PHOTO: The International Court of Justice in The Hague, RB Photo on Flickr
With every major human rights violation, war, or humanitarian catastrophe, we see the invocation of international law. From Rwanda to Bosnia and Herzegovina, to Iraq and, most recently, Gaza, the language is familiar and repeats itself.
Proportionality. War crimes. Crimes against humanity. Genocide. International law: a term called upon as homes are demolished, as settlements expand, as bombs fall on hospitals, as though international law and norms themselves, by virtue of being named, might intervene or materialise.
The question, then, is not whether international law exists, but whether its failure lies in inherent weakness or in its selective implementation.
Srebenica
In 1995, Bosnian-Serb forces were convicted of genocide in Srebrenica, a UN Security Council-designated ‘safe area,‘ during the Bosnian war, where more than 8,000 Bosniak men and boys were massacred. Women and young children were loaded onto buses by Bosnian-Serb forces and moved to Bosniak-controlled areas, while in the days that followed, the systematic killing of Bosnian Muslim men and boys took place.
The international community’s failure to prevent the atrocity, despite the presence of UN peacekeepers and ongoing discussions of possible responses, including the consideration of NATO air strikes, delayed action even further. It is now regarded as the “greatest failure in human history,” says former Dutch commander Ludy de Vos, who was stationed in Srebrenica at the time.
PHOTO: Gravestones in the Srebeneica Memorial, Michael Büker on Wikimedia Commons
The UN had initially requested a force of 37,000 troops, however, due to the reluctance of member states to commit resources, only 7,600 UN peacekeepers were ultimately deployed to Srebrenica, with a mandate to shield civilians from ethnic violence.
The limited deployment of peacekeepers left the UN with a dilemma: it could either directly oppose the Bosnian-Serb effort and sacrifice the impartiality that defines UN peacekeeping, or it could preserve its neutrality and confine its efforts to humanitarian aid rather than confrontation. Opting for the latter, Dutch peacekeepers in Srebrenica were subject to strict intervention restrictions, leaving Bosnian Muslims vulnerable and unprotected. By prioritising neutrality – despite US advocacy for direct intervention- the UN has indirectly signalled to Bosnian-Serb forces that their actions would not be met with meaningful resistance nor consequence.
This dilemma raises troubling parallels with the current scenes in Gaza. Has Israel been emboldened by the international community’s lack of intervention? Even investigations by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and UN into allegations of genocide have not acted as a deterrent. The question, therefore, arises of whether history is repeating itself, and whether the same failures from Srebrenica have truly been learnt from.
In a situation so dire that it prompted the UN to request tens of thousands of troops, and where even their presence ultimately failed to deter violence, the limitations of the international system become clear. Constrained by a lack of manpower, dependency on the morality and will of member states, and restrictive rules of engagement, the UN’s capacity to prevent any atrocity in Srebrenica was compromised.
This leaves an unsettling question: what could realistically compel Israel to change course and prevent further suffering? What will constitute a red line for Gaza, and has the international community already crossed a point of no return?
Such questions may call into doubt the purpose and effectiveness of the UN as a whole.
It was only weeks after the massacres in Srebrenica that the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) intervened. This was a product of the mounting pressure that finally burst when the Markale massacre took place in Sarajevo. Only then did the international community have no choice but to intervene.
Gaza
PHOTO: An aerial view of Rafah, UNRWA on Wikimedia Commons
Nearly three decades later, the language of ‘safe‘ zones re-emerges in Gaza, and violations of a similar scale come to the surface. In the Israeli-designated security zone of Rafah, an Israeli attack killed 40 Palestinian civilians seeking refuge from the bombs.
While the parallels are not exact, they reflect a familiar pattern. In both cases, civilians sought refuge in designated safe zones, which are intended under international humanitarian law to provide protection. In both cases, that protection failed.
The lack of enforcement of humanitarian and international laws and norms, whether in a UN-designated safe area or an Israeli one, is uniform. The international response, however, could not be more different.
Since October 7, 2023, when Hamas (the governing authority in Gaza) attacked Israel and took over 251 hostages, we’ve seen the killing of over 75,000 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
The violence following October 7 exists within a broader history of expulsion and displacement that Amnesty International traces back to 1948. Yet only the more recent expansion of Israeli settlements has drawn sustained international attention. Rapid settlement expansion on occupied Palestinian land has continued despite repeated condemnations worldwide. Fourteen states, including Britain, Canada and Germany, have condemned Israel’s expansion of settlements to which Israel’s foreign minister, Gideon Sa’ar, responded by saying the decision was taken as a security measure.
Israeli settlements in the West Bank have developed their own water infrastructure, while Palestinians are restricted from developing or installing any of their own. They are also denied access to the Jordan River and water springs — practices widely regarded as violations of international law.
Principles such as proportionality and the protection of civilians — principles foundational to the concept of international humanitarian law — are frequently invoked but rarely enforced. Civilian death is framed as ‘collateral damage’ by the IDF, and mass displacement as an unfortunate necessity taken with Palestinians in mind.
Findings by UN bodies, the ICJ and major human rights organisations have consistently documented what they describe as Israel’s “excessive use of force” in Gaza, amounting to collective punishment and the “progressive isolation and deprivation” of the territory. Despite the extensive evidence and patterns of these human rights violations, Israel maintains that its actions in this war, one it says it “did not want”, are acts made in self-defence, justifying the blockade as a measure to prevent Hamas from acquiring weapons.
During the hearings for the ICJ for South Africa against Israel, Israeli representatives maintained the state’s innocence, arguing that “if there have been acts that may be characterised as genocidal, then they have been perpetrated against Israel.”
Nonetheless, the Palestinian death toll has continued to rise since the court hearings. A subsequent UN commission found that Israeli forces had committed “four out of five genocidal acts” outlined in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
Yet, Israel continues its military campaign with no tangible shift or alteration in conduct. Domestically, the political climate has shifted. Some Israelis are steering towards leaving the country, with one individual saying he’s “given up on Israel” and “given up on turning the government into something that can create peace in the Middle East.” At the same time, public opinion remains divided, while 68% of Israelis express concern about the war continuing for an extended period of time, roughly 40% believe Israel should ultimately govern the Gaza Strip, according to research by the Pew Research Centre.
PHOTO: Map of the Gaza Strip, Gringer on Wikimedia Commons
The reluctance of the international community to intervene after over two years of what has been described as a genocide by a UN Commission suggests Israel’s violations are being assisted and maintained rather than merely tolerated. Through arms deals, diplomatic shielding and denial of wrongdoing or involvement, the international system actively ensures that Israel is not being held to the level of scrutiny that it arguably warrants. Whether it be from the US bypassing a congressional review to expedite arming Israel, or the ICJ ruling against emergency orders that would have halted German arms exports to Israel, all while genocide allegations were still before the Court.
This does more than protect one state — it sets a precedent, one that signals that the rules-based order is not reciprocal, and rules apply to some but not to all. We saw in Srebrenica that international law could be invoked, its principles named, and its institutions mobilised, yet still fail to prevent catastrophe. What, then, must happen before a tangible response, or an effort, is seen in Gaza?
The question, then, is not whether international law exists. It is who it is for, and who it is prepared to abandon. An international system that relies upon the cooperation of powerful states such as the United States and Germany, whose political and strategic interests, like arms exports, override the enforcement of human rights, leaves the future of the rules-based order looking daunting. A rules-based order that cannot restrain its members is not an order at all.
