681ddfcfd241256739003e6368/c4712fe71392afe1c12563cd0042c34a?OpenDocument

As was emphasized in the commentary on Article 4, the occupation of territory in wartime is essentially a temporary, de facto situation, which deprives the occupied Power of neither its statehood nor its sovereignty; it merely interferes with its power to exercise its rights. That is what distinguishes occupation from annexation, whereby the Occupying Power acquires all or part of the occupied territory and incorporates it in its own territory (4). 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. And yet the Second World War provides us with several examples of "anticipated annexation", as a result of unilateral action on the part of the victor to dispose of territory he had occupied. The population of such territories, which often covered a wide area, did not enjoy the benefit of the rules governing occupation, were without the rights and safeguards to which they were legitimately entitled, and were thus subjected to whatever laws or regulations the annexing State wished to promulgate. Aware of the extremely dangerous nature of such proceedings, which leave the way open to arbitrary actions and decisions, the Diplomatic Conference felt it necessary to stipulate that actions of this [p.276] nature would have no effect on the rights of protected persons, who would, in spite of them, continue to be entitled to the benefits conferred by the Convention. It will be well to note that the reference to annexation in this Article cannot be considered as implying recognition of this manner of acquiring sovereignty. The preliminary work on the subject confirms this. In order to bring out more clearly the unlawful character of annexation in wartime, the government experts of 1947 proposed adding the adjective "alleged" before the word "annexation" (5). Several delegates at the Diplomatic Conference, concerned about the same point, went as far as to propose cutting out the reference to a hypothetical annexation in this Article. The Conference eventually decided to keep it because they considered that these fears were unfounded and also felt that it was wiser to mention such a situation in the text of the Article, in order to be better armed to meet it (6). A fundamental principle emerges from the foregoing considerations; an Occupying Power continues to be bound to apply the Convention as a whole even when, in disregard of the rules of international law, it claims during a conflict to have annexed all or part of an occupied territory.

slim

 * Slim, I am glad to see that you used to support the OT usage, and would hope you rethink your position again. Though I do not like the way that Marsden has been bringing up the issue, and I very strongly oppose turning an article on a general term "Occupied Territory" into something on Israel - in effect this would be anti-Israel povpushing, when it emphatically should be what any encyclopedia would have, a discussion of the term in international law, wiki and legal arguments against calling the territories occupied are extremely weak. As "Cybbe" notes, "occupied" has a precise legal definition - from customary international law, the Hague conventions, and the Geneva conventions, and as he notes it is the practically unanimous opinion of experts outside and even many, perhaps most inside Israel that the Israeli presence fits.   There is no difference between common usage, UN usage, ICRC usage and correct or legal expert usage, or what is decisive in my opinion, Israeli usage in formal contexts.  The official position of the state of Israel, at least if one goes by official statements, court rulings or legal documents presented to courts, which are the only things international law looks at, is and always has been that these territories are occupied, and that the law of belligerent occupation applies there, with the possible exception of Gaza now.  Whenever Israel has been asked whether they are occupied - by someone with the right to an answer - it has been "yes." This is different from many "supporters of Israel" and  Israeli propaganda views, e.g. Dore Gold, but it is a fact, and I have looked and have never found a reputable refutation of it that even starts to come to grips with these arguments.  The statement on the Israeli website is perhaps the most noteworthy - it is fairly new, 2002 I think, and stronger than anything official I have seen before.  However, does it say "not occupied" - no.  It says "should not be called occupied."  A distinction without a difference - if there had not been many other occasions before and after it where the government said different.  For starters, SC 242 uses the term, and Israel has accepted it since 1968. If it is not an occupation, there were no territories occupied and Israel has to do nothing to satisfy the resolution.  Is there anyone who is biased enough to read the resolution that way?   Since the Elon Moreh decision of 77 or so Israel's high court has essentially ruled that the territories are "hague-occupied" but not "geneva-occupied." - that the Hague conventions explicitly apply de jure, but that the GC's do not.   This should be here at Wikipedia, but is is not.