think, now generally acknowledged, is that a military
occupation, however long it may last, does not ipso
facto transfer sovereignty over the territory
occupied to the invader, see Oppenheim Vol. 2, 6th
edition, 1944. pp. 338 and 482, and although I have
not the document by me at the moment, I recall that
in the declaration of the four Allied Powers setting
up a military government in Germany, those powers
expressly repudiated any intention of annexing German
territory so that, theoretically, the sovereignty of
the German State still continues, notwithstanding the
occupation. Nevertheless, the occupying power actually
exercises authority, and as the lawful sovereign is
not in a position to provide an administration or to
maintain order in the occupied area, these functions
must be assumed by the occupying power. Certain
principles are laid down by customary international
law and by the Hague Regulations regarding the
limitations on the exercise of authority by the
occupying power. He has, for example, the duty of
administering the country according to the existing
laws and existing rules of administration.
respect family honour rights, private property, etc.
On the other hand, the inhabitants are under the
martial law of the occupying power and that power has
the right to inflict punishment for breaches of proper
rules laid down by him through martial law.
43 of the Hague Regulations provides
-
He must
Article
"The authority of the legitimate power having
actually passed into the hands of the occupant,
the latter shall take all steps in his power to
re-establish and ensure as far as possible public
order and safety, while respecting, unless
absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the
Country".
Westlake Part 2 (War), writing in 1907, commented on
this/