EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: FORMAL NOTICE & REQUEST TO PROTECT FLOTILLA TO GAZA PER BINDING LEGAL DUTIES
As of April 2025, the entire civilian population of Gaza—2.2 million people—is enduring a catastrophic, man-made humanitarian crisis. Over 335,000 children under five face imminent death by starvation. Clean water access has collapsed, and life expectancy has plummeted by more than 35 years in just over a year. This is not the result of natural disaster—it is the consequence of a systematic siege, aid obstruction, and targeted infrastructure destruction that meets and exceeds the legal definition of genocide under Article II(c) of the Genocide Convention and Article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the Rome Statute.
The Freedom Flotilla, a peaceful civilian convoy carrying food, medical aid, and water systems, is preparing to sail to Gaza. Onboard are unarmed doctors, aid workers, journalists, and legal observers—nationals of multiple States. The risk of Israeli interdiction—including violent seizure or attack—is imminent and foreseeable. This humanitarian convoy must be recognized and protected as a lawful mission under international law. Any State that fails to act—by refusing to offer harbor, logistical support, or protection to the Flotilla—may be complicit in violations of international humanitarian law and the Genocide Convention.
Despite public condemnation of Israel’s conduct by numerous States—protective action has not followed. On the contrary, many States have yielded to Israeli pressure to obstruct or undermine the Flotilla. This failure is not neutral—it is a grave breach of legal and moral responsibility.
Accordingly, the Freedom Flotilla is not a protest—it is a lawful act of last resort, compelled by the international community’s abject refusal to stop the mass annihilation of Palestinians in Gaza. Its passengers are acting in place of States that have willfully abandoned their legally bunding obligations.
Failure to protect this mission constitutes a breach of erga omnes obligations and exposes States to legal liability for complicity in the deliberate, livestreamed extermination of Gaza’s civilian population.
We therefore issue this formal notice and urgent request for States to:
We respectfully stand ready to provide any additional legal analysis, factual documentation, or diplomatic engagement your office may require in the immediate term.
FORMAL NOTICE & REQUEST UPON STATES TO PROTECT FLOTILLA TO GAZA PER BINDING LEGAL DUTIES
I. URGENT NOTICE AND LEGAL DEMAND FOR PROTECTIVE STATE ACTION
We, the undersigned legal counsel and international humanitarian organizations, issue this correspondence as a Formal Notice and Urgent Request to all non-EU governments, in light of the imminent departure of the Freedom Flotilla—a peaceful, civilian maritime convoy transporting life-saving humanitarian aid to Gaza—and the serious, foreseeable threat of Israeli obstruction or attack in violation of international law.
The Flotilla carries essential humanitarian aid—food, medical supplies, infant formula, and water systems—to a civilian population under siege, famine, and mass deprivation. Onboard are nationals from multiple States: doctors, journalists, human rights observers, and legal monitors.
This mission exists because States with the means and mandates to act have refused to do so. In their place, unarmed civilians have stepped forward—not by choice, but as a legal and moral last resort. States now bear responsibility for having forced civil society to risk their lives to uphold obligations governments have abandoned.
We hereby notify Your Honorable Government:
We respectfully submit this communication and stand ready to provide any additional legal analysis, factual documentation, or diplomatic engagement your office may require in the immediate term.
II. HUMANITARIAN COLLAPSE, FORCED STARVATION, IN GAZA: STATE FAILURE AND LEGAL DERELICTION OF OBLIGATION
As of April 2025, every single person in Gaza is facing catastrophic hunger and systematic deprivation. UNICEF reports that over 335,000 children under five years of age are on the brink of death from severe acute malnutrition. According to Dr. Muneer Alboursh, at least 53 children have already died of starvation-related causes in the past few weeks alone. Water access has collapsed: only one in ten Palestinians has access to clean water, triggering spiraling outbreaks of waterborne disease, dehydration, and fatal infant exposure. More than 2,200 Palestinians have been killed by direct fire in the six weeks since Israel shattered the ceasefire on 18 March 2025- including over 1,000 children killed during this time period alone. Gaza’s life expectancy has decreased by 35.6 years – from 75.5 to 40.6 years- in horrific testimony of the accelerated decline that can only be caused by genocide, as per The Lancet.
This is not a natural disaster—it is the consequence of deliberate policy: siege warfare, obstruction of aid, and targeted destruction of infrastructure essential to civilian survival- and of every State’s failure to uphold their obligations to secure aid to Gaza.
All this comes in context of the fact that UNRWA has confirmed that nearly 3,000 humanitarian trucks loaded with lifesaving food, medicine, and water are being denied entry into Gaza by Israeli forces.
The obliteration of Gaza’s civilian infrastructure, repeated targeting of humanitarian workers and distribution centers, and the stated intent of Israeli and U.S. officials to bomb aid convoys and weaponize starvation, leave no ambiguity as to the nature of the crisis. These acts are not incidental—they are part of a systematic policy of deprivation, aimed at bringing Palestinians to a point of total and complete extermination.
This pattern of conduct meets- and has long exceeded- the legal threshold for genocide as defined under Article II(c) of the Genocide Convention, which prohibits the infliction of conditions of life calculated to bring about a group’s destruction. It also constitutes a war crime under Article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the Rome Statute, and a grave breach of Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibiting collective punishment.
In this legal and moral vacuum, unarmed and unarmied civilians—doctors, lawyers, journalists, and humanitarian workers—have assumed the burden of fulfilling the duties that States have forsaken. This mission is not voluntary—it is a lawful act of necessity; a measure of last resort. It is in response to the international community’s inaction—including by EU and non-EU States alike—that civil society has been forced to act.
Despite the universal recognition of the unfolding atrocity, governments have neither halted the siege nor upheld their legal duties to protect civilians or enable humanitarian access. Worse still, many States have capitulated to Israeli and U.S. threats or pressure, refusing to offer harbor to the Flotilla, denying logistical support, or actively interfering with civil society efforts to deliver aid.
This failure of political will—combined with inaction or active obstruction—amounts to legally actionable complicity. The International Court of Justice has deemed the risk of genocide in Gaza “plausible”, and under binding international law, inaction in the face of such risk is itself unlawful.
Accordingly, States now bear direct legal and moral responsibility for having forced civil society to undertake, at great personal risk, what governments have refused to do: protect life, uphold law, and confront atrocity with action.
II. STATE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF GAZA EXTERMINATION BY STARVATION AND FAILURE TO ACT
State inaction and obstruction comes amidst, ironically, increasing State recognition of the unprecedented scale and unlawfulness of the Israeli-imposed siege on Gaza. Several have expressly condemned the humanitarian crisis, acknowledged breaches of international law, and called for immediate redress. These include: France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, which issued a Joint Statement in March 2025 declaring the blockade “intolerable,” recognizing its violation of international law, and demanding its immediate cessation; Spain, where Foreign Minister José Manuel Albares condemned Israel’s attacks on civilians and called for accountability; Switzerland, which urged for unimpeded humanitarian access and an immediate ceasefire; and Sweden, which characterized the siege as “dangerous” and demanded the delivery of humanitarian relief.
These official positions confirm widespread acknowledgment of the legal and moral gravity of Israel’s conduct. However, they remain inadequate in meeting the binding obligations under Article I of the Genocide Convention, as interpreted by the ICJ in Bosnia v. Serbia, which found that, a “ State’s obligations to prevent, and the corresponding duty to act, arise at the instant that the State learns of, or should normally have learned of, the existence of a serious risk that genocide will be committed. From that moment onwards, if the State has available to it means likely to have a deterrent effect on those suspected of preparing genocide or reasonably suspected of harboring specific intent, it is under a duty to make use of those means.” (emphasis added) ICJ Reports 2007, p. 221, para. 430.
In sum, under binding law, where a serious risk of genocide exists and States are in a position to act, they are obligated to take preventive measures. In this case, States have a clear and lawful opportunity to act——by simply protecting their own and other civilian nationals who are undertaking what States have failed or refused to do: to save Palestinian lives from what is now among the greatest atrocities of modern, if not all, of history.
II. THE FLOTILLA IS PROTECTED BY LAW- AND STATES ARE OBLIGATED TO PROTECT IT AGAINST IMMINENT THREAT
The Freedom Flotilla is not only lawful under international law—it is urgently legally necessary and morally compelled. This civilian-led mission exists because States, despite their solemn obligations under the Genocide Convention, Geneva Conventions, and customary international law, have abdicated their responsibilities, leaving 2.2 million civilians in Gaza to starve behind an illegal siege.
