Occupation

V. Koutroulis – The application of international humanitarian law and international human rights law insituations of prolonged occupation: only a matter of time?military necessity can be found in various IHL rules and can have differentscopes. 136 It is particularly interesting for the issue under discussion that thedefinition cited above establishes a link between the appreciation of militarynecessity and time. Indeed, the ‘legitimate purpose of the conflict’ is defined as thesubmission of the enemy ‘at the earliest possible moment’. 137 This could beinterpreted to mean that the longer a conflict (including a belligerent occupation)lasts, the more pressing the necessity to submit the enemy at the earliest possiblemoment becomes. Such an interpretation would lead to a broader application of theprinciple of military necessity in long-lasting conflict situations. However, to ourknowledge, no such broad application of military necessity has been invoked bystates, international jurisprudence, or legal doctrine. 138 Indeed, time appears to beleft out from the scope of the ‘legitimate purpose of the conflict’–the ‘ends of war’,in the 1863 Lieber Code terminology. 139 This is confirmed by the fact that the LieberCode itself, as well as some military manuals, does not include a reference to timein its definition of military necessity. 140 In any case, the duration of a conflict oroccupation may not overturn the fundamental rule according to which militarynecessity may not be invoked as a general justification of actions contrary to IHL. 141In the same vein, the prolonged character of an occupation may not be invoked inorder to integrate political, demographic, or economic considerations of theOccupying Power into the notion of military necessity. 142Commission, Fifty-third session (23 April–1 June and 2 July–10 August 2001), UN Doc. A/56/10, 2001,p. 219, para. 19 and pp. 220–221, para. 21; Nobuo Hayashi, ‘Requirements of military necessity ininternational humanitarian law and international criminal law’, inBoston University International LawJournal, Vol. 28, 2010, p. 52; M. N. Schmitt, above note 132, pp. 796 ff.; William Gerald Downey Jr., ‘Thelaw of war and military necessity’, inAmerican Journal of International Law, Vol. 47, 1953, pp. 253–254;Burrus M. Carnahan, ‘Lincoln, Lieber and the laws of war: the origins and limits of the principle ofmilitary necessity’, inAmerican Journal of International Law, Vol. 92, No. 2, 1998, p. 218; Gerald I. A. D.Draper, ‘Military necessity and humanitarian imperatives’,inRevue du droit pénal militaire et du droit dela guerre, Vol. 12, 1973, No. 2, pp. 133–134; Hilary McCoubrey, ‘The nature of the modern doctrine ofmilitary necessity’, inRevue du droit pénal militaire et du droit de la guerre, Vol. 30, 1991, p. 221.136 For a detailed list of the relevant provisions, see Robert Kolb, ‘La nécessité militaire dans le droit desconflits armés: essai de clarification conceptuelle’, in Colloque de Grenoble de la Société française pour ledroit international, La nécessité en droit international, Pedone, Paris, 2007, pp. 176–178.137 Some scholars distinguish between the ‘restrictive’ and the ‘permissive’ function of military necessity: seeNils Melzer, Targeted Killing in International Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008, pp. 286–291.Along the same lines but with different terminology, see also R. Kolb, above note 136, pp. 164–173.138 We found no trace of such an interpretation in states’ military manuals. Equally revealing is the fact thatnone of the states intervening during the written and oral phase of the Wall proceedings before the ICJreferred to the possibility of applying military necessity in a broader manner owing to the long-lastingcharacter of the occupation in question. States interventions are available at: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=4&code=mwp&case=131&k=5a&p3=0 (last visited 5 July 2012). Moreover, no suchinterpretation has been advanced by either Israel or the ICJ in the Wall advisory opinion.139 See the text of Article 14 of the Lieber Code, cited above at note 128.140 Ibid. See also, Royal Australian Air Force, Military Manual, above note 135, p. 49, para. 6.6; Norway,Norwegian Armed Forces Joint Operational Doctrine, Organisation and Instruction Authority, DefenceStaff, p. 34, para. 0247; Germany, Military Manual, above note 7, para. 130.141 See above note 135 and the accompanying text.142 Such considerations are excluded from the scope of military necessity. See N. Hayashi, above note 135,pp. 64 ff. with analysis of the Elon Moreh decision of the Supreme Court of Israel. The case concerned an190