UMS Explores Gaza Blockade Dialogue Through John Austin’s Theory: “International Law is Not Law”

2 October 2025

KOTA KINABALU: The issue of the naval blockade on Gaza continues to be a subject of academic debate, particularly from the perspective of international law theory.

Senior lecturer from Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS), Marja Azlima Omar, has analysed the issue through the lens of a dialogue between the Israeli Navy and Tiago Avila from the Global Sumud Flotilla (GSF), which was on a humanitarian mission to Gaza.

In the dialogue, the Israeli Navy asserted its authority to enforce the blockade, warning that any attempt to breach it would result in action, including the seizure of the vessel through legal proceedings.

In response, the GSF maintained that their mission was humanitarian in nature, describing the blockade as unlawful under international law, and citing the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) ruling that Israel is prohibited from obstructing humanitarian aid missions to Gaza.

According to Marja Azlima, this debate is particularly relevant when examined through the perspective of John Austin, a 19th-century legal positivist best known for his claim that “international law is not law properly so called”.

“Austin argued that law only exists when there is a command from a sovereign authority backed by enforceable power. Because international law lacks a “global sovereign” or central enforcement system, Austin dismissed it as merely “positive morality.”

“In the Gaza case, we can see the strength of Austin’s argument, as Israel, a sovereign state, can enforce its blockade without direct enforcement from international law.

“Yet at the same time, there is also evidence that international law continues to have a real impact,” Marja explained.

She elaborated that while international law may lack absolute coercive power, it nonetheless operates through institutions such as the ICJ, the International Criminal Court (ICC), and the United Nations Security Council.

Furthermore, states consistently invoke international law to legitimise or challenge actions, which demonstrates its binding character.

“The dialogue shows that both parties Israel and the flotilla turned to legal arguments to justify their positions. This demonstrates that international law is not mere morality, but rather a recognised and operative normative system in international relations,” she added.

According to her, the Gaza blockade highlights two sides of international law: on one hand, Israel is able to disregard ICJ rulings due to the absence of immediate coercive enforcement; on the other, the humanitarian flotilla relies on international law as a source of legitimacy and global solidarity.

“Therefore, even though international law lacks a central sovereign authority as Austin required, it still functions as law – shaping behaviour, providing legitimacy, and in the long term, potentially delivering accountability,” she concluded.