By Tendai Makaripe
Global media is flooded with disturbing images from Gaza, Palestine. Bodies lie motionless in the streets, hastily covered by cloths, while the cries of grieving children echo through the air.
Homes and hospitals have been reduced to rubble, thick smoke rises from the ruins, and the once-picturesque urban landscape now stands as a skeletal city.
These scenes of devastation bring to light more than just the horrors of war; they highlight the glaring inadequacies of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) in regulating modern urban warfare.
In Gaza, Israel’s use of prohibited weapons such as dumb bombs, bunker busters, and white phosphorus has caused widespread destruction in the densely populated enclave.
These actions underscore the increasing difficulty in enforcing IHL, which was designed to protect civilians and limit the effects of armed conflict.
But as warfare evolves, particularly in urban settings, the laws that govern it struggle to keep pace.
This article explores the critical challenges facing IHL in contemporary urban warfare, with Gaza serving as a case study, and proposes solutions for reforming the law to protect civilians more effectively.
Urban Warfare: A Growing Threat to Civilians
Urban warfare is not a new phenomenon; cities have long been battlegrounds, from Stalingrad during World War II to Beirut in the 1980s. However, the nature of urban warfare has transformed dramatically in the 21st century.
Today’s conflicts—whether in Gaza, Aleppo, or Mosul—demonstrate the extreme vulnerability of civilians in densely populated areas.
Combatants increasingly use traditional tactics like sieges, artillery, and snipers, alongside advanced technologies such as drones and precision-guided munitions.
This mix of old and new methods results in unprecedented devastation.
In Gaza, for example, the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) have been accused of using heavy explosives, artillery, and multi-barrel rocket launchers in civilian areas, raising serious concerns about violations of IHL.
“These weapons are often designed to deliver explosive force over a wide area, making it difficult to avoid civilian casualties in such densely populated environments,” said chairperson of the Zimbabwe Institute of Diplomacy Vova Abednigo Chikanda.
This raises fundamental questions about whether IHL, which was largely designed in an era when warfare was more conventional, can adequately protect civilians in today’s urban conflicts.
IHL’s Core Principles: Distinction, Proportionality, and Precaution
At the heart of IHL are the principles of distinction, proportionality, and precaution, all designed to limit the impact of war on non-combatants.
These principles are enshrined in Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions and have been instrumental in shaping the rules of war.
The principle of distinction requires warring parties to distinguish between combatants and civilians, and between military targets and civilian infrastructure.
Article 48 of Additional Protocol I states that “attacks shall be directed solely against military objectives.”
This is particularly important in urban warfare, where military targets are often embedded within civilian areas.
Yet, Gaza has seen repeated violations of this principle.
Hospitals, schools, and residential buildings have been targeted, resulting in significant civilian casualties.
The precautionary principle obligates combatants to take all feasible measures to avoid or minimise civilian harm.
This means that if there is a risk of excessive civilian damage, attacks must be refrained from.
However, research has shown that Gaza continues to witness indiscriminate bombardments, with little regard for the safety of civilians.
Proportionality, another key tenet of IHL, is designed to balance military necessity with the protection of civilians.
According to Article 51 of Additional Protocol I, attacks must not cause excessive civilian harm compared to the anticipated military advantage.
International conflict, peace, and governance researcher Lazarus Sauti, said: “This principle aims to balance military necessity with the protection of civilians, preventing attacks where the expected civilian harm outweighs the military gain. Violations of this principle can lead to severe consequences, including war crimes.”
The human toll of these violations is staggering.
The Palestinian Health Ministry reports that over 41,000 people have been killed in Gaza, including 11,355 children.
Among the victims is the mother of the Palestinian ambassador to Zimbabwe, Tamer Almassri, who was killed in her home in Khan Younis.
These deaths highlight the devastating consequences of failing to adhere to the principles of IHL.
The Targeting of Journalists: A Breach of IHL
Another disturbing aspect of the conflict is the targeting of journalists, who are protected under IHL as civilians.
Palestinian officials report that over 150 journalists have been killed in Gaza, with claims that Israeli forces deliberately targeted them to suppress coverage of the war.
The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) has labelled this conflict the deadliest for journalists since 1992, and the International Center for Journalists (ICFJ) has noted that violence against journalists in Gaza has reached unprecedented levels in the last 30 years.
Under Article 79 of Additional Protocol I, journalists engaged in dangerous professional missions are entitled to the same protections as civilians. Attacking them constitutes a war crime, yet these protections seem meaningless in the face of the ongoing violence.
Geopolitical Obstacles to IHL Enforcement
The principle of accountability is one of the most significant gaps in IHL enforcement.
While violations are clear, holding states accountable through mechanisms like the International Criminal Court (ICC) has proven difficult due to geopolitical interference.
International relations scholar Gibson Nyikadzino said Israel’s violations of IHL, particularly the principle of proportionality, are facilitated by its political alliances, particularly with the United States.
“That is why, in the first instance, South Africa took Israel to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The disproportionate use of force against civilians and civilian infrastructure in Gaza disregards the law of armed conflict,” he said.
However, geopolitical interests often prevent meaningful legal action.
Another international affairs analyst Gift Mazhozho added:
“A divided UN Security Council has failed to protect civilians and uphold IHL in Gaza. The US has vetoed several draft resolutions aimed at holding Israel accountable, leaving civilians to bear the brunt of the conflict,” he said.
China and Russia, too, have vetoed US-proposed resolutions, showing that powerful nations frequently block enforcement of IHL, further undermining its effectiveness.
IHL in the Context of Modern Warfare
As warfare evolves, so too must the legal frameworks that govern it. Ambassador Almassri stresses the need for IHL to adapt to the realities of modern warfare, including drones, cyber warfare, and other advanced technologies.
“New technologies of warfare require updated legal frameworks within IHL to ensure civilian protection. The UN and the international community must work to ensure that political biases do not hinder the enforcement of IHL in conflict zones,” he said.
The introduction of autonomous weapons and other new technologies further complicates the situation.
In Gaza, where urban warfare blurs the line between civilian and military zones, these technologies are often used with devastating results.
The IDF’s use of 920kg bombs on residential buildings, as documented by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), exemplifies how IHL struggles to prevent disproportionate harm to civilians in urban settings.
To address the inadequacies of IHL exposed by the Israel-Palestine conflict, there is a need to strengthen accountability mechanisms.
Analysts believe that the International Criminal Court (ICC) must be empowered to prosecute war crimes without political interference.
“One way to achieve this is by establishing an IHL-specific tribunal dedicated to investigating violations in urban warfare settings. Additionally, the International Fact-Finding Commission (IFFC), which is often underutilised, should be deployed more frequently to ensure independent and impartial investigations in conflict zones,” said Zimbabwe Palestine Solidarity Council chairperson Kwanisai Mafa.
Additionally, IHL must be updated to reflect the difficulties of modern warfare.
The Geneva Conventions need amendments to specifically address the use of heavy explosives, drones, and other advanced military technologies in urban settings.
Moreover, the legal framework must evolve to regulate the emerging challenges posed by cyber warfare and autonomous weapons, further blurring the distinction between combatants and civilians.
Researchers have underscored that investment in precision weaponry is critical to reducing civilian harm in urban conflicts.
United Kingdom-based conflict studies analyst Faith Kamupita said warring states must be required to use precision-guided munitions and employ enhanced surveillance technologies to ensure accurate targeting.
“This would help to uphold the IHL principles of distinction and proportionality, limiting the indiscriminate destruction witnessed in Gaza and other conflict zones,” she said.
“There must be a concerted effort to ensure neutrality and impartiality in global institutions like the UN. Creating independent task forces free from geopolitical influence would enhance the enforcement of IHL. Such bodies could investigate and prosecute violations without the political biases that often protect powerful nations from scrutiny.”
Ensuring that all parties are held to the same legal standards helps the international community bolster the credibility of IHL and ensure its consistent application.
Without urgent reform, IHL continues to fall short of protecting civilians, allowing further devastation and loss of life.
Mafa also noted that: “The International community must move beyond rhetoric even though we appreciate the efforts of the majority of the countries at the UN who spoke against the ongoing atrocities. Governments and organisations must condemn Israel’s actions, demand compliance with IHL and impose sanctions”.
The United Nations Security Council must hold accountable those responsible for alleged atrocities. We demand the Palestinian right to self-determination by establishing a sovereign Palestinian state.
The global family must act decisively to strengthen accountability mechanisms, update legal frameworks, invest in precision weaponry, and maintain neutrality in enforcing IHL.
Only through these measures can we hope to safeguard civilians in future conflicts and uphold the principles of humanity that IHL was designed to protect.
