Talk:Military government

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

End of Military Government[edit]

The section "End of Military Government" uses examples from before World War II. This means that the text is outdated as the rules/laws for occupation have been greatly affected by post World War II treaties (Geneva IV etc) and the formation of the United Nations and its institutions. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find that there are no contradictions in the analysis given in this section and the specifications of Geneva IV. One important point of note is in reference to Article 6 of Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, (Aug. 12 1949), which contains the following wording: "In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after the general close of military operations; however, the Occupying Power shall be bound, for the duration of the occupation, to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory, by the provisions of the following Articles of the present Convention: 1 to 12, 27, 29 to 34, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53, 59, 61 to 77, 143." HOWEVER, to my knowledge, the "rule" that military occupation ends one year after the general close of military operations has never been applied to TERRITORIAL CESSIONS. Hmortar (talk) 08:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lon[edit]

Voice concern 2409:4043:4D87:B4EB:0:0:94B:20D (talk) 04:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stratocracy is military government[edit]

I would summarized Military occupation, Martial law, Military dictatorship and Military junta under Stratocracy.--Geysirhead (talk) 11:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, as the page Military government, is a disambiguation page, linking to the different things that can be and are described as military governments, of which stratocracy is one. Looking at the page though and comparing it to other disambig pages, it needs a bit of tidying. --Cdjp1 (talk) 19:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, for the reason mentioned by Cdjp1 and I'd agree that the article Military government needs tidying. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Cdjp1. 2001:8003:9008:1301:204C:A08C:E4BA:8A29 (talk) 06:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Closing given the consensus not to merge. Klbrain (talk) 22:19, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]