Accountability in the Gaza Conflict: Is International Law Efficacious?
The question of holding Israel accountable for its actions in Gaza is a complex and multifaceted issue. It touches upon the crucial binding nature of international law in conflict zones, especially when international law is concerned. The recent escalation in the Gaza region has rekindled debates on the effectiveness of international legal mechanisms in ensuring accountability and justice, particularly when powerful nations are involved.
International Law and Its Challenges
The Existence of International Law: The assertion that international law does not exist over Palestine is a stark assertion and a matter of intense debate. While it is true that the international community has yet to establish a comprehensive enforcement mechanism for international law, this does not mean that such laws are non-existent or irrelevant (see for more information).
Post-World War II tribunals, such as the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), have laid important groundwork for the legal basis of enforcing international justice. However, the current geopolitical landscape often poses significant challenges to the implementation of these laws. The United States, in particular, wields immense power, which can influence the outcome of such initiatives (see UN Peacekeeping Operations).
The Role of International Organizations and Accusations
A number of international organizations, such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the Red Cross, regularly issue reports and accusations regarding alleged human rights abuses and war crimes. However, the credibility and effectiveness of these organizations have been questioned, especially when it comes to their investigations (refer to @HRW's report on the biased approach towards Israel).
The methodology of these organizations often relies on anecdotal evidence, which may not hold up in court. A prime example is the Amnesty International's claim that seeing an Israeli soldier eating breakfast could be considered a potential war crime, which lacks substantial evidence. To qualify as a war crime, it is necessary to determine what information was available to the person making a decision to attack and to assess the intent behind the action (refer to ICRC's Guide to International Humanitarian Law).
Accusations and the Reviews
In response to the Gaza conflict of 2014 and 2023, there have been detailed reviews and investigations. An Australian Air Chief Marshal was sent to review the incident involving the aid convoy, and while mistakes were identified, no evidence of intent to commit a war crime was found. Similarly, a commission from ten countries, led by a former high-ranking NATO commander, reviewed Israeli behavior during the 2014 conflict, concluding that while there were areas for improvement, Israel met the Geneva Conventions requirements with a significant margin (refer to UN Resolution BCR(7)/2014/6).
Israel has its own internal mechanisms to hold its military accountable. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) conducts investigations and prosecutions of war criminals among its soldiers, providing instructions to soldiers on proper behavior. However, the conscripts in the IDF may have forgotten or failed to understand their training, leading to occasional lapses in behavior (refer to JPost article on IDF accountability).
Conclusion: The Way Forward
The concept of accountability in the Gaza conflict is a critical issue that must be addressed. While the international community recognizes the importance of upholding international law, the lack of a robust enforcement mechanism can hinder effective justice. It is crucial for international legal mechanisms to continue to evolve and for the global community to work towards creating a framework that can hold all parties accountable, regardless of their power or influence.