No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 October 2022
Although the subject of law of naval warfare was first in modern treatymaking in international humanitarian law (IHL), further treatymaking efforts that comprehensively deal with all matters of the law of naval warfare never really took off. This particular part of IHL has always been primarily governed by custom. Scholarly calls for revision have not pressed States into further treatymaking efforts, which gives the law of naval warfare a semblance of being continuously in a state of crisis. Conveniently for States, the San Remo Manual solved a significant portion of this crisis, but perhaps too successfully, as it may have taken away incentives for States to further develop the law. While the law of the sea has been steadily growing as a – codified – legal regime and protective rules of IHL garnered much attention, the law of naval warfare seems somewhat forgotten and crumbling in its details.
1 Heather Mongilio, “Russian Navy Taking on Resupply Role Nearly 50 Days into Ukrainian Invasion”, USNI News, 11 April 2022, available at: https://news.usni.org/2022/04/11/russian-navy-taking-on-resupply-role-nearly-50-days-into-ukrainian-invasion (all internet references were accessed in September 2022).
2 Joshua Menks and Michael B. Petersen, “The ‘Kalibrization’ of the Russian Fleet. Destruction of Critical Infrastructure by Long-Range Precision Strikes Has Become the Russian Navy's Newest Mission”, U.S. Naval Institute, May 2022, available at: www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2022/may/kalibrization-russian-fleet; BBC, “Russian Missiles ‘Hit IS in Syria from Caspian Sea’”, 7 October 2015, available at: www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34465425.
3 U.S. Department of Defense, “Statement from Pentagon Spokesman Capt. Jeff Davis on U.S. Strike in Syria”, 6 April 2017, available at: www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/1144598/statement-from-pentagon-spokesman-capt-jeff-davis-on-us-strike-in-syria/.
4 See the pamphlet of the UK Royal Navy, “The Royal Navy & Libya: How Your Royal Navy Contributed to the Tri-Service, Multi-National Campaign in 2011”, available at: www.royalnavy.mod.uk/About-the-Royal-Navy/~/media/Files/Navy-PDFs/About-the-Royal-Navy/The%20RN%20Contribution%20to%20Libya.pdf. It mentions that “Nuclear-powered attack submarines HMS Triumph and HMS Turbulent launched Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles against regime targets ashore. Helicopter carrier HMS Ocean operated Apache attack helicopters from 656 Squadron Army Air Corps which were able to target pro-Gaddafi forces with a high degree of precision.”
5 For the most recent example, see Clapham, Andrew, “Belligerent Rights and the Future of Naval Economic Warfare”, in Clapham, A., War, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2021Google Scholar; see also Clapham, Andrew, “Booty, Bounty, Blockade, and Prize: Time to Reevaluate the Law”, International Law Studies, Vol. 97, 2021Google Scholar. More classic calls for revision are Ronzitti, Natalino, “The Crisis of the Traditional Law Regulating International Armed Conflicts at Sea and the Need for its Revision”, in Ronzitti, N. (ed.), The Law of Naval Warfare: A Collection of Agreements and Documents with Commentaries, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston, MA/London, 1988Google Scholar; Roach, J. Ashley, “The Law of Naval Warfare at the Turn of Two Centuries”, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 94, No. 1, 2000CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
6 Declaration Respecting Maritime Law, 16 April 1856. Rule 4 states: “Blockades, in order to be binding, must be effective, that is to say, maintained by a force sufficient really to prevent access to the coast of the enemy.”
7 See, also, Phillip Drew, “Blockade Law”, in P. Drew, The Law of Maritime Blockade: Past, Present, and Future, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2017.
8 Geneva Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea of 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 85 (entered into force 21 October 1950) (GC II).
9 Manual of the Laws of Naval War, Oxford, 9 August 1913.
10 Helsinki Principles on the Law of Maritime Neutrality, adopted by the International Law Association at its Taipei Conference, 30 May 1998.
11 San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994 (entered into force 12 June 1994) (San Remo Manual).
12 Convention (III) for the Adaptation to Maritime Warfare of the Principles of the Geneva Convention of 22 August 1864, The Hague, 29 July 1899.
13 Convention (X) for the Adaptation to Maritime Warfare of the Principles of the Geneva Convention, The Hague, 18 October 1907.
