Joe suggests that we can better understand the Mavi Marmara situation by looking at it through the prism of American criminal law, i.e. the activists = criminals and the IDF = the police. If the police come to arrest you and you resist, there is a decent chance you will be shot. I don’t think this comparison works at all.
Let’s start with jurisdiction. Unlike the police in Joe’s example, the IDF does not have legal authority to interdict ships in international waters. The UN Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is pretty damn clear on this:
Article 87, 1. The high seas are open to all States, whether coastal or land-locked. Freedom of the high seas is exercised under the conditions laid down by this Convention and by other rules of international law. It comprises, inter alia, both for coastal and land-locked States:
(a) freedom of navigation;
(b) freedom of overflight;
(c) freedom to lay submarine cables and pipelines, subject to Part VI;
(d) freedom to construct artificial islands and other installations permitted under international law, subject to Part VI;
(e) freedom of fishing, subject to the conditions laid down in section 2;
(f) freedom of scientific research, subject to Parts VI and XIII.
Read more after the jump --->
Let’s start with jurisdiction. Unlike the police in Joe’s example, the IDF does not have legal authority to interdict ships in international waters. The UN Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is pretty damn clear on this:
Article 87, 1. The high seas are open to all States, whether coastal or land-locked. Freedom of the high seas is exercised under the conditions laid down by this Convention and by other rules of international law. It comprises, inter alia, both for coastal and land-locked States:
(a) freedom of navigation;
(b) freedom of overflight;
(c) freedom to lay submarine cables and pipelines, subject to Part VI;
(d) freedom to construct artificial islands and other installations permitted under international law, subject to Part VI;
(e) freedom of fishing, subject to the conditions laid down in section 2;
(f) freedom of scientific research, subject to Parts VI and XIII.
Read more after the jump --->
Second, the UNCLOS only allows for the boarding of ships in international waters in five specific situations:
Article 110, 1. Except where acts of interference derive from powers conferred by treaty, a warship which encounters on the high seas a foreign ship, other than a ship entitled to complete immunity in accordance with articles 95 and 96, 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 is not a signatory to the UNCLOS and generally doesn’t heed international law when it believes its interests are threatened, so enforcement of the law would be difficult. Nonetheless it's clear that Israel had no viable legal justification to board the ship.
I understand when Israel unilaterally strikes at a possible nuclear site in Syria or even when they play spy games in Dubai, but this is ridiculous. The more I look at this situation, the more I ask what the hell was the IDF doing?
The activist wanted to make a scene and with the help of the IDF they most certainly did. Now the US and Europe can kiss the ME peace process, hope for cooperation with moderate Arab countries, unity on Iran and host of other initiatives in the region goodbye.
Lovely.
-Evan
Article 110, 1. Except where acts of interference derive from powers conferred by treaty, a warship which encounters on the high seas a foreign ship, other than a ship entitled to complete immunity in accordance with articles 95 and 96, 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 is not a signatory to the UNCLOS and generally doesn’t heed international law when it believes its interests are threatened, so enforcement of the law would be difficult. Nonetheless it's clear that Israel had no viable legal justification to board the ship.
I understand when Israel unilaterally strikes at a possible nuclear site in Syria or even when they play spy games in Dubai, but this is ridiculous. The more I look at this situation, the more I ask what the hell was the IDF doing?
The activist wanted to make a scene and with the help of the IDF they most certainly did. Now the US and Europe can kiss the ME peace process, hope for cooperation with moderate Arab countries, unity on Iran and host of other initiatives in the region goodbye.
Lovely.
-Evan
