Challenges of Compliance with International Law in Asymmetrical Conflicts

International law is built on the principle that states and recognized entities must adhere to established rules regarding war, human rights, and humanitarian protections. However, these principles face significant challenges when conflicts involve non-state actors who do not recognize or abide by international legal frameworks. This creates an imbalance where one party follows the laws of war while the other disregards them, making enforcement ineffective and undermining justice.

The founding of Israel was rooted in international legal processes, including the League of Nations Mandate (1922) and the United Nations Partition Plan (1947). However, conflicts over territory, occupation, and the treatment of civilians have led to ongoing legal and moral dilemmas. While Israel, as a recognized state, is bound by international humanitarian law (IHL), it faces adversaries such as Hamas—a group that is designated as a terrorist organization by multiple countries, including the United States, the European Union, and Israel—which does not operate under the same legal constraints. This asymmetry in compliance creates a legal and ethical challenge.

One of the key weaknesses of international law is its lack of enforcement mechanisms. Unlike domestic legal systems, there is no global police force to ensure compliance, and bodies like the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the United Nations (UN) often lack the authority to act decisively against violations. When one party abides by humanitarian protections—such as safeguarding civilians, treating prisoners humanely, and avoiding collective punishment—while the other engages in war crimes such as targeting civilians, hostage-taking, and indiscriminate attacks, the system of international law fails to ensure justice.

This issue is particularly evident in the Judeo-Arab conflict in the Middle East, where compliance with IHL is one-sided. Hamas has openly violated international laws, including the Geneva Conventions, by targeting civilians, using human shields, and refusing to recognize Israel’s legitimacy. At the same time, Israel, as a democratic state, is held to a higher legal standard and faces international scrutiny, even in cases of self-defense. The return of hostages' bodies yesterday, as reported in various news outlets, underscores this challenge: while international law demands the humane treatment of hostages and prisoners, non-state actors often disregard these rules with impunity.

Ultimately, the failure of enforcement mechanisms in international law leads to a lack of accountability and allows asymmetrical warfare to persist. Until global institutions develop stronger mechanisms to hold all actors accountable—whether states or non-state groups—conflicts will continue to expose the weaknesses of international law and challenge its ability to protect civilians and uphold justice.