The limits of International Law in the face of the war between Israel and Hamas – A realist perspective on the failure of the R2P doctrine

Enfoque

Introduction: The current situation in Gaza between Israel and Hamas, characterised by large-scale human suffering, extensive civilian casualties and dire living conditions due to blockades and military actions, aligns with the humanitarian imperatives at the heart of Responsibility to Protect (R2P).

Objectives: The purpose of our research is to analyse the limits of the application of International Law towards the actors involved in the Israel-Hamas War (2023-present), and how the limitation of the application of International Law contributes to the failure of the R2P doctrine, under the theoretical lens of the realist school of International Relations.

Methodology: We going to use different sources and bibliographies related to the History of International Relations, International Law, and the Foreign Policy of States, related to this historical period, which will be used throughout this case study. Furthermore, to apply the methodological framework in question, we will resort to the main premises developed by the realist academics of International Relations.

Discussion: The R2P invokes one of the most powerful moral and legal terms in contemporary international politics, responsibility. The nature of the relationship between R2P and International Law and morality, however, remains contested, giving rise to questions lying at the core of R2P’s normative foundations, because its application is only possible with the consent of the great powers with veto power inside of the United Nations Security Council.

Conclusions: The structural problems of preventive humanitarian intervention cannot be definitively resolved. R2P failed because it worked; using the doctrine exposed its underlying flaws. Indeed, the more it is employed as a basis for military action, the more likely it is to be discredited. For the doctrine to be applied successfully, it is necessary to have the coercive capacity of a military power of a State or a military coalition of several States, with the consent of the great powers with veto power in the Security Council, as long as it does not put their respective national interests at stake.