Dynamics of Power under Occupation
Examining “power” means addressing specific constellations of subordination and dominance in social contexts. Chances of asserting power are highest where strong asymmetries between the various groups of actors involved exist, something that is a fundamental characteristic of occupation. The occupations of World War Two were based upon asymmetries between occupiers and occupied, beginning with the occupiers’ monopoly on military force but including various other instruments of power. Historiography (especially in Europe) has neglected such dynamics of occupation to a certain degree until lately, focusing instead on the conduct of “war” and the “peace” that followed. As a result, the wider German public is unaware that most victims between 1939 and 1945 in occupied countries were civilians, who died not as a result of fighting but because of German atrocities committed under occupation. Nowadays, political demands for “strengthening diplomacy” obscure the fact that Russia is committing systematic human rights violations in the occupied (and annexed) territories of Ukraine. Therefore, the aim of this panel is to take a closer look at occupations as part of the conduct of war, occupations as part of a transition to peace, and the connections between occupations past and occupations present. We will look at both Asia and Europe, and include historical, sociological and legal frameworks. Louise Young (University of Wisconsin–Madison) investigates the history of Japan as an occupying power as well as an occupied society, examining relations of power under colonial, wartime and Cold War occupations. Masha Cerovic (EHESS) addresses the problem of “collaboration”, linking the vexed memory politics of World War Two to the present situation in Ukraine. Stefanie Bock (University of Marburg) analyzes occupation from the perspective of international law.
In 1945, the millions of soldiers and civilians who had carried out the occupation of Japan’s sprawling wartime empire returned to a homeland under occupation by enemy forces. The occupation of “Greater East Asia” converted colonial institutions to serve wartime imperatives. After surrender, the US occupation initially aimed to “demilitarize and democratize” Japanese institutions, later repurposing the occupation to make Japan into a client state in the American Cold War imperium.
The naturalization of the “occupation / resistance” diptych is linked to the hegemony of the post-1945 political, memorial and legal framework constructed by the victorious forces. The limits of this approach are nowhere clearer than in Eastern Europe, where Moscow has effectively instrumentalized the post-war “consensus” while the Ukrainian state prosecutes those citizens who are “working together” with the enemy. This paper offers a new analytical framework to understand the European experience of modern occupation, based on a sociologically informed understanding of the power dynamics in these situations.
In asymmetrical structures, law is an instrument of domination to secure supremacy of the superior group. At the same time, law also has an emancipatory potential that the inferior group can use to create spaces for protection and participation. In the case of occupations, this ambivalence of law is intensified by norm collusion. While international law aims to protect the occupied, national regulations focus on the interests of the occupiers. To find effective and sustainable solutions in this area of tension, the law needs to fully comprehend occupation.