Talk:Debellatio

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Problems with the recent expansion[edit]

For example the expansion includes:

It has been argued that the declaration of debellatio frees the occupier from restrictions imposed by international law, such as the Hague Conventions regarding the treatment of the defeated civilian population.

This is not sources and the situation before the founding of the UN and afterwards is very different. Also there are problems with including annexations such as that of Austria, in this list, and "Modern similar occupations" similar to what? So I am reverting the changes until they have been discussed. If examples are to be included here to help understand the concept then they ought to be ones where there are multiple sources that agree that debellatio took place (WP:UNDUE. --PBS (talk) 17:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are you saying here PBS? That I have to clear every addition with you on the talk page? (WP:OWN). If you are unhappy with an un-cited sentence, then the proper procedure is to add a [citation needed] tag to it. Simply blanking a sizable expansion that took me some effort does not strike me as good form. Since you are apparently knowledgeable about possible legal changes before and after the inception of the UN, then perhaps one could have expected you to simply add your knowledge to the new chapter on that instead of deleting it?
What is your problem with adding Austria to the list exactly? If you are going to delete it, then please state your motive more clearly than "there are problems with" as it now sounds more like "I don't like it".
What is your problem with "Modern similar occupations"? In the cited source (THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW) the author states "Modern transformative occupations can be distinguished from post-debellatio occupation, but they do bear certain similarities to it. In the period since 1945, several occupations have endured long after the hostilities that caused them: the Israeli-occupied territories, northern Cyprus, and Iraq are cases in point." I see the connection, I'm sorry you don't. Perhaps it is the section heading you are unhappy with. Please discuss that first then here at talk instead of directly blanking.
As to your pointer to undue, what exactly is undue about the examples I added. You yourself have added the obviously challenged example that Germany was under debellatio. Since it is challenged by your argument we probably should not list Germany, we should only list unchallenged examples. What in my opinion is infact (WP:UNDUE) is making debellatio its own separate heading in the end of world war II events list considering it is challenged concept. I know you added that it is challenged in the footnotes, but what reader bothers with also reading footnotes? A further question, how many sources for each topic will you require before letting it into this article.
Personally I do not see how you can argue/interpret UNDUE about including a simple list of claimed debellatio this last century, there haven't been that many. If you are thinking that the inclusion of one country in the list is undue due to other authors having a contrary opinion, than add that to the text for balance, or be consistent and also remove Germany.
However, in limited response to your puzzling request for more authors saying that it was debelation, let me start with Ethiopia. In addition to the already present cite, here are two more. "In this century there have been only two cases of debellatio (Boer Republics, 1902; Ethiopia, 1936", and Debellatio: "Examples prior to World War II were the annexation of Ethiopia by fascist Italy in 1936 and of Austria by Nazi Germany in 1938." However, I'm not planning to blindly explain every single line here on the talk page.
To sum up, please explain your grievances with my text point by point, line by line, especially with the cited sections that you blanked. That way we can begin by restoring the parts you have no complaints about. If you feel unable to perform this tedious job then I suggest you undo your revert and add citation requests section by section line by line as per normal Wikipedia editing procedure. I think that would be the simplest way to get through this, don't you agree?--Stor stark7 Speak 19:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lets go through the points one by one:

1) "It has been argued that the declaration of debellatio frees the occupier from restrictions imposed by international law, such as the Hague Conventions regarding the treatment of the defeated civilian population." and the section "Modern Applicability" are not at all clear. What periods are being described, what period do these statments cover?

The divisions are before Hague, after Hague and after the UN Charter. Also the Geneva conventions of 1949 included provisions to cover claims the claims of certain actions carried out by victors claiming debellatio of the enemy state. The Article you found MILITARY LAW REVIEW VOL. 33] is dated July 1966 and Page 56 makes this point (at least as far as Hague IV and military occupation).

2) Splitting up a section as you have done on Germany is not the best way to go because it tends to lead to problems of with bias. It is better to keep the points in one place and structure them abc but xyz. I know I've read that in a guideline but I'm not sure were. If this was a complicated argument with lots of points of view then I would agree be more tempted to think splitting was a good idea. But in this case I do not think it is a good idea.

3) "The 1938 Anschluss of Austria by Germany has been cited as a case of debellatio. (no Austrian government in exile remained)." It is pushing the envelope and I do not think it is a clear example. If one goes down that road was the Union between England and Scotland a debellatio? Even if you can dig up a reference this is stretching the meaning of the term and I suspect WP:UNDUE. Before we introduce examples like that I think we need to find enough sources to show that it is generally agreed to have been one. Likewise Ethiopia -- It took me some time to find the page you used for this as it is page 146 (pdf page 18). However a search of the net suggests that Ethiopia and possibly the two Boer republics may be two other 20th century examples. But as the Boer republics were before 1907 I'm not sure particularly as there was a peace treaty (Treaty of Vereeniging) between Britain and the Boers.

At lease one of the articles you found and others such as this one (which confirms Ethiopia ) suggest that there are differences between the state of a government who's allies are still fighting (which covers most of Germany's conquests during World War II) and such situations as the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq in 1990 -- This of course is where the UN and the Security Council has so affected international law. Thrown into this complicated legal stew is the additional argument that there is a difference between the destruction of a state such as Luxembourg by Germany in WWII because Germany was the aggressor so destruction of Luxembourg was not legal as the waging of a war of aggression was not legal (Hence GVIV's articles on Occupation to supplement Hague). -- The next page of the above URL also claims that there is a difference between debellatio and annexation without a war (which makes sense given the origins of the word). BTW it looks like a full definition for "animus" and specifically "animus debellandi" would be helpful. One article thrown up searching for "animus debellandi" is "The British Year Book of International Law" by Royal Institute of International Affairs, which unfortunately is only accessible on the net in snippet format because page 475 seems to make some pertinent points.

3)Poland The USSR point is relevant and perhaps should be expanded but as there was a Polish Government in Exile, this needs to be expanded. The German attitude is not so clear cut for the reasons mentioned above.

4) Modern similar occupations -- No to the first two, Syria and Jordan still exist as states as does Cyprus, so no state was destroyed. As to Iraq -- I don't know if we want to go there as it is as it is legal opinion nightmare. Personally I can see the arguments for it being so described as one, but then we are into the area of UN authorisation etc, and some of the alternative views are expressed in the article section further reading. It also raises questions over East Timor, South Vietnam and probably some others. The thing is I do not think we need to try to construct an exhaustive list of every instant that has ever been described as a debellatio by some author in some article at some time, but rather give a few selective examples that describe the concept.

I think we need to strengthen the article for the Roman concept. I think we should try to find a description of the position before Hague, particularly as it was understood as a legal concept at the end of the Napoleonic wars (Congress of Vienna and all that). We now have a number of articles which we can use to describe the various opinions about Germany's occupations during WWII to construct a paragraph on the legal opinions about those. Which is useful for describing the concept in depth. We can include Ethiopia and Poland's occupation by the Soviet Union, if they can help explain the concept, but not just as part of a list. Then we need a description of the use of the concept post UN Charter and the 1949 Geneva conventions (where Iraq may be useful as an example). --PBS (talk) 12:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil Eelam[edit]

not strictly an instance of debellatio; as the claimed state had never been recognised as such by the government of Sri Lanka. Rather it was a failed attempt at secession. TomHennell (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Hannover[edit]

