For a territorial cession after war, does the military occupation end when the peace treaty comes into force?

I am interested in military occupation issues. Although I have researched quite a bit of information on the internet, including US Army Field Manuals, I am still somewhat confused about the functioning of military occupation in areas which become "territorial cessions" in a peace treaty.

In particular, in regard to a territorial cession after war, I am wondering if the military occupation ends when the peace treaty comes into force? In answering such a question, what are the legal rationale and references? Are there various precedents which can be cited? Have any US Supreme Court cases dealt with this issue?

6 Answers

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Military occupation is conducted under military government.

    Military government is the form of administration by which an occupying power exercises governmental authority over occupied territory.

    The relevant rule which specifies the criteria for determining the end of military government jurisdiction is as follows: "Military government continues until legally supplanted."

    Applying this to territorial cessions after war, it is immediately seen that the military government of the (principal) occupying power does not end with the coming into force of the peace treaty.

    Relevant references are as follows --

    ----- DOOLEY v. U S, 182 U.S. 222 (1901) -----

    We have no doubt, however, that, from the necessities of the case, the right to administer the government of Porto Rico continued in the military commander after the ratification of the treaty and until further action by Congress. Reference: Cross v. Harrison, 16 How. 182, 14 L. ed. 896. At the same time, while the right to administer the government continued, the conclusion of the treaty of peace and the cession of the island to the United States were not without their significance.

    ----- DE LIMA v. BIDWELL, 182 U.S. 1 (1901) -----

    The next case is that of Cross v. Harrison, 16 How. 164, 14 L. ed. 889. This was an action of assumpsit to recover back moneys paid to Harrison while acting as collector at the port of San Francisco, for tonnage and duties upon merchandise imported from foreign countries into California between February 2, 1848,-- the date of the treaty of peace between the United States and Mexico,-- and November 13, 1849, when the collector appointed by the President (according to an act of Congress passed March 3, 1849) entered upon his duties. Plaintiffs insisted that, until such collector had been appointed, California was and continued to be after the date of the treaty a foreign territory, and hence that no duties were payable as upon an importation into the United States. The plaintiffs proceeded upon the theory, stated in the dictum in Fleming v. Page, that duties had never been held to accrue to the United States in her newly acquired territories until provision was made by act of Congress for their collection, and that the revenue laws had always been held to speak only as to the United States and its territories existing at the time when the several acts were passed. The collector had [182 U.S. 1, 185] been appointed by the military governor of California, and duties were assessed, after the treaty, according to the United States tariff act of 1846. In holding that these duties were properly assessed, Mr. Justice Wayne cited with apparent approval a dispatch written by Mr. Buchanan, then Secretary of State, and a circular letter issued by the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Robert J. Walker, holding that from the necessities of the case the military government established in California did not cease to exist with the treaty of peace, but continued as a government de facto until Congress should provide a territorial government. "The great law of necessity," says Mr. Buchanan, "justifies this conclusion. The consent of the people is irresistibly inferred from the fact that no civilized community could possibly desire to abrogate an existing government, when the alternative presented would be to place themselves in a state of anarchy, beyond the protection of all laws, and reduce them to the unhappy necessity of submitting to the dominion of the strongest."

    ----- SANTAIGO v. NOGUERAS, 214 U.S. 260 (1909) -----

    By the ratifications of the treaty of peace, Porto Rico ceased to be subject to the Crown of Spain, and became subject to the legislative power of Congress. But the civil government of the United States cannot extend immediately and of its own force over conquered and ceded territory.

    ----- CROSS v. HARRISON, 57 U.S. 164 (1853) -----

    The territory had been ceded as a conquest, and was to be preserved and governed as such until the sovereignty to which it had passed had legislated for it. That sovereignty was the United States, under the Constitution, by which power had been given to Congress to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States, ... with only such limitations as are expressed in the section in which this power is given. The government, of which Colonel Mason was the executive, had its origin in the lawful exercise of a belligerent right over a conquered territory. It had been instituted during the war by the command of the President of the United States. It was the government when the territory was ceded as a conquest, and it did not cease, as a matter of course, or as a necessary consequence of the restoration of peace.

    Also see --

    Military Government and Martial Law, by William E. Birkhimer, 3rd edition, 1914, page 26: "Military government continues until legally supplanted."

  • Anonymous
    4 years ago

    In a word no. The Philippines remained a US colony until the eastern invaded in WW2. Even then the U. S. became reluctant to permit independence following WW2. the U. S. retained a defense force presence interior the Philippines until 1991 whilst the final everlasting bases have been closed, following a gesture of uncommon braveness whilst the Philippines senate desperate to no longer renew the leases. This braveness became inspired by ability of the actuality that Clark Airforce base have been evacuated and thoroughly destroyed, and Subic Bay Naval Base heavily broken by ability of the eruption of Mt Pinatubo. Cuba became administered by ability of a US peace treaty following the tip of the Spanish American conflict. This effectively meant colonisation. This became initially to be a 20 year treaty, yet in 1902 the newly elected Roosevelt granted Cuba independence. lower back this did no longer propose the tip human beings defense force presence. Even under this "independence" the U. S. could desire to interfere in inner Cuban affairs and maintained a presence at Guantanamo Bay. This independence lasted 4 years in the previous Cuba became lower back placed under US care. In 1909 Cuba lower back took administration of this is very own affairs, in spite of the actuality that still with US supervision and this status persevered until Castro took potential in 1959. Even then, the U. S. has maintained this is presence at Guantanamo Bay. Guam and Puerto Rico proceed to be territories of the U. S. right this moment.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    There are phase out periods. For example in Germany and Japan, we had a whole lot more military presence just after the war, and as things settled down into the day to day, we were able to draw back, but we still to this day hold a sizable presence in both countries.

  • as far as i know we still have troops in germany almost 60 years after the war ,and we still have air bases in england and we still have bases in japan .

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Those would be terms of the treaty.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    history says NO.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.