IDF and the Palestinian militants in the Gaza war.

on 24th September 2009 responded to the

Goldstone report with 32 point formal response, on November 2009 the House of Representative
in the united states claimed that the Goldstone report is a biased and unworthy of its legitimacy,
10th of March 2010 the European Union endorsed the Goldstone Report, on 31st May 2010 there
is a raid on flotilla Gaza where six civilian ships try to broke the Israeli blockade which resulted
in the deaths of 10 people, March 2012 an IDF operation was carried out in the Gaza strip that
mostly are air strikes, Hamas retaliated by launching rockets to Israel, 14th until 21st September
2012 Israel military murder important militant leader of the Hamas and decimate their weapons
and bases, 8th of July until 26th Augustus 2014 Operation Protective Edge was carried out the
objective was to end the Hamas rocket fire and the results are the death of 2000 people most of
them were Palestinians (No, S, 2019).

There are a few cases of Hamas using human shields for their advantage. On May 2004
an ambulance that was designated with the United Nations is caught transporting Hamas soldiers,
October 2006 ammunition stash was discovered by IDF combatants in a residential building,
20th November 2006 Hamas combatants endorsed civilians to climb a Hamas Executive
building, 12th June 2007 an IED exploded in a residential killing 10 civilians and injuring 40
others, on 2008 have 4 events that prove Hamas use human shields the first is Lathes make
weapons and ammunition the location itself is located on or near a residential areas, the second is
the discovery of tunnel entry and exit points in a residential area, the third is the discovery of a
rocket making facility in a residential building northern part of Gaza strip, the fourth and final
evidence in 2008 is Hamas special forces train their combatants in the streets of Tufah
neighbourhood, on January 2009 Hamas uses a mosque as their headquarters and armoury,
December 2009 Hamas uses an Islamic university as their research and development centre
which was later attacked by the IDF, last evidence in the journal is on July 2014 civilians was
used again in a rooftop of a Hamas executive building (No, S, 2019).

-keterlibatan anak-anak dalam perang -> mengara ke penggunaan anak2 sebagai human shield
(LEDY)
 The use of civilians, in this regard are children, as the subject of protection against
attacks from opponents is often ambiguous both for the international community and in the eyes
of international law enforcement agencies. The involvement of civilians in the midst of armed
coso far been used by armed groups as a shield so that the opposing party is reluctant to attack on
the basis of the existence of civilian rights that must be protected. This certainly violates jus in
bello as well as all regulations governing armed conflicts, especially in the 1949 Geneva
Convention and the Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC) where civilians are not allowed to be
involved in an armed conflict and are entitled to individual protection (Rubinstein & Roznai,
2011). The use of civilians in armed conflict should be a violation of all applicable laws and
regulations. However, in some cases, civilians voluntarily volunteered to participate and
surrendered as part of the defense shield against enemy attacks. This voluntary category then
confuses international law in which a volunteer is hereby disengaged from his right as a civilian
to receive protection in the midst of conflict. In contrast to the unknowing or involuntary shields
category, there may be a series of forces against civilians to become a shield against enemy
attacks. This category then emphasizes the importance of the distinction principle. On the other
hand, the use of the human shield also needs to be reviewed based on the principle of
proportionality, where fellow opposing parties, the intensity of attacks must be on the same scale.
The allocation of war ammunition in the middle of a densely populated area has become a
common strategy for armed parties where on the one hand the area is included in the military
area and is legal to attack, but on the other side the area is full of civilian populations. The armed
forces should also give warnings to civilians before launching on a mission to make room for
civilians to seek shelter and this will have an impact on the number of victims. Thus, the
principles of distinction and proportionality are proven to be important in determining the
legitimacy of actions against the use of human shields in the midst of chaos in armed conflict.
Specifically targeting children who were previously given special protection has become a
widespread war tactic. Children are deliberately targeted by shooting while walking among their parents,
and even worse for other war atrocities such as genocide, killers are reminded not to forget the targets of
young children. So, the use of child soldiers is far more widespread than it used to be, which is a special
protection in war (Singer, 2005). 23% of the world's armed organizations (84 out of a total of 366) use
children aged 15 and under in combat. Lots of child soldiers are recruited under the age of even children
who do not know their age (Singer, 2005)
 At the turn of the 21st century, children have served in large numbers in almost all continents,
both in military and non-military units, political organizations, even in rebel and terrorist groups. They
were given roles as infantry shock troops, robbers, guards, spies, trench diggers, and coolies (Singer,
2005)
Recruitment for children is seen as simple where psychologically it can be judged that children
have the same average thinking so that recruitment is easy (Ari, 2009). Recruitment can be done by
recruiting, kidnapping or voluntary means. Every recruitment of weapons organizations usually has a
target so that recruits often use kidnapping methods, the targets are from junior high schools, orphanages
to the homeless (Singer, 2005).
The reason for this recruitment is also because children are forced to do so because of
environmental incentives and supported by economic factors during wars such as hunger and poverty
such as losing their parents or being cut off from civil society which causes these children to join
voluntarily because they believe that by joining the child soldiers they would get food, clothing and care
and they thought that would also protect them. but the children have all been deceived with promises and
hopes, even on the contrary many children have experienced torture, sexual abuse, massacres, short
executions, witnessed extreme violence, ethnic cleansing, murder, bombings, torture (Singer, 2005). From
the information above, children who are exposed to such stress have an impact on their psychology,
causing traumatic effects and developmental disorders, so that many have a negative impact on these
children (Ari, 2009).

-penggunaan anak2 sebagai human shield -> masukin peran UN sebagai institusi intl (RIZKY)

Modern warfare gave birth to a troubling tendency among its actors, it is the fact that war
or armed conflict, instead of conducted on conventional battlegrounds, is now conducted
amongst the people. The driving factor that caused this shift was the unsuitable tactics applied by
the combatants, in relation to the area of civilians (Bailliet, 2007). An issue arises with the
emergence of such practice, as explained by Gordon & Perugini (2015). Human shields are
civilians, actors who should be protected according to international law, that becomes an integral
part of a hostility, therefore becomes a killable object according to international law. In this light,
the utilization of human shields and its mitigation is a matter of politics, which has received a
number of descriptions. Gregory (2006) describes human shields as “a matter of killing the
enemies’ citizens”. In the context of Israeli-Palestinian conflict of Operation Cast Lead in
2008-2009, Buttu (2014) also supports the previous notion by treating the human shields use as a
justification attempt by the Israeli to “blame the victims”. Labonte (2011) further explained the
political theme of human shields by relating the issue to how the actors are responding to the
need to preserve the life of civilians.
● https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/d2405ed
● The politics of human.pdf
● jps.2014.44.1.91.pdf
The act of house raids using human shields was assessed by Bailliet (2007) using the case
of US Forces’ occupation in Iraq. The result of the study highlighted the necessity of the
international community to develop a set of specific guidelines regarding the practice of house
raids to streamline the practice among its users. The main concern presented by the author is the
impact of such practice toward the legitimacy of the counter-insurgency operations (specifically,
the US Forces). In times of need, house raids may be conducted in accordance with several key
considerations. First, the operations have to consider the age, gender, and cultural aspects of the
community that is inspected. This is pointed out by the author, to protect the civilians, but also
the interest and rightfulness of the operation. Secondly, it is a must for soldiers to avoid the use
of deeds that may humiliate or bring dishonor to the family members. The soldiers should uphold
a precise, fair, and discriminatory search to avoid the accumulation of hate among certain
conflicting parties. And lastly, the soldiers should not involve local actors that the local society
has less trust on (Bailliet, 2007). Contrary to the other authors, studies such as Gross (2002)
presented an opposite argument. Gross (2002) emphasizes that in certain conditions, the attack
on civilians that are used by opposing forces as human shields is allowed. This argument is based
on a utilitarian view and the context of “battle between democratic countries and terrorists”. The
author defines terrorists as actors that do not submit themselves to human rights principles.
Hence, neutralizing a vicinity that has human shields, with a profound “benefit”, may be
preferable to also neutralize the terrorists. To borrow a term, a human shield is treated as a homo
sacer (homines sacri in plural), s person who can be killed without the deed being labelled as a
crime (Gordon & Perugini, 2015).
● Whose responsibility to protect.pdf
● *‘War in the Home’_An Exposition of Protection Issues Pertaining to the Use of
House Raids in Counterinsurgency Operations.pdf
● file:///C:/Users/Asus/Downloads/Middle%20East%20-%20ASG%201/Litrev%20-
%20UN-IO%20role%20in%20human%20shield/EmanuelGrossUseofCivilian.pdf
It is then an issue of how the protection measures should be carried out by the relevant
actors. Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, specifically in relation to the protection of
civilians (POC), has been an important discussion among scholars (Labonte, 2011). Labonte
(2011) shines a light on the existing problem within the current international system. The author

-bahas UN dan ringkas secara singkat : peran, tugas, kewajiban scr umum -> baru mengacu ke
peran UN dalam kondisi UN -> adanya kebijakan/resolusi (IVA)

Bahas UN secara singkat sbg institusi intl

The UN (United Nations) was formed on 24th of October 1945 in San Francisco,
California, United States of America. Its creation has the objective to maintain peace in the
international system and its people, at first the founding members of the United Nations are only
51 states and they signed the United Nations Charter in June 1945 (Gareis, 2012). From 1945 to
1954 9 states joined the United Nations, from 1955 to 1974 78 states joined the United Nations,
From 1975 to 1984 21 states joined the United Nations, from 1985 to 2011 34 states joined the
United Nations so the total of the states that joined the United Nations are 193 states (Gareis,
2012).
The conflict that has occurred between Palestine and Israel has been going on for a long
time to be exact. It has been going on for over 70 years and has become a concern in the
international community, and has also become the main agenda of the UN general session. As of
today there are a lot of negotiation in order to resolve the conflict but the result are always in a
stalemate or postponed because Israel and Palestine makes one sided beneficial demand but the
most important issue are the settlements, Palestinian refugees and the status of Jerusalem. So the
United Nations helps the two countries in several ways such as in resolution 181 in 1947 says the
partition territory into 2 countries one belongs to the jews and the other belongs to the Arabs,
Resolution 194 (1948) describing the milestone for Palestinian refugee protection, Resolution
242 (1967) The UNGA orders Israel to retreat their combatants from invaded territory in order to
value the sovereignty in the area, Resolution 2334 (2016) the United Nations Security Council
censure Israel settlements that is located on the West Bank actions because it has no legal
validation and seen as a resistance to the solution so the 2 countries to have peace, United Nation
General Assembly Resolution 72/86 stated that all Israelin settlements that is located on
aforementioned territories is considered illegal, United Nation General Assembly Resolution
72/87 stated that censuring violence through use of force, provocation, terror and destruction
againts Palestinian non combatants specifically in the Gaza Strip (Gareis, 2012) .
. Lanjutin ya (Aman aza)

Kerangka Berpikir
teori liberal institutionalism (LEDY)
Liberal institutionalism emphasizes institutional arrangements that define the meaning of state
action by initiating cooperation between states. However, it does not assert that the state is
always limited by international institutions: it does not claim that the state must ignore the effects
of brand actions on power, what is meant by liberal institutionalism here is that state actions
greatly affect the applicable institutional arrangements. The state is a constitutional institution
that guarantees a peaceful life and mutual respect for one another. That way the state will respect
and respect each other among other countries (Jackson & Sorensen, 1999;99).
The theory of institutional liberalism is in demand by international institutions, especially
the United Nations in carrying out cooperation and implementation of the concept of world
security and preventing the re-emergence of war and maintaining world security. In this case,
liberal institutionalism emphasizes the need for cooperation serious about protection. Liberal
institutionalism selectively embraces and rejects other theoretical principles. Therefore it cannot
be understood without understanding the conceptual environment that is broader and Realism,
Classical Liberalism, and Marxism (Nuruzzaman, 2009).
 Previously Liberalism saw high prospects for sustainable cooperation so that countries
could overcome competition, conflict and war by forming groups of one goal through domestic
and international institutions. In terms of Perpetual Peace, Immanuel Kant in 1795 offered 3
things related to liberalism, namely:
1. Internally, every country must adopt a republican government where legislative power
and executive power are separated. This domestic institution can prevent war because
citizens bear a lot of costs and need approval.
2. From an external point of view, the republics must unite in the Pacific federation which
renounces the right to wage war with each other. The international institution facilitates
trade and other relationships that make war even more destructive to its perpetrators.
3. Universally individuals who behave peacefully must be free to travel in other countries so
that individuals can respect the rights of other citizens and reduce conflicts between
citizens. (Johnson & Heis, 2018)
Although liberalism was born out of war, after that liberalism developed from a real
world perspective that was in harmony with the development of institutions and peace. Then, it
was rehabilitated again into several divisions so that the refinement of liberal Institutionalism
was sparked from 1970 onwards and implemented cooperation effectively to use authority,
nation states which handed over greater authority to International Institutions in line with
Liberalism as a way to weaken conflict or war. (Johnson & Heis, 2018)

Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal
Institutionalism
Joseph M. Grieco
Liberal institutionalists sought to refute this realist understanding of world politics. First,
they rejected realism's proposition about the centrality of states. For functionalists, the key new
actors in world politics appeared to be specialized international agencies and their technical
experts; for neo functionalists, they were labor unions, political parties, trade associations, and
supranational bureaucracies; and for the interdependence school, they were multinational
corporations and transnational and transgovernmental coalitions (Grieco, 2009). Second, liberal
institutionalists attacked the realist view that states are unitary or rational agents. Authority was
already decentralized within modem states, functionalists argued, and it was undergoing a similar
process internationally. Modern states, according to interdependence theorists, were increasingly
characterized by "multiple channels of access," which, in turn, progressively enfeebled the grip
on foreign policy previously held by central decision makers (Grieco, 2009)
.
Third, liberals argued that states were becoming less concerned about power and security.
Internationally, nuclear weapons and mobilized national populations were rendering war
prohibitively costly. Moreover, increases in inter-nation economic contacts left states
increasingly dependent upon one another for the attainment of such national goals as growth, full
employment, and price stability.17 Domestically, industrialization had created the present "social
century": the advanced democracies (and, more slowly, socialist and developing countries) were
becoming welfare states less oriented towards power and prestige and more towards economic
growth and social security.18 Thus, liberals rejected realism's fourth proposition that states are
fundamentally disinclined to cooperate, finding instead that states increasingly viewed one
another not as enemies, but instead as partners needed to secure greater comfort and well-being
for their home publics (Grieco, 2009).19
Finally, liberal institutionalists rejected realism's pessimism about international
institutions. For functionalist theory, specialized agencies like the International Labor
Organization could promote cooperation because they performed valuable tasks without frontally
challenging state sovereignty.20 For neofunctionalist theory, supranational bodies like the
European Economic Community were "the appropriate regional counterpart to the national state
which no longer feels capable of realizing welfare goals within its own narrow borders.' '21
Finally, interdependence theory suggested that "in a world of multiple issues imperfectly linked,
in which coalitions are formed transnationally and transgovernmentally, the potential role of
international institutions in political bargaining is greatly increased (Grieco, 2009).' '2
3. Findings & Discussion:

-Bahas UN sebagai institusi yang harusnya menjadi penengah dan memberikan solusi agar isu
dapat terselesaikan -> aplikasikan teori lib.int -> bahas kebijakan2 UN melalui conferences dan
meetingnya berkaitan dengan perang palestinian-israeli (RIZKY)
In this part, the writers will explore and analyze the findings and data regarding two
specialized agencies of the UN, that are UNHRC and UN Security Council (UNSC). Through the
five assumptions presented in the theoretical framework, the writers will assess the dynamics in
both agencies regarding the study case.

