Pendudukan militer

Pendudukan militer adalah kontrol provisional efektif oleh sebuah kekuatan pemerintahan tertentu atas sebuah teritorial yang tak berada di bawah kedaulatan formal dari entitas tersebut, tanpa pelanggaran kedaulatan sebenarnya.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] Pendudukan militer berbeda dari aneksasi menurut alam temporernya yang dituju (contoh tak ada klaim untuk kedaulatan permanen), menurut alam militernya, dan menurut hak kewarganegaraan dari kekuatan yang mengkontrol tak terpengaruh pada penduduk yang mendiaminya.^[2]^[5]^[6]^[7]

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