'Mavi Marmara' Freedom Flotilla carrying 630 activists and 10 thousand tones of supplies for Gaza people.
This study will focus
on the Gaza blockade imposed by Israel since 2007. In the early hours of 31st
May 2010, Israel intercepted six vessels on the high seas carrying humanitarian
aids to Gaza (collectively called the ‘Gaza Freedom Flotilla’), which resulted
in the death of nine civilians and the injury of many more. This brutal and
inhumane act by Israel had alerted the world on the issues of the legality and
rights of humanitarian assistance.
Questions that arised
are, can Israel invoke a prima facie right to blockade Gaza? What is the legal
basis for this? Was it legal for humanitarian aid vessels to enter Gaza? Had
the Israeli blockade policy helped reduce the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and
generally the Palestine-Israel conflict? Or had it instead prolonged the
sufferings and long term violence to the Palestinians?
This study will argue
that the interception on the Flotilla humanitarian aid vessels justified by Israel for security concerns,
political leverage and ‘legitimate’ economic warfare is illegal and an
internationally wrongful act from the international humanitarian laws
perspectives. Instead, Israel should efficiently facilitate the humanitarian
assistance efforts to Gaza. This would be inline with the international
humanitarian assistance principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and
independence.
On 19th September
2007, Israel Ministerial Committee on National Security Issues adopted a
decision which stated in part; the Hamas organization is a terrorist
organization which has taken over the Gaza Strip and turned it into a hostile
territory. This organization carries out
acts of hostility against the State of “Israel” and its “citizens”, and the
responsibility for such acts lies with it. Israel resolved to adopt the
continuation of military and preventive activities and put additional
restrictive measures upon Hamas regime in a way that can limit the passage of
goods to Gaza Strip, reduce the supply of fuel and electricity and the movement
of persons from and to the strip. Israel argues that these restrictive measures
are necessary to limit rocket attacks from Gaza on Southern Israel and to
prevent Hamas obtaining additional weapons. Those cumulative measures in
restricting imports into Gaza by land and sea, not only impact the maritime
blockade itself but had also caused the deterioration of the living conditions
in Gaza. Besides security concerns, the ‘collective punishment’ of Gazan
population as characterised by John Holmes of UN (Myers 2009: 117) was further
justified by Israel for political leverage and economic warfare (Sanger 2010:
402).
As a response to the
Israeli blockade policy, the international community formulated steps to lift
the Gaza blockade based on the humanitarian assistance principle. On 31st May
2010, Freedom Flotilla headed towards the Gaza Strip comprising six vessels
carrying around 630 solidarity activists from 40 countries. The 10 thousand
tons of relief supplies and humanitarian aid included cement, generators,
wheelchairs, medicine, clothes, blankets and toys (The Humanitarian Monitor
2010).
In response to that,
the Israeli authorities threatened Freedom Flotilla and vowed to block its
access to the Gaza Strip by military force (Manna
2010).. Undeterred by the Israeli
threats, the solidarity activists insisted on heading to Gaza, however the
Israeli forces overtook the flotilla and intercepted them in international
waters; they further abseiled onto the deck and stormed Mavi Marmara, the
flotilla’s largest passenger ship, using live ammunition, thus killing nine
Turkish activists in cold blood while ten
Israeli soldiers were injured in the confrontation.
The argument arose
whether Israel’s interception of the humanitarian aid vessels was legitimate.
In dealing with the the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the debate may involve
intense scrutiny of the facts, the rules of international law and the
applicability of these rules to what has undoubtedly become sui generis
situation (Sanger 2010: 398), unparalleled in its duration, complexity and
equivocation. Using the legal framework and considering the universal
humanitarian assistance principle as the parameter, the debate looks into a
more objective approach rather than allowing sentiment to override.
Issues raised by the
blockade and interception of vessels are complex (Scobbie 2010) as some
relevant law is drawn from different periods of international law. In its
justification of the blockade and interception of vessels, Israel has relied,
inter alia, on the San Remo Manual on International Law applicable to Armed
Conflicts at Sea, a non-official document prepared by a private body, named the
International Institute of Humanitarian Law. Accordingly, the Manual is not
comprehensive and earlier instruments retain utility in filling gaps in it or
work as an aid to the interpretation of its provision, although these must be
read in subsequent developments such as the UN Charter, the 1949 Geneva
Conventions and the 2005 restatement of customary international humanitarian
law undertaken by the International Committee of Red Cross.
Naval blockade refers
to an operation aimed at preventing ingress or egress of all vessels or
aircraft, regardless of the nationality of the state, to and from the coast or
port of an enemy state. It was the oldest methods of naval warfare designed to
‘block supplies to an enemy coast without directly meaning to conquer this
coast’ (Heintschel 2008: 551). This method can also be established by a party
to an armed conflict or the Security Council in response to the threat or
breach of international peace or an act of aggression (UN Charter Article 42).
Israel was actively
exercising the naval blockade to cut off the external supply of humanitarian
aid into Gaza and to pressure Hamas authorities and justified it as legal by
hiding behind Article 42 of UN Charter. However many have argued that this is a
breach of international humanitarian law as the supply are humanitarian aids
meant to lift the humanitarian conditions faced by the civilians behind the
blockade.
Blockade may
necessarily affect both neutral states and the civilian population behind the
blockade. While traditional international law was primarily concerned with the
interest of states inter se, contemporary international law also concerns
itself with the interest and protection of individuals. Consequently,
international humanitarian law has modified the traditional law of blockade to
include the rights and interests of blockaded civilians. Historically, areas
under blockade were regarded as a single military objective, but today
civilians behind a blockade must be distinguished from legitimate military
targets.
To this end,
contemporary international law stipulates that a blockade must not have the
effect of starving a civilian population. A legal blockade that has this effect
will be rendered illegal and cannot be lawfully enforced. The question of
whether the blockade is causing a civilian population to starve is one of fact.
In addition, if a blockade is causes a civilian population to be deprived of
adequate food and other objects necessary for its survival, the blockading
state is under an obligation to allow humanitarian supplies to pass through the
blockade.
Starvation may occur
as a consequence of the destruction of food and sources of food within a state
and/or by imposing blockades or sieges that cut off external food supplies
(Rosenblad 1973: 252). It has been used throughout history as a method of
warfare. As British Foreign Secretary Michael Stewart remarked during the
Nigerian-Biafran War in 1967. ‘we must accept that, in the whole history of
warfare, any nation which has been in a position to starve its enemy out has
done so’. Nevertheless, in seeking to balance military necessity with the protection
of civilians, modern international law prohibits the use of starvation as a
means of warfare against a civilian population. The legal basis for this can be
found in two fundamental rules of international humanitarian law: firstly,
civilians must not be directly targeted; and secondly, any civilian harmed
resulting from a lawful attack on a military object must be proportionate to
the anticipated military advantage.
These rules were
codified in Additional Protocol I Article 54(1), which reflects customary law,
unambiguously affirms that ‘starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is
prohibited’ and is applicable in both occupied and non-occupied territories.
Additional Protocol II, which applies in non-international armed conflicts,
contains a corresponding provision. While there was some doubt in the past
about the application of this prohibition to naval blockades, there is no doubt
today that Article 49(3) explicitly provides that Article 54 applies to naval
blockades if they ‘affect the civilian population, individual civilians or
civilian objects on land’. Article 54 also includes a provision that elaborates
on the basic rule:
“It is prohibited to
attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival
of the civilian population as such foodstuffs, agricultural areas for the
production of foodstuffs, crops livestock, drinking water installations and
supplies and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for
their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party,
whatever the motive, wether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to
move away or for any other motive.”
The provision is
intended not only to ‘ensure the survival of the civilian population as such,
but also to prevent population displacements which expose civilians to
especially high risk’ (Macalister-Smith 1991: 10). Furthermore, the legal and
factual protection of fixed civilian objects and installations is especially
important, ‘simply because they cannot be moved out of the zone of conflict, as
such the only available protection is to prohibit attacks against them’.
The rule in Article
54 is reflected in paragraph 102 of the San Remo Manual, which soughts to
restate customary international law on the use of starvation as a means of
warfare. Thus, the declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if:
first, it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying
it other objects essential for its survival; or second, the damage to the civil
population is or may be expected to be excessive in relation to the concrete
and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade. Thus, whenever a
blockade has ‘starvation as one of its effects, the starvation effectively
triggers the obligation, subject to certain limitations, to allow relief
shipments to gain access to the coasts of the blockade belligerent.
Evidence of state
practice in relation to this prohibition can be found in numerous military
manuals. For instance, the UK Manual of the Law of Armed Conflicts, the
Australian Defence Force Manual, and Canada’s Law of Armed Conflict Manual, and
the US Commander’s Handbook of the Law of Naval Operations.
The deliberate
starvation of civilians also constitutes a war crime under customary international
law for instance, 1919 Commission on the Responsibility of the Authors of the
War stipulated that the starvation as a violation of the laws and customs of
war that should be prosecuted. Today, under Article 8(2)(b)(XXV) of the Rome
Statute also stipulated that it was an international war crime of intentionally
to deprive the civilians of objects indispensible to their survival including
wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under Geneva Conventions.
The obligation to
allow relief shipments and humanitarian assistance is reflected in paragraph
103 of San Remo Manual which stipulated that a blockading power must allow free
passage of food and other essential supplies necessary for the survival of the
civilian population. Article 23 of the Fourth Geneva Convention imposes a duty
on all blockading power to allow the free passage of all consignments of
medical and hospital stores including pharmaceutical products and medicine; and
objects necessary for religious worship.
The humanitarian
crisis in Gaza which has left a majority of civilians facing starvation (Feldman
2009), has resulted from the
frequent military operations on internal destruction since
the ‘Operation Cast Lead’ and
by the blockade and siege on Gaza that prevent humanitarian supplies from
reaching the civilian population (external restrictions). The crisis has been
exacerbated by movement restriction from and to Gaza for supplies. It was also
reported that the suffering went to the extent of the civilians having to eat
grass to survive (Noor 2008: 143). In April 2010, the United Nation Office for
the Coordination of Humaniarian Affairs (UNOCHA) reported that the number of
Palestinians refugees completely unable to secure access to food and lacking
the means to purchase even the most basic items like soap, safe drinking water
since the imposition of blockade (The Humanitarian Monitor 2010).
Shirazi argues that
between 2007 and 2009 the caloric intake per capita in Gaza and West bank
decreased by 18 percent (Shirazi 2011). Although Israel has not declared the
sole purpose of the siege to be starvation of the civilian population of Gaza,
it has stated that its policy to ‘put the Palestinians on a diet (Guardian
2006), ‘to keep the Gazan economy on the brink of collapse’ and ‘to pressure Gazan
into compelling Hamas to change its policy towards Israel’.
These objectives
directly target civilians and are thus prohibited by the law of armed conflict.
In addition, if the blockade has the effect of starving the civilian
population, it is illegal regardless whether the sole purpose of the blockade
is starvation of that population (Heintschel 2008: 554). Using these as an
argument, on the believe that the Gaza blockade is unlawful, the interception
of the Gaza Freedom Flotilla vessels and any other neutral state vessels, so
long as they do not satisfy a law enforcement exception, is an unlawful
exercise of jurisdiction over neutral vessels on the high seas and constituted
an internationally wrongful act. The interception violated the sovereignty of flag-states
concerned and it may also amount to an unlawful use of force, prohibited by
Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. The interception could only be justified by
relying on the right of self–defence but Israel knew the merchant vessels did
not have the means to launch an attack. Faced with the unlawful armed attack,
the crew and passengers of the intercepted vessels had the right of personal
self-defence, the modalities of which are determined by the domestic law of the
flag state, by virtue of its exclusive jurisdiction over the vessel.
Israel has a legal
obligation to ease the blockade efficiently and allow vessels carrying
humanitarian aid to reach the civilian population. Humanitarian assistance, as codified in Geneva Conventions and their Additional protocol,
as well as customary international law, require that states consent to and
facilitate humanitarian assistance which is impartial, neutral and independent
in character, where failure to do so may lead to starvation or otherwise
threaten the survival of civilian population (Barber 2009: 371). However if the
governments are unable to meet this responsibility, they are required to allow
the delivery of humanitarian aid by third parties to civilians in need (MacLean
2001).
As the international
humanitarian law has constantly evolved to meet the needs and changes in
regulating the conduct of parties of the right to humanitarian assistance,
International Institute of Humanitarian Law has regulated a document entitled
‘Guiding Principles on the Right to Humanitarian Assistance’ in San Remo, Italy
(International Institute of Humanitarian Law: 1993). Among the main principle
is to respect the right to humanitarian assistance in order to ensure human
rights to life, health, protection against cruel and degrading treatment, which
is essential to survival in public emergencies. It is a fact that the blockade
policy had deprived the basic human rights of the Gazan populations and left
them in on-going suffering and miserable situation. As a result, Palestinians
have the right to humanitarian assistance from any international organization.
The Geneva Conventions also outline that neutral
humanitarian organisations, such as International committee of the Red Cross
(ICRC), can deliver humanitarian assistance with the approval of warring
parties. The framework for International
humanitarian assistance is governed by four main principles; humanity,
impartiality, neutrality and independence (World Economic Forum). Humanity means human
suffering must be addressed wherever it is found, with particular attention to
the most vulnerable populations such as children, women, and the elderly. The
dignity and rights of all victims must be respected and protected. Impartiality
refers to aid provision based solely upon the needs of the host populations.
Neutrality requires an organisation to refrain from taking sides in a conflict.
Independence ensures that NGOs can make decision and act without the influence
of governments. Under these principles, Israel has an obligation to allow
humanitarian assistance which is genuinely humanitarian in character to reach
the civilian population.
On 20 June 2010, in
response to international condemnation of the blockade and the interception,
Israel’s security cabinet announced measures designed to ease the blockade
(Sanger 2010: 443). However, as of January 2011, this measure to ease
restriction on the export of certain products remains unimplemented.
So, what is the
future for Gaza? This debate, intentionally, avoid to argue on the legitimacy of
the State of Israel over the Gazans which is complicated and difficult debates.
Such an objective was framed to understand that non-military intervention by
humanitarian assistance is clearly legal and moral approach in order to relief
the sufferings and humanitarian catastrophe. The studies were based on
international humanitarian law and customary international law, sought to meet
the crux underpinned the humanitarian assistance theories. The lesson from this
debate is the recognition that Palestinians have legitimate political demands
and not just humanitarian needs should not be lost in the face of yet another
emergency. The Israel-Palestinians conflict needs to be carefully diagnosed and
right mechanism be put in place or otherwise the world must be prepared for the
worst humanitarian catastrophe in the future.
References
Barber R 2009, “Facilitating Humanitarian
Assistance in International Humanitarian and Human Rights Law”, International Review Of The Red Cross,
Vol 91, No.874, (June).
Feldman I 2009, “Gaza’s Humanitarianism
Problem”, Journal Of Palestine Studies,
Vol XXXVIII, No.3 (Spring).
Guardian the, 2006 “Gaza on Brink of
Implosion As Aid Cut-Off Starts To Bite”. Available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/apr/16/israel.
Accessed 16 April 2006.
Heintschel Von Heinegg W 2008, “Blockade: The
Law of Armed Conflict at Sea”, The
Handbook Of International Humanitarian Law, Oxford Press: Oxford.
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC),
Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of
War (Fourth Geneva Convention), 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 287, Applicable
at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b36d2.html Accessed
on 27 May 2012.
International
Institute of Humanitarian Law, Guiding Principles On The Right To Humanitarian Assistance.
Applicable at www.iihl.org/iihl/Album/GUIDING%20PRINCIPLES.doc. Accessed on 25 May 2012.
Macalister-Smith P 1991, “The Protection Of
The Civilian Population and The Prohibition of Starvation as a Method of
Conflict: Draft Texts Relating To International Humanitarian Assistance”, Max Planck Institute For Comparative Public
Law And Internatoional Law, Heidelberg.
Maclean T L 2001, “Humanitarian Intervention
Versus Humanitarian Action”, Encyclopedia
Of Disaster Relief, Thousand Oaks: CA.
Manna M 2010, “Freedom Flotilla and Breaking
The Siege: Implications And Possibilities”, Strategic
Assessment #25, Al-Zaytouna Centre: Beirut.
McGirk J 2008, “Gaza’s Humanitarian Crisis
Deepen”, The Lancet, Vol.371,
No.9610, Feb,
Myers M 2009, “Negative Impact Of Policy On
Humanitarian Assistance In Gaza”, Middle
East Policy, Vol.XVI, No.2, Summer.
Noor M N 2008, Palestine: Opression Unrivalled, Palestine Centre of Excellence:
Kuala Lumpur.
Rosenblad E 1973, “Starvation as a Method of
Warfare: Condition For Regulation By Convention”, International Lawyer.
San Remo Manual, Article 54. Applicable at http://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/law/NIACManualIYBHR15th.pdf.
Accessed on 25 May 2012.
Sanger A 2010, “The Contemporary Law of
Blockade and The Gaza Freedom Flotilla”, Yearbook
Of International Humanitarian Law, Vol 13.
Scobbie I 2010, “Blockade and Interception”, Studies & Report, Al-Zaytouna
Center: Beirut. Applicable at http://www.alzaytouna.net/en/publications/studies-and-reports/119568-blockade-and-interception.html#.T8L_Do6H--8.
Accessed 25 May 2012.
Shirazi N 2011, “The ‘No Humanitarian Crisis in
Gaza’ Casard, From Massacre Myopia To Blockade Blindness”, Foreign Policy Journal. Applicable at http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/07/02/the-no-humanitarian-crisis-in-gaza-canard/.
Accessed 25 May 2012.
United Nation Charter, Article 2(4), 51.
Applicable at http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/
Accessed on 25 May 2012.
United Nation Office For The Coordination of
Humanitarian Affairs in the Occupied Territory (UNOCHA), The Humanitarian Monitor (May 2010).
World Economic Forum, Guiding Principle for Public-Private Collaboration for Humanitarian
Action. Applicable at http://www.un.org/partnerships/Docs/Principles%20for%20Public-Private%20Collaboration%20for%20Humanitarian%20Action.pdf
Accessed on 26 May 2012.