The Civilian Shoe Dropping

[jmm99]

It is interesting to look at FM 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare (which is primarily a 1956 effort, except in some areas not relevant here, representing the post-WWII experience with Germany, Japan and transitions where a friendly government is on deck):

Section II. ADMINISTRATION OF OCCUPIED TERRITORY

362. Necessity for Military Government

Military government is the form of administration by which an occupying power exercises governmental authority over occupied territory. The necessity for such government arises from the failure or inability of the legitimate government to exercise its functions on account of the military occupation, or the undesirability of allowing it to do so. (See par. 12, which discusses military government, and par. 354, dealing with civil affairs administration.)

363. Duty to Restore and Maintain Public Order

The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country. (HR, art. 43.)

which are the default for a legal occupation. The transition to civil affarirs adminitration is covered here:

354. Friendly Territory Subject to Civil Affairs Administration Distinguished

Civil affairs administration is that form of administration established in friendly territory whereby a foreign government pursuant to an agreement, expressed or implied, with the government of the area concerned, may exercise certain authority normally the function of the local government.

Such administration is often established in areas which are freed from enemy occupation. It is normally required when the government of the area concerned is unable or unwilling to assume full responsibility for its administration. Territory subject to civil affairs administration is not considered to be occupied.

If circumstances have precluded the conclusion of a civil affairs agreement with the lawful government of allied territory recovered from enemy occupation or of other territory liberated from the enemy, military government may be established in the area as a provisional and interim measure (see par. 12 b and c). A civil affairs agreement should, however, be concluded with the lawful government at the earliest possible opportunity.

A neat simple outline of legal responsibilities. As you say, "nation building" is another manual.

Regards

Mike

[Steve the Planner]

jmm:

If I am not mistaken, there are certain rules of the road/treaty obligations for occupation reconstruction/safeguarding populace, which would be worthwhile to summarize.

And a collection of technical "thou shalts" when a project is built by the US, even in a foreign country.

Steve

[Steve the Planner]

jmm

I've seen this one before, and it gives me the willies about Iraq:

"363. Duty to Restore and Maintain Public Order

The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country. (HR, art. 43.)"

Any statute of limitations, waiver or estoppel?

Steve

[jmm99]

is a primary source of obligations imposed on an Occupying Power - Secs 246 - 448 of FM 27-10 cover Civilians and Occupations.

I wouldn't stay awake at nights worrying about Sec 363 (thinking about looters running wild ?). The SOFA pretty much puts the two governments in a clean start situation. I expect sovereign immunity would bar most individual claims that haven't already been settled.

I don't plan on research until the multi-billion dollar suit is brought - probably by one of the US firms that advertises on TV ("Are you an Iraqi who suffered damages during the US Occupation ? Call 800-xxx-yyyy).

Regards

Miker

[Steve the Planner]

Good to know about the Status agreement.

The current class action is US Iraq assignees vs. KBR for the Burn Pits and Water Treatment. That one was just consolidated in Maryland with a law firm in Georgetown.

Been trying to learn more about it, but essentially, I believe the claim is that KBR violated it's contract in the handling of waste, uncontrolled burning including medical waste, and problems with the treatment of water.

Having seen and smelled the burn pits at Balad and Spiecher, and written a lot about water, it's not really a surprise that some particular claimants might come forward--like the electric buzz.

A total class of all Balad/Spiecher assignees would be something like 20,000 per base times two bases, times more than five rotations per year (six and 14 monthers). Heck, even the other KBR employees/contractors might be in the same class.

No doubt, more info to come.

Steve