The law of armed conflict has faced, from the outset, a wide range of challenges that arise from the nature of contemporary warfare. Among these challenges, asymmetric warfare stands out as particularly problematic, as it involves a situation in which a state that adheres to the Laws of Armed Conflict is faced by a n non-state entity, which does not see itself as bound by the law of armed conflict and abuses the principles of international humanitarian law to gain an advantage over its adversary.

The law of armed conflict is premised on the distinction between civilians and combatants. From this principle naturally derives the obligation of combatants to clearly distinguish themselves from the civilian population. Sadly, the world has witnessed time and time again that terrorists taking part in asymmetric conflicts, intentionally locate themselves and their weaponry amongst civilian population's and use innocent people including women, children, the sick and the elderly as human shields. They booby-trap civilian areas and abuse medical facilities and ambulances. They abuse protected sites, public institutions, places of worship and UN schools and facilities, and interfere with humanitarian relief efforts. This practice is regularly supplemented by another grave breach of international law: intentionally targeting the civilian population of the belligerent state.

This unlawful and abhorrent practice has been part of Israel's reality for decades, within the context of armed conflicts with Hezbollah, Hamas and other terrorist groups in the area. It creates difficulties and dilemmas for Israeli commanders and soldiers, in their effort to uphold international law in the face of an enemy that blatantly disregards and abuses the protections afforded by the laws of armed conflict, in order to gain an advantage on both the battlefield and in world public opinion.  The sad reality is that innocent civilians suffer in armed conflicts, especially in situations where a non-state entity violates the law and intentionally puts its civilian population at risk. Israel firmly believes that the law of armed conflict remains the primary legal framework for regulating the conduct of hostilities, including hostilities with non-state actors. At the same time, it is important that the existing body of law that relates to the law of armed conflict, to which Israel and all states are bound, be interpreted in such a way that it effectively meets the emerging challenges and changing faces of contemporary armed conflicts, including asymmetric warfare.

Mr. Chairman,

Israel is not the only state with concerns regarding the Additional Protocols.  Nonetheless, our commitment to the law of armed conflict, including the Geneva Conventions and customary international law, is clear.

Israel is a party to many conventions that deal with the law of armed conflict, including; the four Geneva Conventions, the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons.

Israel's commitment to the law of armed conflict is further reflected in the careful legal scrutiny of military operations, both before and during the conduct of hostilities. Israel's commitment is demonstrated in Israel's ability and willingness to conduct thorough, credible and independent investigations into allegations that a violation of the laws of armed conflict has taken place. It is further demonstrated by Israel's recent efforts to review and reform its investigation mechanisms.

The cutting edge decisions and constant judicial review by our independent judiciary, further highlights Israel's commitment to international law. The Israeli Supreme Court offers some of the broadest rules of standing of any court worldwide and opens its doors to any effected party, citizens and non-citizens alike, including Palestinians, human right groups and private persons. Throughout its history, Israel's High Court of Justice has heard hundreds of petitions on issues relating to the law of armed conflict and at times has even halted military operations and security measures taken by the authorities in real time. Indeed, Israel's High Court of Justice decisions on matters related to the law of armed conflict and the delicate balance between effectively fighting terrorism on the one hand and the need to protect civil and human rights on the other hand, have gained international recognition and have contributed to the development of the law of armed conflict.

Israel's challenging encounters with asymmetric warfare has led it to greatly intensify the legal training of its soldiers, as well as increase the involvement of legal advisors both in the planning phase and during actual combat on the battlefield. These legal advisors are institutionally independent, and are not subordinate to the commanders they advise.

Mr. Chairman,

It is Israel's position that the dissemination of the laws of armed conflict and promoting compliance with and respect of these norms is of the highest importance. In this regard we note the important contribution of the ICRC and its humanitarian work on the ground in so many parts of the world.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.​