‘WAR DIARY. ARMY HEADQUARTERS, INDIA. […] I.E.F. “D”. Volume 41. PART II. (From 16th to 31st December 1917).’ [‎95r] (194/508)

Government at least not worse than the Turkish Government, which had been
ejected.
, officials of the Turkish civil administration having fled en bloc
with their retreating army, the political mission soon f< und itself forced to
make such ariangements as were feasible for the governance of the people, and
one by one, during the closing months of the financial year 1914-15 the ordi
nary civil departments began to make their appearance, the Jail and Medical
Departments, the Port Health Department, the Police Department and the
Revenue Department being among the first to be established, the first four and
the Judicial Department which soon followed, being intended to administer to
the needs of^the populace, while the Hevenue Department w r as expected to
piovide the lunds required for their operations. Control of these Departments
was centralised in the Chief Political Officer, who thus occupied the position of
head of the civil administration under the general control of the 'Army
Commander.
4. The responsibilities of tne civil administration, which thus sprang up,
were defined,, so far as they were defined at all, by the provisions of interna
tional law with reierence to land warfare, under which the commander of an
army in the field is required, as Governor-General of the Occupied Territory, to
administer to the needs of the local population and generally to assume the
position of the original Government w r hich he ejects, and whose rights, privi
leges and responsibilities he inherits. Among these rights and privileges is the
title to collect such taxes as would ordinarily have been payable to the original
Government by the local population, and the payment of them into his °own
treasury, and among his responsibilities is the duty of providing for the carry
ing on of civil Government to the same extent as the original Government was
responsible to do so; though, when there is a surplus of revenues over expen
diture, he is permitted to make use of such surplus for the use of his army,
subject to the proviso that he may not divert from their legitimate uses
revenues or taxes raised for special purposes. Thus, in the present case, the
Army Commander would legally be debarred from using Waqf funds for any
but Waqf purposes or from diverting special revenue receipts, allocated by
international agreement to the service of the Ottoman Public Debt, to military
expenditure.
, -P* position of a commander in the field ms a vis the population of the
territory of which he is in occupation is clear enough from the above. His
position vis a vis his own Government is rather more ambiguous in so far that,
T \ ^ m 118 militai T capacity, is employed and therefore subject to control
i^ Vernmei ^’ wffich may refuse to place funds at his disposal or may
restrict his operations or recall him, yet, in his capacity of head of the civil
Government or Governor-General of the territory w T hich he occupies, and
successor to the sovereign rights of the original national Government, he may
*^ s independent of control by his ow r n Government in all matters
or civil administration, so long as he does not overstep the bounds of interna
tional law, that being the extent of the independence enjoyed by the national
oiernment, w r hich rather than his own Government, he represents in this capa-
city. His own Government may recall him if he does not satisfy them, but apart
rom that remedy they have no status to control his expenditure out of local
revenues, providing that it does not exceed the scale sanctioned bv the original
national Government, both the Commander of the Army of Occupation and his
-vernment being bound by Internationa) Haw to be guided by that standard.
Ihe functions of the supreme Government vis a vis its representatives in the field
are therefore of a purely advisory nature—the dominant factor in all cases of
disagreement between the two being not the wull of the supreme Government
but the provisions of international law based in each parlicular case on the laws,
customs and financial arrangements ot the country under occupation and on the
military exigencies of the situation, where these necessitate a departure from
existing arrangements.
6 . The supreme Government may call for reports on the civil administra
tion of occupied territory but it is not within its scope to dictate to the local
Government except in cases where a breach of international law has been or
is likely to be committed.
7. In this connection a clear line of distinction must be drawn between
territories, in respect of which a declaration of annexation has been made, and
those which are merely under military occupation. In the former case owner
ship is transferred and a regular civil Government must be set up, either under