Abstract
The essay ‘The Laws of Occupation and Commercial Law Reform in Occupied Territories: Clarifying a Widespread Misunderstanding’ accuses my 1993 book of fostering the ‘misleading’ contention that Article 64 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 recognizes the authority of occupants to modify all types of laws (and not only penal laws), beyond the limited scope of legislative authority recognized under Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Regulations. The criticism is unconvincing for several reasons. I limit my response to the claim that my interpretation of Geneva 64 is a misunderstanding, spelling out in more detail the discussion in the book. Addressing this claim offers an opportunity to gain insight not only into the specific meaning of Geneva 64 but also into the more general question of how to read and assess travaux préparatoires of complex multilateral treaties.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
