Is The Requirement Of ‘Boots On The Ground’ Necessary Anymore For An Occupation?

Abstract

The challenges posed by modern warfare oblige us to reinterpret traditional concepts in order to offer better protection to civilians, and to prevent states to deny their responsibilities. Therefore, the requirement of ‘boots on the ground’ should not be accepted as the only way to exercise the authority of occupying power since it becomes the exception rather than the rule today. At this point, it is significant to focus on which functions are under the effective control of foreign power and impose duties related to these functions in order to prevent legal gaps with respect to the protection of civilians that is the very purpose of International Humanitarian Law.

Keywords

• Traditional concepts
• boots on the ground
• responsibilities
• functions
• International Humanitarian Law

‘Sahada Askerlerin Bulunması’ Yükümlülüğü İşgal İçin Hala Gerekli Midir?

Öz

Modern savaşın getirdiği zorluklar, sivillere yönelik daha iyi koruma sağlanması ve devletlerin sorumluluklarını inkâr etmelerinin önlenmesi adına geleneksel konseptleri yeniden yorumlamayı yükümlülük haline getirmektedir. Bu nedenle, ‘sahada askerlerin bulunması’ yükümlülüğü işgalci gücün otoritesini uygulamasının tek yolu olarak kabul edilmemelidir, zira bugün bu husus bir kural olmaktan daha çok istisna haline gelmiştir. Bu noktada, Uluslararası İnsancıl Hukuk’un yegâne amacı olan sivillerin korunmasına dair yasal boşlukların önlenmesi adına, hangi fonksiyonların yabancı gücün etkin kontrolü altında olduğuna odaklanılması ve bu fonksiyonlara ilişkin olarak yükümlülüklerin belirlenmesine odaklanılması önem arz etmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Geleneksel konseptler
• sahada askerlerin bulunması
• sorumluluklar
• fonksiyonlar
• Uluslararası İnsancıl Hukuk

Kaynakça

1. Azarova, V. (2012, April 24). Disingenuous ‘Disengagement’: Israel’s Occupation of the Gaza Strip and the Protective Function of the Law of Belligerent Occupation. Retrieved 14 May 2020, from Opinio Juris website: http://opiniojuris.org/2012/04/24/disingenuous-disengagement-israels-occupation-of-the-gaza-strip-and-the-protective-function-of-the-law-of-belligerent-occupation/
2. Bashi, S., & Mann, K. (2007). Disengaged occupiers: The legal status of Gaza. Gisha, Legal Center for Freedom of Movement.
3. Benvenisti, E. (2010). The Law on Asymmetric Warfare. In M. H. Arsanjani, J. Cogan, R. Sloane, & S. Wiessner (Eds.), Looking to the Future: Essays on International Law in Honor of W. Michael Reisman (pp. 929–950). Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
4. Benvenisti, E. (2012). The International Law of Occupation (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
5. Benvenisti, E. (2015). Occupation and Territorial Administration. Forthcoming in Routledge Handbook of the Law of Armed Conflict (Rain Liivoja and Timothy Maccormack, Eds., 2016). Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2663115
6. Chiragov and others v Armenia (16 June 2015). ECtHR App no. 13216/05.
7. Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda [2005]. Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Judgment) ICJ Rep 168.
8. Ferraro, T. (2012a). Determining the beginning and end of an occupation under international humanitarian law. International Review of the Red Cross, 94(885), 133–163.

9. Ferraro, T. (2012b). Occupation and other forms of administration of foreign territory. ICRC Geneva.
10. Gross, A. (2012, April 23). Rethinking Occupation: The Functional Approach. Retrieved 14 May 2020, from Opinio Juris website: http://opiniojuris.org/2012/04/23/rethinking-occupation-the-functional-approach/
11. Gross, A. (2017). The writing on the wall: Rethinking the international law of occupation. UK: Cambridge University Press.
12. Hague Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and Its Annex: Regulations Concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. 18 October 1907.
13. Holland, T. E. (1908). The Laws of War on Land. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.
14. ICRC. (2011). International Humanitarian Law and the Challenges of Contemporary Armed Conflicts. Geneva.
15. ICRC. (2015). International humanitarian law and the challenges of contemporary armed conflicts. Geneva.
16. ICRC. (2016). Commentary on the First Geneva Convention: Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field. Retrieved 15 May 2020, from https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/full/GCI-commentary.
17. Institute of International Law. (1880). The Laws of War on Land.
18. International Committee of the Red Cross. (12 August 1949). Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Fourth Geneva Convention), 75 UNTS 287.
19. Li, D. (2006). The Gaza Strip as laboratory: Notes in the wake of disengagement. Journal of Palestine Studies, 35(2), 38–55.
20. Longobardo, M. (2018). The Use of Armed Force in Occupied Territory. Cambridge University Press.
21. Prosecutor v Mladen Naletilic and Vinko Martinovic (31 March 2003). IT-98-34-T (Trial Judgement)
22. Roberts, A. (1984). What is a military occupation? British Yearbook of International Law, 55(1), 249–305.
23. Sargsyan v Azerbaijan (16 June 2015). ECtHR App no. 40167/06.
24. Sassòli, M. (2015). Part II Specific Issues and Regimes, C Geneva Convention IV, 5 Occupied territories, Ch.67 The Concept and the Beginning of Occupation. Retrieved 16 May 2020, from Oxford Public International Law website: https://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law/9780199675449.001.0001/law-9780199675449-chapter-67
25. Scobbie, I. (2004). An Intimate Disengagement: Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza, the Law of Occupation and of Self-Determination. YB Islamic & Middle EL, 11, 3–31.
26. Trapp, K. N. (2018). Boots (on the Ground). In J. Hohmann & D. Joyce (Eds.), International Law’s Objects. Oxford University Press. Retrieved from https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/oso/9780198798200.001.0001/oso-9780198798200-chapter-12
27. UK Ministry of Defence. (2004). The Joint Service Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict. The Joint Doctrine and Concepts Centre.
28. United States v. Ohlendorf et al. [1948]. The Einsatzgruppen Case, Case No. 9, (Opinion and Judgment and Sentence).
29. United States v. Wilhelm List et al. [1949]. The Hostage Case, Case No. 7. (Opinion and Judgment and Sentence)
30. UNSC Res 1851. (16 December 2008). UN Doc S/RES/1851.
31. US Department of Army. (1956). Field Manual 27-10.
32. US Department of Defence. (2015). Law of War Manual.
33. Warden III, J. A. (1998). Air Theory for The Twenty First Century. In B. R. Schneider & L. E. Grinter (Eds.), Battlefield of the future: 21st century warfare issues. USA: Air University Press.
34. Why ‘boots on the ground’? (2014, September 30). BBC News. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-29413429.