Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

military occupation

Defined in 2 dictionaries — Case Law, Bouvier (1914)

Definitions from Case Law

From 229 U.S. 416 - MacLeod v. United States · 1913Most cited · 74 citing opinions

Such occupation is not merely invasion, but is invasion plus possession of the enemy's country for the purpose of holding it temporarily at least.

Show all 2 Supreme Court definitions and how they changed over time 1864–1913

Bouvier's Law Dictionary and Concise Encyclopedia

John Bouvier; revised by Francis Rawle · 1914

This at most gives the invader certain partial and limited rights of sovereignty. Until conquest, the sovereign rights of the original owner remain Intact. Conquest gives the conqueror full rights of sovereignty and, retroactively, legalizes all acts done by him during military occupation. Its only essential is actual and exclusive possession, which must be effective. A conqueror may exercise governmental authority, but only when in actual possession of the enemy’s country; and this will be exercised upon principles of international law; Mac Leod v. U. S., 229 U. S. 416, 33 Sup. Ct. 955, 67 L. Ed. 1200. The occupant administers the government and may, strictly speaking, change the municipal law, but it is considered the duty of the occupant to make as few changes in the ordinary administration of the laws as possible, though he may proclaim martial law if necessary. He may occupy public land and buildings; he cannot alienate them so as to pass a good title, but a subsequent conquest would probably complete the title. Ships of war, warlike stores and materials, treasure and like movable property belonging to the state vest in the occupant. State archives and historical records, charitable, etc., institutions, public buildings, museums, monuments, works of art, etc., and public buildings of lesser political subdivisions are safe from seizure; so usually are public vessels engaged in scientific discovery. Private lands and houses are usually exempt Private movable property Is exempt though subject to contributions and requisitions. The former are payments of money, transport or articles for the immediate hse of the troops, and may be exacted by the commander of any detached body of troops, with or without payment. This appears to be a modified species of pillage. Military necessity may require the destruction of private property, and hostile acts of communities or individuals may be punished in the same way. Property may be liable to seizure as booty on the field of battle, or when a town refuses to capitulate and is carried by assault When military occupation ceases, the state of things which existed previously is restored under the fiction of postliminimt (Q. V.). Territory acquired by war must, necessarily, be governed, in the first instance, by military power under the direction of the president, as commander-ln-chlef. Civil government can only be put in operation by the action of the appropriate political department of the government, at such time and in such degree as it may determine. It must take effect either by the action of the treatymaking power, or by that of congress. So long as congress has not incorporated the territory into the United States, neither military occupation nor cession by treaty makes it domestic territory, in the sense of the revenue laws. Congress may establish a temporary government, which is not subject to all the restrictions of the constitution. Downes v. Bldwell, 182 U. S, 244, 21 Sup. Ct. 770, 45 L. Ed. 1088, per Gray, J., concurring in the opinion of the court. Where a civilian resident native of Porto Rico was, by a military tribunal of the United States in control of the island, convicted of a crime committed in that island in March, 1899, it was held that so long as a state of war existed between Spain and the JQnited States (which was until after the commission of the crime) that tribunal had Jurisdiction to try the offence; Ex parte Ortiz, lUO Fed. 955. The government at Manila prior to the treaty with Spain was a military government and subject only to higher military authority; Ho Tung & Co. v. U. S., 42 Ct. Cl. 213. The Convention Concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, adopted at The Hague in 1899, lays down (Arts. 42-56) definite rules concerning military authority over the territory of a hostile state. In addition to codifying the accepted law, it provides that the occupant must respect, imless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country; he must not compel the population of the occupied territory to take part. in military operations against its own country, nor take the oath to the hostile power. Private property cannot be confiscated. State taxes, if collected, must be expended for the administration of the occupied territory. Receipts must be given for any contribution wdl u for requisitloDA which must be lu proportion to the resources of the country. See Blsley, Law of War, 184; Spalght, War Bights on Land, 320-418; II 0pp. If 166- 172. See MnjTABT Jubisdictioh.