The Paralysis of International Law in Gaza

Mehak Fatima

When the bombs fall on Gaza and we watch the misery of its citizens on our screens, one question pops up in our minds: What is the point of International Law if it cannot ease the suffering of Palestinians? Despite clear humanitarian norms, the Geneva Conventions, the UN Charter and customary rules of war, Gaza has witnessed repeated violations and hindrances to humanitarian aid.

International law in Gaza has failed not by absence, but by selective and biased enforcement.

The recent interception of Sumud Flotilla and arrest of the activists is a clear violation of international law. The Gaza conflict raises the concern that international law is selectively applied, protecting allies rather than prioritizing humanity, a pinching reality that becomes especially stark in case of asymmetric conflicts.

At the core lies the International Humanitarian Law. The Geneva Conventions along with customary rules of war are grounded in three principles: distinction, proportionality and necessity. The armed forces must distinguish between combatants and civilians, ensuring that civilian harm is not excessive and use force only when necessary. However, in Gaza, these laws seem to exist only on paper. When the common citizens and the hospitals are bombed, can we still claim that these laws protect civilians irrespective of their identity?

The real flaw lies not in absence of laws but in their enforcement. The implementation of international law is influenced by political biases and selective application (Bright Laws, 2025). The UN and the ICJ have both struggled to respond effectively to the situation in Gaza, constrained by the veto powers, alliances and strategic interests. When major states protect their allies from accountability, the laws become a tool of convenience rather than universal protection for the powerless.

Israeli strikes have hit the hospitals, refugee camps and school in Gaza—zones that must be protected under International Humanitarian Law. The blockade of aid convoys, starving the people of food and medicines is beyond cruel, it violates the very essence of humanitarian law. Worse that those, who bravely attempt to deliver aid are intercepted and detained, the interception of Sumud Flotilla is the most recent example.

Humanitarian principles lose meaning when civilian suffering becomes negotiable under geopolitical convenience.

The gap becomes even starker under asymmetric warfare. Israel, a sovereign state with advanced military capacities, is engaged in a conflict with Hamas, a non-state actor. According to ICRC, the common Article 3 provides a fundamental set of in non-international armed conflicts, even for internal conflicts or struggles involving armed groups (ICRC, 2014). However, the reality is that Hamas, not being a state party to the Geneva Conventions including protections humane treatment, prohibition of hostage taking and fair trial guarantees operates beyond the established limits of international law, while Israel remains legally bound to them.

This imbalanced framework creates a vacuum in accountability where one side claims legal legitimacy, while the other operates outside law’s reach. While Israel is continuously bombing the cities, as a result, civilians are the ones who suffer the most, caught in the crossfire of a conflict where international law struggles to adapt.

The issue is no longer whether international law has failed in Gaza—it has, in practice. Therefore, it must adapt the realities of modern warfare. Humanitarian law was established for traditional, state-to-state wars, rather than asymmetric conflicts where advanced militaries face armed groups operating among civilians. To maintain the relevance, international law must reform its accountability mechanisms and ensure the enforcement of law without any political biases. Above all, International Humanitarian Law (IHL) must ensure the protection of civilians and the preservation of human dignity.

For international law to matter, it must evolve beyond paper promises and confront asymmetric realities.

The Gaza conflict has not only highlighted the limitations of international law, but it has also the reignited conversations about justice, accountability and the need for reform. The challenge now is to make these laws matter not only on paper but also in practice starting with implementation in Gaza. If humanitarian law is to survive the test of asymmetric warfare, it must evolve into a system that treats every civilian life as equally sacred especially in case of Gaza where the need for accountability of the violator and protection of the people of Gaza is most urgent.

The author is a scholar of International Relations at Air University, Islamabad.