LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Wel, ik ben zelf niet genoeg onderlegd in het internationaal recht om daarover te kunnen oordelen, maar gisteren heb ik een artikel gepost waarin die discussie gevoerd werd. Een Amerikaanse prof internationaal recht stelde dat Remo niet van toepassing was, een Israëlische advocaat vond van wel - als ik het mij goed herinner.Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door GTM
Ja, er is discussie over. Maar waar geen discussie over kan zijn is dat er in San Remo gehandeld wordt over 'armed conflicts', niet over 'war', dat kan iedereen zelf lezen.
Dan is er met andere woorden enkel discussie over of Israel nu in een 'armed conflict' verzeild is met Hamas, ja of nee. In mijn ogen wel.
Mijn excuses als ge er al antwoord op hebt gegeven, maar is San Remo niet enkel van toepassing in tijden van oorlog? Ge moogt eventueel gwoon linken naar elders in deze thread ze.
edit: nevermind
Turks nationalisme is cute & grappig enz bij zaken zoals het Eurovision song contest.
Maar als het om serieuze zaken gaat waar men feiten gewoon negeert begint het echt een gevaarlijke ziekte te worden.
Vlaanderen sluit overeenkomsten met makelaars?
Echt zielig hoe jij Vlaanderen als "veel fascistischer" bestempeld dan Turkije;
De verdwijningen/moorden in het koerdische zuidoosten.
De systematische foltering van gevangenen/minderheden.
Restricties op "freedom of speech", zoals het bekritiseren van ataturk en andere nationalistische crap.
Bannen van holebi groeperingen.
Etc..
Misschien moet je het is vragen aan Amnesty international of the human rights watch welk land er eerder fascistische eigenschappen heeft.
En zoals het artikel zegt, dat is maar de vraag of er effectief een legale blokkade kan bestaan, er is ook de vraag of de blokkade wel op een legale manier wordt uitgevoerd....
If the conflict between Israel and Hamas is an international armed conflict (IAC), there is no question that Israel has the right to blockade Gaza. (Which is not to say that the manner in which Israel is blockading Gaza is legal. That’s a different question.) The 1909 Declaration Concerning the Laws of Naval War (the London Declaration), the first international instrument to acknowledge the legality of blockades, specifically recognized the right of belligerents to blockade their enemy during time of war. Article 97 of the San Remo Manual does likewise. And there is certainly no shortage of state practice supporting the legitimacy of blockades during IAC (the US blockade of Cuba, for example).
But what justifies a blockade in non-international armed conflict (NIAC)? The London Declaration does not justify such a blockade, because it only applies to “war”– war being understood at the time as armed conflict between two states. Does the San Remo Manual justify it? The Manual is not a picture of clarity concerning when its rules apply, but it does not seem to contemplate non-international sea conflicts. Article 1 speaks of “the parties to an armed conflict at sea,” which does not seem to include NIAC, unless perhaps a rebel group has a navy. (Do any?) Article 2 parallels the Martens Clause in the 1907 Hague Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, which only applies to IAC. Article 3 acknowledges the right of self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter, but — as Marko Milanovic has pointed out — that right is an exception to the prohibition on the use of force in Article 2(4), which only operates between states. And numerous articles in the Manual refer specifically to “belligerent States” (see, for example, 10, 20, 34).
There also appears to be little, if any, state practice to support the idea that a blockade is legally permissible in NIAC. According to the Jerusalem Post, the Israeli government is defending the blockade by citing Yoram Dinstein’s statement that “there are several instances of contemporary (post-UN Charter of the Law of the Seas) practices of blockades, e.g. in the Vietnam and in the Gulf War.” But those were all blockades in IAC. I can’t think of any blockades in NIAC other than Israel’s blockade of Gaza — though readers should feel free, of course, to correct me.
The seeming absence of support for blockades in NIAC is obviously important, because it is difficult to argue that Israel is involved in an IAC with Hamas. First, it is obviously not in a traditional IAC, because Gaza is not a state. Second, not even Israel claims that the conflict has been internationalized by the involvement of another state. And third, although the Israeli Supreme Court held — controversially — in the Targeted Killings case that armed conflict between an occupying power and a rebel group is international, Israel’s official position is that it not currently occupying Gaza.
Israel’s defense of the blockade thus appears to create a serious dilemma for it. Insofar as Israel insists that it is not currently occupying Gaza, it cannot plausibly claim that it is involved in an IAC with Hamas. And if it is not currently involved in an IAC with Hamas, it is difficult to see how it can legally justify the blockade of Gaza. Its blockade of Gaza, therefore, seems to depend on its willingness to concede that it is occupying Gaza and is thus in an IAC with Hamas. But Israel does not want to do that, because it would then be bound by the very restrictive rules of belligerent occupation in the Fourth Geneva Convention.
...
http://opiniojuris.org/2010/06/02/wh...of-gaza-legal/
Zoals er in uw geliefde San Remo Manual staat:
Wat meer over de blokkade:102. The declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if:
(a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival; or
(b) the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade.
103. If the civilian population of the blockaded territory is inadequately provided with food and other objects essential for its survival, the blockading party must provide for free passage of such foodstuffs and other essential supplies, subject to:
(a) the right to prescribe the technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted; and
(b) the condition that the distribution of such supplies shall be made under the local supervision of a Protecting Power or a humanitarian organization which offers guarantees of impartiality, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross.
104. The blockading belligerent shall allow the passage of medical supplies for the civilian population or for the wounded and sick members of armed forces, subject to the right to prescribe technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082...25641f002d49ce
Regarding the blockade of Gaza itself -- about which "Dov Weisglass, an adviser to Ehud Olmert, the Israeli Prime Minister [said when it was first imposed]: 'The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger'" -- this post documents just some of the effects, with ample links to U.N. reports, including:
* since the intensification of the siege in June 2007, “the formal economy in Gaza has collapsed”.
* “61% of people in the Gaza Strip are … food insecure”, of which “65% are children under 18 years”.
* since June 2007, “the number of Palestine refugees unable to access food and lacking the means to purchase even the most basic items, such as soap, school stationery and safe drinking water, has tripled”.
* “in February 2009, the level of anemia in babies (9-12 months) was as high as 65.5%”
* “water resources in the Gaza Strip are critically insufficient”
* “the blockade has been a major obstacle to repairing the damage done by Israeli air attacks and destruction. Nearly none of the 3,425 homes destroyed during Cast Lead have been reconstructed, displacing around 20,000 people. Only 17.5% of the value of the damages to educational facilities has been repaired … [T]he infrastructure which remains unrepaired is often that which is most essential to the basic needs and well-being of the Gaza population.”
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/gl...ostid-updateA1The policy is explicitly designed to prevent the functioning of Gaza's economy. Export is banned (with the exception of a few dozen truckloads of lowers and strawberries as part of a Dutch sponsored project) and the import of raw materials is banned. According to Amr Hamad, Deputy Secretary-General of the Palestinian Federation of Industries, about 90% of Gaza's factories are closed or are functioning at less than 10% capacity because of the inability to obtain raw aterials and the inability to export finished goods. Unemployment has risen to well over 40%. Over 80% of Gaza residents are dependent on food assistance.
To give an example of how the crossings policy is aimed at preventing economic development: Israel permits Gaza residents to receive small packets of margarine, considered a consumption item. Israel bans, however, the transfer of large buckets of margarine, because the buckets are designed for industrial use, rather than home consumption, meaning that they could be used to allow a local factory to produce biscuits – and thus engage in economic activity. Similarly, requests to permit empty cans into Gaza – intended for the preservation and marketing of Gaza-produced tomato paste – have been refused, but requests to transfer prepared, Israeli-made tomato paste are permitted.
http://ceinquiry.us/docs/Gisha-GazaF...et-Jan2010.pdfLack of facilities
There are worsening problems with the supply of electricity in the Gaza Strip, with many residents enduring 8-12 hours of power cuts each day. There are also recurrent shortages of cooking gas, requiring the implementation of a rationing scheme in which hospitals and bakeries are prioritised.
