5cjxburmr

11.8.4 Responsibility of the Occupying Power for Treatment Accorded to ProtectedPersons by Its Agents. An Occupying Power, like belligerent States, is responsible for thetreatment accorded to protected persons by its agents, irrespective of any individualresponsibility that may be incurred. 146 The responsibility of the Occupying Power for its agentsincludes those agents that are not its nationals, such as locally recruited agents of the nationalityof the State whose territory is occupied. 14711.8.5 Immunity of Occupation Personnel From Local Law. Military and civilianpersonnel of the occupying forces and occupation administration and persons accompanyingthem are not subject to the local law or to the jurisdiction of the local civil or criminal courts ofthe occupied territory, unless expressly made subject thereto by a competent officer of theOccupying Power. 148It is important for the Occupying Power to ensure that an appropriate system ofsubstantive law applies to such persons and that tribunals are in existence to deal with civillitigation to which they are parties and with offenses committed by them. 149 In the past, provostcourts have been used for these purposes. 150 In recent practice, the Uniform Code of MilitaryJustice and the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, among others, have been used toaddress offenses committed by military and civilian personnel in the context of occupation. 151would be unlawful if performed directly by the occupant. Acts induced or compelled by the occupant arenonetheless its acts.”).146 Refer to § 10.3.5 (State Responsibility for Its Agents’ Treatment of Protected Persons); § 18.9.1 (StateResponsibility for Violations of the Law of War by Its Armed Forces).147 GC COMMENTARY 212 (“The nationality of the agents does not affect the issue. That is of particular importancein occupied territories, as it means that the occupying authorities are responsible for acts committed by their locallyrecruited agents of the nationality of the occupied country.”).148 1956 FM 27-10 (Change No. 1 1976) 374 (“Military and civilian personnel of the occupying forces andoccupation administration and persons accompanying them are not subject to the local law or to the jurisdiction ofthe local courts of the occupied territory unless expressly made subject thereto by a competent officer of theoccupying forces or occupation administration.”). For example, Coleman v. Tennessee, 97 U.S. 509, 518-19 (1878)(“The laws of Tennessee with regard to offenses and their punishment, which were allowed to remain in forceduring its military occupation, did not apply to the defendant, as he was at the time a soldier in the army of theUnited States and subject to the Articles of War. He was responsible for his conduct to the laws of his owngovernment only as enforced by the commander of its army in that state, without whose consent he could not evengo beyond its lines. Had he been caught by the forces of the enemy after committing the offense, he might havebeen subjected to a summary trial and punishment by order of their commander, and there would have been no justground of complaint, for the marauder and the assassin are not protected by any usages of civilized warfare. But thecourts of the state, whose regular government was superseded and whose laws were tolerated from motives ofconvenience, were without jurisdiction to deal with him.”).149 1956 FM 27-10 (Change No. 1 1976) 374 (“The occupant should see to it that an appropriate system ofsubstantive law applies to such persons and that tribunals are in existence to deal with civil litigation to which theyare parties and with offenses committed by them.”).150 Refer to § 11.11.3.1 (U.S. Practice for Properly Constituted, Non-Political Military Courts).151 Refer to § 18.19.3.1 (Uniform Code of Military Justice Offenses); § 18.19.3.5 (Extraterritorial Application ofCertain Federal Offenses Through MEJA).762