Στρατιωτική κατοχή

Η στρατιωτική κατοχή είναι ο αποτελεσματικός προσωρινός έλεγχος από μια ορισμένη κυρίαρχη εξουσία πάνω σε ένα συγκεκριμένο έδαφος που δεν τελεί υπό την επίσημη κυριαρχία της εν λόγω οντότητας, χωρίς την παραβίαση του κυρίαρχου κράτους.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] Η στρατιωτική κατοχή διακρίνεται από την προσάρτηση από τον προσωρινό της χαρακτήρα (δηλαδή δεν υπάρχει αξίωση για μόνιμη κυριαρχία), από τη στρατιωτική της φύση και από τα δικαιώματα υπηκοότητας της εξουσίας ελέγχου τα οποία δεν αποδίδονται στον υποταγμένο πληθυσμό.^[2]^[5]^[6]^[7]

Παραπομπές

↑ A Roberts. Prolonged Military Occupation: The Israeli-Occupied Territories Since 1967 - Am. J. Int'l L., 1990, p. 47.
↑ ^2,0 ^2,1 Eyāl Benveniśtî. The international law of occupation. Princeton University Press, 2004. (ISBN 0-691-12130-3), (ISBN 978-0-691-12130-7), p. xvi
↑ Eran Halperin, Daniel Bar-Tal, Keren Sharvit, Nimrod Rosler and Amiram Raviv. Socio-psychological implications for an occupying society: The case of Israel. Journal of Peace Research 2010; 47; 59
↑ During civil wars, the districts occupied by rebels are considered to be foreign.Military Government and Martial Law LLMC, p. 21. [1]
↑ David M. Edelstein. Occupational Hazards: Why Military Occupations Succeed or Fail. Journal of Peace Research 2010; 47; 59
↑ Phillipson, Coleman (1916). Termination of War and Treaties of Peace. The Lawbook Exchange. σελ. 10. ISBN 9781584778608. The difference between effective military occupation (or conquest) and annexation involves a profound difference in the rights conferred by each
↑ Stirk, Peter (2009). The Politics of Military Occupation. Edinburgh University Press. σελ. 44. ISBN 9780748636716. The significance of the temporary nature of military occupation is that it brings about no change of allegiance. Military government remains an alien government whether of short or long duration, though prolonged occupation may encourage the occupying power to change military occupation into something else, namely annexation

[1] A Roberts. Prolonged Military Occupation: The Israeli-Occupied Territories Since 1967 - Am. J. Int'l L., 1990, p. 47.

[Benv-2] 2,0 ^2,1 Eyāl Benveniśtî. The international law of occupation. Princeton University Press, 2004. (ISBN 0-691-12130-3), (ISBN 978-0-691-12130-7), p. xvi

[3] Eran Halperin, Daniel Bar-Tal, Keren Sharvit, Nimrod Rosler and Amiram Raviv. Socio-psychological implications for an occupying society: The case of Israel. Journal of Peace Research 2010; 47; 59

[4] During civil wars, the districts occupied by rebels are considered to be foreign.Military Government and Martial Law LLMC, p. 21. [1]

[5] David M. Edelstein. Occupational Hazards: Why Military Occupations Succeed or Fail. Journal of Peace Research 2010; 47; 59

[6] Phillipson, Coleman (1916). Termination of War and Treaties of Peace. The Lawbook Exchange. σελ. 10. ISBN 9781584778608. The difference between effective military occupation (or conquest) and annexation involves a profound difference in the rights conferred by each

[7] Stirk, Peter (2009). The Politics of Military Occupation. Edinburgh University Press. σελ. 44. ISBN 9780748636716. The significance of the temporary nature of military occupation is that it brings about no change of allegiance. Military government remains an alien government whether of short or long duration, though prolonged occupation may encourage the occupying power to change military occupation into something else, namely annexation

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]