The vast majority of the supplies on the all ships was humanitarian aid. They were vessels that were innocently employed in their role of providing humanitarian aid to a place in a humanitarian classes, thus classifying it as a vessel exempt from attack.
humanitarian classes
International law.Exactly what are you basing your conclusions on?
If Israel disagrees, then it should have contacted the flag State of the ship. Legal jurisdiction of a ship flying the flag of a neutral State in international waters belongs to that neutral State.You believe that this was a humanitarian ship that was entirely innocent in its purpose. If Israel disagrees, what authority do you have to say that they're wrong?
Why don't you actually take the time to read what San Remo says about when a blockade is legitimate:When it's enforcing a blockade it does.
Some questions for you:SECTION II : METHODS OF WARFARE
Blockade
93. A blockade shall be declared and notified to all belligerents and neutral States.
94. The declaration shall specify the commencement, duration, location, and extent of the blockade and the period within which vessels of neutral States may leave the blockaded coastline.
95. A blockade must be effective. The question whether a blockade is effective is a question of fact.
96. The force maintaining the blockade may be stationed at a distance determined by military requirements.
97. A blockade may be enforced and maintained by a combination of legitimate methods and means of warfare provided this combination does not result in acts inconsistent with the rules set out in this document.
98. Merchant vessels believed on reasonable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be captured. Merchant vessels which, after prior warning, clearly resist capture may be attacked.
99. A blockade must not bar access to the ports and coasts of neutral States.
100. A blockade must be applied impartially to the vessels of all States.
101. The cessation, temporary lifting, re-establishment, extension or other alteration of a blockade must be declared and notified as in paragraphs 93 and 94.
102. The declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if:
(a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival; or
(b) the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade.
103. If the civilian population of the blockaded territory is inadequately provided with food and other objects essential for its survival, the blockading party must provide for free passage of such foodstuffs and other essential supplies, subject to:
(a) the right to prescribe the technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted; and
(b) the condition that the distribution of such supplies shall be made under the local supervision of a Protecting Power or a humanitarian organization which offers guarantees of impartiality, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross.
104. The blockading belligerent shall allow the passage of medical supplies for the civilian population or for the wounded and sick members of armed forces, subject to the right to prescribe technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted.
No, where did I say it would be perfectly legal?So your theory is that this would have been perfectly legal had it not turned into violence?
What direct military advantage gained from stopping a humanitarian vessel is equal to the lives of 9 civilians outside Israeli jurisdiction?(d) the collateral casualties or damage will not be disproportionate to the military advantage gained or expected.
... You were the one who brought up the Caroline Affair. Do you know who Abraham Sofaer is? Do you know what the justifications for preemption are under the preemptive war doctrine? Have you heard anything about Peremptory norm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ?And again, what exactly gives you (or anyone else) the authority to decide whether or not those criteria have been satisfied? Simply saying "oh, this isn't one of those cases because I don't think it is" doesn't quite cut it.
I clearly said another article with 6 in parentheses, there is no need to be obtuse.Another Article 6? Which Article 6 might that be? The only one I see makes explicit reference to a offenses that are violations of Article 3, much like Article 10.
No, you stated that they maintained a blockade and asked why they would sign a Convention that would make what they were doing a crime. You didn't state what it was they were doing so I inferred.Is that what I said? No. I said they've been maintaining a blockade for years and have maintained a firm position on this issue.
Nah, it's just merely irrelevant to your opinion on the legality of the forceful boarding.What you think they should have done is irrelevant to the question of what they had the legal authority to do.
You are still using San Remo as a defense for what Israel did. Why use it as a defense if it does not apply?I'm not the one who said San Remo applies. I'm merely responding to the claims in the OP.
When you paraphrased the article that allows for boarding of merchant vessels.Where exactly did I mention a merchant vessel?
The vessels that are exempt from attack.According to what?
No said anything about total sovereignty.Again, interdicting a boat that is about to run a blockade is not the same as asserting total sovereignty.
What Hamas says is irrelevant. They did not organize this flotilla. The stated intent of the passengers was to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza. That is all that matters.And here:
The stated intent of the flotilla, later confirmed by Hamas, was a political one: to run the Israeli blockade.
Nice attempt at a snide comment (from something as foolish as a typo). FYI, though, English is my third language. Urdu was my first langauge, followed very closely by French. Spanish I picked up by myself, and I learned some Italian while I was doing my undergraduate.I apologize. I didn't realize English is your second language.
When did I make any claims about sovereignty?Nice attempt yourself. At any rate, your English is great. However your claims about sovereignty are absurd and inapplicable. The flotilla is lucky not to be at the bottom of the Mediterranean.
Gun-sights, cartridges and coded plans found on 'Marmara.'
I am CITING you the law that deals with this.Nice attempt yourself. At any rate, your English is great. However your claims about sovereignty are absurd and inapplicable.
Ironic that it took them over a WEEK to find these things and that we have nothing aside from the Israeli's word that they were actually found on board.
The ships docked in the Israeli port of Ashdod and the cargo was inspected by x-ray scans and dogs trained to detect explosives. The cargo is being transferred to an estimated 20 trucks. Eight of these trucks arrived at the Kerem Shalom crossing point on Thursday, and Hamas refused to accept delivery. Hamas demands that all delivery trucks arrive at one time, that Turkey first give permission to transfer the goods, and that all activists be released. I believe at this time that some wounded remain in a hospital awaiting a medical release, and three activists remain in custody. All other activists have already been deported.What I want to know is... If the ship contained weapons or there was violence, ok, Israel had a legit reason to take action... but once the proceedings were over, why not allow the supplies into Gaza?
With this flotilla - as with all previous flotilla's - both Israel and Egypt have stated that all ship cargo will be transferred to Gaza after it has been inspected in one of their ports. They will absorb all overland transfer costs. All such offers by Israel and Egypt were rejected by the flotilla numerous times. This isn't about delivery of the goods. That is easily enough accomplished.There is a new ship on the way containing hundreds of tonnes of food, medical supplies, and cement for buildings. Israel should inspect it thoroughly or take control of the ship if necessary, and distribute the supplies itself. If it wants to ensure good faith then this is the only way.
What I want to know is...
If the ship contained weapons or there was violence, ok, Israel had a legit reason to take action... but once the proceedings were over, why not allow the supplies into Gaza?
There is a new ship on the way containing hundreds of tonnes of food, medical supplies, and cement for buildings. Israel should inspect it thoroughly or take control of the ship if necessary, and distribute the supplies itself.
If it wants to ensure good faith then this is the only way.
When did I make any claims about sovereignty?
No said anything about total sovereignty.
No State may validly purport to subject any part of the high seas to its sovereignty.
What part of any part don't you understand?
Who posted this?
Stopping a vessel suspected of smuggling arms is not exerting sovereignty, in part or in whole.
To be fair, Israel has said that's what it intends to do. However there are some restricted items that may not make it through such as concrete and steel for building.What I want to know is...
If the ship contained weapons or there was violence, ok, Israel had a legit reason to take action... but once the proceedings were over, why not allow the supplies into Gaza?
That's a reasonable request, however I dont see what attacking and seizing the ships on the high seas has to do with enforcing that request.With this flotilla - as with all previous flotilla's - both Israel and Egypt have stated that all ship cargo will be transferred to Gaza after it has been inspected in one of their ports. They will absorb all overland transfer costs. All such offers by Israel and Egypt were rejected by the flotilla numerous times. This isn't about delivery of the goods. That is easily enough accomplished.
What the activists actually seek is the ability to sail and dock directly at Gaza with no Israeli or Egyptian cargo inspections whatsoever. Without such inspections, there exists the very real possibility of clandestine weapon transfers. To satisfy their security concerns, both countries insist that all ship cargo be inspected in one of their ports before delivery to Hamas.
I didWho posted this?
Yes, yes it is. You are attempting to enforce your own laws against the smuggling of arms against a ship that does not fly your flag. ONLY the flag state may enforce it's laws aboard ships in international waters that fly their flag. Otherwise, the ships are off-limits except in circumstances of human trafficking, drug smuggling, and terrorism however you still need to notify and receive permission from the flag state to stop the ship.Stopping a vessel suspected of smuggling arms is not exerting sovereignty, in part or in whole.
