5cjxburmr

subject to its jurisdiction. 22 Although persons within occupied territory are subject to thejurisdiction of the Occupying Power for certain purposes, they are not within the OccupyingPower’s national territory. This limit to the scope of the ICCPR’s obligations was proposed bythe United States to preclude the creation of obligations for States with respect to territories thatthey occupied, such as post-World War II Germany and Japan. 23In addition, the law of belligerent occupation is specially crafted to address the situationof belligerent occupation. Thus, in cases of apparent conflict with other provisions of law thatare not intended to address the situation of belligerent occupation, there might be a presumptionthat such provisions would not conflict with occupation law, or that occupation law likely wouldprevail when addressing the situation of belligerent occupation. 24Other States, such as some coalition partners, may interpret their human rights treatyobligations to create obligations for their military operations outside their home territory in thecontext of belligerent occupation. 25Subject to the Occupying Power’s authority to change local law, 26 an occupied State’sdomestic law that has been enacted pursuant to its human rights treaty obligations or that meetsthe requirements of the occupied State’s human rights treaty obligations may continue to applyduring an occupation.11.1.3 Application of Occupation Law to Situations Not Constituting BelligerentOccupation. The law of belligerent occupation is only applicable as a matter of law when certainconditions have been met. 27 The law of belligerent occupation generally does not apply to (1)mere invasion; (2) liberation of friendly territory; (3) non-international armed conflict; or (4)22 Refer to § 1.6.3.3 (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)).23 Eleanor Roosevelt, Chairman, U.N. Economic and Social Council, Commission on Human Rights, Sixth Session,Summary Record of the Hundred and Thirty-Eighth Meeting, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/SR.138 34 (Apr. 6, 1950) (“Thepurpose of the proposed addition was to make it clear that the draft Covenant would apply only to persons within theterritory and subject to the jurisdiction of contracting States. The United States was afraid that without such anaddition the draft Covenant might be construed as obliging the contracting States to enact legislation concerningpersons who, although outside its territory were technically within its jurisdiction for certain purposes. Anillustration would be the occupied territories of Germany, Austria and Japan: persons within those countries weresubject to the jurisdiction of the occupying States in certain respects, but were outside the scope of the legislation ofthose States. Another illustration would be the case of leased territories: some countries leased certain territoriesfrom others for limited purposes, and there might be questions of conflicting authority between the lessor nation andthe lessee nation.”). See also Eleanor Roosevelt, Chairman, U.N. Economic and Social Council, Commission onHuman Rights, Sixth Session, Summary Record of the Hundred and Ninety-Fourth Meeting, U.N. Doc.E/CN.4/SR.194 14 (May 16, 1950) (“That [insertion of language] would limit the application of the covenant onlyto persons within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction. By this amendment the United States Governmentwould not, by ratifying the covenant, be assuming an obligation to ensure the rights recognized in it to the citizens ofcountries under United States occupation.”).24 Refer to § 1.3.2 (The Law of War’s Relationship to Other Bodies of Law).25 Refer to § 1.6.3.2 (Different Views on the Applicability of Human Rights Treaties).26 Refer to § 11.9 (Local Law and Legislation).27 Refer to § 11.2 (When Military Occupation Law Applies).740