The violation of international law by Israel’s recent invasion of Lebanon is multi-fold. Israel has not only violated Lebanon’s state sovereignty, but it has also gone against the principles of International Humanitarian law (IHL) and various UN Resolutions. This state often cites self-defence as its motive for such actions. The real question is whether, the killing of innocent civilians justifiable under the banner of such a defence?

The Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) penetrated through the border of Southern Lebanon, on 1st October 2024 establishing a military presence that undermined the Lebanese government’s control over its territory violating the international law principle of state sovereignty. This occupation created a situation where the Lebanese state could not assert its authority in these areas. The presence of foreign troops and the influence of external actors (including Israel) complicated Lebanon’s political landscape, making it difficult for the Lebanese state to operate independently and effectively govern its population. The invasion spurred the rise of resistance movements, most notably Hezbollah, which challenged both Israeli presence and the Lebanese government’s authority, further complicating sovereignty issues.

The International human rights law and the Geneva Conventions, apply in situations of armed conflict. These laws aim to protect civilians and non-combatants, Israel violated the Principle of Distinction– an important aspect of the IHL. This is because these military operations did not differentiate between combatants and civilians, hence maximising the civilian casualties. Since October last year more than 1600 Lebanese have been killed in Israeli strikes and 346000 internally displaced. Two-third of these numbers are women and children facing distinct and gendered impacts of such causalities and displacements.

Incursions into the Lebanese territory also were not proportional to the military advantage anticipated by the state of Israel hence violation the principle of proportionality of international humanitarian law. Furthermore, military action must be necessary to achieve a legitimate military objective. If diplomatic or other peaceful measures were viable alternatives, the invasion could be challenged under IHL. Since Israel could invoke diplomatic pathways instead of a direct tank invasion into Lebanon, it also went against the principle of necessity of IHL. Using methods or means of warfare that cannot distinguish between military targets and civilian populations is prohibited, so this ground invasion also amounts to indiscriminate attacks on Southern Lebanon which is again a violation of international law.

Various UN Security Council resolutions addressing the Israel-Lebanon conflict, including resolutions on ceasefires and calls for de-escalation have also been breached. Resolutions such as 1701 (2006) call for the cessation of hostilities and the respect for Lebanon’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. An invasion could be seen as a breach of these principles. Resolution 242 emphasizes the “withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied” in the 1967 conflict. Since the recent invasion involves occupying or reoccupying parts of Lebanon, it contravenes this resolution. Violation of resolution 338 is also evident as this resolution calls for the immediate cessation of hostilities and a return to negotiations. Military actions that escalate tensions rather than promote dialogue violate this directive.

The Isreal- Palestine conflict has seen massive civilian causalities at both ends of the fighting lines. The state of Israel can’t cite the crimes committed on its soil as a justification for its invasion into Lebanon. This amounts to collective punishment, another grave violation of international law. Israel often cites self-defence as a rationale for its military actions, particularly in response to attacks from non-state actors like Hezbollah. International law, particularly Article 51 of the UN Charter, allows for self-defence against armed attacks. However, this right is subject to the principles of necessity and proportionality which have both been seen to be violated by Israel.