It has been 26 days since Hamas launched its attacks on Israel. In my column a few days after the conflict began, I mentioned that international law provides a framework for analyzing the situation, even as the atrocities committed by Hamas were being documented and the consequences of Israel’s airstrikes on the Gaza Strip were becoming apparent. I stand by that. However, many readers question the point of these laws if they are difficult to enforce.

Yes, international law has limitations, but it also has strengths. I will address some of the questions raised by readers and commentators. The laws of war do not aim to outlaw fighting completely or ban all killings of civilians. Instead, they establish minimum requirements for a situation where our usual moral rules are suspended and our usual ways of resolving conflicts have failed. War acts can be horrifying without necessarily being illegal.

For example, the principle of proportionality aims to protect civilians by ensuring that attacks on military targets do not cause disproportionate harm to civilians. However, it acknowledges that some civilian deaths might be considered proportionate if the value of striking a particular military base is high enough. All parties to a conflict must carefully assess the facts and meet the proportionality requirements before carrying out an attack.

Even though international law has its limitations, it carries weight. Committing war crimes can harm a country’s international standing and alliances. Many militaries have legal advisors to guide them on matters like proportionality. Even secessionist movements and rebel groups often claim to follow international humanitarian law to gain credibility.

The laws of war are minimal but universal, and they remain in force regardless of how dirty a war becomes. Violations by one party do not justify violations by another. This helps to distance the debate over moral right and historical grievances.

International law is not directly connected to an international police force or a fast-acting court system. Investigations of war crimes often take years to complete and may not result in criminal charges. The International Criminal Court (ICC) is a court of last resort with limited resources. It aims to complement domestic courts rather than replace them. However, domestic courts are often hesitant to prosecute their own leaders and troops.

Some argue that the threat of future prosecution can deter war crimes. The ICC can send a message that they are watching and documenting the actions of all parties, and prosecutions may occur down the line.

Collective punishment, punishing a person or group for someone else’s act, is a war crime and a violation of international humanitarian law. However, not all attacks on civilians violate this rule. To be considered collective punishment, the acts must be done with the intention to punish. Acts done with other purposes or with careless disregard for civilian lives may not qualify, but they may still violate other laws.

Israel has been accused of collective punishment during this conflict. There is evidence pointing to Israel’s intent to punish civilians, such as the statement regarding the siege and restrictions on basic necessities. It is illegal for Israel’s military to block humanitarian relief for any reason. Similarly, it is illegal for Hamas to hold civilians hostage for any reason.

In conclusion, while international law has its limitations, it serves a purpose. It can deter war crimes, damage a country’s international standing, and provide a universal standard for all parties involved in a conflict.