neutral military and defacto

The law of occupation, primarily rooted in the 1907 Hague Regulations and the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, establishes strict rules for the management of property and assets in occupied territories. While it distinguishes between private and public property, specific protections also apply to the assets of international organizations like the United Nations. 

1. Protections for United Nations Assets

United Nations property and assets are granted inviolability under international law, which remains in force even during armed conflicts or occupations. 

Völkerrechtsblog

Inviolability of Premises: Occupying powers are prohibited from interfering with UN property or entering UN premises without consent.

Non-Interference: The UN's assets must be safeguarded to ensure the organization can perform its functions independently.

Liability for Damage: Damage to or destruction of UN assets resulting from military operations or occupation may constitute a violation of the 1946 General Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations. 

2. General Rules for Public and Private Property

The ICRC and the United Nations outline core rules regarding assets in occupied territory.

Under international law, an occupying power does not acquire sovereignty but must manage assets, including state property, funds, and natural resources, based on the conservationist principle, ensuring they are used for the benefit of the occupied population and not for the occupier's gain. The 1907 Hague Regulations and Fourth Geneva Convention prohibit the confiscation of private property and restrict the seizure of public assets to those directly used for military operations. 

Key Principles of Asset Management in Occupation

Public vs. Private Property: Occupying forces cannot seize private property. 

They may seize cash, funds, and realisable securities belonging to the state, as well as depots of arms or transport, but only if they are for military use.

Conservationist Principle: The occupying power is considered an administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates. These must be managed to preserve their capital value.

Natural Resources: Exploitation of natural resources must comply with the needs of the population and cannot be done purely for the benefit of the occupying power.

UN Premises and Assets: UN property and assets are inviolable, and interference with them—even in occupied territories—violates international law and conventions.

Destruction of Property: Any destruction of personal or public property is forbidden unless absolutely necessary for military operations. 

Welcome to the United Nations

UN Position on Assets

United Nations experts emphasize that in situations of unlawful occupation, states must take action to prevent trade, investment, and economic activities that benefit the occupier's exploitation of the territory's assets, including natural resources and land. 

Key Legal Instruments

Hague Regulations (1907), Articles 42-56: Defines the basics of belligerent occupation.

Fourth Geneva Convention (1949), Articles 53, 55, 58: Outlines protection of property and resources. 

Under the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV) and Hague Regulations, an occupying power must respect private property, prohibiting confiscation, and manage public immovable property (land, buildings) according to the rules of usufruct. Public movable property usable for military operations (arms, transport, funds) may be seized. Destruction of property is strictly prohibited unless absolutely necessary for military operations. 

The Practical Guide to Humanitarian Law

Key Asset Rules in Occupied Territories:

Private Property: Cannot be confiscated (Art. 46, Hague Regs) and pillage is strictly forbidden (Art. 33, GCIV).

Public Assets: The occupant is only the administrator and user of public buildings, forests, and farms. It must safeguard the capital of these assets and cannot sell or destroy them arbitrarily.

Requisitioning: Requisitions of food and medical supplies are allowed only for the needs of the occupation army and administration, and only if fair compensation is provided.

Cultural Property: Institutions dedicated to religion, charity, education, and the arts must be respected, even if state-owned.

Restrictions on Assets: The occupying power cannot sell or transfer public property (like state infrastructure or resources) to its own citizens, as this violates the temporary nature of the occupation.

Labor Requisition: Forced labor is prohibited, and any work must be paid. 

ICRC

The occupying power has a responsibility to maintain public order and ensure the basic needs (food, medical supplies) of the population are met. 

Occupied territory

Any destruction by the occupying power of real estate or personal property is prohibited, unless such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military o...

Under the law of occupation, primarily governed by the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV) and the 1907 Hague Regulations, an occupying power does not acquire sovereignty over assets in the territory it controls. Instead, it acts as a temporary administrator and must preserve the status quo ante as much as possible. 

ICRC

1. State/Public Assets

The treatment of public assets depends on whether they are "movable" or "immovable": 

Movable Property: An occupying power may seize state-owned cash, funds, realizable securities, depots of arms, means of transport, and stores that can be used for military operations.

Immovable Property (Real Estate): The occupier is regarded only as an administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates. It may use these assets and their produce (e.g., crops, rent) but must safeguard their capital value and cannot sell or destroy them permanently.

Special Exceptions: Property of municipalities and institutions dedicated to religion, charity, education, the arts, and sciences must be treated as private property, even if state-owned. Seizing or damaging these is strictly forbidden. 

2. Private Assets

Private property is subject to much stricter protections to prevent looting and ensure civilian survival: 

Confiscation Prohibited: Private property cannot be confiscated (taken without compensation and permanently).

Destruction: Any destruction of personal or real private property is prohibited unless absolutely necessary for military operations. "Wanton" destruction not justified by necessity is a grave breach and a war crime.

Requisition: An occupier may only requisition private food, medical supplies, and other survival essentials for its own forces and administration if the needs of the civilian population are already met. Fair value must be paid for any requisitioned goods. 

3. Management of Resources

Public Revenue: The occupying power may collect taxes and tolls to pay for the administration of the territory, but it must do so in accordance with existing laws.

Natural Resources: As a usufructuary, the occupier can exploit natural resources (like minerals or oil) for the benefit of the occupied population or administrative costs, but it cannot engage in "pillage" or deplete resources for its own national enrichment. 

Summary of Asset Treatment

Asset Type  Rule Exception/Condition

Public Movable Can be seized/used Must be useful for military operations.

Public Immovable Usufruct (administration only) Must preserve capital value; cannot annex.

Private Movable Respect and protect Requisition only for military use if civilian needs are met.

Private Immovable Respect and protect No destruction unless absolutely necessary for operations.

Would you like a more detailed breakdown of the legal consequences for an occupying power that violates these asset management rules?

Occupation and international humanitarian law - ICRC

The law of armed conflict - Lesson 9 - Belligerent occupation - ICRC

Occupied territory

The law of occupation, primarily governed by the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV) of 1949 (Articles 27–34, 47–78) and the 1907 Hague Regulations, dictates that occupation is a temporary situation that does not transfer sovereignty. Occupying powers must ensure the welfare of the local population, maintain public order, respect private property, and provide medical/food care. 

