# What does international law say about conquered lands? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 25, 2016, 9:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-international-law-say-about-conquered-lands/775592 "2016-12-25T09:48:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2016, 9:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-international-law-say-about-conquered-lands/775592/1 "2016-12-25T09:48:54Z")
Israel as most of you know was recently condemned by the UN for continuing settlement activity on the West Bank, calling it a “flagrant violation of international law”. But what international laws govern territory taken in war? Under what circumstances can a conquering country claim it’s theirs and have it recognized as such? Is Tibet legally a part of China? Is the Crimea legally part of Russia? What about Kashmir? Is there a legal difference between disputed territories and conquered or occupied territories? Or is international law just whatever the security council says it is? ---
**Author:** ![up\_the\_junction](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f1d935/32.png) [@up\_the\_junction](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/up_the_junction)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2016, 10:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-international-law-say-about-conquered-lands/775592/2 "2016-12-25T10:24:14Z")
[The law is seen to be the 4th Geneva Convention](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law_and_Israeli_settlements) and has been interpreted consistently for 40 years by every international court: > [@](#): > > The reconvened Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions has declared the settlements illegal[15] as has the primary judicial organ of the UN, the International Court of Justice[16] and the International Committee of the Red Cross. In other words, the entire world hates Jews. Etc, etc, ad naumeum. But you would say that when it involves a whole lot of _free_ land and a lot of self-interests to serve. tbh, the issue isn’t so much the occupying power as the rights of the occupied and oppressed people. ---
**Author:** ![Ramira](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ramira/32/344_2.png) [@Ramira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramira)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2016, 11:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-international-law-say-about-conquered-lands/775592/3 "2016-12-25T11:10:10Z")
Indeed, it is only in the Israeli case where suddenly the Americans argue in a different fashion, for the Cowboy wild west law… In another case, in the wider MENA region there is the Western Sahara where there is also a refusal to recognize an annexation claim (the annexation by the Morocco of the old Spanish Sahara on the Spanish unilateral withdrawal at the end of the Franco era), and this despite that unlike the Israeli case, the Moroccan government has given the full and unrestricted citizenship to the Saharans. But the ongoing basis of the refusal of the Moroccan authorities to hold a confirming referendum with the indigenous population (as the two sides can not come to an agreement on who can qualify as the indigenous - a problem not 100percent political as there was explusions and flight of the near 100percent nomade population in the Franco era, and the nomadic tribes extended and transited across the colonial boundaries drawn up in the European capitals…). So we can see in an ‘Arab’ case that the international community,although having no great enthusiasm for the idea of the Western Sahara to be a country, refusing also to recognize, even in the instance where the occupying country gives the full citizenship The case of the Kashmir, both the Pakistani and the Indian sides do not deny the populations in their zones the citizenship and the general rights of the population as a general matter, it is not comparable at all. (I do not have the right knowledge to comment on the Tibet). The Israel is seeking a special treatment as it does not either want to commit to the obligations of an annexation and thus the obligations to the population in term of the equality of the treatment and the access to citizenship , nor does it wish to renounce its slow drip drip drip annexation of the best lands in actual fact. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2016, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-international-law-say-about-conquered-lands/775592/4 "2016-12-25T12:05:07Z")
> [@Ramira](#): > > The case of the Kashmir\*\*, both the Pakistani \*\*and the Indian sides do not deny the populations in their zones the citizenship and the general rights of the population as a general matter, it is not comparable at all. (I do not have the right knowledge to comment on the Tibet). In Pakistans case the current Prime Minister and the recently retired military chief are both Kashmiri, though both born outside. ---
**Author:** ![Flyer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/flyer/32/7298_2.png) [@Flyer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flyer)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2016, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-international-law-say-about-conquered-lands/775592/5 "2016-12-25T15:03:38Z")
I personally have no use whatsoever for so-called international “law.” It’s a masturbatory exercise in wishful thinking by people who don’t understand how the world really works. For an example, did you know that every Allied soldier in WW2 was a war criminal? And that the war itself was illegal? Now that sounds like a ludicrous statement–and in point of fact, it is. But that’s what international “law” says. The Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928 “outlawed” war. The whole world would be much better off if we could convince people to forget about the whole idiotic concept. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2016, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-international-law-say-about-conquered-lands/775592/6 "2016-12-25T15:36:31Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > I personally have no use whatsoever for so-called international “law.” It’s a masturbatory exercise in wishful thinking by people who don’t understand how the world really works. > > For an example, did you know that every Allied soldier in WW2 was a war criminal? And that the war itself was illegal? Now that sounds like a ludicrous statement–and in point of fact, it is. But that’s what international “law” says. The Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928 “outlawed” war. > > The whole world would be much better off if we could convince people to forget about the whole idiotic concept. :rolleyes: Learn how international law works first _then_ make statements like that. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2016, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-international-law-say-about-conquered-lands/775592/7 "2016-12-25T15:44:08Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > The Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928 “outlawed” war. When the United States Senate approved the treaty, it explicitly stated it did not prohibit countries fighting in self-defense. As Japan and Germany both declared war on the United States in 1941, we were not in violation of the treaty by fighting. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2016, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-international-law-say-about-conquered-lands/775592/8 "2016-12-25T15:49:26Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > When the United States Senate approved the treaty, it explicitly stated it did not prohibit countries fighting in self-defense. As Japan and Germany both declared war on the United States in 1941, we were not in violation of the treaty by fighting. Much more to the point, international law does not generally, unless expressly stated AND incorporated into a state’s own legal system; create liabilities for _individuals_. It applies to nation states. And the Kellog-Briand pact did not do so. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2016, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-international-law-say-about-conquered-lands/775592/9 "2016-12-25T16:08:10Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > :rolleyes: > Learn how international law works first _then_ make statements like that. No kidding. If I wandered into a thread on vaccination and posted this degree of nonsense, I would never hear the end of it. ---
**Author:** ![up\_the\_junction](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f1d935/32.png) [@up\_the\_junction](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/up_the_junction)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2016, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-international-law-say-about-conquered-lands/775592/10 "2016-12-25T16:55:15Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > When the United States Senate approved the treaty, it explicitly stated it did not prohibit countries fighting in self-defense. As Japan and Germany both declared war on the United States in 1941, we were not in violation of the treaty by fighting. I can’t imagine too many countries signing a treaty that prohibits self defence … The UK had a mutual defence treaty with Poland which, on the invasion, caused Churchill to declare war on Germany. ---
**Author:** ![madsircool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madsircool/32/3432_2.png) [@madsircool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madsircool)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2016, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-international-law-say-about-conquered-lands/775592/11 "2016-12-25T17:04:06Z")
> [@up\_the\_junction](#): > > I can’t imagine too many countries signing a treaty that prohibits self defence … > > The UK had a mutual defence treaty with Poland which, on the invasion, caused Churchill to declare war on Germany. Why, then, didn’t the UK declare war on the Soviet Union two weeks later? ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2016, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-international-law-say-about-conquered-lands/775592/12 "2016-12-25T17:19:52Z")
> [@up\_the\_junction](#): > > The UK had a mutual defence treaty with Poland which, on the invasion, caused Churchill to declare war on Germany. That’s an amazing treaty provision, giving a backbench Conservative MP the power to declare war. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2016, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-international-law-say-about-conquered-lands/775592/13 "2016-12-25T17:49:34Z")
> [@madsircool](#): > > Why, then, didn’t the UK declare war on the Soviet Union two weeks later? Because Britain’s treaty obligation was to protect Poland from invasion by any “European power”. Under the terms of the treaty, the USSR was not a European power, only Germany was. The UK therefore had a treaty obligation to declare war on Germany once it invaded Poland, but did not have a treaty obligation to declare war on the USSR. See post 13 in this thread from 2013: > **[USSR invasion of Poland, why didn't Britain/France declare war?](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=273206)** > > In 1939, while Germany invaded Poland, the USSR went in and invaded the Eastern side of Poland. England and France were quick to declare war on Germany, how did they view Stalin’s invasion? ---
**Author:** ![madsircool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madsircool/32/3432_2.png) [@madsircool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madsircool)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2016, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-international-law-say-about-conquered-lands/775592/14 "2016-12-25T17:50:44Z")
Thank you for the link. ---
**Author:** ![up\_the\_junction](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f1d935/32.png) [@up\_the\_junction](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/up_the_junction)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2016, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-international-law-say-about-conquered-lands/775592/15 "2016-12-25T18:49:11Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > That’s an amazing treaty provision, giving a backbench Conservative MP the power to declare war. You must be into this fake facts thing all the kids are talking about. ---
**Author:** ![madsircool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madsircool/32/3432_2.png) [@madsircool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madsircool)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2016, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-international-law-say-about-conquered-lands/775592/16 "2016-12-25T19:36:15Z")
> [@up\_the\_junction](#): > > You must be into this fake facts thing all the kids are talking about. Chamberlain was still PM when war was declared iirc. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2016, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-international-law-say-about-conquered-lands/775592/17 "2016-12-25T19:38:28Z")
> [@Ramira](#): > > Indeed, it is only in the Israeli case where suddenly the Americans argue in a different fashion, for the Cowboy wild west law… > > In another case, in the wider MENA region there is the Western Sahara where there is also a refusal to recognize an annexation claim (the annexation by the Morocco of the old Spanish Sahara on the Spanish unilateral withdrawal at the end of the Franco era), and this despite that unlike the Israeli case, the Moroccan government has given the full and unrestricted citizenship to the Saharans. But the ongoing basis of the refusal of the Moroccan authorities to hold a confirming referendum with the indigenous population (as the two sides can not come to an agreement on who can qualify as the indigenous - a problem not 100percent political as there was explusions and flight of the near 100percent nomade population in the Franco era, and the nomadic tribes extended and transited across the colonial boundaries drawn up in the European capitals…). > > So we can see in an ‘Arab’ case that the international community,although having no great enthusiasm for the idea of the Western Sahara to be a country, refusing also to recognize, even in the instance where the occupying country gives the full citizenship > > The case of the Kashmir, both the Pakistani and the Indian sides do not deny the populations in their zones the citizenship and the general rights of the population as a general matter, it is not comparable at all. (I do not have the right knowledge to comment on the Tibet). > > The Israel is seeking a special treatment as it does not either want to commit to the obligations of an annexation and thus the obligations to the population in term of the equality of the treatment and the access to citizenship , nor does it wish to renounce its slow drip drip drip annexation of the best lands in actual fact. Not only that, but Israel refuses to even call them “occupied terrorities” because settlement building in occupied territory is explicitly illegal and maps in Israel don’t typically even have the green line on them. As one Israeli professor puts it. > [@](#): > > in Israeli textbooks, 76% of maps show no boundaries between Palestinian territories and Israel, and Palestinian areas are not labeled. “Since these maps are generally presented as maps of Israel, the absence of borders between Israel and Palestine can be seen as implying that the Palestinian areas are part of the state of Israel,” says the report, Victims of Our Own Narratives? Portrayal of the “Other” in Israeli and Palestinian School Books. [http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/196424/the-one-map-solution](http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/196424/the-one-map-solution) ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2016, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-international-law-say-about-conquered-lands/775592/18 "2016-12-25T20:07:17Z")
> [@madsircool](#): > > Thank you for the link. You’re welcome. For more detail, see the wiki article on the Anglo-Polish military alliance: > **[Anglo-Polish alliance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Polish_military_alliance)** > > The military alliance between the United Kingdom and Poland was formalised by the Anglo-Polish Agreement in 1939, with subsequent addenda of 1940 and 1944, for mutual assistance in case of a military invasion from Nazi Germany, as specified in a secret protocol. > The United Kingdom had been attempting to create a four-way alliance to contain Germany, with France, Poland and the Soviet Union. Poland's Jozef Beck was disturbed by the prospect of any alliance with the Soviets. He also feared the rea... ---
**Author:** ![up\_the\_junction](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f1d935/32.png) [@up\_the\_junction](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/up_the_junction)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2016, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-international-law-say-about-conquered-lands/775592/19 "2016-12-25T21:59:45Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > That’s an amazing treaty provision, giving a backbench Conservative MP the power to declare war. > [@madsircool](#): > > Chamberlain was still PM when war was declared iirc. Apologies. I take the point and blame Christmas excess … ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2016, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-international-law-say-about-conquered-lands/775592/20 "2016-12-26T05:24:59Z")
So what other territories in the world are legally regarded as occupied? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-international-law-say-about-conquered-lands/775592.md?page=2)