Civil Affairs, Military Government: Selected Cases and Materials PDF
Preview Civil Affairs, Military Government: Selected Cases and Materials
This annotated casebook is designed for use in conjunction with Department of the Army Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare, July 1956. TABLE OF CONTENTS - PAGE ............................................. - Table of Cases iii v - PART I AN INTRODUCTION ............................... 1. Scope of the course ................. 1 2. The law of belligerent occupation 1 3. Evidence of the law of belligerent occupation; the legal status of F'M 27-10...................b.....eb 2 4. The Hague Conventions of 1907 and the. .G..en.e.v.a. .C.o.n.-. .. ventions of 1949; binding upon whom 3 - PART I1 AN UNDERSTANDING OF TERMS .. . ..... . ....... . ... 1. What is a military government? ........... 2. What is a civil affairs administration? - PA#r III THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN ADMINISTRATION FOR OCCUPIED AREAS ...................... 1. Its importance to commanders ................. 2. Its importance to judge advocates 3. Its importance to generations of future Americans.. 4. Its legal basis ........................b.....bb... - P m I V THE LAW OF BELLIGERENT OCCUPATION: COP.IIMENCm AND TrnINATION ..... 1. The commencement.; .t.h.e. .o.c.c.u..p.a.t.io.n.. o.f. .t.e.r.r.i.t.o.r.y.. ..... 2. The termination - PART V THE STATUS OF OCCUPIED TEERITORP; ITS INWLBITANTS; ITS LAWS ..,........... 1. Sovereignty and other considerations 2. The inhab.i.ta.n..ts. .o.f. .o.c.c.u.p.i.e.d. .t.e.r.r.i.to..r.y.;. .a.l.l.e.g.i.a.n.c.e. .. and duty ...................... 3. Application of existing laws - PAFti' VI TRE MILITARY GOVERNOR; LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY; corns . 1. The Military Governor; the President1.s. .a.l.t.e.r. .e.g.o.... .. 2. Occupation laws, civil and criminal ........ 3. Public officials, j.u.d.g.e.s.,. .a.n.d. .l.o.c.a.l. .c.o.u.r.t.s. ......... 4. Occupation courts . PAGE PAFU ' VII .PROPERTY AND PROCURENENI' IN OCCUPIED TERRITORY . ................................ 1. Property generally . ...... 2. The basic discrim..in.a.t.i.o.n.;. .p.u.b..li.c. .v.s...p.r.i.v.a.t.e. ....... 3. Public property .................................. 4. Private property ........................... 5 Procurement of services . P m V III PUBLIC FINANCE . ............................................. 1. Taxes .................................... 2. Customs duties ..................................... 3 . Contributi.o.n.s. ...................................... 4. Currency ....................................... 5 State debts . ..................................... 1. Civil matters .................................. 2 Criminal matters . PAKI' X UNCOEJVE?JTIONAL AND I W U L A R COMBATANTS . ........................................... 1. General ......................... 2. Unconventional combatants ... 3 Irregular combatants; partisans. and guerrillas TABLE OF CASES . . ........................................ Aboitiz & .Co v Pric.e. ......................................... 102. 108 Acheson v.Kuniyuka ........................................... 42 Acheson .v W.o hlmuth ...................~ 42 Agate v S.oc Electri.ca Coloniale Ita.l.i.a.n.0. ..................... 97 Alvarez Y Sanchez v Uni.ted .S tates ................... 55 Anglo-Chinese Shipp.i ng Co v United States ........ 95 Bank of Ethiopia. v Nati.o.n.a.l. .B.a.n.k. .o.f. .E.g.y.p.t. .a.n.d. .L.i.g.u.o..ri. ......... 34 Belgian .State v Botte ......................................... 49 Burke v M.i ltenberger ...................... 36 Callwoo.d v Virgin Isla.n.d.s. .N..a.ti.o.n.a..l .B.a.n.k. ....................... 54 Cobb v .United States ........................................ 42 Coble v United States.. .................................... 53 Coleman v. Tennessee ...............................4.6e. .4 8. 49. 56 Crimina.l Files (~r.e.e.c..e.)C. .as.e. ................................... 111 Cross v Harrison . ........... 36 Dalldorf and Others .v. ..T.h.e. .D..i.re.c..to.r. .o.f. .P..ro..se..c.u.ti.o.n..s ............ 54 DeAlwis v. D.eAlwis ........................................... 51 De Camera v. Brooke ........ 96 DIEscury. v Levensoerzeke.r.i.n.g.s.-.N.a.a.t.s.c.h.a.p.p.i.j. .U..tr.e.c.h.t. .L.t.d. ........ 