You can’t just “announce” a blockade and make it your territorial waters. You can absolutely create a blockade if you choose to, but it is a recognized act of war. There’s a separate conversation to whether that is a just action or not, tied in with the war in Israel/Palestine. But that doesn’t change the fact that a blockade in itself is an act of war.
The Bab-el-Mandeb Strait - which the UN has stated is a strait to which transit passage applies. Yemen is a signatory country to the UN convention on the law of the sea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bab-el-Mandeb
In straits referred to in article 37, all ships and aircraft enjoy the right of transit passage, which shall not be impeded; except that, if the strait is formed by an island of a State bordering the strait and its mainland, transit passage shall not apply if there exists seaward of the island a route through the high seas or through an exclusive economic zone of similar convenience with respect to navigational and hydrographical characteristics.
Transit passage means the exercise in accordance with this Part of the freedom of navigation and overflight solely for the purpose of continuous and expeditious transit of the strait between one part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone and another part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone. However, the requirement of continuous and expeditious transit does not preclude passage through the strait for the purpose of entering, leaving or returning from a State bordering the strait, subject to the conditions of entry to that State.
Any activity which is not an exercise of the right of transit passage through a strait remains subject to the other applicable provisions of this Convention.~~*
During an armed conflict, to the extent that the peacetime regime of the law of the sea and the law of naval warfare are inconsistent, the law of naval warfare is lex specialis and prevails over the peacetime rules reflected in UNCLOS (Newport Manual, §§ 1.1, 4.1).
Current understanding of blockade, including its requirements, entitlements and consequences, is largely based on the London Declaration,67 and it is reflected in the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea from 1994.
Highly recommended reading that journal article. It speaks of Israeli blockades, the concept of implied belligerency, and non-state actors.
Suffice to say, Article 38 appears to be in question while there is ongoing conflict, and it appears to have been abrogated by Israel in precisely the same ways that are happening now in the strait.
I’ll take a look at the articles once I’m off work. I appreciate the discussion and your responses. Prior to reading them, though, it looks like it is talking about armed conflict, which is kinda the point I was making. Yemen (/the Houthis) have the right to blockade, but it is an act of war/falls in the realm of armed conflict. Would you say that is accurate?
It’s definitely predicated on some presence of violent conflict. The whole act of war framing has been made really squishy post WW2. Yemen also isn’t mincing words about it, this is because they consider Israel to be a belligerent in an armed conflict that they have chosen to participate in as an ally of Palestinian people. Since so much of the world doesn’t recognize Palestine as a nation-state, definitions get even harder here.
You can’t just “announce” a blockade and make it your territorial waters. You can absolutely create a blockade if you choose to, but it is a recognized act of war. There’s a separate conversation to whether that is a just action or not, tied in with the war in Israel/Palestine. But that doesn’t change the fact that a blockade in itself is an act of war.
Sorry, are you saying it’s not in the territorial waters of Yemen?
The Bab-el-Mandeb Strait - which the UN has stated is a strait to which transit passage applies. Yemen is a signatory country to the UN convention on the law of the sea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bab-el-Mandeb
Transit Passage https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part3.htm#:~:text=and hydrographical characteristics.-,2.,or an exclusive economic zone.
Specifically, article 38 states:
~~Right of transit passage
In straits referred to in article 37, all ships and aircraft enjoy the right of transit passage, which shall not be impeded; except that, if the strait is formed by an island of a State bordering the strait and its mainland, transit passage shall not apply if there exists seaward of the island a route through the high seas or through an exclusive economic zone of similar convenience with respect to navigational and hydrographical characteristics.
Transit passage means the exercise in accordance with this Part of the freedom of navigation and overflight solely for the purpose of continuous and expeditious transit of the strait between one part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone and another part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone. However, the requirement of continuous and expeditious transit does not preclude passage through the strait for the purpose of entering, leaving or returning from a State bordering the strait, subject to the conditions of entry to that State.
Any activity which is not an exercise of the right of transit passage through a strait remains subject to the other applicable provisions of this Convention.~~*
From West Point: https://lieber.westpoint.edu/russia-ukraine-war-naval-blockades-visit-search-targeting-war-sustaining-objects/
From https://www.jstor.org/stable/48710561?seq=3 a 2018 international relations journal on blockades
Highly recommended reading that journal article. It speaks of Israeli blockades, the concept of implied belligerency, and non-state actors.
Suffice to say, Article 38 appears to be in question while there is ongoing conflict, and it appears to have been abrogated by Israel in precisely the same ways that are happening now in the strait.
I’ll take a look at the articles once I’m off work. I appreciate the discussion and your responses. Prior to reading them, though, it looks like it is talking about armed conflict, which is kinda the point I was making. Yemen (/the Houthis) have the right to blockade, but it is an act of war/falls in the realm of armed conflict. Would you say that is accurate?
It’s definitely predicated on some presence of violent conflict. The whole act of war framing has been made really squishy post WW2. Yemen also isn’t mincing words about it, this is because they consider Israel to be a belligerent in an armed conflict that they have chosen to participate in as an ally of Palestinian people. Since so much of the world doesn’t recognize Palestine as a nation-state, definitions get even harder here.
Enjoy the reading.