Izrael napao brodove sa humanitarnom pomoci za Gazu

02 June, 2010, 23:10
Keeping it simple

Whether or not the Mavi Marmara and the other ships that were boarded by Israeli special forces while heading to Gaza were first and foremost delivering humanitarian aid, engaging in political activism by breaking the blockade of Gaza, cruising with guns blazing, or simply out for a joy-ride, Israel clearly and grossly violated international law.

It’s that simple.

The freedom of navigation in international waters – is one of the most basic rights under international maritime law.

Article 110 of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is pretty clear.

Except where acts of interference derive from powers conferred by treaty, a warship which encounters on the high seas a foreign ship.. is not justified in boarding it unless there is reasonable ground for suspecting that:

(a) the ship is engaged in piracy;

(b) the ship is engaged in the slave trade;

(c) the ship is engaged in unauthorized broadcasting and the flag State of the warship has jurisdiction under article 109;

(d) the ship is without nationality; or

(e) though flying a foreign flag or refusing to show its flag, the ship is, in reality, of the same nationality as the warship.

Israel may claim many things about the six ships, but it would really stretch the world's imagination to claim they were involved in either piracy or the slave trade. Perhaps they could try arguing that the ships were renegade Israeli vessels.

According to Article 111, "The hot pursuit of a foreign ship may be undertaken when the competent authorities of the coastal State have good reason to believe that the ship has violated the laws and regulations of that State. Such pursuit must be commenced when the foreign ship or one of its boats is within the internal waters, the archipelagic waters, the territorial sea or the contiguous zone of the pursuing State..."

Or for good measure ...Article 33, “in a zone contiguous to its territorial sea, the coastal State may exercise the control necessary to prevent infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or territorial sea as well as punish infringement of the above laws and regulations committed within its territory or territorial sea..”

This would really be the most plausible foundation for Israel boarding a foreign ship on its way to Gaza...as I would argue that the activist were breaking customs laws due to the blockade... had it occurred within the 24 nautical miles considered a state's contiguous zone. As the convoy of ships was well beyond that at 40 miles, that argument won't fly.

The families of those killed and injured or whose property has been damaged during the raid may consider the following paragraph: “Where a ship has been stopped or arrested on the high seas in circumstances which do not justify the exercise of the right of hot pursuit, it shall be compensated for any loss or damage that may have been thereby sustained.”

Accepting Israel's flagrant violation of international law is not simply a blow to the United Nations and its values but allows for a dangerous precedent to be set whereby any state may act militarily against a ship flying a foreign flag on the mere suspicion that that ship MAY BE on its way to violate its territorial waters.

While 160 countries have signed and/or ratified the UNCLOS, interestingly enough amongst the few who have not you find not only Israel, but also the United States.