User:Jove Is Mad/Occupied territories

An occupied territory is a region that has been taken over by a sovereign power after a military intervention (see military occupation). In most cases the period of occupation is temporary, pending the signing of a peace treaty, the resolution of specific conditions outlined in a peace treaty, or the formation of a new government. Examples of occupied territories include Germany and Japan after World War II, or Iraq after the fall of the government of Saddam Hussein.

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.

Most current nations exist in once occupied territory
Most nations in the world are in some way an occupier of a previous inhabitant's land. Generally, any disputed territory can be seen as occupied by the party that lacks control over it at that moment. Thus, the Germanic tribes displaced the original Celtic population of Europe; Egypt was conquered and absorbed in the 7th century by Arabs who were not its original population. This is particularly true of the region between Egypt and Turkey where repeated population movements and military conquests have occurred during the past several thousand years. See Occupation of Palestine.

Additionally, occupation has two distinct meanings: Although (1) and (2) are obviously distinct, they are sometimes intermingled. Under (1), the territory in question is under normal civilian law; under (2) the territory is usually under military law, under the limits of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
 * 1) The state of being lived in (as in: "Isle of Man is occupied by the Manx", or this house is occupied by the Smith family);
 * 2) The state of military control following conquest by war.

Places considered Occupied Territories under International Law since 1948

 * 1948 - 1967: Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt
 * 1948 - 1967: Occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan
 * 1967 - present: The West Bank was captured from Jordan by Israel during the 1967 Six Day War. The territory had been annexed by Jordan, a step recognized only by Britain and perhaps Pakistan. Under the United Nations Partition Plan of 1947 it had been allotted to the proposed Arab state in Palestine.
 * 1967 - present: The Gaza Strip was captured from Egypt by Israel during the 1967 Six Day War. Under the Partition Plan it had also been alloted to the proposed Arab state.
 * 1967 - present: The Golan Heights were captured and occupied by Israel from Syria in 1967. Israel effectively annexed the area in 1981 but the Security Council in Resolution 497 ruled the annexation illegal and declared the region still occupied.
 * 1974 - present: Northern Cyprus is occupied by Turkey. Turkey officially disputes this, saying that the legal government of this area is the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC), and that the Turkish army is supporting this government. However no other country recognizes the TRNC.
 * 1976 - present: Western Sahara is occupied by Morocco.

Land occupied by the United States of America and Canada
Historically, all of the territory of the United States of America was originally the territory of a multitude of Native American Indian tribes/nations. However, the source of this situation goes back several centuries, and includes land taken from Native Americans by the Spanish, French, Russians, Dutch, Danish and British. Likewise, many of those tribes had, themselves, displaced earlier tribes from their lands.

It is incorrect to hold that the Federal government of the United States of America, which only came into existence in 1776, is responsible for the initial issues. However, there is reportedly Native American Indian territory that is currently considered by some to be illegally occupied by the United States. This is said to be true because this land legally belongs to various Native American Indian groups due to legally binding treaties signed between the USA and particular Indian tribes, which the tribes believe that the United States of America later violated.

The United States does occupy several territories outside of its original "eminent domain", like Puerto Rico, an Arawakan island, claimed by the Spanish in 1493, then occupied by the United States after the collapse of Spain's colonial system in 1898. Guam is also an occupied territory of the US dating from the same time and event. The United States also occupies Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, against Cuba's wishes and Cuba's inability to displace the U.S.. Cuba itself was a territory of the United States up until May 20th, 1959 when Fidel Castro and his Communist Party won their revolutionary war.

In the case of Canada, most of the native treaties were signed on behalf of the British Crown, which is still recognized as the head of the contemporary Canadian government. This means, unlike the United States, the government of Canada is expected to honor the terms of many more treaties, some of which are hundreds of years old. As well, some lands occupied by the Canadian government were never settled as a result of treaties, and are thus considered by some native leaders to be illegally occupied. This has historically made native issues and land claims a much more complicated issue in Canada.

The present status of Iraq as an occupied territory
The question of whether Iraq properly falls under a listing of either present or past territories occupied by the US is a matter of some political contention, but ultimately comes down to the following facts:

1. As of the date of the official transfer of sovereignty from the United States Military government in Iraq to the locally representative Iraqi Interim Government, and especially following the date of democratic elections for new representatives in that government, Iraq maintains its full international sovereignty and territorial integrity.

2. As a result, the presence of US and international military in that country can no longer be legally classified as an occupation, but as a joint military operation with permission of the host country, as is the case with military forces in Afghanistan.

3. Despite the legal end of Iraqi occupation, many who consider the invasion to have been illegal would argue that the continued presence of that illegal military force to be morally equivalent to an occupation.

4. Others would disagree with that argument, including some who view the invasion as illegal, and would retort that even whilst assuming the initial invasion to have been a violation of International Law, said law, especially the Geneva Convention, explicitely demands that any de facto occupying power, whether it be legitimate or illegitimate de jure, once having destroyed the existing regime, and once having damaged civilian infrastructure, is not only allowed to remain in the territory, but is actually obligated to do so until it has restored to full functionality and autonomy both civil government and vital services. International law also requires the occupying power to provide a reasonable amount of security and protection against insurgent violence.

Indeed, it is argued that abandonment of the territory in a state of chaos and violence would constitute both a legal and a human rights violation that is on par, with if not more serious than, the original invasion itself.

5. Because the United States, Great Britain, and other coalition forces in Iraq presently do not argue their rights as occupying powers, but instead argue their rights as coalition forces acting with the full cooperation of the sovereign Iraqi government, there exists a dilemma regarding the arguments used by these forces in the exercize of rights and obligations normally associated with a legally recognized occupation. This also seems to generate a conflict of interest with regard to the prioritization of foreign activities in Iraq, with the primary stated foreign policy emphasis in Iraq being, in the words of President George W. Bush, the "War on Terror," and the matter of rebuilding civilian infrastructure receiving much less attention and proceeding at an oft-criticized slow pace.

In conclusion, the true techical status of Iraq either as a territory presently occupied by the United States, or as a past-occupied territory, can only be objectively defined as a distinct and simultaneous series of conflicting but equally legitimate legal and ethical interpretations with no simple solution.

Category:Arab-Israeli conflict Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict Occupied territories