Since the publication of the widely quoted book by Eyal Benvenisti on The International Law of Occupation, there seems to be a generally accepted premise that Article 64 of the IV Geneva Convention is applicable to all types of laws (including commercial laws) and that, therefore, its legal regime replaced Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Regulations. With all due respect, this article argues that such approach is wrongfully grounded. Furthermore, almost no author seems to give any relevance to the formal obligation imposed by the IV Geneva Convention to publish (in the language of the inhabitants) the commercial law norms enacted by the occupying power.
I thank Professor Benvenisti for his response to my article and hope that this discussion will be helpful and fruitful. Nevertheless, I concur with Pictet that Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Regulations 'imposes obligations of a general nature on the Occupying Power', while Article 64 of the IV Geneva Convention contains a specific exception for penal legislation. Therefore, Article 43 HR still remains the applicable norm regarding commercial law reform in occupied territories.