Foreign Occupation and International Territorial Administration: The Challenges of Convergence

International organizations have increasingly joined statesas occupiers of territory. Yet international law doctrine andpolicymakers have regarded occupation by states and administrationby international organizations as distinct legal and politicalphenomena. The stigma associated with state occupation has translatedinto an assumption that the two operations are governed by differentnorms and their tactics for asserting control subject to differentstandards of legitimacy. This article rejects that dichotomyand the doctrinal parsing that comes with it. It emphasizesthe common traits and challenges of these occupations and arguesfor a joint legal and political appraisal. From the legal perspective,the two sorts of missions operate under common legal frameworks;those managing both need to find the proper balance among internationalhumanitarian law, international human rights law, local law,and any mandate from an international organization. As a politicalmatter, each encounters resistance from those in the territoryopposed to its presence, leading to coercive responses whoselegitimacy will be questioned from within and outside the territory.The article concludes with some modest thoughts on how eachsort of occupier might learn something from the other.