RoccoR
Gold Member
Billo_Really, et al,
Laws don't generally say what you can do. But rather, state a limit or say what you cannot do.
In this case, the law states the minimum requirements for a blockade.
The Treaty Law is outlined in Posting #838. You are just trying to confuse people by attempting to ignore the Treaty. If you were even remotely close, the entire Maritime Legal Community and the International Admiralty Courts would have already made this argument. But they haven't. WHY? Because the UNCLOS pertains to peaceful conditions. The San Remo Manual applies to conditions under Armed Conflict.
Get it together man! The San Remo Manual (Section II Articles 93 - 100) stipulates five main conditions concerning the imposition of a legal naval blockade during the course of an armed conflict. (The UNCLOS does not address blockades.)
(1) must be declared and notified;
(2) must be effective, which is deemed a question of fact;
(3) must be applied impartially to all vessels;
(4) cannot prevent access to the ports and coasts of neutral states; and
(5) must comply with certain humanitarian law obligations.
Your assertion is the retroactive application of a principle in law.
The right of self-determination does not grant self-determination. It is a premise that permits the pursuit of self-determination. The recognition of this principle in a certain number of international treaties cannot be considered as sufficient to put it upon the same footing as a positive rule of the Law of Nations. (SOURCE: League of Nations—Official Journal. October 1920) You have to apply the concepts and principles as the power-that-be in the 1920's perceived them. Not as you are trying to apply them today.
The right to independence and sovereignty are related to territorial integrity. In order to have them, you must first have "territory." The political conditions, during the mandate period, did not grant these rights to the Arab Palestinian. You cannot pinpoint a time in which the Powers-that-be recognized these rights and how they were to be applied. The powers-that-be did not grant any such rights to the Palestinians.
The Powers-that-be did not recognize the Palestinians to have any sovereign or independent territory in the eight centuries before the Great War (WWI). Nor did the surrender instruments grant any special or specific rights, holdings, or authority (with the exception of undefined civil and religious) to the Arab Palestinian at the conclusion of the Great War (WWI).
From the perspective view of both domestic and international law, the formation, transformation and dismemberment of surrendered territories after WWI to the Allied Powers creates a ground truth which, to a large extent, cannot be overturned by the application of the more modern and contemporary rules of law and the UN Charter. This amounts to a set of conditions that if the essential basis for territorial sovereignty. It is lacking application to the Arab Palestinian argument, either because the State was not yet fully formed (at the time that Israel declared Independence) or because it is undergoing transformation or dissolution, the situation is obscure and uncertain from a rational point of view (such as your "smokescreen" undefined assertion that those rights existed before the passage of those resolutions).
Not all cultures extend the same rights and privileges to the people within their respective cultures. Clearly there is a difference between the rights and protections that westerners (men and women) have --- and those of the Muslims (men and women) have under Islamic Law. Thus, rights and protections ascribed historically by western cultures are not the same as the rights and protections of the Muslims in the Islamic world. The Arab Palestinian cannot claim both --- as they are diametrically opposed. There is no Islamic State that recognizes the right of their citizens to exercise self determination in establishing independence and sovereignty over any territory. One only needs to look at the struggle with DAESH (AKA: ISIS/ISIL) to see this.
Most Respectfully,
R
Laws don't generally say what you can do. But rather, state a limit or say what you cannot do.
(COMMENT)
In this case, the law states the minimum requirements for a blockade.
The Treaty Law is outlined in Posting #838. You are just trying to confuse people by attempting to ignore the Treaty. If you were even remotely close, the entire Maritime Legal Community and the International Admiralty Courts would have already made this argument. But they haven't. WHY? Because the UNCLOS pertains to peaceful conditions. The San Remo Manual applies to conditions under Armed Conflict.
Get it together man! The San Remo Manual (Section II Articles 93 - 100) stipulates five main conditions concerning the imposition of a legal naval blockade during the course of an armed conflict. (The UNCLOS does not address blockades.)
(1) must be declared and notified;
(2) must be effective, which is deemed a question of fact;
(3) must be applied impartially to all vessels;
(4) cannot prevent access to the ports and coasts of neutral states; and
(5) must comply with certain humanitarian law obligations.
(COMMENT)
Your assertion is the retroactive application of a principle in law.
The right of self-determination does not grant self-determination. It is a premise that permits the pursuit of self-determination. The recognition of this principle in a certain number of international treaties cannot be considered as sufficient to put it upon the same footing as a positive rule of the Law of Nations. (SOURCE: League of Nations—Official Journal. October 1920) You have to apply the concepts and principles as the power-that-be in the 1920's perceived them. Not as you are trying to apply them today.
The right to independence and sovereignty are related to territorial integrity. In order to have them, you must first have "territory." The political conditions, during the mandate period, did not grant these rights to the Arab Palestinian. You cannot pinpoint a time in which the Powers-that-be recognized these rights and how they were to be applied. The powers-that-be did not grant any such rights to the Palestinians.
The Powers-that-be did not recognize the Palestinians to have any sovereign or independent territory in the eight centuries before the Great War (WWI). Nor did the surrender instruments grant any special or specific rights, holdings, or authority (with the exception of undefined civil and religious) to the Arab Palestinian at the conclusion of the Great War (WWI).
From the perspective view of both domestic and international law, the formation, transformation and dismemberment of surrendered territories after WWI to the Allied Powers creates a ground truth which, to a large extent, cannot be overturned by the application of the more modern and contemporary rules of law and the UN Charter. This amounts to a set of conditions that if the essential basis for territorial sovereignty. It is lacking application to the Arab Palestinian argument, either because the State was not yet fully formed (at the time that Israel declared Independence) or because it is undergoing transformation or dissolution, the situation is obscure and uncertain from a rational point of view (such as your "smokescreen" undefined assertion that those rights existed before the passage of those resolutions).
Not all cultures extend the same rights and privileges to the people within their respective cultures. Clearly there is a difference between the rights and protections that westerners (men and women) have --- and those of the Muslims (men and women) have under Islamic Law. Thus, rights and protections ascribed historically by western cultures are not the same as the rights and protections of the Muslims in the Islamic world. The Arab Palestinian cannot claim both --- as they are diametrically opposed. There is no Islamic State that recognizes the right of their citizens to exercise self determination in establishing independence and sovereignty over any territory. One only needs to look at the struggle with DAESH (AKA: ISIS/ISIL) to see this.
Most Respectfully,
R
Last edited:
