The Responsibility to Protect is a global principle that emphasizes the obligation of states to protect their own citizens from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing. This principle envisages that when a state cannot protect its own people, the international community can intervene. However, the grave human rights violations and war crimes that have recently taken place in Gaza prove that this principle remains only on paper. As a result of the attacks launched by Israel in October 2023, at least 2,500 civilians (800 of them children) lost their lives.[1] Disproportionate bombardments on civilian residential areas and actions such as deliberately targeting health infrastructure and basic services are clearly contrary to the principles of international law. Although the United Nations has appeared to defend the principle of protecting civilians since its foundation, it has become an institution that remains silent when it comes to Palestine.
The aims and normative framework of the Responsibility to Protect are based on the principle that states must first protect their own citizens; and when they fail, the international community must intervene with diplomatic, humanitarian, or if necessary, military measures. [2]In theory it is a strong commitment to preventing genocide and massacres, but in practice this principle has largely remained empty. For example, in the 2011 Libya Crisis, the United Nations Security Council, by adopting Resolution 1973 within just a few days, authorized a military intervention on the basis of the principle of “responsibility to protect civilians.” [3]Similarly, in the conflicts in Côte d’Ivoire (in the same year), steps could also be taken, albeit limited, with reference to the Responsibility to Protect discourse. However, apart from these few exceptional examples, the Responsibility to Protect has not been implemented in many severe humanitarian crises such as Syria or Myanmar, or its implementation has not been allowed. Indeed, after the Libya intervention, the understanding that the Responsibility to Protect is only a tool serving the interests of certain powers has strengthened. The principle of Responsibility to Protect has become a tool that is activated when it suits the interests of Western states, and easily forgotten when it does not.[4] In other words, this principle, which normatively claims to protect humanity, has lost its meaning amid the political vetoes and hypocritical attitudes of powerful actors.
The war crimes committed recently in Gaza reveal in a painful way how ineffective the responsibility to protect has remained in practice. Since October 2023, in the operations carried out by the Israeli army against the Gaza Strip, it has been reported many times that indiscriminate and disproportionate force was used despite the density of the civilian population.[5] Even hospitals, schools and public buildings used as shelters were subjected to heavy bombardments. Human Rights Watch (HRW) explicitly described these attacks as “war crimes,” emphasizing that dozens of similar attacks by Israel caused great losses among civilians. [6]In addition, Amnesty International also condemned the events in Gaza in a similar way and accused Israeli forces of “committing war crimes.”
A report published by Amnesty International in January 2024 demanded that Israel’s campaign against civilians in Gaza be investigated as war crimes; it documented the targeting of hospitals, infrastructure facilities and civilians, and stated that these actions can never be explained as legitimate self-defense.[7] Furthermore, in December 2024 Amnesty International reported that Israel’s actions even fit the definition of genocide, yet despite this, the international community did not lift a finger. While all this was happening, the United Nations and especially the Security Council maintained a passive stance. Far from taking binding decisions, it was seen that the Security Council could not even make a call for a ceasefire to stop the conflicts. In the example of Gaza, the principle of Responsibility to Protect has fallen completely silent. The human tragedy experienced by the Palestinian people shows that the Responsibility to Protect exists only in theory, while the basic principles of the UN are easily forgotten when it comes to Gaza.
The Gaza Crisis is also one of the clearest examples of the double standards of the international community. Especially the attitude of the USA in the United Nations Security Council proves this situation. The Washington administration has made it a habit to veto any decision that criticizes Israel or aims to stop Israel’s attacks. In the last fifty years, the USA has vetoed at least 53 draft resolutions criticizing Israel. Even in the period between October 2023 and January 2024, several UN draft resolutions calling for a ceasefire in Gaza or for the protection of civilians were blocked by the US veto. Indeed, in January 2024, the USA single-handedly blocked a UNSC resolution condemning the civilian massacres in Gaza. These vetoes render the principle of protection ineffective and at the same time damage the institutional reputation of the United Nations. European countries, on the other hand, display a similar attitude with their silence. While on the one hand European leaders never cease to speak about human rights, when it comes to Palestine they do not take a significant step and are mostly content with diplomatic condemnations.
The arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in November 2024 for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the former minister of defense clearly revealed the double standard of the Western World.[8] The ICC issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Gaza. Normally, the EU countries, which are parties to the Court, are required to comply with this decision and arrest Netanyahu when he enters their territory. For example, France initially stated that it would comply with the ICC statute but soon announced that it would avoid its obligation to arrest Netanyahu by claiming that he had head-of-state immunity. Similarly, Hungary explicitly stated “We will not arrest Netanyahu,” disregarding the ICC decision. [9]Moreover, this attitude of Western countries also reveals their own inconsistency. For example, France saying “no one is above justice” in the case of Putin but remaining silent for Netanyahu is a concrete example of this hypocrisy. This double standard shows that international law bends and twists according to the interests of the powerful. International law is implemented only when it suits the interests of powerful states; oppressed peoples like the Palestinians become victims of the normative double standards of the United Nations.[10]
The Gaza example shows that the principle of Responsibility to Protect and, in general, the credibility of the United Nations have been seriously undermined. In the face of tens of thousands of civilians being massacred and a people subjected to collective torture, the inaction of the UN is an open betrayal of its founding philosophy. When it comes to Palestine, the Responsibility to Protect is not even mentioned on paper, while the double-standard attitude of the UN has damaged trust in the organization. This situation is unsustainable. For the persecution suffered by the Palestinian people to end, it is essential that the international community take moral and conscientious responsibility. Even if the UNSC supports every decision concerning Palestine, due to the very structure of the Security Council no action can be taken. Therefore, the structure of the Security Council must be reformed and the Responsibility to Protect must be applied consistently and unconditionally. It is essential that the United Nations exhibit a humanitarian stance free from double standards. Otherwise, neither the tragedy in Gaza will end nor will the UN be a reliable actor in similar humanitarian crises. It should be remembered that the justice of an order is measured by the way it treats the weakest. Without justice being established in Palestine, the credibility of international law and norms will remain incomplete.
[1] “A history of the US blocking UN resolutions against Israel”, Al Jazeera, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/5/19/a-history-of-the-us-blocking-un-resolutions-against-israel, (Date Accessed: 18.07.2025).
[2] “What is R2P?”, Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, https://www.globalr2p.org/what-is-r2p/, (Date Accessed: 18.07.2025).
[3] 3 “The Case for Intervention in Ivory Coast”, Human Rights Watch, https://www.hrw.org/news/2011/03/25/case-intervention-ivory-coast, (Date Accessed: 18.07.2025).
[4] “Gaza: Israeli Strike Killing 106 Civilians an Apparent War Crime”, Human Rights Watch, https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/04/04/gaza-israeli-strike-killing-106-civilians-apparent-war-crime, (Date Accessed: 18.07.2025).
[5] “Amnesty International says Israel is committing genocide in Gaza; Israel rejects the allegations”, The Associated Press, https://www.ap.org/news-highlights/spotlights/2024/amnesty-international-says-israel-is-committing-genocide-in-gaza-israel-rejects-the-allegations, (Date Accessed: 18.07.2025).
[6] Ibid.
[7] “A history of the US blocking UN resolutions against Israel”, Al Jazeera, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/5/19/a-history-of-the-us-blocking-un-resolutions-against-israel, (Date Accessed: 18.07.2025).
[8] “Is Netanyahu immune from ICC arrest warrant, as France claims?”, Al Jazeera, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/11/28/is-netanyahu-immune-from-icc-arrest-warrant-as-france-claims, (Date Accessed: 18.07.2025).
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid.
