Turkey to challenge Israel’s blockade of Gaza in international court

Gaza Blockade - Legality


  • Total voters
    15

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
Turkey to challenge Israel’s blockade of Gaza in international court

Turkey does not accept the UN report as it was not endorsed by the UN

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade


http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/560?OpenDocument

Turkey to challenge Israel’s blockade of Gaza in international court - The Globe and Mail


Turkey is preparing to challenge Israel's blockade on Gaza at the International Court of Justice, the foreign minister said Saturday, ratcheting up tensions between the once close allies.

Ahmet Davutoglu's comments came a day after Turkey expelled Israel's ambassador and severed military ties with the country angered over its refusal to apologize for last year's deadly raid on a Gaza-bound aid flotilla that killed nine pro-Palestinian activists.

In an interview with Turkey's state-run TRT television, Mr. Davutoglu dismissed a UN report into the raid that said Israel's naval blockade of Gaza was a legal security measure. Mr. Davutoglu said the report — prepared by former New Zealand Prime Minister Geoffrey Palmer, and former Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, and presented to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon — was not endorsed by the United Nations and was therefore not binding.
 
Last edited:

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
POINT ONE:

The cause is already lost, Turkey is wasting its time and energy.......in a stupid, Islamist effort to demonize the Jews and Israel, thus promoting Turkey in the Arab world.

Since 1945, the UN Security Council determines the legal status of blockades and by article 42 of the UN Charter, the Council can also apply blockades.[9]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade

The United Nations, in its just released report has already ruled on the legality of the Blockade........and it IS legal.

http://www.cnewsworld.com/world-new...un-force-on-flotilla-was-excessive-bloomberg/

According to the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994,[10] a blockade is a legal method of warfare at sea, but is governed by rules. The blockading nation must publish a list of contraband. The manual describes what can never be contraband. Outside this list, the blockading nation is free to select anything as contraband. The blockading nation typically establish a blockaded area of water, but any ship can be inspected as soon as it is established that it is attempting to break the blockade. This inspection can occur inside the blockaded area or in international waters, but never inside the territorial waters of a neutral nation. A neutral ship must obey a request to stop for inspection from the blockading nation. If the situation so demands, the blockading nation can request that the ship divert to a known place or harbour for inspection.
If the ship does not stop, then the ship is subject to capture. If people aboard the ship are resisting capture, they can be attacked. It is still not allowed to sink the ship, unless provision is made for rescueing the crew. Leaving the crew in liferafts / lifeboats does not constitute rescue. If a neutral ship is captured, any member of the crew, resisting capture can be treated as prisoners-of-war, while the remainder of the crew should be released. 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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade

POINT TWO:

Israel, like any other nation state, only cares about ICC decisions as a propaganda issue, they will; IN NO WAY affect her actions in defense of her people.

POINT THREE

Now that Egypt has opened her border with Gaza, the usefulness of the blockade is in question.
 
Last edited:

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
Since 1945, the UN Security Council determines the legal status of blockades and by article 42 of the UN Charter, the Council can also apply blockades.[9]




According to the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994,[10] a blockade is a legal method of warfare at sea, but is governed by rules. The blockading nation must publish a list of contraband. The manual describes what can never be contraband. Outside this list, the blockading nation is free to select anything as contraband. The blockading nation typically establish a blockaded area of water, but any ship can be inspected as soon as it is established that it is attempting to break the blockade. This inspection can occur inside the blockaded area or in international waters, but never inside the territorial waters of a neutral nation. A neutral ship must obey a request to stop for inspection from the blockading nation. If the situation so demands, the blockading nation can request that the ship divert to a known place or harbour for inspection. If the ship does not stop, then the ship is subject to capture. If people aboard the ship are resisting capture, they can be attacked. It is still not allowed to sink the ship, unless provision is made for rescueing the crew. Leaving the crew in liferafts / lifeboats does not constitute rescue. If a neutral ship is captured, any member of the crew, resisting capture can be treated as prisoners-of-war, while the remainder of the crew should be released. 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.

That was quick - Where is the camera.
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
Since 1945, the UN Security Council determines the legal status of blockades and by article 42 of the UN Charter, the Council can also apply blockades.[9]




According to the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994,[10] a blockade is a legal method of warfare at sea, but is governed by rules. The blockading nation must publish a list of contraband. The manual describes what can never be contraband. Outside this list, the blockading nation is free to select anything as contraband. The blockading nation typically establish a blockaded area of water, but any ship can be inspected as soon as it is established that it is attempting to break the blockade. This inspection can occur inside the blockaded area or in international waters, but never inside the territorial waters of a neutral nation. A neutral ship must obey a request to stop for inspection from the blockading nation. If the situation so demands, the blockading nation can request that the ship divert to a known place or harbour for inspection. If the ship does not stop, then the ship is subject to capture. If people aboard the ship are resisting capture, they can be attacked. It is still not allowed to sink the ship, unless provision is made for rescueing the crew. Leaving the crew in liferafts / lifeboats does not constitute rescue. If a neutral ship is captured, any member of the crew, resisting capture can be treated as prisoners-of-war, while the remainder of the crew should be released. 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.


I gather the new standard is to quote wiki without providing a link.
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
I gather the new standard is to quote wiki without providing a link.

To be fair Gerry I should have added those links - They have been placed in the OP - Thank you for pointing out my oversight.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
After I had quoted your message. 8 minutes after as a matter of fact.

FINE, split hairs.....lol

I did provide links........and I always do.

Sometimes I go back and copy the links after I post. But referenced they ALWAYS are.

Unlike certain unmentionables hereabouts, I understand the importance of referencing, and of using reputable sources.....
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
FINE, split hairs.....lol

I did provide links........and I always do.

Sometimes I go back and copy the links after I post. But referenced they ALWAYS are.

Unlike certain unmentionables hereabouts, I understand the importance of referencing, and of using reputable sources.....


Not splitting hairs. If it had been "certain unmentionables" you and Bear would have been all over them for editing a post after it had been quoted.
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
WHATEVER:

Got anything to say??

On topic, I mean........


What's there to say? Turkey is challenging the blockade in court. They have every right to do exactly that. Or do you feel that they don't have the right?
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
What's there to say? Turkey is challenging the blockade in court. They have every right to do exactly that. Or do you feel that they don't have the right?

And the ICC has the right of refusal to hear the case I would say - Doubtful I might add - Much as all Supreme Courts have - Then they may decide to hear the case - which is what i see happening.
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
And the ICC has the right of refusal to hear the case I would say - Doubtful I might add - Much as all Supreme Courts have - Then they may decide to hear the case - which is what i see happening.


That's right.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Not splitting hairs. If it had been "certain unmentionables" you and Bear would have been all over them for editing a post after it had been quoted.
For a good reason Gh. I would never do such a thing to a sane and sensible member.
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
For a good reason Gh. I would never do such a thing to a sane and sensible member.


Well, that's where you and I differ. Over the past little while, I find Colpy's posts neither sane or sensible. IMNSHO he has completely lost it when it comes to the middle east.

Do you have an opinion - based upon Law or a personal opinion as that cannot be excluded - regarding the blockade?


Of course I have an opinion of the blockade. Is this another thread about the blockade or is it about Turkey's right to challenge the blockade in court? If it's another thread on the blockade then it should be merged. I f it's a separate thread on Turkeys rights, then I have already stated my opinion of that.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Well, that's where you and I differ. Over the past little while, I find Colpy's posts neither sane or sensible. IMNSHO he has completely lost it when it comes to the middle east.
Look who he's been attempting to converse with?

Even you go a little nutty when continuously confronted with such monumental idiocy as the usual suspects have been putting out these days.
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
Well, that's where you and I differ. Over the past little while, I find Colpy's posts neither sane or sensible. IMNSHO he has completely lost it when it comes to the middle east.




Of course I have an opinion of the blockade. Is this another thread about the blockade or is it about Turkey's right to challenge the blockade in court? If it's another thread on the blockade then it should be merged. I f it's a separate thread on Turkeys rights, then I have already stated my opinion of that.

It would also be on topic to consider how Turkey treats their minorities - Kurds for one - How they treat Journalists that do not toe the Govt line - Going to the ICC also leaves open how they (Turkey) deliberately inflamed the situation - Funding the original flotilla - Interfering with a countries right to defend themselves is another.
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
It would also be on topic to consider how Turkey treats their minorities - Kurds for one - How they treat Journalists that do not toe the Govt line - Going to the ICC also leaves open how they (Turkey) deliberately inflamed the situation - Funding the original flotilla - Interfering with a countries right to defend themselves is another.


I really can't see how Turkey treats minorities or journalists has anything to do with their challenge of the legality of Israel's blockade. Unless of course one was afraid that the ICC would be ruling in Turkey's favour and one wanted to try and deflect attention to else where. Turkey's treatment of minorities or journalists belong in another thread.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
I really can't see how Turkey treats minorities or journalists has anything to do with their challenge of the legality of Israel's blockade. Unless of course one was afraid that the ICC would be ruling in Turkey's favour and one wanted to try and deflect attention to else where. Turkey's treatment of minorities or journalists belong in another thread.
I think it belongs right here.


Turkey has ostensible cut off the Kurds. In a far worse, and inhumane way, than Israel has restricted access to Gaza.

How is Turkey's hypocrisy not applicable?