Talk:List of military occupations/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

"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

--PBS 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. PBS 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. --PBS 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. PBS 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? PBS 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. PBS 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? --PBS 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. PBS 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]

--PBS 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. PBS 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.PBS 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. PBS 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" ?. PBS

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. PBS 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? PBS 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. PBS 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),

-- PBS 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." PBS 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? --PBS 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. -- PBS 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. PBS 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. --PBS 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". --PBS 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? --PBS 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?

--PBS 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? --PBS (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. --PBS 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. --PBS (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? --PBS (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)

Still waiting for a reply... - TheMightyQuill (talk) 02:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Umm, I posted a pretty long one above a few days ago. All this arguing over definitions amounts to "how should we best conduct our WP:OR?" We're not really supposed to do so at all, though conducting "OR" is a good thing if it means understanding concepts and definitions and what is being talked about well enough to distinguish good sources from bad ones and write good articles with understanding. In fact it's easier to distinguish between occupation and annexation and empire-building in the 19th century than the 20th, because then the rule was "it's annexed if I says it's annexed." "Occupation" is not such a terribly problematic concept. My recommendation is to create a list, throw in some definitions from old IL textbooks or the Hague definition, and list what occupations people find using high-quality reliable sources, not dime-a-dozen silly nationalist ones saying things like - We Lower Slobovians, who are the true ancient Slobovians, were occupied by the rotten Slobbovian empire in 3000BC.John Z (talk) 04:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry User:Themightyquill, missed your reply. Actually John is right, and telling occupations from annexations before 20th century was easy, and here is why...titles! All those imperialistic royals loved to amass titles or appoint governors. There are a plethora of reliable sources, including original documents that provide exact dates of annexation which ended occupations.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

If you can find specific references that assert certain places were occupied first then annexed, or occupied then released, and clearly differentiate these terms, no one here can stop you from adding the information to wikipedia. My problem with your suggestion, and John Z's above, is that historians describing changes in control of land prior to 1907, when there wasn't a specific internationally accepted definition, might well casually use the term occupation without actually considering it in a modern context. Hey, that's fine, but another historian might refer to the same change of control as an annexation, or something else. Of course, this is just me imagining the worst without giving any references, but so far, no else one has provided any references either. =) - TheMightyQuill (talk) 22:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move. JPG-GR (talk) 08:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

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. -PBS (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)

Throwing accusations if bias around as you are doing without any foundation in truth, is a breach of WP:CIVIL, and at a practical level it makes it much more difficult to work towards a compromise (Ever heard of How to Win Friends and Influence People?). Why would I object to the mention of belligerent military occupation by the British Army anywhere (providing it was belligerent military occupation and not something else as was the case during the Troubles)? Further if you look through the history of this article you will see that I added many of the entries, including most of the belligerent British military occupations.[12]. So I hope on reflection you will apologise.--PBS (talk) 17:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I apologise if I misinterpreted your good intentions Philip. Please note however that you never offered a compromise. Its just that your opposition seems to be conceived from some strange notion that if some historical events can not be categorised from the point of view of modern legal practice, they should not be referred to as such in a reference work. The truth is that occupations are easy to define. How's this from the top of my head "A territorial occupation, other then as defined in 1907, is an opposed or unopposed presence of civilian and military administration in a territory other then its own area of settlement."--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:51, 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 PBS 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)

The reason I picked 1907 is because that is the version that is accepted (thanks to the Nuremberg Trials) as part of the customary laws of war binding on all states whether they signed the conventions or not. But even if we took 1899 it is debatable if the Second Boer War should be included as it started in 1899 and the Boer states were occupied in the (southern hemisphere) winter months of 1900 -- just before the Hague Convention of 1899 entering into force on September 4, 1900. --PBS (talk) 07:35, 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 [13] 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)

Comment - Look, this article isn't exactly huge and is 99% list. Can't we just have one article with two sections - pre-1907 and post-1907? Wouldn't that solve all the problems here? Skinny87 (talk) 08:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Occupations before 1907

During the move discussion above three editors suggested that we should have a section of belligerent military occupations before 1907. As John Z put it

... [T]here 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.

In principle I am not against this for more recent centuries but as John Z "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."

But before we decide to redefine the definition at the top I would like to play through some scenarios to see what comes out of them and then decide on whether it s possible to push the definition back by a century:

• Bonaparte's expedition to Egypt what parts of the affair was a military occupation? Were the British also a military occupying force? What do reliable sources say?
• The invasion of France by the Coalition forces in 1815 (part of the Hundred Days). As the war was against Bonaparte and not against the French nation who as far as the Coalition were concerned were still governed by the King Louis XVIII. Was this a military occupation and it was was it a belligerent occupation? What do reliable sources say?
• Shaka and his wars. Do we include those types of wars or keep with the ideas of wars between "Civilized Nations" as described in the Hague Conventions? What do reliable sources say?
• The New Zealand Wars before the Treaty of Waitangi and the Indian Wars##West of the Mississippi (1823–1890). Do we include those types of wars or keep with the ideas of wars between "Civilized Nations" as described in the Hague Conventions? What do reliable sources say?
• Russian expansion to the east and into south east Europe (Georgia etc). I know little about it but I can see that it could be a POV minefield. What do you think mrg3105 were the peoples of the caucuses civilized people within the definition of Hague? What do reliable sources say?
• American Civil War. Was it a war between two states? If it was then did military occupation occur after the surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia? Was each State occupied separately or was it one occupation. I think this is a particularly good example because it is full of POV considerations "The South will rise again" and a strong bias in sources.
• If there are no reliable sources that mention whether an occupation was a "military occupation" and whether a nation was civilized, do we include the occupation or not? What if a reliable source uses the term "occupation" but not "military occupation"?

This is just an example of the types of scenarios that we will be faced with before 1907 and I am not sure that we can produce a list that is anywhere near complete and not full of POV problems; and if it is not anywhere near complete it is probably not of much use to the reader and will probably have a built bias (as did the list before I expanded it). However I am willing to be proved wrong and answers to the above examples will help to make it clear if it is possible to go before 1907 or not. --PBS (talk) 10:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm very glad we have agreement. I very strongly share your concerns about POV minefield possibilities and think it is a good idea to keep the articles separate, at least for now. I think we should use only very high quality sources for pre 20th century : books and journals on international law, not even run of the mill histories in disputable cases unless we are sure the historian is using technical and not loose, figurative vocabulary, and I am willing to be quite a hard-ass about it, contrary to my usual outlook. It may keep the list small at first, but like everything else here it will grow. I think the US Civil War is a particularly important case. The Lieber code and the Lieber-Halleck correspondence had a real effect on the law of war and occupation. The USA and the UK recognized the CSA as a belligerent. As I understand things, people tried to "do things by the book" such as it was, and international law sources about this as an occupation should be numerous. France in Egypt, and come to think of it Britain in Egypt a half century later are other examples where I think I've seen good sources seriously consider it an occupation. Cf the sources in Convention of Constantinople which I was just expanding. As I said above, not that I've been intelligent enough to save the links, there are quite a few old, public domain books on international law for free on the net; they should be helpful building a list. Above all, we need high quality sources and people with access to them. Regards,John Z (talk) 23:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Suez Crisis

user:One last pharaoh: wrote in the history of the article "Examples of belligerent military occupations: before. and after the war, "the various parts" were not occupied, and military movements during conflict, are not considered occupation." [14] and deleted the entry for "Occupation of parts of Egypt by France, Britain, and Israel in 1956 during the Suez Crisis".

One last pharaoh are you suggesting that the British did not occupy part of Egypt and if an Egyptian traffic policeman had tried to stop a British convoy he would not have been arrested by the British? --PBS (talk) 17:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I am saying that after the nationalization of the Suez canal, the three countries declared war on egypt with the goal of recapture it as a colony for the french, and the british with israel taking the sinai as it's share. the armed conflict breaks up, and the egyptian army concentrates it's defenses at the canal by retreating from the entire sinai as declared by the egyptian government, which was considered a victory, and even called "the Sinai campaign" by israel. the soviets union threatens with action against the invaders, and the war ends. the british, and french had to retreat much earlier than israel regarding the political pressure, some thing that israel did not suffer from, as much as they did.

I believe that that makes the war end with the invading armies retreating from captured areas during hostilities.

Occupation is when a military power gains a territory, and keeps it as a result of the military actions.

much more occasion would be considered military occupation according to the aspect u are following which is that -if, i am not mistaking- each single square cm of land that contacted an invading army during a war is an occupation, no matter weather the invasion was successful, or not.

for an example, the royal egyptian forces were about 30km away from telaviv in the 48 war, and i cannot see that mentioned as a military occupation. One last pharaoh (talk) 22:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

After a cease fire was agreed upon, Israeli forces continued to hold the Sinai and Gaza strip for nearly 5 months. This is a military occupation, and we have reliable sources, including official Egyptian government sources, calling it an occupation. This is not a matter of your definition vs. mine, but a question of what reliable sources say. Please stop removing well sourced information. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Military occupations happen during a war if land is captured during fighting it is under military occupation. It does not matter if it is for five minutes of five years. --PBS (talk) 00:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

One last pharaoh If I understand your argument correctly, you would argue that the Third Reich never occupied any part of the Soviet Union as they did not hold on to any territory of the Soviet Union after hostilities ended. Is that your position? --PBS (talk) 00:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course not. the WW2, and the great war cannot be compared to what happened in the suez. in WW2, gemany captured lands through victory over other nations, that's an occupation. latter on, those territories were recaptured also by military action.

the 3Is "three invading countries" did not achieve their goals. in a matter of fact, the 1956 war never reached it's goal since the invasion was never completed, due to multiple pressures on several fields, which included the Soviet threatening, which i think was the primary reason that the invasion failed.

so do u really think that the presence of the egyptian royal forces in the 1948 war was an occupation? One last pharaoh (talk) 20:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I can not answer you question as I do not know what area the Egyptian forces occupied if any during 1948. For example under who's sovereignty did the territory you mention lie? --PBS (talk) 21:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

A comparison can be made between any incursion by one belligerent on another's territory. The Soviet Union was not beaten by the Third Reich, so by the logic you are putting forward none of the Soviet Union was under German military occupation during World War II. But if you (One last pharaoh) want to look at a smaller war did the Argentinian occupy the Falkland Islands during the Falklands war? If so what is the difference (apart from duration) between the invasion and military occupation of parts Egypt during the Suez Crisis and the military occupation by the Argentinian Army of the Falkland Islands during the Falklands War? --PBS (talk) 21:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not about logic, it is about sources. Unless there is a reliable source calling something a military occupation, then things can be removed from this list. --Elonka 22:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Then what about statements like "2+2=4" and "murder is against the law"? --PBS (talk) 01:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Never mind that - the items that OLP has been removing have all been well sourced. How are we supposed to treat the deletion of well sourced items, with an edit summary that falsely says they are not sourced? Canadian Monkey (talk) 01:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, for future reference, you probably want to read, Dealing with disruptive editors. But what that'll tell you is what you've already been doing, up through, "Contact an administrator". And you've got an admin here now: moi.  :) I'm monitoring the page now. I agree that there were some problematic edits, on the part of multiple editors. But I'm not going to go blocking people, because it's not Wikipedia policy to use blocks in a punitive manner. Instead, we use them only for prevention. Also, we don't block unless we give a warning first (see WP:BLOCK#Education and warnings). At this point, all parties have been warned, so now we'll see how things go. Hopefully from here on out, the article will stabilize, and everyone will focus on providing solid sources for anything they want to change. If there are further problems, I'll deal with 'em. Or if I'm not around, you may wish to post at ANI. But hopefully that won't be necessary. --Elonka 01:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

While common sense dictates that the suez crisis did involve an occupation, a better reference would probably be a good idea. The "official government" document I looked at briefl seemed to a monthly travel guide. This kind of debate is exactly why I worry about including occupations from 200 years ago. TheMightyQuill (talk) 13:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not a travel guide, but a publication of the official Egyptian SIS - State Information Service - about the Sinai - including history, natural resources etc. The reason I chose this particular reference is that One last pharaoh claims on his user page to be one with Egypt itself, so I thought he'd be impressed with his flesh and blood telling him he's wrong. But apparently not...Anyway, it's not a matter of "common sense", but a matter of what reliable sources say, and there are countless such sources that describe the results of the Suez war as an occupation. Searching Google, the first one that comes up is this - headlined "The occupation of Sinai (1956)", and in the text below "Israel occupied Sinai", and in the map's legend "Territoires occupes par Israel jusq'au 6 Mars, 1957". I don't know about occupations form 200 years ago, but this one is an open and shut case. Canadian Monkey (talk) 14:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

ok. state the phrase were the "official governmental source" states that it was occupied, please.

I think that a french source "one of the countries that joined the invasion" should not be considered a neutral source. One last pharaoh (talk) 20:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The reference is this, from 'Egypt State Information Service", which is an official organ of the Egyptian government, with a .gov.eg domain. It states, clearly, in the section titled "Historical piece about North Sinai ", that "In 1956 there was the Tripartite Aggression on Egypt and the Israeli forces' occupation of Sinai." (My emphasis). That same section also states "1967, the War of the Six Days took place resulting in Israeli occupation of all Sinai." - which is another piece of information you've been removing, with the clever edit summary "stupid enough to be deleted". Continued deletion of well-sourced information with edit summaries such as that one is going to get you labeled as a vandal, and your editing will be restricted. There's nothing wrong with le Monde Diplomatique as a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes, but if you'd like a non-French source saying the same thing, have a look at this - an Arab historian writing in a peer-reviewed academic journal, who calls it an occupation. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Small correction: Disagreements about content, are not vandalism. We reserve that word for blatant deliberate attempts to compromise Wikipedia, such as page blanking, inserting profanity or inappropriate pictures, etc. See WP:VANDAL#NOT. What's going on here, is a content dispute. Possibly tendentious, possibly disruptive, possibly just a difference of opinion. It may even lead to restrictions on one or more parties. But it's still not vandalism. --Elonka 23:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

There's actually a bit more to it than that. WP:VANDALISM lists "Blanking" as the first type of vandalism, and explains "Removing all or significant parts of pages' content without any reason". I'd argue that removing 4 entires from a list, all of which are well sourced, with an edit summary that says "stupid enough to be deleted" qualifies as removing a significant part of this page's content without any reason. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Removing items from a list because one disagrees about the definition, is not vandalism. Now, if someone deleted large chunks of a page with an edit summary of "YO MAMA", then yes, that would be vandalism. But OLP seems to be offering good-faith reasons for his deletions, so that's a content dispute. You could refer to his editing (or he could refer to yours) as tendentious, disruptive, POV or a variety of other things. But it's still not vandalism. --Elonka 01:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Is '"stupid enough to be deleted" considered a 'good-faith reasons for his deletions'? Canadian Monkey (talk) 01:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It is considered a violation of WP:CIVIL, and if that was the only thing he'd said, it might be a case for vandalism, but it's just one comment in a pattern of a larger content dispute. Sorry if it seems I'm quibbling here, but there are very strict rules for what is or isn't vandalism. If I blocked an editor for "vandalism", when it was just a content dispute, the block would (rightly) be overturned very rapidly. For another way of looking at it, you might wish to review some of the reports at WP:AIV, where real vandalism gets reported. If Pharaoh were reported there, you'd probably see the report get deleted fairly rapidly as "content dispute, not vandalism". --Elonka 01:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) Don't have the time to check sources at the moment, but here are a few points. 1)The 1967-1982 occupation of the Sinai was of course just that, just like the other "territories occupied" in the 1967 war. One Last Pharaoh - I hope you aren't disputing that. 2) Israel occupied the Sinai Peninsula but gradually withdrew from it under sustained political pressure rather than military action, starting at the end of November 1956. By January 15, 1957 it only retained Gaza and Sharm al-Sheikh, having tried to retain a strip between the latter and Eilat until then. (Morris, Righteous Victims p.299). I think Shlaim's Iron Wall has some info on the withdrawal too. The British and French held on to territory for much less time; One Last Pharaoh's point does have some validity, the Hague definition requires that the territory be actually held, not just momentarily acquired in back and forth fighting. 3) Another point he brings up is interesting. The DMZs declared by the Armistice Agreements, Ralph Bunche's idea that broke the deadlock between the sides, were areas inside mandatory Palestine steadily occupied by Egyptian or Syrian forces until the signing of the agreements. So for the months when they were under Egyptian or Syrian control, they probably do belong on the list, and I think I could find sources. (Of course Egypt occupied Gaza, 30 miles from Tel Aviv, for a long time.)John Z (talk) 04:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

