War’s Shadow: Gaza Incidents and the Future of International Law

Strategic Foresight

The formal investigation into the death of Hind Rajab in Gaza could redefine accountability in future urban warfare.

The starting conditions

The decision by the Israeli army to open a criminal investigation into the death of five-year-old Hind Rajab in Gaza in 2024 establishes a specific legal and ethical baseline from which to project future trends. This event, involving a child's prolonged communication with emergency services before her death and the subsequent recovery of her body, garnered international attention. The formal inquiry, rather than an internal review, introduces a potential for greater scrutiny and, critically, for precedent-setting outcomes in the application of international humanitarian law (IHL) to contemporary conflict. The existing framework of IHL, developed largely in the context of state-on-state warfare, faces increasing strain from conflicts characterised by urban environments, asymmetric combatants, and pervasive digital evidence.

The precedent for such investigations is not uniform globally, nor are their outcomes universally accepted. However, the initiation of a criminal inquiry suggests an acknowledgement, at some level, of the imperative for accountability, even if the ultimate findings remain subject to domestic legal processes. This particular case amplifies existing debates surrounding proportionality, distinction, and precautions in attack, especially when non-combatants are involved. The global dissemination of information, often in real-time and unverified, creates a volatile informational environment that exerts pressure on military and political actors to demonstrate adherence to legal and ethical standards, or at least to appear to do so. These conditions form the foundation for examining how international legal norms, military doctrine, and humanitarian practice might evolve by 2030.

Scenario one: Incremental hardening of IHL enforcement

Under this scenario, the investigation into the Rajab case, alongside similar high-profile incidents, could contribute to an incremental but significant hardening of IHL enforcement mechanisms. By 2030, this might manifest as a heightened expectation for states to conduct thorough, independent, and transparent investigations into alleged IHL violations, particularly those involving civilian casualties in urban settings. International bodies and civil society organisations could gain increased leverage to demand accountability, potentially leading to more frequent referrals to international criminal jurisdictions or the activation of universal jurisdiction principles in national courts. The legal and reputational costs associated with perceived non-compliance would rise, compelling militaries to integrate IHL more deeply into their operational planning, targeting protocols, and rules of engagement.

Technologically, this scenario could see the widespread adoption of AI-driven combat monitoring systems and enhanced battlefield forensics, creating more robust evidentiary trails for post-incident analysis. While not eliminating civilian harm, these technologies could make it more difficult for states to dismiss or obscure incidents. Humanitarian organisations might gain improved access and protection, with specific protocols for civilian evacuation and aid delivery becoming more rigorously enforced through international pressure and, potentially, UN Security Council resolutions. The primary driver here would be a sustained global public and political will to uphold IHL, catalysed by individual cases that resonate widely and expose systemic failures.

Scenario two: Strategic erosion of IHL and 'lawfare' proliferation

Conversely, the current environment could lead to a strategic erosion of IHL, where the investigation into the Rajab case becomes an outlier rather than a precedent, or where its findings are perceived as insufficient by international observers. By 2030, states might increasingly view IHL as a constraint to be navigated or circumvented rather than a binding framework. This scenario envisages a proliferation of 'lawfare' – the strategic use of legal systems to achieve military or political objectives – where accusations of IHL violations become tools for diplomatic leverage or propaganda rather than genuine attempts at accountability. States might become more adept at constructing legal justifications for actions that push the boundaries of existing norms, exploiting ambiguities in IHL, particularly concerning urban warfare and the definition of combatants.

In this future, domestic investigations might be perceived as lacking impartiality, and international mechanisms could be paralysed by political divisions or a lack of enforcement power. Access for humanitarian actors might become even more restricted, with aid delivery increasingly weaponised or subjected to stringent conditions that undermine its neutrality. The incentive structure for militaries could shift towards prioritising operational effectiveness over strict adherence to IHL, particularly in conflicts deemed existential. This erosion would be driven by a combination of geopolitical fragmentation, a decline in multilateral cooperation, and a perceived lack of consequences for IHL violations, leading states to prioritise national security interests above a universal legal order.

