Reply With Quote
I think the blockade is legal too...
Interesting part, that of the ICS.
I think the blockade is legal too...
It cares because it damages his position internationally. Don't forget they already had tense relation with Turkey, one of their biggest trading partners, since they instated the blockade. Now you also have a mul ude of countries putting pressure to remove the blockade entirely. It also matters because Israel is one of the countries pushing for economic sanctions against Iran for breaching international law. Respecting and enforcing international law is in Israel's best interest.
And believe me, we will have another situation like this, and I expect Israel to have learned from this and approach the situation differently (even though the actual result would be the same, boarding the ship).
I don't think I was clear--I meant: why would Israel care from a legal standpoint? It's not like it will suffer UN sanctions for killing those 10 people.
What you identify are more public relations-y/political concerns. They're probably valid, but not that significant in the end. It broke the law, but it also knows there's no real punishment for doing so. From a legal standpoint, it can break the law all it wants with basic impunity.
Hopefully when Israel boards the ship the activist won't beat them with metal rods, chairs and throw them overboard. Let them do their job and make sure there are no weapons. Pretty simple unless..............
But there are significant consequences. Isolating yourself from the rest of the world does have tangible economic impact (be it in trade, military, etc). Furthermore, if it escalates into actual conflict (ie: the le of this thread), then it also becomes a security concern.
It also puts allies in a very uncomfortable position. Take the US, who is an ally of both Israel and Turkey, a NATO member.
Those ships are going to keep on coming. That's what the protest is about.
Let hope so. Let's also hope no more civilians have to die or Israeli soldiers have to get hurt.
We're talking past each other. There is no legal consequence to breaking international law. There are plenty of other consequences (like what you identify), but there's no legal remedy.
And absent a legal remedy, you got to wonder how much the Israeli government cares. Their obsession with their homeland seems to be a much higher priority than concern for international perception.
It's obvious you haven't been keeping up.
Only 9 were killed.
Avoided? How. Let's assume the ships continued on, disrespecting the order to go to the requested port. They keep heading to Gaza. What's next, when the reach the 12 mile limit? Do you want to see the ships sunk when the refuse to listen to Israel, and keep traveling to Gaza?
Yes, if the people on the ship had just followed instructions. I see it as only being worse if Israel didn't board the ship.
This blockage is recognized by the UN isn't it? Israel isn't the only one actively supporting it. So is Egypt.
There are. The Security Council has enforced sanctions before. From their sanctions committee site:
The range of sanctions has included comprehensive economic and trade sanctions and/or more targeted measures such as arms embargoes, travel bans, financial or diplomatic restrictions.
Those are actual legal remedies from breaking international law/resolutions/treaties.
I don't really see the council attempting any of that with Israel in light of the US influence, and the fact that Israel has been on the other side of the table as victims many times.
Oh, I agree with that. But I think this was a clear example of why they do have to be careful. Eventually, a lot of diplomacy has to do with perception. Avoiding international incidents if possible is not only wise, it's simply a no-brainer.
Last edited by ElNono; 06-02-2010 at 07:25 PM.
1) It was not a turkish ship. The [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Mavi_Marmara]Mavi Marmara] is a Comoros-flagged ship. Most of the passengers were Turkish. I doubt the crew was.
2) They didn't defend themselves. They were the attackers.
My God.
You cannot get simple facts strait.
Did you ask them how they feel about being dead?
You don't have to assume anything. You simply have to inform yourself by reading the last two pages. Here's your chance. You don't even have to read the entire thread.
They're civilian protesters that broke no known law. Why should the follow any instructions? Do you do everything you're told to do, especially when you're protesting?
The UN actually called for the blockade to end and they did as part of requesting a cease fire between Israel and Hamas. The UN also recognizes the blockade to be legal, and so do I, IMO. The blockade is being enforced by both Egypt and Israel, although due to yesterday's incidents Egypt temporarily opened up a checkpoint, and a limited amount of people went both ways through it today.
But the ships were not in the declared blockade zone nor in it's vicinity (at least at the time they were boarded), so the point is really moot.
OMG...
