Dr. Aaron Lerner, director of IMRA asked Hebrew University international law expert Dr. Robbie Sabel about the legality of the IDF action in international waters:
Dr. Sabel explained that a state, in a time of conflict, can impose an embargo, and while it cannot carry out embargo activities in the territorial waters of a third party, it can carry out embargo activities in international waters.There is more information about that issue from the website of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs:
Within this framework it is legal to detain a civilian vessel trying to break an embargo and if in the course of detaining the vessel, force is used against the forces carrying out the detention then that force has every right to act in self defense.
Dr. Sabel noted that there is a long history of embargo activities in international waters.
A maritime blockade is in effect off the coast of Gaza. It has been imposed, as Israel is currently in a state of armed conflict with the Hamas regime that controls Gaza.Of course, this will not stop the apologists from blindly insisting that Israel had no right to stop the Gaza Flotilla while it was in international waters.
1. A maritime blockade is in effect off the coast of Gaza. Such blockade has been imposed, as Israel is currently in a state of armed conflict with the Hamas regime that controls Gaza, which has repeatedly bombed civilian targets in Israel with weapons that have been smuggled into Gaza via the sea.
2. Maritime blockades are a legitimate and recognized measure under international law that may be implemented as part of an armed conflict at sea.
3. A blockade may be imposed at sea, including in international waters, so long as it does not bar access to the ports and coasts of neutral states.
4. The naval manuals of several western countries, including the US and England recognize the maritime blockade as an effective naval measure and set forth the various criteria that make a blockade valid, including the requirement of give due notice of the existence of the blockade.
5. In this vein, it should be noted that Israel publicized the existence of the blockade and the precise coordinates of such by means of the accepted international professional maritime channels. Israel also provided appropriate notification to the affected governments and to the organizers of the Gaza protest flotilla. Moreover, in real time, the ships participating in the protest flotilla were warned repeatedly that a maritime blockade is in effect.
6. Here, it should be noted that under customary law, knowledge of the blockade may be presumed once a blockade has been declared and appropriate notification has been granted, as above.
7. Under international maritime law, when a maritime blockade is in effect, no boats can enter the blockaded area. That includes both civilian and enemy vessels.
8. A state may take action to enforce a blockade. Any vessel that violates or attempts to violate a maritime blockade may be captured or even attacked under international law. The US Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations sets forth that a vessel is considered to be in attempt to breach a blockade from the time the vessel leaves its port with the intention of evading the blockade.
9. Here we should note that the protesters indicated their clear intention to violate the blockade by means of written and oral statements. Moreover, the route of these vessels indicated their clear intention to violate the blockade in violation of international law.
10. Given the protesters explicit intention to violate the naval blockade, Israel exercised its right under international law to enforce the blockade. It should be noted that prior to undertaking enforcement measures, explicit warnings were relayed directly to the captains of the vessels, expressing Israel's intent to exercise its right to enforce the blockade.
11. Israel had attempted to take control of the vessels participating in the flotilla by peaceful means and in an orderly fashion in order to enforce the blockade. Given the large number of vessels participating in the flotilla, an operational decision was made to undertake measures to enforce the blockade a certain distance from the area of the blockade.
12. Israeli personnel attempting to enforce the blockade were met with violence by the protesters and acted in self defense to fend off such attacks.
But those people are wrong.
See also: Still Another Source On Israel's Right To Stop The #Flotilla
Technorati Tag: Gaza Flotilla and International Law.
Israel had every right to stop enemy vessels and to confiscate or destroy their cargo. That is a basic right of self defense allowed under international law.
ReplyDeleteNot only do they have every right, they need to respond with a Free Kurdistan flotilla to see what it's like when the shoe is on the other foot.
ReplyDeletehttp://wearegovernment.blogspot.com/2010/05/free-kurdistan-flotilla.html
Under these rules, what then stops Hamas from declaring a blockade of Israel, and then allowing any terrorist to attack any boat heading for Israel? Would Israel just have to attack Hamas until it was compelled to retract the declared blockade, with the world standing by and respecting the blockade until we succeeded? (Hamas has shown a willingness to absorb tremendous punishment without declaring Uncle, so that would be a dangerous game). Would Israel need to give military escort to every ship that wished to enter Israeli port? (remember that would possibly have to begin from the source port, as soon as the intention was clear the ship would be eligible for boarding by an enforcing agency, maybe a Hezbollah support boat or other terriorist supporter).
ReplyDeleteI haven't been able to find anything in a quick search about breaking blockades that reassures me that a Hamas blockade of Israel is ridiculous, except perhaps that Hamas has no navy, and the declaring agency itself is the only one legally permitted to enforce the blockade.
Gaza is not a sovereign state, so under those circumstances it may be that the 'heter' of a blockade under international law is not applicable to them.
ReplyDeleteThen again, given the chance, I would not put it past the UN and others to justify it anyway.
These days, international law seems to mean whatever you want it to mean.
I looked a little further and found the answer. The term is "paper blockade". International law doesn't want everyone blockading the great powers and hampering the right of trade for neutrals, so there are requirements for a blockade to have force in law. A paper blockade is one that is declared but not enforced, where being enforced includes committing naval resources to constantly block the port or ports in question. The only way Hamas could succeed at this would be to have sufficient allies commit to posting naval resources, and those resource would hvae to be able to withstand Israel's navy in response. Even Hezbollah couldn't do that. The only way would be if they convince International forces through the UN to apply a blockade of Israel. I know the UN has a lot of hatred, but I doubt that could happen, at least not yet. But I'm pretty sure we'll hear a lot of anti-Israel peace-style activists calling for a blockade of Israel soon. Its just good to know it will be nothing more than rhetorical venom.
ReplyDelete