The applicable legal framework for assessing the recent operations in Gaza is the "Law of Armed Conflict," also known as "International Humanitarian Law.
" The conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza meets the definition of an "armed conflict" in the decision of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia ("ICTY").
Hamas is a highly organized and well-armed group that uses armed force against Israel and, indeed, considers such armed struggle to be its primary mission.
The actions of Hamas must also be measured against accepted principles and applicable rules of int.
law.
Some of the rules governing the use of force in armed conflicts are specified in treaties, such as the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Regulations annexed to the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907.
Others have gained acceptance by the practice of the international community and become part of customary international law.
The Israeli High Court has ruled that these customary international law rules bind Israel under both international and Israeli law.
In particular, Israel's High Court of Justice has confirmed that in the ongoing armed conflict with Palestinian terrorist organizations, including Hamas, Israel must adhere to the rules and principles in (a) the Fourth Geneva Convention, (b) the Regulations annexed to the Fourth Hague Convention (which reflect customary international law), and (c) the customary international law principles reflected in certain provisions of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1949.
Did Israel have the right to resort to force to defend itself? A: In these circumstances, there is no question that Israel was legally justified in resorting to the use of force against Hamas.
All states have the inherent right and the obligation to defend themselves against armed attacks.
This right is recognized by customary international law, and is further confirmed in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.
Israel's resort to force occurred in the context of an ongoing armed conflict between a highly organized, well-armed, and determined group of terrorists and the State of Israel.
A state's right of self-defense extends beyond attacks by other states.
Even before the U.
N.
Charter, customary international law recognized the right of self-defense against non-state actors, such as armed groups launching attacks of significant scale and scope.
There is no question that Israel faced an "armed attack" within the meaning of customary international law or Article 51 of the U.
N.
Charter, and has the right to use force against Hamas in self-defense.
" The conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza meets the definition of an "armed conflict" in the decision of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia ("ICTY").
Hamas is a highly organized and well-armed group that uses armed force against Israel and, indeed, considers such armed struggle to be its primary mission.
The actions of Hamas must also be measured against accepted principles and applicable rules of int.
law.
Some of the rules governing the use of force in armed conflicts are specified in treaties, such as the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Regulations annexed to the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907.
Others have gained acceptance by the practice of the international community and become part of customary international law.
The Israeli High Court has ruled that these customary international law rules bind Israel under both international and Israeli law.
In particular, Israel's High Court of Justice has confirmed that in the ongoing armed conflict with Palestinian terrorist organizations, including Hamas, Israel must adhere to the rules and principles in (a) the Fourth Geneva Convention, (b) the Regulations annexed to the Fourth Hague Convention (which reflect customary international law), and (c) the customary international law principles reflected in certain provisions of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1949.
Did Israel have the right to resort to force to defend itself? A: In these circumstances, there is no question that Israel was legally justified in resorting to the use of force against Hamas.
All states have the inherent right and the obligation to defend themselves against armed attacks.
This right is recognized by customary international law, and is further confirmed in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.
Israel's resort to force occurred in the context of an ongoing armed conflict between a highly organized, well-armed, and determined group of terrorists and the State of Israel.
A state's right of self-defense extends beyond attacks by other states.
Even before the U.
N.
Charter, customary international law recognized the right of self-defense against non-state actors, such as armed groups launching attacks of significant scale and scope.
There is no question that Israel faced an "armed attack" within the meaning of customary international law or Article 51 of the U.
N.
Charter, and has the right to use force against Hamas in self-defense.
SHARE
