This article critically assesses the role of the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) in enforcing International Humanitarian Law (IHL). The ICC was designed to ensure accountability for severe IHL violations. However, its operational capacity faces significant challenges, particularly its reliance on state cooperation for enforcement and political resistance. This article explores the Court’s jurisdiction, the principle of complementarity, and its investigative processes while analyzing resistance from nonsignatory states such as the US, China, and Russia. The US sanctions against the ICC especially with President Trump’s executive order of February 6, 2025, will exemplify the ongoing tension between state sovereignty and international accountability. Additionally, the article highlights issues within the Rome Statute, including ambiguities regarding state cooperation, jurisdiction, and immunity, which affect the Court’s efficacy. Despite some successes in prosecuting high-profile leaders, the ICC’s credibility remains a matter of debate due to its limited enforcement, inconsistent state support, and continued political resistance.

Following the attack on Israel by Hamas militants on October 7, 2023, Israel declared war on the Gaza Strip. In the relentless and nonstop bombardment of the Gaza Strip, about 40,000 Palestinian civilians have lost their lives, the majority of whom were children and women. Additionally, more than 92,000 Palestinians have been injured and many more are still missing or under the rubble. The dire situation in the Gaza Strip requires a firm stand from the international community, as what is happening to the Palestinian people is nothing short of genocide. This paper discusses Israel’s attacks on the Gaza Strip and illustrates how these actions meet the criteria for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. It also discusses the case filed by South Africa against Israel in the International Court of Justice, alleging that Israel has violated the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

The ongoing conflict in Gaza strip has resulted in significant humanitarian crisis, with civilians often bearing the brunt of violence. This article critically examines the role of IHL in the protection of civilians affected by the armed conflict. The study focuses on key IHL principles, including distinction, proportionality, and precaution, and assesses their application by the parties involved. It employs an analytical and descriptive research methodology. The findings reveal that both Israel and Hamas have committed numerous violations of IHL, including indiscriminate attacks and failure to protect civilian populations. Despite the clear legal frameworks set by IHL, the lack of accountability and enforcement has hindered its effectiveness. The author concludes that while IHL provides a robust legal framework for civilian protection, the political complexities of the Israel-Hamas conflict severely limit its implementation, leaving civilians vulnerable. The research calls for stronger international mechanisms to ensure compliance with IHL and improve civilian protection in the region.

The deployment of drones for targeted killings in recent years has sparked intense debates regarding the ethical and legal implications of their deployment in contemporary conflicts. Through an examination of the complexities surrounding the application of fundamental international humanitarian law (IHL) principles - such as differentiating targets and ensuring a proportionate response – and their deployment, the article aims to illuminate the potential legal ramifications of using drones in targeted killing. It also highlights challenges arising from the ambiguous distinction between combatants and non-combatants, compounded by the remote nature of drone missions. The inclusion of a few relevant case studies enhances the analysis, providing practical insights into the nuanced legal landscape and emphasising the pressing need for a comprehensive legal framework tailored to regulate drone usage. This paper stresses the immediate requirement for an effective regulatory structure to ensure adherence to IHL, thereby upholding humanistic principles and reducing the human toll of conflicts.

Since the beginning of the seventh century, Islamic law has played an essential role in protecting the personal, economic, judicial, and political rights of civilians during armed conflict. Fourteen centuries before the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was drafted in 1948, it had already initiated a human revolution consisting of a set of human principles. In addition, Islamic law has made a significant contribution to international humanitarian law (IHL). This paper focuses on two specific legal constructs in warfare: the definition of the combatant and the principle of distinction. This article comparatively examines how these two laws deal with different aspects of war that fall under jus ad bellum, jus in bello, and jus post bellum. A comparative analysis of the various elements and aspects of just war theory in Islamic and contemporary international law provides a much deeper understanding of its limitations. We can safely conclude that there is a unique relationship between the Islamic law of war and IHL.

The creation of the Iraqi Special Tribunal in December 2003 by Iraqi authorities who were at the time under the legal occupation of the Coalition Provisional Authority marked the emergence of a new form of internationalized domestic tribunals. The Iraqis succeeded in incorporating the full range of modern crimes into their domestic codes alongside some carefully selected domestic offenses, while amending domestic procedural law in some key ways to align the process with established international law related to the provision of full and fair trials. The subsequent investigations and the beginning of trial proceedings generated major debates about the legitimacy of such a domestic forum within the context of human rights norms and the law of occupation. In particular, there was a major strand of thought from outside Iraq that the most legitimate and appropriate forum would have been an international process under the authority of the United Nations. This article examines the arguments made by the Iraqis who demanded a domestic process based on their inquisitorial model, setting them in the broader context of the emerging trends in international criminal law. Through a detailed and unique analysis of the provisions of human rights law and underlying Iraqi procedural law, it criticizes the arguments made by some that assume the illegitimacy of the tribunal under established international norms. The article provides the most detailed explanation of the law of occupation as it emerged following World War II to conclude that the establishment of the Tribunal as an independent court, and its subsequent validation by sovereign Iraqi domestic authorities, was completely valid and proper. The overarching theme of the article is that the imposition of artificial standards and the complete revocation of the preexisting Iraqi judicial structures would have created a process deemed wholly illegitimate by the Iraqi people and judiciary that would have undermined the establishment of the rule of law in Iraq. The author’s personal interactions with the judges serve to support the conclusion that the Tribunal is capable of serving as the doorway through which the detailed body of international criminal law is introduced to the broader Arabic speaking world.