E' zona di guerra ce l'ha eccome , nessun Paese glielo contesta e nessun Paese supera il limite nemmeno la Turchia che è molto più aggressiva dell'Italia , solo gli attivisti
Non mi sembra proprio. Nel settembre 2010 il Consiglio dei Diritti Umani si espresse nel senso di una totale illiceità del blocco qualificandolo come una forma di punizione collettiva in violazione dell’art. 33 della IV Convezione di Ginevra (e tra l'altro mi sembra assurdo - infatti è stato criticato da più parti - che il rapporto Palmer del 2011 l'abbia giustificato). Se per ispezionare viene usato tale blocco, come può essere un diritto di Israele farlo?
"Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA)
emphasized that “such tragedies are entirely avoidable if Israel heeds the repeated calls of
the international community to end its counterproductive and unacceptable blockade of Gaza.” In a public statement issued on 14 June 2010, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) described the impact of the closure on the situation in Gaza as “devastating” for the 1.5 million people living there, emphasizing that “the closure constitutes a collective punishment imposed in clear violation of Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law”, saying the only sustainable solution was a lifting of the
closure.
39. Similarly, the Human Rights Committee, in its concluding observations of 3 September 2010, expressed its concern at the “effects of the blockade on the civilian population in the Gaza Strip, including restrictions to their freedom of movement, some of which led to deaths of patients in need of urgent medical care, as well as restrictions on the access to sufficient drinking water and adequate sanitation.” It recommended that Israel lift the military blockade of Gaza, insofar as it adversely affects the civilian population.29
40. According to information provided to the Mission by the United Nations Office for
the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) in the occupied Palestinian territory, the blockade exacerbated the already existing difficulties of the population in Gaza in terms of livelihoods and brought to new peaks the severe human dignity crisis resulting from the deteriorated public services, widespread poverty, food insecurity, over 40 per cent unemployment and 80 per cent aid dependence (i.e. some 80 per cent of the population receives humanitarian assistance, mainly food). People’s lives were reduced to a daily struggle in an attempt to secure the most basic needs."
[...]
51. Under the laws of armed conflict, a blockade is the prohibition of all commerce with a defined enemy coastline. A belligerent who has established a lawful blockade is entitled to enforce that blockade on the high seas.41
A blockade must satisfy a number of legal requirements, including: notification, effective and impartial enforcement and proportionality.42 In particular a blockade is illegal 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.43
52. A blockade may not continue to be enforced where it inflicts disproportionate
damage on the civilian population. The usual meaning of “damage to the civilian
population” in the law of armed conflict refers to deaths, injuries and property damage.
Here the damage may be thought of as the destruction of the civilian economy and
prevention of reconstruction further to damage. One might also note, insofar as many in Gaza face a shortage of food or the means to buy it, that the ordinary meaning of “starvation” under the law of armed conflict is simply to cause hunger.44
53. In evaluating the evidence submitted to the Mission, including by OCHA oPt,
confirming the severe humanitarian situation in Gaza, the destruction of the economy and the prevention of reconstruction (as detailed above), the Mission is satisfied that the blockade was inflicting disproportionate damage upon the civilian population in the Gaza strip and that as such the interception could not be justified and therefore has to be considered illegal.
54. Moreover, the Mission emphasizes that according to article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, collective punishment of civilians under occupation is prohibited. “No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.”
The Mission considers that one of the principal motives behind the imposition of the blockade was a desire to punish the people of the Gaza Strip for having elected Hamas. The combination of this motive and the effect of the restrictions on the Gaza Strip leave no doubt that Israel’s actions and policies amount to collective punishment as defined
by international law. In this connection, the Mission supports the findings of the Special
Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since
1967, Richard Falk,45 the report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict46 and most recently the ICRC47 that the blockade amounts to collective punishment in violation of Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law.
55. It might be suggested that a belligerent in an armed conflict has a right to visit,
inspect and control the destinations of neutral vessels on the high seas, irrespective of any declared blockade. Whilst there is some controversy on this issue, the San Remo Manual and a number of military manuals take the view that the right may only be exercised upon reasonable suspicion that a vessel is engaged in activities which support the enemy.48
The Mission takes the view that a right of interference with third States’ freedom of navigation should not lightly be presumed.
56. Thus, if there is no lawful blockade, the only lawful basis for intercepting the vessel
would be a reasonable suspicion that it:
• was making an effective contribution to the opposing forces’ war effort, such as by
carrying weaponry or was otherwise closely integrated into the enemy war effort
(belligerent right of capture);49 or
• posed an imminent and overwhelming threat to Israel and there was no alternative
but to use force to prevent it (self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations
Charter).
In view of the information available, the Mission is satisfied that the interception of the flotilla and related preparatory planning by Israel was not purely motivated by concerns as to the vessels’ contribution to the war effort. Evidence attributed to the Chief of General Staff, Gabi Ashkenazi, who testified that he did not believe that the Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief (IHH), one of the coalition members organizing the flotilla, was a “terrorist organization”.50
The evidence of Prime Minister Netanyahu to the Turkel Committee indicates that the decision to stop the flotilla was not
taken because the vessels in themselves posed any immediate security threat. In any event, no such right of belligerent interdiction or wider claim of self-defence against the Flotilla has been asserted by Israel.
57. Therefore the Mission is satisfied not only that the flotilla presented no imminent
threat but that the interception was motivated by concerns about the possible propaganda victory that might be claimed by the organizers of the flotilla.
58. Given the evidence at the Turkel Committee, it is clear that there was no reasonable suspicion that the Flotilla posed any military risk of itself. As a result, no case could be made for intercepting the vessels in the exercise of belligerent rights or Article 51 self-defence. Thus, no case can be made for the legality of the interception and the Mission therefore finds that the interception was illegal.
59. The Mission finds that the policy of blockade or closure regime, including the naval
blockade imposed by Israel on Gaza was inflicting disproportionate civilian damage. The Mission considers that the naval blockade was implemented in support of the overall closure regime. As such it was part of a single disproportionate measure of armed conflict and as such cannot itself be found proportionate.
60. Furthermore, the closure regime is considered by the Mission to constitute collective punishment of the people living in the Gaza Strip and thus to be illegal and contrary to article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
61. The Mission considers that the enforcement of an illegal blockade does not only constitute a violation of the laws of war, but also a violation of the laws of neutrality giving rise to State responsibility.
RightDocs - a dynamic tool to search and filter Human Rights Council Resolutions, making Council related documents accessible to all, faster and more efficiently than ever before. Users can filter by topic, State, agenda item, session, and date.
www.right-docs.org
Boh, cosa cambia scusa da un anno all'altro? Magari mi ricordo male io, parlo del blocco navale tra l'altro.
Niente niente, era solo una mia curiosità/piccolo desiderio di saperlo con precisione. Ma non è affatto importante, possiamo lasciar perdere.