Jurisprudential Appraisal of the Interplay between International Law and Politics in Israel-Gaza Conflict

Abstract

The Israel-Gaza conflict is one of the longest and most intractable in modern international relations, characterized by recurring bloodshed, competing claims to territory, and deeply entrenched political tensions. This research examines the conflict's tension between international law and international politics, observing that principles of law take a secondary position to geopolitical interest. This research brings to the limelight such issues as humanitarian law's selective application, Palestine's status in law, self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter, and limits of institutions such as International Criminal Court and United Nations. This research attempts to critically assess the jurisprudential foundation of international law applied in the conflict, judging to what extent political motives inform decisions in law. Using a doctrinal approach to research, this work is founded on primary sources such as treaties, UN resolutions, and judicatures, in addition to secondary sources such as scholarly articles and expert reports. The work observes that international frameworks of law are applied inconsistently owing to interference of powerful states, rendering mechanisms of ending conflict ineffective. The work also demands reforms in United Nations Security Council institutions, more accountability in terms of violations of humanitarian law, and more efforts towards support of a Palestinian state in foreign policy. The work posits that in order to have a credible umpire of international law, principles of law should be applied without political interference impartially.