header-logo header-logo

10 June 2010 / Marc Weller
Issue: 7421 / Categories: Opinion , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Blockading the enemy

The use of force by a state against foreign shipping on the high seas was traditionally seen as an act of war. The UN Charter prohibits the threat or use of force for any reason, other than UN mandated operations, self-defence, and forcible humanitarian action.

The use of force by a state against foreign shipping on the high seas was traditionally seen as an act of war. The UN Charter prohibits the threat or use of force for any reason, other than UN mandated operations, self-defence, and forcible humanitarian action. The UN expressly includes “the blockade of the ports or coasts of a State” in its landmark definition of aggression of 1974. At this very moment, the Kampala review conference of the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court is drawing on this definition in its attempts to codify individual responsibility for the crime of aggression.

History lessons

In view of this background, Israel faces a heavy burden to demonstrate that one of the recognised exceptions to the use of force covers forcible interdiction.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll