With us is Professor Mariusz Miąsko, an expert in law, including international law and security, associated with the Nicolaus Copernicus University. Good morning. Good morning. Hello, Madam Editor. Hello everyone. Exactly, an expert in international law. So what about international law? I am asking in the context of stopping this global flotilla that was sailing with humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip. She was intercepted, detained by Israel. What does it look like from the perspective of international law and does international law still function? Yes, here Israel is very cleverly invoking such nuances of international law, because you have to know that this flotilla was, so to speak, stopped because it was under the regime of three different legal jurisdictions. firstly, public international law, which determines how one can sail in international waters. Secondly, in the jurisdiction of the branches of war and humanitarian law, which determines in what cases it is permissible to restrict such navigation. And thirdly, there is this agreement, this manual with Sanremo. And in fact, it is this part that the Israeli side refers to, which specifies in what cases, in what practical situations, it is possible to stop, or even intervene, a flotilla in this case sailing on the basis of international maritime law and humanitarian law. And here, one might say, the discussion began. It basically comes down to the fact that, of course, the mere stopping of this flotilla would be prohibited under international, public law, of which maritime law is a part . Well, this is categorically forbidden, especially if this, this convoy was for the purpose of providing humanitarian aid. We have no doubt about that. yyy the situation is identical under the law of war and humanitarian law. Well, there are two key acts in this regard. One is the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and its Additional Protocol of '77. So there are those who say yes, that is, it is as if it were a violation of international law, but who say yes, who say that, and not only that, that it is categorically prohibited, it is prohibited to starve or deprive people of any other elements related to the implementation of humanitarian law, for example, the provision of medicines. Not only is it prohibited, but what's more, the Convention and the Additional Protocol stipulate that the parties are obliged to provide precisely this humanitarian aid. So how is it that Israel says that, okay, but we are not bound by these two acts? And now the interesting thing is that Israel is referring to this, one can infer it directly, it has not been articulated, but knowing these regulations, we know what Israel is referring to. I am referring to this Sanremos document from 1994, because it is important to know that humanitarian aid is permissible and even required as long as there is no so- called perfidy. What is perfidy? It's exactly such a pretty, inelegant word, but that's exactly how it's used in the doctrine of humanitarian law . It would be a case of perfidy if it turned out that in this convoy, that in this convoy not only medicines and food were transported, but also, for example, weapons for, you know, Gaza militants. Well, but I understand that there was not even any evidence here that could prove that they were transporting something like that. Exactly . Well, that would mean that Israel accuses Poland, among others, of perfidy, which is one of the most serious offenses under humanitarian law. In such a case, in my opinion, it would be necessary to summon the Israeli ambassador to the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and ask whether Israel believes that we are militarily supporting one of the sides, because it had to be so, yes, this is the key premise that would allow for the reference to this Sanremo document at all. But there is one more thing: Israel is walking on very thin ice, because by referring to this very Sanremos manual from 1994, I am perhaps counting on the fact that experts in international law of war and humanitarian law and PML, i.e. public international law, have not forgotten that it is merely a document arising from customary law. This is merely customary law, meaning that Israel is invoking the weakest possible document in the range of documents, violating fundamental documents of international law, public law, international law of war and humanitarian law. Fundamental. I even wrote down how many articles I think Israel will violate, 23, 55 and 59 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. at least he broke Articles 70 and 54 on the prohibition of starvation from the Additional Protocol of 77 to the Geneva Convention and refers to the alleged fact based on his own completely unfounded assumption that perhaps a country like Poland is militarily supporting one of the occupied countries, because it must be said that it is an occupied country. Here we are dealing with an occupier and an occupied country. So I think that the reaction of the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs should be immediate, it should be very clear, and not only of the Polish MBZU, because we are only part of this, you could say, humanitarian convoy. Exactly. So if anyone here is committing perfidy in this sense, I won't use it, but in the institutional sense, it's Israel. If Israel searches these ships and does not find weapons there, its position, its image, its legal position will be very difficult. Why? Because preventing the delivery of a humanitarian convoy is in itself, mind you, a war crime. And I'm not saying so. Such a tough Criminal Court. This issue is resolved because it has been analyzed many times. So not only is Israel treading on fragile ice, but I believe it has already lost its self-reflection and is perhaps under some internal pressure. Um, anyway, uh, what is really sad for me is that this is probably the third or fourth broadcast on your radio station when I have to, unfortunately, criticize it at the level of war and humanitarian law, concluding or summing up that these actions not only violate the law of war and humanitarian law, because something else is a different thing, a war crime. And so I think that in this case it will probably turn out, life will show. That's true, Professor, but also what you've just said for the third or fourth time in a really short period of time. We are talking about further crossings of certain red lines when it comes to violations of humanitarian law, international law, but they are still being done. So what does this show? some double standards or that Israel apparently