IIRC, the ship was actually flagged under the Comoros Islands which does not interfere in cargo concerns, as long as it receives the flagging fee. But to address your particular issue, Turkey obviously knew of and approved of the flotilla and rejected all pre-sail requests by Israel to have the ship dock at Ashdod for cargo inspection. The San Remo Treaty addresses blockades and ship inspections in territorial waters and the high seas. As long as a belligerency exists between Israel and the government of Gaza (it does), Israel has every right to inspect ships headed towards the enemy port.Yes, yes it is. You are attempting to enforce your own laws against the smuggling of arms against a ship that does not fly your flag. ONLY the flag state may enforce it's laws aboard ships in international waters that fly their flag. Otherwise, the ships are off-limits except in circumstances of human trafficking, drug smuggling, and terrorism however you still need to notify and receive permission from the flag state to stop the ship.
I should hasten to point out that this convoy was KNOWN to be carrying humanitarian aid. That makes a difference as far as the law is concerned.
Article 90 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea states that "No State may validly purport to subject any part of the high seas to its sovereignty." Which Israel did when it attempted to enforce it's own laws in international waters.
Furthermore, under San Remo, Section 3
47. The following classes of enemy vessels are exempt from attack:
"(ii) vessels engaged in humanitarian missions, including vessels carrying supplies indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, and vessels engaged in relief actions and rescue operations;"
Again, the convoy was KNOWN to be carrying humanitarian aid and supplies which means the Israelis did not have the right to attack the convoy and doubly so in international waters.
Regardless, the Israelis are required to inquire with the flag nation if they have intentions of stopping a vessel in international waters.IIRC, the ship was actually flagged under the Comoros Islands which does not interfere in cargo concerns, as long as it receives the flagging fee.
Do we know that they did?But to address your particular issue, Turkey obviously knew of and approved of the flotilla and rejected all pre-sail requests by Israel to have the ship dock at Ashdod for cargo inspection.
The belligerency must exist between two soverign powers. Hamas is not recognized as such and so this warrants a different legal classification. Similar to how Vietnam was a "police action" because we were fighting against an insurgent group, the Viet Cong, not a recognized government.The San Remo Treaty addresses blockades and ship inspections in territorial waters and the high seas. As long as a belligerency exists between Israel and the government of Gaza (it does), Israel has every right to inspect ships headed towards the enemy port.
There were no indications that any violence was planned or advocated and as such that there would be any firearms on board. If Israel had stopped the ship in their territorial waters, this would be an ENTIRELY different conversation.And Israel has a valid argument that the ship was not purely humanitarian, on the grounds that it had announced its intention to violate a military blockade, was operating at least somewhat for propaganda purposes, and was planning to violate Israel custom laws.
Such as?And as I noted above, that's obviously not an absolute and all-encompassing proposition, given that there are dozens if not hundreds of acknowledged exceptions.
Ships in international waters are not required to submit to inspections unless authorized by their flag state.And as I noted in my first post, see article 48.
International law.
If Israel disagrees, then it should have contacted the flag State of the ship. Legal jurisdiction of a ship flying the flag of a neutral State in international waters belongs to that neutral State.
Why don't you actually take the time to read what San Remo says about when a blockade is legitimate:
Some questions for you:
- When Israel declared their intent to blockade Gaza, did they declare the duration?
- Is the blockade effective? This is a question of fact.
- Is the damage to the civilian population of Gaza excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage gained from the blockade?
No, where did I say it would be perfectly legal?
What direct military advantage gained from stopping a humanitarian vessel is equal to the lives of 9 civilians outside Israeli jurisdiction?
... You were the one who brought up the Caroline Affair. Do you know who Abraham Sofaer is? Do you know what the justifications for preemption are under the preemptive war doctrine? Have you heard anything about Peremptory norm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ?
I clearly said another article with 6 in parentheses, there is no need to be obtuse.
No, you stated that they maintained a blockade and asked why they would sign a Convention that would make what they were doing a crime.
Nah, it's just merely irrelevant to your opinion on the legality of the forceful boarding.
You are still using San Remo as a defense for what Israel did. Why use it as a defense if it does not apply?
When you paraphrased the article that allows for boarding of merchant vessels.
The vessels that are exempt from attack.
(ii) vessels engaged in humanitarian missions, including vessels carrying supplies indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, and vessels engaged in relief actions and rescue operations;
No said anything about total sovereignty.
No State may validly purport to subject any part of the high seas to its sovereignty.
There were no indications that any violence was planned or advocated and as such that there would be any firearms on board.
If Israel had stopped the ship in their territorial waters, this would be an ENTIRELY different conversation.
Such as?
I should point out that San Remo lays out the "rule of thumb" for the sea.
Ships in international waters are not required to submit to inspections unless authorized by their flag state.
The International Court of Justice. They haven't said anything because this is still a current event and Israel has rejected all requests for an impartial, independent investigation that may subsequently lead to the ICJ.You're missing my point. Who is authorized to determine whether or not these criteria have been satisfied? What have they said about it?
Give me one reason why SUA does not apply. Have you even read the introduction? The whole point of Conventions and Treaties are so that States could cooperate better. Not for them to be ignored and used only as a defense. SUA applies because the flag State of the ship was not an Israeli vessel. SUA applies because a foreign vessel was forcefully boarded in international waters. The fact that it was a military commission does not change the fact that jurisdiction of a ship in international waters belongs to the flag State. What part of "no State may subject the high seas to its sovereignty" do you not understand?You keep citing this, but it's not right. The Convention for the SUA does not apply here.
That is a disingenuous answer at best.I'm assuming they said it was in effect until the situation was resolved.
94. The declaration shall specify the commencement, duration, location, and extent of the blockade and the period within which vessels of neutral States may leave the blockaded coastline
The ICJ. They have already issued an advisory opinion stating the blockade was illegal. Israel was lucky it was only an advisory opinion thanks to the US.And who is authorized to make that determination? What have they concluded?
The ICJ. They have already issued an advisory opinion stating the blockade was illegal. Israel was lucky it was only an advisory opinion thanks to the US.And who is authorized to make that determination? What have they concluded?
I want you to tell me if the collateral damage from boarding these ships was proportional to the direct military advantage Israel gained from this. A cache of bulletproof vests, night vision goggles, and gas masks (all of which Israel has provided no evidence for) was proportional to killing 9 people (some of whom look like they were executed). Agree or disagree?You're premising the illegality under this section on the fact that in the end, you believe the result was disproportionately harmful. The obvious corollary to that is that had it not turned into what you consider disproportionate violence, it would not be illegal (under this section).
Is that all you can say? The questions are for yourself, since you are the person I am engaged in a debate with. Either you are trying to be obtuse, or you just know that answering the questions will be harmful to your argument.Who says its not? Who makes that determination?
Then using the Caroline Affair is a horrible example for you to use because it only details why Israel was wrong with its preemptive self-defense. Was there no moment of deliberation while the ships were in the high seas? Their threat to Israel's sovereignty was imminent? The boarding of the ship was a necessity that could not be resolved through alternative means? Preemptive doctrine has requirements as well.And once again, you're missing my point. I brought up the Caroline Affair to detail the standard by which this could be judged, but it also doubles as a perfect example of what we're talking about as a whole. In that case, the two sides eventually developed a standard for when preemptive self-defense would be permitted. Despite agreeing on the standard, they never agreed on whether that standard had been met in that case. The end result was that absolutely nothing happened. The same has happened in the vast majority of controversial cases since then.
Even if you and I agree on what the underlying standards are in this case, those standards have to be applied. My point, which you keep on ignoring, is that in the cases where no body is empowered to make these determinations, there can be no real violation of international law. This is why international law (as relates to the general use of force) has not developed much past Art. II(4) of the UN charter. Unless a convention clearly precludes something and provides an international body with authority to regulate violations, we're essentially in "might makes right" territory.
Article 6. Jesus...And which article is that?
Forcefully boarding a humanitarian vessel engaged in a humanitarian relief mission in international waters is not something that Israel does regularly.And you've yet to offer an explanation.
This is a current event. Israel has rejected all requests for an impartial investigation. Even requests from the UNSC. You are asking for something that won't reasonably happen for months or even years. That does not change the fact that this is still a discussion board and that this thread discusses the legality of the Israeli raid. We can still discuss the legality of the boarding/blockade without having to discuss if any of it will be enforced.And now you're seeing my point. Your opinion on whether something violates a convention is irrelevant. For something to be illegal, someone with authority to enforce/apply/interpret the law must say it is. I'm still waiting for you to offer any evidence of this.
