2024-11-0920189789-4626-5222-49789-4626-5221-710.1007/978-94-6265-222-4_32-s2.0-85063314554http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-222-4_3https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14288/8041What happens to the international law of occupation when the de facto administrator not only subjectively rejects its applicability, but maintains the occupation with the intention to acquire or transform territory?What effects does it have on the de facto administrator's status? And what implications on the welfare of the civilian population? Is it appropriate for international law to regulate such situations as belligerent occupations? Russia's occupation of Crimea exemplifies the regulatory challenges created by contemporary situations of occupation qua annexation, which this chapter argues are a form of illegal territorial regime. To address them, the chapter explores the place of occupation law and its mutually-reliant relationship between the international norms of conflict management (jus in bello), which includes occupation law, and those of conflict prevention and resolution (jus ad bellum). It argues that such illegal situations are incommensurable with the legal category of belligerent occupation in international law: they necessitate the diligent application of the jus ad bellum to appropriately regulate occupying states seeking territorial aggrandisement and foreign domination. The operation of the consequence of invalidity in such cases means that third party States and international organisations are made to undertake the enforcement and protection of the civilian population under the aegis of the foreign power.LawBook Chapterhttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85063314554&doi=10.1007%2f978-94-6265-222-4_3&partnerID=40&md5=a9eed200c2af355358ccc012303e3f65595