1. "International law requires two conditions to be met for an occupation to obtain: 1) the hostile army must have an actual, established authority in the territory" - JN If by "actual" it means actual presence, this is false, made up by Jeff as a result of reading incomprehension. 2. "a fact recognized by the U.S. Military Tribunal in the Hostages Trial ruling which implied that the German Army no longer occupied Greece and Yugoslavia after its withdrawal from them in the fall of 1944." - JN Now read and try to understand what the Hostage trial said: "The Tribunal began by ruling that, at the relevant time, Yugoslavia, Albania, Greece and Norway were occupied territories within the meaning of the Hague Convention No. IV of 1907" http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/WCC/List4.htm#NOTES And if this is not enough, let us hear from Prof Dugard on a different case. For Jeff, just try to understand the relation to the Hostage Case, which implies the opposite of what you think. (Surprise!): "41. . . The argument that Israel is no longer an occupying Power because it lacks effective control over A areas of the OPT carries more weight, but is likewise untenable. The test for the application of the legal regime of occupation is not whether the occupying Power fails to exercise effective control over the territory, but whether it has the ability to exercise such power, a principle affirmed by the United States Military Tribunal at Nürnberg in In re List and others (The Hostages Case) in 1948." 3. "Mr. Dugard makes a serious error by.. " - JN Jeff, everyone can make an error on occassion. He may be corrected by people who can read, not by legal ignoramuses. P.S. Since I am leaving now for a couple of days, I hope you can continue this argument with Lakshmi. She is a suitable partner for you. But I am also posting your reading test. See if you can pass this time.
Aden hotel used by Yemen goverment hit by grenade (Reuters)
from the article: Ehud Olmert rejects Hamas' offer of cease-fire in Gaza Strip