Reassessing the Principle of Distinction in the Context of Gaza: A Critical Study

Abstract

This study examines whether and how the principle of distinction in international humanitarian law has operated in Gaza, finding that recent hostilities have markedly weakened its protective effect. Drawing on documentary records and UN reporting, the paper documents repeated strikes on civilian facilities—schools, hospitals, shelters—and restrictive blockades that obstruct access to essential commodities, producing widespread destruction of education and health infrastructure, acute malnutrition and starvation, and pervasive lack of basic resources for a dignified survival. It examines the legal framework governing distinction, with particular attention to the classification between “military objectives” and “civilian objectives”, and when aggression on the latter is justified, the special legal protections afforded to medical and educational sites, and the prohibition of starvation and collective punishment. The analysis contends that the military actions in Gaza have led to a widening of the military-objective concept and an erosion of the presumption of civilian character, enabling both direct attacks and indirect measures that inflict civilian harm contrary to treaty and customary norms. To remedy these deficiencies, the study advances a set of reforms: a reaffirmation of the principle of distinction, elevated evidentiary standards for claims of hostile use, codifying and strengthening no-strike presumptions for hospitals and schools, and strengthening provisional relief powers for international organs tasked with securing humanitarian access. By combining normative legal analysis with the Gaza factual record, the research aims to understand the legal framework and its application in Gaza and to outline reparative pathways for victims of disproportionate or indiscriminate conduct.