Back when I was at University, I had the opportunity as part of my Law degree to study a subject called “International Law.” At the time, that specific area of law was the poor relation of all other options offered by the faculty. In fact, there was still significant debate about whether or not it counted as a genuine aspect of law. The problem with talking about International Law is that it begs questions about who has authority to make and enforce it.
However, it is increasingly common to talk about international law and often Christians are encouraged to speak up on issues that relate to this. Questions concerning international law have been asked in relation to the Iraq War, the UK’s actions following Brexit, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and at this present time, Israel’s response to the recent Hamas atrocities.
International Law is regarded as describing the obligations that States have, particularly to one another. Therefore, it is primarily about obligations agreed through treaties. In that respect, it is perhaps akin to contract law, although there may be a relationship to property and land law. We may to some extent talk about conventions and customs that have developed but there is no particular way to enforce these.
A country may therefore be described as acting unlawfully when it breaks its treaty responsibilities. Usually, the treaty itself will make provision for potential sanctions and consequences. Some treaties deal specifically with human rights and conduct in times of war leading to the possibility of human rights breaches and war crimes. In those cases, the treaties have also set up types of courts to hear cases. The result is that International Law is now also shaped by its own case law, just as other legal fields are. Case law means that precedents can be set too.
There are some important implications from this. Before we are quick to accuse a country or government, including our own of breaking international law, it is important that we make sure we know and understand what that law says and means. One fascinating example from recent history is the way in which people have taken to accusing George W Bush and Tony Blair of entering an illegal war when speaking of the Iraq War. Now, it is possible to argue that the war was wrong, immoral unjust or that It involved war crimes. However, it would only be illegal, either, if it breached domestic laws (for example, some countries have laws which require a vote in the national legislature before war is declared. If the president or PM in such a context declared war without a vote then they may be held to have exceeded their powers) or, if the war breached particular treaty obligations. So, one might argue that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was not merely immoral but also illegal because it breached a commitment made in the Budapest Memorandum (1993) by the US, UK and Russian Federation from using either military force or economic coercion against Ukraine.
There has been much discussion over the past few weeks about whether certain actions by Israel constitute war crimes. These include things such as missile and air strikes into civilian areas, the attempt to evacuate the northern part of Gaza and the cutting off of electricity and water. Now, there are specific definitions of war crimes and these include actions that specifically target civilians. However, there is a difference between the specific and intentional targeting of civilians and where civilians suffer when the aim is to hit military targets. The question then is whether Israel have been doing the former or the latter.
If the latter, then this doesn’t mean that Israel gets a clean pass. First, it is possible for individuals and units to commit war crimes and to breach humanitarian standards. We saw this during the Iraq war when horrific images were published showing the degrading treatment of Iraqi prisoners of war by allied troops. There are also examples of serious wrongdoing in Northern Ireland during the troubles such as the Bloody Sunday massacre. In such cases, governments surely carry responsibility for how their military act. The buck stops at the top.
Furthermore, we may also decide that certain actions by Israel fall outside of the spirit of the law if not the letter. We may conclude that some actions, are at least wrong and potentially immoral. Whilst it would be a war crime to intentionally deprive civilians of essential resources such as food, fuel and water to cause suffering, for example, we might note that this doesn’t mean that an enemy country has an active responsibility to supply those things itself. So, we might conclude that Israel has not broken the letter of the law by ceasing to supply electricity from the outside. However, we may conclude that cutting the electricity, knowing the impact on vulnerable people and without concern for alternatives was wrong.
To take another example, last week, Israel urged people to evacuate from northern Gaza, including hospitals. They have been greatly criticised for this. Even the Archbishop of Canterbury weighed in calling for the order to be reversed. The suggestion was that it was impossible to evacuate hospitals. Now, here are a few things we might wish to consider in this context. First, it isn’t impossible to evacuate hospitals, in fact a quick internet search will find examples of this and indeed, the NHS requires all hospitals to have evacuation plans. Secondly, the context was that Israel believed that Hamas operatives and cells were embedded in those places. Urging evacuation seems to me to be part of a desire to minimise civilian casualties, not to create them.
However, that is only one side of the coin. We also need to consider that a generic argument that evacuation is possible is different to the probability of a successful evacuation, given the conditions in Gaza right now. This means that the issues here are both legally and morally complex. That’s something that I think is not being recognised either by those criticising Israel or those who seem a little gung-ho in insisting that the IDF should just go in and any civilian casualties are all on Hamas’ head. Perhaps too, we might want to consider the responsibilities of other parties in such a complex situation.
I have to be honest and say that I’m not sure what is the answer to those particular dilemmas. I note that in response to the IRA, the UK never attempted a conventional military response on this kin of scale and I think the reasons are obvious. I am not convinced that a conventional air and ground offensive will be successful in Gaza either. I fear that it will lead to greater civilian suffering and that rather than finishing Hamas off, it is likely to provide fuel for longer term terrorist recruitment. However, I write this, recognising the complexity of the situation and that I am no expert in counter terrorism.
Because this is the reality for most of us, I think that we need to be careful about what we are dogmatic about in our pronouncements. Yes, it is absolutely to question, challenge, speak out for those who are suffering, however we need to do this whilst recognising that we are not the ones with the answers. What we can do above all is pray for a just peace.
—
Faithroots 