Chapter

From military intervention to occupation of territory : new relevance of international law of occupation

Hans-Peter Gasser

Krisensicherung und humanitärer Schutz = Crisis management and humanitarian protection : Festschrift für Dieter Fleck

Berlin : Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag, 2004

p. 139-159

English

The author compares the applicability of international law concerning belligerent occupation in the cases of (1) post-Cold War UN-sanctioned interventions, and (2) traditional military occupations. The focus of the article is the justifications given for occupation, rather than the legality of occupation. The author highlights relevant sources of law, including the Hague and Geneva Conventions, and emphasizes that the laws originated from an imperialist context where military occupation was common. He considers several UN-sanctioned interventions, such as in Somalia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo and East Timor, carried out for the purpose of restoring and maintaining peace and often with the consent of the host countries. He compares these interventions with traditional military occupations in the Middle East Conflict, the 2003 Iraq War, the Kuwait invasion, and the ”global war on terror”. The author concludes that the presence of foreign troops in sovereign states can be justified by UN Security Council decisions aimed at maintaining and restoring collective security. However, states tend to look outside the UN framework to justify intervening in third party states, pointing to aims such as the protection of human rights. This underscores the importance of developing links between occupation law and international human rights law. [Summary by students at the University of Toronto, Faculty of Law (IHRP)]

• Krisensicherung und humanitärer Schutz = Crisis management and humanitarian protection : Festschrift für Dieter Fleck / Horst Fischer, Ulrike Froissart, Wolff Heintschel von Heinegg, Christian Raap (Hrsg.)