2008
2014
2021 (sprtinya accusation)
UNHRC
UNSC

-Bahas keterlibatan anak2 dalam perang -> bahas intl law yang melandasi isu tsb (disebut dalam
Geneva Convention/hukum intl perang) -> bahas adanya resolusi yang melarang penggunaan
anak2 dalam perang secara general -> kaitin dengan isu penggunaan anak2 hamas (ALISYA)

According to a 2015 UNICEF report, there are around 440 children incarcerated in Israeli
prisons, and among this number there are 116 children aged 12-15 years, and 12 of them are
girls. Some of the children who were arrested by the Israeli soldiers were taken from their homes
at midnight, even without the knowledge of their parents. After being arrested and detained,
Israeli soldiers will use violence, torture, and the threat of isolation to get the children to admit to
accusations of an act they never committed, which usually involves throwing stones which
carries a prison term of 10 to 20 years (Restuningtias, Hardiwinoto, & Warno, 2017). If the
children do not want to do what the Israeli soldiers are told, they will remain in solitary
confinement for several months. As a result, more than 90% of the children who ended up in
solitary confinement finally confessed their actions because they could not bear the torture given
by the Israeli army (Restuningtias, Hardiwinoto, & Warno, 2017).
 Not only that, children and Palestinian civilians who are held captive and captured by
Israeli soldiers are often forced by Israeli soldiers to become human shields to protect troops
when they come to storm the neighborhood. Civilians are forced to stand at windows of houses
used for military operations or walk in front of Israeli military vehicles and soldiers, risking their
own lives even though they are not involved in combat (Euro-mid Observer, 2014). But during
Operation Cast Lead, Hamas also frequently illegally placed civilians in unnecessary danger, one
of which was fighting in densely populated areas. In addition, Hamas also advocates the use of
civilians as human shields to try to confront Israeli aggression, and even Hamas makes no secret
of its policy of encouraging civilians to face Israeli attacks "with bare chests" (Worrall, 2014;
Human Rights Watch, 2010). This can be seen from international media data and reports by
non-governmental organizations describing at least two cases in which Palestinian armed groups
appeared to have deliberately fired rockets from populated areas to avoid Israeli counterattacks,
which would amount to war crimes protecting humans. The United Nations Relief and Works
Agency has also confirmed that Hamas rockets have been found at two schools it operates in
Gaza. But given the urban density in the Gaza Strip, Hamas' actions say they have nowhere else
to place their missile batteries or launch their attacks on Israel (Worrall, 2014; Human Rights
Watch, 2010).
International Humanitarian Law (IHL) has become a tool and method that can be used by
every country in reducing the sufferings experienced by society as a result of wars that occur in
various countries. One of the IHL principles is the Distinction Principle that means for
distinguishing between combatants and civilians. The Distinction Principle is regulated in Article
48 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions which states that parties to a dispute must
distinguish between civilians and combatants is reaffirmed in Article 51 paragraph (2) of this
Protocol that civilians should not be subjected to attack.
According to IHL, children should not be involved in armed conflict. Children should not
be subjected to torture by the disputing parties because it is in accordance with the background of
the drafting of the Additional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child in Armed
Conflict. Violation of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child
Concerning the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, Israel's acts of child captivity has
violate several provisions contained in the IV Geneva Convention of 1949 concerning the
Protection of Civilians in Time of War, and Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions.
The Geneva Convention IV of 1949 concerning the protection of civilians in Time of War is
found in Article 34 and Article 24 where these articles explain that it is prohibited to carry out
detention of civilians and parties in conflict must guarantee the protection of children under
fifteen years. The actions of Israeli soldiers who arrest them and put them in prison are actions
that leave these children to their own fate because they do not get the attention and care they
deserve. In addition to Protocol I to the Geneva Convention which describes the protection of
children, it is contained in Article 77 paragraph 1, Article 24, and Article 76 which describes the
arrest of children who are put in prison by the Israeli army and separating them from their
parents. The act of arrest meant that Israeli soldiers restricted their rights to learn and play. This
arrest will also affect the psychological state of the children when they see the acts of violence
perpetrated by Israeli soldiers against other prisoners. Palestinian children who were taken into
custody received inhuman treatment and forced the children to admit accusations for acts they
had never committed.

-Bahas human shield secara general -> bahas intl law/teori/konsep yang membahas human shield
-> bahas adanya resolusi yang melarang penggunaan human shield -> kaitin dengan human
shield hamas -> resolusi/tanggapan global dan UN terhadap isu human shield hamas (ALISYA)

The use of civilians as human shields in the midst of an armed conflict is not a commonly
new issue in the realm of international law, in fact, its function can be said to be a tactic and
strategy for the armed parties in facing enemy attacks. The conditions in the event of armed
attacks are increasingly complex, making the high involvement of civilians who are used as
shields both on an international and non-international scale of armed conflicts (Rubinstein &
Roznai, 2011). The international community has become evenly concerned about these actions
that are considered barbaric and dangerous in which civilians should get protection amid the
hustle and bustle of armed conflict and are under the supervision of IHL. The distinction
principles, military necessity, unnecessary suffering, and proportionality are vital points under all
regulations established by the IHL against violations of individual rights, especially civilians in
armed conflicts. The principles of distinction and proportionality are two important points used
in analyzing the involvement of civilians as human shields in the midst of armed conflict.
 One of the first examples of the use of human shields occurred during the 1936-1939
Arab uprising which obliged Palestinians to carry out anti-colonial acts of sabotage against
British installations, including railroads (Gordon & Perugini, 2015). The Israeli practice of using
Palestinian civilians as human shields first became widespread in 2002, during a wave of attacks
on the West Bank (Euro-mid Observer, 2014). But along with its development, the conflict that
occurred between Palestine and Israel has caused many innocent women and children to become
victims. Even the Israeli army tends to use Palestinian civilians, especially children, as human
shields, to directly assist military operations or use them to protect objects or military forces
from attack. The use of human shields in armed conflicts between Palestine and Israel has often
been done, both by Israeli soldiers and Hamas. In this case, the Israeli army uses Palestinian
civilians, including children, who are taken at random, to force them into buildings suspected of
being traps, order them to remove suspicious objects from the street, stand inside houses- houses
where soldiers organize military positions, and walk in front of soldiers to protect them from
gunfire (Gordon & Perugini, 2015). However this is denied by the Israeli army, even on August
28, 2014, the Israeli government filed a complaint with the UN Security Council against the
Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), claiming Hamas uses civilians as human shields during
the recent conflict in Gaza. The letter was addressed to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.
Unfortunately, the Israeli government has not provided any documentation to support this claim.
Based on the Euro-mid Observer report of 2014 (2014) it has been found that the Israeli army
uses Palestinians as their human shields to push back Hamas troops. But until now the facts still
tend to be distorted. It could be said that both of them took retaliation and used each other's
human shields to protect their interests. Reporting from the US Mark Up Congress Conference
on “Denouncing The Use Of Civilians As Human Shields By Hamas And Other Terrorist
Organizations In Violation Of International Humanitarian Law; And Condemning The Murder
Of Israeli And Palestinian Children In Israel And The Ongoing And Escalating Violence In That
Country”, Israel once claimed that their efforts to use human shields were carried out as a
defense measure to protect civilians and on the other hand Hamas used the human shield as a
strategy in order to protect their weapons and ammunition.
Hence, the use of civilians as a human shield by Hamas tends to be intended as part of the
March of Return. A sizable open source shows Hamas's extensive use of human shields during
the March of Return, a campaign launched in spring 2018 that continued through December
2019 (Kittrie, 2020). This protest encouraged thousands of Gazans (including women and
children) to approach security barriers and unrest near the border with Israel. Several times
during the campaign, armed militants use civilians as cover to try to penetrate the border and
enter Israel. Several statements by Yahya Sinwar, Hamas' top political leader in Gaza, since
February 2017, make it clear that Hamas policy since the beginning of the March of Return was
to deliberately use civilians protected by the laws of war to protect militants from attack (Kittrie,
2020). Furthermore, Sinwar also emphasized that the March of Return was not designed as a
peaceful protest near the border, but as an attempt to cross the border by saying, "We will break
down the borders and we will uproot their hearts from their bodies". He also said, "The March of
Return will continue and will not stop until it removes this temporary border." (Kittrie, 2020).
Hamas' attempts to use the March of Return as a cover to breach the border reached its peak on
May 14, 2018, when, according to The New York Times, "the mass attempt by Palestinians to
cross the border fence separating Israel from Gaza turned violent" and the IDF "used tear gas
barrages as well as live fire to prevent protesters from entering Israeli territory". Even in
February 2019, it became known that Hamas sent eight-year-old children to the front lines at the
March of Return border protests and promised children at the border 300 shekels (or $ 83) if they
suffered injuries (Kittrie, 2020 ).

