Abstract
On May 31, 2010, during the Israeli-imposed naval blockade of Gaza, six vessels tried to break the so-called “siege of Gaza.” The Israeli IDF forces captured the vessels and brought them to the Port of Ashdod. During the violent incident, 9 activists on the Mavi Marmara were killed, and 55 activists and 9 IDF soldiers were wounded. The violent battle at sea was followed by a legal struggle. The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) was asked to investigate the incident. Competence and admissibility were the primary questions: whether the litigious acts amounted to a sufficient degree of gravity. The ICC turned out to be a theatre of war. After seven years, the Prosecutor decided not to investigate for lack of gravity. The requested actions, to condemn the IDF in a wider sense, could exemplify the lawfare against Israel. The Marmara incident shows the interdependence of national and international government legal institutions, in cases concerning human rights. International legal instruments including international criminal proceedings are an example. Can the fact that the case did not have sufficient gravity be interpreted as an effort to prevent the misuse of the ICC procedures as an instrument of lawfare? Our objective in this chapter is to investigate whether the Marmara flotilla case can be seen as an example of lawfare against Israel.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Title of host publication | Human Rights Interdependence in National and International Politics |
| Subtitle of host publication | Checks and Balances Effect on Global South Politics |
| Publisher | Taylor & Francis |
| Pages | 164-184 |
| Number of pages | 21 |
| ISBN (Electronic) | 9781040045350 |
| ISBN (Print) | 9781032334103 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Jan 2024 |