Talk:List of military occupations

"Military occupation" of East Jerusalem and Golan Heights

By definition a territory can only be militarily occupied if it has not been annexed. Once it is annexed, it is no longer militarily occupied. You might want to argue that the annexation was illegal, but that is an argument for a different article. Jayjg | (Talk) 22:40, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Israel considers the Golan Heights to be annexed, the rest of the International Community considers the annexation to be null and void. Palestine-info 22:53, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter; once a country officially annexes a territory, the status is no longer one of a "military" or "belligerent" occupation:

Belligerent occupation in a foreign war, being based upon the possession of enemy territory, necessarily implies that the sovereignty of the occupied territory is not vested in the occupying power. Occupation is essentially provisional. On the other hand, subjugation or conquest implies a transfer of sovereignty, which generally takes the form of annexation and is normally effected by a treaty of peace. When sovereignty passes, belligerent occupation, as such, of course ceases, although the territory may and usually does, for a period at least, continue to be governed through military agencies. [1]. Jayjg | (Talk) 22:57, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So the argument is that since East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are no longer under military rule and are quite peaceful areas they are no longer occupied? Palestine-info 23:07, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Um, no, that's not the argument. Please read what I've said. Also, you keep claiming that "the International Community" has said something, without any evidence it has done so. Jayjg | (Talk) 23:20, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Does UN GA resolutions count? Note that the note does not say belligerent occupation, which may or may not be something other than occpuation. Palestine-info 23:25, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If there were unanimous they might be mildly interesting, at least. Somehow I doubt they were. More importantly, UNGA resolutions have absolutely no impact on International Law. And "Belligerent occupation" is just the legal term for "Military occupation". Jayjg | (Talk) 23:43, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• GA Resolution [2]
• SC Resolution:

[3]

The SC Resolution was passed 12 Yes to 0 No. The GA Resolution seems to have been passed without a vote. What that means is that the resolution had a very large majority in the GA. Palestine-info 00:02, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about? GA resolutions are never passed without a vote. In this case it Part A of the resolution was adopted by 94 in favor, 16 against and 28 abstentions. On part B of the resolution, 121 voted in favor, 2 against and 20 abstained. Not that it's relevant, since GA resolutions are not "the International community". Nor is the Security Council, or its resolutions, so your text is still false. Jayjg | (Talk) 03:04, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There you see! That is as close to a total agreement you can come. If those votes didn't show the will of the International community, then how can the International community's will be represented? And you are ofcourse free to come up with a better word instead of "International community" if you want. You are free to be more constructive than destructive. I put in the note as a compromise but that isn't good to you so you keep on reverting, reverting, reverting. Palestine-info 10:57, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Any claim made about the "will" of "the International community" is inevitable false, since "the International community" does not have a "will", it has many competing interests, as do each of its member states. Moreover, your claim is factually wrong. It is not my responsibility to NPOV your incorrect, un-cited, and POV claims; rather it is your responsibility to enter them in a cited, NPOV way to begin with. As the edit history clearly shows, I haven't reverted any of the accurate and NPOV additions you have made, on this or any other article (e.g. NGO Monitor). And if you brought your proposed and controversial edits to the Talk: pages for discussion first, so they could be worked out in an accurate and NPOV way first (as you are supposed to), then I wouldn't have to revert at all, would I? Jayjg | (Talk) 17:17, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Since Nazi Germany annexed Poland and also Denmark, do you think that the occupation of these two countries ended when Nazy Germany annexed them? Palestine-info 00:51, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Any parts that weren't actually annexed into Germany proper were occupied, other parts were conquered. And any claims made about "the International Community" are still false. Jayjg | (Talk) 03:18, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh! So the German occupation of Poland and Denmark ended in 1939 and 1940? Palestine-info 12:04, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Have you investigated the different status of territories conquered by Nazi Germany, as assigned by the 3rd Reich itself? Jayjg | (Talk) 15:21, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. Hitler claimed to have annexed them, just like Israel claims to have annexed the Golan Heights and Eastern Jerusalem. The footnote you keeps reverting explains the situation in an informative and NPOV way. Palestine-info 21:32, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Did Hitler annex them to Germany proper? As for the footnote, it falsely refers to some sort of consensus you have imagined on the part of the "International Community". Jayjg | (Talk) 22:06, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Here's a hint; part of Poland was annexed, while part was organized into the "General Government of Poland", which, not surprisingly, is the part that is also called Occupied Poland. Are you starting to get the drift, here? Jayjg | (Talk) 22:20, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So your claim is then that the parts of Poland that Germany annexed during WWII stopped to be occupied? Palestine-info 22:33, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As I've said before, and brought links showing and explaining, annexed territory, under international law, cannot be said to be under belligerent (i.e. military) occupation. Please see the top of this Talk: page. By the way, have you ever noticed that the parts of Poland (i.e. all of eastern Poland) annexed by the Soviet Union are still not part of Poland today? Have you seen anyone calling that area "Occupied Polish territories"? Jayjg | (Talk) 14:56, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I ask you again, do you claim that at the very instant the occupier claims to have "annexed" a territory it no longer is occupied? Or have you seen the huge number of sources, among them the CIA World Factbook, that claims that the Golan Heights are Israeli occupied? Palestine-info 03:40, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Under International Law, a territory is not occupied when it is annexed. As I've said before, you could describe the annexation as illegal, if that were appropriate. In any event, the "International Community", as you put it, simply does not say what you keep claiming, or anything else that matter. Why don't you propose a wording that is accurate here in Talk: instead. I'm sure we can work something out. Jayjg | (Talk) 06:10, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Golan Heights and East Jerusalem have been annexed by Israel. However, these annexations have not been recognised by the International community who consider them to be in violation of International Law and therefore still regard them as being Israeli occupied.

The International community are "countries of the world considered or acting together as a group." [4] I.e. it is the Fourth Geneva Convention is the will of the International community even if pariah states like Israel has not ratified it. Same thing with Israel's illegal occupation. Palestine-info 20:34, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The countries of the world have not "acted together as a group" on this matter; you need to attribute specific claims to specific, identifiable groups, not nebulous concepts. Also, please do not use Talk: pages for advocacy or re-enacting world conficts, but rather for discussing article contents. Jayjg | (Talk) 20:48, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How can you claim they did not act together as a group on this matter? 80%+ favour in the GA and 100% in the SC, that is acting as a group together. Palestine-info 20:54, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The U.N. took no action at all, it talked about it, and the SC vote was not unanimous, please check the provided figures again. In any event, Israel is part of the International Community, and it disagrees. Please be specific and accurate in your claims. In particular, for now, please do more research on the status of the Golan Heights, which is different from that of East Jerusalem. Jayjg | (Talk) 21:11, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Military rule

list removed from Military rule when a link to this page was put in

• Occupation of Czechoslovakia
• Occupation of Poland by Nazi Germany
• Occupation of Denmark
• Occupation of Baltic Republics
• the military occupation of Germany under the governing body of the Allied Control Council as after Nazi Germany's unconditional surrender at the end of World War II in Europe
• Occupation of Japan
• Occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan
• Occupation of Lebanon by Syria
• Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt
• Occupation of the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Israel
• Occupation of Iraq

--Philip Baird Shearer 12:37, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

occupations

This is a very arbitary list. 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

So I think that a definition of military occupations is needed which can make the list of managable length or this list should be removed.

Just on going ones occupations 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. Philip Baird Shearer 17:31, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Having thought about for a few hours, another way to structure the list and my prefered option would be to list all current military occupations, and an example list from the past of all the diffrent types of military occupations. With a brief explanation of why they are examples eg:

• Military Occupation of Berlin -- The Allied victors of world War II used a power sharing executive to administer Berlin four-power organization
• Haiti — mandated UN Occupation see UN Stabilization Mission in Haiti

To make the list have the most balanced PVO possible, I suggest that there is a definiton of modern times, only examples from those times should be listed and the examples should be the earliest example of each type. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:37, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

World War II

Sorry that I did not comment, but my removals and modifications were generally correct. The occupations during the second world war did not cease to be occupations with the installation of unrecognized quisling governments. This point was treated at the Nuremberg trials, for instance, and is referred to in the commentary to the Fourth Geneva Convention IIRC. Or google on quisling etc, you'll find that histories include in their dates of German occupation the years of puppet governments. --John Z 04:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

The Fourth Geneva convention did not exist at the time of the Second Word War and to an extent its protocols reflect the experiences of World War II. That the Allies did not recognise the legitimacy of the quisling governments during or after the war is hardly surprising! But if the German military handed all internal policing back to the local police force and their soldiers were not directly responsible for internal security, it was no longer a military occupation. For example there was a clear distinction between the occupation of Northern and Vichy Southern France even if the Allies did not recognise it. If this distinction is not made for Nazi occupations it opens the way for people to define all sorts of colonial and neo-colonial arrangements as military occupations. Philip Baird Shearer 14:30, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

In general, we should not be talking of anybody's idiosyncratic opinions or feelings, but of what is generally or universally recognized to be the case by reputable historians,lawyers and governments. IMHO You are wrong about the German occupations, and are greatly understating the degree of German presence in quisling governments. Outside the Axis, they were universally considered to be continued occupations, no matter about imposed quisling governments. The Allies did after all win the war. That means they get to say what the law is, what the words mean. The 4th GC commentary has relevant historical notes IIRC, of course it was postwar. The argument about Vichy is weak too, as Vichy was recognized by other governments not at war with Germany, like the USA, until it went to war, and the distinction was recognized thereafter. It doesn't "open the way" because of the need for outside recognition - which seems to me to be what this list is about. Since the illegality of war, since the Stimson doctrine, since 1945, the law and meaning of the words is quite clear, and there is no real dispute about such matters. Colonies recognized as colonies are a thing of the past. Another point made at Nuremberg is that the Nazi actions were made in the midst of the war and active resistance, partly in an effort to evade the laws of war, the laws of occupation. This really was unusual(unprecedented afaik) and if allowed, would make a mockery of the laws of war.--John Z 04:17, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

As I also pointed out, I made weaker statements, logically more likely to be true and thus less in need of support. If there is evidence that the German occupations were/are considered as ended by reputable sources when they were replaced by quisling governments, I'd like to see it.--John Z 04:17, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

This site http://worldatwar.net/timeline/other/diplomacy39-45.html lists lots of declarations of war, and breaks in diplomatic relations during World War II. Under Hauge "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". So if the Germans put in a quisling government and no longer has troops on the street it is no longer under military occupation whether or not those civilian authorites are recognised internationally or not. The whole point of Article 6=> Article 47 of the Fourth Geneva Convention was to stop an occupier benefiting from an act of agression which lead to occupation. Before 1949 there was no international agreement on this, only what Hauge said about the mechanics of military occupation. Which proceedings at the Nuremberg trials do you think contradicts this reading of Hague 42? Philip Baird Shearer 13:42, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Instead of Nuremberg, Article 43 of the Hague Convention - that the occupant must respect the laws of the country. Hague 42 is used much more to say when an occupation starts than ends - just look at the way it is phrased. I believe you are misreading it, if it is a quisling government, the hostile army still has the ultimate authority, and can exercise it. So your next sentence after the quote is a non sequitur. I believe there may have been instances at Nuremberg where people were punished for crimes committed in territory which would not be considered occupied by the article in its present state, as if they were still occupied. I'm not going to dig it up since I feel my other arguments are more than enough already - particularly that without a cite this is OR. I do not know why I did not say this before, as I mentioned it, but the Stimson Doctrine was proclaimed (& followed by LoN resolution) over precisely this case - the creation of a puppet government in occupied territory.

Finally, what I meant by referring to the GCs was that the universally considered authoritative ICRC commentary, based on the negotiation history of the Conventions, has valuable historical notes, in particular, the commentary to article 47 among others iirc, disagrees with this interpretation of Hague e.g.: "Of course the Occupying Power usually tried to give some colour of legality and independence to the new organizations ... Such practices were incompatible with the traditional concept of occupation (as defined in Article 43 of the Hague Regulations of 1907) according to which the occupying authority was to be considered as merely being a de facto administrator (2). This provision of the Hague Regulations is not applicable only to the inhabitants of the occupied territory; it also protects the separate existence of the State, its institutions and its laws. " [5]John Z 23:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

HG Art. 42. "Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army". If they had meant in 1907 what you are stating the words would have been "Territory is considered occupied when it is placed under the authority of the hostile army".

The ICRC commentary you have referenced is difficult to read because they tend to mix up what was accepted international law, (or at least the post war interpretaion), when the document was written (Post WWII) and what was accepted international practice pre-war. For example the definition of occupation which they are talking about would not have allowed the Treaty of Versailles (or the military occupation by the Allies of Germany (and probably Japan) post war, unless they authorised themselves via the UN). In the world before the UN and the additions of GCIV to international law, the argument about military occupation is difficult and open to debate. Particularly occupation during WWII because of its international nature of the war and its duration. For example taking Denmark and France. In both cases the undesputed legitimate government (that is recognised by both sides in the war) of these countries negotiated arrangements with the Germans. Lets look at those two first and then the others as these two are slightly different from say Holland and Norway. Philip Baird Shearer 19:46, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the ICRC commentary is clear enough, of course you are right that it annoyingly jumps around because history was not the main purpose. It clearly states what the ICRC in the 50s considered to be the prewar practice. I do not think that "actually" changes anything - if anything it is evidence for my side of the argument if it being used as actually vs. formally as I believe.The Stimson Doctrine is an equally important counter argument. I don't really understand about the treaty of Versailles, etc.- is there a sentence missing? There are musty old articles in the UN charter somewhere in the 100s put in expressly to allow leeway in the postwar occupations, and IL recognizes the fact that IL evolves, and allows that rules were applied differently in the past. If you want, explore and differentiate, but the statement that had been in the article is something I have never seen anywhere else, and far too strong. It is of course possible that one could find a German wartime reference that supports it, but I think it unlikely that there is any other one, and I believe that the Germans knew they were not playing cricket then. Of course, I agree that international law was changing rapidly during the first half of the century, but I think that the crucial changes here were made before WWII, including Hague 1907. In any case, it just seemed like OR, I would be happy to leave things as they are, a little vague if one doesn't have good precise dates for recognitions of each particular occupation, which would be a big task, and probably require lots of reference to international law journals to be certain. The difference between Vichy France and Occupied France is well-known, I am not trying to imply that Vichy was occupied at first, just that the Germans did not have the power under existing IL to unilaterally change the status from occupation to not by puppetry. I'm not trying to put anything into the article and I do not see how it would open the door on anything undesirable, which you mentioned several months ago. Regards, John Z 22:33, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I have not replied to this recently for two reason. 1 I typed in a long reply and due to Wikipedia slowness that day I lost the paragraph. 2 We are both spending far to long on a sentence. But in brief what is your position on specifically France and Denmark, both of which stayed in country and dealt with the Germans? --Philip Baird Shearer 10:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Source for the goose:

the Assumption of Supreme Authority by the Allied Powers was that pertaining to the assumption of supreme authority. It read as follows

The Governments of the United States of America, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United Kingdom, and the Provisional Government of the French Republic, hereby assume supreme authority with respect to Germany, including all the powers possessed by the German Government, the High Command and any state, municipal, or local government or authority. The assumption, for the purposes stated above, of the said authority and powers does not affect the annexation of Germany.

The second sentence mitigated the traditional ultimate effect of unconditional surrender, the permanent extinction of the defeated state. Under the declaration, however, the German state, nevertheless, did cease to exist, even if only provisionally. The law of belligerent occupation also no longer applied to Germany. The Allied sovereignty was complete, limited only by its own decision, and the relationship was that of conqueror and subject. The declaration was written to be issued by the representatives of the Allied supreme commands on the authority of their governments and in the interests of the United Nations.

The above us from THE U.S. ARMY IN THE OCCUPATION OF GERMANY 1944-1946 by Earl F. Ziemke. I was searching for something else and had read this before but I had not noted the significance of the second sentence "The second sentence mitigated the traditional ultimate effect of unconditional surrender, the permanent extinction of the defeated state". Also Ziemke says it was under the authority of the Allied governments and not the UN. So if this was true for Germany in 1945 why was it not true for Poland in 1939? I also look forward to your thoughts on Denmark and France. Philip Baird Shearer 08:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Gaza Strip#Current legal status has a link to this external source THE ISRAELI "DISENGAGEMENT" PLAN: GAZA STILL OCCUPIED which includes this:

In The Hostages Case, the Nuremburg Tribunal expounded upon The Hague Regulations' basic definition of occupation in order to ascertain when occupation ends.[34] It held that "[t]he test for application of the legal regime of occupation is not whether the occupying power fails to exercise effective control over the territory, but whether it has the ability to exercise such power."[35] In that case, the Tribunal had to decide whether Germany's occupation of Greece and Yugoslavia had ended when Germany had ceded de facto control to non-German forces of certain territories. Even though Germany did not actually control those areas, the Tribunal held that Germany indeed remained the "occupying power"—both in Greece and Yugoslavia generally and in the territories to which it had ceded control—since it could have reentered and controlled those territories at will. References

• 34 Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulation concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, 3 Martens Nouveau Recueil (ser. 3) 461, 187 Consol. T.S. 227, entered into force Jan. 26, 1910, hereinafter "The Hague Convention."
• 35 U.S.A v. Wilhelm List, Nuremberg Tribunal, 1948. [United States military tribunal: USA v. Wilhelm List (Hostage case), XI T.W.C. 757]

--Philip Baird Shearer 19:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Syria/Lebanon

In addition, Syria/Lebanon does not belong on this list. It did not fit under the Hague definition, and no state or international organization ever recognized the Syrian presence as an occupation. See e.g. any ICRC report on Lebanon. I will not get into an edit dispute beyond putting back my statements once more, I have very little time right now, but one might note that my (correct) statements are all weaker than the ones I modified. Thanks for fixing the error I introduced about Gaza and cleaning up. (Oops saw I was logged out, but 209...was me.) --John Z 04:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

The Syrian occupation is one I have no strong opinions about, but if you were living in the Bekaa Valley I think you would have thought that you were under foreign military occupation even if the world community did not define it as such. Philip Baird Shearer 14:30, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Israel's measures

The existence of Pakistani recognition of the Jordanian annexation has been disputed by Pakistani diplomats, and "effective annexation" is a word that more careful authors and international law experts, e.g. Rosalyn Higgins, (who just stepped down from the ICJ), Journal of Contemporary History 3, 1968 (253-73) use for Israel's measures, which in no instance use the words "sovereignty" or "annexation." (It's a can of worms I plan to go into in the future, but not now.)

