Can Israel and Hamas be held accountable for war crimes against civilians?

International humanitarian law  – the law of armed conflict – aims to constrain how wars are fought. It is designed to protect noncombatants and limit the means of warfare. As each hour brings news of further horror in the Israel-Hamas conflict, what role should international law be playing? And does it actually have any capacity to constrain the behaviour of the combatants? A humanitarian nightmare is unfolding On  7 October , the Hamas militant group launched thousands of rockets against Israel in advance of a ground attack. Militants  killed  more than 1,400 people and wounded 3,400 others in towns and kibbutzim across southern Israel. It was the  deadliest day  for Jewish people since the Holocaust. Most of those killed were civilians, including many  children  who were shot, blown up or burned to death. Hundreds of young people were also  massacred  at a music festival, and Hamas took around 200  hostages  back to Gaza. Israel is responding to this attack with  airstrikes , which have to date  killed  at least 4,000 people in Gaza and injured thousands more. The vast majority of these casualties are Palestinian civilians. Israel has also rapidly mobilised around  360,000 reservists  in preparation for an anticipated ground offensive on Gaza. In recent days, a blast at a  Gaza hospital  killed hundreds, including patients and displaced people seeking sanctuary. Hamas and several Arab states have  blamed  Israel for the explosion, while Israel has  blamed  Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The situation in Gaza is dire for people with urgent needs, including  5,000 women  due to give birth this month and  newborn babies  whose families cannot find drinking water to prepare formula. Meanwhile, Israel has  cut off  water, electricity and fuel supplies to Gaza and ordered a  total siege  of the territory. Israel has also ordered residents of northern Gaza to  evacuate  to the south. Aid agencies have been unable to provide desperately needed  humanitarian assistance  to civilians through the border crossing with Egypt. [caption id=“attachment_13277492” align=“alignnone” width=“640”] Palestinians look for survivors after Israeli airstrikes in Gaza City, Gaza Strip. AP[/caption] Prior to this latest horrific escalation, Gaza was already entrenched in a  humanitarian crisis . The situation now is beyond comprehension. Léo Cans , the head of mission for Doctors Without Borders in Palestine, said hospitals are being overwhelmed and hundreds will die without electricity being restored: This is something that is known and could be prevented just by letting fuel and supplies inside Gaza. What is ahead of us is beyond words […] at the end of the road it’s a big wall, and this big wall is full of dead people. Principles governing the conduct of war International humanitarian law is a pragmatic body of law. Its existence acknowledges the inevitability of armed conflict and it aims to mitigate war’s impact on people. International humanitarian law is not, in itself, concerned with the justifications for why combatants engage in war. It applies even in situations where a state is entitled to act in self-defence under broader international law. We are witnessing gross violations of fundamental humanitarian law principles in the conflict. Here are some examples: Distinction between civilians and combatants Attacks are considered  unlawful  if they are:

• directed specifically against civilians
• launched indiscriminately without distinction between civilians and combatants
• or directed at military targets but anticipated to cause harm to civilians disproportionate to the military advantage being sought.

Methods of warfare It is  unlawful  to conduct war in a manner that causes unnecessary suffering. Attacks targeting civilians are fundamentally unnecessary and, therefore, illegal. Collective punishment The fourth Geneva Convention prohibits  collective punishment :

No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.

This prohibition reflects the idea of  individual criminal responsibility  under international criminal law. Prosecutions for breaches of humanitarian law are directed towards individuals who can be proven responsible, rather than against states or populations. [caption id=“attachment_13277522” align=“alignnone” width=“640”] Wounded Palestinians arrive at al-Shifa hospital following Israeli airstrikes on Gaza City, Gaza Strip. AP[/caption] Humanitarian protection Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions requires  humane protection  for all people in enemy hands. It prohibits murder and hostage-taking. It also requires the provision of humanitarian assistance to all people without distinction. Obligations of occupying powers It is arguable Israel is a de facto occupying power of the Gaza Strip because it has such a  high level of control  over people’s lives. For example, it has the ability to shut off supplies of essential life services. The argument Israel is occupying Gaza will be strengthened should Israel launch a ground invasion. As such, the rules of international humanitarian law on occupiers are also relevant. These include an obligation to  protect  civilians from attacks and  respect their human rights . Hamas and humanitarian law International humanitarian law applies to all combatants, whether they are state or non-state actors. UN independent experts say Hamas has clearly committed  war crimes , including the murders and hostage-taking of Israeli civilians. Hamas also put Palestinian civilians in harm’s way by  telling them  not to evacuate to southern Gaza, as ordered by Israel. The group has a history of using civilians as  human shields  as a  strategic tool  in conflicts with Israel. However, holding Hamas accountable for violating international humanitarian law is very challenging. As a non-state actor, Hamas is not a member of forums like the United Nations, where pressure may be brought to bear on member states. If individual Hamas militants are apprehended, they could be charged with  war crimes  and tried in Israeli courts or the International Criminal Court. Even though Hamas is a non-state actor,  Palestine  has accepted the court’s jurisdiction. In fact, the International Criminal Court opened an  investigation  into alleged war crimes in Palestine in 2021. The current Gaza conflict would fall within the court’s mandate and could lead it to direct greater energy to that ongoing investigation. The court’s chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, said on 13 October:

We have jurisdiction for any Rome Statute crimes […] committed by Palestinians in Israel and also we have clear jurisdiction for any crimes committed by the forces of Israel in Palestine.

More from Explainers

Trump’s 25% tariffs on India: From gems to textiles, what will get costlier Why Russia earthquake set off tsunami alerts across US

Israel and humanitarian law Israel and its allies also have a complex relationship with international humanitarian law. One key issue is Israel’s right to self-defence in response to the October 7 attack by Hamas. International law confirms a state may use force to  defend  itself in response to an armed attack. Israel, the United States and other allies  contend  the Hamas attack triggered Israel’s  right to self-defence . [caption id=“attachment_13277532” align=“alignnone” width=“640”] Palestinians collect water in Nuseirat camp in the central Gaza Strip, during ongoing Israeli bombardment on Tuesday. AP[/caption] But there is a distinction to be drawn between a state’s right to self-defence and what that right permits, in the sense of how war is conducted. For example, UN independent experts have  condemned  Israel’s “indiscriminate military attacks” against Palestinian civilians:

This amounts to collective punishment. There is no justification for violence that indiscriminately targets innocent civilians, whether by Hamas or Israeli forces. This is absolutely prohibited under international law and amounts to a war crime.

Neither  Israel  nor the  United States  is a party to the International Criminal Court. Neither state would accept the court’s jurisdiction over its nationals. Indeed, the United States has  condemned  the court’s decision to open its investigation into alleged war crimes in Palestine. In time, the court may seek to hold Israeli nationals accountable for war crimes, but its capacity to do so seems very limited. What about the United Nations? UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has  called  for an immediate ceasefire. He said the grievances of the Palestinian people after more than 50 years of occupation do not “justify the acts of terror committed by Hamas”. And he said the Hamas attack on October 7 does not “justify the collective punishment of the Palestinian people”. UN human rights chief Volker Türk has also  warned  all parties that violations of humanitarian law will have consequences, and those who commit war crimes will be held accountable. But the  UN Security Council , which is charged with maintaining international peace and security, has yet to agree on a  statement  on the conflict. The  debate  in the council since the latest escalation in this perpetual conflict demonstrates the deep diplomatic fault lines between the key global players and the warring parties. At this point, a sad reality is that international law and global institutions can do little to constrain the actions of the combatants on both sides or provide assistance to the millions at grave risk of harm. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the  original article .