ICRC
Key Principles and Obligations:
Humanity & Protection: Civilians must be treated humanely, protected against violence, insults, and public curiosity.
Prohibitions: Collective punishments, intimidation, terrorism, reprisals, and the taking of hostages are strictly prohibited.
Transfers/Settlements: Forcible transfers or deportations of the local population are forbidden. The occupying power is prohibited from transferring its own civilian population into the occupied territory.
Administration: The occupier must respect existing laws, institutions, and private property. It cannot force residents to serve in its armed forces.
Basic Needs: The occupier has a duty to ensure food, medical supplies, and public hygiene to the fullest extent of its means.
Fragmented Application: Occupation law applies whenever a power exercises "effective control," even if the occupation is partial or meets no resistance. 

ICRC
Key Documents:
Fourth Geneva Convention (1949): Focuses on the protection of civilian persons.
Hague Regulations (1907): Defines the "laws and customs of war on land" and sets the basic rules for military administration. 

Diakonia
The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) serves as the primary source for the interpretation and application of these laws.  

The Law of Occupation is primarily governed by the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV) of 1949 and the 1907 Hague Regulations. It establishes that occupation is a temporary situation where an occupying power exercises effective control over a territory without acquiring sovereignty. 

ICRC

Core Principles

Effective Control: A territory is considered occupied when it is placed under the authority of a hostile army that can actually exercise such authority.

Conservationist Principle: The occupying power must respect the laws already in force in the territory unless they pose a direct threat to its security.

Temporary Nature: Occupation is provisional; the occupant acts only as a de facto administrator until the original sovereign returns. 

ICRC

Key Obligations of the Occupying Power

Under Section III of GCIV, an occupying power has specific duties toward "protected persons" (civilians of the occupied territory): 

Public Order and Safety: It must take all measures in its power to restore and ensure public order and civil life.

Basic Needs: It is duty-bound to ensure food, medical supplies, and hospital services for the population.

Humane Treatment: Protected persons are entitled to respect for their person, honor, family rights, and religious convictions.

Prohibited Acts:

Forcible Transfers: Individual or mass forcible transfers and deportations are strictly prohibited.

Settlements: The occupant cannot transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied territory.

Collective Punishment: Any form of collective penalty or intimidation is a war crime.

Pillage and Property Destruction: Looting is forbidden; property may only be destroyed if "absolutely necessary" for military operations. 

ICRC

Legal Framework and Administration

Judicial System: Local courts and penal laws should remain in force. The occupant can only enact new laws for its own security or to fulfill its obligations under the Convention.

Forced Labor: Inhabitants cannot be forced to serve in the occupant's armed forces. Compulsory labor is limited to work for the needs of the occupation army or public services and must be fairly paid.

Children and Education: The occupant must facilitate the identification of children and ensure the continued functioning of educational institutions. 

IIHL Online Library

Current Context (March 2026): These laws continue to be the primary framework for evaluating ongoing conflicts globally. Recent legal arguments often emphasize the extraterritorial application of human rights alongside International Humanitarian Law (IHL) in protracted occupations. 

The law of occupation, a branch of international humanitarian law (IHL), regulates the temporary, non-sovereign control of territory by a hostile foreign army. Grounded in the 1907 Hague Regulations and Fourth Geneva Convention, it requires occupants to protect the local population, ensure public order, and respect existing domestic laws. 

ICRC

Key Aspects of the Law of Occupation:

Definition of Occupation: An occupation exists when a state exercises unconsented-to, effective control over territory with the capability to enforce its authority, even without formal resistance.

No Sovereignty Transfer: The occupying power does not acquire sovereignty over the territory; the occupation is temporary.

Duties to Inhabitants: Occupiers must ensure public order, safety, and basic needs (food, medical care) for the local population.

Protection of Rights: The occupying power must respect existing, private property, and family rights. Collective punishment, deportations, and the transfer of the occupier's civilian population into the territory are strictly prohibited.

Legal Framework: Key legal sources include the 1907 Hague Regulations (Articles 42-56) and the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949. 

ICRC

The law aims to strike a balance between the security needs of the occupier and the rights of the population.

The law of occupation is a branch of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) that regulates the conduct of a foreign power when it exercises effective control over a territory during an international armed conflict. It is built on the fundamental principle that occupation is temporary and does not confer sovereignty to the occupying power. 

ICRC

Core Legal Framework

The rules are primarily defined in several key international instruments: 

Hague Regulations of 1907 (Articles 42–56): Establishes the definition of occupation and the basic duties of an occupier.

Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949: Focuses on the protection of civilians (protected persons) in occupied territories.

Additional Protocol I (1977): Provides further protections for victims of international armed conflicts.

Customary International Law: Many of these treaty rules are now considered universal standards binding on all states. 

Diakonia

Key Principles and Obligations

The law attempts to balance the security needs of the occupier with the welfare of the local population. 

ICRC

Preservation of Local Law: The occupier must respect and maintain the laws in force in the territory unless "absolutely prevented" by security needs or humanitarian obligations.

Prohibition of Annexation: An occupying power is strictly forbidden from permanently incorporating (annexing) the territory.

Population Transfers: It is illegal for an occupier to deport the local population or transfer its own civilian population into the occupied territory (the legal basis for the prohibition of settlements).

Public Order and Welfare: The occupier is responsible for restoring and ensuring public order, providing food and medical supplies, and ensuring the functioning of hospitals and schools.

Property Rights: Private property cannot be confiscated, and the destruction of property is prohibited unless "absolutely necessary" for military operations. 

ICRC

The "Effective Control" Test

A territory is legally "occupied" only when it is actually placed under the authority of a hostile army. According to organizations like the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), this requires three elements: 

IIHL Online Library

The unconsented-to presence of foreign forces.

The foreign forces' ability to exercise authority in place of the local government.

The inability of the local sovereign to exert its authority. 

ICRC

Contemporary Challenges

Modern legal debates often center on prolonged occupations (like the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories) and transformative occupations (where an occupier attempts to overhaul the political system, as seen in Iraq in 2003). There is also an increasing focus on the tandem application of International Human Rights Law (IHRL) alongside IHL to ensure broader protections for civilians.

The UN Charter prohibits the acquisition of territory by force, establishing that international law forbids the forcible seizure of land. Article 2(4) requires members to refrain from using force against the territorial integrity of any state. Territorial gains from aggression cannot be legally recognized. 

Justia

Prohibition on Force: The UN Charter (1945) largely ended the historical "right of conquest" in international law.

Legal Exceptions: The only two generally accepted exceptions are self-defense and authorization by the UN Security Council.