"The Hague definition requires that the territory be actually held, not just momentarily acquired in back and forth fighting." Hague Iv 42 seems to be clear in this case. While few would doubt that while fighting for control of the grain silo continued in Stalingrad that the land it stood upon was not under German occupation, if Egyptian territory captured by the British and French was not under occupation then the civilian population would not have had the protection of Hague or GCIV, which is not a position most would hold as it would drive a coach an horses through the protections afforded by international humanitarian law. --PBS (talk) 06:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Did the Egyptian occupation of Gaza have UN approval? --PBS (talk) 06:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course I agree that the Egyptian territory held by the British and French was occupied once they had secured control of it. Was just trying to say that some of One Last Pharaoh's ideas are not unreasonable, not foreign to the Hague definition, though stretching them to say there was no British or French occupation is unusual and probably not supportable by reliable sources. The Egyptian occupation of Gaza was part of the armistice agreement mediated by the UN, so I'd say the answer to your question is yes.John Z (talk) 08:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The Egyptian occupation of Gaza is already listed as an occupation in this article. If you agree that the Egyptian territory held by the British and French was occupied, and presumably also agree that the Egyptian territory held by Israel was occupied - which of One Last Pharaoh's ideas are not unreasonable? Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I always think it better to look for the productive and thoughtful content in others' edits. Granted, this goal can present varying degrees of intellectual challenge. Pharaoh reminded us of the necessity of actual control, and his edits suggested more precision about dates and areas of occupation. Although he took the point too strictly, he was doing it neutrally, as he thought it ruled out the legitimate case of Egyptian occupation of small areas in Palestine, missed until he highlighted it. Besides, I mistrust the highly suspect contributions of this unscrupulous vandal that I like to wiki-stalk, who I believe put here much of the material Pharaoh was removing.John Z (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Please John Z, don't call me OLP (it looks like a name of a medicine), if u don't mind. Pharaoh is much better. Thanx in advance. One last pharaoh (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I did not think that that stuff would attract so much disputes.

Well, i did not read every thing, but i wanna comment about some thing here, which is disputing weather should i be blocked, or not. I am not some one who likes to talk about him self with much pride, but i for one do not think that any article deserves that i violate the laws for it. in another ward, i try to keep the laws in mind and respect them whenever i am editing. now Mr. Canadian Monkey, u apparently don't understand the vandalism stuff correctly, in a matter of fact, when i wrote "stupid enough to be deleted", i did not insult a single member. the way u described that action at the first time is what can be much more closer to be considered non-civil contribution, since u pointed the insult to a certain member, that is me. I am not threatening u, but i surely don't think that u should be very proud of ur talk page. try to attain friendships, if u cant, at least attain friendly manner with other members. I have been through many disputes, that some times became personal dispute more than a logical discussion, but i did not report a single member to the administration until now, even those who apparently violated some discussion rules, but for a single member in which relations between us is now friendly as much as i think. In another word, i am not looking for trouble, but i can, and shall find some mistakes u have done that worths being reported -god's will-, and might eventually lead to a blocking, and i really don't like to do that, but i might have to do so, if u did not stop pointing my mistakes to administrators, and even argue with them when they -having more experience- know that it does not worth even a warning. constructive editors such as me, make mistakes all the time, but not any mistake should be considered vandalism.

Dear Elonka, and PBS; i want u to take another look to my talk page, and the articles history, to make sure that i really do not deserve the warning, please. perhaps after u do, u may want to remove it, since i feel like it's some how wrong to remove a warning i got, even if the member who added it, and my self agreed that i did not deserve it. ex. the warning added by Vanderdecken, because he thought i might violate a rule, in which we agrred in another talk page that it can be removed, but he did not want to remove it him self, and the result is that it still a scare in my talk page to the present day; so, if u thought that i did not deserve the warning, remove it. please.

Thanx in advance. One last pharaoh (talk) 20:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Belligerent vs non-belligerent

Can we get a solid definition of belligerent vs. non-belligerent occupations? I'm having trouble understanding why NATO occupations are listed under non-belligerent. Peace-keeping forces, which are invited by both sides, I understand, but NATO invasions aiming to overthrow governments don't seem non-belligerent as far as I'm concerned. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 17:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Which of the missions listed do you think is/was "aiming to overthrow [a] government"? --PBS (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

ISAF was initially charged with securing Kabul and surrounding areas from the Taliban, al Qaeda and factional warlords, so as to allow for the establishment of the Afghan Transitional Administration headed by Hamid Karzai. [3] In October 2003, the UN Security Council authorized the expansion of the ISAF mission throughout Afghanistan,[4] and ISAF subsequently expanded the mission in four main stages over the whole of the country.[5] Since 2006, ISAF has been involved in more intensive combat operations in southern Afghanistan, a tendency which continued in 2007. Attacks on ISAF in other parts of Afghanistan are also mounting.

ISAF exists to use aggressive combat to keep the Taliban out of power and allow its for replacement with a new government. By what definition does that qualify as "non-belligerent" ? United Nations approval does not automatically grant non-belligerent status, when they are in active combat mode. They could send in forces anywhere so long as the Security Council approves it. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 13:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Hiya, just popping in as an uninvolved administrator. If it's helpful, please consider that how Wikipedia editors define belligerent or non-belligerent, is irrelevant. The key is whether or not there are reliable sources that use those terms. If not, then there shouldn't be any listing at all. The List of military occupations page looks to have a great deal of useful information on it, but it is very lacking in sources. As a reminder, anything in the list that is unsourced, can be removed immediately by any editor, per WP:V. Now, it's usually better to add a {{fact}} tag rather than deletion, but when it comes down to a dispute, the decision is going to be based on sources, not editor opinion. Hope that helps, --Elonka 21:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course, you're correct, but at the same time, many lists and categories on wikipedia have their own rules for inclusion. Listing anything referred to as an occupation by anyone would make the list incredibly long and effectively useless. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 01:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not whether the ISAF had/has a belligerent mandate, it depends on whether the sovereign state accepts the presence of forces on its territory. I think it is beyond dispute that it is not currently a belligerent occupation (as the internationally recognised government wants NATO's presence). But whether it was initially one or not, I guess depends on whether one thinks the Taliban was a sovereign government or if the Taliban was still in power when the first NATO troops arrived on the ground. I guess we will have to find a source that gives a legal opinion on it, because the UN security council resolution is not clear on this issue. However I would be very surprised if the Security Council would pass a resolution that mandated a belligerent occupation of territory in opposition to the wishes of a sovereign state's government - just look at the fuss over Darfor and Sudan's sovereignty. --PBS (talk) 22:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

By that rationale, Germany's occupation of Czechoslovakia didn't last until 1945, only until they installed a new government. =) - TheMightyQuill (talk) 01:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Not according to international law see THE ISRAELI "DISENGAGEMENT" PLAN: GAZA STILL OCCUPIED

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]

The current Afghanistan government can ask NATO to leave (Turkeys voting for Christmas springs to mind). Which is not something a Czechoslovakian administration could ask the Germans to do. Of course this is a narrow legal definition! --PBS (talk) 01:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a stretch... Slovakia was officially independent, as was Hungary, I believe. Then again, Vichy France isn't on the list. How do you decide when a government installed by force is independent enough that an occupation has ended? According to Soviet occupation of Hungary, "The Soviet occupation of Hungary followed the defeat of Hungary in World War II, and lasted for 45 years." (and it's referenced!)

The reference does not even begin to address the legal implications of the Paris Peace Treaties, 1947. The danger here is that one ends up down the rabbit hole with Alice over: Paragraph 2 of Article 53 of the UN Charter, the territories of Germany, particularly those of the Kaliningrad Oblast and Western Poland, the Debellation or not of Germany, and sovereignty as expressed in the Bonn-Paris conventions and that of the Two Plus Four Agreement (When there is seen to be a difference between "the full authority of a sovereign State" and "full sovereignty over its internal and external affairs")! --PBS (talk) 07:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

If you seriously believe that, if the current Afghanistan government asked NATO to leave, they would, I doubt I'm going to change your mind. TheMightyQuill (talk) 02:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The position in international law, as I understand it, was that the United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan (the so-called Northern Alliance) was the internationally recognised government of Afghanistan, even though it controlled only about 10% of Afghanistan at the peak of the Taliban's power. Only the UAE, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia recognised the Taliban as the legitimate government, and if I remember rightly, they had all withdrawn their recognition under American pressure before the invasion of Afghanistan began. The Taliban was therefore not recognised as the sovereign government by anyone at the time of the invasion. The Northern Alliance naturally welcomed NATO intervention against their enemies, and because they were the internationally recognised governing authority they had the right under international law to invite NATO forces to enter the country. After the Taliban were overthrown, the Northern Alliance reconstituted itself as the national government in Kabul. So the situation in Afghanistan, legally speaking, has always been that the NATO presence has been authorised by the internationally recognised government of the country. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Heheh... And how does that affect the People's Republic of China & Taiwan? The Communists were belligerent occupiers of China for decades, until international opinion switched to recognize Beijing, and then suddenly the Communist occupation ended, and the Republic of China began its occupation of the island of Taiwan? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 01:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Civil wars are not included in this list, only international occupations, gets us out of the POV minefields like Anglo-Irish War, and the Russian Civil War to name but two early examples out of many. --PBS (talk) 01:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Minority of one? Are you kidding me? Having a UN mandate doesn't guarantee non-belligerence. Look at the Korean war. Legal and non-belligerent have two very different meanings. They are actively fighting an army that never invited them in. It has nothing to do with peacekeeping, which - in all other circumstances - has involved two sides agreeing to invite in peacekeepers. As Elonka mentioned, this article is largely Uncited and Original Research. If you're not willing to compromise on this, I'd be happy to suggest an AfD. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

By a minority of one I meant that you are the only person to state in this section that ISAF is not a peacekeeping force. A Google search on [ISAF peacekeeping] returns 100's of reliable sources that say it is a peacekeeping mission. --PBS (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The definition of belligerent is one that has been made up purely by the authors this article. This mission does not fit that definition. This is a problem. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Arab occupation of parts of Palestine

Where the:

• Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt, 1947–October 1956; March 1957–June 1967
• Occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem regions of Palestine by Jordan, 1948 – 1967

"Examples of belligerent military occupations" or where they "Examples of other foreign non-belligerent military occupations"? --PBS (talk) 23:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Tibet

The entry that claims that Chamdo (Tibet) was occupied by China 1950–1951 should be removed from the list of examples of military occupations, because Tibet was not recognized as a state in 1950 by any recognized state, and for the purposes of international law, it was a territory of China. It is for the same reason that we do not say that Chechnya is occupied by Russia since 2000, or that we would not say that Somaliland is occupied by Somalia if Somalia were to reestablish control over Somaliland tomorrow. Quigley (talk) 13:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Russian troops in Moldova, Georgia

Some of these are/were under CIS/OSCE/UNOMIG mandates, some are/were non-belligerent, others are/were belligerent (or it depends on who you ask), but they are there and are not listed.

