5cjxburmr

The fact of occupation also imposes certain duties on the Occupying Power with respectto occupied territory. 51 The fact of occupation, as a requirement for triggering the duties of anOccupying Power, means that a State that does not, in fact, occupy an area, does not incur theobligations of an Occupying Power.Once an occupation exists in fact, regardless of whether the invasion was lawful orunlawful under jus ad bellum, the rights and duties of the Occupying Power and the populationin relation to each other apply. 52 This application of the law of belligerent occupation is anexample of how jus in bello rules and jus ad bellum rules generally operate independently of oneanother. 5311.2.2 Standard for Determining When Territory Is Considered Occupied. Territory isconsidered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile forces. 54This standard for when the law of belligerent occupation applies is reflected in Article 42of the Hague IV Regulations and is regarded as customary international law. 5511.2.2.1 “Actually Placed” – Effectiveness of Occupation. Military occupationmust be actual and effective; that is, the organized resistance must have been overcome, and theOccupying Power must have taken measures to establish its authority. 56It is sufficient that the occupying force can, within a reasonable time, send detachmentsof forces to enforce its authority within the occupied district. Military occupation does not51 Refer to § 11.5 (Duty of the Occupying Power to Ensure Public Order and Safety).52 See, e.g., United States v. List, et al. (The Hostage Case), XI TRIALS OF WAR CRIMINALS BEFORE THE NMT 1247(“At the outset, we desire to point out that international law makes no distinction between a lawful and an unlawfuloccupant in dealing with the respective duties of occupant and population in occupied territory. There is noreciprocal connection between the manner of the military occupation of territory and the rights and duties of theoccupant and population to each other after the relationship has in fact been established. Whether the invasion waslawful or criminal is not an important factor in the consideration of this subject.”).53 Refer to § 3.5.2 (Jus in Bello and Jus ad Bellum Generally Operate Independently of One Another).54 HAGUE IV REG. art. 42 (“Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of thehostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can beexercised.”).55 See, e.g., Jack L. Goldsmith III, Assistant Attorney General, “Protected Person” Status in Occupied Iraq Underthe Fourth Geneva Convention, Mar. 18, 2004, 28 OPINIONS OF THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL 35, 37 footnote 1(“The Hague Regulations do not apply to the United States’ conflict with and occupation of Iraq as a matter oftreaty law because Iraq is not a party to the Hague Convention. … But as the citations in the text make clear, article42(1) of the Hague Regulations, which provides that occupation begins ‘when [territory] is actually placed under theauthority of the hostile army,’ reflects customary international law.”); Armed Activities on the Territory of theCongo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Judgment, 2005 I.C.J. 168, 229 (172) (“[U]nder customaryinternational law, as reflected in Article 42 of the Hague Regulations of 1907, territory is considered to be occupiedwhen it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army, and the occupation extends only to the territorywhere such authority has been established and can be exercised … .”).56 1956 FM 27-10 (Change No. 1 1976) 356 (“It follows from the definition that belligerent occupation must beboth actual and effective, that is, the organized resistance must have been overcome and the force in possession musthave taken measures to establish its authority.”).745