Security Council Role: The UN Security Council can authorize actions to restore peace, but they are not intended for territorial acquisition.

Defensive Cases: While some argue regarding "defensive conquest," international consensus strongly favors that even land taken in self-defense cannot be kept or annexed, as seen in cases like Jerusalem.

Territorial Integrity: The UN heavily emphasizes the inviolability of sovereign boundaries, rendering forced takeovers illegal. 

House.gov

The United Nations (U.N.) Charter and international law explicitly prohibit any state from taking land by force. This principle, established after World War II, ended the historical "right of conquest". 

Wikipedia

Key Legal Prohibitions

U.N. Charter Article 2(4): All member states must refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any other state.

Inadmissibility of Territorial Acquisition by War: The U.N. Security Council has repeatedly affirmed that acquiring territory through war—even in cases of self-defense—is inadmissible under modern international law.

Non-Recognition: If a state does seize land by force, other nations are legally obligated not to recognize the annexation as legitimate.

Rome Statute: The International Criminal Court (ICC) classifies the annexation of another state's territory by force as an act of aggression. 

Justia

Challenges in Enforcement

Despite these laws, several structural and practical issues can prevent their enforcement:

Veto Power: The U.N. Security Council is the only body that can authorize military or economic enforcement. However, if one of the five permanent members (U.S., Russia, China, UK, France) or their close allies is involved, they can veto any resolution to stop the land seizure.

De Facto vs. De Jure: While the U.N. may not recognize a seizure (de jure), an aggressor state may maintain physical control (de facto) over the land for decades, effectively integrating it despite international condemnation.

Peacekeeping Limits: U.N. Peacekeepers generally only use force in self-defense or to protect their mandate; they are not an offensive military force designed to "take back" land from an aggressor. 

UN Peacekeeping

The UN Charter Article 2(4) (1945) prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, establishing that land acquisition by force is illegal under international law. Member states must abide by this, which aims to protect sovereignty and prevent territorial conquest. 

Welcome to the United Nations

Key Principles of UN Charter Article 2(4)

Prohibition of Force: Members must refrain from using force or the threat of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.

Territorial Integrity: The law forbids seizing territory by force, aiming to protect the borders and sovereignty of existing nations.

Binding Nature: As part of the UN Charter, this principle is binding on all member states and is considered a cornerstone of modern international law.

Limited Exceptions: Force is only permitted in self-defense (Article 51) or when authorized by the UN Security Council. 

Welcome to the United Nations

Application to Land Acquisition

No Conquest: The prohibition of force applies even to attempts to rectify historical injustices or disputes, making annexation through force, even by non-state actors, illegitimate under this framework.

Indigenous Re-acquisition: While Article 2(4) protects the territorial integrity of established member states against threats, it does not explicitly create a mechanism for re-acquiring land, especially if that action involves the use of force. 

War Room - U.S. Army War College

While Article 2(4) of the UN Charter (1945) prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, its application to indigenous land re-acquisition is complex under current international law. 

United Nations International Law Fellowship Programme

Scope of Article 2(4)

State-to-State Obligation: The principle of territorial integrity as defined in Article 2(4) is generally considered a State-to-State obligation. It mandates that member nations refrain from using force against other established states in their international relations.

Domestic vs. International: International law typically distinguishes between international conflicts and matters of domestic jurisdiction. Movements by non-state actors, including indigenous groups, to re-acquire land within a state's borders are often treated as internal matters unless they involve the intervention of another state. 

Welcome to the United Nations

Indigenous Land Rights Protections

Instead of Article 2(4), land claims by indigenous peoples are primarily addressed through specific human rights frameworks and declarations: 

UNDRIP: The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) affirms the right of indigenous peoples to the lands, territories, and resources they have traditionally owned or occupied.

Protection Against Removal: Article 10 of UNDRIP specifically states that indigenous peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories without free, prior, and informed consent.

Judicial Rulings: Regional courts, such as the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, have ordered states to recognize and protect indigenous traditional lands, citing violations of communal property rights rather than Charter Article 2(4). 

Welcome to the United Nations

In summary, while the UN Charter forbids the acquisition of territory by force between states, the specific protections for indigenous land re-acquisition are found in human rights law and self-determination principles rather than the Article 2(4) prohibition on international force. 

Assembly of First Nations

International Humanitarian Law (IHL), or the law of war, regulates conduct during armed conflicts to limit suffering. It protects those not fighting (civilians, medics) and those who can no longer fight (wounded, POWs). Core rules include distinguishing between combatants and civilians, prohibiting unnecessary suffering, and ensuring proportionality in attacks. 

Key Principles of IHL

Distinction: Parties must distinguish between the civilian population and combatants, and between civilian objects and military objectives.

Proportionality: Attacks are prohibited if they cause incidental civilian harm that is excessive in relation to the concrete military advantage.

Prohibition of Unnecessary Suffering: Means and methods of warfare that cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering are banned.

Precaution: Constant care must be taken to spare civilians, including giving advance warning of attacks when possible. 

ICRC

Rules Regarding Civilians

Civilians and civilian objects (homes, schools, hospitals) must never be targeted.

Acts or threats of violence intended to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.

Parties must facilitate the rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian aid for civilians in need. 

European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations

Rules Regarding the Wounded and Sick

Wounded and sick combatants, as well as civilians, must be respected, protected, and treated humanely.

Medical personnel, units, and transports (e.g., ambulances) must be protected and not attacked. 

UN News

Conduct of Hostilities and Humanitarian Assistance 

Weapons: The use of weapons that are indiscriminate or cause unnecessary suffering is prohibited (e.g., chemical weapons, certain landmines).

Humanitarian Relief: Authorized humanitarian personnel must be allowed to provide aid, and their security must be respected.

Children: Special protection is required for children, including prohibiting the recruitment of children under 15 into armed forces. 

Canadian Red Cross

Legal Basis and Enforcement

Treaties: The foundation is the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, supported by additional protocols.

Violations: Serious violations of IHL constitute war crimes, which can be prosecuted by international tribunals like the International Criminal Court (ICC).

International Humanitarian Law (IHL), also known as the law of war or the law of armed conflict, is a set of international rules designed to limit the effects of armed conflict for humanitarian reasons. It aims to protect individuals who are not participating in hostilities and to restrict the methods and means of warfare used by belligerents. 

ICRC

Core Principles

IHL is anchored in principles that balance military needs with humanity: 

Wikipedia

Distinction: Parties must distinguish between combatants and civilians, and between military and civilian targets.

Proportionality: Attacks causing excessive civilian harm compared to military advantage are prohibited.

Military Necessity & Precautions: Only necessary force may be used, with constant care taken to protect civilians.

Humane Treatment: All persons, particularly non-combatants, must be treated humanely without discrimination. 

Human Rights Watch

Key Legal Instruments

The framework is based on treaties and custom, primarily the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols. These establish fundamental protections for non-combatants and restrictions on warfare methods, including prohibitions on specific weapons.

In international law, the concept of "reserved rights" most commonly refers to the reserved domain (domaine réservé), which identifies areas of state activity that are exempt from international regulation and fall exclusively under a state's domestic jurisdiction. 

HeinOnline

While the term can also appear in specific contexts like Native American tribal rights in the United States, its primary application in general international law is rooted in the principle of state sovereignty. 

University of Denver

1. The Doctrine of the Reserved Domain (Domaine Réservé) 

This doctrine asserts that despite the growth of international law, certain matters remain inherently within a state's "internal affairs" where international bodies have no authority to intervene. 

Oxford Public International Law

Legal Basis: It is protected by the principle of non-intervention and is explicitly mentioned in Article 2(7) of the UN Charter, which prevents the UN from intervening in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state".

Dynamic Nature: The scope of the reserved domain is not fixed. As states enter into more treaties, the area of "reserved" rights shrinks. For example, nationality was once considered purely domestic, but it is now often subject to international human rights standards.

Typical Areas: Historically, matters such as immigration policy, the form of government, and tariff regulation were strictly part of the reserved domain. 

HeinOnline

2. Treaty Reservations

In the context of treaty law, "reserved rights" relates to the practice of making reservations. 

Oxford Academic

Definition: A reservation is a unilateral statement made by a state when signing or ratifying a treaty to exclude or modify the legal effect of certain provisions as applied to that state.

Consent: This ensures that states only assume obligations they have explicitly consented to, upholding the principle of sovereign equality.

Limitations: Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), a reservation is invalid if it is prohibited by the treaty or incompatible with its "object and purpose". 

Welcome to the United Nations

3. Native American "Reserved Rights" (U.S. Context)

In the United States, the Reserved Rights Doctrine (or Winters Doctrine) is a specific principle of federal Indian law. 

University of Denver

Principle: When the U.S. government established Indian reservations via treaty or statute, it implicitly "reserved" the rights (such as water, hunting, and fishing rights) necessary to fulfill the purpose of that reservation.

Sovereignty: It holds that tribes retain all inherent rights of sovereignty that have not been explicitly relinquished through treaty or taken away by Congress.

The international law reserved rights doctrine, or domaine réservé, refers to the sphere of sovereign state activity that is exempt from the jurisdiction of international law. It covers areas not regulated by international obligations, such as a state's internal political structure, though this, as well as the scope of this domain, is decreasing due to human rights law and treaties. 

HeinOnline

Key Aspects of the Reserved Rights Doctrine:

Definition: It serves as a limit on the international legal order, recognizing that states hold exclusive competence in matters not covered by international law.

Declining Scope: The domaine réservé is not static. The development of human rights law, international regulation, and the increasing role of individuals and international organizations have significantly reduced the areas exclusively reserved to domestic jurisdiction.

Sovereignty Link: It is a corollary of state sovereignty, ensuring that international law cannot interfere with the core elements of statehood.

Treaty Restrictions: While states retain these rights, they can voluntarily diminish their domaine réservé by entering into treaties and accepting international obligations. 

HeinOnline

Important Contextual Distinctions:

Reservations to Treaties: Distinct from the domaine réservé, this refers to a statement made by a state when signing or ratifying a treaty, aiming to exclude or modify the legal effect of certain provisions, as discussed on Wikipedia and explained by Oxford Public International Law.

Native American Reserved Rights: A different concept entirely, which asserts that indigenous tribes retain specific rights (such as fishing or water rights) not explicitly ceded by treaty, a concept described on Fiveable. 

The Domaine Réservé and International Law

Legal Position: The Permanent Court of International Justice noted that these matters are those that are not regulated by international law.

Human Rights Impact: The rise of international human rights law has heavily impacted this doctrine, as areas such as how a state treats its citizens are no longer solely within their internal, sovereign domain.

Peremptory Norms: If a treaty issue concerns a peremptory norm (ius cogens), a reservation to it is generally not allowed, limiting the "reservation" right. 

Oxford Public International Law

When a treaty is dissolved, terminated, or a party withdraws, it generally releases the parties from any future obligations to perform the treaty. However, the dissolution does not automatically restore the status quo ante regarding property rights, nor does it typically trigger an automatic return of property that was transferred, ceded, or acquired during the treaty's life, unless the treaty itself or a separate agreement provides for such a reversal. 

Duke Law Scholarship Repository

Key principles regarding property upon treaty termination include:

Release from Future Performance: Termination releases parties from further obligations under the treaty.

Existing Obligations and Rights: Denunciation or withdrawal does not release a party from obligations that accrued prior to the termination date, or from violations that existed before the termination took effect.

Vested Rights: Property or rights that "vested" in a state prior to the termination usually remain with that state.

Specific Provisions Govern: The specific terms of the treaty usually dictate how property, assets, or territories are handled upon termination.

Acquiescence: If a party has, by its conduct, acquiesced in the maintenance of a certain situation (e.g., possession of property), it may not be able to later invoke grounds for termination to reverse that possession. 

Duke Law Scholarship Repository

In situations involving "State Succession" (where one state replaces another), the rights and obligations of the predecessor state—including property ownership—can become complex and are often governed by specific succession agreements rather than an automatic return of assets. 

United Nations International Law Fellowship Program

When a treaty is dissolved (terminated), the parties are generally released from any future obligations to perform the treaty, but this does not automatically revert everything to the state it was in before the treaty was signed. 

Brill

According to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Article 70), the dissolution of a treaty has the following effects unless the parties agree otherwise: 

Release from Performance: Parties are no longer required to carry out the actions or obligations specified in the treaty moving forward.

Preservation of Existing Rights: The dissolution does not affect any rights, obligations, or legal situations that were created through the execution of the treaty while it was in force. For example, if a treaty transferred property or established a boundary, those changes typically remain valid even after the treaty itself is dissolved.

No Automatic Return to Status Quo Ante: There is no general principle in modern international law that requires an automatic return to the status quo ante (the situation before the treaty) unless the treaty specifically provided for such a reversal or the parties negotiate a new agreement to restore prior conditions. 

Brill

Specific Scenarios

Invalid Treaties: If a treaty is found to be void from the start (rather than just terminated), parties may be required to restore the original position as far as possible.

Amicable Dissolution: Parties can choose to include "winding up" provisions that dictate exactly how assets or territories should be returned or divided.

Territorial Boundaries: Treaties that establish permanent boundaries or "executed" territorial transfers are particularly resistant to being undone by simple dissolution. 

Treaty-Accord.gc.ca

What Happens To A Treaty Determined To Be Invalid:

A treaty determined to be invalid under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) is generally considered void and without legal force, nullifying its obligations from the beginning. The invalidity can render the entire treaty null, or in cases involving invalid reservations, just those specific clauses, as long as they are separable. 

Opinio Juris

Key consequences include:

Void Ab Initio (Absolute Invalidity): Treaties conflicting with a peremptory norm of international law (jus cogens), or procured by the threat or use of force, are automatically void.

Relative Invalidity: Grounds such as corruption of a representative, error, or fraud may be invoked by a state to invalidate its consent to be bound.

Restoration of Situation: Parties are required to establish the legal position that would have existed if the treaty had never been implemented.

Severability: If a ground for invalidity relates only to specific clauses, it may be invoked only for those clauses, provided they are not the essential basis of consent.

Acts Performed in Good Faith: Even if a treaty is invalid, acts performed in good faith before the invalidity was invoked may remain valid, unless the treaty was void (e.g., due to coercion or conflict with jus cogens). 

OAS - Organization of American States

Invalidity differs from termination in that invalidity implies a defect at the time of the treaty's creation, while termination applies to valid treaties that cease to exist later. 

Springer Nature Link

Under international law, primarily governed by the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), a treaty determined to be invalid is considered void and has no legal force. 

OAS - Organization of American States

Because invalidity typically addresses a defect present from the treaty's inception (such as fraud or coercion), the consequences often apply retroactively (ab initio), essentially treating the agreement as if it never legally existed. 

Springer Nature Link

Key Legal Consequences

Loss of Binding Power: The provisions of the void treaty are no longer legally enforceable, and parties are no longer obligated to perform them.

Restoration of Previous Status: Any party may require others to restore their mutual relations to the position that would have existed if the treaty acts had never been performed, as far as possible.

Protection of "Good Faith" Acts: Acts performed in good faith before the invalidity was officially invoked are generally not rendered unlawful solely because the treaty is now void.

Exceptions for "Wrongdoing" Parties: If invalidity is caused by fraud, corruption, or coercion, the party responsible for those acts cannot request restoration of the original status. 

OAS - Organization of American States

Severity and Scope of Invalidity

The law distinguishes between absolute and relative invalidity: 

Type Grounds Result

Absolute Coercion of a state or representative; conflict with a peremptory norm (jus cogens). The treaty is automatically void; no legal effect remains.

Relative Error, fraud, or corruption. The treaty is voidable; the victim state must choose to "invoke" the invalidity to make it void.

Separability: In cases of error or fraud, invalidity might only apply to specific clauses if they are "separable" from the rest of the treaty. However, for cases involving coercion or conflict with jus cogens, the entire treaty is typically voided.

Independent Obligations: Even if a treaty is invalid, a state must still fulfill any obligations that exist independently of the treaty, such as those found in customary international law. 

OAS - Organization of American States

A treaty determined to be invalid under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) is generally considered void and without legal force, nullifying its obligations from the beginning. The invalidity can render the entire treaty null, or in cases involving invalid reservations, just those specific clauses, as long as they are separable. 

Opinio Juris

Key consequences include:

Void Ab Initio (Absolute Invalidity): Treaties conflicting with a peremptory norm of international law (jus cogens), or procured by the threat or use of force, are automatically void.

Relative Invalidity: Grounds such as corruption of a representative, error, or fraud may be invoked by a state to invalidate its consent to be bound.

Restoration of Situation: Parties are required to establish the legal position that would have existed if the treaty had never been implemented.

Severability: If a ground for invalidity relates only to specific clauses, it may be invoked only for those clauses, provided they are not the essential basis of consent.

Acts Performed in Good Faith: Even if a treaty is invalid, acts performed in good faith before the invalidity was invoked may remain valid, unless the treaty was void (e.g., due to coercion or conflict with jus cogens). 

OAS - Organization of American States

Several of the Treaties with U.S. was determined to be legally invalid due in several ways.

What Ways Are Treaties Determined To Be Invalid:

Treaties are generally determined to be invalid based on the principles codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), which distinguishes between grounds that render a treaty voidable (relative invalidity) and those that render it void from the beginning (absolute invalidity). 

Quizlet

Invalidity is typically categorized into the following ways:

1. Relative Invalidity (Voidable)

These grounds must be invoked by the affected state; the treaty remains valid until contested. Key grounds include: 

Internal Law Violations (Art. 46): A "manifest" violation of fundamental domestic law regarding treaty-making authority.

Specific Restrictions on Authority (Art. 47): A representative exceeds authorized limits that were known to other parties.

Error (Art. 48): An error regarding a vital fact that was essential to the state's consent.

Fraud or Corruption (Arts. 49-50): The treaty was secured through dishonest actions or bribery of a state representative. 

OAS - Organization of American States

2. Absolute Invalidity (Void Ab Initio) 

These render the treaty invalid from the start and cannot be validated by acquiescence: 

Coercion of a Representative (Art. 51): Consent was obtained through acts or threats against the representative.

Coercion of a State (Art. 52): The treaty was forced through the threat or use of force, violating the UN Charter.

Conflict with Jus Cogens (Art. 53): The treaty violates fundamental, non-derogable international law (e.g., prohibition of genocide or slavery). 

SMU Scholar

3. Termination Due to Later Developments

New Jus Cogens (Art. 64): A treaty becomes void if it conflicts with a newly emerged peremptory norm.

Fundamental Change of Circumstances (Art. 62): Unforeseen, drastic changes to the basis of consent, excluding boundary treaties. 

SMU Scholar

4. Invalidity Under National Law (U.S. Context)

In the US, a treaty is invalid if it violates the Constitution (Reid v. Covert), or it may be superseded by later, inconsistent federal legislation. 

Wikipedia

Treaties are primarily determined to be invalid based on the rules established by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT). Grounds for invalidity are categorized into Absolute Invalidity, where the treaty is null and void from the start, and Relative Invalidity, where it is voidable if a state chooses to invoke specific grounds. 