Pakistan's position on West Bank which I have no information and like the Syrian occupation I am disinterested.Philip Baird Shearer 14:30, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I presumed you were using the word "effective" as "being in effect" but the word is open to more than one interpretation and it could be misunderstood to mean "good" (as in effective as the opposite of ineffective) -- which is why I removed it. Philip Baird Shearer 14:30, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I used the word "effectively" because it is the word used by careful international law experts and judges. To quote Judge Higgins - in the quite pro-Israel paper referred to - "Israel has now effectively annexed Jerusalem, though she has not termed the measures she has taken as annexation. This would not appear to be justified in international legal terms ..." Israel has never explicitly, formally annexed the Golan and East Jerusalem. In fact in 1967 it explicitly denied annexing East Jerusalem. [6] I think reading "effective" as "good" is outlandish. In any case, annexation should be qualified, as Israel has gone out of its way to not use the word. I would be happy with any other reasonable qualification of the misleading plain "annexation." As I said, this can of worms requires a lot of exposition which I do not have the time to do right now. --John Z 04:17, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

They denied it in 1967 because Israel hadn't annexed it in 1967. However, Israel did annex it in 1980; see Jerusalem Law. Similarly, Israel used the Golan Heights law in 1981 to annex the Golan Heights. [7] Rather than "effectively", the word should be "formally", since that is what Israel formally did. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:58, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I honestly did not mean to change any meaning with that last edit; just improve the grammar. I thought it obvious the "regarders" were the "any other nations." (who are "they" in this version? If the grammar isn't bad, it is at least clumsy). I don't see any real difference in meaning.

In any case, the 1980 Jerusalem law is IMHO not an annexation either - it doesn't mention borders, sovereignty or annexation either. I think there is even less of a case for the Golan law, which was modelled on the earlier 1967 Jerusalem law, and more or less disclaimed as being an annexation by Begin in the Knesset at the time. He had been involved in the drafting of the 67 Law too, by the way. I'll give a URL for a good, minute analysis of the situations once I dig it up later (plus some other nonweb references for both sides which I have not read). I think Wiki should at least mention the ambiguities at least, so "formally" can't be right, even if, say, some infallible court said "annex" was right after all. IMHO the Israeli avoidance of the usual form of a formal annexation, or its own prior 1948 practice is not meaningless, no? --John Z 21:51, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I've seen de facto used as well; surely it is that. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:56, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy with de facto, and am adding it to Philip's edit. I hope he is happy with it too. Some qualification is necessary, or one is saying more than Israel itself ever has.--John Z 10:36, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

if a qualificaion is needed, how about: "stated", "claimed", or my preference "declared" ?. Philip Baird Shearer

No, those are not acceptable. They are just plain wrong because Israel has never stated, claimed or declared that these were annexations. Israel went out of its way to not do this. The reason being obvious - it wanted to get as close to doing so as possible, but wisely did not go the additional step, because they were sensibly afraid of the reaction it might provoke. It really would be crossing the Rubicon, and could have provoked real reaction from the USA and everyone else - of a kind that has not been seen since 1956. As it was, the golan quasi-annexation provoked some negative consequences from the USA. I'll give a URL for an article by Ian Lustick later for Begin's statement in the Knesset - replying to the question of why he was annexing the Golan and flouting the international community - "You are using that word, I am not using it". Also, perhaps take a look at the commentary to article 47 of the 4th Geneva Convention, and article 43 of Hague referred to there about the quisling and nonrecognition of alleged annexation issues? If you want I can dig up the URLs. At the very least there should be doubt expressed. Also, the view that these territories were "unoccupied" by the quisling governments is not really consistent with the view expressed that the formal military occupation of Berlin only ended in the 90s, as Allied soldiers hardly ran Berlin then - from a Nazi POV, Allied quislings did! :-) By the way, I can see how much hard work you in particular have put into this article. That's why I am reduced to debating such fine points! --John Z 00:00, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

The UN seems to think that Knesset formaly tied to annex the GH http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/47/a47r063.htm

Declares that the Knesset decision of 11 November 1991 annexing the occupied Syrian Golan constitutes a grave violation of Security Council resolution 497 (1981) and therefore is null and void and has no validity whatsoever;

The West Berlin page describes some of how Berlin was military occupied, but not all. The military governments could and did intervene in civilian affairs when they thought they needed to, for example in the 1980s it was still illegal to own a weapon if you lived in Berlin including bread knives (but that was not enforced!), in the early 1980s the Ka-De-We (the German Harrods) wanted to place an old Messerschmitt in their shop window as part of a display and the British military government (it was in the British sector) refused to allow them. The military of all four powers actively patrolled the city although much of the patrolling was very formalised, etc etc. Philip Baird Shearer 08:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Occupation of Korea by Japan from 1910...

