Publications

On 30 April 2026, Israeli naval forces boarded the Global Sumud Flotilla near Crete, roughly 600 nautical miles from Gaza. A second wave was intercepted off Cyprus weeks later. Both operations were defended as enforcement of Israel's 2009 naval blockade of Gaza. The analysis turns on three questions. Can a State blockade territory it occupies, in light of the ICJ's 2024 and 2025 advisory opinions? Does this blockade still meet its humanitarian conditions, given the 2025 famine confirmation, UNRWA's expulsion and the ICC's starvation warrants? And, most strikingly, is there any precedent for enforcing a blockade hundreds of nautical miles from the blockaded coast? Drawing on the available sources of international law, including the San Remo Manual, the Newport Manual and eight decades of state practice, the post shows that while the former question poses no issue, the humanitarian limits of the blockade have since been crossed while every blockade since 1945 has remained at least somewhat tethered to the blockaded coast. Enforcement at several hundred nautical miles, Frederik Rogiers argues, resembles a quasi-global visit-and-search regime more than a blockade, with real implications for freedom of navigation and the law governing operations at sea.

Frederik Rogiers, PhD researcher and teaching assistant at the Ghent Maritime Institute, has published a new blog post on Opinio Juris. The post - "A Blockade by the Book: Why CENTCOM's Carve-Out for Non-Iranian Ports Matters" - examines the United States' naval blockade of Iran declared in April 2026. It argues that the geographical carve-out preserving access to non-Iranian ports, introduced by CENTCOM within a day of President Trump's announcement of a "blockade of the Strait of Hormuz", is the legal cornerstone on which the lawfulness of the entire operation rests. Working through the conditions for a lawful blockade as developed from the 1856 Paris Declaration through the San Remo and Newport Manuals, he shows how that single textual choice distinguishes a lawful belligerent closure of enemy ports from an unlawful closure of a neutral international strait.

Frederik Rogiers (doctoraatsonderzoeker Maritiem Instituut) schreef een bijdrage in Testerep, het magazine van het Vlaams Instituut voor de Zee (VLIZ), over de recente operaties tegen schepen uit de schaduwvloot. Vertrekkend vanuit operatie Blue Intruder, waarbij de Belgische marine op 1 maart 2026 de tanker Ethera voor de kust van Zeebrugge enterde, legt het stuk voor een breed publiek uit wat de Russische schaduwvloot is, welke ecologische en veiligheidsrisico's ze meebrengt, en hoe het internationaal zeerecht en de Belgische wetgeving zich verhouden tot het optreden tegen staatloze schepen.

Frederik Rogiers (doctoraatsonderzoeker Maritiem Instituut) schreef een korte bijdrage in Knack over de Amerikaanse zeeblokkade in het gewapend conflict met Iran. Tegen het wijdverspreide beeld in de pers - en de Iraanse beschuldiging van "piraterij" - toont hij aan dat Washington niet de Straat van Hormuz heeft afgesloten, maar de Iraanse havens en kust. Dat onderscheid is juridisch beslissend: het opschorten van de doorvaart door een internationale zeestraat zou onwettig zijn (o.m. sinds de Corfu Channel-zaak van 1949), terwijl een havenblokkade in een internationaal gewapend conflict een erkende methode van oorlogvoering blijft, mits aan de strikte voorwaarden is voldaan. 

In its Advisory Opinion on the Request submitted by the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) concluded that, under Article 192 of the UN Law of the Sea Convention (UNCLOS), States must take all necessary measures to protect and preserve the marine environment from the impacts of climate change. Acknowledging the disruptive effects of climate change on fish stocks, the Tribunal concluded that Article 192 gives rise to additional obligations under international fisheries law. In particular, States must take climate change impacts into account when conserving and managing fish stocks pursuant to Articles 61, 63, 64, and 117–119 of UNCLOS. This article analyzes ITLOS’ interpretation of these provisions. It then explores their practical implications and applications, given the Tribunal’s limited guidance. Finally, it argues that certain obligations concerning climate-driven stock redistribution remain insufficiently clarified.