| Talkback | |
|
Title: | #9 Err, no, you are wrong, Ran Kohn | |||
| |||||
| Name: | Johnboy | | |||
| |||||
| City: | Sydney | State: | Australia | | |
| RK: "The legal definition of occupation operates only in the context of occupying land that belongs to another sovereign country" That is false. The correct legal definition: 1) If an army invades foreign territory, and 2) that army establishes its authority over that foreign territory, then 3) that army occupies it, and the territorial extent of that authority defines the territory that is under this occupation. That territory does *not* need to be sovereign to anyone i.e. it need only be *foreign* to that army. Otherwise, of course, there is a simple get-out-of-jail-free card that anyone can play: deny the legitimacy of a foreign sovereign country, THEN invade it, THEN dismember it. Indeed, that *army* doesn`t even have to be the national army of a sovereign country for it to become an "occupying power". It need only be an "army", and the territory need only be "foreign", because the relevent law is CUSTOMARY law, and that applies to everyone. |
| |  |
|
 |
|
 |