45 Dooley v United State.s. ........................................ 101 Double. Jeopardy .C.a.s.e. ....................................... 71 Dow v Jo.h nson ....................................... 49. 50. 56 Eisner v United .S..ta.t.e.s. ........................................ 104 Ex Farte Q.uirin .................................. 114 Fleming v P.age ..............................3.7... .4.1... .4.2... .4 3. 44. 101 FeyeraMv M.cGrath .................... 43 French S.tate v E.st.a.b.l.i.s.s.m.e.n..ts. .M..o.n.m.o.u.s.se.a.u. ..................... 74 Gates v Go.od lo.e ................................ 108 Gibbs et a1 v .R..o.d.r.i.g.u.e.z. .e..t. .a.1............................... 107 Grapeshot.. The ................................ 72 Haw Pia v C.h ina Bank..in.g. .C..o.rp. ..................................1 05 107. 108 Hefferman. v Porter ......................................... 110 Hirota v Mac.A.r.th.u..r ............................................ 72. 95 Hoffman Case .................................... 120 Holdowans.kl v. Holdowanski ...................... 51 Housman v Koninklijke Rotterdamse Lloyd ....... 46 In re Direc.to.r.s. .o.f. .t.h.e. .A..m.s.t.e.rd.a.m..se. .B..a.l.la.s.t. .M..a.a.t.s.c.h.a.p.p.ij. ........ 85 In re Esau .................................................. 84 In re Fiebig ................................................. 85 In re Hoffman ....................................... 119 In re Krauch and Others ...................... 85 In re Van Lewinski (ca.ll.e.d.. V.o.n. ..a.n.s. s.t.e.in.). ................. 120 In re List and O..th..e.rs. .....................................2.9... .3.1 . 116. 120 In re Lo Dolce 48 - 1 PAGE . ....................................... 1 In re Policema.n. .V..o.ll.e.m.a. ......................................... In re Martin .................................................. In re R.iege.r .................................. In re S S M.e.m.b.e.r .A..h.l.b.re.c.h..t ................................... In re Wuis.tz ............................................. Johansen v. Gross ........................................ Johnson v Eisen.t ra.g er ............................. Juragua .Iron Co v...U..n.it.e.d. .S..ta.t.e.s.. ............................. Keely v Sander.s . ..................................... Kent Jewelry .Co v Kiefer ................................ Kobylinsky v. Banco D i C..h.i.v.a.r.i ................................. Kochanski v .K..o.c.h.a.n.sk.a. ......................................... Krupp Trial .......................................... L&N (olive O i l cas.e ) ..................................... Lamar. Exe.cuter v Browne .......................... Landwehr .v Director .o.f. .P.r.o.s.e.c..u.ti.o.n.s. ........................... Lasere v R.o.c.h.e.re.a.u. ............................................ Latza Case. ............................................ - Liaabue v . Finanze ...................................... MacLeod v. United S.ta.t.e.s. .................... 28 Madsen v .Kinsella .........................9.. ..1.8... .2.8.. ..4.9.. ..5.2... 63. 67. 68 Madsen v. Overholse.r. ........................................... 67 Magri v D i Marco . ...................... 97 Mechanics a.n d Traders. .B.a.n.k. .v...U..n.io.n. .B.a.n.k. ....................... 67 Mit.ch ell v Harmony ....................................... 95. 96 Mrs. Alexander's Co.tt.o.n. ........................................ 43. 84 - N v Be.lg ian Sta.te.. ..........................................*.. 51 Neely v Henkel . . 41. 49 N.V. De Bataafsche Petro.l.e.u.m. .M..a.a.t.s.c.h.a.p.p..li. .&. .O.r.s...v. ..T.h.e. .W..a.r ... Dam.a ge Commiss.io.n. ......................................... 77. 84 Ochoa v H.er nandez .............................................. 52. 53 Pennywit v. Eaton ................................ 67 Peralta .v Directo.r .o.f. .F..ri.s.o.n.s. ................................. 110. 111 Psrez v Browne.ll ................................... Planters .B ank v Union .B.a.n.k. .................................... Porter v Freudenber.g ......................... Public Prosecutor v . Latza .a.n.d. .O..t.h.e.r.s .......................... Public Prosecutor v Lian . ..... Randsfjordsbrul.c.e.t .a.n.d. .J.e.v.n.a.k.e.r. .K..o..m..e. .v. ..V.i.u.l. T..r.e.s.l.i.p.e.r.i. ...... Re ~on.d arelli ................................................ Reid v Co.v ert .......................................... Santiago v Nogueras. ................................. Schooner. Exchange v Mc.F.ad.d.o.n. .................................. Seer.y v United S.t ates . . Soc Timber. Sac Zeta. Soc Ombla .v...M..i.n.i.s.t.e.r.i .E..s.t.e.r.i. a.. T.e.s.o.r.o. Soviet Requisition (~ustria)C ase . . ...................... Standard Vacuum O i l Co.v United States ...... State of Netherlands v .Federal .R.e.s.e.r.v.e. B..an.k. .o.f. .N.ew. .P.*or.k. ....**..* State of Netherlands v .J essen ............................. Statens Jorlovs.u dv.alg v Pedersen .................. Tan Tuan et a1 V Lucens F.o..o.d. .C..o.n..tr.o..l .B..o.a.r.d. ................ Thirty Hogsheads of S.u..g.a.r. ...................................... Thorington v. Smith ............................. Trial of Otto Sk.orzeny and Others . ............... United States v Caltex (.p.h..il.i.p.p.i.n.e.s.). .I.n.c. ..e.t. .a.1.. .............. United States v.. Reiter. ........................................ United States v. Rice ...................................... United States v.Russell ...................................... United States v .Schultz ...................................... United States v. Sinigar ................................. United States v . Ushi Shi.r.o.m.a. .................................. Unlted States v W. ils.o n ................................. Vermilya-Brown Co v Connell .......................... Vitse v. Brasser. and the D.utch State ............. V/O Sov.fracht v..N..V... ..G..eb..r ..V.a.n. .U..d.en.s. .S.c.h..e.e.p.v.a.a.r.t .............. Weiss v .Weiss .............................................. Wilson v Jirard ............................... Wong Man On v. The Commonwealth AN INTRODUCTION 1. Sco~eof the course. This course is intended to identify and consider a variety of legal problems which the future administration of enemy oc- cupied territory may be expected to produce. 2. mT e r e n t occu~ation. Rather than to be stated as a fact, it is to be questioned whether there is a law, as such, of belligerent oc cupatioq. In the early centuries of man's existence the "lawn for the conquered simply had been the w i l l of the conqueror. The conduct of the wars of the last two centuries, however, seems to indicate, albeit incon- clusively, that the civilized nations of the world have been willing to temper the exercise of their complete power as conquerors in the interest of the cause of humanity and the dictates of public conscience. As nations successively and consistently chose to limit their power, in certain re- spects, in favor of the rights of inhabitants of occupied territory, so there developed, in those certain respects, customs which civilized nations have respected and recognized as obligatory upon them. Thus in those areas of state practice where yesterday's customs are responsive to the purposes for which war is waged and territory is occupied today, there can be said to be law, i.e., law which delineates not the power of a conqueror but rather his rights, duties, and authority. The development of a state practice into a custom and thence into law is, to be sure, an unhurried process. For this reason there was little law applicable to a belligerent occupation at the turn of the 19th cen- tury. To f i l l the void, the civilized nations of the world resorted 30 multilateral conventions he Hague Conventions of 1907 and the Geneva Conventions of 1949 are the two multilateral conventions with which we are now concerned). Thus, a search for the law of belligerent occupation requires reference not only to customary international law but to con- ventional international law as well. The two sources are not, of course, wholly separable, for many provisions of the multilateral: conventions mentioned represent, and were so intended, agreed restatements of accepted customs. But if one understands law to mean a precise rule of conduct, a deviation from which is wrong, there is still to be considered the question whether the provisions of these conventions amount to law. Where it is rovided, for example, that enemy private property cannot be confiscated Part. 46, HR), it would seem