International Law, Crimes Against Humanity & Israel

murrayp4

First of all, I don't want this to descend into an Israel bashing thread. Stick to the legal issues please.
There seems to be very little discussion of international law on this forum and I'm just wondering if any international lawyers had an opinion on Israel's boarding a ship under a Turkish flag and killing of ten people on board.
It does not constitute a war crime as there is no nexus with an armed conflict.
Does it constitute a crime against humanity? It could not be said to be a widespread attack, but could it be categorised as a systematic attack (NB policy) ??? Or is it too much of an isolated incident to be brought under CAH?

Victor

I don't think you can call killing 10-20 people a crime against humanity.

Not being sensationalist, but the closest thing to what today, would appear to be piracy - the hi-jacking of a merchantman in international waters - although piracy is rare by a state actor.

Even if some weapons were to be found on the ship, that wouldn't necessarily be a justification for the intervention that happened.

murrayp4

Victor wrote: »

I don't think you can call killing 10-20 people a crime against humanity.

per. Art. 7 of ICC Statute requires that a CAH must be part of a widespread or systematic attack. This was not widespread (i.e. not many victims) it may possibly be described as systematic i.e. part of a State policy to attack people in the interests of state security notwithstanding their status as civilians.

prinz

It can't be piracy AFAIK because under international law the Israeli vessel was a commissioned military vessel and that carries various powers to stop, search and seizure etc.

http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/57JMSU

The San Remo Manual would be an important first step..

Section V : Neutral merchant vessels and civil aircraft
Neutral merchant vessels
67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:
(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;

The ship in question (in this case under the flag of neutral Turkey - neutral in terms of the Israel-Gaza conflict) refused to stop, resisted visit and search and made clear their intention to breach the blockade of Gaza, despite warnings that action would be taken.

The real legal issue will be the legality of the blockade itself which is in dispute, and the proportionality of force used.

Victor

Like anything, I think it needs to be read in full. There seems to be a suggestion in the text that such searches can only be done outside neutral waters, i.e. within the waters of a belligerent.

Defining cement, amongst others, as contraband is probably pushing things. It has little military utility. It would be like banning food because a belligerents soldiers might eat it.

The use of chemical weapons (pepper bullets and tear gas or similar) is also an issue.

prinz

Victor wrote: »

Like anything, I think it needs to be read in full. There seems to be a suggestion in the text that such searches can only be done outside neutral waters, i.e. within the waters of a belligerent..

Section IV: Areas of Naval Warfare would allow hostile actions by naval forces on the high seas.

Victor wrote: »

Defining cement, amongst others, as contraband is probably pushing things. It has little military utility. It would be like banning food because a belligerents soldiers might eat it..

It would depend where the cement is going and what it is being used for. The UN on the ground in Gaza has complained that what aid does get through is taken by Hamas. Israel could argue that as Hamas has been requisitiong iad and supplies any cement etc would presumably end up reconstructing Hamas headquarters, bunkers etc rather than homes for the homeless etc. If a country at war knew that all humantarian aid going into a country was in fact going to the soldiers and not the population then yes I would suggest their duty to continue the humanitarian supply would be negated.

Victor wrote: »

The use of chemical weapons (pepper bullets and tear gas or similar) is also an issue.

Stretching it. Been used the world over by police forces.

Manach

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article7142055.ece
Looking at the blockade from a legal perspective.