Also I think that an article like List of foreign military deployments or List of military deployments abroad should be made with all US/French/Russian/Turkish/other military bases/temporary deployments/operations in foreign countries. Alinor (talk) 12:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Military Occupation & how it ends?

Hi I have read about Military occupation and some four ways of ending it 1.Involuntarily 2.Unilaterally, through the volition of the occupying power 3.By a consensual bond between states (including the occupying power) 4. With a binding order from the security council

Can some one elaborate these points as I sincerely do not understand the contents? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sajeewa2 (talk • contribs) 07:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Israel

Hi!

I am sorry to be rude but I don't know what shold I say so let's get right to my controversial edit at List of military occupations.

1. as well as I know Israel invaded Lebanon in 6 June 1982 and not at 1978 - it shold be tested.

2. The ccupation of the Gaza Strip by Israel has ended in 2005 at the Israel's unilateral disengagement plan, Israel disengaged its military forces from the Gaza Strip and no longer occupying the territory.

3. the "West bank" shold not be considered as an occupied territory because it was never been a legal territory of any naition. so, according to the international law it is not an "occupied territory" however it is a "disputed teritory".

4. I checked the issue and I realized that my edit about occupied Golan Heights was incorrect - my apology

5. East Jerusalem is part of Jerusalem - the capital city of Isrel, Except for a few Jordanian bunkers and Jerusalem's old city it was nothing in East Jerusalem until 1967. when Israel controled the city Homes, neighborhoods and parks were built and used by people of all religions - In contrast to the time of Jordanian rule Which allowed freedom of religion and residence only to Muslims. and denied access of Jews and Christians to their holy places.

Therefore I re-editing this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by פליקס במנהרת הזמן (talk • contribs) 00:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I continue to be concerned, as I said on your talk page (talk), with your editing - as a very new editor - that you are editing this page in a way that is diminishing its neutral point of view (see WP:NPOV), and shows little understanding about the way WP is edited. The Middle East is an enormously controversial political region, and you are expected to leave in verifiable statements from those whose points of view you may disagree with. This article is essentially a list only, with very few comments to show where there are some disputed definitions of the situation. It is not acceptable to edit out statements that indicate that opinions differ, replacing as 'facts' things that are a matter of ongoing differences of opinion. --Greenmaven (talk) 01:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

ק.... (Can you please give a Latin transliteration of your user name?) Please see above #Gaza still occupied. Please provide links to reliable sources that support the removals that you have been making. -- PBS (talk) 05:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Transliteration isn't useful. As far as I can tell, פליקס במנהרת הזמן is the title of a children's book about a time-traveling rabbit. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 06:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Taiwan?

Can Taiwan be listed under "Belligerent Occupation"? Taiwan was handed over to ROC by the Allied Forces and the ROC did not "forcibly" occupy, unless is whoever listed Taiwan thinking about the 228 incident. Even with that in consideration I don't think it qualifies as such. Mistakefinder (talk) 05:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The previous two items in the list are "Occupation of Austria at the end of World War II in Europe" and "Occupation of Japan, by the United States, 1945–1951". Taiwan was, like Austria, attached to one of principal Axis powers of World War II and itself thus part of the Axis. Taiwanese soldiers volunteered to fight for Japan, including fighting for Japan in China. Allied planes bombed Taiwan. While Neither Austria, Japan nor Taiwan were invaded prior to the surrender (anyway Japan and Taiwan weren't, I couldn't find information that said Austria was invaded), all were subject to rule by military forces that had been had been on the opposite side of a shooting war (i.e. "belligerent powers"). While one could try to argue that Taiwan is an exceptional case because even though they had been fighting a war, somehow the relationship between Taiwan and the ROC was more friendly than say, the relationship between Austria and the Allies or between Japan and the US but as you note, the 228 incident and martial law would seem to lay that claim to rest. There were no similar massacres in Austria and Japan. Readin (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted out most of the changes made this year including:

• Occupation of Taiwan, by the Republic of China, 1945–
• Occupation of Indochina by France, 1945-1954
• Occupation of South Vietnam by USA, 1965-1973
• Occupation of Afghanistan by USA, 2001-present

Belligerent military occupation is a term of art. None of these were (or are) belligerent military occupations:

• Taiwan was occupied by the recognised sovereign government of the territory so it was not a belligerent military occupation.
• Indochina was a colony -- colonies are not under belligerent military occupation, but colonisation.
• South Vietnam was not under belligerent military occupation by the US as it was a soverign state that had invited the US in as an ally
• Likewise Afghanistan.

-- PBS (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

At the time the Republic of China took over Taiwan, it was not the recognized sovereign government of Taiwan. The ROC was given administrative duties in Taiwan until the fate of Taiwan could be resolved. The ROC eventually claimed sovereignty, but this has never been recognized by international law or treaty. Even the Treaty of San Francisco (1952) which was supposed to deal with many of the territorial issues resulting from the Pacific War did not explicitly give sovereignty to the ROC since agreement could not be reached as to whether sovereignty should go to the PRC or the ROC (neither had existed when Taiwan was part of the Qing empire).

