International Laws on Trial: Gaza and the World
- lavozlatinatu
- Oct 6, 2025
- 4 min read
Anonymous Staff Writer
Word Count: 719
Estimated Read Time: 3 minutes
Opinion Writers’ Note: Due to personal safety issues regarding how some parties may interpret our staff writer’s stance, they have chosen to remain anonymous. In a time when crackdown on free speech is growing, the safety of our writers is of utmost importance to us at La Voz Latina at Towson University.
International law promises protection in times of war. The ongoing Gaza Genocide has forced the world to confront a brutal truth: international law is only as strong as the states willing to enforce it.
International law, coined by English philosopher Jeremy Bentham, was once a simple concept: rules governing relations between states.
Today, it has evolved into an independent system of laws that exists outside the legal boundaries of a single nation, spanning two vast categories: subjects of international law and objects of international law. By design, international law is intended to establish the standards of conduct during conflict, safeguard civilians, and hold perpetrators accountable.
The Geneva Conventions remain the foundation of international humanitarian law, as they establish standards for the treatment of humans and minimum protections for individuals who do not participate in or cannot defend themselves.
But Gaza has revealed just how fragile these protections are.
The problem is not the absence of law, because it does exist. The problem is with its enforcement.
The International Court of Justice, ICJ, stands as the primary judicial arm of the United Nations, and the only international court with jurisdiction over all United Nations members.
The ICJ has jurisdiction over disputes of a legal nature submitted by states and provides advisory opinions on legal questions upon request by the United Nations.
However, legal scholar Eric Posner, author of Is the International Court of Justice Biased?, pointed out, “when their home states are not involved, judges vote for states that are similar to their home states—along the dimensions of wealth, culture, and political regime.”
Thus, when the interests of powerful nations or their allies are at stake, international law bends or breaks.
The ICJ interim ruling on January 6, 2025, South Africa vs. Israel, found ‘plausible’ that Israel is violating its obligations under the Genocide Convention regarding the situation of Gaza.
Anne Ramberg of the International Bar Association noted, “while the provisional measures of the ICJ were impactful, the ICJ should have added its voice to the global call for an immediate ceasefire in line…”
As of October 3, 2025, Israeli forces have intercepted all 42 vessels of the Global Sumud flotilla, including the final ship, Marinette, which was seized about 42.5 nautical miles from Gaza.
Officials quickly alleged that some of the boats were not even carrying aid. Whether those claims hold up or not, the broader point remains: the blockade itself determines the narrative.
When one state holds the power to decide what counts as “legitimate” humanitarian aid and what does not, international law becomes less of a system of justice and more a tool of convenience.
This is not a question of whether the rules exist, because they do. The Geneva Conventions, the Genocide Conventions, and the very principles of humanitarian law are written in black and white.
The question is who has the power, and more importantly, the political will, to enforce them.
The flotilla was meant to test that will, to put international law into action. Instead, we witnessed the capture of those on the vessels.
Meanwhile, new flotillas are already sailing, including an 11-boat mission. Their journeys can be tracked in real time via the Global Sumud Flotilla and the Freedom Flotilla Coalition.
However, unless enforcement mechanisms change, their fate is likely to mirror the first 42: not a humanitarian breakthrough, but another demonstration of the gap between the law on paper and reality.
International law was never meant to be a suggestion. It is meant to be a promise that even in war, there are lines that could and should not be crossed, lives that could not be forgotten.
Promises without accountability are just words, and in Gaza, those words are fading beneath the debris.
Justice cannot exist when enforcement is bent to power, and the law cannot protect where silence prevails.
Until the world decides that justice is with more than temporary allegiance, international law will remain adrift, not a shield for the powerless, but a reflection of who we choose to protect.
For those who wish to stay informed or support ongoing humanitarian efforts, organizations such as the Freedom Flotilla Coalition, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Medical Aid for Palestinians, and Humantiproject provide live updates, verified reports, and ways to assist relief operations in Gaza.
Comments