Aid blocked
While Israel allows some humanitarian supplies from international aid agencies into Gaza, these are strictly limited and frequently delayed. UN agencies have said that additional storage and transportation costs incurred from delays due to the blockade totalled around $5 million in 2009.
Health
Gaza's health sector has been plagued by shortages in equipment and medical supplies during the blockade.
...
World Health Organization (WHO) trucks of medical equipment bound for Gazan hospitals have repeatedly been turned away, without explanation, by Israeli border officials.
...
But whatever its stated justification, the blockade is collectively punishing the entire population of Gaza, the majority of whom are children, rather than targeting the Hamas administration or armed groups.
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-u...ans-2010-06-01En tot slot, de heersende internationale mening over de blokkade:Restricted Access to Agricultural Land
As of June 2009, a total of 46% of agricultural land in the Gaza Strip was assessed to be inaccessible or out of production owing to destruction of lands during 'Cast Lead' and inaccessible areas lying within the “security buffer zone”.
Only a limited percentage of this land has been rehabilitated due to the blockade that restricts the import of materials and equipment for rehabilitation and access to damaged areas. Farmers in these areas are unable to cultivate and produce goods for consumption or sale, and herders, unable to provide sufficient natural food for their animals, must purchase animal feed at unaffordable prices.
With limited access to agricultural areas, local production has declined and farmers’ livelihoods are increasingly precarious. Food prices have risen considerably since the blockade. Palestinians are less able to afford a healthy, diverse diet that could contribute to better nutrition and health.
...
Fishing area and catches shrinking
Since January 2009, fishers’ access to fishing grounds has been further restricted to 3 nautical miles (nm) from the shore. This has resulted in a depletion of catches and revenues.
In Gaza, the majority of profits from fishing come from sardines, however, schools of sardine pass beyond the 3 nm mark and sardine catches are down 72%. Adult fish are mostly found beyond the 3 nm limit and therefore fishing within the current zone rapidly depletes new generations of fish, with severe implications for fish life-cycles and therefore long‐term fishing livelihoods. (The previous fishing zone was 6-9 nm before 'Cast Lead', 12 nm from Bertini Commitments, and 20 nm under the Oslo Accords.)
Between 2008 and 2009, total catch decreased by 47%, and is insufficient to meet the demands of Gaza’s fast-growing population.
http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/gaz...et_english.pdf
There is a well-grounded view that both the initial attacks on Gaza and the tactics being used by Israel are serious violations of the UN charter, the Geneva conventions, international law and international humanitarian law," said Richard Falk, the UN's special rapporteur on the Palestinian territories and professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University.
"There is a consensus among independent legal experts that Israel is an occupying power and is therefore bound by the duties set out in the fourth Geneva convention," Falk added. "The arguments that Israel's blockade is a form of prohibited collective punishment, and that it is in breach of its duty to ensure the population has sufficient food and healthcare as the occupying power, are very strong."
...
"The blockade of humanitarian relief, the destruction of civilian infrastructure, and preventing access to basic necessities such as food and fuel are prima facie war crimes," a group of leading QCs and academics, including Michael Mansfield QC and Sir Geoffrey Bindman, wrote in a letter to the Sunday Times.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...ourt-palestineThe United Nations secretary general Ban Ki-moon has been visiting the Gaza Strip, where he expressed his solidarity with the Palestinians and condemned Israel's ongoing blockade.
...
Mr Ban says the blockade on the region - imposed nearly three years ago after the militant group Hamas seized power - causes unacceptable suffering and he has called for Gaza's borders to be reopened.
Israel imposed the blockade to crush Hamas and prevent the use of imported materials to make weapons, but it prevents all but the most basic humanitarian supplies from getting in.
But Mr Ban says Israel's policy of closure is unsustainable and wrong.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...21/2851891.htmUnited Nations human rights chief Navi Pillay on Friday accused Israel of violating the rules of warfare with its blockade stopping people and goods from moving in or out of the Gaza Strip.
...
Pillay said the Gaza blockade amounts to collective punishment of civilians, which is prohibited under the Geneva Conventions on the conduct of warfare and occupation.
She cited the conventions' requirement that "no protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited."
The convention also bans reprisals against civilians under occupation and their property.
Pillay urged Israel to ease restrictions immediately "with a view to the complete lifting of the blockade and other restrictions."
...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,539363,00.html1331. The facts ascertained by the Mission, the conditions resulting from the deliberate actions of the Israeli armed forces and the declared policies of the Israeli Government – as they were presented by its authorized representatives – with regard to the Gaza Strip before, during and after the military operation, cumulatively indicate the intention to inflict collective punishment on the people of the Gaza Strip. The Mission, therefore, finds a violation of the provisions of article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
The Mission has described above a series of acts that deprive Palestinians in the Gaza Strip from their means of subsistence, employment, housing and water. Palestinians are further denied freedom of movement and their right to leave and enter their own country. Later the report will address the extent to which Palestinian rights to access a court of law and an effective remedy are limited or denied by Israeli laws (see chap. XXVII) 1335. From the facts available to it, the Mission is of the view that some of the actions of the Government of Israel might justify a competent court finding that crimes against humanity have been committed.
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies...-HRC-12-48.pdf
Vidéos publiées par B
lol check hoe gechockeerd hij reageert
Ik zie dat San Remo Manual hier veel wordt aangehaald. Dit is nochtans geen internationaal bindend recht en zeker geen internationaal verdrag. Het is louter een overeenkomst tussen enkele academici en enkele landen die het eens zijn over een paar punten en het internationaal recht in een bepaalde richting willen duwen. Israel heeft dat ook nooit geratificeerd, want er is nooit een conventie over geweest...
Dus al die praat daarover is eigenlijk compleet irrelevant...
Dat kan je overigens ook lezen op de site van het ICRC:
The Manual is not a binding document. In view of the extent of uncertainty in the law, the experts decided that it was premature to embark on diplomatic negotiations to draft a treaty on the subject. The work therefore concentrated on finding areas of agreement as to the present content of customary law, which were far more numerous than initially appeared possible. As a second step the experts discussed controversial issues with a view to reaching an agreed compromise on innovative proposals by way of progressive development. However, although the Manual was to contain provisions of this latter type, most of them were always meant to be an expression of what the participants believed to be present law. Thus in many respects the San Remo Manual was intentionally designed to be a modern equivalent of the Oxford Manual of 1913. The experts believed that the drafting of such a document would help clarify the law, thus removing the impression that there was such a degree of disagreement as to render its uniform development in customary law or eventual codification impossible.[5] The experts particularly noted, when embarking on this project, that the result would be very helpful for dissemination purposes and would encourage the drafting of more national manuals.
http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/57JMST
Jammer van jullie verspilde tijd. Ge had hem beter gespendeerd aan studeren.
Laatst gewijzigd door spray-bunny; 3 juni 2010 om 18:24
It doesn't matter if the cat is black or white as long as it catches mice. - Deng Xiaoping
Gevaarlijke ziekteTis idd zo dat dankzij dat nationalisme Europa niet is gelukt om Turkije te verdelen in Engelse, Franse, Italiaanse, Duitse regio's. Vandaar "ziekelijk" zeker?
Al die zaken die je opsomt gaan over de tijdeliijke beslissingen van de militaire coup in 1980. Ondertussen leven we in 2010
-ivm "freedom of speech". Alsof er in Europa "freedom of speech" is.
Belgie is ook talloze keren veroordeeld geweest in de Europese hof voor rechten van de mens.
