Israel-Palestine conflict shows that international laws have no importance anymore

Thinking about the Israel-Palestine conflict is never easy. But the increasing number of declarations highlights how important it is to consider the factors involved in assessing the situation under applicable law. If seen, the solution to any conflict is political, but the most important fact is that the resolution of armed conflict should be under international humanitarian law. Although international humanitarian law is sometimes considered less effective, we should not lose sight of the fact that its implementation ensures that civilian life is protected.

In international humanitarian law, the first step before carrying out any legal analysis is to classify the situation. A few years ago it was argued that despite the unilateral withdrawal of Israeli troops, the area of ​​the Gaza Strip remained under Israeli occupation. Indeed, when the International Court of Justice ruled in 2004 that Israel was obliged to implement international humanitarian law and international human rights law by virtue of its status as an occupation force in the region, Israel withdrew its troops from Gaza in 2005. Was.

Furthermore, there have been skirmishes and confrontations between Hamas and Israel on a regular basis since 2005. This assessment is unlikely to change after the events of the October 7 conflict. No matter how the conflict is portrayed, it goes without saying that deliberate targeting of civilians and taking hostages should not be permitted. Similarly, no matter how justified the conflict, it is difficult to see how declaring a “total siege” of the Gaza Strip could be consistent with international humanitarian law. ‘Siege’ is not a concept that is widely discussed in international humanitarian law.

Although sieges are not prohibited, their effects constitute violations of international humanitarian law. For example, stopping the provision of food or water supplies could cause the population living in the area to starve. It is prohibited to use famine as a method of war. Similarly, restricting or stopping the movement of people means humanitarian workers cannot carry out their relief work in the affected area. Humanitarian organizations should, however, be allowed to provide assistance to the civilian population and, in accordance with international humanitarian law, parties to the conflict must “facilitate their passage.” In such a situation, a legitimate question arises as to how effective international humanitarian law is. The point to remember in this regard is that third countries, that is, countries that are not parties to the armed conflict, have the responsibility to “ensure respect for international humanitarian law.”

Disclaimer: IndiaTheNews has not edited this news. This news has been published from PTI-language feed.

---

---