International Law and Human Rights

Overview of Law and Rights in the Conflict

International law and human rights provide a shared vocabulary to describe, judge, and sometimes try to regulate the Israel–Palestine conflict. They do not remove politics or resolve moral disagreements, but they shape how states, organizations, and activists frame claims and counterclaims. Understanding this legal framework helps explain why certain actions are called occupation, apartheid, terrorism, self defense, war crimes, or resistance, and why different actors contest these labels so fiercely.

At the same time, law is not a neutral referee standing outside the conflict. Legal rules are interpreted, selectively invoked, and sometimes ignored. International institutions depend on political will, and enforcement is uneven. The law of the conflict is therefore not only about written treaties and court rulings, but also about power, advocacy, and competing narratives of justice.

Key Branches of International Law Involved

Several overlapping areas of international law shape debates about Israel and Palestine. The first is the law on the use of force, sometimes called jus ad bellum. This body of rules, centered on the UN Charter, regulates when states may resort to military force. Questions such as whether Israel can invoke self defense, or whether Palestinian armed groups can claim a right to resist, belong here.

The second area is international humanitarian law, often called the law of armed conflict. Its main treaties, such as the Geneva Conventions, regulate how wars are fought. They address targeting, treatment of civilians and prisoners, and the duties of an occupying power. This is where terms like protected persons, collective punishment, and proportionality come from.

The third branch is international human rights law, which applies both in wartime and peacetime. It focuses on individual freedoms, political participation, equality before the law, and protection from arbitrary detention, torture, or discrimination. Israel has ratified several core human rights treaties, and Palestinian authorities have acceded to many of the same treaties in more recent years.

Finally, there is international criminal law, which deals with individual responsibility for crimes such as war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. The International Criminal Court, or ICC, is central in this sphere and has opened an investigation that includes alleged crimes by both Israeli and Palestinian actors. Together with regional and domestic courts, this creates a complex network in which legal responsibility is argued and sometimes adjudicated.

Occupation, Sovereignty, and Legal Status

In international law, occupation is a technical term, not a political slogan. It describes a situation in which a territory is under the authority of a foreign military that does not claim or has not yet successfully acquired sovereignty over it. Under the traditional reading of the law, the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip are considered territories occupied by Israel, even though the details and duration of control differ across these areas.

The law of occupation does not resolve who ultimately owns the land. It is designed instead to regulate a temporary situation by protecting the civilian population and limiting what the occupying power may do. For example, an occupier is not supposed to annex territory, transfer its own civilian population into the area, or permanently alter local institutions for its own benefit. These rules sit at the heart of legal disputes over Israeli settlements, the status of East Jerusalem, and the administration of resources such as land and water.

Israel contests some applications of occupation law. It has at times described the territories as disputed rather than occupied and has argued that classic occupation law did not anticipate the unique circumstances of this situation. Many states, international organizations, and legal experts reject these arguments and maintain that the law of occupation fully applies. This disagreement is not merely academic, because it shapes how policies are judged, how international bodies write resolutions, and how advocacy campaigns frame their demands.

Humanitarian Law and the Conduct of Hostilities

Whenever armed conflict erupts, humanitarian law governs the behavior of all parties. This includes the Israeli military, Palestinian armed groups in Gaza and the West Bank, and at times other regional actors. Certain core principles are central across almost all legal and factual disputes.

The principle of distinction requires parties to always distinguish between civilians and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives. Deliberate attacks on civilians are prohibited, whether carried out by airstrikes, rockets, or suicide bombings. The use of human shields, the placement of military objectives among civilians, or the concealment of military sites in civilian buildings are also condemned under this principle.

The principle of proportionality prohibits attacks that may be expected to cause incidental civilian harm that would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. This does not require that no civilians be harmed, but that the chosen attack is not grossly out of balance with its expected gain. In the conflict, this principle is frequently invoked in relation to Israeli airstrikes in dense urban areas and to the firing of unguided rockets toward populated Israeli towns.

Parties must also take precautions in attack and in defense. This includes measures such as giving effective advance warnings to civilians when possible, choosing weapons and tactics that reduce harm, and avoiding locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas. In practice, each side often accuses the other of violating these duties, while defending its own operations as lawful and necessary.

The treatment of detainees and prisoners is another area governed by humanitarian law. Allegations that detainees are tortured, held without fair trial, or denied contact with families and lawyers raise legal questions about compliance with the Geneva Conventions and other instruments. These issues affect both Israeli detention of Palestinians and, when hostages are taken, the treatment of Israelis held by Palestinian armed groups.