That is not true. Mind showing where this "default rule" you mentioned comes from? Is it a standard that is derived from international law? It sure is hell isn't.Again, I'm not using San Remo as a defense for anything. I'm responding to the claim that it precludes it. As I mentioned above, the default rule is that everything not explicitly precluded is okay.
Short term memory loss?I'm still not sure what you're referring to, as nothing in my statement that you quoted made any reference, explicit or implied, to any language dealing with merchant vessels.
Once again, provide proof that a humanitarian vessel must be required to submit to inspection on the high seas.And once again, read Art. 48.
Again with the default rule nonsense. No where does the article mention anything about total control of swaths of international water. In fact, the article is very clear in its meaning when it says any part of the high seas.Like several parts of my post, I've addressed this already.
"You're reading far too much into this language. The Convention simply says that no state may subject the seas to its sovereignty, which is best read as a default rule directed at attempts to claim total control of swaths of international water, not as an absolute rule forbidding all actions on international water not listed in the Convention.
This reading is bolstered by the many, many treaties and conventions that have set forth ground rules for the interactions of ships in international water, several of which have been mentioned here. If the GCHS had truly meant to preclude any state from taking any action in international water, then there would have been no need for any of these treaties to discuss international waters, as the issue would have been resolved.
In addition, decades of practice have made it exceedingly clear that the Convention should be read in this fashion. The Convention was drafted in 1958. Since then, there have been dozens, if not hundreds, of situations where one nation took an action that interfered with another ship while in international waters. That alone is insufficient to constitute a violation of the Convention."
The International Court of Justice. They haven't said anything because this is still a current event and Israel has rejected all requests for an impartial, independent investigation that may subsequently lead to the ICJ.
Give me one reason why SUA does not apply.
The ICJ. They have already issued an advisory opinion stating the blockade was illegal. Israel was lucky it was only an advisory opinion thanks to the US.
The ICJ. They have already issued an advisory opinion stating the blockade was illegal. Israel was lucky it was only an advisory opinion thanks to the US.
I want you to tell me if the collateral damage from boarding these ships was proportional to the direct military advantage Israel gained from this.
Then using the Caroline Affair is a horrible example for you to use because it only details why Israel was wrong with its preemptive self-defense. Was there no moment of deliberation while the ships were in the high seas? Their threat to Israel's sovereignty was imminent? The boarding of the ship was a necessity that could not be resolved through alternative means? Preemptive doctrine has requirements as well.
Article 6. Jesus...
This is a current event. Israel has rejected all requests for an impartial investigation. Even requests from the UNSC. You are asking for something that won't reasonably happen for months or even years. That does not change the fact that this is still a discussion board and that this thread discusses the legality of the Israeli raid. We can still discuss the legality of the boarding/blockade without having to discuss if any of it will be enforced.
That is not true. Mind showing where this "default rule" you mentioned comes from? Is it a standard that is derived from international law? It sure is hell isn't.
Short term memory loss?
http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...6-legality-israeli-raid-3.html#post1058788247
The very first thing you discuss is the seizure of ships that are intent on running a blockade. First thing I told you was that it is not any ship, it is only enemy merchant vessels. Next thing I said was that the vessel was not a merchant vessel as it fell under the class of a humanitarian vessel engaged in a humanitarian relief mission.
Last thing I noted was that San Remo applies to a state of armed conflict. If it uses San Remo as a defense, it is a stating that the flag State of the ship is an enemy and is part of this state of armed conflict. This has been brought up numerous times in many of the publications that have highlighted this current event very recently.
Once again, provide proof that a humanitarian vessel must be required to submit to inspection on the high seas.
Again with the default rule nonsense. No where does the article mention anything about total control of swaths of international water. In fact, the article is very clear in its meaning when it says any part of the high seas.
The fact that there have been incidents before dealing with vessels boarded/attacked/harrassed in international waters does not change the specific details of this event.
There is no precedent where a humanitarian vessel of a nuetral State was boarded in international waters.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?