WorldBy Mammad Ismayılov

n October 7, 2023, Israel began actions that may constitute the most significant genocide of the twenty-first century. This campaign continues to this day. These actions cannot be viewed as merely a regional conflict. Rather, they reflect a deliberate and systematic policy aimed at destroying the Palestinian population. The coordinated denial of fundamental rights, coupled with the blockade and obstruction of humanitarian aid, constitutes a clear breach of core international legal principles, including the obligation to prevent genocide and protect human rights. According to Article 2 of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, genocide is defined as the commission of acts with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.

The use of the term “genocide” at the outset of this analysis is deliberate. Israel claims that its blockade of Gaza is legitimate under international law and that blockades are recognized in the legal framework. However, since the establishment of the United Nations (UN), blockades have generally been considered a use of force and are therefore prohibited. A blockade can only be lawful under two exceptional conditions.

1. A blockade is imposed in response to a threat to international peace and security pursuant to a Security Council resolution.

2. It is applied as part of the right to self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter in response to an armed attack against a state.

Israel’s blockade of Gaza does not meet either of these conditions. There is no Security Council resolution authorizing the blockade, and Israel cannot invoke the right to self-defense because it is not engaged in conflict with another state, but rather with Hamas, a non-state resistance organization. Israel is not engaged in conflict with another state, but rather with Hamas, a non-state resistance organization. The right of self-defense applies only in response to an armed attack by one state against another.

Furthermore, the blockade must comply with International Humanitarian Law (IHL). A blockade that harms civilians and undermines their living conditions is a clear violation of IHL. The Gaza blockade deliberately subjects the Palestinian population to mass starvation, meeting the criteria of Article 2(c) of the Genocide Convention, which prohibits deliberately inflicting conditions intended to destroy a group, either wholly or in part. Therefore, the Gaza blockade qualifies as genocide under international law.

The global Sumud Flotilla and Israel’s intervention

In response to the genocidal campaign and to break the blockade, the Global Sumud Flotilla was formed in July 2025. It was the largest international, civil society-led maritime initiative featuring numerous activists.

The fleet comprised over 40 vessels and approximately 500 activists from over 44 countries and carried urgent humanitarian aid, including baby formula, medicine, and prosthetic limbs. The goal was to raise awareness of the acute crisis and establish a maritime corridor to Gaza.

The first convoy departed from Barcelona, Spain, on August 31, 2025. As the flotilla approached Gaza’s waters, Israeli forces intervened on the night of October 1, 2025. The Israeli Navy intercepted all of the vessels, seizing the ships and detaining hundreds of activists while they were still in international waters, approximately 70–75 nautical miles (130–139 km) off the coast of Gaza. This action, occurring so far from the coast, challenges the fundamental principle of international law that guarantees the freedom of navigation on the high seas.

The key question arises: How does Israel’s intervention against the flotilla correspond to international law? Most rules governing the law of the sea are codified in the 1958 Convention on the High Seas and the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Many of these provisions also constitute customary international law, which is binding on all states, regardless of their status as parties to the conventions.

According to Article 1 of the 1958 Convention, the term “high seas” refers to all parts of the sea not included in a state’s territorial or internal waters. Article 86 of UNCLOS expands this definition to include all areas of the sea not included in a state’s exclusive economic zone, territorial sea, internal waters, or the archipelagic waters of an archipelagic state.

What does international law say?

Articles 2 of the 1958 Convention and 87 of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) provide that the high seas are open to all states and guarantee freedom of navigation. Article 88 of the UNCLOS stipulates that the high seas must be used exclusively for peaceful purposes. Article 89 prohibits any state from claiming sovereignty over any part of the high seas.

Additionally, according to Article 6(1) of the 1958 Convention and Article 92(1) of UNCLOS, a vessel on the high seas is, in principle, subject only to the jurisdiction of its flag state. However, to safeguard the common interests of humanity, both the Convention and customary international law recognize a limited number of exceptions. These exceptions include cases of piracy, the slave trade, illicit drug trafficking, unauthorized broadcasting, and situations where a vessel is suspected of sailing under a false flag.

Additionally, intervention may be permitted under an international agreement or a binding resolution of the UN Security Council. Coastal states may exercise the right of hot pursuit, which allows them to continue enforcement actions on the high seas in response to violations that began within their maritime zones. Together, these exceptions demonstrate international law’s effort to balance the flag state’s exclusive jurisdiction with the need to maintain order and security on the high seas.

Exclusive authority to intervene on vessels in international waters lies with the flag state. None of the limited exceptions under international law apply to Israel’s actions against the Sumud Fleet. The civilian vessels were not engaged in piracy, the slave trade, drug trafficking, or unauthorized broadcasting. They were duly registered and sailed under valid flags, eliminating any claim of statelessness or false flag operations.

The Israeli intervention was not authorized by an international agreement or a Security Council resolution either, which are the only lawful bases for such coercive measures beyond self-defense. Additionally, the doctrine of hot pursuit is inapplicable because the vessels were intercepted 70–75 nautical miles off the coast of Gaza, well beyond Israel’s territorial waters. No violation originated within Israel’s maritime jurisdiction. Taken together, these considerations demonstrate that Israel’s intervention cannot be justified under any recognized legal exception and therefore constitutes a clear violation of international law. Consequently, Israel’s intervention violates not only the law of the sea, but also international law more broadly.