The comment focuses on the construction of time in the normative regime of
occupation. Beginning (in section 2) with a critique of the ICJ's reading of
Article 6 of the Fourth Geneva Convention concerning the scope of
applicability ratione temporis of the Convention in cases where the duration
of an occupation lasts longer than one year, the comment proceeds (in
section 3) to argue (a) that the gap between the working assumption
informing Article 6 (of relatively short-term occupations) and reality (of
prolonged occupations) defines a problem which the Court erroneously
construed as a solution; (b) that the problem of prolonged occupation has
allowed for the substitution of an indefinite for a temporary duration of an
occupation, a move which defies the basic tenets of the normative regime of
occupation; and (c) that a proper solution involves the construction of the
notion of “reasonable time” into the Fourth Geneva Convention. The comment
includes (in section 4) a proposal designed to minimize the
temporary/indefinite blurring of boundaries in situations where an
occupation has not ended within one year.
