Humanity Between Ceasefires and Pauses

On December 12, 2023, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution concerning the protection of civilians and the adherence to legal and humanitarian obligations in the Gaza Strip. The resolution, calling for an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire,” passed with a significant majority of 153 in favor and 10 against, including the United States.[1] Although the US amendment to the resolution condemning Hamas failed to meet the two-thirds rule in the General Assembly for adoption, US Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield attributed the preceding week-long "humanitarian pause" to the United States.

Earlier, the United States  vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution demanding an immediate humanitarian ceasefire in the conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza. During the meeting on December 8, 2023, Robert Wood, Deputy US Ambassador to the UN, stated, “We do not support the draft resolution's call for an unsustainable ceasefire that will only plant the seeds for the next war.”[2] Washington believes that a ceasefire would only benefit Hamas, providing them with the opportunity to "rest, refit, and get ready," as indicated by the State Department spokesman.[3] Similar to Israel's other allies, the European Union did not endorse the term “humanitarian ceasefire” but rather insisted on the use of the term “humanitarian pause.”

The choice of language has indeed become a contentious issue, sparking a notable division among member states at both the General Assembly (GA) and the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). The United States and Israel's key allies, including the European Union, calling for an immediate pause in the hostilities seem to favor the term "humanitarian pause," while the UN advocates for a "humanitarian ceasefire". Beyond being a matter of semantics, the distinction between these terms lies in their implications and the level of commitment they imply from the warring parties.

A ceasefire is a temporary suspension of hostilities that provides an opportunity for the conflicting parties to initiate dialogue. While humanitarian relief can be one of the objectives of a ceasefire, its broader purpose is to create a temporary cessation of hostilities, which might also facilitate peace negotiations. Ceasefires, in this context, may influence the balance of power within a conflict. The interruption in military activities allows for strategic repositioning, enhances military readiness, and can lead to shifts in power dynamics between the conflicting parties.

On the other hand, a humanitarian pause, as defined by the UN, denotes a temporary cessation of hostilities exclusively for humanitarian purposes within a specified timeframe and geographic area.[4] During humanitarian pauses, a warring party might engage in military operations outside the designated area. This concept has been sparingly employed in specific conflict settings. For instance, in 2000, negotiations between the Indonesian government and the rebel Free Aceh Movement (GAM) resulted in a suspension of hostilities. Acknowledging the sensitivity surrounding terminology, the conflicting parties opted for the term "humanitarian pause." This agreement facilitated the delivery of much-needed humanitarian assistance to affected populations and paved the way for the initiation of political negotiations.[5] More recently, in 2015, the UN Secretary General also urged the parties to observe a humanitarian pause in Yemen.

It is noteworthy that in international humanitarian law, there is no differentiation between ceasefires and pauses, and all parties involved in an armed conflict are obligated to respect the principles of international humanitarian law (IHL). In essence, both humanitarian ceasefires and pauses are designed to ensure adherence to international humanitarian law. They emphasize the obligations of the parties to the conflict under international humanitarian law, especially concerning the protection of civilians and the provision of humanitarian assistance.

On November 9, 2023, Israel agreed to a four-hour daily humanitarian pause in its assault on Hamas in northern Gaza. As the fighting continues unabated, Israel's indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks persist, causing severe human suffering and extensive physical destruction in Gaza. With the backing of the US wielding veto power, Israel justifies its attacks against civilians, hospitals, and schools by asserting that Hamas uses them for military purposes.

Amidst the backdrop of the devastating humanitarian toll resulting from the ongoing conflict on civilians, it is crucial to recognize that the language employed in resolutions plays a significant role in shaping and influencing both state behaviors and public opinion. By establishing a binary division in humanity, the international community signals a call for warring parties to respect and implement International Humanitarian Law (IHL) temporarily and spatially. In the case of Gaza, the term "humanitarian pause" implies that Israel refrains from violating international humanitarian law only during these designated pauses. In other words, the logic implied by the wording suggests that Israel's responsibilities to comply with the laws of war and refrain from attacking medical facilities have both temporal and spatial dimensions. To prevent such reasoning and the setting of a precedent, it is imperative for the international community to unwaveringly uphold the laws of war and prioritize the protection of civilians. All parties involved in the conflict in Israel and Gaza must adhere to international humanitarian law and international human rights law, not solely during humanitarian pauses and ceasefires. The international community bears a moral and legal duty to guarantee compliance with International Humanitarian Law (IHL) in conflicts, irrespective of how it is framed.