Expert blog: Gaza flotilla is a legal and peaceful protest, not piracy

The flotilla’s objective is to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza, deliver urgent humanitarian aid, and establish a people-led humanitarian corridor. Its participants are civilians – activists, lawyers, doctors, and human rights defenders – who have undergone vetting, nonviolence training, and safety preparation.

The flotilla’s emergence is a direct response to the deepening humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Since March 2025, Israel has imposed a total ban on humanitarian aid entering the territory, following the breakdown of a ceasefire agreement and the refusal of Hamas to release hostages.

This blockade has halted the entry of food, water, medicine, fuel, and electricity. According to the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC), nearly half a million people in Gaza are experiencing catastrophic hunger.

Two out of three famine thresholds – plummeting food consumption and acute malnutrition – have already been met. Over 1.25 million people now face deadly hunger, and children are dying from malnutrition-related causes. While a formal declaration of famine requires verified deaths from starvation, humanitarian agencies agree that Gaza is already experiencing famine-like conditions.

In this context, the legality of the flotilla’s mission must be assessed not in isolation, but in relation to the legal status of the blockade itself. Under international humanitarian law, a blockade that causes starvation among the civilian population is unlawful.

The Geneva Conventions and customary international law specify that a blockade must not have the effect of starving civilians or denying them essential supplies. If it does, the blockading state is under an obligation to allow humanitarian aid to pass through. The question of whether a blockade is causing starvation is a matter of fact, and in the case of Gaza, the facts are unequivocal.

The blockade has led to widespread famine, and therefore cannot be considered legally valid. As such, efforts to deliver humanitarian aid in defiance of the blockade are not only morally justified – they are legally protected.

Any attempt by Israel to block or attack the flotilla would violate core principles of international humanitarian law, which strictly prohibits the targeting of civilians and civilian objects – a rule protected by the Geneva Conventions and reinforced by customary international law. Parties to a conflict are required to distinguish at all times between combatants and civilians, and between military objectives and civilian infrastructure.

The Global Sumud Flotilla is unequivocally civilian in nature: it is unarmed, nonviolent, and does not participate in hostilities. Targeting it would therefore constitute a direct breach of international law.

Beyond the humanitarian law framework, the flotilla’s right to navigate international waters is protected under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

Freedom of navigation is a foundational principle of maritime law, and it guarantees that ships may move freely through international waters without interference from other states. In addition, Israel does not have legal jurisdiction over Palestinian waters, particularly in light of the international recognition of Palestine as a state.

The continental shelf, exclusive economic zone (EEZ), and territorial waters off the coast of Gaza are not part of Israel’s territory. Therefore, Israel cannot lawfully prevent the flotilla from entering these waters unless it can establish a valid legal basis for doing so.

One such basis might be an accusation of piracy. However, under international law, piracy requires violence. The Global Sumud Flotilla is a nonviolent humanitarian mission. Its participants are acting transparently and peacefully, and their actions do not meet the legal definition of piracy. Any attempt to label the flotilla as such would be legally baseless.

In addition to maritime and humanitarian law, the flotilla’s actions are protected under international human rights law. The right to freedom of expression includes not only speech but also nonviolent direct action. This principle has been upheld in cases such as Greenpeace’s occupation of Arctic oil platforms, which was deemed a legitimate form of protest aimed at raising awareness and influencing policy.

The Global Sumud Flotilla operates in a similar vein: it is a form of civil protest, aimed at drawing attention to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and pressuring governments to act. As long as the protest remains nonviolent, it is protected under the right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.

Historically, flotillas attempting to deliver aid to Gaza have faced violent interception. The most notable example is the 2010 Gaza Freedom Flotilla, which resulted in the deaths of nine activists and widespread international condemnation. That incident led to inquiries by the United Nations and criticism of Israel’s use of force.

While the Global Sumud Flotilla is larger and more coordinated, it remains to be seen how Israel will respond. The Israeli military presence around the vessels is growing, and drone attacks and interceptions have already occurred. If Israel were to block the flotilla’s progress or use force against its participants, it would clearly be in violation of international law.

Laurence Atkin-Teillet, Lecturer and PhD candidate, Nottingham Law School