Understanding the Laws of Armed Conflict in the Context of the Israel-Hamas Conflict

As military operations resume in Gaza, a crucial analysis emerges around the application of the laws of armed conflict (LOAC), presenting complex ethical and moral considerations. This concern has been amplified by the escalation of tensions following Hamas’s attacks on Israel on October 7 and the subsequent military response from Israel. This discussion delves into the intricacies of LOAC as they apply to both parties involved in the conflict, embarked upon by a panel of distinguished experts.

The Legal Framework

John Bellinger, adjunct senior fellow in international and national security law at the Council on Foreign Relations, initiated a discussion focused on the rules governing hostilities between Hamas and Israel. He emphasized that understanding these laws is a daunting task for non-specialists, given the fervent claims of violations by both sides.

Lieutenant Colonel Geoffrey Corn, a director at Texas Tech University’s School of Law, explained that international humanitarian law, often referred to as the law of armed conflict, serves to regulate the conduct of hostilities. This body of law encompasses protections for victims of war and applies regardless of whether the parties involved are state actors or nonstate actors like Hamas.

Equality of Application

A foundational principle of LOAC is the equality of application. Corn highlighted that all parties engaged in armed conflict are bound by these laws, irrespective of whether they formally recognize them. This one-sided obligation necessitates compliance from all combatants, including entities like Hamas, which may not be party to the relevant treaties.

Janina Dill, co-director of the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law, and Armed Conflict, echoed this sentiment, stating that the applicability of these rules does not hinge on the acknowledgment of either party. The essence of these laws centers around compliance not just to counter the actions of the opposing party but to uphold humanity itself.

War Crimes and Accountability

As the discussion shifted towards the conduct of Hamas, Dill categorized the attacks on October 7 as a laundry list of war crimes. She cited actions such as hostage-taking and willful killing of civilians as clear violations, given their lack of legitimate military purpose. Corn supported her assertion, pointing out that the evidence presented, including videos depicting blatant war crimes, further solidified these claims.

Alternatively, the conversation turned to Israel’s actions, with questions about whether these too could amount to war crimes. The complexity arose from the necessity to ascertain the intent behind military operations and their compliance with LOAC. Bellinger expressed that while allegations of violations were serious, they require a thorough investigation into the rationale behind military strikes and whether adequate measures were taken to mitigate civilian casualties.

Examining Specific Incidents

Panelists analyzed specific incidents, such as precision strikes on locations known to harbor Hamas leaders within civilian refugee camps. Corn argued that such decisions must undergo rigorous scrutiny, focusing on the proportionality of military objectives against collateral civilian damage. Dill added that every casualty must be accounted for in assessing compliance with international laws.

The Role of Humanitarian Organizations

In the midst of these military actions, bodies like the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) seek to mediate and facilitate humanitarian access amidst the ongoing violence. Patrick Hamilton, ICRC’s head of delegation for the U.S. and Canada, stressed their commitment to protecting and assisting populations affected by the conflict. He noted the pressing need to engage both Hamas and Israeli forces to ensure adherence to LOAC and provide for the basic humanitarian needs of the affected citizens.

The U.S.’s Support and Obligations

A critical aspect of the conversation surrounded the responsibilities of supporting states, particularly the U.S., in ensuring that their intervention or support aligns with international humanitarian obligations. This dialogue was underscored by the acknowledgment that mere acknowledgment of LOAC is insufficient; tangible conditions must be imposed on military support to ensure compliance.

Dill pointed out that the U.S. has considerable influence over Israel, and such influence should translate into concrete steps fostering adherence to humanitarian laws. Without this, U.S. support risks violation of international law principles.

Conclusion: A Complex and Ongoing Issue

The complexities of applying LOAC to the Israel-Hamas conflict reveal not just a battle of military might but a moral and legal struggle with profound implications. Panelists urged caution against oversimplifications and called for a nuanced view that recognizes the ongoing nature of these violations amid an intensely tragic backdrop of human suffering. The law serves as both a shield for civilians and a mechanism for accountability, but its application requires diligence and unwavering commitment from all parties involved.

This intricate landscape is ongoing, requiring continuous reflection, vigilance, and dialogue as the situation evolves. The panel’s expertise underscores an urgent responsibility to respect the laws of armed conflict, uphold humanitarian principles, and seek to mitigate the impact of warfare on civilians.