You really got that wrong. First of all, McCarthy only focused on communists agents in the State Department, and he was right. It was the democrats who did the Red Scare, then with the help of their friends in the media, put it all on McCarthy's lap. McCarthy was vocal enough about communists in the government, that it stuck. However, once the Venona Project was declassified in the 90's, it proved McCarthy right, and he is now vindicated.
Please show me the connections between McCarthy and the HUAC and the Hollywood Blacklist. Start a new thread please if you can find anything he did wrong to the American Public like the HUAC did.
Lawyers would disagree. Compare 110 with other sections from the Preamble, like 111(8): Where a ship has been stopped or arrested outside the territorial sea in cir stances 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.
The italicized section provides a remedy -- legal damages. If you're wondering what happens for certain violations of Art. 111, you have your answer: money damages.
You can't say the same thing for 110. There's no prescription of a remedy. It just says what a state cannot do. There's no legal remedy, strictly speaking, because the law doesn't provide one -- section 110 has no corresponding remedy language as seen in 111.
I'm no expert on international law, but in order for a certain remedy (i.e. sanctions) to apply, the relevant statute would have to make such a provision. Lawyers at the UN would have a coniption fit if the Security Counsel tried to sanction Israel for a violation where the underlying state made no such provision for sanctions.
WC, comeon bro. You can't have it both ways, you are vindicating Israel from all blame.
You either take it that they were ill intentioned and caused needless bloodshed.
Or they weren't ill intentioned and were made into stupid ass s because the fact is they broke an international law.
It is impossible to argue with a person that doesn't accept a given premise.
How again were they attackers? I thought their ship got raided by commandos in international water? Good thing you got your facts straight.
I'm not interested in the laws that tie a nation from defending itself. Israel probably has violated international law. However, it has become normal operations for Israel to conduct themselves this way with ships heading to Gaza. No enforcement in the past years, and now you cry about enforcement.
Israel is at a constant state of war with terror. I would say they have every right to stop any cargo heading there. It may not be legal by the laws of man, but sometimes you have to consider natural laws and natural rights of self preservation.
he's right WC, you have to accept the given premise and build your argument on that, there are some universal morals and standards you have to abide by, like the internation law in this case to even argue your point.
There is a reason that is how the court systems throughout the entire world exist. You have to have something to work on.
If you can't give me any negatives on Israel, don't expect for people to take you seriously.
Hmm...
Boarded = raided...
OK... I understand your mentality now.
It's ironic that a nation founded through a UN mandate should later on say that it can break the law's the UN stands for, isn't it?
And my point wasn't about whether the law should or shouldn't be enforced because of an existential threat. It was about statutory construction. But if those sling-shots really threaten the very existence of Israel, then nuke the bas s, right?
No, it was raided. A proper boarding would require proper jurisdiction, i.e. being in territorial waters. "Boarding" the ship in international waters was a pre-emptive raid. And you don't know about my mentality.
The UN Law of the Sea also establishes an open court to hear the cases, and award damages for violation of the law. The tribunal is by all measures fairly young (here's a link to their first judgement on the merits, dated July 1999). And frankly, most of these cases involving states end up being settled diplomatically anyways.
To nitpick, I would add that 110 (3) does have the exact same wording as far as compensation goes in the case where boarding was unfounded.
But IANAL, and never claimed to be one, so I appreciate the differing view and insight.
Nitpicking is a good thing. People have been left out in the cold and without a legal remedy because certain words were used while others were not -- or were not used at all.
....for the people on the boats when faced with a raid by armed commandos in international waters.
OK.
Israel ed up.
Since you prefer the law over what is morally right, how about this:
Q&A: Is Israel's naval blockade of Gaza legal?
CAN ISRAEL IMPOSE A NAVAL BLOCKADE ON GAZA?
Yes it can, according to the law of blockade which was derived from customary international law and codified in the 1909 Declaration of London. It was updated in 1994 in a legally recognized do ent called the "San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea."The Israeli navy said on Monday the Gaza bound flotilla was intercepted 120 km (75 miles) west of Israel. The Turkish captain of one of the vessels told an Istanbul news conference after returning home from Israeli detention they were 68 miles outside Israeli territorial waters.
Under the law of a blockade, intercepting a vessel could apply globally so long as a ship is bound for a "belligerent" territory, legal experts say.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
