[geeks] Yes, paintball guns

[Edward Mitchell]

The pertinent source is the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to
Armed Conflicts at Sea.

Source:

http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/52d68d14de6160e0c12563da005fdb1b/7694fe2016f347e1
c125641f002d49ce!OpenDocument

It's an easy read.  If Turkey uses military escorts, they're probably upping
the ante in a big way on this one.  Any protections the vessels enjoy(ed) as
merchant/civilian shipping are now subject to being negated under several
theories (merchants as belligerents, for example).

Boarding in International Waters was legal, per the treaty.  The vessel's flag
has some bearing on this, but neutrality (or lack thereof) comes into play
here, as does submission to inspection and a grant (or lack of grant) of safe
passage.

Nice after dinner reading.  Notwithstanding my previous snark-comment, I'll
offer no opinion as to the legality under International Law.



On Jun 1, 2010, at 7:15 PM, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:

> gsm at mendelson.com wrote:
>> Here is some footage from Fox (with some IDF footage spliced in)
>> showing the peaceful protestors attacking the soldiers with chains,
>> pipes and firebombs.
>
> I hesitate to get into political discussions, and am not blaming Israel...
>
> but now supposedly Turkey is going to use military ships to escort
> another ship or ships?
>
> I am unable to find a good source and reliable interpretation of
> maritime law concerning blockades (don't trust Wikipedia on something
> like this) and actions that occur in international waters; so I am not
> able to have a good opinion on whether or not Israel's actions were
> "lawful" or not.
>
> Stopping and boarding the boat in international waters was a true
> miscalculation, especially when the boat was flying under Turkey's flag;
> just following the boat until it was inside Israel's waters, then
> boarding it, would have made it an internal matter.
>
> If it had been Panama registered, it would not have mattered.
>
> For all we know, this may have been a deliberate provocation--I don't
> feel I know enough to have an accurate viewpoint.
>
> The guy in the Israeli Coast Guard (or whatever part of the IDF it is
> called) who decided to do this, is probably in the hot seat at this point.
>
> Cordially
>
> Patrick
> _______________________________________________
> GEEKS:  http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/geeks


------------------
Abusus non tollit usum.

The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those
exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed  where
the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest;
where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce
their decrees*. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing
them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.     -Judge
Alex Kozinski