Editing Sovereignty (section)

=== Sovereignty versus military occupation ===
In situations related to war, or which have arisen as the result of war, most modern scholars still commonly fail to distinguish between holding sovereignty and exercising military occupation.

In regard to military occupation, international law prescribes the limits of the occupant's power. Occupation does not displace the sovereignty of the occupied state, though for the time being the occupant may exercise supreme governing authority.  Nor does occupation effect any annexation or incorporation of the occupied territory into the territory or political structure of the occupant, and the occupant's constitution and laws do not extend of their own force to the occupied territory.<ref>{{Citation
|url=http://www.uniset.ca/other/cs4/86FRD227.html
|title=U.S. v. Tiede
|author=United States Court of Berlin
|date=14 March 1979
|publisher=United Settlement (Canada).
|access-date=26 October 2021}}</ref>

To a large extent, the original academic foundation for the concept of "military occupation" arose from [[On the Law of War and Peace]] (1625) by [[Hugo Grotius]] and [[The Law of Nations]] (1758) by [[Emmerich de Vattel]].  Binding international rules regarding the conduct of military occupation were more carefully codified in the 1907 [[Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907|Hague Convention]] (and accompanying Hague Regulations).

In 1946, the [[Nuremberg trials|Nuremberg International Military Tribunal]] stated with regard to the Hague Convention on Land Warfare of 1907: "The rules of land warfare expressed in the Convention undoubtedly represented an advance over existing International Law at the time of their adoption ... but by 1939 these rules ... were recognized by all civilized nations and were regarded as being declaratory of the laws and customs of war."