Search results

This monograph is the second volume in a series of studies dealing with the testing, selection, and classification of military recruits. The first volume, Screening for Service: Aptitude and Education Criteria for Military Entry, by Mark J . Eitelberg, Janice H. Laurence and Brian K. Waters, is also available through HumRRO. ; Manpower for Military Occupations evaluates the effects of the military's selection process on the enlistment eligibility and job opportunities for young women and men from different backgrounds and demographic groups. This research would not have been possible without the "Profile of American Youth," a large-scale project designed to assess the vocational aptitudes of the nation's entry-level workforce. The Profile Study marked the first time a military qualification test, or any vocational aptitude test, had been administered to a nationally representative sample. An earlier monograph, Screening for Service (Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower, Installations, and Logistics, September 1984), studied the enlistment eligibility and military "participation rates" of different population groups. Manpower for Military Occupations is intended to complement the earlier effort by focusing more closely on the occupational placement system and its effects on those who might seek to enlist. In addition, the work attempts to explore changes that have taken place historically, particularly over the modern era, in the occupations and types of people needed by the Armed Services. Readers who are interested primarily in the technical content should be aware that the Services' enlistment standards and occupational requirements, as well as the occupations themselves, are subject to change over time. It is also noteworthy that most details of the occupational placement system are likely to remain basically the same for many years to come. ; Approved for public release, distribution unlimited

Military occupation is a recurrent feature of modern international politics and yet has received little attention from political scientists. This book sets out to remedy this neglect, offering: an account of military occupation as a form of government an assessment of key trends in the development of military occupations over the last two centuries an explanation the conceptual and practical difficulties encountered by occupiers examples drawn from, amongst others, the First and Second World Wars, US occupations in Latin America and Japan, the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, and the current occupation of Iraq After a survey of the evolving practice and meaning of military occupation the book deals with its contested definitions, challenging restrictive approaches that disguise the true extent of the incidence of military occupation. Subsequent chapters explain the diverse forms that military government within occupation regimes take on and the role of civilian governors and agencies within occupation regimes; the significance of military occupation for our understanding of political obligation; the concept of sovereignty; the nature and meaning of justice; and our evaluation of regime transformation under conditions of military occupation. Key Features deals with military occupation as a form of government draws on a wide range of examples to illustrate themes such as political obligation, sovereignty and justice argues that military occupation covers a wider range than is often assumed, including 'international administration' under the auspices of the UN

AbstractThis article examines the applicability of international human rights law in situations of military occupation. Proceeding from the position that human rights obligations can exist in these circumstances, the article provides an analysis of the precise modalities of application. It examines the tests for the determination of human rights applicability, and how these are linked to the concept of occupation. Finally, it recognizes the practical and legal challenges to the implementation of human rights obligations, and argues for a contextual approach that provides for human rights protection while recognizing the realities of military occupation.

Military occupation is a recurrent feature of modern international politics. This book provides an account of military occupation as a form of government, an assessment of occupations over the last two centuries and an explanation of the difficulties encountered by occupiers

In discussing the problems of military government, some writers have recalled critically the fact that in 1918 the armies of occupation did not coöperate with the workers' and soldiers' councils in Germany. Did this really mean that the commanding officers hampered Germany's transition from a half-absolutist monarchy to a democratic republic? What was the position of the workers' and soldiers' councils in the total population? How did the occupation armies act toward the democratic movements in Germany? As one of the leaders of the revolution against the Emperor, and as a close observer of the foreign armies in my home province, the Rhineland, I may be justified in presenting some facts and experiences.When on November 11 I read in Paragraph V of the armistice agreement that "the left bank of the Rhine shall be administered by the local authorities under the control of the troops of occupation," I informed my friends in the Cologne workers' and soldiers' council that this undoubtedly meant the end of that council on the day of the arrival of the foreign troops. It was clear that we were no "local authorities." Nowhere had the councils replaced the civil servant administration of the former régime. Why not? Simply because the social-democratic labor movement, which alone backed the councils, was in most places, on the left bank of the Rhine, a small minority. Only by using terror against a large majority of the population could we have eliminated the existing civil servant administration. Such terror was against the democratic principles and traditions of our movement. Incidentally, even the wildest radicals knew in those days of threatening chaos that a sudden break-up of a centuries-old civil servant administration would mean grave disaster, especially in shipping the necessary supplies to the exhausted population.

The 2001 invasion and subsequent occupation consolidated ethnicity as a
political force in Afghanistan. Inter-ethnic elite bargaining instituted an ethnocratic oligarchy, grounded in the occupation. Against this, everyday politics in Afghanistan has centred on social clientelism, founded on kinship networks rather than ethnicity. At the same time, formal political structures, expressed in the 2004 Constitution, are grounded in Islam and nationalist statehood rather than ethnicity. In recent years sharp disjunctures have emerged between ethnic elites and would-be constituents, creating some electoral fluidity and ethnic de-alignment. The paper addresses the relationship between occupation and ethnocracy in Afghanistan. It takes an historical perspective on the present, debating contending foundations for political solidarity and identification in the country.