Over the course of the war in Gaza, the press often portrayed international lawyers as “divided” when it came to what was going on inside the Palestinian territory. In response to this misleading depiction, a group of academics specializing in international law and international criminal law decided to organize a letter this summer that would outline the legal analysis upon which the international legal community could agree. The result was an eight-point statement that attracted more than 270 signatures, reflecting how unified international law scholars are on this topic.
Although the situation in Gaza has changed in recent days – a fragile ceasefire has been reached – the letter we drafted this summer remains highly relevant. We hope that it will continue to attract new adherents among our internationalist colleagues, thus demonstrating that beyond our sensitivities and doctrinal differences, there is a great convergence of views on this situation, which constitutes a major challenge for the future of our discipline.
Finding Agreement
After crafting the statement this summer, we invited tenured academics, doctors of law, and specialists in general international law and/or international criminal law to sign. We initially limited our contacts to French-speaking academics, who were the most easily and immediately accessible to us. We quickly collected more than 150 signatures from some 15 countries, including from some of the most prominent academic voices in the field. Truthfully, in the middle of August, this large-scale mobilization surprised even us. It testified to the fact that the text responded to a need, to a desire for many internationalists to take a stand as lawyers and speak out as a profession by extricating oneself as much as possible from the extreme politicization of the subject.
For the second phase, we opened the text for signature by non-French-speaking colleagues on all continents. We now have translations of the text in English and Spanish, which can be found at the bottom of the page. We have since reached a total of 276 signatures, with the possibility that more may join.
The appeal addresses the following eight issues: 1) denial of the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people, 2) the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks on Israel as war crimes and crimes against humanity that can be justified by no cause, 3) no right to self-defense of Israel under Article 51, but right and duty to protect its population, 4) violations of human rights, war crimes and crimes against humanity as part of Israel’s response in Gaza, 5) Genocide, 6) serious violations in the West Bank, 7) responsibilities of States and persons, and obligation of Parties to the Rome Statute to cooperate with the International Criminal Court, and 8) Obligations erga omnes and norms of jus cogens. Obligations of all states in this regard and complicity.
These eight points made it possible to stick to legal observations, putting aside as much as possible affects and value judgments. The form of the appeal was therefore likely to please academics, but it did not correspond what is generally expected from an “op-ed” published in the press (that is more the expression of an opinion than a statement on points of law). Still, the French newspaper Liberation published the text as part of a multi-page feature on the situation in Gaza in its Aug. 8 print edition. Several other French-language newspapers have also published the appeal: in Canada (La Presse and Le Devoir, with an article based on an interview with Professors Geneviève Dufour and David Pavot), in Belgium (Le Soir) in Portugal, (CNN Portugal ), and in Senegal (Kewoulo).
The Most Sensitive Text
Of all the legal findings, the most sensitive is the one relating to genocide. On this subject, we wanted to take into account everyone’s sensitivities and perceptions. The crime of genocide requires one to prove a special intent (the “dolus speciais”) to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such, in addition to specific acts listed in Article II of the 1948 Genocide Convention. Many of us stumbled on this question of genocidal intent. It was clear to everyone that patterns of crimes corresponding to the acts defined in Article II were committed. But in the fog of the armed conflict between the Israel Defense Forces and Hamas, the key question was whether these crimes were accompanied by the requisite dolus specialis. On this point, it seemed to us that, over time, we had indeed witnessed the repeated declarations by high-level Israeli officials reflecting not only a hatred and dehumanization of the Palestinians, but more specifically a plan to destroy the Palestinian population of Gaza.
In an April 11 op-ed, published by the French newspaper Le Monde, we noted a March 19 tweet by Defense Minister Israel Katz that we believed was a transparent expression of genocidal intent, promising Palestinians in Gaza “total destruction and devastation.” This declaration of intent was also largely supported by the pattern of indiscriminate attacks carried out by the Israeli army, plus the targeting of civilians, journalists, hospitals, and all the infrastructure that sustains life in Gaza, as well as the siege of Gaza and the blockade of humanitarian aid. Later, on July 7, Katz presented Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with a plan to concentrate the population of Gaza in a “humanitarian city” to be established in the ruins of Rafah. This plan provoked an unprecedented reaction from a group of 16 prominent Israeli academics who sent an open letter to the Minister of Defense on July 10, published in Just Security, in which they expressed the opinion that if the plan were implemented it could result in the commission of several war crimes and crimes against humanity. Moreover, they added that this plan may also be interpreted as an act of genocide:
the concentration of civilians under extreme density and existing humanitarian conditions may be interpreted as the deliberate infliction on the group of conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, a conduct which falls under the prohibition of genocide. Several ministers and MKs have made statements that may be interpreted as expressing such intent. The plan also appears to contradict the ICJ’s provisional measures in the South Africa v Israel case concerning possible violations of the Genocide Convention, particularly those relating to living conditions in Gaza and Rafah. These orders are binding on Israel under international law, and, in our understanding, also under domestic law.
Taking these different elements into consideration, we have therefore proposed a minimum consensus around the crystallization of the Israeli government’s genocidal intent around the “humanitarian city project,” i.e. in July 2025. This proposal, as can be seen by the number of people who signed our letter, has gathered a very broad consensus among colleagues. Such a proposal in no way excludes the view that genocidal intent was present before July. There are many well-documented reports in this regard, some of which we quote in the paragraph on genocide. What the text says very simply is that from July 2025, there is no longer any doubt among the signatories about the existence of the special intent, and consequently about the existence of an ongoing genocide. But we also say something that is always important for jurists to remind non-jurists: that this discussion on the qualification of genocide should not mobilize minds exclusively, and above all should not be the ultimate criterion for condemning what is happening in Gaza. For it is certain that in Gaza—but also in the West Bank—extremely serious crimes are being committed with immeasurable consequences, and which fall under the qualifications of war crimes and crimes against humanity and are also serious human rights violations. Even if the symbolic significance of “genocide” is immense, especially when it comes to Israel, there is no hierarchy among international crimes. Nor exclusivity.
Since the publication of the call, new developments have taken place. The Association of Genocide Scholars adopted a resolution on the situation in Gaza, which states that Israel’s policies and actions in Gaza correspond to the definition of genocide reflected in Article II of the Convention, but also to the definition of war crimes and crimes against humanity contained in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The text was adopted by a majority of the members of the Association, but the list of signatories and their number is not made public. Moreover, the Association is not composed only of jurists or internationalist lawyers, but covers several disciplinary fields. This makes this statement complementary to the “eight-point” appeal published here.
Then, on Sept. 16, the International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including East Jerusalem, presented its latest report to the U.N. Human Rights Council, in which it concluded that “Israel bears responsibility for the failure to prevent genocide, the commission of genocide and the failure to punish genocide against the Palestinians in the Gaza strip.” The 72-page report is based on a detailed analysis of the evidence collected by the Commission. It does not rule on the individual responsibility of the perpetrators, but on the responsibility of the State, based on the standard of proof of the existence of a “reasonable basis for conclusion.”
In early September, France, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and other Western States formally recognized a Palestinian state. Beyond this recognition, however, there is the question of States adopting acts to stop the genocide in Gaza and to criminally prosecute the perpetrators, as they are obliged to do. These steps are behind “point 8” of the appeal, which recalls that the norms of international law in question are not only norms erga omnes but are also norms of jus cogens. And that any act that would have the effect of aiding, facilitating, or providing the means for the commission of crimes knowingly constitutes complicity in the crimes committed.
As we write these lines, the tenuous ceasefire, the release of Israeli hostages and the release of 2,000 Palestinians detainees in exchange, is cause for relief and joy. We must hope that a peace process will follow, based on international law and the principle of a two-state solution, even if the chances for success are slim. The question of justice for crimes committed will remain, however. Plus, it is extremely important to effectively deter the commission of further crimes in Gaza and in the West Bank. For these reasons, we feel that our appeal remains just as relevant today.
* * *
Link to the signatories of the appeal