OAS - Organization of American States

Absolute Invalidity (Void)

These grounds render a treaty completely without legal effect from its inception (ex tunc): 

Oxford Public International Law

Conflict with Peremptory Norms (Jus Cogens): A treaty is void if it violates fundamental principles of international law that are universally accepted, such as prohibitions against genocide, slavery, or torture.

Coercion of a State: If a state’s consent was obtained through the threat or use of force in violation of UN Charter principles, the treaty is void.

Coercion of a Representative: If a state's representative is personally threatened or blackmailed into signing, their consent has no legal effect. 

United Nations International Law Fellowship Programme

Relative Invalidity (Voidable)

These grounds allow a state to invalidate its consent, but the treaty may remain valid until successfully challenged: 

Oxford Public International Law

Error: A state may invoke an error if it assumed a fact existed at the time of the treaty that formed an essential basis for its consent (e.g., incorrect boundary maps).

Fraud: If a state is induced to sign by the fraudulent conduct of another negotiating state, it can declare its consent invalid.

Corruption: If a representative's consent was procured through direct or indirect bribery by another state.

Not Ratified:

A treaty that has not been ratified is generally not legally binding on a state under international law, as ratification is the formal mechanism by which a nation consents to be bound. While a signature indicates intent to review and supports the treaty, it does not compel compliance in the same way ratification does. 

Wikipedia

Here is a breakdown of the legal, domestic, and international status of unratified treaties:

1. International Legal Status

Consent to be Bound: Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a state is not bound by a treaty until it has ratified, accepted, or approved it, unless the treaty specifically allows for "definitive signature".

Obligation to Refrain: Signatories to an unratified treaty are not bound by its terms, but they are obligated to refrain from acts that would defeat the treaty's "object and purpose" until they make their intention clear not to become a party.

Invalidity: A treaty is considered void or unenforceable if the consent to bind the state was not given through proper constitutional procedures (i.e., ratification). 

United Nations Treaty Collection

2. U.S. Constitutional & Domestic Status

Senate Approval vs. Ratification: The U.S. Senate does not ratify treaties; it provides "advice and consent." Ratification is a presidential action.

Invalidity: If the President does not formally sign the instrument of ratification after Senate approval, or if the Senate rejects it, the treaty is not legally binding under U.S. law.

Examples: The US signed but never ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Kyoto Protocol, and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, meaning these treaties have no legal force within the U.S.. 

U.S. Senate (.gov)

3. Exceptions and Exceptions

Customary International Law (CIL): Even if a treaty is not ratified, its provisions may still apply to a nation if they reflect customary international law—legal principles that are broadly recognized and followed by nations.

Provisional Application: States may agree that a treaty will apply provisionally before final ratification, but this is a temporary, special arrangement. 

Legal Response International

In international and U.S. law, a treaty is generally not legally binding on a nation until it has been formally ratified. While a government official may sign a treaty to show support and intent, ratification is the final act of formal consent to be bound by its terms. 

Government of the Netherlands

Key Legal Principles

Consent to be Bound: Under international law, specifically the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a state is only a party to a treaty if it has signified its consent through ratification or accession.

Signatory Obligations: Even without ratification, a nation that has signed a treaty is expected to refrain from acts that would "frustrate the object and purpose" of that agreement under customary international law.

U.S. Constitutional Process: In the United States, the President negotiates treaties, but they only become the "supreme Law of the Land" if the Senate approves a resolution of ratification by a two-thirds majority. 

U.S. Senate (.gov)

Notable Examples of Unratified Treaties

Several major international agreements have been signed by the U.S. but never ratified, meaning they are not legally enforceable in U.S. courts: 

Treaty of Versailles (1919): The Senate famously rejected this treaty, leading the U.S. to never join the League of Nations.

Convention on the Rights of the Child (1995): Signed by the U.S. but never sent to the Senate for ratification.

Kyoto Protocol (1998): Signed by the U.S. but never ratified due to domestic political opposition.

Law of the Sea (UNCLOS): The U.S. follows many of its provisions as customary law but has not ratified the treaty itself. 

Exceptions to Ratification

Definitive Signature: Some routine bilateral treaties enter into force immediately upon signature if the document expressly states that ratification is not required.

Executive Agreements: The U.S. President can enter into "executive agreements" with other nations that do not require Senate approval; these are legally binding but have different domestic standing than formal treaties. 

United Nations Treaty Collection

Manifest Violation of Internal Law: A state can claim invalidity if its consent was given in violation of a domestic law of fundamental importance, provided the violation was "manifest" (objectively evident to others acting in good faith).

Specific Restrictions on Authority: If a representative ignores a restriction on their power to sign, it only invalidates the treaty if the other states were notified of that restriction beforehand. 

OAS - Organization of American States

Domestic Legal Challenges

In some jurisdictions, like the United States, treaties may be found invalid under domestic law if they conflict with supreme legal documents: 

Constitutional Conflicts: The U.S. Supreme Court has held in cases like Reid v. Covert that treaty provisions conflicting with the U.S. Constitution are null and void within the U.S..

Legislative Repeal: Treaties do not have a higher status than federal law; they can be modified or repealed by subsequent acts of Congress. 

Wikipedia

A Good Example:

1835 New Echota Treay Legally Determined A Fraud and Invalid:

The 1835 Treaty of New Echota, which forced Cherokee removal, was signed by a minority faction (the Treaty Party) rather than elected Cherokee leadership, prompting Principal Chief John Ross to lead 15,000 Cherokees in protesting it as a fraudulent, "null and void" document. Despite this protest and a petition signed by almost the entire nation, the U.S. Senate ratified it in 1836, using it to justify the Trail of Tears. 

Smithsonian Magazine

Key Aspects of the Fraudulent Nature:

Minority Representation: The treaty was negotiated with only about 500 Cherokees, representing a small minority rather than the recognized Cherokee National Council.

Lack of Authority: The representatives, including Major Ridge and Elias Boudinot, did not have the authority to represent the Cherokee Nation, and the principal Chief, John Ross, strongly opposed it.

Protests Ignored: Chief Ross delivered a petition to Congress in 1838 signed by almost 16,000 Cherokees, stating they did not agree to the terms.

Ratification: Despite knowing the treaty was not approved by the majority, the Senate passed the treaty by a single vote, and President Andrew Jackson signed it into law.

Consequences: The treaty mandated the removal of Cherokees from their lands in Georgia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Alabama within two years, leading to the Trail of Tears. 

NC DNCR (.gov)

While the treaty was considered legally binding by the United States government and used to justify removal, it was widely known at the time to be invalid by the Cherokee people. The signers of the treaty were later targeted for their actions. 

Cherokee Phoenix

1835 New Echota Treay Legally Determined A Fraud and Invalid By Many Legal Experts and Law Colleges and Universities:

The 1835 Treaty of New Echota, which forced Cherokee removal, is widely considered fraudulent and invalid by legal experts, historians, and the Cherokee Nation. It was negotiated with a small minority (the Treaty Party) rather than the authorized Cherokee government, which was led by Principal Chief John Ross. 

Facebook

Invalid Authorization: The treaty was not approved by the National Cherokee Council or Principal Chief John Ross. It was signed by about 500 Cherokee, a "Treaty Party" led by Major Ridge, while the vast majority of the nation opposed it.

Legal Opposition: John Ross delivered a petition to Congress in 1838 signed by over 15,000 Cherokees, arguing the treaty was a fraudulent act of oppression and therefore legally null and void.

Senate Ratification: The treaty passed the U.S. Senate in May 1836 by only one vote, despite petitions describing its illegality.

Consequences: Despite being considered illegal by the Cherokee people, the U.S. government enforced the treaty, resulting in the Trail of Tears and the removal of the Cherokee to Oklahoma, not all went to Oklahoma rather Remained.

Retribution: Those who signed the treaty were seen as violating Cherokee law; in 1839, Cherokee factions killed several signers, including Major Ridge, John Ridge, and Elias Boudinot. 

Facebook

The Treaty of New Echota remains a significant example of the violation of Native sovereignty and treaty law in U.S. history, as discussed in numerous scholarly papers and university programs focused on Native American studies and federal Indian law. 

Seattle University School of Law Digital Commons

The 1835 Treaty of New Echota is widely considered by legal scholars and historians to be fraudulent and invalid, as it was signed by a small minority faction (the "Treaty Party") rather than the authorized leadership or the vast majority of the Cherokee Nation. Although the Cherokee National Council rejected it, the U.S. Senate ratified it, forcing the removal known as the "Trail of Tears". 

Miller Center

Key legal and documented reasons for questioning the treaty's validity include:

Lack of Authority: The Treaty Party, led by Major Ridge, did not represent the official government of the Cherokee Nation, rendering them unauthorized to cede land.

Minority Representation: The treaty was signed by only a small fraction of the Cherokee population, while the majority, under Principal Chief John Ross, vehemently opposed it.

Violation of Prior Treaties: The treaty disregarded previous treaties, including the 1791 Treaty of Peace and Friendship, which promised to protect Cherokee territory.

Illegal Coercion: The treaty was used as a basis to remove the Cherokee through military force, contradicting the Supreme Court's ruling in Worcester v. Georgia (1832), which affirmed the Cherokee Nation's sovereignty and deemed state interference unconstitutional. 

Miller Center

Despite these fraudulent elements, the treaty remained on the books to justify the illegal removal and, in some cases, the US government has still not fulfilled all its terms. 

Native America Calling »

Andrew Jackson: Domestic Affairs | Miller Center

But these legal victories pointed out no practical course of resistance for the tribe to take. Tacitly encouraged by Jackson, Geor...

Miller Center

Jus Soli, And The "Pretended" Treaty Of New Echota

The Treaty of New Echota,2 the most notorious of the nearly seventy treaties created to perfect Indian removal toward the end of t...

Seattle University School of Law Digital Commons

Cherokee Cases | Law | Research Starters - EBSCO

The Cherokee Cases refer to a series of landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions in the early 19th century that significantly impacte...

EBSCO

The U.S. government broke numerous treaties with the Cherokee Nation, primarily driven by white settler demand for land, the discovery of gold, and westward expansion, culminating in the forced removal known as the Trail of Tears. Treaties were violated through coercion, unauthorized negotiations, and the refusal to enforce supreme court rulings that recognized Cherokee sovereignty. 

History.com

Key Reasons for Broken Treaties

Gold Discovery & Land Hunger: The discovery of gold in Georgia in 1828 and the desire for agricultural land spurred Georgia to ignore federal treaties and push for removal.

Indian Removal Act of 1830: President Andrew Jackson pushed this act through, replacing voluntary treaty negotiations with threats and forced compliance.

The Treaty of New Echota (1835): The U.S. ratified a fraudulent treaty signed by a small minority of Cherokee, against the wishes of the majority of the Nation, justifying the forced removal of 16,000 people and resulting in over 4,000 deaths.

Ignoring Judicial Rulings: Despite Worcester v. Georgia (1832) ruling that the Cherokee were a sovereign nation free from Georgia's laws, Jackson refused to enforce the ruling. 

Office of the Historian (.gov)

The U.S. violated previous treaties guaranteeing Cherokee territory and sovereignty in exchange for peace, effectively abandoning the legal, negotiated, and peaceful resolutions for a policy of forced displacement. 

Muwekma Ohlone Tribe

Non Intercourse Act:

The Nonintercourse Act (or Indian Trade and Intercourse Acts) refers to a series of six US laws passed between 1790 and 1834. They established federal control over trade, interactions, and specifically, the inalienability of Native American land, requiring federal treaties for any legal land transfers, designed to prevent fraudulent purchases and protect tribal boundaries. 

Wikipedia

Key Aspects of the Nonintercourse Acts:

Land Transactions (1790-1834): The acts declared that no sale of land from an Indian nation or tribe was valid unless made through a treaty or convention under the authority of the United States. This prohibited states or individuals from directly purchasing, leasing, or acquiring Native land.

Trade Licensing: Regulations required traders to obtain a license from the federal government to engage in business within Native territories to ensure "true and faithful observance" of trade rules.

Enforcement of Boundaries: The acts established, surveyed, and enforced boundaries between US territory and Native American lands. They authorized the President to remove settlers from tribal lands and authorized penalties (fines up to 

 and imprisonment) for individuals trespassing, hunting, or surveying in these areas.

Criminal Jurisdiction: These acts established protocols for handling crimes committed by citizens against Native Americans and vice versa.

Legacy: While aimed at reducing conflict, the laws were often violated. However, they continue to serve as a legal basis for modern tribal land claims, particularly in the Eastern United States, based on the principle that many historical land transfers were never ratified by Congress. 

