Recent legal analysis of the Gaza War calls for a quick response.
According to a recent report, the international community should stop arguing over whether the conditions for war crimes have been met and instead concentrate on stopping the Gaza war now. Professor Janina Dill of Oxford University’s Blavatnik School of Government and co-author Tom Dannenbaum Fletcher School of Tufts University contend in a paper on international law in Gaza that an excessive emphasis on the bar for retroactive accountability for war crimes runs the risk of stifling the role of law in preventing war. They contend that overseas nations should stop providing material aid, such as selling weapons because Israel violates international humanitarian law when the proper threshold is applied.
The authors claim that the terrible number of people killed in the Gaza conflict has highlighted the urgent need for international humanitarian law to serve three different purposes, the first two of which are being overlooked in legal discourse:
Providing “ex-ante action-guidance,” or guidance and instruction to states and individuals in advance, to prevent additional legal infractions;
enabling nations not directly involved in the fight to assess in real-time whether the parties’ actions are lawful and to make sure they are not aiding war crimes indirectly, such as through the sale of weapons through “concurrent third-party evaluation”; use the court’s “ex-post accountability” to hold states and/or individuals liable for transgressions in the past.
They contend that concentrating just on the third role is ineffective. “Retrospective accountability concepts and institutional frameworks are at the center of a lot of the Gaza discussion,” says Janina, a professor of global security at Oxford’s Blavatnik School of Government. “The threshold for being found guilty is rightfully very high, and it will be many years before the International Criminal Court holds Israel’s and/or Hamas’ leaders accountable for war crimes.” Right now, we should concentrate on the present legal evaluations of the legality of upcoming or ongoing actions.
These have the distinct and pressing goal of stopping and limiting illegal harm. Such evaluations and the thresholds that apply to them require more focus.
While it is hardly disputed that Israel has violated international humanitarian law, the document claims that both Israel and Hamas have committed numerous violations. This conflict is not the only one where infractions are common. In Gaza, it is uncommon for the claim of legal conformity to be accompanied by catastrophic damage. Israeli officials, backed by certain legal experts, frequently and proactively assert that their military operations comply with international law.
Legal theories about responsibility have frequently been invoked by both supporters and detractors of specific Israeli military actions.
To voice their harsher condemnation, critics may use the term “war crimes” rather than “mere” violations of international law. However, this then brings up the burden of proof and standards that the International Criminal Court requires to convict someone of a war crime. The authors contend that this can result in a diversionary discussion about those standards that aren’t always pertinent to stopping or restricting legal violations in the modern era.
As the paper notes, “In war, information is partial, cognitive biases are primed, and propaganda machines operate at full tilt.” Therefore, those who support specific military operations may invoke the law’s accountability function as part of a demand to halt legal judgment until disputed facts can be clarified. “International humanitarian law is also meant to constrain belligerents’ actions in advance and to help third states evaluate these actions so they can concurrently meet their obligations,” the authors assert. Whether hostilities are still going on or not, the law must fulfill these duties. The doctrinal tools required to negotiate the ambiguity and contestation inherent in armed conflict must be provided by international law.
One such resource is the paper “International Law in Gaza: Belligerent Intent and Provisional Measures,” which will be published in the American Journal of International Law. It provides opinions and analysis on topics like intent, recklessness, the difference between military and civilian individuals or objects, accusations of genocide, and goals versus means.
The writers disagree with Israel’s assertions that it complies with international humanitarian law. “When the only means to starve militants is deliberately starving the civilian population, the lawful ultimate goal cannot authorize the unlawful means,” is one example of siege and starvation.
A significant portion of the paper centers on the question of intent concerning international law, as Israel and other parties contend that IDF operations and strikes are legitimate because their goal is never to kill or injure civilians. This argument is denied by the writers. It is not necessary for the relevant infractions to intentionally cause forbidden outcomes, like civilian deaths or starvation, for them to be illegal. An application of [existing law] in real time requires that Israel alter its course and that third states halt material support when it is not unduly influenced by standards created for the accountability function of the law.
If the siege is maintained, UN research estimates that it could take 350 years for Gaza to rebuild.
Following Israel’s offensive against Hamas, one of the bloodiest and most damaging military battles since World War II, U.N. experts have long warned that rebuilding Gaza may take decades. A new assessment now, over a year into the battle, uses the word “century” to describe the conflict.
According to a report released Monday by the U.N. Conference on Trade and Development, it may take 350 years for Gaza’s damaged economy to recover to its tenuous prewar level if the war ends tomorrow and things return to normal before Hamas attacks Israel on October 7, 2023. Following Hamas’ takeover of power in 2007, Israel and Egypt put a blockade on Gaza before the war. Gaza’s economy has also been negatively impacted by four prior wars and conflicts between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, which is supported by the West Bank and is backed by the West.
Roads and vital infrastructure are in ruins, entire districts have been destroyed, and the present fighting has left the region in utter devastation. Before reconstruction could start, mountains of debris containing unexploded munitions and decaying remains would need to be removed.
“Once a ceasefire is reached, a return to the pre-October 2023 status quo would not put Gaza on the path needed for recovery and sustainable development,” the research stated. “If the 2007-2022 growth trend returns, with an average growth rate of 0.4 percent, it will take Gaza 350 years just to restore the GDP levels of 2022.” It claimed that even in such a case, GDP per capita would fall “continuously and precipitously” as the population increased. A request for comment on the report received no response from Israeli officials. 350 years is not so much a forecast as a calculation.
It’s been three hundred and fifty years. It would appear as though the wars that England and the Netherlands fought against one another in the late 1600s were still being recovered from. According to the report’s author, Rami Alazzeh, he based the calculation on how long it would take to rebuild the economy at the average GDP growth rate Gaza experienced between 2007 and 2022, as well as how severely the economy was damaged during the first seven months of the conflict. The sum of all commodities and services generated in a nation or area is known as the gross domestic product or GDP.
“The message is that the recovery in Gaza depends on the conditions in which the recovery would happen,” he stated. “We’re not saying that it will take Gaza 350 years to recover because that means that Gaza will never recover.” The World Bank projected damage at the end of January at $18.5 billion, which is almost equal to the total 2022 economic production of Gaza and the West Bank. That was before several extremely damaging Israeli ground operations, such as those in Rafah, a city on the southern border.
A UN body calls for Israel to answer for potential war crimes.
Reuters, Geneva, April 5 A resolution demanding that Israel be held responsible for potential war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Gaza Strip was accepted by the UN Human Rights Council on Friday; however, Israel rejected the resolution as a “distorted text.” Six nations, including the US and Germany, voted against the motion, while 28 voted in favor and 13 abstained. Some Council representatives applauded and cheered the adoption.
The motion emphasized “the need to ensure accountability for all violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law to end impunity”. It additionally voiced “grave concern at reports of serious human rights violations and grave breaches of international humanitarian law, including of possible war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Occupied Palestinian Territory”.
Israel’s permanent ambassador to the UN in Geneva, Meirav Eilon Shahar, charged that the Council had “long abandoned the Israeli people and long defended Hamas.” “According to the resolution before you today, Israel has no right to protect its people, while Hamas has every right to murder and torture innocent Israelis,” she stated before the voting. “A vote ‘Yes’ is a vote for Hamas.”
Ibrahim Khraishi, the ambassador of Palestine, praised the vote but bemoaned the lack of support from certain European nations. “There have been calls for accountability across the world, but that position changes when we’re talking about Israel,” Khraishi stated to the Council. Because the resolution lacked “any reference to the terrorist nature of those actions” and a particular denunciation of Hamas for the Oct. 7 attacks, the United States had vowed to vote against it.
However, it claimed that Israel, an ally, had not gone far enough in reducing the harm to civilians. U.S. Permanent Representative to the Council, Michèle Taylor, stated, “The United States has repeatedly urged Israel to de-conflict military operations against Hamas with humanitarian operations, to avoid civilian casualties and to ensure humanitarian actors can carry out their essential mission in safety.” That has not happened, and in just six months, more humanitarians have been killed in this conflict than in any war of the modern era.
In subsequent resolutions, the Council condemned Israeli settlements in the Golan Heights, which were taken from Syria in 1967, as well as in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. It also supported the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination. According to the report, they posed a severe threat to the future sustainability of an Israeli-Palestinian state. The only international organization created to defend human rights globally is the Council, which convenes multiple times a year. It can authorize probes and raise the level of scrutiny of nations’ human rights records.
IN CONCLUSION
To protect international law and provide victims of atrocities justice, accountability for war crimes in Gaza is essential. Maintaining open investigations and prosecuting offenders sends a powerful message against impunity and promotes regional peace and stability over the long run. International organizations and local stakeholders must collaborate to make sure that everyone accountable, regardless of position or affiliation, faces legal repercussions. In addition to being morally required, achieving accountability is a critical first step in rapprochement and long-term conflict resolution.
