On Dec 31, 2008, at 5:47 PM, Stefano Mori wrote: > > On 2009-Jan-01, at 01:28, Lawrence Sica wrote: > >> According to maritime law, boats entering without ill intent have to >> be allowed through. I don't know if Israel is part of the UN >> conventions on maritime law. >
Applicability of the term "occupied"See article Status of territories captured by IsraelSee article International law and the Arab-Israeli conflict http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-occupied_territories A temporary wall along the route of the forthcomingWest Bank Barrier The United Nations Security Council (in Resolution 446, Resolution 465 and Resolution 484, among others), the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention[8], and theInternational Committee of the Red Cross[9], have each resolved that the territories discussed in this article are occupied and that the Fourth Geneva Convention provisions regarding occupied territories apply. In its advisory opinion on the separation barrier, the International Court of Justice described the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem as occupied, though without considering arguments for or against the applicability of the term.[10] The Government of Israel in its public statements and many of Israel's citizens and supporters dispute that the territories are occupied and claim that use of the term "occupied" in relation to Israel's control of the areas has no basis in international law or history, and that it prejudges the outcome of any future or ongoing negotiations. They argue it is more accurate to refer to the territories as "disputed" rather than "occupied" although they agree to apply the humanitarian provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention pending resolution of the dispute. Nevertheless, some Israeli government websites do refer to the areas as being "occupied territories".[11] However, in recent decades the government of Israel has argued before the Supreme Court of Israel that its authority in the territories is based on the international law of "belligerent occupation", in particular the Hague Conventions. The court has confirmed this interpretation many times, for example in its 2004 and 2005 rulings on the separation fence. [12][13] According to the BBC, "Israel argues that the international conventions relating to occupied land do not apply to the Palestinian territories because they were not under the legitimate sovereignty of any state in the first place."[14] Soon after the 1967 war, Israel issued a military order stating that the Geneva Conventions applied to the recently-occupied territories [2], but this order was rescinded a few months later [3]. Since then, Israel has argued on various grounds that the Geneva Conventions do not apply. One is that the Geneva Conventions apply only to the sovereign territory of a High Contracting Party, and therefore the Conventions do not apply since Jordan never exercised sovereignty over the region [4] (pdf). The interpretation of the International Court of Justice does not support this view. [10] In its June 2005 ruling upholding the constitutionality of the Gaza disengagement, the Israeli High Court determined that "Judea and Samaria" [West Bank] and the Gaza area are lands seized during warfare, and are not part of Israel." [15] The Israeli Supreme Court has argued that the Geneva Convention insofar it is not supported by domestic legislation "does not bind this Court, its enforcement being a matter for the states which are parties to the Convention". They ruled that "Conventional international law does not become part of Israeli law through automatic incorporation, but only if it is adopted or combined with Israeli law by enactment of primary or subsidiary legislation from which it derives its force"[5] (pdf). Al Haq, a West Bank affiliate of the International Commission of Jurists, has asserted that "As noted in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 'a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty'. As such, Israeli reliance on local law does not justify its violations of its international legal obligations".[6] Further, the Palestinian mission to the U.N. has argued it is of no relevance whether a State has a monist or a dualist approach to the incorporation of international law into domestic law. A position dependent upon such considerations contradicts Article 18 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969 which states that: "a state is obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purposes of a treaty when it has undertaken an act expressing its consent thereto." The Treaty, which is substantially a codification of customary international law, also provides that a State "may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty" (Art. 27).[7] > > Skim reading this document, from an Israeli perspective, lists > numerous maritime terrorist attacks. The PLO is often involved. And > for an example, recall the recent Mumbai attacks where ten terrorists > arrived on speed boats and killed over 170 people. > > > Then read the Israeli rules and see why it says that any approaching > vessel mustn't exceed 15 knots. > > http://www.ict.org.il/Articles/tabid/66/Articlsid/251/currentpage/5/Default.aspx > > "Documented in the Gaza-Jericho Agreement (May 4, 1994), the sea off > the coast of the Gaza Strip is governed by a series of Maritime > Activity Zones (MAZ). Implemented to thwart seaborne terrorist > infiltration and smuggling efforts, the MAZ are composed of three > Maritime Activity Zones labeled K, L and M. The two outer zones (K, M) > are sterile security zones that extend 20 nautical miles off the coast > of the Gaza Strip. Zone K extends in the sea from the coast in the > northern part of the sea of Gaza and 1.5 nautical miles wide > southwards, while Zone M extends in the sea from the coast and one > nautical mile wide from the Egyptian waters. The area in between > running the length of the Gaza coast is referred to as zone L. Both > Maritime Activity Zones “K” and “M” are for the exclusive use of the > Israeli Navy while MAZ L remains open for Palestinian fishing, > recreation, and economic activities. As documented in Article XI of > the Gaza-Jericho Agreement, several restrictions are enforced within > zone L (prior to the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza in 2005)." > > "On any given night, 400-600 Palestinian fishing vessels navigate the > MAZ L and identifying potential terrorists is a task that often > overwhelms Israeli Navy forces assigned the mission of patrolling the > MAZs. " > > > > _______________________________________________ > OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected] > http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters > List hosted at http://cat5.org/ http://www.kevincallahan.org/ http://www.kevincallahan.org/software/accessorizer.html http://www.xeniamara.com/ _______________________________________________ OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected] http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters List hosted at http://cat5.org/
