Lara Kajs
Dispatches from the Field — The Genocide Report
Washington, DC — 6 July 2026
International humanitarian law was created to establish universal rules governing armed conflict, regardless of who is fighting or why a war is being fought. The Geneva Conventions, the Rome Statute, and customary international law impose legal obligations intended to protect civilians, limit the means and methods of warfare, and ensure accountability for serious violations. These protections are not contingent upon political alliances, military strength, or the identity of the parties to a conflict. Yet recent events in Gaza and Lebanon have renewed debate over whether these legal standards are being applied consistently. As allegations of war crimes and other serious violations continue to emerge, the credibility of international law increasingly depends not only on the existence of legal rules, but on the willingness of the international community to apply them equally.
The Principle of Equal Protection
One of the defining features of modern international law is its universality. The legal protections established after the Second World War were deliberately designed to prevent states from claiming exceptions based on political necessity or military advantage. The Geneva Conventions require parties to distinguish between civilians and combatants, prohibit indiscriminate attacks, protect hospitals and humanitarian personnel, and require constant care to minimize civilian harm. The Rome Statute establishes individual criminal responsibility for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, regardless of the nationality or official position of the accused.
These obligations apply equally to every party engaged in armed conflict. States exercising the right of self-defense remain bound by international humanitarian law, just as organized armed groups are prohibited from deliberately targeting civilians, taking hostages, or using protected persons to shield military operations. International law recognizes no hierarchy of victims and grants no exemption based upon the legitimacy of a state’s broader security concerns.
This principle has become increasingly important as contemporary conflicts unfold under unprecedented international scrutiny. Satellite imagery, open-source investigations, humanitarian reporting, and digital evidence have dramatically expanded investigators’ ability to document civilian harm. At the same time, they have intensified public expectations that serious allegations will be investigated impartially and addressed through established legal mechanisms.
“International law derives its legitimacy from the principle that every civilian life is afforded equal protection under the law, regardless of nationality, religion, or political alliance.”
From Gaza to Lebanon: Familiar Legal Questions
The conflict in Gaza has become one of the most extensively documented humanitarian crises in recent history. The United Nations Commissions of Inquiry, humanitarian organizations including Doctors Without Borders, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and numerous UN agencies have documented extensive civilian casualties, sexual violence, repeated attacks affecting hospitals and civilian infrastructure, severe restrictions on humanitarian access, widespread displacement, and that starvation has been used as a method of warfare.
Several UN experts have also raised concerns that the cumulative impact of military operations, restrictions on aid, and destruction of civilian infrastructure constitute serious violations of international humanitarian law. These reports have informed proceedings before international judicial institutions and intensified global debate regarding accountability under international law.
As Israeli military operations have expanded into Lebanon, many of the same legal concerns have emerged. Although the operational environments differ, the legal standards governing civilian protection remain the same. Civilian populations retain protection from direct attack. Medical facilities and humanitarian personnel continue to enjoy special protection. Parties to a conflict must distinguish military objectives from civilian objects, avoid disproportionate attacks, and take feasible precautions to reduce civilian harm.
The recurrence of these legal questions across multiple theaters highlights an important reality: international humanitarian law is intended to function consistently regardless of geography or political context. The law does not establish one standard for conflicts involving allies and another for conflicts involving adversaries. Instead, it measures conduct against the same legal obligations in every armed conflict.
Whether those obligations have been respected in any particular situation is ultimately a matter for independent investigation and judicial determination. Nevertheless, the increasing number of allegations arising from successive Israeli military operations has intensified scrutiny of whether existing accountability mechanisms are functioning as intended.
When Accountability Appears Unequal
The effectiveness of international law depends not only upon the rules themselves but also upon the confidence that those rules will be enforced without regard to political influence. International institutions have long faced criticism that accountability is pursued unevenly, with investigations and prosecutions often shaped by geopolitical realities, Security Council dynamics, and the strategic interests of powerful states.
The debate surrounding Israeli accountability has intensified because the legal questions are no longer hypothetical. The International Court of Justice is considering proceedings brought under the Genocide Convention. The International Criminal Court has continued investigations concerning alleged crimes committed in the Palestinian territories. Multiple United Nations investigative bodies, including the Commission of Inquiry and the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, have produced reports examining alleged violations of international law. Together, these proceedings demonstrate that the conduct of the conflict has become the subject of sustained international legal scrutiny rather than political debate alone.
The existence of investigations or allegations does not determine legal responsibility. That responsibility belongs to competent judicial bodies that apply the law to facts. Yet, accountability begins with credible investigations that are allowed to proceed independently and without political interference. When legal processes are delayed, obstructed, or perceived to be applied differently depending on the identity of the parties involved, confidence in the international legal system is diminished.
