Talk:Military occupation

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Military occupation article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 3 months

Military history: Technology

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force

International relations: Law High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject International law (assessed as Mid-importance).

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:

You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

Tibet[edit]

Tibet is included in both the occupations and disputed occupations lists, I removed it from the occupations list because of the reason stated at the top of this page. Say1988 02:33, 25 March 2005 (UTC)

October 2023[edit]

@Hippo43: Can you please explain this content removal with an edit summary that says text not supported by the source? M.Bitton (talk) 22:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was clear - the source does not support the text. It is only part of the quote used in the work cited, and the quote is not used in that source to support the text that was in this article. Taking a partial quote out of context and using it to support something which it did not support in the original work is original research.

Please stop re-adding material that is not properly sourced. I made 4 edits removing unsourced material, each with an edit summary which was clear enough. 2 edits were removing entirely unsourced material, and one was removing material referencing an obviously non-reliable and tagged source. You reverted them all without a real explanation.

If you disagree, can you please explain why? Remembering that the onus to provide reliable sources is on the editor who wants to add material. // Hippo43 (talk) 00:53, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, you weren't clear and seeing as you already removed sourced content while claiming that it wasn't, I had every reason to ask you why you removed the quote. Also, why didn't you tag it or god forbid, try to put it into context instead of just removing everything (something that a bot can easily do)? M.Bitton (talk) 01:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The diff that you referred to had a correct, if brief, edit summary. The material was unsourced and original research.

Yes, you could query why I removed it, but restoring 4 separate pieces of unsourced material was not justified at all.

Why didn't I tag it or put it into context? Because I didnt want to. The article is better without it. I see you have tried to reinsert it again, when it clearly does not relate to or support the text above. // Hippo43 (talk) 01:40, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you realize that you reverted my edit while I was in the middle of adding more to it? Anyway, I will make it very simple for you: I will definitely add more tomorrow and if you revert again, you'll take a trip to ANI (that's a promise). M.Bitton (talk) 01:44, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How would I have known that? Am I supposed to be a mind reader?

I note that you have not addressed the points I made about your earlier blanket reverts.

Regarding that quote, it does not refer to the duration of the occupation, so does not belong in that section.

If you add relevant content that is appropriately sourced and well written, I won't have any need to fix it. // Hippo43 (talk) 01:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First paragraph of body[edit]

I propose the following revision to the first paragraph in the body of the article to give a better sense of how land and property dominated by combat were handled before the 18th century, and to present brief historic and modern conceptualizations of occupation. (I provided an extended section of Benvenisti's source I quoted, because the entire source paragraph does a great job explaining the underlying relationships of occupation.) This revision removes mention of the Napoleonic wars, since they aren't mentioned in the source. Any feedback?

A dominant principle that guided combatants through much of history was "to the victory belong the spoils".^[1] Emerich de Vattel, in The Law of Nations (1758), presented an early codification of the distinction between annexation of territory and military occupation, the latter being regarded as temporary, due to the natural right of states to their "continued existence".^[1] According to Eyal Benvenisti's The International Law of Occupation, Second Edition (2012), "The foundation upon which the entire [modern] law of occupation is based is the principle of inalienability of sovereignty through unilateral action of a foreign power, [and from this principle] springs the basic structural constraints that international law imposes upon the occupant."^[2]

Dotyoyo (talk) 06:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ^a ^b Cole, Babaloba (1974). "Property and the Law of Belligerent Occupation: A Reexamination". World Affairs. 137 (1): 66–85. JSTOR 20671544.
^ Benvenisti, Eyal (2012). The International Law of Occupation, Second Edition. Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. p. 6. ISBN 978-0-19-958889-3. The foundation upon which the entire law of occupation is based is the principle of inalienability of sovereignty through unilateral action of a foreign power, whether through the actual or the threatened use of force, or in any way unauthorized by the sovereign. Effective control by foreign military force can never bring about by itself a valid transfer of sovereignty. Because occupation does not transfer sovereignty over the territory to the occupying power, international law must regulate the inter-relationships between the occupying force, the ousted government, and the local inhabitants for the duration of the occupation. From the principle of inalienable sovereignty over a territory springs the basic structural constraints that international law imposes upon the occupant. The occupying power is thus precluded from annexing the occupied territory or otherwise unilaterally changing its political status; instead, it is bound to respect and maintain the political and other institutions that exist in that territory for the duration of the occupation. The law authorizes the occupant to safeguard its interests while administering the occupied area, but also imposes obligations on the occupant to protect the life and property of the inhabitants and to respect the sovereign interests of the ousted government.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link)

I applied this change to the article on 2024-04-25. Dotyoyo (talk) 01:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few days ago I wrote here some recommendations for improving this page. Unfortunately I was shut down by other editors, who could not respond properly but rather used snobbish ad hominem excuses to shut me up.

I will repost here my recommendations, and I expect other editors to express some tolerance to other views, and should they disagree - debate, rather than attempt to forcefully shut me up and then tack on some ad hominem excuse that I am "not an experienced-enough editor" and the likes of that. Quoting Wikipedia editing rules are irrelevant in this case, as I am not modifying the page itself but rather posting on the talk page. Besides, even the page itself is not locked, but forget about that.

Example on the list does not conform with abovementioned definition of military occupation[edit]

An example provided on this page for a military occupation is the "Israeli occupation of the Western Golan Heights (1967–present)". However, the example does not exemplify the defining principles of the concept of "military occupation". On the page itself, military occupation is defined as such: "Military occupation... is the temporary military control by a ruling power over a sovereign territory that is outside of that ruling power's sovereign territory". It is absolutely necessary to note that Israel's control over the Western Golan Heights is not temporary - both in terms of the time that has already and is expected to pass since its capture as well as per Israel's intentions; Israel completed the annexation of the Golan Heights in 1981, and the United States, for instance, has since recognized the annexation. It is worthy to note further that residents of the Western Golan Heights are full Israeli citizens with equal rights and responsibilities under Israeli law just as all other Israelis are anywhere else within Israel proper. Due to that same annexation, the Western Golan Heights can also not be described as being "outside of that ruling power's sovereign territory". Moreover, the definition on Wikipedia for military occupation elaborates specifically: "Occupation is distinguished from annexation and colonialism by its intended temporary duration". Additionally, the population in the Western Golan Heights is not subject to Israeli military rule, but rather to Israeli law as enforced by the Israeli Police. So, these abovementioned aspects brought into account, according to the definition, the relation of Israel to the Western Golan Heights cannot be considered military occupation; that is clear and certain. Either the definition of "military occupation" on Wikipedia must be drastically modified (and will then include a variety of other examples; places such as California and Scotland will be listed as examples of current military occupations), or the example in discussion must be erased from this page.

GeopoliticalSphygmomanometry (talk) 08:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever an individual's interpretation of the situation might be, that link deserves to be there - be it for encouraging the expression of opposing views such as that which you are presenting. The related article states "In 2019, the United States became the only state to recognize the Golan Heights as Israeli sovereign territory, while the rest of the international community etc, ". It doesn't seem any definition here was initially Wikipedia influenced in any possible way. --Askedonty (talk) 09:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[cole1974-1] Cole, Babaloba (1974). "Property and the Law of Belligerent Occupation: A Reexamination". World Affairs. 137 (1): 66–85. JSTOR 20671544.

[2] Benvenisti, Eyal (2012). The International Law of Occupation, Second Edition. Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. p. 6. ISBN 978-0-19-958889-3. The foundation upon which the entire law of occupation is based is the principle of inalienability of sovereignty through unilateral action of a foreign power, whether through the actual or the threatened use of force, or in any way unauthorized by the sovereign. Effective control by foreign military force can never bring about by itself a valid transfer of sovereignty. Because occupation does not transfer sovereignty over the territory to the occupying power, international law must regulate the inter-relationships between the occupying force, the ousted government, and the local inhabitants for the duration of the occupation. From the principle of inalienable sovereignty over a territory springs the basic structural constraints that international law imposes upon the occupant. The occupying power is thus precluded from annexing the occupied territory or otherwise unilaterally changing its political status; instead, it is bound to respect and maintain the political and other institutions that exist in that territory for the duration of the occupation. The law authorizes the occupant to safeguard its interests while administering the occupied area, but also imposes obligations on the occupant to protect the life and property of the inhabitants and to respect the sovereign interests of the ousted government.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link)

[1]

[2]