Bij de update op die eerste site staat ook nog een interessante opmerking: in de Amerikaanse Burgeroorlog werd een vergelijkbare blokkade opgelegd (de enige die de auteur tot nu toe gevonden heeft) tegen de Confederates, die blokkade werd beschouwd als een 'act of war' waardoor de tegenpartij genoodzaakt was de Confederates als 'oorlogsvoerende partij' (als dat de correct Nl. term is) te erkennen.
Israël zou het niet echt leuk vinden mocht hetzelfde (nog kunnen) gebeuren met Hamas.
Nope, enkel in de jaren 80 was er een piek van folteringen.Gevaarlijke ziekte
Al die zaken die je opsomt gaan over de tijdeliijke beslissingen van de militaire coup in 1980. Ondertussen leven we in 2010
-ivm "freedom of speech". Alsof er in Europa "freedom of speech" is.
Belgie is ook talloze keren veroordeeld geweest in de Europese hof voor rechten van de mens.
Al de zaken die ik genoemd heb zijn van de 21ste eeuw en die de dag van vandaag nog steeds gebeuren.
Het gaat erom welk land meer fascistische eigenschappen bezit en dat is duidelijk Turkije.
Vraag maar is aan de amerikanen en irakezen hoe dat het amerikaans nationalisme er voor gezorgd heeft dat de pers en het congress kritiekloos te werk ging bij de start van de Irak oorlog.
Of aan de duitser, japanner, etc..
kerel doe is normaal...Gevaarlijke ziekte
Al die zaken die je opsomt gaan over de tijdeliijke beslissingen van de militaire coup in 1980. Ondertussen leven we in 2010
-ivm "freedom of speech". Alsof er in Europa "freedom of speech" is.
Belgie is ook talloze keren veroordeeld geweest in de Europese hof voor rechten van de mens.
Wie denkt ge nu da ge me zo een belachelijke argumenten ga overtuigen, mss u zelf nog wa meer ma voor de rest?!
+ de armeense genocide is een feit, de enigste die da ontkennen zijn turken. Waarom denkte?
Edit: blijkbaar ontkennen niet alle turken de genocide: Westerse historici, alsmede verschillende Turkse historici, onder andere Taner Akçam, Fatma Muge Gocek en Halil Berktay, en de vermoorde Hrant Dink, zijn het over het algemeen eens dat een genocide plaatsvond. Turkse en andere Westerse wetenschappers, waaronder historici die gespecialiseerd zijn in de geschiedenis van Ottomaanse Rijk zoals Bernard Lewis, Justin McCarthy en Gilles Veinstein, houden het bij deportatie en massamoord van Armeniërs, waarbij nog vaak een etnische zuivering wordt erkend.
Laatst gewijzigd door Grishnar; 3 juni 2010 om 19:44
Het gebrek aan kritiek telkens men in de media spreekt over de "vredelievende, weerloze hulpverleners die in koelenbloede vermoord zijn" begint hallucinante vormen aan te nemen.
Ja lol, Israël en zijn supporters hebben echt nog nergens een forum gekregen om het uitmoorden van dat humanitair hulpkonvooi goed te praten.
@ Peephole: dus de legaliteit van de blokkade staat ter discussie. Dat heb ik in post 2788 al toegegeven.
Ik zie dat San Remo Manual hier veel wordt aangehaald. Dit is nochtans geen internationaal bindend recht en zeker geen internationaal verdrag. Het is louter een overeenkomst tussen enkele academici en enkele landen die het eens zijn over een paar punten en het internationaal recht in een bepaalde richting willen duwen. Israel heeft dat ook nooit geratificeerd, want er is nooit een conventie over geweest...
Dus al die praat daarover is eigenlijk compleet irrelevant...
Dat kan je overigens ook lezen op de site van het ICRC:
The Manual is not a binding document. In view of the extent of uncertainty in the law, the experts decided that it was premature to embark on diplomatic negotiations to draft a treaty on the subject. The work therefore concentrated on finding areas of agreement as to the present content of customary law, which were far more numerous than initially appeared possible. As a second step the experts discussed controversial issues with a view to reaching an agreed compromise on innovative proposals by way of progressive development. However, although the Manual was to contain provisions of this latter type, most of them were always meant to be an expression of what the participants believed to be present law. Thus in many respects the San Remo Manual was intentionally designed to be a modern equivalent of the Oxford Manual of 1913. The experts believed that the drafting of such a document would help clarify the law, thus removing the impression that there was such a degree of disagreement as to render its uniform development in customary law or eventual codification impossible.[5] The experts particularly noted, when embarking on this project, that the result would be very helpful for dissemination purposes and would encourage the drafting of more national manuals.
San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflict at Sea
Jammer van jullie verspilde tijd. Ge had hem beter gespendeerd aan studerenInternational Institute of Humanitarian Law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThe San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea was adopted in June 1994 after a series of round tables of naval and legal experts convened, as a legally recognized document. [1]
Is een 'legally recognized document' wel genoeg?
De betrouwbaarheid van wiki is hier nu wel extreem laag, zeker omdat die aanpassing deze week gebeurd is.
Het Rode Kruis meldt in de bijbehorende tekst: "The Manual is not a binding document. In view of the extent of uncertainty in the law, the experts decided that it was premature to embark on diplomatic negotiations to draft a treaty on the subject."
Artikel 98 is section II van Part IV, niet section IV van Part V. Moet ik u nu echt altijd op uw foutieve interpretaties blijven wijzen? In PART V : MEASURES SHORT OF ATTACK: INTERCEPTION, VISIT, SEARCH, DIVERSION AND CAPTURE, Section IV : CAPTURE OF ENEMY VESSELS AND GOODS, dat dus specifiek handelt over het voorliggende geval - eigenlijk steeds er van uitgaande dat Israël in oorlog is met Gaza - of Turkije, aangezien het om een Turks schip gaat - doch dit volledig terzijde, ik negeer dat feit even om u erop te wijzen dat zelfs indien dat het geval was Israël zich niet houdt aan internationale rechtsregels. Daar staat letterlijk in het allereerste artikel (art. 135) :
Het belangrijkste deel staat in het vetjes.135. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 136, enemy vessels, whether merchant or otherwise, and goods on board such vessels may be captured outside neutral waters. Prior exercise of visit and search is not required.
Daarnaast nog het feit dat een blokkade enkel kan indien er een duidelijke periode voor wordt vastgelegd. Dat staat ook in uw San Remo Manual en heb ik ook al eerder aangehaald, ik ga niet blijven die artikels opzoeken omdat jij steevast van idee wijzigt.
Nu ga je ervan uit dat ik student ben of zo? Bedankt voor 't compliment - ik heb mijn licentiaatsdiploma (dat zal nu een Master zijn zeker) echter al lang op zakJammer van jullie verspilde tijd. Ge had hem beter gespendeerd aan studeren
Laatst gewijzigd door dJeez; 3 juni 2010 om 21:20
PSN: dJeezBE - Delicious bookmarks
Disclaimer: I am currently suffering from severe CSD (Compulsive Sarcasm Disorder). - L'onion fait la farce - Facile largire de alienoPastafarian by choice
Aan uw taalgebruik merk ik dat jij geen enkele moeite doet om ook maar enige nuance te brengen in heel dat verhaal. Zinloos dus om met jou te discussiëren. Wat wil je nu met dit zinnetje doen? Nog eens de knuppel in het hoenderhok gooien? Nog eens de discussie van vooraf aan beginnen? Doe eens niet zo kinderachtig.
Welke nuance is er nodig?
Israël pleegt zware oorlogsmisdaden door het handhaven van de blokkade, en deinst er niet voor terug om activisten die dat aanklagen te vermoorden. Veel meer valt er niet te zeggen.
En op die vloot zatten alleen maar Palestijnse terroristen met als enig doel zoveel mogelijk wapens in gaza te smokkelen om Israël van de kaart te vegen.
Niveau.
Op dit moment bekijken 1 gebruikers deze discussie. (0 leden en 1 gasten)
Regels voor berichten
Met citaat reageren