that there is law. But where it is provided that a belligerent occupant shall respect, unless absolutelv urevented, the local laws of the country occupied (art. 43, HR); that the quantum of requisitions shall be in ~rouortiont o the resources of the country (art. 52, HR); and that taxes are to be collected, insofar as is ~ossible, in accordance with existing rules of assessment and incidence (art. 48, HR), to illustrate, it may be unrealistic to classify such vague and ab- stract provisions as law, having both a force and a binding effect. It may be more correct to label them what they are, principles and standards, susceptible of producing l a w only to the extent that civilized nations interpret and apply them uniformly. To date, evidence of such uniformity is lacking. This may be explained, it is believed, by the fact that each new war has involved ideological, sociological and technological con siderations unlike those of preceding wars. Understandably, with se- curity interests paramount, no nation is willing to commit itself today as to its conduct tomorrow in any but the most general of terms. In the' last analysis, therefore, it may be correct to conclude that the law of belligerent occupation is derived more from the post-bellurn acts and deeds of conquerors than from pre-bellum conventions, See, Sutherland, Constitutional Powers and World Affairs 80 (1919), McDougal and Feliciano, International Coercion and World Public Order: The General Princi~lesof the Law of War, 67 Yale Law J. 809 (1958). Stone in his book, Legal Controls of International Conflict (1954), at p. 727, characterizes the law of belligerent occupation as a kind of "legal paradise." His point is that it is unrealistic to think that the niyriad of challenging questions bound to be raised in a future global war may be answered on the basis of propositions accepted at the turn of the 19th century. Do you agree? FM 27-10, 18 July 1956, is entitled, nThe Law of Land Warfare Its predecessor, dated 1October 1940, was entitled, "The Rules of Land War fare.I1 What significance, if any, do you attach to this change? See Fratcher, The New Law of Land Warfare, 22 Missouri Law Rev. 143 (1957j. Von Glabn, The Occuuation of Enew Terrltom 19 (1957). 3. Evidence of the law of belligerent occuuatioo.: the legal status of F1.i 27-10. - Read: Pars. 1, 7, and 14, FM 27-10. -- NOTE Article 1, Hague Convention No. IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, 18 October 1907, requires the contracting powers to in- struct their armed land forces in the provisions of the Hague Regulations. FM 27-10 has then a legal basis in international law, in that is is issued in compliance with the Hague Regulations and the Geneva Conventions. This is not to suggest, of course, that mere publicatioqof FM 27-10 operates to discharge that requirement. Army Regulations 350-216, 19 December 1956, requires instruction be given in the Geneva Conventions of 1949; no mention i s made of the Hague Regulations, however. As a matter of historical interest, the United States first published a summary of the rules of land warfare in 1863 with the issuance of General Orders No. 100, entitled, "Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field," the so-called Lieber code. It has been said that FM 27-10 has the binding force of a military order on menbers of the Army of the United States. Fratcher, The New Law of Land Warfare, 22 Missouri Law Rev. 143, 144 (1958). Do you agree? I f you do, then is not the question whether there efists a law, as such, of belligerent occupation made moot? 4. The Hague Conventions of 1907 and the Geneva Conventions of 1949; bindinn ulson whom? - Resd: Foreword and paragraph 5, FM 27-10. - NOTE By early 1957 a total of fifty-eight nations had accepted the Geneva Civilians Convention (GC), the convention with which this course w i l l be particularly concerned. For a list of the fifty-eight, see,Von Glahn, The Occupation of hemv Territory L7 (1957). Since then, East Germany, North Korea, and communist Viet-Nam have deposited adherences to (with reservations), and communist China (also with reservations) and the United Kingdom have ratified, all four Geneva Conventions. See, 37 Dept. State Bulletin 861, Nov. 1957.
Description:The list of books you might like
