Paradigm Perplexities: Does International Humanitarian Law or International Human Rights Law Govern the Gaza Border Protests of 2018-2019, & What Are the Consequences? A Response to the Supreme Court’s Opinion in Yesh Din v. Idf Chief of Staff (HCJ 3003/18)

Authors

• Anthony Carl, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law

Abstract

The note critically examines the Israeli Supreme Court's ruling on the 2018 Gaza border protests, arguing that the Court's classification of the conflict as an international armed conflict (IAC) is legally flawed. This classification allowed the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to use live-fire policies under international humanitarian law (IHL), which the author contends is inappropriate for the context. The analysis asserts that the conflict should instead be treated as a non-international armed conflict (NIAC), with corresponding implications for the application of human rights law (IHRL). The Court's conflation of the law enforcement (LE) paradigm under IHL with the conduct of hostilities (COH) paradigm is criticized for lowering the threshold for lethal force, leading to significant civilian casualties and potential war crimes.

Disciplines

Comparative and Foreign Law | Consumer Protection Law | Courts | Human Rights Law | International Law | Law

Recommended Citation

Anthony Carl, Paradigm Perplexities: Does International Humanitarian Law or International Human Rights Law Govern the Gaza Border Protests of 2018-2019, & What Are the Consequences? A Response to the Supreme Court’s Opinion in Yesh Din v. Idf Chief of Staff (HCJ 3003/18), 3 Cardozo Int’l & Compar. L. Rev. 1193 (2020).
Available at: https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/ciclr/vol3/iss3/11