14 Convention (VIII) relative to the Laying of Automatic Submarine Contact Mines, The Hague, 18 October 1907.
15 Convention (IX) concerning Bombardment by Naval Forces in Time of War, The Hague, 18 October 1907.
16 Convention (XIII) concerning the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War, The Hague, 18 October 1907.
17 Convention (VI) relating to the Status of Enemy Merchant Ships at the Outbreak of Hostilities, The Hague, 18 October 1907.
18 Convention (VII) relating to the Conversion of Merchant Ships into War-Ships, The Hague, 18 October 1907.
19 Convention (XI) relative to certain Restrictions with regard to the Exercise of the Right of Capture in Naval War, The Hague, 18 October 1907.
20 Convention (XII) relative to the Creation of an International Prize Court, The Hague, 18 October 1907.
21 Declaration concerning the Laws of Naval War, London, 26 February 1909.
22 Ibid., preamble, para. 5.
23 Bell, A. C., A History of the Blockade and The Countries Associated with her in the Great War: Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria and Turkey 1914–1918, Naval & Military Press, Uckfield, 1938, pp. 1–23Google Scholar.
24 The one State was Nicaragua. See ICRC database, available at: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/States.xsp?xp_viewStates=XPages_NORMStatesParties&xp_treatySelected=235.
25 Arthur Effyinger, “A Highly Critical Moment: Role and Record of the 1907 Hague Peace Conference”, Netherlands International Law Review, Vol. 54, No. 2, 2007, pp. 209–11.
26 Procès-Verbal Relating to the Rules of Submarine Warfare Set Forth in Part IV of the Treaty of London of 22 April 1930 (London, 6 November 1936), available at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/proces-verbal-relating-to-the-rules-of-submarine-warfare-set-forth-in-part-iv-of-the-treaty-of-london-of-april-22-1930-london-6111936.
27 Ibid., Art. 1.
28 Ibid., Art. 2.
29 See GC II, above note 8, Art. 58.
30 ICRC, Commentary on the Second Geneva Convention: Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, 2nd ed., Geneva, 2017, nos. 75–7.
31 See GC II, Arts 22–37.
32 Yves Sandoz, Christophe Swinarski and Bruno Zimmermann (eds), Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, nos. 1894–9.
33 Protocol Additional (I) to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, 1125 UNTS 3, 8 June 1977 (entered into force 7 December 1978) (AP I), Art. 35(1).
34 William H. Boothby, “Maritime Targeting”, in W. H. Boothby, The Law of Targeting, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012.
35 See San Remo Manual, above note 11, Section 67.
36 Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, 18 September 1997 (entered into force 1 March 1999) (Ottawa Treaty).
37 Mark W. Janis, Sea Power and the Law of the Sea, Lexington Books, Toronto, 1976, p. 76.
38 UN General Assembly Resolution 3067, 16 November 1973, para. 3.
39 Oxman, Bernard H., “The Regime of Warships Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea”, Virginia Journal of International Law, Vol. 24, 1984Google Scholar.
40 von Heinegg, Wolff Heintschel, “Minelaying and the Impediment of Passage Rights”, International Law Studies, Vol. 90, 2014Google Scholar.
41 See Hague Convention XIII, above note 16, Art 10.
42 In legal handbooks, the law of naval warfare seems diminished to a single chapter, often shared with other legal subjects of naval operations within the wider maritime security scope. See, for example, Rothwell, Donald R. and Stephens, Tim, “Military Uses of the Oceans”, in Rothwell, D. R. and Stephens, T., The International Law of the Sea, Hart Publishing, Oxford, 2010CrossRefGoogle Scholar; or Tanaka, Yoshifumi, “Maintenance of International Peace and Security at Sea”, in Tanaka, Y., The International Law of the Sea, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
43 See, on this doctrine, Phillip Drew, “The Law of Maritime Blockade in the 21st Century”, in Dale Stephens and Matthew Stubbs (eds), The Law of Naval Warfare, LexisNexis Butterworths, Chatswood, NSW, 2019.
44 The requisition, on compensation, of neutral vessels when necessary for the defence of a belligerent State. See Jennings, W. I., “The Right of Angary”, The Cambridge Law Journal, Vol. 3, No. 1, 1927CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
45 Hague Convention VII, above note 18, allows for the conversion of merchant vessels into warships. It does, however, not regulate whether a vessel can be converted while at sea.
