Whether Israel’s enforcement of its naval blockade against the Mavi Marmara on 31 May 2010 was in conformity with international humanitarian law has been recently considered by four quasi-judicial bodies. This chapter compares and contrasts the four reports produced by these quasi-judicial bodies and identifies significant discrepancies between them as to the interpretation and application of international humanitarian law (the law of naval blockade). In the light of this, this chapter then locates the role of quasi-judicial bodies within the broader context of international adjudication, specifically, and although recognising the clear benefits of quasi-judicial bodies in a world order where judicial bodies proper are often unable to exercise their jurisdiction, this chapter flags up some of the potential problems that this new type of adjudication yields for international law generally and international dispute resolution in particular.