The legality of the BDS weapon and its impact.
Introduction:
During the twentieth century, dozens of boycott campaigns took place around the world, which were a force that forced the aggressing parties to submit to the required political conditions and implement them against their will. We mention among them the Indian “Swadeshi” campaign that was launched at the beginning of the last century under the influence of British plans that aimed to divide the Bengal region into two parts. Muslim East and Hindu West, the campaign was part of the Indian independence movement aimed at boycotting British goods imported into India and relying on Indian local production. Gandhi was a supporter of the campaign in the 1930s, and the campaign succeeded in putting pressure on Britain, so India established its economy and restrained the British hand.
It was also the movement to boycott the apartheid state “South Africa”, which arose at the hands of a group of South African politicians represented in the Committee of African Organizations, who met with groups of students and exiles in London to search for a political alternative against the apartheid state in South Africa in the year 1959. The boycott lasted thirty-five years and caused great economic and political losses to the British state and contributed to the dismantling of the state’s economic system.
And the movement to boycott German goods in 1933, which the Central Union of German Jews known as “CV” resorted to to use it as a political protest movement against the new “Reich” government at that time, and at that time Hitler was the new ruler of Germany and acts of violence against the Jews and against their interests were escalating, so this choice was a reason for concern by Hitler's business sponsors and the Nazi Party. However, this movement did not succeed at the time in stopping the attack on German Jews, and the reason for the failure of this attempt, according to historians, was that there was political hostility to the boycott movement, and an agreement was concluded with the Nazi Party known as the “Havara” agreement, which aimed to displace sixty thousand Jews from Germany to Palestine.
From these examples, it is possible to understand what boycott is and know its importance and the strength of its impact on the economic and political levels. We note that the factors for the success or failure of using this force is the political condition represented by the solidarity and unity formed by the political actors. The second condition is the economic one in which the boycott will take place. It calls for collective insistence, reliance on the local economy, and stopping the process of foreign imports. The best thing about this matter is to create self-sufficiency that depends on the local capabilities and capabilities for production. Any defect in one of the conditions will be the fate of the boycott to failure, just as the efforts of the Jews failed. Germany in the boycott.
In this article, I talk about the legitimacy of using the boycott weapon to support the people of Gaza in response to the unjust Zionist aggression, and a form of international economic sanctions in the United Nations Charter represented by boycott. I will discuss the Palestinian boycott movement “BDS” and its impact, aiming to urge Arab youth to use This is the means that develops our sense of human responsibility, and I will not speak about patriotism, but rather about the humanitarian aspect, and this is the least that can be done.
A look at the rules of international law:
International economic sanctions are one of the forms of international sanctions recognized in international relations. However, they have not been defined in international jurisprudence, and definitions have varied regarding them. The reason for this is that sanctions fall under many forms, and international economic sanctions are among the most important. Forms of punishment within the framework of international relations, the United Nations Charter does not address the definition of sanctions or punishments. It was included in the Treaty of Versailles to indicate the application of pressure under Article 16 of the League of Nations, and the punishment of war criminals under Articles 227 and 1230. It is noted that the United Nations Charter did not use the term “penalty,” although this term was mentioned in the preparatory work for the Charter.
When drafting the United Nations Charter, several amendments were made to the Dumberton Oaks Project, replacing the expression “measures” that do not require the use of force, as stated in Article 41, in place of sanctions or penalties. The formulation of the provisions of the United Nations Charter was influenced by the expressions of sanctions that were used in the era of the League of Nations. Boycott is considered a form of international economic sanctions.
Boycott means that a state stops its economic and financial relations with another state and its nationals with the aim of forcing this state to comply with the demand of the first state. Boycott includes stopping all economic, commercial, financial, investment and social relations with the state targeted by the boycott, the boycott should cover various fields, especially tourism, immigration, travel, and various commercial and financial transactions. The boycott may mean abstaining from and preventing purchases and imports. It may also include preventing exports and prohibiting total or partial shipping to a specific country or countries.
The boycott is decided to put pressure on the targeted country in order to obstruct its foreign trade, disrupt its financial relations, and influence its internal and foreign policy, in the sense of weakening it economically. The success of the economic boycott or not is linked to achieving its goals. Therefore, the boycott must be effective and effective, inflicting serious economic damage on the targeted country in order for it to be considered Successful.
The aim of the boycott is to prevent the targeted country from importing necessary materials and weapons, to obstruct its exports and limit its international activity. Perhaps this makes it extremely influential and severe on the country’s economic balance, because countries have large and intertwined economic relations with other countries, which puts it in a state of continuous dependence on economic cooperation, either for its needs for foreign goods to satisfy its internal needs, or to market its products externally, or either to request assistance and facilities with other mutual relations between countries, and this is what harms the targeted country and curbs its freedom to exercise its sovereign rights. and its international obligations.
Among the international sanctions in the economic field that the UN Security Council resorted to in the Iraq and Kuwait war, the facts of which mimic our current reality, with regard to military operations and the humanitarian situation, which the UN Security Council adopted to protect, adopting a set of measures to end the crisis at that time, Below I present before you Resolution 661, which was issued on August 6, 1990, which came without waiting for a reaction from the Iraqi government to Resolution 660. The resolution imposes comprehensive sanctions on Iraq with the approval of 13 countries and the abstention of both Cuba and Yemen. It was at the beginning of the third point on the list. Measures:
Decides that all states shall prohibit the following:
1. Preventing all countries from importing any goods and products originating from Iraq or Kuwait.
2. Any activities carried out by its nationals or in its territories that would promote the export or transit shipment of any goods or products from Iraq or Kuwait.
3. Any sale or supply carried out by its nationals or carried out from its territories or using ships flying its flag.
In the fourth point of the resolution, it was stated: “It is decided that all countries shall refrain from providing any funds or any other financial or economic resources to the government of Iraq or to any commercial or industrial projects or any public utility projects in Iraq or Kuwait.”
To this point, I believe that the legitimacy of using the boycott weapon has become clear, based on what was stated above in the UN Security Council resolution, and what was stated in Resolution 661, and this is what must be implemented today, whether by a UN resolution or by Arab and international efforts to put pressure on the Zionist entity and achieve more success by harming it and stopping its criminal acts. Right to the Palestinian people.
The Palestinian boycott movement "BDS" and its impact:
in conclusion:
The legality of the boycott weapon does not require proof, and do not wait for legal justification. It is a right of self-defense and there is no dispute about that. In the above, I was highlighting with the intention of reminding and noting that this method has an impact, and I brought up the living examples that we are witnessing at the present time, it has a great place in international law because of its peacefulness and because it is a right that is legitimized when exposed to violations and violations of laws, especially humanitarian issues. The United Nations has included it in its lists of charters and the UN Security Council decides on it as an international decision that must be implemented.
The boycott has become everyone's responsibility, and the youth are at the forefront because they are the group that carries the banner of change and influence. Moreover, the boycott is a weapon of those who are powerless to confront the genocide launched by the Zionist aggression against the children, women and elders of Gaza.
Here we reach a tangible result and a firm conviction that the most effective means and the most powerful weapon to dissuade this enemy lies in unity, agreement, insistence and commitment to implement this goal, and that after what was presented in this humble article and based on the vivid examples and realistic evidence provided, boycott is a legally stipulated weapon. In international laws and contained in United Nations charters, it has proven its effectiveness in defeating colonialism.
Mohamad Al Kasir
