路透社社論: 以色列對加沙的海上封鎖是否合法?

路透社社論: 以色列對加沙的海上封鎖是否合法?
作者: 張平 | 2010年06月07日 04:11 | 欄目: 以色列的衝突與和平
(231) 點擊  |  (16) 評論 | 本文地址: http://zhangp.blshe.com/post/164/555451
路透社稿件：http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65133D20100602

譯文： 新城的博客：http://wienerneustadt.blog.163.c ... 048201054112148238/

原標題: Is Israel's naval blockade of Gaza legal?

LONDON, June 2 (Reuters) - Israel has said it will continue a naval blockade of the Gaza Strip despite growing global pressure to lift the siege after a navy raid on a Turkish ferry carrying aid killed nine activists this week.

倫敦, 6月2日, 路透社訊- 儘管發生了導致9名活躍分子死亡的海上襲擊事件, 以色列當局拒絕理會當前日益高漲的要求其解除對加沙地帶封鎖的世界性輿論壓力, 並聲稱它將繼續對加沙實施海上封鎖.

What is the legality of the blockade and did Israel's intervention breach international law? Below are some questions and answers on the issue:

下面是關於對於封鎖的合法性以及以色列是否違反國際法的問題的討論:

CAN ISRAEL IMPOSE A NAVAL BLOCKADE ON GAZA?

以色列可以對加 沙實施海上封鎖嗎?

Yes it can, according to the law of blockade which was derived from customary international law and codified in the 1909 Declaration of London. It was updated in 1994 in a legally recognised document called the "San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea". Under some of the key rules, a blockade must be declared and notified to all belligerents and neutral states, access to neutral ports cannot be blocked, and an area can only be blockaded which is under enemy control.

是的, 根據有關封鎖的習慣法以及成文化的倫敦宣言. 相關法律在1994年通過的"San Remo關於海上武裝衝突國際法手冊"上獲得更新. 根據其關鍵條文, 封鎖必須先公告並告知相關各方, 中立港口的通航不受阻礙, 並且只有敵占區才可被封鎖.

"On the basis that Hamas is the ruling entity of Gaza and Israel is in the midst of an armed struggle against that ruling entity, the blockade is legal," said Philip Roche, partner in the shipping disputes and risk management team with law firm Norton Rose.

"根據哈馬斯是加沙的控制主體, 而以色列正在與之進行武裝交戰這一事實, 封鎖是合法的" Philip Roche, 與Norton Rose律師行專門處理海運糾紛以及風險管理的合作夥伴如是說.

WHAT ARE INTERNATIONAL WATERS?

什麼是公海?

Under the U.N. Convention of the Law of the Sea a coastal state has a "territorial sea" of 12 nautical miles from the coast over which it is sovereign. Ships of other states are allowed "innocent passage" through such waters.

根 據聯合國海洋法的說法, 海岸線對開12海里以內是主權領海, 其他國家船隻可以"無害通過".

There is a further 12 nautical mile zone called the "contiguous zone" over which a state may take action to protect itself or its laws.

再對開12海里就是"專屬經濟區", 相關國家可以採取行動自衛或執法.

"However, strictly beyond the 12 nautical miles limit the seas are the "high seas" or international waters," Roche said.

"但是，嚴格來說，12海里以外的海洋就是公海" Roche說

The Israeli navy said on Monday the Gaza bound flotilla was intercepted 120 km (75 miles) west of Israel. The Turkish captain of one of the vessels told an Istanbul news conference after returning home from Israeli detention they were 68 miles outside Israeli territorial waters.

以色列海軍周一稱船隊在以色列以西120公里處被 攔截。其中一個參與船隊的船長則在獲釋后告訴在伊斯坦布爾的媒體，他們是在距以色列領海68英里處被攔截。

Under the law of a blockade, intercepting a vessel could apply globally so long as a ship is bound for a "belligerent" territory, legal experts say.

法 律專家稱，根據與封鎖有關的法律，攔截船隻可以是全球性的，只要船隻是要駛向「敵方」領域。

CAN ISRAEL USE FORCE WHEN INTERCEPTING SHIPS?

以色列有權使用武力攔截船隻 嗎？

Under international law it can use force when boarding a ship

在國際法上，相關方面使用武力登船是合法的。

"If force is disproportionate it would be a violation of the key tenets of the use of force," said Commander James Kraska, professor of international law at the U.S. Naval War College.

"如果武力是不相稱的，這將違背使用武力的基本原則." 美國海戰學院的教授司令官James Kraska如是說。

Israeli authorities said marines who boarded the Turkish vessel Mavi Marmara opened fire in self-defence after activists clubbed and stabbed them and snatched some of their weapons.

以色列當局稱海軍陸戰隊是在登船后受到活躍分子用棍棒襲擊並搶奪他們的武器才開火。

Legal experts say proportional force does not mean that guns cannot be used by forces when being attacked with knives.

法律專家稱相稱的武力不等於說在受到刀具襲擊時不使 用槍支。

"But there has got to be a relationship between the threat and response," Kraska said.

「但這肯定有威脅與反應的關係」Kraska說。

The use of force may also have other repercussions.

使用武力可能會引起反彈。

"While the full facts need to emerge from a credible and transparent investigation, from what is known now, it appears that Israel acted within its legal rights," said J. Peter Pham, a strategic adviser to U.S. and European governments.

「雖然整件事的全部事實需要有一個可靠透明的調查，從現在可以了解到的情 況，以色列是在其合法許可權內採取行動」美國和歐洲多國政府的戰略顧問J. Peter Pham如是說。

"However, not every operation that the law permits is necessarily prudent from the strategic point of view."

「但是， 並不是所有法律許可內的行動在戰略的視角上是謹慎的」

OPPONENTS HAVE CALLED ISRAEL'S RAID "PIRACY". WAS IT?

反對者 稱以色列的襲擊行動是「海盜行為」，是嗎？

No, as under international law it was considered a state action.

不是，在國際法上這次行動是國家行為。

"Whether what Israel did is right or wrong, it is not an act of piracy. Piracy deals with private conduct particularly with a pecuniary or financial interest," Kraska said.

「不管以色列所做的是否正確，這並不是海盜行為。海盜行為是針對錢財的作為。」

HAVE THERE BEEN ANY SHIPPING DISRUPTIONS AFTER THE RAID?

此次襲擊以後，是不是還有其他的海運活動受阻？

None so far but the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS), an association which represents 75 percent of the world's merchant fleet, has expressed "deep concern" over the boarding by Israeli forces, arguing that merchant ships have a right to safe passage and freedom of navigation in international waters.

沒有，但是代表世界上75%商船隊的國際海運商會(ICS)對這次襲擊深感擔憂，認為商船在公海有安全通過的權利以及航行的自由。

"These fundamental principles of international law must always be upheld by all of the world's nations," the ICS said.

「這 些國際法的基本原則必須為全世界所有國家所支持及保護」ICS聲明說。

｛轉載者對國際法缺乏研究，無法從國際法角度來評價路透社這篇文章，轉載僅供顯示路透社網上有這樣一篇文章｝
｛轉載者認為以色列為了自己的安全，必須不能讓其敵對勢力哈馬斯自由獲得物資供應，必須繼續設法遏制哈馬斯勢力｝

如此說，德國當年和世界各國交戰，佔領別國，建集中營也是合法的嘍？