Introduction

Contemporary conflicts are distinguished by their closeness to urbanization in contrast to most of the 18, ^19th, and 19 Century armed conflicts, in which conflicting parties fought on high seas and deserts. In this regard, international scholars are, and ought to be, more concerned about the legality of the old blockades and naval methods used in the present violent conflicts (see here, here, and,). The assumed legal status of blockades is that the presumed legal status on blockades would be that they’re not in themselves unlawful according to international laws. This article aims to show that this will not remain in the current state of international law regarding the legality of blocking. Based on the current situation in Yemen, blockades may refer to a broad behavior likely to be inherently illegal under International Humanitarian Law (IHL). Thus the need for the creation of an IHL treaty on blockade must be adopted. This post suggests that a preponderance of the legality of a blockade must not be established solely using the law of neutrality and without evaluating the legitimacy of a blockade under IHL rules and guidelines. Every particular tactic, method, or action that aids in the implementation of a siege.

The International Legal Framework Applicable to Blockade

As is well-known by lawyers and scholars of international law, the process of determining the legality of blocking is complicated because there isn’t a legally binding international treaty or a standardized custom that can decide the legitimacy of a blockade specifically concerning rights and responsibilities. But, the scattered legal framework of international law comprises several legal frameworks applicable to blockades. Two of these are relevant to blockades in armed conflicts: (1) the law of neutrality (also here) and (2) IHL.

The neutrality law: finding a balance between neutral rights and belligerent rights:

Based on the available definitions according to the available reports, a blockade could be described as an action that involves naval forces (and the,e present air and land forces) in which a belligerent hinders move from or towards a (land or air) port of an adversary. The goal of blockades is to stop any supply to the enemy. The neutrality law recognizes blockades as such and regulates the relations between belligerents and neutral parties in the armed conflict ( Bothe, 532). In this regard, the belligerent isn’t disallowed from blocking vessels or aircraft from entering or exiting certain areas or blocking supplies, war materials, or communications from entering that zone. However, neutral people are guaranteed certain rights, e.g., the security of neutral vessels, secure travel, and unimpeded trade with non-belligerents.

Although there aren’t any legal obligations in international treaties regarding blockades that support the above assertion that blockades are a good thing, it is possible to find instances of blockades within a variety of document international, including military handbooks and academic writings like the Paris Declaration of 1856 and the London Declaration of 1909 as well as the San Remo Manual of 1994. Based on these texts, there exists an underlying criterion of three types that govern neutrality when conducting blockades. They stipulate that those who run blockades have to (1) inform neutrals of their actions; (2) impose an effective blockade, and (3) be fair with neutrals (See general guidelines here and here).

International human rights law: balancing the human and military need:

In regulating hostilities’ conduct and enacting blockades, IHL attempts to balance the need for military force and human rights. This balance is evident in the three cardinal principles of proportionality, distinction, and prudence, which help to define the more specific IHL norms, as outlined within the Geneva Conventions (GCs), the Additional Protocols (APs), the ICRC Customary IHL as well as national (also there) and international documents. In these documents, there are general rules that apply to all methods and means of warfare employed in conflicts of war, which includes blockades like the principle of all-encompassing application that says the use of all means and tactics of war is not a monopoly( in addition, to particular IHL standards that apply in blockades (e.g., Articles 3 of GCs, 54(1), 49(3) and 69 and 70 of API and 14 in APII).

The method for applying the two law regimes in international law

Utilizing the methodological approach used in the ILC study of 2006 methodology on the fragmentation of international law, it is clear that neutrality law would be a general law rather than the more specific lex specifics standards of IHL regarding blockades during the conflict. To put it simply, the legality of blockades can’t be determined solely by the law of neutrality, irrespective of IHL. As long as no specific treaty is signed or a standard is adopted regarding blockades, the norms of IHL are in effect to the extent that they are applicable in facto to any circumstance that involves an armistice. So, there isn’t the way to distinguish between a legal and an illegal blockade in the context of IHL. In the context of IHL, the term “blockade” as a broad tactic is not considered legal or illegal. However each specific tactic or technique that is part of a blockade and is in conformity with the regulations of IHL must be scrutinized independently.