A recent legal paper has highlighted the importance of the international community prioritizing action regarding the ongoing Gaza conflict rather than solely debating the criteria for war crimes. Authored by Professor Janina Dill from the Blavatnik School of Government at Oxford University and co-author Tom Dannenbaum from the Fletcher School at Tufts University, the paper suggests that an overemphasis on retrospective accountability may obstruct the application of law in reducing the conflict’s detrimental effects.
Violations of International Humanitarian Law
The authors assert that both Hamas and Israel have committed various violations of international humanitarian law. They contend that current discussions often revolve around past accountability instead of real-time legal evaluations, which could prevent additional violations. The paper identifies three critical functions of international humanitarian law that are being neglected:
- Offering proactive guidance to states and individuals to prevent potential violations.
- Allowing countries external to the conflict to assess the legality of actions during hostilities and ensure they do not indirectly contribute to war crimes through practices such as arms sales.
- Facilitating retrospective accountability through legal frameworks.
Need for Immediate Legal Guidance
Professor Dill notes that existing debates frequently focus on the legal structures for accountability, detracting from the urgent evaluation of whether ongoing actions comply with humanitarian law. She emphasizes that the complex nature of armed conflict calls for immediate legal guidance to restrict unlawful actions instead of postponing assessments until sufficient evidence is available for possible trials.
Examining Intent in the Gaza Conflict
The paper, titled “International Law in Gaza: Belligerent Intent and Provisional Measures,” which is set to be published in the American Journal of International Law, offers a detailed examination of the concept of intent within the context of the conflict. The authors argue that Israel’s claims of lawful military operations frequently contrast with the humanitarian consequences of such actions. They cite examples where military pursuits result in civilian suffering, indicating that these actions cannot be justified under international law.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the research advocates for a shift toward immediate legal interventions that can mitigate the ongoing humanitarian impacts of the conflict and emphasizes the necessity for all states to reassess their support for the parties engaged in hostilities.
Source: Oxford University News.