This concern extends beyond the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Similar questions have arisen regarding Ukraine, Sudan, Myanmar, Syria, and other contemporary conflicts. The principle at stake is not whether one state should receive greater scrutiny than another, but whether all states and armed groups are subject to the same legal standards.
International humanitarian law was never intended to distinguish between allies and adversaries. Its purpose is to protect civilians wherever armed conflict occurs. If that principle becomes contingent on political relationships, the credibility of the legal framework itself is at risk.
Why Consistency Matters
The post-1945 international legal order was built upon the conviction that certain conduct is unlawful regardless of who commits it. Civilian protection, the prohibition of collective punishment, the requirement to distinguish military objectives from civilian objects, and the obligation to facilitate humanitarian relief were established as universal norms rather than political preferences.
Maintaining those norms requires more than adopting treaties. It requires the consistent application of legal standards, the impartial investigation of alleged violations, and accountability processes capable of operating independently of political considerations. Equal application of the law does not guarantee identical outcomes in every case, but it does require that similar allegations receive parallel legal scrutiny.
The credibility of international law ultimately depends upon whether states demonstrate that no party is beyond legal accountability. The protection of civilians cannot remain a principle invoked selectively. Whether the victims are Palestinian, Lebanese, Ukrainian, Sudanese, Rohingya, or members of any other civilian population, the law derives its legitimacy from its equal application. Once exceptions are accepted for one conflict, the protection afforded by international law is weakened for all.
If international humanitarian law is to retain its legitimacy, it must continue to function as a universal framework governing the conduct of all parties to armed conflict, without exception.
Atrocity Prevention Lens
One of the most significant indicators of escalating atrocity risk is the normalization of impunity. When repeated allegations of serious violations fail to generate credible investigations or meaningful accountability, the deterrent effect of international law is weakened. Patterns of attacks affecting civilians, restrictions on humanitarian assistance, forced displacement, and inflammatory rhetoric warrant sustained monitoring regardless of where they occur. Consistent accountability remains an essential component of atrocity prevention because it reinforces the principle that violations of international law carry consequences independent of political influence.
Legal Framework
Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols
The four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols form the foundation of modern international humanitarian law. They require parties to an armed conflict to distinguish between civilians and combatants, prohibit attacks directed against civilians, protect the wounded and sick, safeguard medical facilities and humanitarian personnel, and require parties to facilitate humanitarian relief for civilian populations. These protections apply to all parties in an armed conflict without exception.
Customary International Humanitarian Law
Customary international humanitarian law consists of legal rules that have become binding through widespread and consistent state practice accompanied by a sense of legal obligation. These customary rules complement treaty law and apply to both international and non-international armed conflicts, including where states have not ratified specific treaties. Principles such as distinction, proportionality, military necessity, and precaution are widely recognized as customary international law.
Rome Statute and International Criminal Law
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court establishes internationally recognized definitions of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. Individuals—including political leaders, military commanders, and members of armed groups—may be held criminally responsible for serious violations of international law where the Court has jurisdiction or where accountability is pursued through other competent judicial mechanisms.
International Court of Justice
The International Court of Justice serves as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations and adjudicates disputes between states concerning international law. The Court also issues advisory opinions and has jurisdiction over cases involving treaties such as the Genocide Convention when states have accepted its jurisdiction. Its proceedings play an important role in clarifying states’ legal obligations during armed conflict.
Rule of Law
A fundamental principle of the international legal system is that humanitarian protections apply equally to all parties engaged in armed conflict. Neither political alliances, military capability, nor claims of self-defense exempt states or non-state actors from their obligations under international humanitarian law. The consistent application of these legal standards is essential to maintaining the credibility of the rules-based international order and ensuring equal protection for civilian populations.
Suggested Citation
Kajs, Lara. Selective Accountability: When International Law is Applied Unequally. Dispatches from the Field. The Genocide Report. Washington, DC, 1 July 2026.
Photo Credit
Peace Palace, The Hague by Ana Paula Hirama. Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0
About TGR
The Genocide Report (TGR) publishes analysis and educational resources on conflict, international law, and atrocity prevention. Its work seeks to bridge academic research, field realities, and public understanding of mass violence and civilian protection.
About the Author
Lara Kajs is the founder and executive director of The Genocide Report, a Washington, DC-based educational nonprofit focused on atrocity prevention and international law. She is the author of several field-based books on conflict, displacement, humanitarian crises, and international humanitarian law, drawing on extensive research and field experience in Yemen, Syria, and Afghanistan. Her writing and public speaking focus on atrocity crimes, forced displacement, the protection of civilians, and the legal frameworks governing armed conflict.