 |
Md. Shawkat Alam Faisal |
International
Humanitarian Law (IHL), commonly known as the laws of war, is intended to
control armed conflicts by protecting civilians and limiting the means and
methods of war. It is codified in treaties such as the Geneva Conventions and
their Additional Protocols, which establish warring parties' duty to
distinguish between combatants and non-combatants, restrict attacks on civilian
infrastructure, and assure the provision of humanitarian aid. However, as of April
6, 2025, the current situation in Gaza has fueled disputes regarding IHL's
usefulness and impartiality, with some claiming that it is only used by
powerful powers to crush smaller ones and avoid punishment for their own
crimes.
The recent
escalation in Gaza has had terrible humanitarian effects. Israeli military
activities, particularly the construction of the Morag Corridor to isolate
Rafah, have resulted in numerous civilian casualties and massive destruction.
According to Gaza's Health Ministry, more than 50,000 Palestinians, mostly
women and children, have been killed since hostilities erupted. Attacks on
civilians, journalists, and medical facilities have been reported across
international news portals and social media platforms. Devastating images of
countless babies without heads and human body parts soaring in the sky as a
result of bombing has been widely shared on the internet. According to reports,
basic supplies such as food, medical equipment, and fuel have been routinely
stopped from entering Gaza. International bodies have sharply criticized these
actions, accusing them of war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and
violations of IHL.
The attacks
violate international humanitarian law, human rights law, and the laws
governing armed conflicts. These violations occur under a variety of legal
systems, including the Geneva Conventions (like as the Fourth Geneva
Convention, 1949), Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions (1977), the
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998), the United Nations
Charter (1945), and binding UN Security Council Resolutions (such as Resolution
1860 of 2009). Furthermore, Israel's actions flagrantly breached the Ceasefire
Agreement (2025) in effect since January 2025, reigniting war and increasing
Gaza's already terrible humanitarian circumstances.
Critics claim
that powerful governments frequently use IHL to support their geopolitical
goals, selectively using it to justify interventions or shielding themselves
and their allies from scrutiny. This selective enforcement undermines the
universality and legitimacy of international humanitarian law. Furthermore, the
enforcement procedures of IHL are frequently viewed as ineffectual, especially
when significant countries are present. The reliance on state collaboration for
investigations, as well as the political dynamics inside international
institutions, might impede the impartial administration of justice. This has
resulted in a rising notion that dominant powers use IHL to manage weaker
nations while exempting themselves from the same norms. This hypocrisy not only
undermines IHL's legitimacy, but it also reinforces the skepticism of those
caught in conflict zones like as Gaza, where appeals to international law
increasingly ring hollow in the face of unbridled devastation.
The irony of
international humanitarian law is highlighted by the actions of the world's
most powerful states, which claim to be global protectors of human rights while
consistently violating these same ideals. The United States, long seen as a
global human rights enforcer, has been repeatedly accused of serious violations
of humanitarian law. From the torture of detainees at Guantanamo Bay to drone
strikes in Yemen, Afghanistan, and Pakistan that have killed hundreds of civilians,
America's military operations have frequently violated the norms of distinction
and proportionality entrenched in IHL. The 2003 invasion of Iraq, which was
carried out without the sanction of the United Nations Security Council, killed
hundreds of thousands of civilians and is largely regarded as a flagrant breach
of international law.
Russia,
another veto-wielding member of the UN Security Council, has blatantly violated
humanitarian rules in its invasion of Ukraine. Documented attacks on civilian
infrastructure, hospitals, and residential areas, as well as the deployment of
cluster munitions, constitute war crimes under international humanitarian law.
Russia's conduct in the Syrian civil war was also heavily criticised,
particularly its targeting of residential areas and backing for the Assad
regime's use of chemical weapons.
Meanwhile,
China is accused of committing major human rights violations against the Uyghur
Muslim minority of Xinjiang. Allegations include widespread imprisonment in
"reeducation camps," forced labor, and the destruction of religious
and cultural sites—actions that many international observers consider crimes
against humanity. Furthermore, China's persecution of dissent in Hong Kong, as
well as its restriction of information during the COVID-19 epidemic,
demonstrate its disrespect for civil freedoms and openness, both of which are
fundamental to international human rights legislation.
The United
Kingdom and France are not immune to similar charges. The UK has faced
significant charges of mistreatment of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan, and
efforts to prevent trials of British soldiers have been viewed as undermining
international accountability procedures. France's counter-terrorism operations
in Africa's Sahel region have resulted in civilian casualties, despite minimal
transparency and accountability. Both countries have also continued to sell
armaments to countries that commit human rights violations, such as Saudi
Arabia, despite strong evidence that these weapons were used in the horrific
war in Yemen.
Israel has
continued its military occupation and settlement construction in the West Bank,
which are deemed illegal under international law, with military and diplomatic
support from the United States and certain European allies. Many legal
academics consider the siege of Gaza and recurrent military offensives that
murder thousands of residents, demolish infrastructure, and leave the land
uninhabitable to be continuous war crimes. Despite UN investigations and
international outrage, these so-called human rights activists have taken no
significant effort to hold Israel accountable.
Despite its
lofty goals, many people regard international humanitarian law as a political
tool created and controlled by powerful states in order to preserve worldwide
supremacy rather than a legitimate foundation for justice. In practice, IHL
frequently serves as a shield for the mighty and a sword for the weak. The
institutions tasked with enforcing humanitarian law—the International Criminal
Court (ICC), the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the United Nations
Security Council, and various tribunals—are heavily influenced or outright
manipulated by the same countries that commit some of the most serious
violations. The ICC's selective prosecution of African leaders while
disregarding grave crimes done by the US, Russia, China, Israel, and others is
a clear example of this double standard.
Powerful
countries justify their military interventions, drone campaigns, and economic
sanctions—often destructive to civilian populations—under the garb of upholding
human rights, while condemning similar activities carried out by their
adversaries or weaker nations. These discrepancies reveal IHL as a strategic
framework used by dominating countries to delegitimize opponents, penalize
disobedient states, and exercise geopolitical control, all while shielding
themselves and their allies from accountability. For many in the Global South, international
humanitarian law has become a scam—an beautiful tale employed to sustain an
unjust world system rather than demolish it.
The
Author, Md. Shawkat Alam Faisal, is a Columnist and an Apprentice Lawyer at the
Bangladesh Bar Council.