does not feel sufficient responsibility for exceeding these Well, well, because it looks a bit like that. Well, the law is there, as I understand it, to punish and to prevent these things from happening again . It probably doesn't work here because there is no pressure from the great powers of this world, but not only that, there is no pressure from the United States, which is involved in some part, not in this thread, but in the bombing, right, of this school where over 200 girls died on the first day of the attack on Iran and there was no reaction. And now, in connection with the above, the United States, probably aware that they themselves are not completely clean in conflicts, are very sparing in their reactions towards their partner, both business, political and military. The great men of this world must speak out on this, but ladies and gentlemen, we cannot wait for the great men of this world. Poles were starved by the hundreds of thousands, if not even a million Poles were starved in Siberia. We experienced what people experience there. After all, let us remember that Poles during all the occupations and for 123 years there was no Poland and we were exiled, after all, entire families were exiled. There the children suffered from hunger. We understand this like few others, we like few others in the world cannot afford such conformism, such conservatism. Um, we must absolutely clearly express our disapproval, because what is happening with this? Not only disapproval, but also absolute words of condemnation, which is probably why we should hold someone legally responsible, because, Professor, let us remind you that, after all, evidence has already appeared for this, probably directly. people who were detained are kneeling, we often talk about some kind of torture, so there have been reports of sexual violence against these people, we are talking about simply some kind of bestial behavior. And now the question is whether someone should be held legally responsible for this, or simply go to prison. We in Poland solved this by stigmatizing the Stalinist period. At least at one point in time, there were practices very similar to those the editor has articulated here. And we clearly defined that system as criminal. We clearly defined that system as criminal. Seeking some measure in relation to the immensity of harm that is happening to these people. Well, we have to evaluate them identically. We are our guests, we, Madam Editor, we the listeners, we are guests on this platform of war and humanitarian and international law. We are not the ones claiming that Israel is committing war crimes. The regulations of international war law state this. We just read them. Well, we only read them, but the question is, what specific tools do we have and what can we do? You mentioned summoning the Israeli ambassador to explain what else Poland could do and possibly the world, because here we are talking about many people detained from various countries. Yes, Poland could do the same thing, which Poland can do in the case of prosecuting war crimes in an attack during Russia's attack on Ukraine. This means submitting reports to international criminal tribunals about the suspicion of committing a war crime in this regard . But Poland doesn't do that because it tries to be conservative. Poland assumes that politics is more important than people's suffering and people's misfortune, because the great powers of this world, the great countries of this world, do not react in this way, Poland assumes that we will perhaps not stick our neck out. This is bad because Poland has repeatedly set examples for the entire world on how to behave, not just for years, but for hundreds of years. Let us remember that at the time when there were great Jewish purges throughout Europe, it was in Poland that Jews found refuge. We set an example of how the weak should be protected. We are the ones who set the example when not everyone wanted to accept, remember, Ukrainians in Central Europe, but Poland turned out to be the heart. It was Poland, when no one wanted to fight the great Russian power behind the Iron Curtain , it was believed that it was unassailable, that set an example that it was possible. Well, in the case of the war beyond our eastern border, we can say that Poland is very involved. I mean, first of all, without our territory there would be no territory, right? This was the hub used for this help. Poland also helps financially. Here he is also heavily involved in the diplomatic sphere, because there were also threats against, yes, Vladimir Putin. It would seem that from this point of view, I don't know, geopolitical, well, it would be more courageous to oppose this war and criticize Russia. This is what we do. And in the case of the Middle East, something more happened, because we were not only diplomatically involved in the war in Ukraine, of course economically, but we also supplied weapons. Please note that we were actually one step away from war with Russia, because one of the NATO member states was almost openly supplying weapons in the form of, for example, anti-tank fighter planes. It is true that we delivered fighter jets there, for example, in such a disassembled state that we could claim they were spare parts, but after being assembled they were still fighter jets, so Poland took a huge risk. What is missing here is not only courage, but also a lack of such a basic human approach. The absence of some kind of spirituality is a lack. I will even use it this way, I will refer to it. I don't mean a specific religion, just some kind of spirituality. I mean, if we see that people have been suffering there for decades, but especially recently they are being treated, they are even being eliminated and our government does not react. A Polish state that has enough citizens, whose citizens have experienced the same suffering for hundreds of years, the same suffering, and we understand it like few others, because maybe some do not understand, but we understand and we do not react. This is a problem, a deficit at the level of spirituality. This means that somewhere we have lost something in the hearts of these and our ministers, the people responsible, that they are unable to bring themselves to this deep reflection, this empathy, this compassion. Well, this is a much bigger problem. This is not only at the legal level. Professor, thank you very much for the interview. Professor Mariusz Miąsko, lecturer at the Nicolaus Copernicus University, expert in international law, including military and security. Thank you very much for the interview. Thank you very much. Goodbye.