Home > School of Law > Law School Journals > ILJ > Vol. 26 > Iss. 2 (2025)
San Diego International Law Journal
Document Type
Article
Abstract
The legal boundaries of siege warfare are under renewed scrutiny following Israel’s siege of Gaza after the October 7, 2023 Hamas attacks. This analysis explores the intersection of military necessity and humanitarian obligations, assessing whether Israel’s tactics conform to established international law or signal a shift toward stricter legal interpretations. Key legal frameworks—including the Geneva Conventions, Hague Regulations, and customary international law—are examined alongside debates on civilian protection, humanitarian aid access, and the prohibition of starvation as a method of warfare. A comparative evaluation of sieges in Gaza and Syria reveals inconsistencies in how international humanitarian law is applied, raising concerns over selective enforcement. Recent actions by the International Court of Justice (I.C.J.) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) further highlight tensions between legal norms and political influence. These developments prompt critical questions about the future viability of siege warfare as a lawful military strategy and the broader implications for the integrity of international legal institutions.
Recommended Citation
Avraham Russell Shalev,
Besieging International Law? The Gaza Conflict and the Future of Siege Warfare,
26
San Diego Int'l L.J.
217
(2025)
Available at:
https://digital.sandiego.edu/ilj/vol26/iss2/3
