header-logo header-logo

Blockading the enemy

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

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

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Private client specialist joins as partner in Taunton office

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

Finance and restructuring offering strengthened by partner hire in London

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll