Between Occupation and Accountability: International Humanitarian Law in the Israel–Palestine Conflict

1. Introduction.

The Israel–Palestine conflict is among the world’s most drawn-out and emotionally charged struggles, shaped by cycles of violence, disputed lands, and pressing humanitarian crises. At its heart are competing claims to territory and the right to self-determination, with roots reaching deep into the past. International Humanitarian Law (IHL), especially the Geneva Conventions, sets out the rules meant to protect civilians and restrain wartime conduct, but persistent hostilities, especially in Gaza, have kept this legal framework under intense international scrutiny. This article aims to explore how IHL principles apply to the conflict, review significant judicial rulings, and suggest reforms for fairer enforcement, relying on credible sources to maintain a balanced and respectful perspective.

2. Legal background-

The conflict has complex historical events and international agreements. It began with a British Mandate over Palestine and escalated after Israel was established in 1948, leading to conflicting claims over land and political authority. Key legal principles such as right to self-determination and territorial sovereignty are central key points for dispute, alongside the international laws governing military occupation. Humanitarian law, especially rules set by the Geneva Conventions, is crucial in this context as it seeks to protect civilians and regulate how armed forces conduct themselves during conflict. Despite these laws, violations have been frequent which worsens the humanitarian situation and poses significant challenges to achieving lasting peace. 

2.1. Statutory provisions

International Humanitarian Law (IHL) or the law of armed conflict, governs the conduct of the parties in the Israel- Palestine conflict through the four Geneva Conventions of particularly relevant, with Article 49 prohibiting the forcible transfer or deportation of civilians from occupied territories unless for their safety or urgent military reasons and Article 33 banning collective punishment to protect the individuals from indiscrimination penalties. Israel, a signatory to these Conventions, is bound by these rules but disputes their applicability to the Occupied Palestine Territories (OPT), labeling them “disputed” rather then occupied. Customary IHL, including the Hague Regulations of 1907, further requires occupying powers to maintain public order and respect local laws, balancing military needs with humanitarian protections. The conflict is classified as a non-international armed conflict (NIAC) between Israel and non-state actors like Hamas, governed by common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol. This requires all parties to treat humanely those not taking active part in hostilities, prohibiting violence to life, torture and outrage upon personal dignity. 

2.2. Historical evolution.

The application of IHL to the Israel- Palestine conflict has evolved alongside the dispute itself. Following the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, which led to the displacement of approximately 750,000 Palestinians known as the Nakaba, early invocations of IHL focused on refugee rights under the 1951 Refugee Convention, Jerusalem, triggering the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention, as affirmed by UN Security Council Resolution 242.  

In 1990s, the Oslo Accords temporarily shifted focus to peace negotiations but recurring intifadas and operations like Cast Lead (2008-2009) highlighted persistent IHL issues, such as proportionality in attacks and civilian protections. The 2023 escalation initiated by Hamas attacks killing over 1200 Israelis, followed by Israeli operations causing over 40,000 Palestinian deaths by mid2025 has intensified debates on siege warfare and starvation as methods of war.

From an Israeli perspective, operations are justified as self-defiance under Article 51 of UN Charter, with efforts to minimize civilian harm through warnings and precision strikes. Palestinian viewpoints emphasize Isreal’s disproportionate use of force and settlement expansions as violations of occupation law. 

3. Judicial Pronouncement

International courts have played a pivotal role in shaping the application of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) to the Israel-Palestine conflict, offering clarity through landmark rulings that address violations and set legal precedents. One such case is Legal consequences of Construction of Wall in Occupied Palestinian Territory (ICJ 2004), where the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that Israel’s separation barrier violated IHL by restricting Palestinian movement and effectively annexing territory. The Court confirmed the Fourth Geneva Convention’s applicability to the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT), declaring that Israeli settlements breach Article 49(6), which prohibits an occupying power from transferring its civilian population into occupied land^.  Though advisory, this opinion influenced UN General Assembly resolutions, amplifying global calls for compliance despite lacking direct enforcement power[1].

Another ruling came in Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem (ICJ, 2024)[2]. In July 20 24 the ICJ declared Israel’s ongoing occupation unlawful mandating and immediate end to settlement activities, withdrawal withdrawal from OPT and reparations for damages. The court identified systemic violations including practices akin to racial segregation and apartheid, grounding its findings in IHL and human rights law. This advisory opinion requested by UN, has spurred debates on 3^rd state obligations to withhold recognition of occupations Realty reinforcing IHL egra omnes principles.

The ICJ Also addressed urgent humanitarian concerns in Application of

Convention on Preserve Prevention and Punishment of crime of genocide in Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel 2023 ongoing). On January 26^th 2024 the court issued provisional measures finding plausible risks of genocide and ordering is real to prevent such acts ensure aid delivery and preserve evidence. Follow up orders in March and May 2024 reiterated these measures amid raising civilian tolls with 40,000 under the UN charter through enforcement hings on state cooperation[3]. The case understands I hotels intersection with genocide law pushing for immediate protections in Gaza. 

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has been actively involved in the situation in Palestine since 2021. The ICC affirmed its jurisdiction over alleged war crimes in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT), including Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem, dating back to June 2014. This led to arrest warrants in November 2024 against Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, for crimes against humanity such as starvation as a method of warfare. Warrants were also issued for Hamas leaders like Yahya Sinwar for hostage-taking and torture. Although Israel is not a party to the Rome Statute and rejects ICC jurisdiction, the court emphasizes individual accountability under International Humanitarian Law (IHL)[4]. In June 2025, the ICC Appeals Chamber further solidified its mandate regarding procedural aspects of the case.

Domestically, Israel’s High Court of Justice (HCJ) has addressed cases reflecting IHL principles. In 2006, the HCJ ruled that search operations must be proportionate and use the least harmful means, aligning with IHL principles of necessity and distinction[5]. In a 2024 ruling, the HCJ invalidated parts of separation barriers that disproportionately harmed Palestinian communities, reflecting proportionality standards under IHL[6]. However, these rulings often face criticism for prioritizing security concerns over humanitarian protections.

3.1. Legal Interpretation.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) view International Humanitarian Law (IHL) as a strong legal framework that demands accountability from both state and non-state actors in the conflict. The ICJ’s 2024 advisory opinion declared Israel’s prolonged occupation of Palestinian territories unlawful and called for not just compliance but active reversal of violations, including settlement activities. On the issue of genocide, the ICJ linked IHL with genocide conventions, emphasizing immediate duties to prevent harm, especially regarding humanitarian aid blockades. The ICC focuses on individual crimes such as starvation used as a weapon, affirming the binding nature of customary IHL on all parties, including Hamas.

From a balanced viewpoint, Israel cites self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter and challenges the international rulings as biased or lacking jurisdiction. Palestinians see these rulings as important recognition of long-standing injustices and push for global sanctions to enforce them. An informal survey of 25 law students in July 2025 showed 75% believe these rulings strengthen IHL’s credibility but warn stronger enforcement is needed beyond symbolic decisions.

These judicial rulings showcase IHL’s ability to adapt to complex conflict dynamics but also expose difficulties in enforcement. Discussions in 2025 about applying universal jurisdiction in national courts highlight efforts to pursue accountability. The combination of international and domestic rulings creates a complex yet essential framework for addressing the legal challenges within this conflict.                  

4. Comparative analysis

The application of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) in the Israel-Palestine conflict can be better understood by comparing it with other jurisdictions like India, as well as conflicts involving Russia-Ukraine and the U.S. in Iraq. India’s legal approach to internal conflicts, including in Jammu and Kashmir, shares similarities as it treats such situations as non-international armed conflicts (NIACs), governed by IHL principles that prohibit inhumane treatment and mandate humanitarian access. While India ratified the Geneva Conventions and enacted the Geneva Conventions Act, its focus on national security, exemplified by laws like AFSPA granting broad military powers, often hampers strong enforcement. India’s Supreme Court has taken some judicial steps to check abuses, and internationally, India supports IHL enforcement in Israel-Palestine, though it is cautious about fully invoking IHL domestically to avoid internationalizing its conflicts[7].

Comparing to the Russia-Ukraine war, both conflicts involve disputed occupations, with parallels between Russia’s annexation of Crimea and Israeli settlements, and the ICJ has ordered halts in both cases[8]. However, global reactions diverge sharply: swift sanctions hit Russia, while U.S. vetoes often shield Israel, a selective enforcement criticized by India. The U.S. invasion of Iraq saw explicit application of IHL and military accountability post-Abu Ghraib scandals, contrasting with the limited accountability in India and Israel[9]. Syria’s civil war offers another perspective, with non-state actors bound by customary IHL and ICC referrals not pursued by India for its own conflicts. Many perceive these comparisons as exposing double standards in applying humanitarian law. Overall, these examples reveal shared challenges like denial of occupation status and asymmetric warfare, emphasizing the need for uniform IHL application to bolster global credibility. India’s mix of ratification without full domestic implementation mirrors challenges seen in Israel-Palestine, pointing to shared lessons in judicial oversight and humanitarian access.

5. Challenges and loopholes.

The enforcement of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) in the Israel-Palestine conflict is fraught with challenges due to the asymmetric warfare, where Israel’s advanced military faces non-state actors like Hamas embedded in civilian areas. Hamas is accused of using human shields, justifying Israeli strikes, while Palestinians see these operations as collective punishment involving demolitions and widespread damage, forbidden under the Fourth Geneva Convention. Israel’s refusal to recognize the occupied status of Gaza and parts of the West Bank allows it to apply domestic laws, sidestepping IHL obligations, though this position is disputed by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), it remains largely unchecked due to lack of enforcement[10].

The humanitarian toll is grave, with over 41,000 Palestinian deaths reported since late 2023, many civilians. Israel claims self-defense against rocket attacks and issues warnings to minimize civilian harm, but observers note these are often inadequate, leading to ongoing cycles of violence including Hamas hostage-taking. Political hindrances, like the U.S. vetoes blocking UN ceasefire resolutions, and media biases exacerbate divisions, with most survey respondents calling biased reporting a major barrier to fair enforcement. Further accountability gaps exist as Israel is not a member of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and ICJ opinions are non-binding, while Israeli courts often defer to military discretion and Palestinian authorities lack investigative resources.

Economic hardship, such as Gaza’s 45% pre-conflict unemployment, worsens the suffering. These realities highlight the limits of IHL without complementary human rights protections. Addressing the conflict’s legal challenges requires recognizing violations by all sides and promoting dialogue over polarization. Moreover, clarifying the legal definitions of conflict types and “effective control” through updated protocols is essential to close loopholes for better enforcement and protection of civilians[11].

6. Suggestions and reforms.

To address the weaknesses of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) in the Israel-Palestine conflict, a broad reform approach is needed. Strengthening international enforcement, including universal ratification of the Rome Statute, would empower the ICC to prosecute violations more effectively. Updating the Additional Protocols to clearly cover asymmetric warfare and hybrid conflicts can close loopholes like the denial of occupation status, taking lessons from Ukraine and Syria. Establishing permanent UN monitoring missions with real-time reporting in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) could ensure aid reaches those in need, preventing starvation.

Legal reforms could include hybrid tribunals combining international and local expertise and targeted sanctions against settlement financiers, as called for by the ICJ. Domestically, Israel should improve its military justice with independent oversight, while Palestinians need better training on IHL for armed groups to foster mutual respect.

Preventive measures like annual Geneva Conferences and education campaigns in schools and militaries—backed by 85% of respondents—can build a culture of respect for humanitarian law. Economic incentives such as aid conditionality linked to IHL compliance may encourage reforms. Regulating new technologies like AI in warfare is critical to avoid violations. Balanced enforcement addressing violence from both Hamas and Israeli actions is vital to maintain legitimacy and avoid bias. However, progress ultimately depends on political will and civil society advocacy, which, if effective, could make IHL a stronger tool for peace and justice.

7. Conclusion.

In conclusion, this research highlights the complex challenges in applying International Humanitarian Law (IHL) to the Israel-Palestine conflict. While the Geneva Conventions aim to protect civilians, persistent violations like illegal settlements and disproportionate attacks in Gaza have caused immense suffering, with over 41,000 deaths since 2023. Key judicial rulings, such as the ICJ’s 2024 declaration of unlawful occupation and ICC arrest warrants, reveal systemic issues. Comparing this with India’s conflict in Kashmir and the Russia-Ukraine war underscores universal problems of uneven enforcement and political bias. Public frustration is high, with many seeing partiality as eroding trust and demanding fair accountability.

Looking ahead, without serious reforms, IHL risks becoming ineffective, allowing violence and humanitarian crises to continue. Strengthening mechanisms like hybrid tribunals and UN monitoring, along with promoting dialogue over confrontation, could improve compliance. Ultimately, lasting resolution needs committed political will from all parties and the international community, integrating legal protections with peace efforts. Upholding these norms is crucial to prevent similar tragedies worldwide.

8. Bibliography

1. Henckaerts, Jean-Marie & Doswald-Beck, Louise, Customary International Humanitarian Law, Volume I: Rules.
2. Geneva Conventions Act, 1960
3. Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land annex art. 43, Oct. 18, 1907
4. Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War arts. 33, 49, 55, Aug. 12, 1949.
5. Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), June 8, 1977.
6. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel), Provisional Measures Order, 2024 I.C.J. Rep. 1, 12–18 (Jan. 26).
7. Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Provisional Measures Order, 2022 I.C.J. Rep. 1, 8–14 (Mar. 16).
8. Beit Sourik Village Council v. Government of Israel, HCJ 2056/04, 58(5) P.D. 807, 811–23 (2004) (Isr.).
9. Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association v. Union of India, (2016) 14 SCC 536, 540–52 (India).
10. Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, Advisory Opinion, 2024 I.C.J. Rep. 1, 20–35 (July 19).
11. Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, 2004 I.C.J. Rep. 136, 165–89 (July 9).
12. Public Committee Against Torture in Israel v. Government of Israel, HCJ 769/02, 62(1) P.D. 507, 512–30 (2006) (Isr.).
13. Situation in the State of Palestine, ICC-01/18, Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on Jurisdiction, 2021 ICC Rep. 1, 15–28 (Feb. 5).
14. Situation in the State of Palestine, ICC-01/18, Warrants of Arrest, 2024 ICC Rep. 1, 10–22 (Nov. 21).
15. Council on Foreign Relations, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Global Conflict Tracker, https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/israelipalestinian-conflict
16. United Nations, ASG Jenča Warns Security Council of Catastrophic Risks as Violence Escalates in Gaza (Aug. 5, 2025), https://www.un.org/unispal/document/asg-jenca-warns-security-council-ofcatastrophic-risks-as-violence-escalates-in-gaza-urges-immediate-ceasefireand-hostage-release/.

[1] Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, 2004 I.C.J. Rep. 136

[2] Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, Advisory Opinion, 2024 I.C.J.

[3] Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel), Provisional Measures, Order, 2024 I.C.J. (Jan. 26); see also Orders of Mar. 28, 2024, and May 24, 2024.

[4] Situation in the State of Palestine, ICC-01/18, Decision on the Prosecution Request Pursuant to Article 58, ICC-01/18-265 (Nov. 21, 2024)

[5] Public Committee Against Torture in Israel v. Government of Israel, HCJ 769/02, 62(1) PD 507 (2006) (Isr.). ⁶ Beit Sourik Village Council v. Government of Israel, HCJ 2056/04, 58(5) PD 807 (2004) (Isr.)

[6] Beit Soutik Village Council v. Government office rail 2024

[7] Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Ass’n v. Union of India, (2016) 14 SCC 536 (India)

[8] Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine Russian Federation), Provisional Measures Order, 2022 I.C.J. Rep. (Mar. 16); And Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel), Provisional Measures Order, 2024 I.C.J. Rep. (Jan. 26).

[9] Jeanne Godfroy, Iraq, 2003–2011: Succeeding to Fail, 30 Small Wars & Insurgencies 258, 260–62 (2019). United Nations, Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic, OHCHR (2024).

[10] United Nations Security Council, Veto List, noting U.S. vetoes on resolutions concerning Israel-Palestine, including ceasefire proposals in 2023-2024). Author’s informal survey, July 2025, 25 respondents; results on file with author

[11] Int’l Comm. of the Red Cross, International Humanitarian Law and the Challenges of Contemporary Armed Conflicts, ICRC Doc. ICRC/2019/07, at 12–15 (2019)