The Hague Conventions of 1907 specify that "territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army." The form of administration by which an occupying power exercises government authority over occupied territory is called "military government."
Neither the Hague Conventions nor the Geneva Conventions specifically define or distinguish an act of "invasion." The terminology of "occupation" is used exclusively.
See Birkhimer, p. 25 - 26
No proclamation of the part of the victorious commander is necessary to the lawful inauguration and enforcement of military government. That government results from the fact that the former sovereignty is ousted, and the opposing army how has control. Yet the issuing such proclamation is useful as publishing to all living in the discrict occupied those rules of conduct which will govern the conqueror in the exercise of his authority. Wellington, indeed, as previously mentioned, said that the commander is bound to lay down distinctly the rules according to which his will is to be carried out. But the laws of war do not imperatively require this, and in very many instances it is not done. When it is not, the mere fact that the country is militarily occupied by the enemy is deemed sufficient notification to all concerned that the regular has been supplanted by a military government.
Explanatory Notes: When the administrative authority for the military occupation of particular areas is delegated to other troops, a "principal -- agent" relationship is in effect.
The conqueror is the principal occupying power.
This is explained as follows. For the situation where no territorial cession is involved, the military government of the principal occupying power will end with the coming into force of the peace settlement.
In the situation of a territorial cession, there must be a formal peace treaty. However, the military government of the principal occupying power does not end with the coming into force of the peace treaty.
Hence, at the most basic level, the terminology of "legally supplanted" is interpreted to mean "legally supplanted by a civil government fully recognized by the national (or "federal") government of the principal occupying power."
Like any dictatorship, a military dictatorship may be official or unofficial, and as a result may not actually qualify as stratocratic. Mixed forms also exist, where the military exerts a very strong influence without being entirely dominant.
The typical military dictatorship in Latin America was ruled by a junta (derived from a Spanish word which can be translated as "conference" or "board"), or a committee composed of several officers, often from the military's most senior leadership, but in other cases (e.g. when their military superiors remained loyal to, or indeed were, the previous regime) less senior, as evidenced by the term colonels' regime. Other military dictatorships are entirely in the hands of a single officer (also called a caudillo), usually the senior army commander. In either case, the chairman of the junta or the single commander may often personally assume office as head of state.
In the Middle East and Africa, military governments more often came to be led by a single powerful person, and were autocracies in addition to military dictatorships. Leaders like Idi Amin, Sani Abacha, Muammar al-Gaddafi, and Gamal Abdul Nasser worked to develop a personality cult and became the face of the nation inside and outside their countries.
Most military dictatorships are formed after a coup d'état has overthrown the previous government. One very different pattern was the one followed by Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq and Kim Il-sung's regime in North Korea, both of which began as one-party states, but over the course of their existence turned into military dictatorships (as their leaders donned uniforms and the military became closely involved in the government).
Conversely, other military dictatorships may gradually restore significant components of civilian government while the senior-most military commander still maintains supreme political power. In Pakistan, ruling Generals Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq (1977-1988) and Pervez Musharraf (1999-2008) have held singular referendums to elect themselves President of Pakistan for a further several years, as well as general elections voting in civilian Prime Ministers (politically subordinate to the President).
In the past, military juntas have justified their rule as a way of bringing political stability for the nation or rescuing it from the threat of "dangerous ideologies". In Latin America the threat of communism was often used, while in the Middle East the desire to oppose Israel and later Islamic fundamentalism proved an important motivating pattern. Military regimes tend to portray themselves as non-partisan, as a "neutral" party that can provide interim leadership in times of turmoil, and also tend to portray civilian politicians as corrupt and ineffective. One of the almost universal characteristics of a military government is the institution of martial law or a permanent state of emergency.
Although there are exceptions, military regimes usually have little respect for human rights and use whatever means necessary to silence political opponents. A military regime is also rarely willing to leave power unless forced to by popular revolt, whether active or imminent.
Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East have been common areas for military dictatorships. One of the reasons for this is the fact that the military often has more cohesion and institutional structure than most of the civilian institutions of society.
Military dictatorships can be contrasted with other forms of dictatorship. For example, in most current and historical Communist states, the center of power rests among civilian party officials, and very careful measures (such as political commissars and frequent rotations) are taken to prevent the military from exercising independent authority.
Since the 1990s, military dictatorships have become less common. Reasons for this include the fact that military dictatorships no longer have much international legitimacy, as well as the fact that many militaries having unsuccessfully ruled many nations are now inclined not to become involved in political disputes. Furthermore, the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union made it more difficult for military regimes to use the threat of communism as justification for their actions, or to gain support from foreign sources.
As the Cold War began to wind down, in the Middle East, regimes such as those of Syria and Egypt that were once clearly military dictatorships have switched to other forms of despotism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|