miles (nm) or 22 kilometers(km), granting them an area known as a territorial sea.56 Additionally, the Convention states that coastal states have the right to an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in which they are entitled to the living and non-living natural resources up to 200 nm (370.4 km) from the shore.57 Palestinians’ right to access their full EEZ was violated by the 1994 GazaJericho agreement signed by Israel and the PLO, which outlines a Maritime Activity Zone extending only 20 nm (37 km)58 from Gaza’s shore, and the 2005 Bertini Commitment which supports a fishing zone of 12 nm (22.2 km) from shore.59 Israel, however, has failed to respect even those fishing zones demarcated by these agreements,60 enforcing fishing boundaries as close as three nm (5.5 km) from shore that it regularly changes at will.61 In April 2016, for example, Israel widened the fishing zone from six nm (11 km) to nine nm (16.6 km) in some parts of the coast but maintained it at six nm in others.62 Only two months later in June, all fishing zones were restricted to six nm. During periods of conflict between Israel and Gaza all fishing is prohibited, as Israel often adjusts the fishing range in a punitive manner depending on its interactions with the Hamas government in Gaza.63 This amounts to collective punishment against the entire population of Gaza, which is in contravention to Article 33 of the GCIV.64 The pattern and timing of maritime boundary restrictions also point to another impetus for decreasing the fishing zone – Israel’s desire to protect its own gas 56 It should be noted that while Israel is not a signatory to this convention, Article 3 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea has been declared by the International Court of Justice as reflecting customary international law. See, Territorial Dispute and Maritime Delimitation (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Judgment, 2012 ICJ, Rep. 1, 43, 50, 51, 66, 111 (Nov. 19); see also, United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 10 December 1982, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1833- 1835, art. 3. 57 Id., art. 56. 58 Gaza-Jericho Agreement, Annex I: Protocol Concerning Withdrawal of Israeli Military Forces and Security Arrangements, PLO-Isr., 4 May 1994, art. XI, available at: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/ ForeignPolicy/Peace/Guide/Pages/Gaza-Jericho%20Agremeent%20Annex%20I.aspx [accessed 18 August 2017]. 59 OCHA oPt, Humanitarian Monitoring Report –Bertini Commitments, April 2005, 1, available at: https://www.ochaopt.org/sites/default/files/ochaHumMonRpt0405.pdf 60 As these agreements give Palestinians far fewer nautical miles than they are allotted within international law, the purpose of mentioning them here is not to affirm their legality but rather to note that Israel has failed to comply with even its own commitments. 61 OCHA opt, Restricted Livelihood: Gaza’s Fishermen, July 2013, 1, available at: https://www.ochaopt. org/sites/default/files/ocha_opt_gaza_fishermen_case_study_2013_07_11_english.pdf [hereinafter OCHA, Restricted Livelihood]. 62 Al-Haq, “Israel’s Systematic Attacks Against Palestinian Fishermen,” 31 May 2016, available at: 2017, http://www.alhaq.org/documentation/weekly-focuses/1048-israels-systematic-attacks-againstpalestinian-fishermen [accessed 18 August 2017] [hereinafter Al-Haq, “Systematic Attacks Against Fishermen”]. 63 B’Tselem, “Destroying Gaza’s Fishing Sector,” supra note 54. 64 B’Tselem, “Restrictions on Fishing Range,” supra note 55. 28