Crimes against the Peace and Crimes against Humanity

TWO DIFFERENT VIEWS PRESENTED

TURK VE AMERIKAN HUKUKCULARI N KONUYA BAKISLARI

Lynda Brayer( a human rights lawyer):  The Legal Framework of International Law

The Attack on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla by Israeli Navy Commandos on May 31, 2010

Crimes against the Peace and Crimes against Humanity

During the pre-dawn hours of May 31, 2010, the Israeli Navy attacked the six

civilian vessels of the Gaza Freedom Flotilla. The attack took place in

international waters against ships flying under national flags of countries with

which Israel is not at war, namely Turkey, Greece and the United States. The

ships were carrying civilians from more than sixteen countries.

Salient points:

Since no state of war existed at the time, the attack on these vessels

constitutes an act of war against those governments under whose flags the

vessels were sailing.

The attack falls within the purview of the ius ad bellum, those laws which

govern the resort to armed conflict. Israelís action does not fall into the

category of the ius in belloor the laws which govern the actual conduct of war.

Because this attack was carried out in international waters, the status of the

relationship between Hamas, or any other Palestinian body, and the state of

Israel is of no relevance whatsoever. Likewise, neither the blockade of Gaza nor

Israelís claims and legal interpretations regarding it has any bearing on its

acts of aggression in international waters.

This is not an act of piracy. Piracy is an act of aggression carried out in

international waters by individuals and not by states.

The following internationally binding treaties, charters, and agreements are

relevant to the attack by Israel:

1. Article 6 of the Charter Provisions of the Nuremburg Trials

(a) Crimes against Peace: namely, planning, preparation, initiation, or waging

of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties,

agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for

the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;

(3) Crimes against Humanity: namely murder, deportation, and any other inhumane

acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war…in

execution of or in connection with any crime, whether or not in violation of the

domestic law of the country where perpetrated.

2. 1907 Hague Regulation Convention (XI) Relative to Certain Restrictions with

Regard to the Exercise of the Right of Capture in Naval War

Chapter II  The Exemption from Capture of Certain Vessels

Article 4. Vessels charged with religious, scientific, or philanthropic missions

are likewise exempt from capture.

Salient points:

The standard for judging the Israeli acts is objective and not subjective. It is

irrelevant what Israeli ministers, generals, admirals, or soldiers thought or

intended. The test is in what they did.

What they did was engage in acts of war using weapons of war in international

waters against vessels that are protected not only in peacetime but also in

times of war.

Israel has therefore committed both crimes against the peace and crimes against

humanity.

These are crimes that have international jurisdiction. Israeli political and

military personnel can be named in trials held in any and all countries of the

world. If the Israelis do not attend the trials, they can be tried in abstentia,

and those decisions in which the Israelis are found guilty can be executed

anywhere in the world.

Because unarmed civilians were murdered by a preplanned military attack, capital

crimes have been committed. While it would appear that the international

community no longer finds capital punishment civilized, the punishments for

these capital crimes can be multiple life sentences.

These crimes give rise to damage claims for huge sums of money and Israeli

accounts can be blocked using decisions finding them guilty.

The unarmed vessels were on a philanthropic mission, carrying civilians and

humanitarian supplies. Even if Israel were in a state of war with any of these

countries, it would be prohibited from capturing the vessels according to the

terms of the Hague Convention of 1907.

Conclusion:

It follows, therefore, that Israel was first of all not allowed to attack these

vessels militarily, and then not to board these vessels by force, capture these

vessels, attack the passengers, imprison them on the vessels, forcibly remove

them from the vessels, and steal their private property in the form of cameras,

computers, clothes, etc.

Every single act carried out by the Israeli military forces in international

waters no May 31, 2010, are unqualifiedly and absolutely violations of

international law.

============================================

FW: Deniz Som- Mavi Marmara-Hukuksal Durum
Subject: Deniz Som- Mavi Marmara-Hukuksal Durum

Cumhuriyet 06.06.2010
Kaos MARMARA Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Uluslararası Hukuk Anabilim Dalı öğretim elemanı Reşat Volkan Günel Mavi Marmara gemisinin Ortadoğu’da yarattığı kaosu değerlendiriyor:

1) Birleşmiş Milletler Deniz Hukuku Sözleşmesi’ne göre genel olarak üç tip gemi vardır; savaş gemisi, kamu hizmetine tahsis edilmiş devlet gemisi; ticari gemi. Mavi Marmara gemisi hiçbir tipe girmemektedir. İnsani yardım gemisi deniliyor. Bu hakkı ona kim vermiştir? BM Barış Gücü bile yardım sevklerinde devletlerden yetki almak için boşuna mı uğraşmaktadır?

2) Deniz Hukuku Sözleşmesi’ne göre geminin tabiiyetsiz olduğundan şüpheleniliyorsa barış zamanında dahi gemiye ziyaret hakkı doğar ve iki veya daha fazla devletin bayrağı altında seyreden ve bunları işine geldiği gibi kullanan bir gemi, bu tabiiyetlerden hiçbirini diğer devletlere karşı ileri süremez ve tabiiyetsiz bir gemi gibi işlem görür. Mavi Marmara Komor bandıralı ama Türk bayrağı çekmiş bir gemidir. Bu hileli durum İsrail’in gemiye çıkması için haklı bir sebep yaratır.

3) Haklı veya haksız, Gazze bölgesi fiilen İsrail devletinin kontrolünde bir savaş bölgesidir. Savaş bölgesine yönelen ve açıkça rotasını buraya kıran bir gemiye uluslararası sular da olsa, savaş hukukuna göre savaşan taraflar müdahalede bulunabilir.

4) Komor İslam Cumhuriyeti bayraklı Mavi Marmara üzerinde Türkiye’nin yetkisi yoktur. Türkiye, olaylarda vatandaşına karşı suç işlendiği iddiası ile Türk Ceza Kanunu’na göre sorumluların şahsı hakkında Türk mahkemelerinde yargılamaya gidebilir. Ancak sorumlu İsrail askerleri Türkiye’ye gelmediği sürece böylesi bir ceza yargılaması somut bir sonuç ifade etmez. Diğer yandan, devletler hukukuna göre devletlerin egemenlik amacı ile yaptığı fiillerden ötürü hiçbir devlet yabancı bir mahkemede yargılanamaz. Uluslararası Adalet Divanı’na gitmek ise her iki tarafın rızası ile kullanılabilecek bir seçenektir, şikâyet mercii değildir.

5) Savaş hukukunda sivilleri öldürmek kesinlikle yasaktır diye bir hüküm yoktur.

6) Hamas, Türkiye’nin da altına imza koyduğu uluslararası belgelere göre bir terör örgütüdür. Dalkavukları Fatih Sultan Recep’i umarız dünya gerçekleri konusunda dürüstçe bilgilendirir de Türkiye Ortadoğu bataklığına sürüklenmez!