The following podcast contains advertising.

To access an ad-free version of the Lawfair Podcast,

become a material supporter of Lawfair at Patreon.com slash Lawfair. That's Patreon.com

slash Lawfair. Also check out Lawfair's other podcast offerings, rational security, chatter, lawfare no bull, and the aftermath.

A party to an armed conflict not only has the obligation to distinguish between combatants

and civilians, between military objectives and civilian objects

not only has an obligation to refrain from attacks even against military

objectives if the anticipated civilian harm would be disproportionate to the military

advantage gained. But even if an attack is being directed against a military

objective, even if the anticipated civilian harm is not disproportionate,

there is an additional obligation to minimize civilian harm through the concept of precautions. In its attacks in Gaza

Israel has an obligation to conduct attacks in such a way that minimize civilian harm.

I'm Natalie Orpet, executive editor of Law Fair,

and this is the Law Fair Podcast, January 4, 2024. The conflict between Israel and Hamas is provoking heated debates

about which side is in the right. Each accuses the other of things like war crimes.

Oftentimes they're expressing a political or moral judgment, but the fact is these are also legal terms.

So for this discussion, we're going to take a step back from the debates and try to take a

dispassionate look at the law that applies here, international humanitarian law or IHL.

To do that, I sat down with Gabar Rona, who previously served as the Legal Advisor for the International Committee for the Red Cross.

We talked about what IHL has to say about the most heated debates of this conflict, including the high number of civilian casualties in

Gaza and Hamas's use of human shields. We talked about the gaps in the law. And we talked about

whether the law even matters here.

...