Explores the use of armed force in occupied territory under different international law branches.

This book explores the international law framework governing the use of armed force in occupied territory through a rigorous analysis of the interplay between jus ad bellum, international humanitarian law, and international human rights law. Through an examination of state practice and opinio juris, treaty provisions and relevant international and domestic case law, this book offers the first comprehensive study on this topic. This book will be relevant to scholars, practitioners, legal advisors, and students across a range of sub-disciplines of international law, as well as in peace and conflict studies, international relations, and political science. This study will influence the way in which States use armed force in occupied territory, offering guidance and support in litigations before domestic and international courts and tribunals.

The law of occupation imposes two types of obligations on an army that seizes control of enemy land during armed conflict: obligations to respect and protect the inhabitants and their rights, and an obligation to respect the sovereign rights of the ousted government. In theory, the occupant is expected to establish an effective and impartial administration, to carefully balance its own interests against those of the inhabitants and their government, and to negotiate the occupation's early termination in a peace treaty. Although these expectations have been proven to be too high for most occupants, they nevertheless serve as yardsticks that measure the level of compliance of the occupants with international law. This thoroughly revised edition of the 1993 book traces the evolution of the law of occupation from its inception during the 18th century until today. It offers an assessment of the law by focusing on state practice of the various occupants and reactions thereto, and on the governing legal texts and judicial decisions. The underlying thought that informs and structures the book suggests that this body of laws has been shaped by changing conceptions about war and sovereignty, by the growing attention to human rights and the right to self-determination, as well as by changes in the balance of power among states. Because the law of occupation indirectly protects the sovereign, occupation law can be seen as the mirror-image of the law on sovereignty. Shifting perceptions on sovereign authority are therefore bound to be reflected also in the law of occupation, and vice-versa.

This book comprises contributions by leading experts in the field of international humanitarian law on the subject of the categorisation or classification of armed conflict. It is divided into two sections: the first aims to provide the reader with a sound understanding of the legal questions surrounding the classification of hostilities and its consequences; the second includes ten case studies that examine practice in respect of classification. Understanding how classification operates in theory and practice is a precursor to identifying the relevant rules that govern parties to hostilities. With changing forms of armed conflict which may involve multi-national operations, transnational armed groups and organized criminal gangs, the need for clarity of the law is all-important. The case studies selected for analysis are Northern Ireland, DRC, Colombia, Afghanistan (from 2001), Gaza, South Ossetia, Iraq (from 2003), Lebanon (2006), the so-called war against Al-Qaeda, and future trends. The studies explore the legal consequences of classification particularly in respect of the use of force, detention in armed conflict, and the relationship between human rights law and international humanitarian law. The practice identified in the case studies allows the final chapter to draw conclusions as to the state of the law on classification.

Since the mid-19th century military powers and various writers have tried to define the notion of belligerent occupation and, in particular, the beginning thereof. There are many situations in which a state of occupation is controversial or even denied. When is control so effective that an invasion turns into a state of belligerent occupation? What is the minimum area of a territory that can be occupied; a town, a hamlet, a house or what about a hill taken by the armed forces? This paper examines what seems to be an important gap of the Fourth Geneva Convention: contrary to the Hague Regulations of 1907 it does not provide a definition of belligerent occupation. It is argued that the Fourth Geneva Convention follows its own rules of applicability and that therefore the provisions relative to occupied territories apply in accordance with the “functional beginning” of belligerent occupation approach from the moment that a protected person finds him or herself in the hands of the enemy. Henry Dunant Prize 2010 from the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights (ADH Geneva)

The customary law of belligerent occupation goes back to the Hague and Geneva Conventions. Recent instances of such occupation include Iraq, the former Yugoslavia, the Congo and Eritrea. But the paradigmatic illustration is the Israeli occupation, lasting for over 40 years. There is now case law of the International Court of Justice and other judicial bodies, both international and domestic. There are Security Council resolutions and a vast literature. Still, numerous controversial points remain. How is belligerent occupation defined? How is it started and when is it terminated? What is the interaction with human rights law? Who is protected under belligerent occupation, and what is the scope of the protection? Conversely, what measures can an occupying power lawfully resort to when encountering forcible resistance from inhabitants of the occupied territory? This book examines the legislative, judicial and executive rights of the occupying power and its obligations to the civilian population.

A detailed and highly authoritative critical commentary appraising the vitally important United States Department of Defense Law of War Manual.

In Revisiting the Law of Occupation, Hanne Cuyckens assesses the crucial challenges faced by the law of occupation. Through examples such as the occupation of the Palestinian Territories and the 2003 occupation of Iraq, the author convincingly demonstrates that although the law of occupation may no longer be perceived as adequate to address contemporary forms of occupation, a formal modification of the law is neither desirable nor feasible. The author identifies means by which the potential dichotomy between the law and the facts can be addressed without formal modification of the former: 1) flexible interpretation of the law itself; 2) the role of International Human Rights law as gap-filler; and 3) the role of the UNSC as a modulator of the law.

This volume discusses the practice of transformative military occupation from the perspective of public international law through the prism of the occupation of Iraq and other cases of historical significance. It seeks to assess how international law should respond to measures undertaken in the pursuit of a given transformative project, whether or not supported by the Security Council. A monographic study tackling the bulk of the international law issues that emerge during and as a result of a transformative occupation, based on a comprehensive analysis of historical cases, applicable norms, and relevant facts. "With this thorough and thought provoking study, Andrea Carcano has put us all in his debt." From the foreword by Georges Abi-Saab, Emeritus Professor, Graduate Institute of International Studies and Development.