Territories control over

Article 1(1) of Additional Protocol II provides that the Protocol apphes in armed conflicts which take place in the territory of a High Contracting Party between its armed forces and dissident armed forces or other organized armed groups which, under responsible command, exercise such control over a part of its territory as to enable them to carry out sustained and concerted military operations and to implement this Protocol . 

Moreover, Article 71(1) deliberately uses the phrase the Party in whose territory, while it could have been worded more specifically if it was to indicate the Party which exercises control over the territory. For example. Article 47(2)(d) of Protocol 1 employs the expression territory controlled by a Party to the con-flict. Following this formulation. Article 71(1) could have been drafted as subject to the approval of the Party to the conflict controlling the territory. The negotiating history of Article 71(1) also does not contain any indication supporting the commentary s interpretation. Therefore, Article 71(1) seems to require the consent of the State that has sovereignty over the territory in which relief action takes place. However, as a practical matter, the consent of the enemy State that has actual control over the territory may be necessary to gain access to the civilian population in need. 

As the law of occupation increasingly focuses on the protection of the population rather than regulating an inter-state relationship, the different phenomena coalesce into a minimalist definition of occupation as a situation in which foreign forces state exercise effective control over non-sovereign territory. Such a regime is temporary, and accordingly, the occupant s authority is limited. 

Even human relationships are figitred in terms of disputes over territory, when the soldier hired by the Gitise apostrophises Mugerotm whereas he is your landlord, you will take upon you to be his, and till the groimd that he himself should occupy, which is his own free land (19, 6-8). Only one entity in the play is taken to be secure and inviolate, and that is the power of Catherine de Medici, who says of her son King Heruy if he gradge or cross his mother s will, / I ll disinherit him and all the rest (11, 41-2), and ultimately it is she who is able to control the borders of both land and family ... 

---