Was it a militarily Occupation of Korea by Japan from 1910-1945? I thought Korea became a colony at some point so it was no longer militarily occupied. If so how soon after an initial military occupation did this happen? Philip Baird Shearer 10:00, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have removed Korea from the list because the article Period of Japanese Rule (Korea). Seems to be saying that the Korea went from a Japanese quisling government to full annexation Korea-Japan Annexation Treaty (1910) without a military occupation. Philip Baird Shearer 20:15, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Is there an alternate page that might be appropriate for listing the "non-military" occupation of Korea? Peregrine981 05:18, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Every nation in the world?

Has every nation in the world explicitly cited its reasons for not recognizing Israel's annexation of the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem? If not, please don't put words in their mouths. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:07, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes See: [8]

Reaffirming once more the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the occupied Syrian Golan,

Noting that Israel has refused, in violation of Article 25 of the Charter of the United Nations, to accept and carry out Security Council resolution 497 (1981),

-- Philip Baird Shearer 20:15, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Was this a unanimous vote? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:25, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I've been doing other things the last few days but in answer to your question. The full set of UN Resolutions adopted by the General Assembly at its sessions can be found here http://www.un.org/documents/resga.htm

One can work out the resolution number from the codes published on the papers eg "A/RES/47/63[B]" 47 referrers to the session and 63 refers to the resolution if it is followed by a letter in brackets probably means that the resolution was voted to in sections.

In 1981 the [General Assembly 36th session] resolution 120 "Question of Palestine" was "Adopted at the 93rd plenary meeting, 10 Dec. 1981" unanimously (AFAICT) and it says:

6. Further demands that Israel should fully comply with all the resolutions of the United Nations relevant to the historic character of the Holy City of Jerusalem, in particular Security Council resolutions 476 (1980) of 30 June 1980 and 478 (1980) of August 1980, and rejects the enactment of a "basic law" by the Israel Knesset proclaiming Jerusalem as the capital of Israel;

...

Recalling the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949,

Deploring the persistence of Israel in changing the physical character, the demographic composition, the institutional structure and the status of the Holy City of Jerusalem,

1. Determines once again that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which have altered or purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and, in particular, the so-called "Basic Law" on Jerusalem and the proclamation of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, are null and void and must be rescinded forthwith;[9]

The Israel Knesset annexed the Golan Heights in 1981 at the next General Assembly session was the 47th the resolution (63) condemning Israel over the declared annexation Golan Heights was Adopted by 152 to 1 with 4 abstentions: The wording was

9. Strongly condemns the imposition by Israel of its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the occupied Syrian Golan, its annexationist policies and practices, the establishment of settlements, the confiscation of lands, the diversion of water resources and the imposition of Israeli citizenship on Syrian nationals, and declares that all these measures are null and void and constitute a violation of the rules and principles of international law relative to belligerent occupation, in particular the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949; [10]

So what brief wording should we adopt for "unanimous" and "152 to 1 with 4 abstentions"? perhapse "No other nation supports Israel's annexation because it is a violation of the rules and principles of international law relative to belligerent occupation, in particular the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949." Philip Baird Shearer 12:37, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Obviously at least 5 other nations did not believe that this particular clause of the Geneva Convention applied. The wording should reflect that. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:30, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Occupation of Iceland

I am not sure which section this should be in. I think Iceland was governed by Denmark, which had been invaded by the Germans, so it is not clear to me if this was a Belligerent occupation by the U.S. or a friendly occupation. Any one else know what the situation was? --Philip Baird Shearer 21:24, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Soviet Union and the Baltic states

John I think your footnote is confusing because the occupation from 1940-41 was not part of WWII and the USA was not part of the Allies effort during that stage of the war. No one would argue that the initial occupation was a military occupaton, the debate is if later it was still a military occupation. If someone wishes to follow the post war "occupations" they can always follow the link. BTW I think it best not to put in post German occupation of the baltic states as a 'Military occupation because it depends on the applying of GCIV rules retrospectively as a POV. -- Philip Baird Shearer 10:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

The date was already here, in the text that led to the footnote. Before I changed it the article contradicted itself, and contradicted the particular Wikipedia articles on these occupations. More in a little while.John Z 10:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

The changed footnote is a paraphrase of Malcolm Shaw's International Law, p.197 of the very old edtion I have - " the SU made a series of territorial acquisitions in 1940 ...These were recognised de facto over the years by the Allies (though not by the United States.)" The previous version was simply incorrect, the date of the purported annexation by the SU was 1940, not "after WWII" and not all the allies accepted it, as was earlier implied (might have even been me who wrote the wrong version, I don't remember.). Sure, it is confusing and could be improved and expanded, because it is a confusing situation, but I can't see how a clearly more correct version is more confusing than a clearly incorrect one.John Z 11:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

The US was not an ally in 1940. The point of the annexations was not that the y were accepted in 1940-1941 it was that when the USSR re-capture the region the allies in 1944/45 was accepted as de facto. BTW The UK did not accept as a fait accompli until some time after WWII because the sent 30 odd agents into the Baltic states all of them captured often because of betrayal by British trators like Kim Philby. I am going to alter the not to reflect this. Philip Baird Shearer 09:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Hague Convention 1907 Art. 42. "Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army." There was no authority of the Red Army in Baltic states 1940—1941 (and no war between USSR and them) but pro-Soviet governments in the beginning and since August 1940 - typical SSR with equal status as Russia or Ukraine had. So — annexation; the official theory of "occupation" is a question of debates in Baltic states. 217.198.224.13 06:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Annexation took place during the occupation; the Baltic Military District of the Red Army was formed on 11 July, after the invasion but when the Baltic republics were still ostensibly independent (the countries were not "incorporated," i.e., annexed, until 3-6 August). A declaration of war is not necessary for an army to be considered hostile (if it is, then Denmark wasn't occupied by Nazi Germany...). Blood was shed, e.g., in border incidents, and the Soviet army was admitted only due to the threat of force. Persons were also deported while the Baltics were still formally sovereign. De jure, the annexation was not recognized by most countries. --Pēteris Cedriņš 02:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Occupied territories into List of military occupations

It has been suggested that Occupied territories#Occupied Territories under International Law since 1948 be merged into List of military occupations.

• Oppose. I am against this merger. The definition of "Occupied Territories" is not succinct enough. It is wide open to POV like "Northern Ireland" etc. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Also opposed. I am against this merger for the same reasons as above. Way too many POV issues to take into consideration. --Micahbrwn 19:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed name-change

Whenever i come across this article I expect to find a list of occupational tasks associated with military forces: artilleryman, grenadier, bomb-aimer, officer , and the like...

I suggest a change of name to something like List of military occupations of territory in order to avoid confusion. -- Pedant17 01:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I am opposed to this. But it could be "belligerent military occupations". --Philip Baird Shearer 10:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain your opposition? -- As for "belligerent military occupations" -- the article already (and perhaps justifiably) includes a section on "non-belligerent" cases... How about List of militarily-occupied territories ? (Most of the article uses territorial names as an organising principle.) -- Pedant17 01:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Western POV

This is English Wiki, not Western Wiki

If Tibet is occupied by China (Actually, Tibet is historical part of China), why Hawaii and Texas is not occupied by U.S.A.. Fucking Western Double standard. 203.218.71.185 13:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Did the PLA invade Tibet in 1950? If so when did they hand the administation over to civilians? --Philip Baird Shearer 17:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

No, China owned Tibet sovereignty, at least in Republic of China period (1911-1949).

Your answer has confused me:

1. was the PLA the army of the Republic of China?
2. who claims that the Chinese had soverignty?

--Philip Baird Shearer 08:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

203.218.71.185 is saying the PLA entered/invaded Tibet according to Succession of states principle while PRC claimed itself as the successor state of ROC over Mainland China. As an analogy, it's just like the Soviet Army taking over borderland territories (e.g. Siberia) from the hand of Imperial Russia. --219.79.122.72 (talk) 04:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Was or was the area not put under Military law between the invasion and the Seventeen Point Agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Poland as occupier of Iraq

I realize we don't want to make the mistake of forgetting Poland, but is it really necessary to list it as a third occupying party of Iraq along with the US and UK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.235.246 (talk • contribs) 06:20, 31 July 2007

In the Occupation of Iraq there were 4 military districts in Iraq. Poland commanded one of them. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

South Africa Bush War

Someone more knowledgeable than me on the war needs to consider if the SADF occupied parts of the territories of Angola and Mozambique during the Bush War[11] or if the penetrations into the territory of other sovereign states were no more than cross border raids. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

removed

I removed the Tibet entry as since 1914 the Tibetans had affirmed Chinese suzerainty. According to international law a Suzerain has unchallenged right to station troops and represent the sub-state internationally.

Even the greatest supporters of Tibetan independence, the British Empire and the US, recognized Chinese suzerainty.--219.79.122.72 (talk) 14:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Pre-Hague Convention of 1907 occupations

Can someone point me to the appropriate article for these since they are not in See also?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What is the definition for a military occupation before 1899? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 23:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not looking for a definition before 1899. I am looking for a list where pre-1907 occupations are listed according to the 1907 definition--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the definition of military occupations prior to 1907 is

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.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

But how do you separate that from annexation, empire building, etc, before there was a rule about it? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 01:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

