Blockades: Their Status Under International Law, Effectiveness And
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Blockades Blockades: Their Status under International law, Effectiveness and Impact Pierce Young Senior Thesis CSU Maritime Young 1 Blockades Abstract Since the beginning of naval warfare, navies have used the military action of a blockade to deny the enemy the shipment of vital supplies needed to fight. The consequences of such blockades have almost always resulted in the suffering of the civilian population the blockade is over due to the nature of the blockade itself to deny any ship access to a port or territory even if they are simply transporting food or medical supplies. Today blockades are used sparsely in most conflicts yet are still used and are seen as a viable military strategy even with the humanitarian impact that almost always corresponds with the operation. The law of blockades which has evolved over the last 400 years focused more on the economic impact of blockades on states rather than the suffering of the civilian population effected. The law of blockade today has therefore been influenced by this thinking with the many rules which must be followed having to do with the convenience of states with humanitarian responsibilities taking precedent after World War 2. International humanitarian law on the other hand condemns blockades completely. In the case studies presented, the blockades in operation today and in the not so distant past have been due to security concerns of a state with these concerns being all too real with another entity attempting to transport weapons to a group that could cause potential harm on a blockading state’s citizens. They have also been initiated when no other serious power in the region can challenge the blockade militarily. A blockade, compared to other potential options, does always accomplish the goal of stopping the armament of an enemy group and therefore has an impact on the reduction of a conflict. This reality, however, does not give a belligerent state the right to evade the humanitarian responsibilities that correspond with implementing a blockade. Young 2 Blockades Introduction I am working on the topic of the use of maritime blockades in the world today because I want to find out their status under international law, their effectiveness as a military action, and how civilian populations are affected by such blockades; as policy experts need to understand if and how a blockade is justified especially if a significantly large amount of civilians suffer as a result. I am particularly interested: understanding which cases are blockades justified under international law, if a blockade always leads to a humanitarian crisis (through not enough food or medical supplies getting through); and the potential places in the world where a blockade could take place in the current international environment and the impact the blockade would have especially since threats of blockades from certain countries, such as Iran, are extremely common (ICG, 2018). I will answer these questions by analyzing on-going blockades today and in the last century such as the Israeli blockade of Gaza and Lebanon, the U.S. blockade of Cuba, the Saudi Arabian blockade of Yemen and Qatar, and the potential blockade of China by the U.S. if hostilities were to take place. I will also analyze these blockades under the multiple lenses of international law whether it be traditional or humanitarian and judge in which cases these on- going and relatively recent blockades are in anyway justified especially if a humanitarian crisis is taking place. The military action of a blockade defined as "a belligerent operation to prevent vessels and/or aircraft of all nations, enemy as well as neutral, from entering or exiting specified ports, airfields, or coastal areas belonging to, occupied by, or under the control of an enemy nation” has become an action states take in this century and the second half of the last century when there is a threat to them either existentially or a threat to their sphere of influence (Heinegg, 1997). This reality is interesting due to the fact that a blockade has traditionally been Young 3 Blockades used in times of war between two states and not just a state that threatens the security of another. Therefore, the international community must decide whether or not a blockade, although being an effective military strategy at ensuring that no weapons which can do major harm are smuggled through to combatants, becomes unjustified when a large civilian population suffers as a result. The lines also become blurry when a blockade is established due to a direct threat existing which could lead to a loss of life in the civilian population of the belligerent state. What also must be decided, therefore, is how the international community balances a state’s right to defend themselves and their civilian population from harm, no matter how extensive, and when the actions of defense constitute a war crime due to the extreme suffering of another civilian population. Blockades under International Law and Resurgence Brief History and Terms Although blockades have been used as an instrument of war to deny an enemy state supplies since the times of ancient Greece, historians give the recognition of the first formal blockade to the Dutch blockade of Flemish ports in 1584 (Heinegg, 1997). During this time no formal international law existed on the legality of blockades and their effects on neutral states although the blockade itself began the question of how belligerent states handle neutral states and their rights such as due notice of a blockaded port by the belligerent state and that a blockade must be impartial to all vessels (Fraunces, 1992). After a time, the recognition of certain rules, although informal, began to form among the powers of Europe concerning the establishment of a blockade on a state. These rules included adequate notice to neutral states by the belligerent state that a blockade has been initiated, proper establishment of a blockade, effective enforcement, impartial application, and respect for the rights of neutral states (Fraunces, 1992). Some of these general Young 4 Blockades principles were informally established due to the number of blockades the British Empire established during the 18th century. One of the main complaints neutral states had during this time was the fact that Great Britain would tend to capture ships that weren’t breaching an established blockade around a port but rather capturing the vessel if they deemed that the ships ultimate destination was the blockaded port itself. Also, states did not want to adhere to a blockade and thereby hindering their trade if a blockade was ineffective and could possibly be ran. This policy of “paper blockades” taken by Great Britain severely affected neutral merchant shipping and led some affected countries to create the first armed neutrality where they declared that in order for a blockade to be legal, the blockade must be effective. Great Britain, however, did not consider this principle a part of international law until the treaty of Paris was signed in 1856 (Heinegg, 1997). The principles listed that were informally part of international law concerning the establishment of blockades was finally ratified in 1909 via the Declaration of London. The major maritime powers met and agreed upon the only collective recognition of the traditional law of blockade (Fraunces, 1992). Embargo and Blockade Many get confused with the differences between a blockade and an embargo due to the fact that they are sometimes used interchangeably in the media and popular culture. To be specific: an embargo is the policy of not trading with another nation and not allowing the belligerent country’s ports or territories to be used for commerce with that nation while a blockade is the physical closing of all international commerce through military force on certain ports or territories of another entity (Bannerman, 2010). While both eventually cause economic distress on the territory effected, a blockade is in of itself a military action and therefore a much more extreme action. The phrase “economic blockade” is used interchangeably between an Young 5 Blockades embargo and an actual blockade which causes most of the confusion. Both acts are also in many cases widely condemned for the suffering they can cause on a civilian population. An embargo comes under international condemnation when humanitarian relief is not exempt from the embargo. Relief can come in the form of food, medicine, or other medical material. In the end, however, and embargo is used much more often in order to quell a state to stop certain acts. Sanctions and embargos in this sense have the same meanings with the difference between the two actions are simply the scope in which they are applied. An embargo, such as the one the United States has against Cuba, is a complete prohibition on all trade with no goods or services allowed to be imported tor exported from the island nation. Sanctions could be considered as “partial blockades” and ultimately have the same effect as an embargo depending on the scope (DEC, 2017). Sanctions are an extremely useful diplomatic tool that countries such as the United States and international organizations such as the UN use in order to make the government of a country cooperate when they are threatening international peace and security (Gov.UK, 2016). Ultimately, embargos along with sanctions are meant to punish the government or in some cases a specific individual of a country with the people usually suffering as a result while blockades, while having the same basic intent, punish the people of a country much more quickly and with greater consequences. Traditional Law of Blockade The traditional law of blockade goes off what was established in the 19th and early 20th centuries concerning what the major maritime powers agreed upon at the London Conference of 1909.