Notice, I'm not even disputing whether or not the Gaza-Jericho agreement is invalid under the Article 62 of the Vienna Convention on Treaties, which could easily be used by Palestine.
Gaza-Jericho agreement, article XI, chapter 1, section a, subsection 2, called "Zone L", refers to the area which is not controlled by the Israeli Navy. In paragraph 3 it says that foreign ships may not approach closer than 12 miles, unless in accordance in with paragraph 4, which states if an interdiction is to be made, then Israel must inform the Maritime Coordination and Cooperation Center, which obviously due to what happened shortly after the signing of the treaty, never came to exist (They were also bound to inform and act in accordance with other non-existent bodies, but this example suffices). Because of that, under the article 61 of the same Vienna Convention, which states that a treaty is invalid if the object required for the execution of the treaty disapears (Or in this case, does not exist).
As for the San Remo agreement, it stipulates the blockade rules between two states at war. The blockade would be justifiable under International Law if Israel recognized Hamas as the sovereign power of Gaza. As it does not, the only alternative for justifying it would be that it would also have to be at war with who the International community (And Israel) recognizes as the governing body of Palestine/Gaza, being that the Palestinian Authority-Fatah. Add to that, the fact that there is no international "jurisprudence" for a blockade of a State over a territory which doesn't recognize as sovereign, and yet still executes the blockade (For instance, the US blockade of Cuba is an action by the State of the USA against the State of Cuba, whereas the Israel blockade of Gaza is an action by the State of Israel against Hamas, which is not a State, and therefore not applicable by the San Remo agreement).
Bookmarks