International humanitarian law in the context of "Geneva Convention"

A place of worship is a specially designed structure or space where individuals or a group of people such as a congregation come to perform acts of devotion, veneration, or religious study. A building constructed or used for this purpose is sometimes called a house of worship. Temples, churches, mosques, and synagogues are main examples of structures created for worship. A monastery may serve both to house those belonging to religious orders and as a place of worship for visitors. Natural or topographical features may also serve as places of worship, and are considered holy or sacrosanct in some religions; the rituals associated with the Ganges river are an example in Hinduism.

Under international humanitarian law and the Geneva Conventions, religious buildings are offered special protection, similar to the protection guaranteed hospitals displaying the Red Cross or Red Crescent. These international laws of war bar firing upon or from a religious building.

International human rights law (IHRL) is the body of international law designed to promote human rights on social, regional, and domestic levels. As a form of international law, international human rights law is primarily made up of treaties, agreements between sovereign states intended to have binding legal effect between the parties that have agreed to them; and customary international law. Other international human rights instruments, while not legally binding, contribute to the implementation, understanding and development of international human rights law and have been recognized as a source of political obligation.

International human rights law, which governs the conduct of a state towards its people in peacetime is traditionally seen as distinct from international humanitarian law which governs the conduct of states and non-state armed groups during conflict, although the two branches of law are complementary and in some ways overlap.

The Geneva Conventions is a term used to collectively refer to the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 along with their two optional protocols (Additional Protocols I and II), which form the core of international humanitarian law and establish international legal standards for the treatment of non-combatants in war. Negotiated in the aftermath of the World War II, the Geneva Conventions of 1949 consist of four agreements, which replaced three earlier humanitarian conventions of 1906 and 1929 and added two new conventions. The First Geneva Convention addresses the treatment of sick and wounded field soldiers, Second Geneva Convention addresses the treatment of sick and wounded sailors, Third Geneva Convention addresses the treatment of prisoners or war, and Fourth Geneva Convention addresses the treatment of civilians during armed conflict.

Aside from the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions are among the most widely ratified international agreements. The 1949 conventions were ratified, in their entirety or with reservations, by 196 countries. Much of the international humanitarian law contained in the Geneva Conventions has become customary international law, and therefore would apply to all states and non-state armed groups, even those that are not a party to the Geneva Conventions. The legal obligations created under the Geneva Conventions are somewhat different from other international treaties in that a breach of the Geneva Conventions by one party does not furnish a directly affected party with the option to cease complying with its treaty obligations.

Distinction (principle of distinction) is a principle under international humanitarian law governing the legal use of force in an armed conflict, whereby belligerents must distinguish between combatants and protected civilians. Combatant in this instance means persons entitled to directly participate in hostilities and thus are not afforded immunity from being directly targeted in situations of armed conflict. Protected civilian in this instance means civilians who are enemy nationals or neutral citizens outside of the territory of a belligerent power.

Article 51.3 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions explains that “civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.” Distinction, proportionality, and precaution are important factors in assessing military necessity in that the harm caused to protected civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not "excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated" by an attack on a military objective.

Proportionality is a general principle in law which covers several separate (although related) concepts:

• The concept of proportionality is used as a criterion of fairness and justice in statutory interpretation processes, especially in constitutional law, as a logical method intended to assist in discerning the correct balance between the restriction imposed by a corrective measure and the severity of the nature of the prohibited act.
• Within criminal law, the concept is used to convey the idea that the punishment of an offender should fit the crime.
• Under international humanitarian law governing the legal use of force in an armed conflict, proportionality and distinction are important factors in assessing military necessity.
• Under the United Kingdom's Civil Procedure Rules, costs must be "proportionately and reasonably incurred", or "proportionate and reasonable in amount", if they are to form part of a court ruling on costs.

The principle of proportionality means that belligerents must not launch an attack when the anticipated death and injury to civilians is clearly excessive in light of the military advantage expected from the attack.

Military necessity, along with distinction, and proportionality, are three important principles of international humanitarian law governing the legal use of force in an armed conflict.

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is a humanitarian organization based in Geneva, Switzerland, and is a three-time Nobel Prize laureate. The organization has played an instrumental role in the development of rules of war and promoting humanitarian norms. An international non-governmental organization, it has responsibility for promoting and ensuring respect for the four 1949 Geneva Conventions for the Protection of War Victims: the Convention for the Amelioration of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field; the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded, Sick, and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea; The Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War; and the Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.

State parties (signatories) to the Geneva Convention of 1949 and its Additional Protocols of 1977 (Protocol I, Protocol II) and 2005 have given the ICRC a mandate to protect victims of international and internal armed conflicts. Such victims include war wounded persons, prisoners, refugees, and non-combatants, including civilians. Thus, there has been a close relationship between the ICRC and the development of the law of war, also known as international humanitarian law.

Israel's occupation of Palestine, which has continued since 1967 and is the longest military occupation in modern history, has become illegal under international law. This illegality encompasses the West Bank, including Israeli-annexed East Jerusalem, as well as the blockaded Gaza Strip, which remains to be considered occupied under international law despite the 2005 Israeli disengagement. Israel's policies and practices in the occupied West Bank, including the construction and expansion of Israeli settlements, have amounted to de facto annexation that is illegal under international law.

It is a subject that has received much less attention than violations of international humanitarian law (IHL) and international human rights law (IHRL) that have occurred during the occupation. Multiple United Nations General Assembly resolutions have described the continuing occupation as illegal. The general thrust of international law scholarship addressing this question has concluded that, regardless of whether it was initially legal, the occupation has become illegal over time. Reasons cited for its illegality include use of force for impermissible purposes such as annexation, violation of the Palestinian right to self-determination, that the occupation itself is an illegal regime "of alien subjugation, domination and exploitation", or some combination of these factors. Eyal Benvenisti suggested that refusal by an occupier to engage in good faith with efforts to reach a peaceful solution should not only be considered illegal but as outright annexation. International law scholar Ralph Wilde states that "The common way of understanding the extended duration of the occupation... is a prolonged violation of international law". Israel denies occupying Palestine and maintains its presence is legal.