46 Brown, Neil, “Legal Considerations in Relation to Maritime Operations against Iraq”, International Law Studies, Vol. 86, No. 1, p. 133Google Scholar.
47 Ibid., p. 133.
48 See Fink, Martin, “The UN Collective Security System and Maritime Interception Operations”, in Fink, M., Maritime Interception and the Law of Naval Operations: A Study of Legal Bases and Legal Regimes in Maritime Interception Operations, T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, 2018CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
49 UN Security Council, Resolution 1971 (2011), UN Doc. S/RES/1971 (2011), 3 March 2011; and UN Security Council, Resolution 1973 (2011), UN Doc. S/RES/1973 (2011), 17 March 2011.
50 See, on these matters, Andrea Gioia, “Neutrality and Non-Belligerency”, in Harry H. G. Post (ed.), International Economic Law and Armed Conflict, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht, 1994.
51 von Heinegg, Wolff Heintschel, “Current Legal Issues in Maritime Operations: Maritime Interception Operations in the Global War on Terrorism, Exclusion Zones, Hospital Ships, and Maritime Neutrality”, International Law Studies, Vol. 80, No. 1, 2006, p. 224Google Scholar.
52 Haines, Steven, “War at Sea: Nineteenth-Century Laws for Twenty-First-Century Wars?”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 98, No. 902, 2016CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
53 Ibid., p. 428.
54 Ibid., p. 429.
55 See, e.g., Wolff Heintschel von Heinegg, “The Law of Military Operations at Sea”, in Terry D. Gill and Dieter Fleck (eds), The Handbook of the International Law of Military Operations, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2015, p. 375; Wolff Heintschel von Heinegg, “Methods and Means of Warfare in Non-International Armed Conflict”, International Law Studies, Vol. 88, 2014.
56 See, e.g., James Kraska, “Rule Selection in the Case of Israel's Naval Blockade of Gaza: Law of Naval Warfare or Law of the Sea?”, Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, Vol. 13, 2010; Douglas Guilfoyle, “The Mavi Marmara Incident and Blockade in Armed Conflict”, British Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 81, No. 1, 2011; Martin David Fink, “Contemporary Views on the Lawfulness of Naval Blockades”, Aegean Review of the Law of the Sea and Maritime Law, Vol. 1, 2011.
57 See, e.g., Michael N. Schmitt, “Providing Arms and Materiel to Ukraine: Neutrality, Co-belligerency, and the Use of Force”, Lieber Institute, West Point, 7 March 2022, available at: https://lieber.westpoint.edu/tag/schmitt/page/4/.
58 Christopher Greenwood, “International Humanitarian Law (Laws of War): Revised Report for the Centennial Commemoration of the First Hague Peace Conference 1899”, in Frits Kalshoven (ed.), The Centennial of the First International Peace Conference: Reports & Conclusions, Kluwer Law International, The Hague, 2000, p. 55.
59 M. W. Janis, above note 37, p. 76.
60 Richmond, Herbert W., Sea Power in the Modern World, G. Bell & Sons Ltd, London, 1934, p. 67Google Scholar.
61 O'Connell, D. P., The Influence of Law on Sea Power, The University Press, Manchester, 1975, p. 3Google Scholar.
62 Fink, Martin D., “Naval Blockade and the Humanitarian Crisis in Yemen”, Netherlands International Law Review, Vol. 64, No. 2, 2017CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
63 For the process and challenges of development of the Manual, see Wolff Heintschel von Heinegg, “The San Remo Manual – History, Methodology and Future Application”, in D. Stephens and M. Stubbs (eds), above note 43.
64 Yoram Dinstein, The Conduct of Hostilities Under the Law of International Armed Conflict, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005, p. 12; UK Ministry of Defence, “Maritime Warfare”, in The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2005, p. 348; James Kraska and Raul Pedrozo, International Maritime Security Law, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden/Boston, MA, 2013, p. 859.
65 ICRC, “San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994”, Commentary, available at: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/INTRO/560.
66 See, e.g., Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Inquiry on the 31 May 2010 Flotilla Incident, September 2011 (Palmer report), available at: www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-205969/; J. Kraska, above note 56; Farrant, James, “The Gaza Flotilla Incident and the Modern Law of Blockade”, Naval War College Review, Vol. 66, No. 3, 2013Google Scholar.
67 UN General Assembly, Report of the International Fact-Finding Mission to Investigate Violations of International Law, Including International Humanitarian and Human Rights Law, Resulting from the Israeli attacks on the Flotilla of Ships Carrying Humanitarian Assistance, UN Doc. A/HRC/15/21, 27 September 2012, para. 50.
68 M. D. Fink, above note 56.
69 E.g. UK, Norway, New Zealand and Canada. For the process of the UK Manual, see Steven Haines, “The United Kingdom's Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict and the San Remo Manual: Maritime Rules Compared”, in Fania Domb and Yoram Dinstein (eds), Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, Vol. 36, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden/Boston, MA, 2006.
70 Danish Ministry of Defence, Defence Command Denmark, Military Manual on International Law Relevant to Danish Armed Forces in International Operations, 2016, p. 579, available at: www.forsvaret.dk/globalassets/fko---forsvaret/dokumenter/publikationer/-military-manual-updated-2020-2.pdf.
71 Federal Ministry of Defence, Law of Armed Conflict – Manual, Joint Service Regulation (ZDv) 15/2, Berlin, 1 May 2003, para. 131, available at: www.bmvg.de/resource/blob/93610/ae27428ce99dfa6bbd8897c269e7d214/b-02-02-10-download-manual-law-of-armed-conflict-data.pdf.
72 Except for in one footnote, where it says that the participants of the San Remo Manual opined that hospital ships should be allowed to use cryptographic equipment. US Department of Defense, Department of Defense Law of War Manual, Washington, DC, December 2016, p. 482, footnote 324, available at: https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/DoD%20Law%20of%20War%20Manual%20-%20June%202015%20Updated%20Dec%202016.pdf.
73 U.S. Navy NWP, U.S. Marine Corps and U.S. Coast Guard, The Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations (NWP 1-14M), March 2022, available at: https://usnwc.libguides.com/ld.php?content_id=66321384.
74 Wolff Heintschel von Heinegg, “The Current State of the Law of Naval Warfare: A Fresh Look at the San Remo Manual”, International Law Studies, Vol. 82, 2006. See also on current initiatives regarding updating the San Remo Manual, Wolff Heintschel von Heinegg, “Updating the Law of Naval Warfare”, Lieber Institute, West Point, 6 January 2022, available at: https://lieber.westpoint.edu/year-ahead-2022/.
75 See UNCLOS, Art. 29, available at: www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf.
76 W. H. Boothby, above note 34.
77 ICRC, above note 30, paras 65–6.
78 See, for instance, paragraph 2323 and further regarding Article 32 of GC II, referring to well-established rights and obligations of neutrals and belligerents in Hague Convention XIII, or certain paragraphs in Article 33 of GC II.
79 The references used are a collection of (mostly English, French and Spanish) manuals; see U.S Naval War College, Stockton e-Portal: Military Legal Manuals, available at: https://usnwc.libguides.com/c.php?g=86619&p=557511. That does, however, not mean that other States, such as Russia, China, Israel and Japan, may not have elaborate chapters on the law of naval warfare, which are inaccessible to me. The Dutch do not have a manual that includes the law of naval warfare. The Netherlands Admiralty Manual on the law of naval warfare, written by M. W. Mouton in the 1950s, is the only official reference known to me. It is unknown, however, whether it is still in force. M. W. Mouton, Instructie betreffende de toepassing van het internationale en nationale zeeoorlogsrecht tijdens een oorlog, waarin het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden is betrokken, Ministry of Defence, 1956.
80 See, for instance, Garner, James Wilfred, Prize Law During the World War. A Study of the Jurisprudence of the Prize Courts, 1914–1924, The Macmillan Company, New York, 1927Google Scholar.
81 Shamir-Borer, Eran, ”The Revival of Prize Law – An Introduction to the Summary of Recent Cases of the Prize Court in Israel”, in Dinstein, Yoram and Lahav, Jeff (eds), Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, Vol. 50, Koninklijke Brill, Leiden, 2020Google Scholar.
82 One recent case might be the case that came before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea on the Kerch Strait incident between Russia and Ukraine.
83 von Heinegg, Wolff Heintschel, “Maritime Warfare”, in Clapham, Andrew, Gaeta, Paola, Haeck, Tom and Priddy, Alice (eds), The Oxford Handbook of International Law in Armed Conflict, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2014, pp. 170–80Google Scholar.
84 A. Clapham, “Booty, Bounty, Blockade, and Prize”, above note 5, p. 1222.