This thesis analyses the notion of control in the law of military occupation. It addresses the following research question: what does control denote and what are its implications for military occupation? More specifically, it demonstrates that in present-day occupations, control as such occurs in different forms and variations. The polymorphic features of occupation can be seen in the way states establish control over territory either directly or indirectly, and in the manner in which they retain, relinquish or regain it. The thesis also evidences that control found in Geneva Convention IV 1949 affords the most favourable and practicable protection to civilians and comes forward with a very adaptable application with the view of enhancing and reinforcing the protection of civilians. The thesis encompasses five chapters. Chapter I deals with control in general international law, revealing that different forms of control are used by different branches of international law for different purposes. Chapter II offers a clear test for establishing control over territory for the purposes of military occupation in International Humanitarian Law. Chapter III untangles the concept of indirect effective control, which gives rise to situations of military occupation by an intermediary. Chapter IV deals with relinquishing control over territory, thus establishing a test for occupation ending, determining the end of occupation to be at variance with assessing its beginning. Finally, Chapter V analyses the effect of control on a state’s substantive obligations both under International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:bl.uk/oai:ethos.bl.uk:732649 |
| Date | January 2018 |
| Creators | Kalandarishvili-Mueller, Natia |
| Publisher | University of Essex |
| Source Sets | Ethos UK |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Electronic Thesis or Dissertation |
| Source | http://repository.essex.ac.uk/21416/ |
Page generated in 0.0012 seconds