The Republic of China was not the recognized sovereign of Taiwan at the time, and as ridiculous as it sounds the ROC is still not the recognized sovereign (the ROC clearly is the sovereign, but it is not formally recognized as such).

I didn't put an end-date on the occupation because it is difficult to say when (or even if) it ended. But it clearly began as an occupation. Readin (talk) 21:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

As one of the Allies of World War II, I presume that the ROC was a sovereign power -- but even if not so "The ROC was given administrative duties in Taiwan until the fate of Taiwan could be resolved." would mean that it was not a belligerent military occupation. -- PBS (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

When the ROC was one of the Allies of World War II, it was indeed an internationally recognized sovereign power, but it wasn't the sovereign power of Tawian - Japan was the sovereign power of Taiwan. The ROC was put in charge of Taiwan just as the US was put in charge of Japan and part of Germany and just as Russia power was given administrative duties in east Germany, and just as whichever power(s) it was were given administrative duties in Austria. The occupations of Germany, Austria and Japan are all listed here too. When the Axis surrendered the Allies suddenly found themselves with a lot of Axis territory that needed to be managed so they divided up responsibilities for managing those territories.

Anyway, we have reliable sources. Readin (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that the source you have found is convincing. -- PBS (talk) 18:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Abkhazia and South Ossetia

I fail to see why this entry should be in this list. In recent times, Georgia has been pushing its claim that the presence of Russian troops in Abkhazia and South Ossetia constitutes a military occupation, and it has found support among some of its political allies. However, just saying that something is a military occupation doesn't automatically make it so. In particular, the cited sources only give the political opinions of the a) UK House of Commons Defence Committee, b) First Deputy Foreign Minister of Georgia and c) Minister of State of the USA.

This article starts out with

In most wars, some territory is placed under the martial law of a hostile army. Most belligerent military occupations end with the cessation of hostilities. In some cases, the occupied territory is returned and in other cases, the land remains under the control of the occupying power, but usually not as militarily-occupied territory.

whereas Abkhazia and South Ossetia have never been under martial law. The Russian troops are there on the basis of treaties signed with the respective governments, and do not exercise any sort of power. The fact that most of the world's countries don't recognise the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia doesn't factor into it --- otherwise the American troops in Kosovo should likewise constitute a 'military occupation'.

In general, I would say that the list includes far too many cases that are not military occupations, because there is a civilian administration in place. In particular, once a country annexes some territory, millitary occupation ends. This should not be merely a list of disputed territories.sephia karta | dimmi 20:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I very much agree with the latter statement. The problem is that if we include areas subject to territorial disputes we would have to include the entire List of territorial disputes on here we is way beyond the scope of this list. Plus including those will inevitably lead to endless disputes about who is the occupying power and who is the "legitimate" power in places like Kashmir. I'll thefore remove Abkhazia/South Ossetia, Northern Cyprus and add links to List of states with limited recognition and List of territorial disputes instead. Travelbird (talk) 11:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Barxudarlı, Karki, Yuxarı Əskipara and Artsvashen

The above territories are controlled and administered by Armenia or Azerbaijan respectively. Does anyone have reliable sources stating whether they were ever actually annexed to Armenia/Azerbaijan or whether they are technically still occupied territory ? Travelbird (talk) 11:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Iraq 2003

While many counties took part in the invasion (or turned up later to help with the occupation) three countries, Poland, the UK and the US were in command of the zones of occupation (see the map). So those three countries are the ones that should be listed here. -- PBS (talk) 02:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The longest military occupation?

Please see ongoing discussion at Talk:Israel#"Longest_military_occupation_in_modern_times". Oncenawhile (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Israel modern time

Over half of the citation for that needs to be gone over and discussed. For example it uses Tibet as an example of an annexed disputed territory and it suggests that you can find more related to that on the Military occupation article. A search of that article doesn't seem to reference Tibet or annexations that are disputed. Note also the use of modern times. Modern times seems to be both vague and subjective. Modern Times is also an alternate phrase for Modern history. Modern History of course beginning in the 16th century. As written it seems as if there may have been a longer military occupation. It also seems as if there may be one in modern history. Reading the sources this seems to be a value laden judgement call rather than a reference to modern history. This of course would simply make that fluff. That would of course detract from the NPOV.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

This been open waiting a response for a while. I'm just going to remove it in the absence of a discussion to keep it or modify it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I say you should just go ahead and remove it. Reference to modern history on this list is superfluous, as far as I am concerned, since the entire list begins in 1907. – Zntrip 17:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed changes

I'd like to propose further aesthetic changes. I'd like to propose that we group all but the current military occupations together somehow. I've worked on a few examples. You can see those at User:Serialjoepsycho/sandbox/2. If you have any ideas feel free to post them there. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I prefer the last example because the entire list can be sortable. – Zntrip 17:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

We could of course just leave it as it is. I don't like the look aesthetically. The bottom one is the best with the ability to be sortable. I think we could just keep it chronological as it is and then in alphabetic order when we aren't sure which chronologically came first.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• So I combined all past occupations into one list. Sortability is Alphabetic then numeric. This poses a problem in the from and to sections where entries have a month and then date listed. This is not a new problem as the same problem would have existed before this combination, I just found it. One fix may be to put this month and date and all in a reference tooltip and just openly display the year.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The previous format was better since anybody could easily find out which occupation took place during which time period. --UA Victory (talk) 06:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I must have hit enter by mistake before finishing my edit summary,, Not sure it's marked but I added a period section to the table. Each occupation has the period it happened in marked. I based them on the prior periods used. Post World War II should end at the advent of the cold War era's beginning, and then the cold war should be used. I've color coded Items that were a part of world war 1 and 2.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 14:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Serialjoepsycho, I undid your addition of the column that notes the time period because I don't think that it's the best way to convey the information. However, I do think it's important to note which conflict each occupation was a part of. What do you think of this format:

Territory occupied	Began	Ended	Occupied state	Occupying state	Conflict
Albania	1912	1913	Albania	Serbia	Balkan Wars
Nicaragua	1912	1933	Nicaragua	United States	United States occupation of Nicaragua
Belgium	1914	1918	Belgium	German Empire	World War I

– Zntrip 22:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I do like it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@UA Victory: Does this assuage your concerns?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Seems OK to me.--UA Victory (talk) 05:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Featured List?

