1 00:00:00,370 --> 00:00:05,730 Well, let's move to the the main purpose of today, which is the product from the CCL five. 2 00:00:06,030 --> 00:00:10,710 Many of you will know, Professor, I'm a member of this university. 3 00:00:11,250 --> 00:00:13,530 She's a Tetreault fellow at Lincoln College. 4 00:00:13,530 --> 00:00:21,570 And since she last spoke to us here in this format, she's become a fellow of the British Academy, which is a tremendous honour. 5 00:00:21,600 --> 00:00:27,120 We congratulate her on that. And she has a forthcoming book with Oxford University Press called Cosmopolitan. 6 00:00:29,310 --> 00:00:33,870 Great to see you. Thank you very much for inviting me to do this talk. 7 00:00:35,610 --> 00:00:44,730 I for coming to this talk as well. This afternoon, I'm going to talk about the ethics of belligerent occupation. 8 00:00:45,450 --> 00:00:51,180 And it's a subject which is important to me for two reasons. 9 00:00:51,190 --> 00:00:57,479 First of all, hardly anyone in the philosophy of war talks about military occupation. 10 00:00:57,480 --> 00:01:02,850 So it's always nice to latch on to something which is relatively underexplored. 11 00:01:03,960 --> 00:01:09,930 But the topic also has a very deep personal resonance for me for the following reasons. 12 00:01:10,770 --> 00:01:22,320 One, You will know, of course, that between 1940 and 1944, most of my home countries territory, France, was occupied by the German army. 13 00:01:23,670 --> 00:01:31,620 My maternal grandmother, her parents and her sister were living in Normandy, which was occupied by the Germans at the time, 14 00:01:31,770 --> 00:01:39,480 and they had to share literally their house with five German soldiers for the duration of the war. 15 00:01:40,020 --> 00:01:47,820 Now, most of those soldiers only stayed for a few weeks, but two of them stayed for two and a half years. 16 00:01:48,930 --> 00:01:58,740 Now, the soldiers were all very young, and I'm told by my grandmother were very polite, very kind, very shy. 17 00:01:58,910 --> 00:02:05,040 Lived on the second floor of the house and my family had the use of the ground and first floor. 18 00:02:06,840 --> 00:02:16,830 And so occupiers and occupied had no choice every single day but to pass each other in the stairs, in the kitchen or in the courtyard. 19 00:02:17,040 --> 00:02:28,410 My relatives had to decide every single day for four years whether to respond to the soldiers, attempt to engage in conversation, 20 00:02:29,190 --> 00:02:38,460 whether to comfort those very young soldiers when the latter would break down in the yard, having heard dreadful news from home. 21 00:02:39,300 --> 00:02:48,860 They had to decide, and my relatives had to decide whether to sell their soldiers a turkey for Christmas, as were likely requested. 22 00:02:48,870 --> 00:03:02,280 In other words, they had to decide every single day for four years and in their own home whether to treat those five soldiers primarily as enemies, 23 00:03:02,490 --> 00:03:06,210 primarily as human beings, or a little bit of both. 24 00:03:07,650 --> 00:03:11,940 Treat them as enemies and risk their anger for those soldiers. 25 00:03:11,940 --> 00:03:20,880 However young, however shy, however polite, nevertheless were bearing arms and were on the lookout for resistance activity. 26 00:03:22,440 --> 00:03:27,800 Treat them as human beings and risks the anger of your compatriots who could 27 00:03:27,810 --> 00:03:33,270 denounce you as resistance in the early stages of the war or collaborators. 28 00:03:33,480 --> 00:03:41,910 In its closing stages. Now, crucially, these young men to hurt you make similar decisions. 29 00:03:42,780 --> 00:03:47,370 They had to decide how to treat my relatives, particularly the two young girl. 30 00:03:47,370 --> 00:03:48,310 Young women, you know, 31 00:03:48,330 --> 00:03:57,390 really treat them with care and compassion and risk the anger of your superior officers and the place on the next convoy to Stalingrad. 32 00:03:58,200 --> 00:04:04,919 Treat them with harshness and risk losing any goodwill that those people might 33 00:04:04,920 --> 00:04:10,650 have towards you in whose house you live and whose cooperation you need. 34 00:04:13,140 --> 00:04:16,620 Now, occupying forces are no longer billeted in civilian houses. 35 00:04:16,620 --> 00:04:25,139 They live in military bases of their own, which can spool into and involve in two small human towns as the occupation goes on. 36 00:04:25,140 --> 00:04:32,400 Nevertheless, occupied populations are in daily contact with occupying forces in the knowledge that they are, 37 00:04:32,490 --> 00:04:38,520 more often than not are largely powerless in that extraordinarily complex and multi-faceted 38 00:04:38,520 --> 00:04:45,180 relationship to which the status and the role of the soldiers as occupiers is absolutely central. 39 00:04:46,450 --> 00:04:57,209 Now, negotiating these complex relationships, literally living with the enemy, does not always require prompt decisions and solemn gestures. 40 00:04:57,210 --> 00:05:04,980 More often than not, it requires. Acts of moral compromise, which might not seem very significant when taken on their own, 41 00:05:05,610 --> 00:05:15,690 but whose cumulative effect under the shadow of war can and does corrode the civilians self-respect and integrity. 42 00:05:17,460 --> 00:05:22,830 It seems to me that military occupation, particularly when it takes place as the war still goes on, 43 00:05:23,250 --> 00:05:28,530 is one of the harshest diplomatic conditions which individuals might have to face. 44 00:05:29,250 --> 00:05:34,920 And yet, despite the revival of the ethics of war in the last 40 years or so, 45 00:05:35,580 --> 00:05:45,240 indeed despite Israel's decade long occupation of the West Bank, the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan by the US led coalition. 46 00:05:45,360 --> 00:05:50,640 There is a dearth of works on this particular phenomenon, though we could speculate about this. 47 00:05:50,670 --> 00:05:57,450 I suspect that one of the reasons why philosophers of war have spent very little time in the last 48 00:05:57,450 --> 00:06:03,029 decades or so talking about military occupation is because most of them come from countries the US, 49 00:06:03,030 --> 00:06:13,530 Canada, Australia and New Zealand whose armies have occupied these countries of not being occupied in living memory, 50 00:06:13,650 --> 00:06:21,090 to say the least, in the case of Britain. We have to go back to 1866 to find an instance of military occupations from the Netherlands. 51 00:06:21,180 --> 00:06:32,909 As it happens, it's quick and easy or relatively easy, it seems to me, to not have to think about occupation when it takes place far away from home. 52 00:06:32,910 --> 00:06:36,120 And when you don't have in your family, you know, someone who is deployed. 53 00:06:36,600 --> 00:06:42,080 It's much harder to ignore it when you can still find traces of its legacy long after the fact. 54 00:06:42,090 --> 00:06:51,270 In our case, in the form of German army invoices, which had been left to gather dust and four bedroom floorboards for 60 years. 55 00:06:52,090 --> 00:07:02,610 And so this is my topic today, more precisely, the dilemmas which I've described, you know, the start of this talk, one feature of occupation, 56 00:07:03,810 --> 00:07:06,060 albeit one of its most poignant, 57 00:07:06,060 --> 00:07:13,530 but I think equally significant and my focus today are the more rights and duties which occupiers are occupied have vis a vis one another, 58 00:07:13,740 --> 00:07:16,860 who, in order to describe a particular situation as a dilemma, 59 00:07:17,100 --> 00:07:24,329 you need to have a sense as to whether or not which the options that you might be tempted to pursue are indeed morally right, 60 00:07:24,330 --> 00:07:28,590 or as the case may be, morally wrong. And in particular, 61 00:07:28,860 --> 00:07:33,719 one must have a sense of the extent to which one would want others by choosing a 62 00:07:33,720 --> 00:07:39,150 particular course of action vis a vis occupiers or choosing another course of action. 63 00:07:40,680 --> 00:07:44,579 Moreover, those who live under a military occupation typically have a very, 64 00:07:44,580 --> 00:07:51,150 very strong set of views about what is the right or the wrong thing to do vis a vis occupying forces, 65 00:07:51,840 --> 00:07:57,060 as witnessed by the extraordinarily harsh treatment, both judicial and extrajudicial, 66 00:07:57,630 --> 00:08:02,670 you know, meted out to those fairly large categories of civilians. 67 00:08:03,330 --> 00:08:09,990 After the end of the Second World War, those civilians who were deemed to have collaborated with the enemy, 68 00:08:10,560 --> 00:08:14,640 or indeed as witnessed by the very harsh judgements typically made on those who, 69 00:08:14,880 --> 00:08:23,280 on the contrary, resist occupying forces and in so doing, expose their compatriots to very severe reprisals. 70 00:08:25,080 --> 00:08:30,420 And I think, therefore, it pays carefully to examine whether those judgements are correct. 71 00:08:31,650 --> 00:08:37,260 So this is what I want to do. This afternoon I want to begin to sketch an account of the more rights and more 72 00:08:37,260 --> 00:08:42,000 duties of belligerent occupants and occupied populations vs of one another. 73 00:08:42,690 --> 00:08:46,890 And my central claim. Oh, by the way, sorry, I should have asked this. Does everyone have a hand out? 74 00:08:47,490 --> 00:08:51,180 You know. Oh, there's some spares at the back. 75 00:08:52,050 --> 00:08:59,560 They can produce performances. I hate to say they are some comedy you can show them. 76 00:08:59,600 --> 00:09:06,120 You are so sorry for the interruption. 77 00:09:06,120 --> 00:09:16,199 I should have checked that. So the claim that I'm going to defend today is that the rights and duties of occupied populations and occupying 78 00:09:16,200 --> 00:09:24,820 forces are very largely dependent on the role status of the war which led to the occupation in the first instance. 79 00:09:24,840 --> 00:09:32,340 And in defending that view, I set myself against international law as it stands and against the set of moral 80 00:09:32,340 --> 00:09:37,079 principles and values which underpins the international law over occupation. 81 00:09:37,080 --> 00:09:40,620 So I shall proceed as follows. First, 82 00:09:40,620 --> 00:09:50,429 I shall set out what the international law of occupation and the set of the principles which underpin it have to say about those rights and duties. 83 00:09:50,430 --> 00:09:59,410 I call that view the Orthodox view, and then will make my case to the effect that the Orthodox view is receiving by. 84 00:09:59,820 --> 00:10:05,510 Tweeting in my talk this afternoon on the case of unjust wars leading to occupation. 85 00:10:05,510 --> 00:10:14,420 In order to make my case fully, I would have first to give you an account of the rights and duties of 55 forces and occupied civilians. 86 00:10:14,660 --> 00:10:18,770 When the war which precedes the occupation, is to it is a just war. 87 00:10:18,980 --> 00:10:25,100 And I do that in the long written version of the paper. I only have 45, 50 minutes. 88 00:10:25,140 --> 00:10:26,570 I don't have the time to do this. 89 00:10:26,900 --> 00:10:35,000 So what I'm going to do instead is to look at the harder for my position, the harder case of unjust wars leading to occupation. 90 00:10:35,810 --> 00:10:41,300 Before long, into my exposition, I need to make two background claims. 91 00:10:42,890 --> 00:10:47,600 The first is that this paper falls against the background theory of justice, which I will set out. 92 00:10:47,600 --> 00:10:53,870 I will not defend it here. I stated in full on the handout briefly. 93 00:10:54,530 --> 00:10:56,270 According to that by the Ministry of Justice, 94 00:10:56,690 --> 00:11:03,890 all individuals have rights to freedoms and resources which they need in order to lead a minimally flourishing or decent life. 95 00:11:04,400 --> 00:11:12,830 In other words, fundamental human rights to basic civil and political liberties, as well as to a sufficient amount of material resources. 96 00:11:13,130 --> 00:11:25,280 Those rights correlate into duties and in particular, but prima facie a duty not to directly harm others for the sake of securing their own survival. 97 00:11:26,780 --> 00:11:34,130 At the same time, I took it for granted that there are limits to the sacrifices which they can be expected to incur for the sake of others. 98 00:11:34,790 --> 00:11:38,750 In particular, I take the view this will become important later on in the talk. 99 00:11:39,140 --> 00:11:44,450 I take the view that individuals cannot be expected to devote themselves or resources 100 00:11:44,450 --> 00:11:49,220 which they currently have if they would have a less than minimally decent life. 101 00:11:49,340 --> 00:11:54,620 As a result, the views that I set out here could be illustrated by example. 102 00:11:55,160 --> 00:12:03,830 Suppose that there is an attacker coming into the room, you know, bursting in and he's trying to kill me on the view that I set out here, 103 00:12:03,890 --> 00:12:07,930 even if the only way for me to save my life is by some sort of, you know, of course, 104 00:12:07,940 --> 00:12:13,250 a mechanism to kill David, who is completely innocent of what this is doing. 105 00:12:13,490 --> 00:12:20,290 I may not do so. I may not harm David deliberately, you know, as a means to protect myself from that attacker. 106 00:12:21,410 --> 00:12:28,460 Contrastingly However, if I only have one remaining loaf of bread in my weapon possession, 107 00:12:28,850 --> 00:12:35,780 I'm not under a duty to give David that loaf of bread if as a result, I will die of starvation. 108 00:12:36,110 --> 00:12:40,670 Even though by giving him the loaf of bread, I would save his life. 109 00:12:41,540 --> 00:12:45,020 And I'll explain later on in the talk why this point is important. 110 00:12:45,860 --> 00:12:48,500 The second background claim that I want to make, 111 00:12:48,620 --> 00:12:57,740 which is listed as being on the handout in the relevant paragraph, is that, in my view, war is unjust. 112 00:12:57,890 --> 00:13:06,600 W it if it fails to meet the requirements of Jewish schools, proportionality, reasonable chance of success and last resort. 113 00:13:06,620 --> 00:13:12,080 In this paper, we focus on cases where the war is just without just cause. 114 00:13:13,580 --> 00:13:17,600 So this is the stage, as it were, for the argument to follow. 115 00:13:17,930 --> 00:13:23,450 Let me now turn to what I call the orthodox view of belligerent occupation, 116 00:13:23,450 --> 00:13:32,750 by which I mean to refute the international law of military occupation and the set of principles and values which underpin it. 117 00:13:33,570 --> 00:13:43,700 And first, I need to make clear that my focus in this paper is belligerent occupation or occupation baleka in the juridical Latin, 118 00:13:44,090 --> 00:13:49,880 you know, scholars, belligerent occupation differs from other kinds of occupation. 119 00:13:50,570 --> 00:13:52,790 In particular, it differs from occupation. 120 00:13:52,790 --> 00:14:04,740 Following the last, you know, debate last year is the state of affairs that obtains when the enemy has collapsed completely, as Germany did in 1955. 121 00:14:05,600 --> 00:14:12,290 Belligerent occupation is a different transformative occupation that can take place where, for example, 122 00:14:12,560 --> 00:14:21,110 a party in a conflict intervenes in a humanitarian conflict and seeks from within 123 00:14:21,110 --> 00:14:28,610 to reform the target state institutional structures by belligerent occupation. 124 00:14:28,640 --> 00:14:37,670 I mean roughly for international law, an occupation which meets the following six conditions which are listed to us on the handout. 125 00:14:37,790 --> 00:14:48,080 First of all, war is ongoing. The belligerent occupier, which I will call occupants and who is taking part in that war? 126 00:14:49,040 --> 00:14:54,380 Occupant effectively exercises powers of government of the occupied territory. 127 00:14:55,370 --> 00:15:05,390 Occupied has not consented to occupiers. Occupy's own government has really been displaced or considerably weakened rather than annihilated, 128 00:15:05,870 --> 00:15:14,810 so that there is a trilateral relationship between Occupy that displaced government and the civilian population of the occupied territory. 129 00:15:15,680 --> 00:15:21,200 And finally, a peace treaty has not yet been concluded between occupant and occupied. 130 00:15:22,550 --> 00:15:26,030 So the war is ongoing in the following three senses in a sense, 131 00:15:26,030 --> 00:15:34,520 that Occupy is still engaged in a conflict largely outside the borders of occupied territory with some of the party. 132 00:15:34,880 --> 00:15:41,450 The war is ongoing also in the sense that, to repeat, a peace treaty has not been completed between occupants and occupied. 133 00:15:41,840 --> 00:15:46,560 Now, this is fairly standard as far as I can tell, having read the relevant legal literature. 134 00:15:46,580 --> 00:15:53,030 It is a fairly standard account of what is belligerent occupation in international law. 135 00:15:53,780 --> 00:16:02,970 There are some comments to make, which is that those conditions, some of these conditions do need qualifying. 136 00:16:02,990 --> 00:16:12,380 So if you look at conditions, see whereby occupant effectively exercises powers of government and of a solidarity by territory. 137 00:16:13,010 --> 00:16:16,130 It is important to note, and I will return to this later on, 138 00:16:16,490 --> 00:16:25,370 that the cooperation of local Indigenous officials is necessary for occupants to carry out its tasks with 139 00:16:25,370 --> 00:16:31,460 respect to the first condition which stipulates that Occupied has not consented to occupants control. 140 00:16:32,120 --> 00:16:43,440 Well, again, the displaced sovereign government sometimes does consent to the occupation as in fact forced it through its own government in 1940. 141 00:16:43,470 --> 00:16:48,920 It would be very odd to say that France was not occupied in the north by Germany, 142 00:16:49,280 --> 00:16:54,050 just in virtue of the fact that its own government had in fact consented to the occupation. 143 00:16:55,430 --> 00:16:58,130 Finally, with respect to this condition, 144 00:16:59,870 --> 00:17:07,250 sometimes there can be a quadrilateral relationship when there is a national liberation movement alongside the displaced regime, 145 00:17:07,810 --> 00:17:19,580 a movement which does claim to have some right to become the proper the jury government of that community once the war is over. 146 00:17:20,870 --> 00:17:31,140 Now, with this commencing place, let me very briefly outline the complex body of laws which pertain to belligerent occupation. 147 00:17:31,880 --> 00:17:40,910 They ought to be found in the so-called Hague Regulations of 1907 and the fourth Geneva Convention of 1949. 148 00:17:42,050 --> 00:17:49,310 The first point I want to make, bottom of page one, and this is really absolutely crucial for my overall argument, 149 00:17:49,310 --> 00:17:54,620 which is that in law, a military occupation is part of the use in Belgium. 150 00:17:54,760 --> 00:18:01,220 But you knew, of course, that the laws of war in general, the morality of war in particular, you know, 151 00:18:01,250 --> 00:18:08,629 divide between you use to Belgium the set of principles and ought to regulate the resort to 152 00:18:08,630 --> 00:18:15,500 war and use in below the set of rules and principles which ought to regulate conduct in war. 153 00:18:16,370 --> 00:18:21,980 No, given that it is a stipulation of a belligerent occupation that the war is still ongoing. 154 00:18:22,040 --> 00:18:24,830 It makes sense that in the international law, 155 00:18:25,550 --> 00:18:34,970 the set of rules and principles that regulate the conduct of occupants and occupied presumably one another, partakes, as it were, of use in Belgium. 156 00:18:37,760 --> 00:18:41,210 Now I stress this fully for the following reason. 157 00:18:42,230 --> 00:18:45,950 According to the laws of war and the moral principles which underpin it, 158 00:18:47,690 --> 00:18:54,820 the right strategic and liabilities of belligerents in value are the same irrespective of the moral status of their war. 159 00:18:54,830 --> 00:19:01,700 Antebellum. More precisely, soldiers on either side of the conflict at liberty to kill one another, 160 00:19:02,000 --> 00:19:06,320 irrespective of the justness of the cause for which they fight. 161 00:19:07,640 --> 00:19:15,920 So for those of you who are not necessarily very familiar with the literature on that traditional account, the Orthodox account soldier, 162 00:19:15,920 --> 00:19:28,310 a make him soldier, be in self-defence, even if he's a soldier, wrongfully takes part in the unlawful aggression of these country by his army. 163 00:19:28,850 --> 00:19:37,880 And even if that soldier rightfully takes part in his country's legitimate defence of its sovereignty and territory. 164 00:19:40,760 --> 00:19:47,240 Soldiers may also kill civilian members of BE if the latter are taking a very active part in the war. 165 00:19:48,500 --> 00:19:54,559 And the reason why soldiers on the Orthodox view on opposing sides of the war are to be deemed 166 00:19:54,560 --> 00:20:00,110 one another's moral equal has been articulated by a number of philosophers and lawyers, 167 00:20:00,110 --> 00:20:10,940 most notably Michael Ward. Sir, you really speaking individual soldiers cannot be expected to form a judgement as to the justness of the war. 168 00:20:11,960 --> 00:20:16,820 Once the war has started, they are morally on a par with respect vis a vis one another. 169 00:20:18,800 --> 00:20:26,020 Now, insofar as the law of military occupation is proper of use and value, then by implication, 170 00:20:26,030 --> 00:20:33,380 according to the law of military occupation, the rights and duties of occupying forces are the same. 171 00:20:33,710 --> 00:20:40,910 Whether or not the war which leads to the occupation is a just and unjust war. 172 00:20:42,260 --> 00:20:45,260 So on that traditional account, 173 00:20:45,890 --> 00:20:55,340 the occupation of Italy by the Americans and the British from 1943 to 1945 was subject to 174 00:20:55,340 --> 00:21:02,720 exactly the same legal regime is the occupation by Germany of her views during that period. 175 00:21:03,620 --> 00:21:13,070 Even though we might grant for the sake of argument, the invasion of Italy by the Allies in 1943 had a just cause. 176 00:21:13,760 --> 00:21:25,280 Whereas I'm assuming a hope plausibly for the sake of argument for the invasion of her enemies by Germany in 1939, 1940 lacked a just cause. 177 00:21:26,000 --> 00:21:32,540 So the first one to note about international law of occupation is that it confers symmetry or symmetry, as it were, 178 00:21:33,170 --> 00:21:36,470 between occupying force with three respective or different occupying forces, 179 00:21:36,590 --> 00:21:42,320 irrespective of the status of the war, which leads to the occupation in the first instance. 180 00:21:43,850 --> 00:21:51,560 Now, this doesn't tell you anything about the set of rights powers and duties which occupants or occupying forces enjoy. 181 00:21:52,400 --> 00:22:01,280 Briefly, you know, in a nutshell, summarising from the various two legal documents at the beginning of this paper, 182 00:22:01,280 --> 00:22:07,189 those rights and duties are the following. Now, Occupy is not sovereign. 183 00:22:07,190 --> 00:22:16,760 Suddenly over occupied territory and occupation is not explicitly not an election of the occupied country, but the occupied territory. 184 00:22:16,790 --> 00:22:20,659 Now top of page two of your handout was that occupied is not sovereign. 185 00:22:20,660 --> 00:22:28,100 It does enjoy powers of government and particular powers to issue and enforce legal directives in three cases. 186 00:22:29,240 --> 00:22:38,660 If domestic laws violate the laws of war, then occupant has the legal competence to change domestic laws and to issue new 187 00:22:38,660 --> 00:22:44,030 legal directives which will comply with the laws of war over occupied territory. 188 00:22:45,110 --> 00:22:54,679 If law and order require new directives and as a means to bolster its own war effort so occupant is deemed legally 189 00:22:54,680 --> 00:23:02,570 competent to take security measures to pass laws aimed at meeting the acute needs of occupied civilian populations. 190 00:23:03,260 --> 00:23:05,900 By introducing rationing, for example, 191 00:23:06,890 --> 00:23:13,550 it can enact taxation laws for the purpose of defraying the costs of the occupation and meeting the needs of its own forces. 192 00:23:16,610 --> 00:23:28,040 So these broadly are the considerable legal powers which occupying forces are given in international law, but occupying force forces also have duties. 193 00:23:28,580 --> 00:23:34,690 This is important to preserve order and to secure conditions for civic life. 194 00:23:34,700 --> 00:23:40,700 And this does include a duty to, for example, restrict the freedoms of occupied citizens. 195 00:23:40,700 --> 00:23:42,350 For example, freedom of movement. 196 00:23:42,710 --> 00:23:54,260 If occupant deem it to be the case that to grant a freedom of movement to occupied populations will result in breaches of law, peace and order, 197 00:23:56,750 --> 00:24:00,170 so that in the traditional laws of military occupation, 198 00:24:00,770 --> 00:24:09,830 an occupier is deemed legally competent to deem all resistant activity illegal as a unacceptable breach of peace. 199 00:24:12,760 --> 00:24:21,459 Finally, the occupying forces and their officials have rights to appropriate and requisition material resources, 200 00:24:21,460 --> 00:24:27,940 in some cases with no compensation due in other cases against compensation. 201 00:24:29,620 --> 00:24:37,510 Now interestingly, in my view, the requisitions cannot be used to meet the needs of occupant's own citizens back home. 202 00:24:39,130 --> 00:24:39,970 This is important. 203 00:24:40,000 --> 00:24:49,660 This requisitions can be used only to meet the needs of its own forces in place in occupied territory, as well as to fund its ongoing war. 204 00:24:50,110 --> 00:24:56,290 I cite this territory now without wanting to get into too many details. 205 00:24:56,600 --> 00:24:59,200 I don't need to tell you that the crucial issue here, of course, 206 00:24:59,680 --> 00:25:06,879 is that of the extent to which and the grounds upon which in law occupying forces are legally able 207 00:25:06,880 --> 00:25:14,380 to exploit natural resources should be found under the territory of occupied populations under law. 208 00:25:14,410 --> 00:25:19,090 I mean, there is a good deal of controversy, but the consensus amongst the legal scholars. 209 00:25:20,170 --> 00:25:23,410 Right, seems to be that occupant can do that. 210 00:25:24,100 --> 00:25:27,759 What it cannot do is exploit those natural resources. 211 00:25:27,760 --> 00:25:30,120 So resolve the void until there is nothing left, 212 00:25:30,460 --> 00:25:37,030 because that would be tantamount to destroying those natural resources and they are legally prohibited to do so. 213 00:25:38,590 --> 00:25:45,480 So these are the legal rights, duties and powers of occupying forces which are both occupied, you know, 214 00:25:45,520 --> 00:25:54,190 populations that you can't really start thinking about occupation without really taking on board. 215 00:25:54,190 --> 00:26:00,670 The fact that condition, in order for it to be successful in whatever you measure of success is in this particular case, 216 00:26:01,540 --> 00:26:04,560 cannot take place without putting boots on the ground. 217 00:26:04,580 --> 00:26:09,819 She can't, you know, go from an occupied territory without having ground troops. 218 00:26:09,820 --> 00:26:12,730 You cannot do it from the air. You cannot do it from the sea. 219 00:26:14,020 --> 00:26:24,010 In other words, an occupation relies on the cooperation of occupied citizens to a much greater extent than is generally acknowledged. 220 00:26:24,970 --> 00:26:30,910 You can understand why a lot of people find it very difficult to talk frankly about the degree to which, 221 00:26:31,360 --> 00:26:38,950 in any given case, your local Occupy populations have, you know, co-operated with with occupants. 222 00:26:40,150 --> 00:26:48,160 There is a lot of shame. You know, many taboos. We would all like to think that we would all resist if suddenly, you know, we were invaded. 223 00:26:48,970 --> 00:26:52,410 But that's an illusion. Including in the Channel Islands. 224 00:26:52,660 --> 00:26:57,910 That's not something which is often talked about in Britain. But the Channel Islands were occupied, you know, for much of the war. 225 00:26:58,310 --> 00:27:04,660 And reading about the experience of the islanders boosts ordinary citizens, both to the officials who were left, 226 00:27:04,880 --> 00:27:10,360 you know, more or less to find ways on their own without much guidance at all from Westminster. 227 00:27:11,410 --> 00:27:15,490 Ways of dealing with German soldiers who suddenly one day arrived. 228 00:27:15,700 --> 00:27:20,200 But and see, that's a really fascinating thing to read about. 229 00:27:20,710 --> 00:27:25,610 I think we do need to look at the legal rights and duties of occupied populations. 230 00:27:25,640 --> 00:27:34,960 So in brief, we know that that is a feature of a belligerent military occupation, that there still is a displaced regime, 231 00:27:36,190 --> 00:27:45,820 and that displaced regime does remain competent to legislate over the occupied territory, provided that its directives do not conflict with occupants. 232 00:27:46,300 --> 00:27:49,780 Directives provided that it's directives, in other words, 233 00:27:50,050 --> 00:27:57,400 do not place its citizens in the individual situation of being in breach of the laws enacted by occupants. 234 00:28:00,320 --> 00:28:07,790 But if you find citizens crucially in the law, are not under a duty to occupy and to obey its directives. 235 00:28:08,420 --> 00:28:11,540 Remember, an occupation is not an election of sovereignty. 236 00:28:12,470 --> 00:28:14,120 The occupying forces are not sovereign. 237 00:28:15,650 --> 00:28:25,219 And so if you, by citizens, do not owe a duty of allegiance in law to occupied 14 occupying forces, but they may cooperate with this forces. 238 00:28:25,220 --> 00:28:33,230 There is nothing in the laws of occupation which prohibit occupied citizens from cooperating with occupying forces. 239 00:28:34,490 --> 00:28:39,110 At the same time, they may not resist occupiers lawful directives. 240 00:28:39,830 --> 00:28:43,670 For example, if an occupying issued directive in virtue of which it is a crime, 241 00:28:43,670 --> 00:28:51,950 the crime of sabotage to blow up in a military convoy then occupy populations may not breach that directive by, 242 00:28:51,950 --> 00:28:59,990 for example, blowing up a military convoy, particularly if the displaced regime has concluded an armistice with occupants. 243 00:29:01,310 --> 00:29:04,490 Then all stages of that displaced regime is irrelevant. 244 00:29:06,260 --> 00:29:12,680 Now, as you can imagine, there is some unease about this latter point, which has been, 245 00:29:12,950 --> 00:29:20,629 as ever, very interestingly characterised by Michael Walter as follows in his book, 246 00:29:20,630 --> 00:29:26,060 Just an Unjust Wars, he has a well-known description of guerrilla warfare against the occupying forces. 247 00:29:26,900 --> 00:29:33,979 He looks at the case of French resistance, who disguised themselves as peasants and were able, 248 00:29:33,980 --> 00:29:39,740 as a result, to come very close to German soldiers and managed to kill a few of them. 249 00:29:40,910 --> 00:29:46,129 Now, according to so on some standard views of the laws of occupation, 250 00:29:46,130 --> 00:29:51,230 those French partisans could be deemed to have betrayed the disagreement passed between 251 00:29:51,230 --> 00:29:57,830 the French regime and Germany and to have committed a very serious breach of face. 252 00:29:58,610 --> 00:30:04,129 At the same time, once also note to the extent that individuals are not subsumed under the decisions of their 253 00:30:04,130 --> 00:30:08,570 government and to the extent that in fact the German occupation was unlawfully conducted, 254 00:30:09,050 --> 00:30:12,350 Louis partisans could be deemed to have acted legitimacy. 255 00:30:13,280 --> 00:30:22,129 And yet, according to so, this German soldiers themselves who attempted to kill the French partisans of Defence and those 256 00:30:22,130 --> 00:30:28,160 officials who punished the French resistance for murder also had a justification for acting, 257 00:30:28,670 --> 00:30:35,300 since they could not hope to ensure and restore public life under the constant threat of attack. 258 00:30:35,870 --> 00:30:42,080 What is the rights? I quote, Resistance is legitimate and the punishment of resistance is legitimate. 259 00:30:42,620 --> 00:30:47,390 That may seem like a simple standoff and an abdication of ethical judgement. 260 00:30:48,170 --> 00:30:55,970 It is actually a precise reflection of the realities of military defeat. 261 00:30:58,850 --> 00:31:10,879 I disagree with the word, sir. His view rests on a very, in my view, implausible account of the relative marital status of occupant and occupier view, 262 00:31:10,880 --> 00:31:20,570 an account which fails to take into account the more status of the war which the occupant won and is still prosecuting outside occupied territory. 263 00:31:21,350 --> 00:31:29,930 And what I want to do now is to move away from the law and to present an account of the rights, duties of occupant and occupiers. 264 00:31:30,770 --> 00:31:38,420 In those cases where the rule which led to the occupation could be characterised as a unjust war. 265 00:31:38,570 --> 00:31:41,900 And that section three on your hand out. 266 00:31:45,150 --> 00:31:53,459 As I noted earlier, the law of belligerent occupation is part of use in below the provisions of which are deemed to apply to all belligerents, 267 00:31:53,460 --> 00:32:03,540 irrespective of the law status of their development, and in particular irrespective of the status of their cause under view to repeat. 268 00:32:03,660 --> 00:32:11,250 Just as soldiers who carry out a rueful aggression are permitted to kill enemy soldiers who rightfully defend their countries and vice versa, 269 00:32:12,030 --> 00:32:21,240 occupying powers have exactly the same rights, duties and liabilities of a few populations, irrespective of the status of the war. 270 00:32:23,310 --> 00:32:30,930 Now, as many of you will know, the view that use in below is independent from use has come under very sustained, 271 00:32:30,930 --> 00:32:36,540 serious and sustained attack from a number of scholars who have, 272 00:32:36,960 --> 00:32:46,400 including myself, who have sought to revise and order revised sorry, an old pre-modern account of the right to kill in war under pre-modern accounts. 273 00:32:47,520 --> 00:32:49,469 Whether your war is just over, 274 00:32:49,470 --> 00:32:58,200 Bellum has a crucial bearing on whether or not you are permitted to kill enemy soldiers in the battle on their own account. 275 00:32:58,500 --> 00:33:07,290 If you do take part in, for example, a wrongful aggression on another community, and if enemy soldiers, by implication, 276 00:33:07,320 --> 00:33:15,959 take part in the rightful defence of the community against an army, you may not kill them in self-defence, 277 00:33:15,960 --> 00:33:22,230 or as they may kill you in their own defence and in defence of their homeland. 278 00:33:26,990 --> 00:33:34,100 Put differently for soldiers to kill enemy soldiers in a prosecution, in prosecution of an unjust war is morally wrong. 279 00:33:34,520 --> 00:33:44,210 For them to be killed in the course of prosecuting a just war is also morally wrong around doing, which is not entirely dissimilar to murder. 280 00:33:44,300 --> 00:33:48,830 Now I think this is the right way to think about the right and permission to kill 281 00:33:48,830 --> 00:33:56,060 in war for reasons which I'm not going to set out in a great deal of detail here. 282 00:33:56,090 --> 00:33:59,370 I mean, we can talk about that later on in the discussion. 283 00:33:59,390 --> 00:34:07,820 What I want to do is to apply that revisionist account of the right to kill in war to the problem of occupation following an unjust war. 284 00:34:08,960 --> 00:34:19,460 So suppose that thinking at 21 is regime orders as army to invade bees territory without just cause. 285 00:34:19,460 --> 00:34:25,070 And suppose further that he has also wrongfully invaded the territory of another community. 286 00:34:25,070 --> 00:34:28,760 See these regime surrenders. 287 00:34:29,090 --> 00:34:39,530 Its leaders flee in exile. Is armed forces occupying these territory are two at the same time as a is still waging its war against sea. 288 00:34:40,610 --> 00:34:43,190 Now it's my post, his eye on the revisionist count. 289 00:34:43,220 --> 00:34:50,510 Insofar as soldiers say we're fighting an unjust war when they're attacked, be at 81, they lacked the right to kill soldiers. 290 00:34:50,510 --> 00:35:02,360 Be in prosecution of that war. By the same token, they lack the right to stay in be once the fighting following be surrender has ceased at t two. 291 00:35:03,560 --> 00:35:11,660 So let me provide a domestic analogy. Andrew and Charlotte are three characters in this domestic analogy. 292 00:35:11,660 --> 00:35:19,819 So suppose that Andrew invades the the house in which Charlotte and Ben live. 293 00:35:19,820 --> 00:35:23,870 He has no justification for so doing. 294 00:35:24,740 --> 00:35:29,720 Ben decides to flee in order to take the fight outside. 295 00:35:30,020 --> 00:35:33,200 Charlotte stays in the house for a whole range of reasons. 296 00:35:33,200 --> 00:35:42,080 She remains stuck inside. She has to think about the children who that way are housed, fed, and so and so forth. 297 00:35:43,100 --> 00:35:49,580 Andrew decides that he might as well use the House as a base to continue to pursue his criminal activities. 298 00:35:49,970 --> 00:35:55,549 He's very willing to have Charlotte stay there, provided that she makes us have scarce bases, 299 00:35:55,550 --> 00:36:01,220 directives and gives him the resources he needs in order to keep his business going. 300 00:36:01,670 --> 00:36:11,270 He makes it very clear that he will not use that he will use lethal force against her and her children if she decides to resist. 301 00:36:12,510 --> 00:36:19,400 Now, it seems to me absolutely blindingly obvious that Andrew lacks the right to remain in the house. 302 00:36:20,480 --> 00:36:30,740 But neither Charlotte to nor indeed Ben under a duty to him to provide him with any assistance at all, or indeed a duty not to try to kick him out. 303 00:36:30,740 --> 00:36:36,950 In fact, they would do him no wrong by killing him should the opportunity arise, and should this be the only way to get rid of him? 304 00:36:38,420 --> 00:36:41,570 And the same, in my view, applies to all occupants, 305 00:36:41,840 --> 00:36:50,180 except his eye occupant does not have a just cause for invading beast territory from which it follows that it lacks a just cause for remaining there. 306 00:36:50,180 --> 00:36:58,280 Unless, as we shall see later on, circumstances change in such a way that it comes to acquire a justification for staying. 307 00:36:58,670 --> 00:37:08,510 But absent such a change in circumstances, its officials lack the power to issue directives aimed at safeguarding their own and other soldiers safety. 308 00:37:09,080 --> 00:37:18,649 They lack the power to raise taxes, to requisition movable resources and use immovable property as a means to meet either the occupation 309 00:37:18,650 --> 00:37:25,670 related needs or the demands of the unjust war which their regime is still waging against Xi. 310 00:37:26,750 --> 00:37:33,650 More clearly. Still, I believe they may not enforce the wilful directives by killing those who oppose them, 311 00:37:34,640 --> 00:37:46,730 but that's the simple baboon case in favour of the view that if occupying forces are in a 312 00:37:46,730 --> 00:37:54,080 particular territory as occupants following an unjust war against that particular population, 313 00:37:54,140 --> 00:37:56,900 then they simply ought not to stay there. 314 00:37:56,900 --> 00:38:04,970 They ought to withdraw, and they lack the whole array of rights, treaties and powers, which international law calls them. 315 00:38:07,130 --> 00:38:10,880 Now, you might object to this turning over to the top of page three. 316 00:38:11,250 --> 00:38:13,579 You might object to this on the following grounds. 317 00:38:13,580 --> 00:38:24,770 You might say, well, if these regime concludes an armistice with a and allows it to occupy these territory, these regime in effect. 318 00:38:24,860 --> 00:38:30,950 Transfers its own power over government to its officials on behalf of its own citizens. 319 00:38:31,760 --> 00:38:39,890 And we, the citizens should be citizens, but quite an obligation to those officials occupying officials to comply with the directives. 320 00:38:41,450 --> 00:38:45,439 This is the kind of argument which was invoked in the Second World War, for example, 321 00:38:45,440 --> 00:38:53,599 to justify the views that occupied populations whose own government had complete an 322 00:38:53,600 --> 00:39:01,700 armistice with Germany owed it to German officials not to breach the terms of the armistice. 323 00:39:02,930 --> 00:39:05,330 And I have two replies to that objection. 324 00:39:05,930 --> 00:39:12,590 The first one is that consent is given under the duress of impending military defeat at the hands of an unjust aggressor. 325 00:39:13,100 --> 00:39:17,850 Cannot, in my view, bind these officials and citizens to a officials. 326 00:39:17,870 --> 00:39:25,820 I don't think that consent given under those particular conditions is morally transformative in the way that the objection would suggest. 327 00:39:27,170 --> 00:39:34,430 Second, even if consent is morally transformative under these conditions in the way that the objection suggests, 328 00:39:34,970 --> 00:39:44,990 these officials can only transfer to EU officials to occupant's rights which ultimately are vested in these citizens. 329 00:39:45,620 --> 00:39:54,770 They cannot transfer as officials to occupant the right to levy taxes and to requisition resources to promote unjust ends. 330 00:39:56,270 --> 00:40:00,470 In this instance, the pursuit of an ongoing, unjust war against sea. 331 00:40:01,130 --> 00:40:05,780 And this is because these citizens land not right in the first instance. 332 00:40:08,070 --> 00:40:16,830 Is this to say that there is absolutely nothing that occupants is morally entitled to do with respect to its occupation? 333 00:40:17,970 --> 00:40:26,430 No, it doesn't. Occupant is under clearly a moral duty to restore order and protect public life. 334 00:40:27,540 --> 00:40:33,419 Occupant does, in fact, in my view, have the power to protect occupied civilians from one another through, 335 00:40:33,420 --> 00:40:37,860 for example, the enforcement of criminal law to provide for their needs. 336 00:40:38,850 --> 00:40:42,300 However, and this is crucial, it seems to me, 337 00:40:42,310 --> 00:40:46,860 that Occupy civilians do not owe to occupants an obligation to comply with their 338 00:40:46,860 --> 00:40:52,500 obligation to one another as fellow residents of this occupied in the Territory. 339 00:40:53,490 --> 00:41:00,600 Now, this is important because it implies that occupy populations and not just unjust occupation do not know, 340 00:41:00,600 --> 00:41:08,100 do not do any obligation to occupying forces, not to resist that directives. 341 00:41:10,320 --> 00:41:18,180 The point that I want to make here is important. During an occupation common criminals still want, 342 00:41:18,600 --> 00:41:26,190 arresting local indigenous officials might not be in a position to enforce domestic laws over occupied territory. 343 00:41:26,790 --> 00:41:33,269 And it seems to me that there ought to be space for the view that an occupant, which is an unjust occupant of the bar, 344 00:41:33,270 --> 00:41:39,150 of the ethics of war and articulated, is morally entitled to step into the breach. 345 00:41:39,390 --> 00:41:50,580 Issue is left by Indigenous officials inability or unwillingness to do their part when promoting public life, public safety and so on. 346 00:41:51,270 --> 00:41:55,049 But this does not imply that Occupy civilians to repeat, 347 00:41:55,050 --> 00:42:03,840 are under no obligation to occupying forces, not to resist the rule when the opportunity arises. 348 00:42:07,640 --> 00:42:16,700 Now. I said earlier that the account ought to be qualified in the following rare circumstances might change in such a 349 00:42:16,700 --> 00:42:23,809 way as to provide it easier to undressed occupant with the justification for continuing with your occupation. 350 00:42:23,810 --> 00:42:28,850 And I want you to talk about this particular case in a moment, but before I do that, 351 00:42:28,850 --> 00:42:37,040 I want first to address the case where an unjust occupation comes together, as it were, with a just war. 352 00:42:37,130 --> 00:42:49,040 And this is the case that I have in mind. Suppose that is occupation of B is unjust for its war against C is just the example that I have in mind. 353 00:42:49,040 --> 00:42:50,960 Here is the following. 354 00:42:52,280 --> 00:43:04,010 In June 1940, under the terms of a secret protocol, which was added to the 1939 Pact of Non-Aggression signed by Germany and the USSR. 355 00:43:04,310 --> 00:43:10,370 Under the term of the secret protocol, Soviet forces invaded all three Baltic states, 356 00:43:10,850 --> 00:43:15,620 eliminated the officials and installed Soviet personnel in the place. 357 00:43:16,400 --> 00:43:27,050 As you know, on the 22nd of June 1941, Germany breached the Ribbon Act of 1939 and invaded the USSR. 358 00:43:28,310 --> 00:43:32,990 So the USSR found itself occupying at the same time occupying the Baltic States 359 00:43:33,740 --> 00:43:38,360 and at the same time fighting a war of self-defence against German forces. 360 00:43:39,590 --> 00:43:45,680 Now the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states was clearly unjust. In fact, it is deemed illegal in international law. 361 00:43:46,700 --> 00:43:51,499 Once it was a defence against Germany. I'm assuming was just to attenuate. 362 00:43:51,500 --> 00:43:55,820 Had to just cause, you know, why do I raise this particular case? 363 00:43:56,300 --> 00:44:03,560 It is an important feature of the law of occupation that an occupying, irrespective of the justness of its schools, 364 00:44:03,560 --> 00:44:10,670 can requisition resources from occupied populations in order to assist in the prosecution of the war, 365 00:44:10,670 --> 00:44:15,620 which it is continuing to carry outside the borders of the occupied territory. 366 00:44:16,130 --> 00:44:21,950 So the question that I want to ask you now is the following suppose that you have a non just occupant, 367 00:44:21,950 --> 00:44:24,920 which was the status of the USSR in the Baltic state, 368 00:44:25,310 --> 00:44:33,950 which claims to need resources from the Baltic States in order to assist in its war effort against an unjust attacker. 369 00:44:34,490 --> 00:44:46,520 Germany, in this case, may occupants requisition those resources from the occupied populations which it is occupying, except with his eye unjustly. 370 00:44:47,300 --> 00:44:55,010 I don't think so. Before occupant taps into the resources of occupied population, it must deploy its own, 371 00:44:55,580 --> 00:45:00,470 for example, by withdrawing from the occupied territory altogether. 372 00:45:01,880 --> 00:45:11,990 Moreover, in taking from occupied civilians the resources, military and otherwise, which these civilians need in order to resist the occupation, 373 00:45:11,990 --> 00:45:22,640 its compounds, its initial wrongdoing against them, the wrongdoing of unwarranted aggression with the wrongdoing of a strengthened, unjust reputation. 374 00:45:23,960 --> 00:45:29,030 So, you know, I don't think that the USSR would have been justified in requisitioning resources 375 00:45:29,030 --> 00:45:33,650 from Baltic populations on the grounds that it was fighting an unjust war. 376 00:45:33,680 --> 00:45:40,340 So you're just full of self-defence against Germany in the people. 377 00:45:40,610 --> 00:45:51,799 Ask also and I'll pass over this. No, but ask whether occupied civilians nevertheless may be under a duty to assist in that war effort themselves. 378 00:45:51,800 --> 00:45:59,330 And it concludes that they are not on the grounds that there are certain sacrifices that you cannot expect people to incur for the sake of others. 379 00:46:00,530 --> 00:46:09,380 But what I want to do now, and because time is pressing, is to move to the case of an occupation which starts out as unjust, 380 00:46:09,470 --> 00:46:15,140 will assume for the sake of argument, and of which we might want to say that it requires of it time. 381 00:46:15,650 --> 00:46:24,980 A justification and example, which is always used in the very scant literature on military occupation, is the example of the occupation of Iraq, 382 00:46:26,150 --> 00:46:33,020 or rather the war against Iraq in 2003 and the subsequent occupation of that country by the US coalition. 383 00:46:33,530 --> 00:46:35,420 So here is how the argument goes. 384 00:46:35,910 --> 00:46:45,290 Assume for the sake of argument that the Coalition lacked a just cause for invading Iraq in 2003, from which this account which I'm articulating here, 385 00:46:45,290 --> 00:46:53,230 it follows fairly straightforwardly, at least at first sight, that the occupation of that country by those forces was unjust. 386 00:46:53,480 --> 00:47:01,550 If they have no business invading in the first instance, they have no business staying there in the second instance, if you will. 387 00:47:04,290 --> 00:47:10,050 But I think that to draw that conclusion, the occupation of Iraq was always unjust would be too quick. 388 00:47:10,740 --> 00:47:15,690 Because even if the coalition lacked a justification for waging war against Iraq in 2003, 389 00:47:15,960 --> 00:47:24,270 circumstances might have become such as to provide it with a justification for occupying it once Saddam Hussein's regime had collapsed. 390 00:47:24,990 --> 00:47:34,260 And so people at this point in the argument invoked the outbreak of a civil war committing rights violations between different factions in the 391 00:47:34,260 --> 00:47:42,809 aftermath of the invasion that we might think would impose on the coalition would not so much give the coalition the justification for occupying, 392 00:47:42,810 --> 00:47:46,170 but would impose on it a duty, you know, to do so. 393 00:47:49,950 --> 00:47:58,139 And I found that, you know, view quite plausible, you know, really certainly this particular example now quite often, you know, 394 00:47:58,140 --> 00:48:06,000 when I say when I have said in conversations that it is a plausible view, you know, people have made the following objection. 395 00:48:06,000 --> 00:48:09,390 They have said, well, no, you forget the problem of moral hazard, 396 00:48:10,590 --> 00:48:21,630 because if an unjust war is an issue in a justified occupation of the result of the chaos created by the war, then people have objected to me. 397 00:48:21,930 --> 00:48:27,480 An unjust belligerent would have every incentive to prosecute its war in such a way as to create, 398 00:48:27,810 --> 00:48:34,950 you know, the security conditions there by providing itself, you know, with a justification for staying. 399 00:48:35,250 --> 00:48:38,250 Exploiting natural resources, you know. And so and so forth. 400 00:48:38,550 --> 00:48:43,170 Something seems to have gone wrong there. Some people have objected to me. 401 00:48:44,730 --> 00:48:51,960 I'm not convinced that the objection is as decisive as it might seem. 402 00:48:52,080 --> 00:48:59,010 So, first of all, my concern is with delineating the rights and duties of occupant in occupied vis a vis one another, 403 00:48:59,190 --> 00:49:04,019 and the claim that an unjust belligerent would have an incentive to behave in such 404 00:49:04,020 --> 00:49:09,180 a way is not deemed to mount to the claim that it would be permitted in to do so. 405 00:49:09,360 --> 00:49:16,720 And I think it's important when we are faced with objections which invoke the from the war hazards. 406 00:49:16,740 --> 00:49:20,490 I mean, I think it is important not to fall into the trap of making that category mistake. 407 00:49:20,550 --> 00:49:24,870 You know, from saying there is an incentive to behave, therefore that behaviour is permissible. 408 00:49:24,870 --> 00:49:31,980 It's not, you know, they might have an incentive to do so. That would be grievously wrong, maybe in so acting. 409 00:49:33,750 --> 00:49:43,800 So I do see that there can be cases and these are difficult cases where an unjust war, indeed an unjust occupation, can become a just occupation. 410 00:49:43,830 --> 00:49:54,360 This is not to say that those people, individuals, officials, leaders and so on who orchestrated and carry out the now just occupation, 411 00:49:54,480 --> 00:50:06,180 do no duty whatsoever to the civilian populations who in the first phase, if you will, of the occupation were exceptionally so, unjustly occupied. 412 00:50:06,420 --> 00:50:12,300 The fact that just occupation arose as a result of wrongdoing. 413 00:50:12,570 --> 00:50:17,879 Well, it seems to issue in differential burdens, as it were, 414 00:50:17,880 --> 00:50:23,160 which occupying soldiers must now bear when they have to make decisions as to what kind 415 00:50:23,160 --> 00:50:29,070 of property to confer on their own lives vis a vis the lives of occupied civilians. 416 00:50:29,100 --> 00:50:33,810 This is only that we can go back to in the discussion. 417 00:50:35,890 --> 00:50:44,620 Now you will have noticed that I have not said anything at all so far about the difficult issue of collaboration, 418 00:50:44,620 --> 00:50:56,130 and cooperation with unjust occupying forces may occupy populations, collaborate, cooperate, engage with unjust occupants. 419 00:50:56,240 --> 00:51:04,990 Now I use the term engage to refer boost to the mere act of entering into transactions and relationships widely understood 420 00:51:04,990 --> 00:51:14,020 with members of occupying forces in a private capacity and the act of actively cooperating with them in a public capacity. 421 00:51:14,030 --> 00:51:24,790 So examples of private engagement will include selling them goods such as food, tobacco, selling them in shops, having sex with them and soon. 422 00:51:25,600 --> 00:51:28,780 Examples of the latter will include cooperating with them when they act in 423 00:51:28,780 --> 00:51:35,499 such a way as to protect and force just laws in force in occupied territory, 424 00:51:35,500 --> 00:51:41,650 or when they enact the legislation which helped promote conditions for civic life. 425 00:51:41,900 --> 00:51:48,730 I know this is a difficult issue and I will only say this. 426 00:51:48,820 --> 00:51:55,270 First of all, the neo classical account or the revisionist account of the what you clearly knew, which says very clearly, 427 00:51:55,570 --> 00:52:03,070 is that the rights and duties of soldiers and occupiers are fully dependent on the status of the war that leads to the occupation. 428 00:52:03,310 --> 00:52:06,340 That to count does not commit itself to the view. 429 00:52:06,400 --> 00:52:14,200 It seems to me that engagement is with unjust occupiers, is morally impermissible. 430 00:52:16,630 --> 00:52:21,190 And I want you to develop on this particular point by turning first to the 431 00:52:21,190 --> 00:52:28,840 issue of cooperation by Indigenous officials with undressed occupying forces. 432 00:52:29,290 --> 00:52:33,490 It seems to me that the following three considerations should be brought to bear. 433 00:52:34,900 --> 00:52:42,250 Officials will have to weigh up the costs, small costs of active participation in occupations, 434 00:52:42,250 --> 00:52:46,480 wrongful ends such as helping in the commission of genocidal acts, 435 00:52:47,020 --> 00:52:54,250 versus cooperating with occupants to bring about justified, such as, for example, dealing with common murderers. 436 00:52:54,670 --> 00:52:59,280 Again, I mean, to use an example, which I'm familiar with, the example of the French police, 437 00:52:59,290 --> 00:53:02,470 I mean, you know, French police officers during the occupation did two things, 438 00:53:02,980 --> 00:53:12,250 but often the same individuals did two things that assisted the Gestapo in rounding up Jews, French or foreign. 439 00:53:12,550 --> 00:53:17,950 But they also assisted in some efforts by German occupying force. 440 00:53:18,640 --> 00:53:24,700 Occupying forces. In arresting common murderers, you know, common seems to refute the point I made earlier. 441 00:53:25,570 --> 00:53:30,040 Those parts of the criminal law still do need to be in force. 442 00:53:30,040 --> 00:53:34,360 And every single one of those police officers, you know, had to decide what to do. 443 00:53:34,540 --> 00:53:38,770 I mean, they could have said, I'm resigning. I refuse to be complicit in that machine. 444 00:53:39,040 --> 00:53:44,439 But the cost of so acting might well have been, you know, leaving, you know, 445 00:53:44,440 --> 00:53:49,300 occupied in a civilian entirely, you know, at the mercy of occupying forces, 446 00:53:49,450 --> 00:53:58,190 which in enforcing what seemingly was, you know, standards in a criminal law, might have committed acts of atrocity, you know, instead. 447 00:54:00,400 --> 00:54:09,140 Second, officials will have to balance the short term interests of fellow occupied individuals versus the long term interest in occupants. 448 00:54:09,160 --> 00:54:17,379 Doing so in deciding that you are going to stay in post, you know, in order to help your fellow citizens, you must be aware that you will, 449 00:54:17,380 --> 00:54:27,040 in so doing, help occupants there continue to prosecute its unjust occupation and ongoing war outside your borders. 450 00:54:27,880 --> 00:54:35,080 But is one kind of consideration that you have to bring to bear on the decision that you would make whether or not to cooperate. 451 00:54:37,880 --> 00:54:47,510 And finally, you will have to balance between refraining from helping fellow citizens by residing and thereby not facilitating or keep those wrongful 452 00:54:47,510 --> 00:54:55,729 attacks on third parties as against helping your own fellow residents and thereby contributing to those third parties predicament. 453 00:54:55,730 --> 00:55:01,720 That is related to the second point. I don't have any, as you will have gathered, I don't have any firm principles. 454 00:55:01,850 --> 00:55:05,090 This is, you know, when you may resign, this is when you must resign. 455 00:55:05,150 --> 00:55:12,230 All I can do. This is the first step in this in this inquiry is at least identify, you know, 456 00:55:12,290 --> 00:55:18,500 the set of issues or rather the interests which ought to be taken into account, 457 00:55:19,010 --> 00:55:26,150 you know, when making a decision, you know, as a local indigenous official, whether to collaborate, cooperate or not. 458 00:55:28,220 --> 00:55:34,879 What about and I would finish, you know, with this what about engaging with the occupying forces again? 459 00:55:34,880 --> 00:55:39,290 Never forget in this argument that these are unjust occupying forces. 460 00:55:39,620 --> 00:55:46,270 Excuse is only what about engaging with them in a private in a capacity? 461 00:55:47,600 --> 00:55:53,600 No. So, I mean, this this is the point that I want to make, you know, here. 462 00:55:57,170 --> 00:56:03,770 I don't think is it the revisionist accounts of occupation, which I have tried to delineate, 463 00:56:04,130 --> 00:56:10,910 is committed to the view that occupied civilians should not engage in any way whatsoever with 464 00:56:10,910 --> 00:56:18,980 unjust occupying forces unless occupying forces are rigidly kept apart from occupied civilians. 465 00:56:19,400 --> 00:56:22,670 The latter will have no choice but to engage with them, 466 00:56:22,670 --> 00:56:29,060 and I think it would not be apposite to condemn them for doing something which they cannot avoid doing. 467 00:56:30,020 --> 00:56:39,680 Nor would it be apposite to condemn occupied civilians for giving in either to the threat of coercion or to the simple need to earn a living or base. 468 00:56:40,040 --> 00:56:45,960 It's one thing for public and to refuse to serve a rude customer. 469 00:56:46,070 --> 00:56:50,000 It is quite another to turn away a gun wielding soldier. 470 00:56:50,720 --> 00:56:55,070 It's one thing to shut down your business for fear of having to transact with the enemy. 471 00:56:55,070 --> 00:57:02,450 When you have another source of income. It's another thing altogether to do so when you will not be able to feed your family as a result. 472 00:57:03,980 --> 00:57:09,230 Moreover, occupying soldiers are not simply enemies who, in the case at hand, 473 00:57:09,230 --> 00:57:16,340 have no claim to issue directives on us to consume more resources and to make use of our infrastructure. 474 00:57:17,120 --> 00:57:23,509 They are fellow human beings whom it is sometimes appropriate to treat as such and at this particular point, 475 00:57:23,510 --> 00:57:27,560 much in both the Navy obvious and obviously naive. 476 00:57:28,400 --> 00:57:30,050 But I think it does best twisting. 477 00:57:31,190 --> 00:57:41,090 I began this paper by describing some of the choices which occupy civilians have to make when interacting with occupying forces in a private capacity. 478 00:57:41,960 --> 00:57:50,330 I noted that they have to decide whether to say hello every day, sometimes whether to comfort, whether to transact. 479 00:57:51,770 --> 00:57:59,600 No, I do not think it is morally inappropriate at all to treat a bereaved soldier as a human being with compassion. 480 00:58:00,050 --> 00:58:06,709 When his breaking down in your courtyard at ten in the morning of being hurt that his entire family has been destroyed in, 481 00:58:06,710 --> 00:58:09,050 for example, the bombing of Dresden or Hamburg. 482 00:58:09,720 --> 00:58:18,590 Whether you can be forgiven for failing to treat him with compassion if the soldier in question was seen to take Jews to the Gestapo the day before. 483 00:58:19,820 --> 00:58:27,860 But nor is it morally wrong, it seems to me, to send them or to give them, as it happens in this case, a turkey for Christmas. 484 00:58:28,460 --> 00:58:37,250 But nor would you rule him by detonating a mine several hours later, at the exact moment, the military convoy in which you knew him to be is passing. 485 00:58:37,760 --> 00:58:42,440 To be sure, if you knew at ten in the morning that you are going to kill him at seven, you know, 486 00:58:42,500 --> 00:58:49,610 in the evening that you might see that it would be wrong to show him compassion or to give him a turkey. 487 00:58:50,180 --> 00:58:53,450 And should you give in to that very natural impulse. 488 00:58:53,750 --> 00:59:02,120 You might hate yourself for it, but then you might not think and feel that, and it might well be appropriate for you not to be so torn apart. 489 00:59:02,570 --> 00:59:08,210 If you had good reasons to believe that for all his resolve towards you and your family, 490 00:59:08,660 --> 00:59:14,330 he would not hesitate to kill you if you'd ordered to do so by his superiors. 491 00:59:14,900 --> 00:59:26,240 That, I think, is the harsh reality of an unjust occupation, which is harsh precisely because it is made of very soft, grey moral nuances. 492 00:59:26,570 --> 00:59:27,470 Thank you very much.