Wikipedia

The 1834 Act, in particular, was a comprehensive piece of legislation that finalized many of these provisions, with some parts persisting in the U.S. Code. 

vLex

The Nonintercourse Act (also known as the Indian Intercourse Act) refers to a series of six federal statutes passed by Congress between 1790 and 1834 to regulate interactions between Native Americans and non-Indians. 

Wikipedia

The core purpose of these acts was to establish exclusive federal authority over Native American affairs, specifically regarding land ownership and trade. 

Maine Indian Tribal-State Commission

Key Provisions

Land Protection: The most significant provision states that no sale, lease, or conveyance of Native American land is valid unless it is made through a public treaty and approved by the federal government.

Trade Licensing: The acts established a strict licensing system for anyone wishing to trade with Native tribes.

Boundary Lines: They defined the official boundaries of "Indian Country" and prohibited non-Indians from settling or hunting on tribal lands without permission.

Crimes and Law: The statutes provided federal jurisdiction for crimes committed by non-Indians against Native Americans in tribal territories. 

Wikipedia

Historical & Legal Impact

George Washington's Promise: President Washington used the 1790 Act to assure the Seneca Nation that the federal government would protect their lands from being stolen by individual states or settlers.

Modern Litigation: Because the 1834 version of the act (codified as 25 U.S.C. § 177) is still in effect, it has been used in modern land claim lawsuits.

Major Settlements: In the late 20th century, several Eastern tribes (like the Passamaquoddy and Penobscot in Maine) successfully argued that their land had been taken in violation of the Act, leading to multi-million dollar federal settlements. 

Wikipedia

Evolution of the Acts

The statutes were passed in 1790, 1793, 1796, 1799, 1802, and 1834. While the first four were temporary, the 1802 and 1834 versions were intended to be permanent, forming the foundation of current Federal Indian Law. 

Aboriginal Title:

Aboriginal title is a unique, collective, and constitutionally protected property right to the exclusive use and occupation of ancestral lands by Indigenous peoples, arising from their pre-sovereignty occupation. It is sui generis (unique) and differs from fee simple, often including limitations on land sale and requiring recognition of government sovereignty. 

The University of British Columbia

Key Aspects of Aboriginal Title:

Nature: It is a right to the land itself, covering both surface and sub-surface rights, not just the right to hunt or fish.

Source: It is derived from the historic, continuous, and exclusive occupation of land by Indigenous nations before the Crown asserted sovereignty.

Collective Right: Title is held by a community or nation, not by individuals.

Restrictions: It cannot be sold or transferred to any party other than the Crown (government).

Legal Standing: In Canada, it is recognized under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. In the US, it is often termed "original Indian title" or "Indian right of occupancy". 

The University of British Columbia

Types/Components of Title Claims:

Exclusive Occupation: The primary, most powerful form of Aboriginal title, granting a group the right to use and control a specific area.

Aboriginal Rights (Non-Title): Distinct from full title, these are specific rights to engage in traditional activities (hunting, fishing, ceremonial use) even if full title to the land cannot be proven.

Joint Management/Title: A form of agreement where a Traditional Owner group is granted title to land (e.g., in Victoria, Australia) to jointly manage it with the government as public land. 

Department of Justice Canada

Key Concepts in Title Law:

Sui Generis: It is a unique, one-of-a-kind legal right.

The Test for Title: Established by the Supreme Court of Canada (e.g., Delgamuukw and Tsilhqot'in cases), requiring proof of continuous and exclusive possession.

Infringement: Governments can only infringe upon aboriginal title for "compelling and substantial" reasons (e.g., forestry, mining) while adhering to the duty to consult. 

The University of British Columbia

Aboriginal title is a unique legal doctrine recognizing that the land rights of Indigenous peoples, based on their traditional occupation and use, continue to exist even after a colonizing state claims sovereignty. Unlike standard property ownership (fee simple), it is a communal right that cannot be sold to individuals and is typically held "in trust" by the community for future generations. 

The University of British Columbia

Notice: 

It should be noted that the tribe never signed a Charter with the U.S. government and has never existed within any U.S. jurisdiction, further the tribal government served legal notice to the Secretary of the U.S. to the several treaties that were legally determined to be invalid, broken, and or desolved returning the assets to be property of our government, further the laws of occupation. 

Notice:

It should be noted, that the tribe's tribal land is separate from the State of SCNRFP Central Government foreign land and jurisdiction. The agencies and branches of the State of SCNRFP  such as the above Neutral Military  is not tribal related rather only that of the Central Government of the State of SCNRFP. The State of SCNRFP Government has never existed within the U.S. rather within it's own foreign lands and jurisdiction.

Notice:

State of SCNRFP:  Officially The State of the Southern Cherokee Nation and The Red Fire People, also known as The Cherokee State, was born out of necessity following the visions and prophecies.  The State of SCNRFP is Officially Recognized by a Number of Member Nations of the UN and Governments Globally, as an International Independent Recognized Sovereign Neutral  Unaligned Nation and State (Country), a self-governing Theocracy Government with Citizens and Dual Citizens Globally.

State of SCNRFP (Central Government) is not within American continent, as is the tribe that remains within the American continent (Turtle Island) and the tribe chose to not seek or sign a tribal charter rather remains a sovereign treaty nation, whereby differently the State of SCNRFP is within the State's own foreign independent sovereign jurisdictions (Diplomacy Agreements, Diplomatic Offices, Foreign Territories, and Foreign Defined Sovereign Land Boundaries), free of any other government's jurisdiction.  There is a separation of government powers between the State of SCNRFP Central government and the tribal government, however both the State Government power and separately the tribal government power are under the Theocracy form of government.  The State of SCNRFP government power being an independent sovereign country operates independent from any other country and separately the tribal government power only performs internal tribal affairs which does not provide any functions of that of  a country, however the State of SCNRFP being a independent sovereign country does provide these sovereign functions from it's own foreign independent sovereign jurisdictions (Diplomacy Agreements, Diplomatic Offices, Foreign Territories, and Foreign Defined Sovereign Land Boundaries), free of any other government's jurisdiction.  The State of SCNRFP has citizens and dual citizens global, whereby the tribe has tribal members.  The State of SCNRFP government has a Executive Branch and Cabinet, whereby the tribe has a tribal council. It is explained in more detail below and throughout this official State of SCNRFP government website. If you have any further questions feel free to contact our State government at government email address: scnrfp@stategov.services