Article contents
II. Problems of Belligerent Occupation: The Scope of Powers Exercised by the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, April/May 2003–June 2004
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 January 2008
Abstract
![Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'](https://static.cambridge.org/content/id/urn%3Acambridge.org%3Aid%3Aarticle%3AS0020589300068391/resource/name/firstPage-S0020589300068391a.jpg)
- Type
- Current Developments
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2005
References
1 Hereinafter the Coalition.Google Scholar
2 Letters to the President of the Security Council, 8 May 2003, S/2003/538; hereinafter the Authority.Google Scholar
3 CPA Regulation No 1, 16 May 2003. The curious fact is that although the preamble and s 3 of the Regulation refer to SC Res 1483, that Resolution was not in fact adopted until 22 May.Google Scholar
4 CPA Regulation No 6, 13 May 2003 in which it was recognized as the principal body of Iraqi administration.Google Scholar
5 Orders 44, 50, and 60 of 14 Nov 2003, 11 Jan 2004 and 22 Feb 2004.Google Scholar
6 Order 11, 28 June 2004.Google Scholar
7 Order 30, 8 Sep 2003.Google Scholar
8 Order 5 9, 1 June 2004.Google Scholar
9 Orders 37, 1 9 Sep 2003 and 49, 1 0 Dec 2003.Google Scholar
10 Orders 39 and 46, 20 Dec 2003.Google Scholar
11 Order 43, 14 Oct 2003.Google Scholar
12 Order 81, 26 Apr 2004.Google Scholar
13 Order 52, 8 Jan 2004.Google Scholar
14 Order 74, 19 Apr 2004.Google Scholar
15 Order 53,18 Jan 2004.Google Scholar
16 Order 86, 20 May 2004.Google Scholar
17 Order 93, 3 June 2004.Google Scholar
18 Order 94, 7 June 2004.Google Scholar
19 Order 29, 7 Sep 2003.Google Scholar
20 ‘Iraq: Law of Occupation’ House of Commons Research Paper, International Affairs and Defence Section, 03151, 2 June 2003.Google Scholar
21 See Italian State Railways v Garofalo 16ILR 475 at 476;Google Scholar and generally see Freeman, A ‘War Crimes by Enemy Nationals Administering Justice in Occupied Territory’ (1947) 41 AJIL 579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22 See generally Public Prosecutor v H 17 ILR 401.Google Scholar
23 Hereinafter the Regulations.Google Scholar
24 Hereinafter the Convention.Google Scholar
25 See ‘The Trial of the Major War Criminals’ Nuremberg 41 (1947) 41 AJIL 172 at 248–9;Google Scholar and Oppenheim, LInternational Law vol ii Disputes, War and Neutrality (7th edn ed Lauterpacht, HLongmans London 1952) 451.Google Scholar
26 Emphasis added.Google Scholar
27 14 ILR 245 at 246.Google Scholar
28 14 ILR 228 at 232.Google Scholar
29 52 ILR 512 at 515 (1972).Google Scholar
30 Thrace Notarial Services, 16 ILR 466, Greece Court of Appeal, Thrace, 1949;Google Scholar L v N (Bulgarian Occupation of Greece)14 ILR 242, 1947, ibid 1947; Mr P (Batavia) v Mrs S (Bandoeng) 14 ILR 260, Netherlands East Indies, Batavia, 1947;Google ScholarCarinthia (Removal of Judges), 1 Annual Digest 467, Austrian Supreme Court (Civil), 1919;Google ScholarRecognition of Divorce (Eastern Germany) 23 ILR 795, FDR Supreme Court, 1956;Google Scholarand Ellin Anak Masing v The King 24 ILR 943, Sarawak Supreme Court 1948.Google Scholar
31 Zeeuwsche Hypotheek-Bank v The Netherlands 15 ILR 567 and KNAC v The Netherlands, 16 ILR 468, tenancy contracts for administrative offices, The Hague District Court 1946; and Marjamoffv Wloclawek 2 Annual Digest 444, expropriation procedures; Polish Supreme Court 1924.Google Scholar
32 Rhineland (German Decrees), 1 Annual Digest 450; venereal diseases; Reichsgericht for Criminal Matters, 1921.Google Scholar
33 In re Policeman Vollema 14 ILR 258.Google Scholar
34 Bochart v Committee of Supplies of Corneux, 1 Annual Digest 462, Belgium Court of Appeal, 1920;Google ScholarLvN (Olive Oil), 15 ILR 563, Greece, Aegean Court of Appeal, 1948;Google ScholarMagri v Di Marco, 18 ILR 689, Italy, Court of Cassation, 1951.Google Scholar
35 18 ILR 642.Google ScholarSee also Dooply v Chen Taik, 18 ILR 641 in re Japanese military currencyGoogle Scholarand Gibbs v Rodriguez, 18 ILR 661.Google Scholar
36 ibid 592 at 593.
37 21 ILR 476 at 477 and 476 respectively.Google Scholar
38 1 Annual Digest 471.Google Scholar
40 De Brabant and Gosselin v T and Florent 1 Annual Digest 463; Belgian Court of Appeal 1920. The same view was expressed in Mathot (note 39) for the same measures.Google Scholar
41 Cobb v United States 18 ILR 549 at 555.Google Scholar
42 ibid 556.
43 US Military Government v Flamme 17 ILR 415.Google Scholar
44 16 ILR 464 at 465.Google Scholar
45 14 ILR 264; 1947;Google Scholarsee also Soubrouillard v Kilbourg 15 ILR 551.Google Scholar
46 15 ILR 536, 1948.Google Scholar
47 18 ILR 549.Google Scholar
48 19 ILR 609; 1952.Google Scholar
49 The State of the Netherlands v Jessen 20 ILR 646.Google Scholar
50 In re Policeman Bolster 14 ILR 255.Google Scholar
51 In re X 1 Annual Digest 468, French Court of Appeal 1920;Google Scholar and see Republic v Weisholc ibid 472, Polish Supreme Court 1919.
52 Socitete v Brum de Belie 1 Annual Digest 466.Google Scholar
53 Adriaenssens v Ministere Public ibid 467.
54 1 Annual Digest 461,1919.Google Scholar
55 18 ILR 636.Google Scholar
56 14 ILR 233 at 234.Google Scholar
57 15 ILR 576, High Court, Burma, 1948.Google Scholar
58 24 ILR 962 at 965;Google Scholaralso see N v B 24 ILR 941.Google Scholar
59 52 ILR 718.Google Scholar
60 HC Deb, 26 March 2003, vol 402 c277. This is discussed presently.Google Scholar
61 FAC Tenth Report, Foreign Policy Aspects of the War Against Terrorism, Written Evidence, Memorandum from the FCO, 13 and 22 May 2003.Google Scholar
62 Roberts, A ‘What is a Military Occupation?’ (1984) 55 BY1L 189 at 267–71.Google Scholar
63 See ‘Government in Commission’ (1946) 23 BY1L 112 at 135–6 and 140.Google Scholar
64 14 ILR 228 at 233.Google Scholar
65 16 ILR 435 at 438.Google Scholar
66 Memorandum (n 61), para 4.Google Scholar
67 Schweisfiirth, T ‘Germany, Occupation after World War II’ 2 EPIL 582.Google Scholar
68 Press statement, US Central Command, <http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/1971.htm>. It envisaged, inter alia, a federal democratic Iraq in which the Baath party stood dissolved and there was open dialogue between national political groups; women were to be given a role and communal identity would not be the basis for the new government..+It+envisaged,+inter+alia,+a+federal+democratic+Iraq+in+which+the+Baath+party+stood+dissolved+and+there+was+open+dialogue+between+national+political+groups;+women+were+to+be+given+a+role+and+communal+identity+would+not+be+the+basis+for+the+new+government.>Google Scholar
69 UN Doc S/2003/538.Google Scholar
70 Memorandum (n 61), para 28.Google Scholar
71 Paras 4, 8, 9, and 16.Google Scholar
72 20 Nov 2003.Google Scholar
73 Emphasis added.Google Scholar
74 See ‘Reconstructing Iraq’ IGC Middle East Report No 30, 2 Sep 2004. The privatization programme was not implemented.Google Scholar
75 30 ILR 496 at 505.Google Scholar
76 ibid 503. This is not how it would be described in contemporary times, for which see Art 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
- 29
- Cited by