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).

From West Point: https://lieber.westpoint.edu/russia-ukraine-war-naval-blockades-visit-search-targeting-war-sustaining-objects/

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.

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.

[–] feannag@lemmy.ml 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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?

[–] freagle@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 10 months ago

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.