UN’s Gaza ceasefire call doesn’t legally matter much

Ceasefires are a uniquely complicated tool in armed conflict. This is because they exist at the intersection of war, law and politics.

Political scientist Cindy Wittke has suggested that attempts to define what a ceasefire is and what it entails will ultimately reveal a “lack of fit” with international law. This is because they are notoriously difficult to negotiate and enforce.

This “lack of fit” has perhaps been most obvious in the UN Security Council’s deliberations over a ceasefire in Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza. Countless resolutions have been proposed with different wording, such as:

• “an immediate, durable and fully respected humanitarian ceasefire” (October 16)
• “humanitarian pauses” (October 18)
• “pauses in fighting” (October 25)
• “urgent and extended humanitarian pauses and corridors” (November 15)
• “an immediate humanitarian ceasefire” (December 8)
• a “sustainable cessation of hostilities” (December 22).

Finally, on Monday (March 25), after nearly six months of linguistic wrangling, the Security Council managed to pass a resolution that demands an “immediate ceasefire.” It emphasizes “the urgent need to expand the flow of humanitarian assistance” entering the Gaza Strip.

So, what will this resolution do in practical terms – and will it have any effect?

Enforcement mechanisms are limited

According to international law, a resolution of the Security Council is binding on all UN member states. This includes Israel and Palestine, which have UN observer status.

The Palestinian Authority and Hamas have <a href=«https://twitter.com/HusseinSheikhpl/status/1772309055769366863?ref_src=» https:>welcomed

the ceasefire resolution.

However, Israel was furious over the US decision to abstain from the vote, in effect