5cjxburmr

Zones may not be employed for the purpose of starving the civilian population. 140zones must not impose an unreasonable burden on neutral commerce in free goods. 141Such13.9.4 Use of Zones to Prevent Movement – Exclusion Zones. Belligerents mayestablish exclusion zones that prohibit the entry of vessels or aircraft without authorization fromthat belligerent. 142 Such zones may suspend the right of innocent passage through non-neutralwaters. 143The extent, location, and duration of the exclusion zone and the measures imposed shouldnot exceed what is required by military necessity. 144Belligerents establishing such zones must provide safe passage through the zone forneutral vessels and aircraft where the geographical extent of the zone significantly impedes free140 Refer to § 5.20 (Starvation).141 See 2007 NWP 1-14M 7.9 (“To the extent that such zones serve to warn neutral vessels and aircraft away frombelligerent activities and thereby reduce their exposure to collateral damage and incidental injury (see paragraph8.3.1), and to the extent that they do not unreasonably interfere with legitimate neutral commerce, they areundoubtedly lawful.”).142 For example, 2004 UK MANUAL 12.58 footnote 76 (“During the Falklands conflict 1982, a total exclusion zoneof 200 nautical miles was established around the Islands. It applied, inter alia, to any aircraft, military or civil,operating in support of the illegal occupation by the Argentine forces, and any aircraft (military or civil) foundwithin the zone without authority from the Ministry of Defence would be regarded as operating in support of theillegal occupation and thus hostile and liable to be attacked by the British forces.”).143 For example, HYDROPAC 795/2004 (62) PERSIAN GULF (030850Z MAY 2004), reprinted in 2007 NWP 1-14M, Appendix C (“8. ADDITIONALLY, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, EXCLUSION ZONES AREESTABLISHED AND THE RIGHT OF INNOCENT PASSAGE IS TEMPORARILY SUSPENDED INACCORDANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW AROUND THE KAAOT AND ABOT OIL TERMINALSWITHIN IRAQI TERRITORIAL WATERS. THE EXCLUSION ZONES EXTEND 2000 METERS FROM THEOUTER EDGES OF THE TERMINAL STRUCTURES IN ALL DIRECTIONS. 9. ONLY TANKERS ANDSUPPORT VESSELS AUTHORIZED BY TERMINAL OPERATORS OR COALITION MARITIME SECURITYFORCES ARE ALLOWED TO ENTER THE EXCLUSION ZONES. VESSELS ATTEMPTING TO ENTER THEZONES WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION MAY BE SUBJECT TO DEFENSIVE MEASURES, INCLUDINGWHEN NECESSARY, THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE. ALL REASONABLE EFFORTS WILL BE TAKEN TOWARN VESSELS AWAY BEFORE EMPLOYING DEADLY FORCE. HOWEVER, DEADLY FORCE WILLBE EMPLOYED WHEN NECESSARY TO PROTECT COALITION MARITIME SECURITY FORCES,LEGITIMATE SHIPPING PRESENT IN THE EXCLUSION ZONES AND THE OIL TERMINALS.”).144 For example, Wolff Heintschel von Heinegg, The Law of Armed Conflict at Sea, in DIETER FLECK, THEHANDBOOK OF HUMANITARIAN LAW IN ARMED CONFLICTS 467 (1049) (“On 28 April 1982 Great Britainproclaimed a ‘Total Exclusion Zone’ (TEZ) in the South Atlantic. Beside deterring the Argentine naval forces fromleaving their ports, its main purpose was to facilitate the early identification of military objectives and to preventvessels flying neutral flags from conveying information to Argentina. … On one hand, the British TEZ covered anarea of 200 nautical miles measured from the centre of the main island. On the other hand, the TEZ was situated farfrom any main shipping lanes. Moreover, its duration was comparatively short. It did not serve economic warfarepurposes but was aimed at facilitating military operations, including identification. Vessels and aircraft flying flagsof states not parties to the conflict suffered no damage whatsoever. For these reasons, only the former USSRofficially protested against the British TEZ.”).885