International Humanitarian Law in the Face of Genocide in Gaza: Limits of Protection and Crisis of Effectiveness

Abstract

The conflict in Gaza has reopened a profound debate on the effectiveness and limitations of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) in the face of large-scale crimes such as genocide. Although international norms seek to protect individuals and attempt to limit the effects of war, reality reveals a disconnect between the legal framework and its effective implementation. This article examines the problems and crises in the effectiveness of international humanitarian law, as well as the potential limitations of protection in the face of a lack of coercive mechanisms, coupled with the politicization of international law, taking into account case studies, particularly the situation in Gaza. A qualitative and analytical-descriptive methodology is employed, based on a review of doctrinal sources, international resolutions, reports from humanitarian organizations, and pronouncements of the International Criminal Court. The main objective is to identify the normative gaps in international humanitarian law that weaken humanitarian protection and to explore possible ways to strengthen the international legal system. Looking beyond the legal analysis, the study establishes an ethical framework for collective responsibility in the face of human suffering and the urgent need to reconfigure the structure of international humanitarian law (IHL) to guarantee effective and universal protection of human dignity.