INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE CONCEPT OF BLOCKADES: (GAZA & SOUTH AFRICA)

Abstract

This thesis examines the legal, political, and humanitarian dimensions of blockades through a comparative study of Gaza and apartheid-era South Africa. Although blockades are frequently justified as legitimate tools of war, their practical application often exposes gaps in international law, particularly in relation to proportionality, occupation, and collective punishment. Drawing on treaties, UN documents, case law, academic literature, and human-rights reporting, the research evaluates how blockades function not only as military measures but also as instruments of political pressure with far-reaching civilian consequences. The Gaza case highlights the complexities of “remote occupation,” restricted movement, and the long-term effects of sealing a territory from essential goods and services. The South African example, while different in form, illustrates how large-scale economic isolation and restrictions can also operate as de facto blockades with significant social and political impact. By placing these two contexts side by side, the thesis identifies recurring patterns: the difficulty of enforcement under a politicized UN Security Council, the blurred line between military necessity and collective punishment, and the humanitarian toll that persists regardless of legal framing. Ultimately, the study argues that current international legal frameworks remain insufficient for addressing the realities of modern blockades, and it calls for clearer standards that prioritize civilian protection and accountability.

Date of Award	2025
Original language	American English
Awarding Institution	HBKU College of Law