NEW YORK - When two widely-divergent investigative panels launch their probes
on the recent Israeli attack on a flotilla of ships carrying humanitarian aid
to Gaza, one of the disputed issues under scrutiny will be the legality of
forcibly boarding a vessel in international waters.
The two commissions of inquiry, one appointed by Israel and the other to be
named by the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, will seek answers
to a number of unresolved questions triggered by the attack, which killed nine
Turkish nationals and sparked worldwide outrage and condemnation.
Did the Israeli raid transgress international law, violate the UN
charter and infringe on the Convention on the Law of the Sea? How legitimate is
the three-year-old naval blockade of Gaza by Israel, the occupying power?
John Quigley, professor of international law at Ohio State University, told
Inter Press Service (IPS) that boarding a flagged vessel on the high seas is
impermissible without the consent of the flag state. The flag state here is
Comoros, he said, and it apparently was not consulted and did not give consent.
He also said the Israeli Defense Forces apparently conceded that Israel’s
boarding of the flotilla was unlawful under the law applicable in peacetime.
Its only argument for the legality of the boardings is based on the law of war.
Still, says Quigley, the boardings are not legally valid under the law of war
on the basis of a naval blockade.
First, the rationale for a naval blockade on the high seas is to keep vessels
from getting to the shores of the enemy. Here Israel controls the relevant
shore - that of Gaza - argued Quigley. "Therefore, there is no basis for
stopping vessels on the high seas."
Secondly, he pointed out, a naval blockade may not be instituted if it imposes
undue hardship on the population of the enemy's territory. Here the population
is already suffering hardship from restrictions on entry of goods, and the sea
blockade is part of that policy, he added.
On Monday, Israel named its own three-member "Independent Public Commission",
all of them Israelis, along with two international "observers", Lord David
Trimble, a Nobel Peace laureate from Ireland, and Brigadier General Ken Watkin,
a former judge advocate general of the Canadian military forces.
The London-based Amnesty International (AI) Tuesday dismissed the "independent
commission" as a virtual farce. According to its mandate, the commission will
not have access to members of the Israeli military who were involved in the
planning and implementation of the military action. The only exception will be
the chief of staff.
"And there is nothing to indicate that its findings or recommendations will be
binding," according to Malcolm Smart, AI's director for the Middle East and
North Africa. He said the format of the government-appointed commission
represents a disappointment and a missed opportunity.
"The commission looks to be neither independent nor sufficiently transparent,
the two international observers may be denied access to crucial information,
and the commission's findings may not be used in future prosecutions," Smart
added.
He also said the creation of the commission must not distract attention from
Israel's continuing blockade of Gaza, which Israel must lift immediately. "The
Israeli authorities' closure of Gaza constitutes collective punishment and is
in clear violation of Israel's legal obligations as the occupying power," Smart
declared. (See Gaza still waiting for relief, June 10)
The Turkish government, which led the worldwide condemnation of the Israeli
attack, criticized the government-appointed Israeli commission. "Israel does
not have the authority to assign a national commission to investigate a crime
perpetrated in international waters," said a statement released on Tuesday by
the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. "An inquiry to be conducted by such a
commission cannot be impartial, fair, transparent and credible."
Turkey has, however, expressed its strong support for a proposal by UN
secretary general Ban Ki-moon for an international commission comprising one
Turkish national, one Israeli and three international experts. But Israel has
rejected this proposal.
At a meeting in early June, the Human Rights Council adopted a resolution
calling for an "independent international fact-finding mission to investigate
violations of international law resulting from the Israeli attacks on the
flotilla of ships carrying humanitarian assistance". But the members of that
fact-finding mission are yet to be named.
Kumar Chitty, an international legal consultant and a former UN assistant
secretary general and registrar of the International Tribunal for the Law of
the Sea (LOS), told IPS: "The starting point is that neither Israel nor Turkey
is a party to the Law of the Sea Convention." For that reason, he said, the
convention cannot be invoked by one against the other.
However, a non-state party to the LOS convention may seek to treat the
convention as reflecting customary international law and act under it - as the
United States does.
Under customary international law, and as reflected in the LOS convention,
Chitty pointed out, all states enjoy the freedoms of the high seas. These
freedoms include primarily the freedom of navigation in the high seas, and are
recognized as existing over the seas constituting the exclusive economic zone
(200 nautical miles from the coast beyond the territorial sea) and beyond.
"The right to impose a naval blockade flows not from the LOS convention, but
from the Laws of Armed Conflict, as part of customary international law," he
added. But there are pre-conditions to its application, said Chitty, a former
principal legal officer at the UN's Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of
the Sea, Office of Legal Affairs
"It is reflected in the charter of the United Nations [Article 42]," he added.
In addition, there are accepted naval practices that apply.
Under the Laws of Armed Conflict, a state party to an armed conflict has the
right to establish a naval blockade on its enemy's coast for security reasons.
A naval blockade means preventing the passage (entry or exit) of all vessels to
or from the ports and coastal areas of the enemy, whatever the cargo carried by
these vessels. The Law of the Sea Convention does not deal with a naval
blockade or the use of force, Chitty said.
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
