THE VIOLENCE IN GAZA has evoked a novel reaction from the U.N. specialists, who have clearly warned the Palestinians about the ‘annihilation’. As documented in the photos of dead bodies and funeral marches, the cost of human life has been deep. The crisis was made worse by brutal starvation tactics.
In November 2024, the International Criminal court issued an arrest warrant for Benjamin Netanyahu for committing the war crime of starvation and just three months after in March 2025, Netanyahu declared that the entry of all goods and supplies to Gaza Strip will be prohibited. The total blockade to Gaza began in March resulting in seventy-seven days of cruel and inhumane siege, and is further evidence of Israel's genocidal intent against the Palestinian population.
Delays in the provision of humanitarian assistance continue to compound the failing position of the international community. In June, for example, the United States vetoed a UN Security Council Resolution that called for "an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza," with less support from the U.S. than the fourteen other member states that voted in favour, including the United Kingdom. Amnesty International criticized the U.S. veto of the draft resolution called "the immediate and unconditional lifting of all restrictions to the entry of humanitarian assistance," labelling the U.S. veto as inhuman.
This analysis will start from the legal premise that when UN experts use the legal term "annihilation" it has a more defined legal meaning under international law in accordance with the 1948 Genocide Convention and customary international humanitarian law and the norms of international law that are considered peremptory (jus cogens) which cannot be derogated.
Legal examination of the term ‘Annihilation’ within international jurisprudence
The U.N expert’s invocation of the term ‘annihilation’ has exacted legal meaning that transcends rhetorical overtones. Such terminology expressly involves related but discrete legal regimes: the 1948 convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the crime of Genocide, customary International Humanitarian law, and peremptory norm, particularly jus conges, from which derogation is not allowed.
As per Article II of the Genocide Convention, genocide is a term used to describe acts which are perpetrated with an intention to destroy, in whole or in part, national, ethical, racial or any religious group. The international criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (‘ICTR’) has clarified that the term “destroy” does not only include physical means of killing but also to subject the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction also. With this understanding it was later understood and communicated that establishing conditions of life that would result in the destruction of a group is connected through the scope of convention.
The U.N experts’ invocation of ‘Annihilation’ is in the context of this established jurisprudence. The expert’s finding emphasises on the possibility that some acts in Gaza might engage rights under Genocide Convention. Expert jargon construes “ considerable evidentiary weight” in determining risk thresholds of International Law.
Additionally, Article 40 of the International Law Commission, states that states have certain obligations for all states when faced with gross systematic failure to fulfil obligations under peremptory norms. The Commission includes prohibition on genocide, meaning that warnings of ‘Annihilation’ triggers erga omnes obligations for all states which is owed to the international community as a whole.
Judicial interventions of legal obligations under Genocide Convention
The Genocide Convention creates a complex obligation for State parties and has provided distinctive framework for understanding these obligations. A State’s duty to prevent, and the attendant duty to act arise at the moment when the State learns of or should have normally learned of the existence of a serious Genocide being perpetrated. A State can be held to have breached its duty to prevent even if it did not have certainty at the time when it should have acted, that genocide was on the verge of being perpetrated or was being perpetrated.
With time we have set out a refined legal test for determining State responsibility herein, by introducing an effective capacity to influence standards that depends upon a state geographical distance and strength of political and other links from the actors implicated. This standard was most recently applied in Gambia v. Myanmar (204) and the provisional measures were directed by the ICJ on the basis of reports by U.N experts which were substantially identical with those concerning Gaza.
The ICJ had ordered some preventive measures such as guaranteeing humanitarian assistance, stopping incitement and requiring periodic reports on enforcement. The language of “annihilation”, as warned by UN experts, triggers the entire gamut of preventive obligations.
How international humanitarian law operates in occupied territories
The application of international humanitarian law during armed conflict and occupations has been authoritatively confirmed by international jurisprudence. The ICJ’s Advisory opinion of the legal consequences of a wall in the occupied Palestinian Territory formulated three potential relations between these regimes of law: some may be exclusively matters of international human rights law, some humanitarian law, and others may be both these branches of international law.
This principle of equity was reaffirmed again in armed activities of the Congo (2005) and most recently by the ICJ’s advisory opinion on Legal Consequences of the policies and practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian territory. With this practice, this simultaneous use created a complicated legal framework.
The reported mass casualty incidents need to be examined under Articles 51(4) and 51(5) of Additional Protocol, which bans indiscrete attacks including those which may be expected to cause incidental loss to civilian life which may be excessive in relation to concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. The principle of proportionality demands a proper assessment of whether incidental civilian losses are excessive and cannot be made in isolation from military advantage.
Article 57(2)(a)(ii) of Additional Protocol 1 mandates planners of attack to take all feasible precautions in the choice of means and methods of attack with a view to avoiding, and in any event to minimise incidental loss of civilian life. The ICTY also reiterated that in case of doubt the parties must err on the side of caution. Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, guarantees the right to life. The Human Rights Committee's General Comment No. 36 stipulates that this must remain applicable in situations of armed conflict.
Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights states that purposefully interfering with access to food constitutes violation to the Covenant. Human rights obligations can be divided and tailored to the circumstances of extraterritorial action. In deciding if actions in Gaza violate these concurrent legal regimes, the courts must employ the complementarily principle which is an established principle of interpreting IHRL.
Applying the responsibility to protect doctrine in Gaza: Legal duties amid UN ‘Annihilation’ warnings
The responsibility norm has developed from an intellectual concept to a nascently emerging concept in international law. There continues to be some scholarly dispute. The Report of the Secretary General on Implementing the Responsibility to protect has stated that R2P finds its footing in law on the basis of precedent treaty and customary law obligations. In ‘Legal Consequences of the Construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian Territory’, the ICJ has established that an occupying power remains under some legal obligations to the occupying population. This was reaffirmed in the 2009 report of the UN Sectary- General on R2P, where it was made explicit that ‘Pillar One’ responsibilities are to be exercised over populations under effective control.
Nevertheless, ICJ’s most recent Advisory Opinion on ‘Legal Consequences of the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory’ clarifies this by taking the view that the absence of a well- defined structure of government does not exclude the applicability of obligations of protection under international law.
The invocation of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine in Gaza represents a systemic failure of the international legal system in light of credible information of mass atrocities and genocide. The UN Special Committee concluded, "Israel is still practicing methods of waging war against Gaza that are genocide", with the Committee also highlighting that Member States have the collective responsibility to uphold international law and accountability to international law wherever and whenever violations occur.
Additionally, targeted obstructive conduct against the provision of humanitarian assistance would go on as one of the components of the R2P failure, with the May 2025 Human Rights Watch assessment stating that "Israel's fresh plans... inch ever closer to extermination”, explaining that "a definitive determination that genocide is already underway is not required" to warrant legal intervention, a standard established during their intervention in a case currently before the UK courts challenging the UK government's decision to continue to license military equipment used by Israeli forces in Gaza.
Emerging legal interpretations on Gaza
In a recent ruling courts have created a significant legal precedent directly within the ambit of commitments evoked from threats of annihilation by UN authorities. The jurisprudential evolution may be traced across various international tribunals and courts, adding unique instances to the governing legal framework.
The ICJ has emphasised that the UN expert’s assessment formed part of the evidence base for such a finding. The Court directed Israel to take all measures within its power to avoid any acts prohibited under the Genocide Convention, provide humanitarian aid, avoid and punish incitement of genocide, and maintain evidence of suspected violations.
Most significantly, the ICJ had mandated periodic reporting of implementation measures, creating a continuous monitoring process. This created a precedent that warnings like ‘annihilation’ initiate automatic judicial monitoring procedures. Furthermore, the International Criminal Court has developed pertinent jurisprudence. The situation in the state of Palestine affirmed the court’s territorial jurisdiction in Palestine, Gaza. The office of the Prosecutor then initiated a formal investigation, with the Prosecutor’s Statement specifying that evidence collection was concentrating on events leading to mass civilian casualties. The ICC jurisprudence regarding command responsibility would be applicable to commanders within the Gaza military and there could be criminal liability for not preventing war crimes under Article 28 the Rome Statue.
The UNHRC and institutional competence
Institutional reaction to annihilation notification would need to be examined in light of fragmentation of International law, a thesis extensively debated by the international law commission in its first study “Fragmentation of international law: Difficulties arising from the diversification and expansion of international law”.
Such a framework acknowledges the technical specialisation of various international institutions but insists on their complementary function to implement international legal rules. The remit of the UN Human Rights Council is to deal with situations of violation of human rights and report thereon. The UNHRC has built special procedural mechanisms with special application in Gaza. The process of UPR is realized in the discovery of adherence to human rights standards.
The United Nations Human Rights Council Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, established by UNHRC Resolution, has a mandate to investigate all violations of international humanitarian law and all violations and abuses of international human rights law alleged in the OPT. Its February 2024 report documented patterns of conduct that could amount to the crime against humanity of extermination; words that affirmatively follow threats of "annihilation."
Apart from the UNHRC, other UN organisations have some of their legal mandates directly applicable in Gaza. The Chapter VII power of the Security Council was extensively considered by the ICJ in Certain Expenses of the United Nations, where it held that the Council was primarily and not exclusively responsible for international peace and security. This precedent is the legal foundation under which the General Assembly may move under the Uniting for Peace procedure if warnings of "annihilation" are not properly heeded by the Council. The procedure was last invoked regarding Gaza in the General Assembly Resolution.
Recommendations
First, the UNHRC must establish a Special Monitoring Mechanism for Gaza under the framework established by the UNHRC Resolution. This mechanism would employ the “Minnesota Protocol” methodology for documenting civilian casualties. A precedent for such a mechanism exists in the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission which is established by the Security Council Resolution. The SMMG must have specific authority to immediately transmit findings to the ICC office of the Prosecutor pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statue, by creating a real-time evidence collection mechanism.
Second, UN member states, particularly High Contracting parties to the Geneva Conventions, should implement their obligations under Common Article 1 to ensure respect for the convention activating specific domestic legal mechanisms.
Third, the General Assembly should invoke the Uniting for Peace procedure to recommend the establishment of the United Nations Emergency Peace for Gaza. The ICJ’s Certain Expenses Advisory Opinion established the legal basis for such forces being invoked when the Security Council is deadlocked. The force’s mandate must specifically include establishing and securing humanitarian corridors and civilian safe zones, with operating guidelines drawn from the UN infantry Battalion manual regarding protection of civilian’s operations.
Fourth, all humanitarian actors should take up the "Parameters and Principles of UN assistance in Syria" framework with Gaza amendments, which had already set out precise operational procedures for humanitarian access during armed conflict. This would include third-party monitoring arrangements, deconfliction arrangements, and humanitarian notification arrangements. ICRC Commentary to Article 23 of the Fourth Geneva Convention entrenches that belligerent parties ought to be provided with humanitarian relief for civilians in certain circumstances, offering a legal basis for enforcement of humanitarian access.
Conclusion
The United Nations' warnings of "annihilation" in Gaza, paired with the United States' veto on lifting flight restrictions, have occasioned a serious legal light to be cast under the international humanitarian and human rights law framework. The usage of such language is not merely rhetorical—it triggers a whole array of legal obligations binding under the Genocide Convention, the Geneva Conventions, and customary international law.
Jurisprudence from international tribunals, such as the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court, has consistently upheld that acts threatening physical destruction of a population, be it by direct attack or systematic deprivation, fall within the prohibitions of international law. Therefore, the terminology of ‘annihilation’ carries with it evidentiary weight and makes it incumbent upon given states to urgently act so as to prevent further violations from occurring. The continued obstruction of humanitarian aid, with the Security Council deadlocked, is revealing of the institutional limitations in dealing with mass atrocity crimes. Yet, the legal obligations are not dependent on an alignment of political views. Rather, the obligation to prevent or to respond to such violations is embedded as peremptory norms and is reinforced by the Responsibility to Protect, thus, applicable even in situations of fragmented authority and contested jurisdiction.
Now, Gaza stands as the test case for the enforcement of international law. Failure to act decisively not only endangers life and rights but also goes against the legal order itself. The question remains if the accountability mechanisms will see meaningful application.