GAZA ON TRIAL: INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW AND COMPARATIVE INSIGHTS FROM ENGLISH AND EU LAW

Abstract

The recent hostage crisis in Gaza, where civilians have been caught in an escalation of military activities, has seen urgent negotiations by international powers spearheaded by Egypt and the United States. These attempts, although aimed at the release of hostages, prominently pose serious questions concerning adherence to International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and the safeguarding of civilians under the Geneva Conventions. The act of hostage-taking is a war crime, and the breach of both state and non-state actors underscores the continuing difficulties in applying legal requirements in asymmetric warfare. This article will take a closer look at the international law approach to the crisis, the culpability of the involved parties, and the culpability of the mediators, as well as the implications of the crisis on civilian protection in general. English and EU law comparative insights highlight how national and supranational structures can support international standards, providing tools of prosecution, sanctions, and policy restructuring. This paper aims to sheds light on the relationship between the humanitarian pillars, the legal responsibility and the interplay between diplomatic bargaining by examining the Gaza hostage crisis. It highlights the necessity of enhanced control measures and considerate policy-based interventions to reduce damage, safeguard civilians, and improve the efficiency of international law norms in future conflicts.