Book Reviews and Notices : The Development of the Law of Belligerent Occupation 1863-1914. BY DORIS APPEL GRABER. (New York: Columbia University Press. 1949. Pp. 343. Index. $4.00.)
| Date | 01 September 1949 |
| Author | Josef L. Kunz |
| DOI | 10.1177/106591294900200313 |
| Published date | 01 September 1949 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
430
The
Development
of
the
Law
of
Belligerent
Occupation
1863-1914.
BY
DORIS
APPEL
GRABER.
(New
York:
Columbia
University
Press.
1949.
Pp.
343.
Index.
$4.00.)
This
book,
based
on
a
large
bibliography,
is
a
detailed
investigation
into
the
development
of
the
law
of
belligerent
occupation
from
the
time
this
concept
had
become
recognized
to
the
outbreak
of
the
First
World
War.
It
studies
the
four
&dquo;landmark
Codes&dquo;:
Lieber
1863,
Brussels
1874,
Oxford
1880,
and
the
corresponding
Hague
Conventions
1899
and
1907;
it
further
investigates
the
reflections
of
these
landmarks
in
the
military
manuals
and
the
whole
literature
of
international
law
in
each
period.
The
law
of
belligerent
occupation
of
each
period
is
studied
in
successive
chapters
in
relation
to
the
nature
of
belligerent
occupation,
the
people’s
duties
to
the
occupant,
the
government
of
occupied
regions,
the
treatment
of
public
and
institutional
property,
the
protection
of
personal
rights
and
private
property,
requisitions
and
contributions.
Finally
there
is
a
sur-
vey
of
the
application
of
the
law
in
the
major
wars
between
1863
and
1914.
The
author
arrives
at
the
conclusion
that
while
the
contents
of
the
law
in
this
whole
period
changed
relatively
little,
there
was
a
shift
of
emphasis
from
the
rights
of
the
occupant
to
his
duties.
Seen
from
the
point
of
view
of
the
two
World
Wars,
the
law
of bel-
ligerent
occupation
seems
fragmentary
and
inadequate.
Whereas
some
problems,
e.g.,
levee
en
masse,
have
lost
importance
in
consequence
of
the
changed
character
of
war,
others,
e.g.,
the
treatment
of
underground
organizations
in
occupied
regions
and
many
more,
have
arisen.
The
author
restricts
herself
to
&dquo;occupation
of
enemy
territory
in
war
time,
prior
to
the
conclusion
of
an
armistice.&dquo;
The
question,
so
important
today
with
regard
to
the
nature
of
the
occupation
of
Germany,
would
be
whether
&dquo;belligerent
occupation&dquo;
necessarily
presupposes
the
actual
continuation
of
hostilities,
so
that
the
occupation
is
essentially
precarious,
always
&dquo;subject
to
the
chances
of
war.&dquo;
If
the
victor,
after
the
end
of
actual
hostilities
but
without
an
armistice
and
prior
to
a
peace
treaty,
continues
to
occupy
the
foreign
territory
for
a
long
time,
is
it
&dquo;belligerent
occupation&dquo;?
In
the
German
literature
on
the
present
legal
status
of
Germany
it
is
sometimes
asserted
that
the
present
occupation
of
Germany
is
a
&dquo;belligerent
occupation&dquo;
under
the
Hague
Conventions.
If
so,
very
many
measures
taken
by
the
occupying
Powers
would
be
in
clear
violation
of
Art.
43.
There
is
perhaps
one
precedent,
the
long
occupation
in
the
Chilean
War
after
the
factual
end
of
hostilities.
Un-
fortunately,
the
author
was
prevented
by
a
lack
of
material
from
study-
ing
the
problem
of
occupation
in
the
Chilean
War.
To continue reading
Request your trial