Human Rights Protections in Everyday Life

Unlike humanitarian law, which applies mainly during armed conflict and occupation, human rights law protects individuals at all times. It covers a wide range of issues, from the right to life and security to freedoms of movement, expression, and assembly, as well as economic, social, and cultural rights like health care, education, and adequate housing.

In Israel proper and in the occupied territories, human rights debates touch on both law and practice. Inside Israel, questions arise about the rights of Palestinian citizens of Israel, the balance between a state that defines itself as Jewish and democratic, and the treatment of asylum seekers and migrant workers. In the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, issues include checkpoints, permits, administrative detentions, home demolitions, access to courts, and restrictions on protests.

Human rights law does not only bind states. Nonstate actors, such as Palestinian armed groups or de facto authorities in Gaza, are increasingly expected to respect certain core human rights norms, even if the legal basis and enforcement mechanisms are weaker. Violations by any side, including censorship, arbitrary arrests, and ill treatment of political opponents, are documented by local and international human rights organizations.

Economic and social rights are also central. Closures, movement restrictions, and blockades have direct effects on employment, medical care, schooling, and access to water and electricity. Although these measures are often justified by security concerns, human rights law examines whether they disproportionately harm civilians, discriminate unjustifiably, or amount to collective punishment. Similar scrutiny applies to Israeli civilians in areas subject to rockets or attacks, including the adequacy of protection measures and mental health support.

Competing Legal Claims and Allegations

Almost every phase of the conflict generates legal arguments and counterarguments. Israeli officials often emphasize the right to security and self defense, the threat posed by armed groups that reject Israel's existence, and violations of law by those groups, especially attacks targeting civilians and the use of civilian infrastructure for military purposes. They argue that, in this context, military operations and restrictive measures are necessary and that they seek to minimize harm while facing adversaries who systematically disregard law.

Palestinian representatives and many human rights organizations highlight the ongoing nature of occupation, the expansion of settlements, and the inequality of power between an established state and a people without full sovereignty. They argue that a system of control has emerged that violates the rights of Palestinians in a structural way and that some of these patterns meet the legal definition of apartheid or persecution. They also point to the humanitarian impact of blockades, closures, and frequent military incursions.

These positions are not only political talking points. Each side draws on particular legal sources, such as UN resolutions, advisory opinions by international courts, and interpretations of treaties. For example, some actors rely on the International Court of Justice advisory opinion that declared the separation barrier in the West Bank contrary to international law in its route and effects. Others stress the advisory nature of that opinion and point to Israel's own Supreme Court judgments, which sometimes uphold and sometimes limit specific policies.

Allegations of war crimes are made against both Israeli forces and Palestinian armed groups. Common accusations against Israeli forces include indiscriminate or disproportionate attacks, collective punishment, and unlawful killings. Common accusations against Palestinian groups include deliberate targeting of civilians, hostage taking, and indiscriminate rocket fire. While legal standards are formally the same for all sides, political alliances and power imbalances can influence which cases receive international attention or concrete consequences.

International Courts and Accountability Mechanisms

Several institutions play a role in attempting to enforce or clarify legal obligations. The International Court of Justice, or ICJ, is the UN's principal judicial organ. It hears disputes between states and can also issue advisory opinions at the request of UN bodies. It has already been asked to opine on questions related to the conflict and may be called upon again as political and legal debates evolve.

The International Criminal Court focuses on individual criminal responsibility. After complex jurisdictional debates, the ICC decided that it can investigate alleged crimes committed in the occupied Palestinian territories. This potentially covers acts by Israeli officials and military personnel as well as Palestinian armed groups and leaders. Supporters see this as an important step toward accountability. Critics argue that the court is selective, politicized, or lacks legitimacy in this context.

Domestic courts also play a role. Israeli courts, particularly the Supreme Court sitting as the High Court of Justice, have heard numerous petitions about the legality of military operations, the route of the separation barrier, demolitions, and administrative detentions. Some decisions have ordered changes or cancellations of specific policies. Others have upheld government actions, often citing security reasons. Palestinian courts, as well as courts in other countries, sometimes address related matters, including universal jurisdiction cases that seek to prosecute serious crimes abroad.

Alongside courts, there are commissions of inquiry, fact finding missions, and special rapporteurs mandated by the UN or other international bodies. Their reports often document incidents, analyze legal issues, and propose recommendations. States and parties to the conflict may cooperate with these mechanisms, challenge their impartiality, or refuse access altogether. The authority of such reports depends largely on how they are received by the international community and by public opinion.

Role of International Organizations and States

International organizations such as the United Nations, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and a variety of regional bodies shape the legal landscape. The UN General Assembly and Security Council regularly adopt resolutions that address the legal status of territory, condemn particular actions, or call for compliance with humanitarian and human rights law. These texts are often central to arguments about legality, even when they are not self executing or directly enforceable.

UN treaty bodies monitor states' compliance with human rights conventions. They issue concluding observations on Israel and, increasingly, on Palestinian authorities as well. These observations may praise reforms, highlight persistent problems, and recommend changes. While they do not have binding force like a court judgment, they carry normative weight and feed into advocacy.

Individual states also engage in what can be called legal diplomacy. They may recognize or not recognize certain borders, label settlements as illegal or not, vote in favor of or against UN resolutions, and adopt national laws that relate to boycotts, sanctions, or trade with settlements. Some states attach conditions to military aid or arms sales, referring explicitly to international humanitarian law. Others oppose such conditionality and argue that it unfairly singles out one side.

This ongoing contest over legal language, recognition, and measures shows how law is woven into broader political alliances. International law can provide tools for marginal actors to push for accountability, but those tools gain real effect only when powerful states choose to use them.

Human Rights Organizations and Documentation

Non governmental organizations, both local and international, have long documented alleged violations in the conflict. Israeli, Palestinian, and foreign groups conduct field research, collect testimonies, analyze legal standards, and publish reports. These organizations often work with UN mechanisms, courts, and media outlets to bring attention to specific incidents and to wider patterns of abuse.

Their work is contested. Governments and political actors sometimes accuse them of bias, selective reporting, or lack of context. At the same time, many journalists, diplomats, and legal professionals rely on NGO documentation because it often provides detailed, on the ground information that official sources withhold or frame differently. Disputes over credibility, methodology, and funding have become part of the conflict's information war.

Despite these tensions, human rights organizations contribute to a kind of cumulative legal record. Over decades they have created archives of testimonies, photos, videos, and official documents. These materials can later support court cases, transitional justice efforts, or historical research, regardless of immediate political outcomes.

Law, Power, and the Limits of Legal Remedies

International law and human rights standards do not operate in a vacuum. Where power is sharply unequal, as in the relationship between an established state and a stateless people under occupation, the stronger actor often has more capacity to shape facts on the ground and to resist external pressure. At the same time, nonstate actors may seek to offset military weakness by leveraging legal and moral claims in international forums.

There is an important gap between legal norms and enforcement. Many rulings, resolutions, and recommendations remain unimplemented because they lack backing from powerful states or because local actors calculate that the political cost of compliance is too high. This can foster cynicism about law and fuel narratives that international institutions are either biased against Israel or indifferent to Palestinian suffering, depending on perspective.

Nevertheless, law still matters. It influences how states justify or criticize actions, how aid is distributed, how trade is regulated, and how individual soldiers, officials, and militants assess their own risk of prosecution. It provides language for victims to articulate grievances and for activists to build coalitions across borders. Even when not enforced, legal norms set benchmarks that shape what is considered legitimate or illegitimate behavior.

Human Rights, Justice, and Future Possibilities

Debates over international law and human rights in Israel and Palestine are not only about cataloging violations. They are tied to larger questions of justice, reconciliation, and future political arrangements. Any long term settlement, whether it involves one state, two states, or some form of confederation, would have to address accountability for past abuses, protection of minority rights, and guarantees that basic freedoms will be upheld for all who live between the river and the sea.

There is ongoing discussion about what kind of mechanisms could support such goals. Possibilities include truth commissions, reparations schemes, constitutional protections, and integration of international human rights norms into domestic law. Each proposal raises difficult questions. Some actors fear that too much focus on accountability will destabilize peace efforts. Others believe that without meaningful justice, any agreement will remain fragile and morally unsatisfying.

Ultimately, the legal and human rights dimensions of the conflict highlight a central tension. Law aspires to universal standards and equal protection, but its application reflects political realities and unequal power. Learning to read legal arguments critically, to understand both their content and their context, is essential for anyone who wants to engage seriously with the conflict and with the possibilities for a more rights respecting future.