6

Was there ever (since 1850, or even better since 1940) a case where:

  1. Country A was attacked by country B

  2. Country A won the armed conflict after being attacked

  3. Country A - as part of post-war negotiations - obtained control over territory formerly governed by country B (examples of this are Sudetenland or Kaliningrad after WWII).

  4. Country B formally signed off on not having a claim to this territory.

  5. Country A faced international pressure - ideally successful - to withdraw control from said territory, by declaring it to be illegaly occupied. Pressure here being defined as UN resolutions (SC or GA) etc...

    Please note that this is very specifically about external pressure. E.g. not a case where the country chose to unilaterally withdraw control for its own internal reasons and/or under pressure from occupied population, ala British Empire's many territories.

9
  • 2
    The obvious answer would be "Israel/Jordan war in 1967 and West Bank"... so the question is asking for other examples.
    – user4012
    Aug 11 '14 at 4:39
  • 1
    This is a question that is better suited to History than Politics. This is not about the politics of doing it but rather the history where it may or may not have been done. Aug 11 '14 at 13:22
  • 1
    Well, A=USSR, B=Germany, territory=East Germany?
    – bytebuster
    Aug 11 '14 at 21:20
  • 1
    @bytebuster - LOL. OK. You got me. Reagan as UN substitute :)
    – user4012
    Aug 11 '14 at 23:07
  • 1
    Actually, Sinai was not returned to Egypt under international pressure. It was returned to Egypt as part of the peace agreement that finally brought the Israel-Egypt conflict to an end. (at least so far)
    – tj1000
    Jun 9 '17 at 21:20
3

Australia, Germany, Australian controlled New Guinea?

Germany occupied New Guinea. At a later stage Germany attacked Belgium and the British Empire defended, and effectively outlasted Germany. Australia seized New Guinea and was given post-war mandate, without a claim.

Australia faced international pressure under the UN's decolonisation system to withdraw from New Guinea. The impetus behind finally resolving the situation is arguable external (Australia did not seem to have internal impetus). Nor was New Guinea exerting pressure internally to Australia.

Hasluck's intellectual strength... [can't paste, the PDF is being stupid.]

Donald Denoon (2012 [2005]) Trial Separation: Australia and the Decolonisation of Papua New Guinea ANU Press ( http://press.anu.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/whole111.pdf ) p26

7
  • Could you provide some specifics on how that matches up to the question? More specifically, #5
    – user4012
    Aug 11 '14 at 5:31
  • is there an example of "international pressure under the UN's decolonisation system to withdraw from New Guinea"? Aside from general trend of losing colonies, that is, which isn't really what I asked about (UN resolutions, or other specific acts specifically addressing New Guinea). PNG Wikipedia page seems to have no reference for what happened as far as indepenence.
    – user4012
    Aug 11 '14 at 12:04
  • To be more specific: Israel had tons of UN resolutions specifically aimed at it and West Bank. E.g. formally designating PNG as "occupied territory", and other similar treatment. So I'm looking for equivalent treatment prior to 1975 when PNG obtained independence, as opposed to mere "all the other colonies are being released, we better get with the program" reasoning that your answer seems to imply to me.
    – user4012
    Aug 11 '14 at 12:06
  • It seems like the decolonisation agenda would be exactly what you were asking about. Aug 11 '14 at 14:44
  • 1
    @Samual - Thanks! Gone through the PDF. It appears that there was external pressure, but it was of drastically different nature - UN officially gave PNG to Australia as Trrusteesheep Mandate - thus formally approving, albiet temporarily, its control, and the pressure was to speed up the goals (quite different from declaring it Occupied Territory and urging immediate withdrawal). I am hesitatnt to upvote, since the situation visavi UN seems so different, but will think further before deciding.
    – user4012
    Aug 11 '14 at 22:29
1

The United Nations denounced colonialism in its 1960 Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples:

Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.

The UN debate over colonialism was widely covered and very heated (this was when Khrushchev famously banged his shoe on the desk). I think its fair to say, broadly speaking, that condition 5 would apply to pretty much any colonial holding held after 1960. So all of the former German and Japanese colonies that were taken by the Allies, but decolonized after that date, might apply. (Rwanda, Burundi, the Marshall Islands, etc.)

But the most straightforward example would be the occupation of Namibia. South Africa occupied the German territory during WWI, and was granted a UN mandate after the war. During the push for decolonization in the 1960's, South Africa resisted. The UN passed a series of resolutions first revoking South Africa's mandate, then calling for Namibian independence, before finally issuing a resolution in 1976 condemning the "illegal occupation." These calls for an end to the occupation continued well into the 1980's.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .