A military government is generally any government that is administrated by military forces,

whether this government is legal or not under the laws of the jurisdiction at issue, and whether this
government is formed by natives or by an occupying power. It is usually carried out by military workers.

Types of military government include:

 Military occupation
 Martial law
 Military dictatorship
 Stratocracy

MILITARY OCCUPATION

Military occupation is effective provisional control by a certain ruling power over

a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity, without the violation of the actual
sovereign. Military occupation is distinguished from annexation by its intended temporary nature (i.e.
no claim for permanent sovereignty), by its military nature, and by citizenship rights of the controlling
power not being conferred upon the subjugated population.

From the second half of the 18th century onwards, international law has come to distinguish between
the military occupation of a country and territorial acquisition by invasion and annexation.
"Laws and Customs of War on Land" (Hague IV); October 18, 1907: "Section III Military Authority
over the territory of the hostile State.” The first two articles of that section state:
 Art. 42.
Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile
army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and
can be exercised.
Art. 43.
The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant,
the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible,
public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in
the country.

PHASES OF A MILITARY GOVERNMENT

Beginning of military government

No proclamation of part of the victorious commander is necessary to the lawful inauguration
and enforcement of military government. That government results from the fact that the former
sovereignty is ousted, and the opposing army now has control.
The occupying power
In belligerent occupation the occupying power does not hold enemy territory by virtue of any
legal right. On the contrary, it merely exercises a precarious and temporary actual control.
End of military government
Rule: Military occupation continues until legally supplanted. According to Eyal Benvenisti,
military occupation can end in a number of ways, such as: "loss of effective control, namely when the
occupant is no longer capable of exercising its authority; through the genuine consent of the
sovereign (the ousted government or an indigenous one) by the signing of a peace agreement; or by
transferring authority to an indigenous government endorsed by the occupied population through
referendum and which has received international recognition."
This is explained as follows. For the situation where no territorial cession is involved, the military
government of the principal occupying power will end with the coming into force of the peace
settlement

Example: (1) Japan after WWII. Japan regained its sovereignty with the coming into force of
the San Francisco Peace Treaty on April 28, 1952. In other words, a civil government for
Japan was in place and functioning as of this date.
 In the situation of a territorial cession, there must be a formal peace treaty. However, the military
government of the principal occupying power does not end with the coming into force of the
peace treaty.

Example: (1) Puerto Rico after the Spanish–American War. Military government continued in
Puerto Rico past the coming into force of the Treaty of Paris of 1898 on April 11, 1899, and
only ended on May 1, 1900 with the beginning of Puerto Rico's civil government.

Example: (2) Cuba after the Spanish–American War. Military government continued in Cuba
past the coming into force of the Treaty of Paris of 1898 on April 11, 1899, and only ended
on May 20, 1902 with the beginning of the Republic of Cuba's civil government.
Hence, at the most basic level, the terminology of "legally supplanted" is interpreted to
mean "legally supplanted by a civil government fully recognized by the national (or
"federal") government of the principal occupying power.

The most recent cases of occupation, which took place in the 21st century are the:

 Gash-Barka Region taken over in 2000 during the Eritrean–Ethiopian War

 Iraq occupied by US during the Iraq War of 2003-2011
 Parts of Somalia occupied during the War in Somalia (2006–09)
 Gori and Poti occupied by Russia during the Russo-Georgian War
 Occupation of Crimea, followed by its annexation in 2014, during the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in
Ukraine
 Takeover of Socotra in 2018 during the Yemeni Civil War

MARTIAL LAW
Dunmore's Proclamation declaring Martial law in the proclaimed May 27, 1775, several months after the
beginning of the American Revolutionary War

Martial law is the imposition of direct military control of normal civilian functions of government,
especially in response to a temporary emergency such as invasion or major disaster, or in
an occupied territory.[1][2]
Martial law can be used by governments to enforce their rule over the public. Martial law may be
declared in cases of major natural disasters; however, most countries use a different legal construct,
such as a state of emergency.

PROCLAMATION OF MARTIAL LAW IN THE PH

During the Second World War, President José P. Laurel placed the Philippines (then a client
state of Imperial Japan) under martial law via Proclamation № 29, dated 21 September 1944 and
enforced the following day at 09:00 PST. Proclamation № 30 was issued on 23 September,
declaring the existence of a state of war between the Philippines and the United States and
the United Kingdom, effective 10:00 that day.
The country was under martial law again from 1972 to 1981 under the authoritarian rule of Ferdinand
Marcos. Proclamation № 1081 ("Proclaiming a State of Martial Law in the Philippines") was signed
on 21 September 1972 and came into force on 22 September. The official reason behind the
declaration was to suppress increasing civil strife and the threat of a communist takeover,
particularly after a series of bombings (including the Plaza Miranda Incident) and an assassination
attempt on Defense Minister Juan Ponce Enrile in Mandaluyong.
The policy of martial law was initially well received, but it eventually proved unpopular as the
military's human rights abuses (use of torture in intelligence gathering, forced disappearances),
along with the decadence and excess of Marcos allies, had emerged. Coupled with economic
downturns, these factors fermented dissent in various sectors (e.g. the urban middle class) that
crystallized with the assassination of jailed oppositionist senator Benigno Aquino, Jr. in 1983, and
widespread fraud in the 1986 snap elections.
During this 9-year period, curfews were implemented as a safety measure. Majority of radio and
television networks were suspended. Journalists who were accused of speaking against the
government were taken as political prisoners, some of them to be physically abused and tortured by
the authorities.
On 4 December 2009, President Arroyo officially placed the Province of Maguindanao under a state
of martial law through Proclamation № 1959.[18] As with the last imposition, the declaration
suspended the writ of habeas corpus in the province.[19] The announcement came days after
hundreds of government troops were sent to the province to raid the armories of the powerful
Ampatuan clan. The Ampatuans were implicated in the massacre of 58 persons, including women
from the rival Mangudadatu clan, human rights lawyers, and 31 media workers. Cited as one of the
bloodiest incidents of political violence in Philippine history, the massacre was condemned
worldwide as the worst loss of life of media professionals in one day.[18]
On 23 May 2017, President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines declared martial law in Mindanao,
through Proclamation No. 216, due to the attack of Maute Group in Marawi City, Lanao del Sur. It
was announced in a briefing in Moscow by Secretary Ernesto Abella,[20]and will be in effect until
December.

MILITARY DICTATORSHIP
A military dictatorship is different from civilian dictatorship for a number of reasons: their motivations
for seizing power, the institutions through which they organize their rule and the ways in which they
leave power. Often viewing itself as saving the nation from the corrupt or myopic civilian politicians, a
military dictatorship justifies its position as "neutral" arbiters on the basis of their membership within
the armed forces. Most military dictatorships are formed after a coup d'état has overthrown the
previous government. In the past, military juntas have justified their rule as a way of bringing political
stability for the nation or rescuing it from the threat of "dangerous ideologies". For example the threat
of communism, socialism, and Islamism was often used. Military regimes tend to portray themselves
as non-partisan, as a "neutral" party that can provide interim leadership in times of turmoil, and also
tend to portray civilian politicians as corrupt and ineffective.

STRATOCRACY
A stratocracy (from στρατός, stratos, "army" and κράτος, kratos, "dominion", "power") is a form of
government headed by military chiefs.[1] It is not the same as a military dictatorship or military
junta where the military's political power is not enforced or even supported by other laws. Rather,
stratocracy is a form of military government in which civil and military service are difficult to
distinguish, where the state and the military are traditionally or constitutionally the same entity, and
that government positions are always occupied by commissioned officers and military leaders.
Citizens with mandatory or voluntary military service, or veterans who have been honorably
discharged, have the right to elect or govern. The military's administrative, judiciary,
and/or legislature powers are supported by law, the constitution, and the society. A stratocracy is
considered a form of meritocracy[citation needed]; it does not necessarily need to
be autocratic or oligarchic by nature in order to preserve its right to rule.