You're missing my point. Who is authorized to determine whether or not these criteria have been satisfied? What have they said about it?
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 keep citing this, but it's not right. The Convention for the SUA does not apply here.
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?
I'm assuming they said it was in effect until the situation was resolved.
- Is the blockade effective? This is a question of fact.
And who is authorized to make that determination? What have they concluded?
- Is the damage to the civilian population of Gaza excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage gained from the blockade?
And who is authorized to make that determination? What have they concluded?
No, where did I say it would be perfectly legal?
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).
What direct military advantage gained from stopping a humanitarian vessel is equal to the lives of 9 civilians outside Israeli jurisdiction?
Who says its not? Who makes that determination?
... 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 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.
I clearly said another article with 6 in parentheses, there is no need to be obtuse.
And which article is that?
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.
And you've yet to offer an explanation.
Nah, it's just merely irrelevant to your opinion on the legality of the forceful boarding.
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.
You are still using San Remo as a defense for what Israel did. Why use it as a defense if it does not apply?
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.
When you paraphrased the article that allows for boarding of merchant vessels.
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.
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;
And once again, read Art. 48.
No said anything about total sovereignty.
No State may validly purport to subject any part of the high seas to its sovereignty.
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."