Scenario three: Dual-track IHL evolution

A third possibility is a dual-track evolution of IHL by 2030, where a highly formalised, robust enforcement regime develops among a coalition of states committed to upholding and strengthening international law, while a parallel, less accountable track emerges among states less inclined to adhere to these norms. In this scenario, the Rajab investigation and similar cases could serve as a catalyst for a 'coalition of the willing' to develop more stringent domestic and international oversight mechanisms, potentially including new treaties or protocols specifically addressing urban warfare and civilian protection. This group of states might adopt advanced verification technologies, commit to independent investigative bodies, and actively sanction actors found in violation.

Simultaneously, other states, particularly those engaged in asymmetric conflicts or facing significant internal security challenges, might coalesce around a more permissive interpretation of IHL. They might argue for the primacy of national sovereignty in investigating alleged violations and resist external scrutiny. This divergence could lead to a fragmented international legal landscape, where the application of IHL becomes contingent on the actors involved and their geopolitical alignment. Humanitarian aid and protection could become highly politicised, with access and safety varying dramatically based on the prevailing legal track. This scenario would be driven by a deepening ideological divide over the nature of state sovereignty versus international accountability, leading to a de facto two-tiered system of international legal compliance.

Wildcards that would break every scenario

Several unforeseen developments could fundamentally alter the trajectory of IHL enforcement and humanitarian practice, rendering the preceding scenarios obsolete. A rapid and widespread adoption of autonomous weapon systems (AWS) that operate with minimal human intervention could introduce profound ethical and legal questions regarding accountability, potentially necessitating an entirely new framework for IHL. If such systems become prevalent without clear international consensus on their regulation, the very concept of human responsibility for battlefield conduct could be challenged, invalidating existing legal structures.

Similarly, a major global power withdrawing from key international legal instruments, such as the Geneva Conventions or the Rome Statute, could severely undermine the legitimacy and enforcement capacity of IHL. This would create a vacuum that other states might exploit, leading to a rapid unravelling of norms. Conversely, a universally accepted global catastrophe, such as a major climate migration crisis or a pandemic significantly more severe than recent outbreaks, could either galvanise unprecedented international cooperation to strengthen humanitarian law or lead to a complete breakdown of legal order as states prioritise survival above all else. Finally, a technological breakthrough enabling perfect battlefield transparency – for example, ubiquitous, uninterceptable surveillance – could either enforce perfect accountability or lead to new forms of information warfare that obscure truth entirely, fundamentally reshaping the dynamics of IHL enforcement.

Strategic implications

The strategic implications of these scenarios for international relations, military doctrine, and humanitarian action are profound. For states, the choice between stricter adherence to IHL and a more permissive approach will increasingly define their international standing and alliances. Militaries will face ongoing pressure to adapt their training, technology, and operational procedures to either meet higher standards of accountability or to navigate a more contested legal landscape. The challenge will be particularly acute in urban combat environments, where the distinction between combatant and civilian is often blurred and collateral damage is frequently unavoidable.

For humanitarian organisations, the future could entail either greater protection and facilitated access under strengthened legal frameworks or significantly increased risks and politicisation of their work in an environment of eroding norms. The ability of international bodies to hold states accountable will depend heavily on sustained political will and the capacity to overcome geopolitical fragmentation. Ultimately, the investigation into the death of Hind Rajab, while a singular event, lays bare the broader tension between military necessity and humanitarian imperatives, a tension that will continue to shape the future of armed conflict and international law well beyond 2030. The question remains whether such incidents will serve as catalysts for reform or as symptoms of an irreversible decline in the global commitment to protecting civilians in war.

Scenario matrix

Probabilities are estimates, not certainties. They are published so the forecast can be scored later.

Source material: BBC News