[quote=“Hartzell”] This quotation, and the others which you have provided from Oppenheim, are not concerned with “military occupation.” What Oppenheim is speaking of here is “occupation of terra nullius,” such as the situation of uninhabited islands in the Pacific Ocen which were claimed by US citizens under the legal authority of international law plus the Guano Islands Act.
For general information on the contents and application of this Act, see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guano_Islands_Act[/quote]
You’re right that the part of Oppenheim I quoted belongs to Part II: The Objects of the Law of Nations. It is indeed appplicable to ‘non-military occupation’. It was my mistake. But I’ve also examined the 2nd volume of Oppenheim, which is devoted to laws of war. There are other sources available that support intention and actual authority as necessary conditions of military occupation, in a way consistent with Oppenheim’s views in the 2nd volume:
Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations stipulates that territory is considered occupied when it is [color=#4080FF]actually placed under the authority of the hostile army[/color]. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and [color=#BF80FF]can be exercised[/color].
LAW OF WAR HANDBOOK (2005) edited by MAJ Keith E. Puls:
Occupation = Invasion plus[color=#8080BF] taking firm possession of the enemy territory [/color]for the [color=#80BF80]purpose [/color]of holding it. FM 27-10, Para. 352a.
(1)Invasion: Invasion continues for as long as resistance is met. If no resistance is met, the state of invasion continues only until the invader takes firm control of the area, with an intention of holding it. Invasion is not necessarily occupation, but invasion usually precedes occupation. FM 27-10, Para. 352a. Invasion may be either resisted or unresisted.
(a) Resisted v. Unresisted Invasion. Occupation “presupposes” a hostile invasion -However, a “hostile” invasion may be either resisted or unresisted.
Since purpose presupposes intention and is part of the definition of military occupation and the US has expressly denied any such intention and exercised no actual control over Taiwan, it cannot be the so-called ‘principal occupying power’ over Taiwan.
Totally incorrect. As I have said before, read the treaty.
Do I ned to repeat that here for you? Here it is in capital letters:
READ THE TREATY. .[/quote]
Which part of the San Francisco Peace Treaty [color=#8080BF]unambiguously [/color]claims that the US is ‘the principal occyping power’ over Taiwan?
Also, there’s evidence contrary to the claim that the US is any sort of ‘principal occupying power’ over Taiwan.
The Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty (1954) signed between the ROC and the USA stipulates:
For the purposes of Articles II and V, the terms “territorial” and “territories” shall mean in respect of the Republic of China, Taiwan and the Pescadores…
The Government of the Republic of China [color=#4080BF]grants[/color], and the Government of the United Stares of America accepts, the right to dispose such United States land, air and sea forces in and about Taiwan and the Pescadores as may be required for their defense, as determined by mutual agreement.
Graned, the purpose of the treaty was not to trasnfer the sovereignty over the islands. But this at least shows that the US considered Taiwan as part of the territiry controlled and [color=#8080FF]occupied [/color]by the ROC. If the US had been ‘the principal occupying power’ over Taiwan and the ROC its proxy, there would have been no need to conclude this treaty; the US could have just notified the ROC via a phone call in case of military need. In other words, the right to deploy troops in Taiwan would have remained with the US as the ‘principal occupier’; the ROC as the presumed proxy then could not have ‘granted’ such a right to the US.
[quote=“Hartzell”]International law specifies that “Military occupation does not transfer sovereignty.” [Note: military occupation is not annexation and the doctrine of “prescription” does not apply.]
The quotes which some posters here on forumosa.com have provided from Oppenheim appear to fall into the realm of the first type of “occupation.” That however, is not military occupation, which is what I am concerned with.
Also see FM 27-10
362. Necessity for Military Government
Military government is the form of administration by which an occupying power exercises governmental authority over occupied territory.[/quote]
I am not arguing in this thread that the ROC acquired sovereignty over Taiwan through military occupation. I am only trying to show that the US is not ‘the principal occupying power’ over Taiwan.
books.google.com/books?id=G8NAAA … &q&f=false