What about Prussia's annexation of the Kingdom of Hannover after the Austro-Prussian War in 1866? Seems like a clearcut and fairly modern example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.112.186.18 (talk) 10:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@TomHennell I do not think that Hannover is a suitable addition unless there is a source to back it up. Likewise I removed your new speculation from the start of the article for the same reason. I did however keep the quote and added a citation to support it. -- PBS (talk) 18:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with respect to Hannover PBS, essentially just a transfer of state power from one set of rulers to another. Discussion in the literature mainly seems to revolve around the example of the ending of Nazi Germany (commonly taken to be a valid instance of debellatio), compared to that of Imperial Japan (claimed as debellatio by the occupying Americans, but clearly not). The condition of debellatio is stated to be factual; not simply total defeat of armed forces in war, but the extinction in conquest of all state instruments for civil adminstration and public order. The Nazis claimed debellatio in respect of Poland; and had Britain sued for peace in 1940, their case might have been valid. But in fact from 1940 Poland still had a government in exile, actively belligerent allies,an army in being, a navy and an airforce. TomHennell (talk) 11:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article already said that opinion is divided over the demise of the Third Reich. On my last series of edits I included a new source that mentions this divided opinion in one page with the arguments briefly summarised for and against:
  • Lorenz-Meyer, Martin (2007), Safehaven: The Allied Pursuit of Nazi Assets Abroad, University of Missouri Press, p. 194, ISBN 978-0-8262-6586-9
1. what source do you have that says that is "commonly taken to be a valid instance of debellatio"?
Your additional text said:
Central to the legal concept is an assumption that the sovereign identity of a state rests in its governing elite; such that the total destruction, surrender, capture or flight of that elite extinguishes the state. By implication, the territory of the state and the populations resident within that territory register only as assets and resources which may legitimately be appropriated from one state into another due to the outcome of war, without any regard to the populations' own choices. Subsequently, with the general acceptance and recognition of the doctrine of popular sovereignty, the doctrine of debellatio is generally considered to have been in desuetude since the end of World War II.
2. What were your sources for these assertions?
3. If you have sources for this paragraph why not place it after the paragraph on World War II and not as part of the lead?
-- PBS (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for putting the Benvenisti reference p 161 in for the definition PBS. Benvenisti (2nd Edition) is also the source for my other edits. On page 162 he states that the end of Nazi Germany is generally accepted as an instance of the valid application of debellatio, and gives recent legal judgements to that effect to 2005; on page 163 he states that the doctrine is now recognised as being in desuetude. The paragraph you question is my summary of the arguement of page 163. I would be happy for anyone to propose a better summary of the source; but clearly it must go in.
It is important that the lead states explicitly that leading authorities regard the doctrine of debellatio as no longer applicable due to the development of the principle of popular sovereignty. Happy for you to formulate that in any way you see appropriate. On which also see Grant T Harris 'The Era of Multilateral Occupations'; 2006 p20 "Debellatio is a dufunct doctrine. Sovereignty now rests in the people not in the government, and can no longer be permanently transferred to the victor of the war". TomHennell (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re-reading the academic references and supporting citations; it is clear that Eyal Benvenisti is acknowledged on all sides as the leading authority on the subject; even by those who disagree with his major points; that the conditions of debellatio are rightly recognised as being fulfilled in the case of Germany 1945 to 1949, but that the doctrine is now defunct; and in particular, that its demise is conclusively demonstrated by its plain inapplicability to the case of the Coalition occupation of Iraq. The authorities that have maintained a different perspective (arguments summarised in Lorenz-Meyer) can now be seen as being conditioned by a Cold-war (and latterly neo-con) agenda; substantially focused at contesting both the validity of Soviet occupation and of the transfer of the eastern German territories to Poland and Russia. But, as Benenvisti notes in his second edition, the finding of the European Court of Human Rights in favour of the Federal Repulblic in 2005 incorporated a restatement of the doctrine of debellatio (albeit without naming it). The court agreed with the Federal Republic that the Allied occupation had been; "an occupation sui generis following a war and unconditional capitulation, which conferred powers of ‘sovereignty’ on the occupying forces." It is, of course, a nice irony here that, while the Federal Republic had been inclined in the 1950s and 1960s to entertain legal arguments questioning the validity of Soviet Occupation of East Germany; once it had been united in 1990 with the former provinces of the GDR, the Federal Republic has become insistent in contesting any claim that its sovereignty (or that of any German government) could be backdated to the period from 1945 to 1949. I suggest that the article be edited from a Benenvisti perspective; with dissenting voices noted, together with the rationale for their being dismissed by the courts. TomHennell (talk) 09:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TomHennell. The European Court of Human Rights jurisdiction over issues that took place before the charter that set it up is not applicable—see the the ruling in the article Prussian Trust. I would agree that debellatio did not occur in the case of Iraq because although the regime was crushed none of the invading powers suggested that the state no longer existed.
Debellatio may be perhaps defunct for UN recognised nations (as Iraq was), but that does not mean it is defunct in all cases. To take three examples (clear, confused and very confused):
  • Taiwan — if China successfully invades Taiwan tomorrow morning and votes discussions in the UN then that would be a case of debellatio
  • Kosovo — depends if one see it as a nascent state or some other construct. As neither Serbia or Russia will recognise its status there is always the possibility that it will be annexed back into Serbia.
  • ISIL — can a state be a state unless it is recognised by another? The alternatives are discussed in the article Sovereign state. If ISIL is crushed then that is a example where under some theories of statehood a debellation will have taken place.
You can also throw Israel (not recognised by some UN states) and several other disputed territories into that mix. The point is that I do not think that the sentences starting "Central to the legal concept..." ought to be in the lead but rather after World War II if they can be sourced. -- PBS (talk) 13:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No dispute on your final point; as I said, it can all be sourced from Benenvisti.
The article as it stands does not ( I think) convey the current opinions of leading authorities on the subject. As stated above, I think that Eyal Benenvisti is clearly one such. Otherwise, there is a counterpart recent discussion in 'The Law of Occupation' by Yatuka Arai-Takahashi (2009) - pages 31 to 39. An older work, but arguably the most authoritative in its day, is in Volume III of 'Intranional Law in Historical Perspective' (1970) by J.A.W. Verzijl. All three authorities are agreed that the conditions for debellation were met in the case of Germany in 1945; though they take rather different positions on what the implications of that may have been; in particular whether debellatio in 1945 necessarily extinguised the German state. But I suggest that these authorities provide a better grounding for the article than the somewhat tendentios arguments put forward in some of the current citations. Benenvisti and Yatuka Arai-Takahashi are agreed that the doctrine has been redered defunct by the development of the international law of popular sovreignty Verzijl - as I read it - did not go so far.
It may well be worth discussing potential 19th and 20th century instances of debellatio, as proposed in the leading authorities. Verzijl instances (other than Germany), the Boer Republics by the British Empire (1900), the German Bund (Hanover, Hesse, Nassau and Frankfurt) by Prussia in 1866, and Ethiopia in 1936-41. Arai-Takahashi argues against the application of the doctrine to Japan. Other authorities have discussed application to Ethiopia (again), Albania, Austria Poland and Czechoslovakia; and also possibly Hyderabad (see 'State Failure, Sovereignty and Effectiveness' Gerard Kreijen (2004).
on your proposed instances of potential debellatio; I cannot see how Taiwan could count any more than did the Chinese reassertion of control in Tibet (or indeed the extinction of East Germany in 1990). ISIL does not recognise itself as a state (as indeed it rejects any recognition of states as haram; so it could scarcely count. Kosovo might be an intgriquing instance; but would be clearly counterindicated by Benenvisti, as wholly incompatible with principles of popular sovereignty. TomHennell (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Debellatio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Debellatio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan[edit]

Does the fall of Afghanistan really qualify? Afghanistan isn’t ceasing to exist, it’s just one government being replaced by another. If this qualifies, wouldn’t we have to count every revolution in which one government is replaced by a hostile one? Capedia (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • fully agree; this is a change of regime, not the extinction of a state. TomHennell (talk) 13:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confederacy[edit]

Does the Confederacy truly count if it was never recognized as a sovereign state by any other nation? If it counts, I think it's a great example, but I'm not sure if it does as it only existed for five years and never recognized. Delukiel (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Debellatio&oldid=1212812902"