It's not a candidate yet but we might not be far off. WP:FL?. I'm going to fix the order to make it more uniform, Via year and then alphabetic.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Added a to do list to the top of the article to assist with this.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 11:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Went thru and changed all of the references to update the code to current wiki standards. I was chasing down an error but I think I found it. Also reordered the list for past MO's.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

To be a FL the sourcing will need to be strengthened. Of particular concern is the fact that many of these are not sourced as "military occupations" - some are annexations, which are different in international law. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Current list

The list of current occupations includes a number of examples which are now de facto annexed. As we say in the article and at military occupations, annexation is different from military occupation. Not least because there is no longer "military" government, as well as a more permanent nature and full civil rights. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It is true that the concepts of military occupation (more precisely called "belligerent occupation") and annexation are two different things. However, as a matter of international law annexation is illegal. Therefore de facto annexations legally are protracted belligerent occupations. – Zntrip 21:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Oncenawhile. Above all, the list appears to me to be incongruent.Alex2006 (talk) 13:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you could mention which defacto annexation you are talking about and then we can discuss why they shouldn't or should be the list. No point in talking in generalizations.We could then discuss it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Zntrip. While military rule may be abolished and another legal system is introduced, it does not change the status under international law. See for example Israel in the West Bank: A 47-year-long temporary occupation by B'Tselem on the status of the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

If annexation would mean an end to military occupation, then you could just annex a territory and suddenly you would not have an occupation but that is of course not the case. --IRISZOOM (talk) 12:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The difference between occupation and annexation is shown at Military occupation. One of the most obvious differences is whether the population is given citizenship. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

I have started a discussion at Talk:List_of_territorial_disputes#Merge_Proposal suggesting the merger of this article into that article. Editors are welcome to contribute there. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Bahrain

Shouldn't Bahrain be on the list? Keith-264 (talk) 10:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it. Saudi Arabia and other GCC countries are there at the request of Bahrain. From the few sources I've viewed in relation it seems to be a minority point of view that we would stand to unduly legitimize by including it. Hawaii is claimed to be under military occupation as well.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

"Request" surely? ;O))Keith-264 (talk) 14:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Request is the language I found in the sources. How ever feel free to do something crazy and make your case for it's inclusion and provide reliable sources.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

It would be helpful for all involved for everyone to provide sources here that people are referring to. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems more apt for someone promoting an inclusion to provide sourcing as a justification. I've found nothing to suggest this is a military occupation other than the views of involved Partisans [15]. I'd be happy to discuss this further but lacking the sources to actually direct the conversation there doesn't seem to be much to discuss.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The burden is on those who make the suggestion, especially if they don't even make a suggestion on the time period. I was curious since you at least hinted at sources. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not really aware of the issue, but Iran and the others involved have called it an occupation. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/world/middleeast/15bahrain.html Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Iran and Bahrain partisans call it that. The GCC was invited at the request of Bahrain. We aren't here to legitimize this.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should this list mention Hawaiʻi?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There was a dispute among editors, see here. Should this list mention Hawaiʻi? Mark Vancouver (talk) 02:14, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• No Per WP:GEVAL we have to consider if this will unduly legitimize this position. Outside of the Hawaiian sovereignty movement there is little, if any, support for this. Wikipedia is not here to legitimize or advocate for the Hawaiian sovereignty movement. Adding this serves no purpose than to legitimize it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
• No Per WP:GEVAL along with the fact that in no way is Hawaii currently being militarily occupied. This issue seems to be an issue of disputed territory and sovereignty, but what we would do by including this here would be saying that the land is under military occupation which is absolutely ridiculous. Hawaii is under the formal sovereignty of the United States, it isn't being temporarily controlled by the U.S., there is no military control over the population, and people from Hawaii have U.S. citizenship. It meets none of the definitions of a military occupation. - SantiLak (talk) 02:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
• No I don't think there was any time where Hawaii could be said to have been on occupied territory. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

*Comment You misunderstand the question. The question the RFC is asking, is if the US is occupying Hawaii. The RFC OP questions the legal annexation of Hawaii. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nope, he's asking if there's a military occupation.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• No - That would seem to raise lots of WP:NPOV concerns. NickCT (talk) 15:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
• No For the reasons above. Remember that, that included in this article are "Only military occupations since the customary laws of belligerent military occupation were first clarified and supplemented by the Hague Convention of 1907 are included In this article." --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 04:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

While I may agree with you about Hawaii, please see the above RFC about East Jerusalem and Golan Heights. The lead of the article should then require a No vote as well, since they don't meet the lead criteria either. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Stop campaigning for votes.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm just pointing out another RFC where the criteria of the lead matters. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• No - based on the lead, which is how we should clarify what goes into the list, Hawaii should not be included. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.