5cjxburmr

the occupied territory. 40 For example, if the State of the occupied territory unconditionallysurrendered and any international armed conflict completely ended, the law of belligerentoccupation was not applicable. 41The GC, however, continues to apply in occupied territory until one year after the generalclose of military operations, and the Occupying Power is bound, for the duration of theoccupation, to the extent that such State exercises the functions of government in such territory,by the provisions of certain articles of the GC. 42 Additionally, protected persons under the GCwho remain in the custody of the Occupying Power following the end of occupation retain thatprotection until their release, repatriation, or re-establishment. 43In addition, it may be appropriate to adhere to the rules of belligerent occupation or toapply those rules by analogy even if not applicable as a matter of law in post-conflictsituations. 44 The rules of belligerent occupation may reflect fundamental safeguards applicableto a wider range of situations. 4540 Refer to § 11.2.2.3 (“Of the Hostile Army” – Belligerent Occupation Applies to Enemy Territory).41 For example, United States v. Altstoetter, et al., III TRIALS OF WAR CRIMINALS BEFORE THE NMT 960 (“It is thisfact of the complete disintegration of the government in Germany, followed by unconditional surrender and byoccupation of the territory, which explains and justifies the assumption and exercise of supreme governmentalpower by the Allies. The same fact distinguishes the present occupation of Germany from the type of occupationwhich occurs when, in the course of actual warfare, an invading army enters and occupies the territory of anotherstate, whose government is still in existence and is in receipt of international recognition, and whose armies, withthose of its allies, are still in the field. In the latter case the occupying power is subject to the limitations imposedupon it by the Hague Convention and by the laws and customs of war. In the former case (the occupation ofGermany) the Allied Powers were not subject to those limitations. By reason of the complete breakdown ofgovernment, industry, agriculture, and supply, they were under an imperative humanitarian duty of far wider scopeto reorganize government and industry and to foster local democratic governmental agencies throughout theterritory.”).42 Refer to § 11.3.2 (Duration of GC Obligations in the Case of Occupied Territory).43 Refer to § 10.3.4 (Commencement and Duration of Protected Person Status).44 For example, Forrest Hannaman, Chief Legal Advice Division, Memorandum to Office of Economic Affairs –Finance Division on Revenues from Laender-Owned Property (Mar. 30, 1951), reprinted in XX SELECTEDOPINIONS JANUARY 1, 1951 – APRIL 30, 1951 OF OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES HIGH COMMISSIONER FORGERMANY, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, FRANKFURT, GERMANY, 57-58 (“The Hague Regulations were designedto define the powers of a belligerent occupant of enemy territory during, or shortly after, hostilities. As such, theycannot be considered literally applicable to the situation in Germany today, and we cannot consider withoutreflection that the occupying powers may exercise to their full extent powers which a belligerent occupant mightrightfully exercise under the Regulations. Insofar as there exists an accepted custom and practice of nations relevantto our situation it is largely our own practice, since our present situation is without international precedent. Indetermining any concrete problem of this nature it has consistently been the position of the legal advisors toOMGUS and HICOG that whenever, in light of the actual problem and all of the relevant factors, the HagueRegulations may be considered as expressing principles of international law which are pertinent to our situation,those principles should be observed by us.”); Major G.B. Crook and Major W.G. Downey, Memorandum for theJudge Advocate General, Present Applicability of Hague and Geneva Conventions in Germany, reprinted in ErnstH. Feilchenfeld and Members of the Institute of World Polity, Status of Germany, 1 WORLD POLITY 182, 196 (1958)(“We conclude, therefore, that: a. The authority of the Allied Control Council and of the United States zonecommander in occupied Germany is not limited by the provisions of Section III of the Regulations annexed to theHague Convention IV (I 907) and such Regulations have not been applicable to the occupation of Germany since 5743