Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The point of difference between the parties before us in relation to Art. 47 is whether the occupation continues, the annexation of the territory notwithstanding; -and in relation to Art. 49 whether the order of the Lt. Governor amounts to deportation of a protected person. Mr. Gardner's submissions are : the order that has been made is a deportation order and it is therefore ultra vires the Geneva Conventions. These Conventions create individual rights which cannot even be waived. So long as occupation continues ,these rights are available and the Geneva Conventions must not be looked at in isolation but read in conjunction with International Law as part of the positive law. They should not be abandoned lightly. According to him, conquest was a method of acquiring territory in the past but after the Covenant of the League of Nations, the Charter of the United Nations and the General Treaty for the Renunciation of War, the acquisition of territory in Inter- national Law by the use of force does not confer any title. Occupation, therefore, can only be of terra nullins, not now possible. He invokes the rule in Heydon's(1) case and says that the history of the making of the Geneva Conventions, shows that this was precisely the mischief sought to be met and the Conventions now become a part of the laws of India through Parliamentary Legislation. He concedes that the war of liberation of Goa and the annexation were lawful but he contends that annexation does not deprive protected persons of the protection. According to him, once there is military action and occupation, occupation cannot cease by a unilateral act of annexation by incorporating the terri- tories of Goa with India. If India did not care to be bound by the Conventions, there was a 'Method of denunciation in Art. 158 but since the Convention is registered under Art. 159 even denunciation at a late stage was not possible. He relies upon Art. 77 and says that 'Liberated' means when the occupation comes to an end. The amendment of the Constitution only legalises annexation so far as India is concerned but in International Law the territory remains occupied. The occupation is not at an end and it cannot be brought about unilaterally. The words of Art. 47 themselves are clear enough to establish this. In short, the con- tention is that occupation does not come to end by annexation and, therefore, the protection continues till there is either cession of the territory or withdrawal of the Occupying Power from the territory, both of which events have not taken place. In support of his propositions be relies upon Dholakia (International Law) (1) (1584) 3 Rep. 76.

pp. 180, 181, 293; Oppenheim International Law (Vol. 1) 7th Edn. pp. 574 et seq.; R. Y. Jennings : The Acquisition of Territories in International Law pp. 53-56, 67. The contention on behalf of the State is that by occupation is meant occupation by armed forces or belligerent occupation and occupation comes to an end by conquest followed by subjugation. Reference is made to many works on International Law. We have to decide 'between these two submission.

This is the first case of this kind and we took time to consider our decision. We are of opinion that the pleas of Mr. Gardner that the Geneva Conventions Act makes dispunishable the conduct of Rev. Father Monteiro, must fail.

wholly excluded from the territory. Anticipated annexation by unilateral action is not true annexation. True annexation is only so when the territory is conquered and subjugated [see Oppenheim International Law. (7th Edn.) pp. 846-847. (Vol. 1) 566 (Vol. 1), pp. 448/52 (Vol. 11), 430- 439 (Vol. 11) and 599 et seq (Vol. 11), Greenspan (ibid) pp. 215 et seq 600-603; Gould Introduction to International Law pp. 652-656, 662-663; Brierly Laws of Nations p.[155]. The Conventions rightly lay dowin that annexation has no effect on the protection. But they speak of premature or anticipated annexation. Premature or anticipated annexation has no effect. Such a plea was negatived for the same reason by the Nuremberg Tribunal. In fact, when the Convention itself was being drafted the experts were half- inclined to add the word " alleged' before 'annexation' in Art. 47 to distinguish between annexation following conquest and subjugation and annexation made while hostilities are going on. Subjugation puts an end to the state of war and destroys the source of authority of the existing Government. In subjugation, which is recognised as one of the modes of acquiring title, not only the de facto but also the de jure title passes to the conqueror. After subjugation the inhabitants must obey the laws such as are made and not resist them.

Thus the principle which is accepted is that the Occupying Power must apply the Convention even when it claims during conflict to have annexed the occupied territory. However, when the conflict is over and there is no hostile army in the field, annexation has the effect of creating a title to the territory. It may be- asked why does Art. 6 then mention a period of one year ? The reason given is that if the Occupied Power turns victorious the land would be freed in one year and if the Occupying Power remains victorious, as hostilities cease, strong measures against the civilian population are no longer necessary. In this, as in other laws, a line is drawn arbitrarily -and it is at the end of one year. Otherwise also, occupation, which means belligerent occupation, comes to an end when hostilities cease and the territory becomes a art of the Occupying Power. Annexation may sometimes be peaceful, as for example, Texas and Hawaiian Islands were peacefully annexed by the United States, or after war, -as the annexation of South Africa and Orange Free State by Britain. The question, when does title to the new territory begin, is not easy to answer. Some would make title depend upon recognition. Mr. Stimson's doctrine of non-recognition in cases where a state of things has been brought about contrary to the Pact of Paris was intended to deny root of title to conquest but when Italy conquered Abyssinia, the conquest was recognised because it was thought that the state of affairs had come to stay. Thus, although the United Nations Charter includes the obligation that force would not be used against the territorial integrity of other States (Art. 2 para 4), events after, the Second World War have shown that transfer of title to territory by conquest is still recognised. Prof. R. Y. Jennings poses the question : What is the legal position where a conqueror having no title by conquest is nevertheless in full possession of the territorial power, and not apparently to be ousted ?" He recommends the recognition of this fact between the two States. If cession after defeat can create title, occupation combined with absence of opposition must lead to the same kind of title. In the present case the facts are that the military engagement was only a few hours' duration and then there was no resistance -at all. It is hardly necessary to try to establish title by history traced to the early days as was done in the Minquiers and Ecrencs(1) case. Nor is there any room for the thesis of Dr. Schwarzenberger (A Manual of International Law, 5th Edn. p. 12 that title is relative and grows with recognition . True annexation followed here so close upon military occupation as to leave no real hiatus. We can only take the critical date of true and final annexation as December 20, 1961 when the entire government and administration were taken over and there was no army in occupation -and no army in opposition. The occupation on December 20, 1961 was neither belligerent occupation nor anticipated occupation, but true annexation by conquest and subjugation. It must be remembered that Mr. Gardiner concedes that the annexation was lawful. Therefore, since occupation in the sense used in Art. 47 had ceased, the protection must cease also. We are, therefore, of opinion that in the present case there was no breach of the Geneva Conventions.