“All I saw in Israel was cowards with guns”

Originally posted by virgom129
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Heres an interesting bit from the San Remo Treaty...

A neutral nation may choose to send a convoy accompanied by warships. The warship can provide guarantees that the convoy does not contain contraband. in which case, the blockading nation does not have any right of inspection.

www.answers.com...

That is so, as far as it goes. However, as we've established, the whole law must be followed, not just the bits we choose. The applicable section of the San Rem Manual to this line of reasoning is Part V, Section II, Paragraphs 120 to 124, inclusive. I'll quote that entire section, as it's relatively short:

Merchant vessels under convoy of accompanying neutral warships

120. A neutral merchant vessel is exempt from the exercise of the right of visit and search if it meets the following conditions:

(a) it is bound for a neutral port;
(b) it is under the convoy of an accompanying neutral warship of the same nationality or a neutral warship of a State with which the flag State of the merchant vessel has concluded an agreement providing for such convoy;
(c) the flag State of the neutral warship warrants that the neutral merchant vessel is not carrying contraband or otherwise engaged in activities inconsistent with its neutral status; and
(d) the commander of the neutral warship provides, if requested by the commander of an intercepting belligerent warship or military aircraft, all information as to the character of the merchant vessel and its cargo as could otherwise be obtained by visit and search.

Diversion for the purpose of visit and search

121. If visit and search at sea is impossible or unsafe, a belligerent warship or military aircraft may divert a merchant vessel to an appropriate area or port in order to exercise the right of visit and search.

Measures of supervision

122. In order to avoid the necessity of visit and search, belligerent States may establish reasonable measures for the inspection of cargo of neutral merchant vessels and certification that a vessel is not carrying contraband.

123. The fact that a neutral merchant vessel has submitted to such measures of supervision as the inspection of its cargo and grant of certificates of non-contraband cargo by one belligerent is not an act of unneutral service with regard to an opposing belligerent.

124. In order to obviate the necessity for visit and search, neutral States are encouraged to enforce reasonable control measures and certification procedures to ensure that their merchant vessels are not carrying contraband.

In paragraph 120(a), we see that the merchant vessel in question, and the neutral escort, must be bound for a neutral port in order to be exempt.

Blockades are not placed on neutral ports. That would be a violation of their neutrality. This is also the reason that blockade runners sailing from neutral ports can't be attacked or interdicted until they are clear of the neutral nation's territorial waters.

Crossing into the blockade area disqualifies it, as does stating the intention to run the blockade. Either of those acts makes the vessel(s) a belligerent(s).

Edit to add: the source for the quote from the San Remo Manual is the link provided by Smurfy. San Remo Manual

[edit on 2010/6/13 by nenothtu]

reply to post by nenothtu


Actually from my reading so far, it relates to Armed Conflicts...

I'll read more,

Footy is on now, back later,,,
cheers mate

Originally posted by virgom129
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Hers a good bit from San Remo..

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

Yes, that's in Part IV, Section II of the San Remo Manual. Which of those conditions are you alleging is not being met?

reply to post by nenothtu


Part a) here is the proof....

news.yahoo.com...

Originally posted by virgom129
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Part a) here is the proof....

news.yahoo.com...

Part (a) states: "(a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival; or "

The documents referenced in that article state that it is an "economic war against Hamas", and other documents indicate it is for interdiction of arms and military supplies. Based on those two statements (which are not contradictory, though they might appear to be at first glance), it could be argued that the blockade actually doesn't have a 'sole' purpose, but several purposes.

Based on your reading of paragraph 102(a), and your contention that the article provided proves it's violation, are you saying that the entire civilian population being 'starved' is actually a collection of Hamas operatives, as is the stated objective of that document?

I'm open to that possibility, if you'd like to make that case, but don't believe it to be so at the moment. I believe that Palestinian civilians in Gaza are just civilians caught in the beaten zone, as is the case in every conflict I've ever been aware of. I further believe it's as reprehensible of Hamas to be using their plight as a weapon of propaganda to further their own military and political objectives as it is reprehensible of Israel to not allow the civilians to leave the area. I understand their rationale, but don't agree with it.

Che Guevara said that the guerilla must be "as a fish in the water" among the population in general. I think the proper course, tactically, would be to allow the civilians to leave (without arms, of course), and thereby 'drain the pond' of water, leaving the fish to flop.

That's just my own wierdness, though.


[edit on 2010/6/14 by nenothtu]