This paper contests the view that the Israeli blockade of Gaza is illegal. Those who posit the illegality of the blockade had premised their argument on the fact that Israel cannot be said to be at war with the Palestinians in Gaza because the latter does not constitute a state. It had also been argued that even if Israel was at war with Gaza, the war is not of an international character and as such, the law of armed conflict cannot apply, especially that of belligerent blockade because Gaza does not have a navy. In contradicting the opponents of the Gaza blockade, this paper argues that Israel is at war with the Hamas in Gaza; that by dint of Martens Clause and Article 3, common to the four Geneva Conventions (1949), the law of armed conflict applies to all circumstances, both to international and non-international armed conflicts; and that whether or not the Hamas in Gaza have a naval force, a belligerent blockade can be imposed on Gaza. This paper concludes that the legality of the Gaza blockade is given, but it, however, deplores the seeming watertight nature of the blockade, and the excessive force the Israelis deployed in the interdiction of the Gaza-bound and Turkey-flagged flotilla. Hence, it concludes that much as the Israelis have the belligerent right to the Gaza blockade, the Palestinians in Gaza also have a legitimate right to demand the application of humanitarian principles to the blockade, which entails that the blockade be eased, should not be made absolute, and should rather allow for a mercy corridor. But the paper finally concludes that the ultimate solution resides in both sides forswearing extreme standpoints and vowing sincere commitment to a lasting solution to the conflict.

Belligerent blockade is an essential component of naval warfare. It is defined as "an operation of war, designed by the use of belligerent sea craft and other means to prevent ingress and egress of vessels or aircraft (or their cargoes) of all nations to and from the coast of an enemy, or a part thereof". It is essentially the cutting off of the enemy's coastline by forceful measures so that supplies to and from the enemy are restricted. However, belligerent blockade must not be confused with the mere policing of a coastline or the mere closure of the ports, for the latter duo is for limited purposes. As the name goes, it is a belligerent act and no blockade can be declared unless there exists a state of war for, any presumption of a belligerent blockade outside a war situation would be of doubtful legality.

A belligerent blockade is distinct from pacific blockade in that the former is a full-scale war measure, whereas pacific blockade is a coercive method, short of war for settling differences between states. According to Stone, "the very expression 'pacific blockade' has a tinge of absurdity because a blockade is undeniably a war-like act"; however, the term pacific is intended to convey that the blockade is instituted in time of peace, consisting of blocking of access to or exit from particular ports or a particular portion of the coast of the offending state in order to exercise pressure on the states. In pacific blockade, no status of belligerency ensues between the blockading state and the offending state; third states neither have the right nor are subject to the duties of neutrals; and the exact legal position of such third states has remained controversial. Essentially, whereas a belligerent blockade is a full scale war measure, a pacific blockade is a form of coercive measure, short of war, whereby a state (or group of states) bars access to the coast of a state (or part of it) in order to prevent entry and exit of ships only of the state under blockade; meaning a pacific blockade does not bar the ships of third states.

International Relations Journal, Israeli Blockade, Humanitarian Principles, Belligerent Blockade, Cuba Missile Crisis, International Armed Conflict, International Instruments, Israeli Defence Force, International Humanitarian Law, Second World War, Palestinian Conflicts.