Cap Phantom

Q: What was the legal framework for the use of force?

A: Even where resort to force is justified, as it was for Israel in responding to heightened attacks by Hamas, customary law limits the manner in which a state can exercise force. The principle of distinction and the principle of proportionality are both designed to protect civilians, while taking into account the military necessities and the exigencies of the situation

Civilian casualties in an armed conflict does not in and of itself establish any violation of international law. The critical but often omitted link in determining the legality of an attack is whether the attacking forces sought to observe the rules of the Law of Armed Conflict, particularly the principles of distinction and proportionality. The IDF made extensive efforts to comply with these principles while Hamas made no attempt to comply with them.

Q: What are the principles of the Law of Armed Conflict that Israel adhered to – and Hamas did not?

A: The first core principle of the Law of Armed Conflict is that the parties to the conflict distinguish, at all times, between the civilian population and combatants.

It is unlawful to deliberately make civilians the object of attack. The principle of distinction does not forbid the targeting of combatants, nor the targeting of civilians who take a direct part in the hostilities. This principle addresses only deliberate targeting of civilians, not incidental harm to civilians in the course of striking at legitimate military objectives. The presence of civilians at a site (whether voluntarily or involuntarily) does not by itself forbid an attack on an otherwise legitimate military target. The expected presence of civilians, though, does impact the analysis of the proportionality of an attack.

Incoming search terms for the article: