Occupation

Volume 94 Number 885 Spring 2012commentary on the Code. 28 Finally, the Code draws heavily on Lieber’searlier works, most notably his Manual of Political Ethics (1838–1839). 29 Thesereveal the Code to be a product of a general and pre-existing ethical system,intellectual method, and political theory. They supply the insights necessary todecode Lieber. 30What likewise compels a broad inquiry is the aforementioned historiographicalambivalence to the Lieber Code. On the one hand, his contribution to themodern law of war is universally acknowledged, and ‘founding father’ designationsare common. Lieber is credited for having authored the first modern codification ofthe laws of war, and is no less praised, by contemporaries and presentcommentators, for the ‘spirit of humanity’ that ‘everywhere reigns’ in the Code. 31They note the Code’s immense impact on the subsequent codification of the law ofwar, including occupation; 32 it inspired and gave impetus for private development ofthe law. 33 Others trace its visible imprint in the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the1977 Additional Protocols. 34 Some point out that the question of occupation is thefirst addressed in the Code, others that a third of its 157 provisions concernsoccupation. 35Other, progressive, accounts downplay the Code’s humanizing effect.Many observe (erroneously, as I show below) that the Code was designed to dealwith civil war and assume that it has limited relevance to the regulation ofoccupation, which is essentially an international armed conflict phenomenon. 3628 Francis Lieber, ‘Law and usages of war’ (1861–1862), Box 2, Folders 16–18, Milton S. Eisenhower Library,Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD; I wish to thank the Library staff for their help.29 Francis Lieber, Manual of Political Ethics, Designed Chiefly for the Use of Colleges and Students at Law,1stedition, Little & Brown, Boston, 1838–1839.30 Lieber’s biography reveals too many irreconcilables to serve as a simple explanation for Code rules: FrankFreidel, Francis Lieber: Nineteenth-century Liberal, Baton Rouge, LA, Louisiana State University Press,1947, pp. 320, 325; J. F. Childress, above note 27, p. 43.31 J. C. Bluntschli, above note 7, p. 12; Theodor Meron, ‘Francis Lieber’s Code and principles of humanity’,inColumbia Journal of Transnational Law, Vol. 36, 1998, pp. 269, 274; Elihu Root, ‘Francis Lieber’, inAmerican Journal of International Law, Vol. 7, July 1913, p. 453; E. Nys, above note 16, pp. 379–380;R. R. Baxter, above note 5, p. 183; D. A. Graber, above note 7, p. 17; Silja Vöneky, ‘Der Lieber’s Code unddie Wurzeln des modernen Kriegsvölkerrechts (Lieber and the evolution of the laws of war)’,inZeitschriftfür ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht, Vol. 62, 2002, p. 423.32 The Code also had enduring impact on official practice: it was reissued in 1898, and served as the baselinefor similar manuals: Thomas E. Holland, The Laws of War on Land, Oxford University Press, Oxford,1908, pp. 72–73; D. A. Graber, above note 7, pp. 20 ff.33 Bluntschli’s 1866 Das moderne Kriegsrecht der civilisirten Staten als Rechtsbuch dargestellt was ‘little morethan a paraphrase of General Orders No. 100’: R. R. Baxter, above note 5, p. 249; E. Nys, above note 16,p. 358; Betsy Röben, Johann Caspar Bluntschli, Francis Lieber und das Moderne Völkerrecht 1861–1881,Nomos, Baden-Baden, 2003.34 George B. Davis, ‘Memorandum showing the relation between General Orders No. 100 and the HagueConvention with respect to the laws and customs of war on land’, in E. Root, above note 31, p. 466; R .R.Baxter, above note 5, p. 171; and table in Richard Sallet, ‘On Francis Lieber and his contribution to the lawof nations of today’, in Hans Werner Bracht et al., Recht im Dienste der Menschenwürde: Festschrift fürHerbert Kraus, Holzner-Verlag, Würzburg, 1964, pp. 279, 286.35 D. A. Graber, above note 7, p. 15.36 T. E. Holland, above note 32, pp. 71–72; R. R. Baxter, above note 5, p. 235; E. Nys, above note 16, pp. 378,381 (the Code ‘contemplated a civil war’; ‘Lieber attributed to the occupant the rights which Americanpractice gave to him: it was more than the occupation of war, such as it had been constituted in Europe’);E. Benvenisti, above note 14, p. 640 (the ‘Code did not address the question of sovereignty: in this87