Occupation

Debate: Is the law of occupation applicable to the invasion phase?A plea in defence of Pictet andthe inhabitants of territoriesunder invasion: the case for theapplicability of the Fourth GenevaConvention during the invasionphaseMarco SassòliMarco Sassòli is Director of the Department of International Law and International Organization andProfessor of International Law at the University of Geneva, and Associate Professor at the UniversitéLaval and the University of Québec in Montreal, Canada; he is also a member of the Editorial Board ofthe International Review of the Red Cross.*Both Marten Zwanenburg and Michael Bothe, for whom I have the highest possiblerespect, distinguish between an invasion phase and an occupation phase in thecontext of a state engaged in an international armed conflict against another stateon the territory of the latter. They argue that the rules of the Fourth GenevaConvention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (hereafterConvention IV) pertaining to occupied territories apply only during the latter phase.I disagree. Where they differ – and their interpretations differ only in nuances, onwhich I rather side with Michael Bothe – is on when IHL of military occupationstarts to apply. Both describe the debate about whether an invasion phase and anoccupation phase should be distinguished fairly. This makes my task easier to* I would like to thank my former student Mr. Michael Siegrist for the ideas he has provided me with fromhis Masters thesis and my research assistant and doctoral student, Ms Nishat Nishat, for revising this text.42