Other news outlets make similar reference to the transfer of soverignty by means of a document’s delivery from the U.S.-appointed administrator to an Iraqi official (although MSNBC reports that it was the “top Iraqi judge,” rather than prime minister, to whom Bremer handed the paperwork).
I can think of instances where (1) a colonial power voluntarily grants independence to a colony; (2) an occupying power ends its occupation of a vanquished military adversary; or (3) a trustee nation cedes control of a trust territory that is achieving self-government. But I have never seen a document whose delivery instantly effects the changed status. My question is, just what was it that Administrator Bremer was handing to the Iraqi leadership? What kind of document effects a transfer of sovereignty? What are the historical antecedents for such a document?
Interesting question! I’ll try to check tomorrow at work if I can find a text of what Bremer signed.
As for tonight, I do not believe that any documents were signed, per se, to transfer soveriegnty back to Japan on April 28, 1952. The terms of the treaty of peace with Japan, signed with 46 countries and Japan, required that sovereignty be transfered back to Japan when a majority of the states deposited their instruments of ratification for the treaty with the United States. That occasion appears to have been marked in the US by a statement by Truman. I can’t find a record in my history books I have with me of any ceremony that occured in Tokyo, but I’ll keep looking.
Here is the text of the letter that Bremer signed to transfer sovereignty back to Iraq, and a couple related documents, also. Bremer’s letter is considerably less flowery than the letters typically used to present an ambassador’s credentials to a foreign government.
I still cannot find any other case in which a political authority stemming from a military occupation has been concluded with a letter, but I am not too familiar with the occupations of Germany, Austria, and other European countries after WW2.
What about when the U.S. invaded Panama in 1989 and deposed Manuel Noriega? Didn’t the U.S. occupy Panama for a while until a new government could be established? how was the transfer accomplished then?
It appears that the US never undertook a political occupation of Panama that would have suspended Panama’s sovereignty. It is my understanding that President Endara was actually sworn in as the invasion was beginning on December 20, 1989.
Further, on December 27, the Panama Electoral Tribunal “invalidated the Noreiga regime’s annulment of the May 1989 election and confirmed the victory of opposition candidates under the leadership of President Guillermo Endara, and Vice Presidents Guillermo Ford and Ricardo Arias Calderon.” Cite.
In the case of Germany souvereignty was transferred not by unilateral proclamation but by a series of treaties, where West Germany/Germany took on obligations and the Western Allies/the Allies granted souvereingty in specific areas in return:
1949: Petersberg treaty (Western Allies/West Germany) - W. Germany commits to not having armed forces - effective end of dismantling of industrial plants for shipping to Allied countries, W. Germany may open diplomatic relations and become a member of international organizations. State of war is not ended; Western Allied High Commissioners remain highest authority in W. Germany.
1955: Paris treaty (Western Allies/West Germany) - W. Germany becomes a NATO member (provides troops for Western Europe’s defence), foregoes any future possession of WMD - W. Germany almost totally souvereign, minus residual Allied rights particularly in Berlin.
1990: Two plus Four treaty: Allies (including USSR) agree to termination of remaining rights deriving from their being victorious in WWII (as opposed to: rights deriving from treaties) - Germany foregoes (again) WMD possession, (again) any claims to formerly German territory, armed forces in excess of 370,000.
The difference in the case of Iraq might be that there is no parliament yet that could ratify a treaty.