International Law and International Waters

[charrob]

Just curious, the media is disclosing two different, and opposite, claims to international law. Does anyone know, is a foreign government allowed, in international waters, to:


1) board a foreign vessel
2) take over that foreign vessel at gunpoint
3) arrest civilians on that foreign vessel
4) detain/emprison civilians from the foreign vessel in ones own country

Some media sources state these actions are not allowed in international waters, other media sources state these actions are allowed if the foreign vessel states it is planning to break a blockade.

So, what does "international law" actually say? Does anyone know?

[BlackTerrel]

What is international law?

Anyway are pirates/drug smugglers/arms smugglers given free reign as long as they are in international waters?

What is the precedent? Are these guys generally stopped or given free reign until the enter someones territory?

[Liberty Star]

Just curious, the media is disclosing two different, and opposite, claims to international law. Does anyone know, is a foreign government allowed, in international waters, to:


1) board a foreign vessel
2) take over that foreign vessel at gunpoint
3) arrest civilians on that foreign vessel
4) detain/emprison civilians from the foreign vessel in ones own country

Some media sources state these actions are not allowed in international waters, other media sources state these actions are allowed if the foreign vessel states it is planning to break a blockade.

So, what does "international law" actually say? Does anyone know?

Good question.

Perhaps rest of the world knows more about IL than us, hence most of the world sees culprits in the case in recent news as a terrorist nation funded by money stolen from others which is probably also against IL.

[fj45lvr]

the bigger question is nothing to do with "international waters".

the bigger question is how can Israel say that the waters that boder Gaza are not Palestinian waters??

and are there "unalienable rights" that are not derived by or given/created/granted by governments???


Natural law tells you that what the israelis did was wrong especially since there is no evidence that these ships contained anything that would be considered a substantial threat to Israel....the ships should continue on their way to GAZA as is their natural right.

[peacepotpaul]

What is international law?

Anyway are pirates/drug smugglers/arms smugglers given free reign as long as they are in international waters?

What is the precedent? Are these guys generally stopped or given free reign until the enter someones territory?

Pirates are free people, not subject to any nation's law :)

[peacepotpaul]

the bigger question is nothing to do with "international waters".

the bigger question is how can Israel say that the waters that boder Gaza are not Palestinian waters??


They are Palestinian waters, and they intend to "protect" Palestine from aid, so they can starve them dead. To Israelis, the only good Palestinian is a dead one.



and are there "unalienable rights" that are not derived by or given/created/granted by governments???


Good question. I start to think that Americans who are sympathetic to Palestinians are really as the stereotype says, either anti-Semitic or pro-minority (pro-Mexican).




Natural law tells you that what the israelis did was wrong especially since there is no evidence that these ships contained anything that would be considered a substantial threat to Israel....the ships should continue on their way to GAZA as is their natural right.

So you don't believe that Israel has a right to prevent Palestinians from given aid, if they believe it's in their best interest to have more dead Palestinians as their means of survival?

By this line of reasoning, as long as Mexicans are not a direct threat to America or Americans, only racism can justify keeping them from coming in (or receiving humanitarian aid once they are in our country). Please spare me the "welfare state" talk, do you really believe as long as "other people than our government & taxpayers" "voluntarily" gave aid to Mexicans you'd have nothing to complain?

[fj45lvr]

They are Palestinian waters, and they intend to "protect" Palestine from aid, so they can starve them dead. To Israelis, the only good Palestinian is a dead one.



Good question. I start to think that Americans who are sympathetic to Palestinians are really as the stereotype says, either anti-Semitic or pro-minority (pro-Mexican).




So you don't believe that Israel has a right to prevent Palestinians from given aid, if they believe it's in their best interest to have more dead Palestinians as their means of survival?

By this line of reasoning, as long as Mexicans are not a direct threat to America or Americans, only racism can justify keeping them from coming in (or receiving humanitarian aid once they are in our country). Please spare me the "welfare state" talk, do you really believe as long as "other people than our government & taxpayers" "voluntarily" gave aid to Mexicans you'd have nothing to complain?


None of this makes any logical sense to me at all.

Israelis have a "right" to kill the Palestinians by starving them? Who would ever say that they do? totally evil and insane. (they aren't even doing that...they are only making life as miserable as they think they can by whatever means they decide).


the rest of your reasoning is not connected to rational basis to even comment on.

[fj45lvr]

Pirates are free people, not subject to any nation's law :)


Pirates that aren't put into captivity. But some would argue that even in captivity they are "free" (they can roam about their cell or mess hall/shower room/ prison yard...99% of the prison they may have access to.....it's just like the Palestinians in their territory chopped up by roads, walls, roadblocks).