Modernization by any other name ...
Yep, same idea, different forum.
"Moreover, it has been affirmed that existing occupation law does not sufficiently take into account the development of human rights law and the advent of the principle of self-determination."
Self-determination is rapidly eroding Westphalian sovereignty. A country can no longer do what is required with its citizens in order to secure stability and the common good. The individual trumps the collective in Western legal thought. It is just too bad for the rest of the world that they look at things the other way around.
On a separate but related note, I did get a kick out of reading that:
“Under occupation law, the occupying power does not acquire sovereignty over the occupied territory and is required to respect the existing laws and institutions of the occupied territory as far as possible.” … NOT!
We wrote Japan’s Constitution and the Soviets revamped Eastern Europe into little communist clones. Neither Germany nor Italy were allowed to remain Fascist states. You occupy a country for a reason. In the old days it was to secure resources or gain concessions. Nowadays it is also to make institutional changes that are appealing to the occupier.
Bookmarks