It has long been recognised that ‘non-consent’ is a fundamental element of the law of occupation. Under modern international humanitarian law (IHL), the consensual presence of foreign military forces is generally not seen as belligerent occupation.However, if we accept the principle that the application of IHL should rely on the objective situation on the ground and not on the subjective judgment of the situation of parties to the conflict, it may be natural to diminish the significance of consent by the territorial states in relation to the application of the law of occupation. It may be somewhat harmful to deny such protection based solely on the existence of the territorial states’ consent without considering the relationship, in reality, between the occupier and the population in the occupied area. According to a teleological interpretation of IHL, especially when it is obvious that the latter has no allegiance to the former, the tense relationship between them should be regulated by the law of occupation.This article discusses whether and how state consent could be a humanitarian ground to negate the legal protection for its own people, and highlights situations where the local population needs protection by the law of occupation (or comparable rules) in consensual military occupations.

中文翻译：

---

在同意和无争议的职业之间

人们早就认识到“不同意”是占领法的基本要素。在现代国际人道法下，外国军队的自愿存在一般不被视为交战占领。但是，如果我们接受国际人道法的适用应依赖于当地的客观情况而不是主观的原则。根据冲突各方情况的判断，自然会降低领土国家同意在适用占领法方面的重要性。不考虑占领者与被占领地区居民之间的实际关系，仅仅基于领土国家同意的存在而拒绝这种保护可能有些有害。