Double Standards in the Application of International Humanitarian Law: A Case Study of Gaza and Ukraine

Abstract

This study addresses the issue of double standards in the application of international humanitarian law (IHL) through a comparative analysis of the conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine. Although IHL was established to protect civilians and ensure neutrality during armed conflicts, its enforcement has shown significant inconsistencies shaped by political and geopolitical interests rather than strict legal obligations. The research outlines the theoretical framework of IHL principles—distinction, proportionality, necessity, and humanity—before presenting the historical contexts of both conflicts. A comparative analysis reveals stark disparities in international accountability mechanisms, media coverage, and legal responses. The findings demonstrate that while Ukraine received robust international support and accountability measures, similar violations in Gaza were met with limited or muted responses, undermining the neutrality and credibility of IHL. The study concludes that such double standards weaken the legitimacy of international law, perpetuate impunity, and generate severe humanitarian consequences, including high civilian casualties, mass displacement, and the collapse of infrastructure, particularly in Gaza. The research recommends strengthening international accountability mechanisms, ensuring uniform application of IHL standards, increasing support for humanitarian organizations, and promoting impartial media coverage. These steps are essential to safeguard civilians, uphold the integrity of IHL, and prevent selective justice in future conflicts.