The Gaza war, which was ignited by Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attack and followed by Israel’s sweeping military campaign, has escalated into not only a humanitarian catastrophe but also a crisis of global governance. As over 60,000 Palestinians have reportedly been killed, and diplomatic avenues remain frozen, the conflict has exposed the fragility of the international order once built to prevent such tragedies. Despite repeated resolutions, legal mechanisms, and multilateral institutions, the world has failed to halt this spiraling violence. This breakdown in global response raises a sobering question, that is, has the United Nations, particularly its Security Council, lost the credibility and capacity to uphold justice and international law? Through a series of repeated vetoes, selective enforcement, and institutional inertia, the Gaza war reveals how political bias and moral paralysis are steadily corroding the norms designed to prevent the abuse of state power and protect civilian lives.
Follow CPF WhatsApp Channel for Daily Exam Updates
Led by Sir Syed Kazim Ali, Cssprepforum helps 70,000+ aspirants monthly with top-tier CSS/PMS content. Follow our WhatsApp Channel for solved past papers, expert articles, and free study resources shared by qualifiers and high scorers.
To understand this disturbing failure, it is crucial to revisit the historical context that underpins the rules-based international order. This global framework was established in the aftermath of World War II and rests upon foundational documents such as the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions, and various international human rights treaties. In theory, this architecture aimed to curb state aggression, elevate human dignity, and level the playing field among nations by codifying universal standards of behavior. However, the real strength of this system lies not in the ideals it proclaims, but in the willingness of the global community to enforce these ideals consistently.
Yet, as the Gaza war has unfolded, it has become increasingly clear that this enforcement is neither consistent nor impartial. The conflict, which began after Hamas’s assault in October 2023, has triggered a wave of Israeli military action resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands of Palestinians, mass displacement of civilians, and destruction of entire neighborhoods, schools, hospitals, and refugee camps. Despite widespread condemnation and multiple calls for a ceasefire from global actors, the UN Security Council has repeatedly failed to adopt binding resolutions that could stop the bloodshed or even facilitate humanitarian relief.
One of the central reasons behind this failure lies in the paralysis of the UN Security Council. Throughout 2024 and well into 2025, the Council attempted to pass numerous resolutions calling for a humanitarian ceasefire. These drafts, presented by Algeria and supported by a majority of member states, received overwhelming international backing. However, the United States, invoking its veto power, consistently blocked or diluted any resolution that appeared to hold Israel accountable. Although 14 out of 15 members voted in favor of these measures, the American veto rendered them ineffective. Similarly, Russia and China vetoed U.S.-led drafts that attempted to address the situation on Washington’s terms. Consequently, the Security Council became a stage for diplomatic theater rather than a platform for decisive, collective action.
Moreover, the structural flaw embedded in the Security Council’s design, namely the veto power held by its five permanent members, has now become a glaring mechanism of impunity. Since 1972, the United States alone has vetoed at least 45 resolutions related to Palestine. This has enabled a long-standing pattern of shielding Israel from accountability regardless of the scale of its actions. Human rights organizations, international legal experts, and diplomats have long warned that this veto system undermines both the UN Charter and international law itself. While reform proposals have been suggested, including calls to limit the use of veto in cases involving mass atrocities, such reforms require the consent of the very states that benefit from the status quo. Thus, meaningful reform remains unlikely.
In addition to political deadlock, the Gaza war has exposed the failure of humanitarian law to withstand the weight of geopolitical interests. The principles of international humanitarian law are clear, as they prohibit the use of starvation as a weapon, the targeting of civilians, and collective punishment. Nevertheless, Gaza has witnessed all of these violations. The territory has plunged into one of the worst man-made famines in recent memory. Hundreds of thousands face catastrophic food insecurity, and the collapse of infrastructure has accelerated death rates due to starvation, dehydration, and lack of medical care. The intentional restriction of aid and bombardment of food supply routes have been described by UN officials and aid agencies as acts that may amount to war crimes. Yet, despite such serious allegations, the global response remains muted and fragmented.
Furthermore, the role of international legal institutions, which were designed to offer justice and accountability, has been largely symbolic. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), for instance, has been deliberating on the application of South Africa accusing Israel of genocide. The ICJ issued precautionary measures requiring Israel to prevent genocidal acts and allow humanitarian aid. However, the absence of any enforcement arm means that these measures exist largely on paper. Similarly, the International Criminal Court (ICC), though theoretically empowered to prosecute war crimes, continues to face political obstruction. Powerful nations regularly intimidate or discredit the ICC when it investigates their allies. As a result, international legal proceedings appear increasingly detached from the reality on the ground.
This selective application of law and accountability deepens the crisis of legitimacy confronting global institutions. When Russia invaded Ukraine, the international community, particularly Western nations, responded swiftly with sanctions, military aid, and moral outrage. Conversely, the response to Israel’s military campaign in Gaza has been far more restrained, with major Western capitals either offering diplomatic cover or issuing carefully worded statements that avoid concrete measures. This glaring double standard has not gone unnoticed. Across the Global South, many nations and civil society groups now view the international system as inherently biased, functioning primarily to protect the interests of the powerful. From protests in Kuala Lumpur to press statements in Johannesburg, the disillusionment is palpable. The perception is growing that international law applies only when politically convenient and that the lives of some people matter more than others in the eyes of the global order.
In light of these developments, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the Gaza war has exposed not just a humanitarian disaster, but also a foundational collapse in the global commitment to justice and legal norms. The veto-riddled Security Council, the sidelined legal institutions, and the politicization of humanitarian law all reflect a world order in which power continues to trump principle. The ability of states to commit widespread violence with minimal consequence signals to other actors that impunity is achievable, so long as one has the right allies.
Want to Prepare for CSS/PMS English Essay & Precis Papers?
Learn to write persuasive and argumentative essays and master precis writing with Sir Syed Kazim Ali to qualify for CSS and PMS exams with high scores. Limited seats available; join now to enhance your writing and secure your success.
What is most troubling is not the novelty of these failures, but their normalization. The Gaza war did not create the dysfunction of the international system, but it did make it visible in the most horrifying way. What once may have been concealed by diplomatic language and procedural delay is now unmistakably evident. The world has watched hospitals bombed in real time, aid convoys turned away, and children buried under rubble, while global institutions issued statements, held meetings, and did very little else. This passivity has not only betrayed the people of Gaza, but it has also betrayed the post-war vision of a world governed by rules rather than raw power.
In conclusion, the Gaza war stands as a pivotal moment in contemporary international relations. It has revealed the moral fragility and operational impotence of institutions that were meant to serve as pillars of peace and justice. Unless there is a radical rethinking of how international law is enforced and how power is checked within global institutions, the rules-based international order will cease to be anything more than a rhetorical device. The United Nations may continue to exist in form, but if it fails to act in the face of such grave atrocities, it risks becoming irrelevant in function. If the global community wishes to salvage the credibility of its multilateral institutions, then Gaza must not be forgotten as a political failure, it must be remembered as a call to rebuild a system that is truly just, inclusive, and accountable.