States have not only failed to fulfill their duties to prevent genocide, ensure humanitarian access, or protect the civilian population- many have capitulated to political coercion and threats—including from Israel and the United States—by refusing to provide harbor, diplomatic protection, or even moral support to the Flotilla. Some have gone further still, actively interfering with or undermining the mission under pressure. Such actions are not mere omissions; they are affirmative forms of complicity that enable atrocity- and which will have legal consequences.
The Freedom Flotilla mission is not only lawful—it is protected under a robust matrix of international legal instruments- and States are legally bound to ensure its unimpeded passage and to prevent any interference or attack. These obligations arise under:
The present threat to the Freedom Flotilla must be understood in the context of a documented pattern of unlawful attacks by Israel on previous humanitarian convoys. These incidents underscore the urgency of international protective action and the legal risks of further inaction.
The 2010 Mavi Marmara Incident
On 31 May 2010, Israeli naval forces attacked a six-vessel flotilla—led by the Mavi Marmara—while in international waters in the Eastern Mediterranean. The flotilla was carrying humanitarian aid to Gaza. Nine civilians were killed, and dozens more injured. The UN Human Rights Council’s Fact-Finding Mission concluded that, “[t]here is clear evidence to support prosecutions of crimes including willful killing; torture or inhuman treatment; and willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health…” (Report of the International Fact-Finding Mission to Investigate Violations of International Law Resulting from the Israeli Attacks on the Flotilla, A/HRC/15/21, para. 261).
Although the OTP had then declined to proceed based on the Court’s gravity threshold at the time, the legal conclusions remain relevant precedent. The ICC Prosecutor retains discretion to reopen or expand investigations in light of new facts or a repeated pattern of unlawful conduct.
Ongoing Pattern of Threats
Israeli officials have publicly reiterated their intent to intercept or use force against future flotillas. These threats have not been renounced and create a climate of foreseeable danger for unarmed humanitarian actors. Any such interdiction on the high seas, without lawful justification under UNCLOS Articles 87, 89, 110, or humanitarian law, would constitute a serious violation of international law.
Given this history, States have a duty to prevent recurrence, especially where past attacks were unpunished- and providing political cover or failing to oppose such acts may amount to aiding and abetting war crimes or crimes against humanity.
III. DUTY TO PREEMPTIVELY PROTECT: PREVENTION, INTERVENTION, AND COMPLICITY
Under international law, passivity in the face of atrocity is not neutrality—it is unlawful inaction. States that provide material support, diplomatic shelter, port denials, or public justification for Israeli conduct that obstructs humanitarian access—are affirmatively complicit in internationally wrongful acts, including for violations of the Genocide Convention and Geneva Conventions.
As established by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in Bosnia v. Serbia (2007), the duty to prevent genocide requires that States employ “all means reasonably available” to prevent and suppress acts of genocide and incitement thereto, wherever they are capable of exerting influence. This duty is positive, continuous, and non-derogable. The obligation to act does not arise only after genocide has occurred—it arises at the moment a serious risk is known or should be known. That threshold has long been crossed in Gaza.
Failing to speak out publicly, failing to protect the Flotilla, failing to offer harbor, or ensure its safe passage—particularly across the Mediterranean, where most interceptions would occur—constitutes a breach of these obligations. Any State that does not commit to the Flotilla’s protection now is in violation of its erga omnes obligations and risks international legal responsibility for complicity in atrocity crimes.
IV. CONCLUSION: STATES MUST ACT—OR BE HELD TO ACCOOUNT
The right to deliver aid to starving civilians is not a political preference; it is a legal imperative. The duty to prevent genocide is not discretionary—it is a core obligation of every State party. The international legal order stands at a precipice. The Genocide Convention, the Geneva Conventions, and the Rome Statute are not aspirational texts. They are binding instruments—with binding duties.
The Freedom Flotilla is more than a humanitarian convoy. It is a test of international law’s relevance; a line drawn across the sea between impunity and accountability, between complicity and courage, between morality and barbarism- and between cowardice and courage.
To stand silent now—while unarmed civilians sail toward danger because States have failed to act—is to declare participation in the abandonment of law and morality itself.
