This article will explore the travaux préparatoires of the key legal instruments on the laws of war and international humanitarian law (IHL) with a view to obtaining crucial insight into the ‘original’ understandings of their drafters as to the provisional nature and the temporal length of occupation. The findings of the travaux show the general premise of the framers of the ‘classic’ instruments on the laws of war that the legal regime of occupation should be provisional. In the concurrent doctrinal discourses this premise was endorsed by most scholars. Examination of the records of the negotiations on the drafting of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 reveals that even the proponents of ‘transformative occupation’ did not seem to envisage occupation that would endure for decades. Nevertheless, by the time the 1977 Additional Protocol I was drafted, several instances of protracted occupation already existed, which seems to have led to a decisive shift in the argumentative structure. There is no disputing the applicability of IHL to any occupied territory, irrespective of the length of the occupation. Yet the suggestion that nothing under IHL would forestall an occupying power from engaging in protracted occupation departs from the traditional premise that occupation ought to be provisional. This also seems to be paradoxical in historical perspectives.

中文翻译：

---

挖掘长期职业的问题地形

本文将探讨准备工作材料战争法和国际人道主义法 (IHL) 的主要法律文书，以期获得关键洞察力，了解其起草者对临时性质和占领的时间长度的“原始”理解。调查结果工作人员展示了战争法“经典”文书的制定者的一般前提，即占领的法律制度应该是临时性的。在同时发生的教义论述中，这一前提得到了大多数学者的认可。对起草 1949 年日内瓦第四公约的谈判记录的审查表明，即使是“变革性占领”的支持者似乎也没有设想会持续数十年的占领。然而，到 1977 年第一附加议定书起草时，已经存在几个长期占领的实例，这似乎导致了辩论结构的决定性转变。无论占领的时间长短，国际人道法对任何被占领土的适用性都没有争议。然而，国际人道法下的任何规定都不会阻止占领国进行长期占领的建议背离了占领应该是临时性的传统前提。从历史的角度来看，这似乎也是自相矛盾的。