List of military occupations → List of military occupations since 1907 —(Discuss)— reflects defined constraint of current article content --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose There is no need for this as there is no other list and the definition at the top makes it clear what the range is. Before the Hague conventions of 1899 defining what was or was not a military occupation becomes difficult to do with any objectivity, particularly as one goes further back in history. Renaming this list will only encourage another person to re-create this list without the constraint which allows the list some sort of objectivity. -Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Please! If there was a need for a definition in 1907, there must have been existing and prior to 1907 occupations that brought it forth. Therefore there were pre-1907 occupations by the 1907 definition, and there needs to be a list for that also.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so no reply here, possibly because of bias due to the wars in South Africa prior to 1907.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose: As per PBS. It's to difficult to categorize all past conflict that might be considered occupations. Modern warfare has different rules and definitions. This article isn't a great solution, but I can't think of a better one. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 00:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It might be too difficult, but if sourced there is no difficulty in producing such a list. In fact you are denying the reader a source of reference counter to the purpose of Wikipedia by offering a personal view that there were no occupations because there was no pre-1907 definitions.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose This would simply add more complexity for the user for some dubious gain. Oberiko (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Reference works do tend to be complex Oberiko. Are you suggesting that producing a list of pre-1907 occupations would be of dubious value to the users?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per the reasons given by Oberiko and TheMightyQuill, as well as Philip Baird Shearer Skinny87 (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Clarification for mrg - I fail to see why there should be a list of occupations etc for pre-1907 when the conditions set by Geneva didn't exist. It's rather like using hindsight and doesn't make any sense. Skinny87 (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC

But Skinny87, there were pre-1907 occupations, right?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

No reply here either--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Opport or Suppose or whatever: I'm fine with keeping this list post 1907 Hague. But there is a place for a pre-1907 list, covering the preceding century or so. The main criterion for this list isn't the Hague definition, but the same criterion as everything else in Wikipedia - what high-quality reliable sources say. That's the same thing that should be used for pre-1907. After all, the Hague definition wasn't a gigantic change, more just writing down customary law. If a book about international law or a paper in an IL journal says Fredonia occupied Ruritania in 1837, we should say that. After all, the concept of occupation actually became more problematic soon after 1907, more confusing, because of the changes in international law. In classical 19th century law, it was easy to tell - if someone had won a battle and militarily controlled an area for a length of time, and hadn't said it's ours, we annex it, then it was occupied, because forcible annexation and subjugation was fine and legal back then. What we wouldn't and shouldn't have on the list is things like Rome occupied Britain. The concept didn't exist back then, and I strongly doubt there are any good RS's that say something like that. Britain was just part of the empire, worshipped and payed taxes to the emperor like everyone else. There are free, out of copyright old international law textbooks out there online that would be very helpful building a list.John Z (talk) 02:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose per above. Us defining the exact conditions of pre-1907 occupations without a legal guideline would be very close to WP:OR. Buckshot06(prof) 20:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so until the "occupation" was not legally defined, there were none? right?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

And no reply here either--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

So far it seems to me that opposition is based on denial that there were occupations before 1907, and that the reference to these would not be useful for the Wikipedia users.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Five people have told you the definition issue makes it too unclear Mrg, while one seems to have more of a grip on the technicalities and is swithering. None have mentioned denial of anything. Can you read? Buckshot06(prof) 05:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This only means that these five people admit they are unable to produce a definition or a source for one, and not that there were no occupations before 1907. The fact that the issue was considered at Hague in 1899 only serves to prove this. As it happens the occupation of South Africa by Britain occurred before 1907, so I have every reason to question Philip's motive never mind all the other occupations of the British Empire. Now, if you, or anyone else, can not find sources for pre-1907 occupations, I suggest you withdraw your opposition. Or is it that your favourite OCD says the word occupation in its meaning of territory by military forces only entered the English language in 1907?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

PS. Please don't use "majority thinks" arguments on me. If these arguments worked, we would still be walking on flat Earth.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

1. Not that these five have said they can't find a definition; they've said there are too many definitions (in my view, implicitly saying that wiki isn't the place for trying to agree among them). 2. I'm not using 'majority thinks' on you - but I would probably say that there is a WP:Consensus, and that it's against you. If you wish to change WP:CON however, this isn't the place to argue it. Buckshot06(prof) 05:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I would really appreciate it that when people oppose something they actually read the question, and offer a logical response.

What is being opposed here? That the article covers occupations after 1907? Yes, the definition in the article explicitly states the article only deals with occupations after 1907.

What is challenged by yourself and other opposers is the ability, seemingly on my part alone, to find a sourced definition for occupations before 1907 in creating another article. However, neither you, nor the other 6 billion people on the planet can prevent me from starting another article title List of military occupations before 1907. Its just that all of you will look rather silly in having an article that despite its title only covers a century in time.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou Mrg for those helpful comments. I think [12] is my most appropriate course of action here. Buckshot06(prof) 06:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, the old "I can't offer a logical argument, so why not call him a troll" trick. Well, that "professionalism" tag is really coming to signify something.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)