Is It Wrong Or Illegal? Situating The Gaza Blockade Between International Law And The Un Response | Working Paper Series #2

Working Paper Series #2 | March 2011
Is It Wrong or Illegal? Situating the Gaza Blockade between International Law and the UN ResponseNoura Erakat
Since the Second Palestinian Intifada, or uprising, Israel has advanced the notion that it is engaged in an international armed conflict both within the West Bank as well as Gaza. Accordingly, it argues that it can 1) invoke self-defense, pursuant to Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, and 2) use force beyond that permissible during law enforcement, even where an occupation exists and to which the laws of occupation apply. UN Security Council Resolutions 1368 (2001) and 1373 (2001), passed in response to the September 11th attacks on the United States, declare that terrorist attacks amount to an armed attack thereby justifying the invocation of Article 51 self-defense. Israel uses this to argue that notwithstanding existing legal debate, “there can be no doubt that the assault of terrorism against Israel fits the definition of an armed attack,” effectively permitting Israel to use military force against those entities.” Israeli officials continue that the laws of war can therefore apply to “both occupied territory and to territory which is not occupied, as long as armed conflict is taking place on it.” This, however, contravenes the existing legal order on the matter.