Occupation And Annexation Essay ⋆ Political Science Essay Examples ⋆ EssayEmpire

Occupation and annexation are central concepts in the study of international security. Both are common outcomes when military force is employed, yet both pose difficult practical, legal, and moral questions for states in international politics.

Occupation

In general, occupation is legally defined as the effective control of a state, or group of states, over a territory to which that power has no sovereign title, without the volition of the sovereign of that territory. As opposed to annexation, occupations are, by definition, temporary. They can occur dur ing war for the purpose of holding territory or they can occur after war for the purpose of transforming a former adversary. Military occupations can be divided into five unique types: security occupations, comprehensive occupations, restorative occupations, collateral occupations, and caretaker occupations.

Types Of Occupations

Security occupations seek to prevent the occupied country from becoming a threat to the occupying power or to other states, as well as to ensure that the occupied territory does not become a destabilizing influence in its region. They refrain, however, from remaking the political or economic system of the occupied country, aiming instead only to prevent the occupied country from posing a threat to international security. For example, the Allied occupation of the Rhineland in the aftermath of World War I (1914–1918) was primarily intended to prevent the reemergence of a powerful Germany. While France initially advocated Rhenish independence, none of the occupying powers ultimately hoped to install a particular government in the Rhineland; instead, their goal was simply to limit the ability of Germany to again pose a threat to their security.

Comprehensive occupations also seek primarily to secure the interests of the occupying power and long-term stability, but they are distinct from security occupations in that they also aim to introduce a stable political system and a productive economy. Thus, comprehensive occupations are closer to what might be thought of as state-building. The U.S. occupation of Japan and the four-power occupation of Germany after World War II (1939–1945) are the best-known examples of comprehensive occupation. More recently, the U.S. occupation of Iraq after the 2003 war is typical of a comprehensive occupation. In contrast, the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan has sought success without occupying all of Afghanistan, but the goals of the two missions share much with comprehensive occupations of the past.

Restorative occupations seek to restore order in another country without imposing a new political system. Often, the motive of these occupations is to protect either the security or the economic interests of the occupying country within the occupied state by bolstering a threatened leader. These occupations may pursue the replacement of an unreliable leader, but they are not intended to install an entirely new political system. The American intervention in Nicaragua between 1927 and 1934 to oust Augusto César Sandino is an example of a restorative occupation.

Collateral occupations hold foreign territory until some indemnity is repaid. For example, following the Franco-Prussian War (1870–1871), fifty thousand German troops occupied six departments of France until the French paid 1.5 billion francs in war reparations. When the French finished paying on September 16, 1873, the German troops withdrew.

Finally, caretaker occupations are designed simply to hold a territory until a long-term settlement of the status of the territory is devised. The only evident cases of caretaker occupations are the British occupations of Cyrenaica, Tripolitania, Eritrea, and Somalia in the wake of World War II. In these cases, London had no intention of retaining these territories nor did they have particularly ambitious objectives while they controlled them. Instead, Britain simply was holding these territories until the United Nations (UN) could decide their postwar fate.

Annexation

In contrast to occupation, annexation refers to the permanent acquisition of a territory by a foreign power. Unlike occupation, annexing powers usually have no intention of returning sovereignty to the people of the annexed territory. Many great powers have historically been built through the process of annexation.

For example, in the nineteenth century the United States grew from its origins on the eastern coast of North America to a continental power through the process of annexation. Some of this land, such as the Louisiana Purchase, was acquired through simple financial transactions while other land was more contentiously seized from other groups and powers.

Occupation And Annexation At Issue

Both occupation and annexation are at the center of important debates in international relations. These debates center on the practical impediments to successful occupation and annexation, the legal requirements of states undertaking occupation or annexation, and the moral dilemmas that the occupation or annexation of foreign territory pose. With regard to military occupation, some focus on the legality of military occupation under the Hague Conventions and the consequent responsibility of military occupiers during the time in which they occupy a foreign territory. Others focus on the reasons why military occupation has been more or less successful under certain conditions. In particular, in the wake of the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq after the 2003 war, scholars and practitioners alike have examined whether military occupation can be an effective tool for building stable and sustainable nation-states. This debate divides into arguments about the most effective ways to counter an insurgency, on the one hand, and whether post conflict military occupation is a wise instrument of foreign policy. Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, debates continued in 2009 over whether more troops alone can enable an occupation to succeed. Finally, some scholars of international relations identify occupation as a potential cause of other important phenomena, such as terrorism. According to the logic of one argument, occupation breeds nationalist resentment that often manifests itself in violent attacks against occupying powers.

Debates over annexation largely focus on the value of annexation in the emerging postindustrial age. When economies were largely based on agriculture and traditional heavy industry, conquest and annexation could provide significant benefits to an annexing power. Arguably, the growth of information economies has undermined the value of traditional territorial conquest. For some, however, annexation continues to be viewed as a valuable way of increasing a state’s material power.

In the future, debates about occupation and annexation are likely to continue. The complex practical, legal, and moral questions that they raise guarantee that they will remain contentious concepts.

Bibliography:

Benvenisti, Eyal. The International Law of Occupation. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1993.
Edelstein, David M. Occupational Hazards: Success and Failure in Military Occupation. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2008.
“Occupational Hazards:Why Military Occupations Succeed or Fail.” International Security 30, no. 1 (Summer 2004): 49–91.
Liberman, Peter. Does Conquest Pay? The Exploitation of Occupied Industrial Societies. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1996.
Pape, Robert A. Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism. New York: Random House, 2005.
Roberts, Adam. “What is a Military Occupation?” British Yearbook of International Law 55 (1984): 249–305.

This example Occupation And Annexation Essay is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need a custom essay or research paper on this topic please use our writing services. EssayEmpire.com offers reliable custom essay writing services that can help you to receive high grades and impress your professors with the quality of each essay or research paper you hand in.