One Year Later: How Has October 7 Changed the World?

“Protections are being discarded”

While international human rights law has always been met with skepticism, since October 7 there is serious question about its relevance at all in addressing violent conflicts. We are watching the devastating consequences of the dismantling of the law-based international order in real time—what the UN Secretary-General has called “a crisis of humanity.” The four Geneva Conventions, the most widely-ratified binding rules of international law, were drafted and accepted by the world community in order to prevent a repeat of the horrors of World War II, to legitimize resistance against oppression, and to ensure the sanctity of civilian life. Yet in the current political reality, fundamental international law protections are being discarded, while a small group of powerful leaders decides whose lives matter and whose don’t.

The violence in Israel-Palestine did not begin on October 7, and international law gives us universal and well-understood frameworks through which to understand it as part of a decades-long conflict with root causes in occupation, dispossession, and denial of fundamental rights of the Palestinians as a national entity. While the UN Charter and international law give all states the right to self-defense, that right does not extend to attacking a population it occupies, as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has twice confirmed. International law also confirms the right of occupied people, including the Palestinians, to resist occupation and denial of their self-determination. Emphasizing this does not excuse the actions of Hamas and Islamic Jihad militants on October 7, but provides the context which law defines, and through which it allocates, criminal responsibility.

The four Geneva Conventions of 1949 incorporate international humanitarian law, the rules that regulate the conduct of both state and non-state actors in armed conflict—Israel, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad. The Geneva Conventions rules apply to all parties, and violations by one party do not legitimize violations by another. The basic rules in armed conflict are that all parties must distinguish between combatants and civilians, never target civilians or civilian objects, or cause disproportionate civilian harm. Violating these rules can be war crimes, and depending on the intent and nature of the violations, can be crimes against humanity or—the gravest of universal crimes—genocide.

In the wake of World War II, the United Nations established judicial institutions, the ICJ and later the International Criminal Court (ICC), to enforce fundamental international legal norms and prevent and prosecute mass atrocities. However, the UN was designed to give only the five victorious post-war powers the ultimate decision to deploy force to stop state aggression and grave breaches of the peace through their veto power at the Security Council. The General Assembly, in contrast, represents all 193 UN member states, each with an equal vote.

The United States has blocked multiple efforts by the General Assembly (GA) to achieve a ceasefire and comply with three ICJ orders of 26 January, 28 March, and 24 May of this year for Israel to cease its genocidal acts in Gaza, ensure humanitarian aid, allow Gazans fuel, water, and medical assistance, and secure release of Israeli hostages held in Gaza. The GA efforts have been magnified by calls across the UN humanitarian and human rights system to end what most have classified a genocide by Israel, with over 41,000 Palestinians killed and over 95,000 injured, massive destruction of housing and property, displacement of over 1.5 million people, and kidnapping and torturing thousands of others. In addition to the ICJ’s orders, UN experts have called for an immediate end to cease arms exports to Israel or risk complicity with genocide.

At the ICC, Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan requested warrants in May against three Hamas officials—two of whom Israel has since assassinated—for war crimes and crimes against humanity for their responsibility for the 1,200 Israelis killed and 250 taken hostage on October 7. He has requested warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for Israeli crimes in Gaza, including starvation as a method of war, willful killing, direct targeting of civilians, extermination and murder as war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Objections filed in the Pre-Trial Chamber by Israel and significant public pressure and threats by the United States and Israel have delayed issuance of the warrants so far. UN bodies and international organizations have decried the threats against the ICC as promoting the culture of impunity the Court was designed to prevent.

The United Nations and the international community have been unable for decades to limit massive violations of humanitarian law by Israel in its unlawful occupation of the Palestinian territory, despite hundreds of UN resolutions, most recently last month, primarily due to the US veto. Since October 7, it has been powerless to put a ceasefire in place, enable a protection mechanism for civilians in Gaza, and ensure accountability for ongoing, massive crimes in the Israel-Palestine conflict. The rules are robust, but are disintegrating while we watch, as their enforcement has been left to the whim of a few powerful players while thousands of innocents continue to be slaughtered with impunity.

Susan Akram
Clinical professor of international human rights,
School of Law