Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T22:22:34.476Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Law of Maritime Blockade: Past, Present, and Future. By Phillip Drew. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017. 173 + xvii pages.

Review products

The Law of Maritime Blockade: Past, Present, and Future. By Phillip Drew. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017. 173 + xvii pages.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2019

DOUGLAS GUILFOYLE
DOUGLAS GUILFOYLE*
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, University of New South Wales Canberra at the Australian Defence Force Academy
Get access

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Book Reviews / Recensions de livres
Information
Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international , Volume 56 , October 2019 , pp. 621 - 628
Copyright
Copyright © The Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Most studies in the field have been either historic or focused on Israel’s blockade of Gaza. On the latter, see Farrant, James, “The Gaza Flotilla Incident and the Modern Law of Blockade” (2013) 66:3 Naval War Col Rev 81;Google Scholar Buchan, Russell, “The International Law of Naval Blockade and Israel’s Interception of the Mavi Marmara” (2011) 58 Neth Intl L Rev 209;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Sanger, Andrew, “The Contemporary Law of Blockade and the Gaza Freedom Flotilla” (2010) 13 YB Intl Human L 397;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Kraska, James, “Rule Selection in the Case of Israel’s Naval Blockade of Gaza: Law of Naval Warfare or Law of the Sea?” (2010) 13 YB Intl Human L 367;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Guilfoyle, Douglas, “The Mavi Marmara Incident and Blockade in Armed Conflict” (2010) 81 Brit YB Intl L 171;CrossRefGoogle Scholar von Heinegg, Wolff Heintschel, “Naval Blockade” in Schmitt, Michael N, ed, International Law across the Spectrum of Conflict: Essays in Honour of Professor L.C. Green, International Law Studies Series, vol 75 (Newport: US Naval War College, 2000) 203.Google Scholar

2 Honourable mentions go to Chadwick, Elizabeth, Traditional Neutrality Revisited: Law, Theory, and Case Studies (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2002)(a largely historical treatment);Google Scholar Ivanashchenko, LA, Blockade at Sea and Contemporary International Law, translated with a foreword by Butler, William E (Seoul: Korea University, 1989) (a Soviet perspective);Google Scholar Schmitt, Michael N, Blockade Law: Research Design and Sources (Buffalo: Hein, 1991) (a study guide).Google ScholarCharter of the United Nations, 26 June 1945, 1 UNTS 15 (entered into force 24 October 1945).

3 Drew, Philip, The Law of Maritime Blockade: Past, Present, and Future (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017) at 2.Google Scholar

4 Ibid.

5 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflict (Additional Protocol I), 8 June 1977, 1125 UNTS 3 (entered into force 7 December 1978).

6 Drew, supra note 3 at 2.

7 Ibid at 3.

8 Ibid.

9 See the works referenced in note 1 above.

10 67 US (2 Black) 635 (1863).

11 Lauterpacht, Hersch, Oppenheim’s International Law, 7th ed (London: Longmans Green and Company, 1952) at 803.Google Scholar

12 Additional Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-international Armed Conflict (Additional Protocol II), 8 June 1977, 1125 UNTS 609 (entered into force 7 December 1978).

13 Prosecutor v Tadić, Case No IT-94-I-AR72, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Appeals Chamber (2 October 1995).

14 Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 31; Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 85; Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 135; Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 287.

15 Drew, supra note 3 at 95.

16 Ibid at 96.

17 Ibid at 97. See further Michael N Schmitt, “Wired Warfare: Computer Network Attack and Jus in Bello” (2002) 84 Intl Rev Red Cross 365.

18 Drew, supra note 3 at 106.

19 Ibid at 109.

20 Cryer, Robert et al, An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure, 3rd ed (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014) at 295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21 Al-Skeini v United Kingdom, Application no 55721/07, European Court of Human Rights Grand Chamber (7 July 2011).

22 Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, [1996] ICJ Rep 226 at para 25; Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, [2004] ICJ Rep 136 at para 106; Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Uganda), Judgment, [2005] ICJ Rep 168 at para 220.

23 Drew, supra note 3 at 138.

24 Ibid.

25 Ibid at 139.

26 Doswald-Beck, Louise, ed, San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar