Authored By: Shagufta Chowdhury Adrita
East West University
Introduction
The Israel–Palestine conflict remains one of the most complex and emotional issues in modern international law. Witnessing the devastation in Gaza, our moral instincts side with the oppressed, yet what morality condemns is not always what the law forbids. Thus, the question of whether Israel can lawfully claim self-defense has no simple or clear-cut answer.
Under international law, the right of self-defense is governed by jus ad bellum, which depends on occupation, statehood, non-state actors, and proportionality. Israel’s control over Gaza’s borders and population and its non-recognition of Gaza’s statehood, creates ambiguity regarding occupation and sovereignty.1 Also Hamas’s non affiliation with the Palestinian government and the scale of Israel’s response raise doubts about proportionality and attribution.2
Our presentation explores these unresolved concepts and contrasting narratives to support and oppose Israel’s claim of self-defense.
Legal Provisions on Self Defense
Article 51 of the UN Charter states that every state has inherent right, which is self-defense whether individually or collectively. But there are two conditions:
- An armed attack occurred against the state
- UN Security Council hasn’t taken measures to maintain peace.
The origin of the section is from customary international law, which is based on two principles:
- Necessity- Self-defense is lawful only when the necessity is instant, overwhelming and leaving no choice of means.3
- Proportionality- The response must also be proportionate because it should not exceed what is required only.4
Even in few cases, these principles are emphasized by the International Court of Justice.5
Arguments supporting Israel’s claim of self defense
In order to force self-defense, a state has to proof that it is the victim state of an armed attack.6
As after the 2014 war and 2021 crisis, Hamas began planning an attack on Israel7,ultimately a surprise attack launched by Hamas-led militant groups on 7 October 20238also breaking ceasefire agreement of 2025 by Hamas9 has made an imminent, foreseeable and unavoidable circumstance that an attack was actually happened is a strong proof of victim of an armed attack, thus self-defense is legitimate both under customary law and under article 51 of the UN Charter10.
Israel, in 1967, launched a strike upon its Arab neighbors as self-defense because the act (blocking of its southern port of Eilat)11was imminent is a great example of self-defense claim in case of imminent attack by other state.
Arguments against Israel’s Claim of Self-defense:
Self-defense is the inherent right that a member state of UN holds against armed attack under Article 51, The UN Charter.12 However, Caroline test says, self-defense is lawful only if it is extremely necessary in instant danger and shall be proportionate against the force used.13 Thus, as from October, 2023 to today’s date Israel used armed force against Palestinians which cannot be referred as self-defense, rather it is use of force, as targeting civilian areas and infrastructure, is not proportionate and it cannot be justified on the ground of extreme necessity.
Moreover, according to Article 2(4) of the charter and the 1970 Declaration, it is clear that, all the members of the UN shall refrain from use of force against the territorial integrity of other state,14 right to self-determination and independence. 15 Thus, Israel breached grossly customary international law.
Cases References with Facts and Principles.
To understand whether Israel’s recent use of force can truly be called self-defense, it is important to look at some leading international cases where the principle of self-defense was discussed and applied. These cases help us understand how international law defines and limits the right of self defense under Article 5116.
In the Nicaragua Case, The US supported armed groups (the Contras) inside Nicaragua and claimed it was acting in self-defense. The ICJ held that a state can only use force in self-defense if there has been an armed attack against it. Supporting rebels or using force indirectly is not justified as self-defense17.
In Caroline Case, The US destroyed a British Ship named Caroline in Canadian waters, claiming it was in self-defense. The case established two key conditions for lawful self-defense. these are
- Necessity
- Proportionality18
Similarly, The Oil Platforms case, the US destroyed Iranian oil platforms claiming Iran had attacked its ships. The ICJ ruled that the US could not prove that Iran’s acts were armed attacks serious enough to justify self-defense.19 Self-defense is allowed under Article 51 but must follow necessity and proportionality, even when facing serious harm20
Conclusion
In conclusion, the question of whether Israel’s recent use of force in Palestine (started from Gaza) can be fully justified as self-defense is controversial. But from Israel’s point of view, it can be considered valid insofar as it faced a significant armed attack (October 7 2023), in that sense, it triggered a valid self-defense right.
However, it’s duration and nature of attack doesn’t afterwards justify as it resulted in thousands of people’s right to life violation which can’t be done as right to life is a significant right protected under international law as Jus Cogens.
Legal experts’ opinion is the right of self-defense does not straightforwardly apply as Israel has occupied the Palestinian’s territory and has effective control there.
The continuous operations demands continuous legal evaluation; some legal scholars argue that what may have been lawful initially may become unlawful if the criteria are no longer met as self defense is not an unlimited license to use force
Therefore, Israel’s claim of self-defense is unjustified rather it can be considered as an operation for occupying land by using force.
Another thing is, international community also countries like China, Russia, Canada, Argentina, Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia African Countries and many other ones called for ceasefire but they don’t get involved into this. Their role was not significant enough to prevent this war against humanity.
However, by applying international law rigidly and taking other effective measures, UN and other international community and countries perhaps saved millions of laymen lives. The ceasefire was announced at the end but it was too late to initiate as every life in this world is valuable.
Reference(S):
1 Marko Milanovic “Does Israel Have the Right to Defend Itself?” EJIL TALK (London, 14 November, 2023) https://www.ejiltalk.org/does-israel-have-the-right-to-defend-itself/ accessed 23 November 2025
2ibid
3 The Caroline v. United States 11 U.S. 496 [1813]
4 The Caroline v. United States 11 U.S. 496 [1813]
5 Nicaragua v United States [1984] ICJ Rep 392; Islamic Republic of Iran v United States of America [2003] ICJ rep 161
6 The Oil Platforms (Iran v. US) case, ICJ Reports, 2003, pp. 161, 189 and 190
7 TOI STAFF,” Hamas planned Oct. 7 from before 2014, with final decision made by 5 leaders – report”(The Time of Israil,10 January ,2024) https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-planned-oct-7-from-before-2014-with-final decision-made-by-5-leaders-report/ 31 October 2025)
8 Al Jazeera, “Israel-Gaza War: What we know about the captives taken by Hamas’ (Al Jazeera, 3 Nov 2023) https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/xx/israel-gaza-war-what-we-know-about-the-captives-taken-by-hamas 31 October 2025
9 Al Jazeera, ‘Has the Gaza ceasefire been broken? Fragile ceasefire to end Israel’s two-year war on Gaza hangs by a thread, with Rafah crossing closed, aid restricted’(Al Jazeera ,20 October 2025) https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/10/31/has-the-gaza-ceasefire-been-broken. 31 October 2025
10 Charter of the United Nations, s 51
11 The Arab–Israeli Conflict (ed. J. N. Moore), Princeton, 3 vols., 1974
12 The UN Charter 1945, Article 51
13 Malcolm N. Shaw, International Law [first published 1991, Cambridge University Press 2017] 861
14 The UN Charter 1945, Article 2(4)
15 The 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law
16 United Nation Charter, art 51.
17 Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United State) [1986] ICJ Rep 14.
18 The Caroline Incident (US v UK) [1837] 29 BFSP, P.1137 and 30 BFSP, P 195.
19 The Oil Platforms Case (Islamic Republic of Iran v United State) [2003] ICJ Rep pp. 161, 198.
20 The Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of nuclear weapons [1996] ICJ rep pp.226 245.