This act of violations is absolutely prohibited as governed in Customary International

Humanitarian Law rule 97. In fact, There are several rules that governed and prohibits the use of
Human shield in war and armed conflicts such as, (1) the IV Geneva convention article 28 that
stated ‘The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas
immune from military operations’ (2) the III Geneva Convention concerning the treatment of war
(article 23) also stated that
‘No prisoner of war may at any time be sent to, or detained in areas where he may
be exposed to the fire of the combat zone, nor may his presence be used to render certain
points or areas immune from military operations.’

(3) The prohibition of human shield is furtherly explained in point 7 of Additional

protocol of article 51 of Geneva convention that stated
 ‘The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall
not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in
particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or
impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the
civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives
from attacks or to shield military operations.’

The act of human shield can be categorized as war crimes according to the ICC statute,
article 8 (2)(B)(xxiii) that stated ‘utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to
render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations’ (Schaak, 2016).

The act of kidnapping children done by the Israeli army to use them as human shield is
categorized as the crime of genocide according to Article 6 of the Rome statue of the
international criminal court as stated in point (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to
another group. It is also considered as a serious violation of law and customs of international law
to use children under the age of fifteen to participate in hostilities as explained in point (XXVI)
of Article 8 regarding war crimes of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
‘Conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into the national armed forces
or using them to participate actively in hostilities.’ (Schaak, 2016). It is clear that the Israeli
Army has also violated the rule of customary international humanitarian law by using human
shields to protect their mission from attacks, and can be categorized as war crimes according to
the ICC statute, article 8 (2)(B)(XXIII). But, for Hamas although the use of human shield by
using civilian including children and women in March of Return to approach security barriers it
cannot be categorized as a violation of human shield because the civilians who join in the March
of Return are fellow Palestinians (co-nationals) it is governed in the IV Geneva Convention
Article 4, that stated

‘Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any
manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a
Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.’
This article specifically limits the application of human shields by their co-nationals (Schaak,
2016).
In accordance with what has been discussed in the scope of international law, the UN as
an institution is quick to take steps in the midst of the frenzied conflict between Hamas and
Israel. The chaos that continues and never ends continues to attract the attention of the UN and
the world community. As an international institution, the UN has a role and responsibility in
ensuring peace as recorded in the UN Charter which was inaugurated at the same time in the year
the UN was formed. His efforts to ensure peace in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict have been
going on from time to time. Starting from negotiations and dialogue between the two parties, to
drag this case to the ICC. The complex institutional structure coupled with the conflict situation
that has not improved, the UN has sent a part of it so that the Palestinian-Israeli recovery
becomes a daily topic at the UN General Assembly, UN Security Council, and UNHCR as well
as involving Human Rights Watch.
Thus, responding to illegal violations against the use of children as human shields, the
UN has slowly but firmly issued official and specific recommendations on the issue of human
shields. Through The UN General Assembly, the UN seeks to adopt the resolution of the Global
Counter-Terrorism Strategy (GCTS) by emphasizing the prohibition of using public facilities
such as schools, residences, and hospitals as human shields for brutal and heinous acts
(Minchillo, 2021) . This statement clearly emphasizes the rejection of the UN for all forms of use
of public facilities, especially those dominated by groups that must be protected during war such
as children and women in the midst of the ongoing conflict. Kittrie (2021) emphasized that until
now the UN continues to observe any acts of violation of international law by Hamas over the
use of civilians, especially children, as human shields in the war against Israel. Through the
memorandum that has been approved, the UN has echoed sanctions for Hamas who are openly
caught using children as human shields. The US as one of the five UN pioneer countries will
continue to faithfully accompany Israel in order to maintain good alliance relations. The Shield
Act was then inaugurated in December 2018 according to the results of deliberations between
congresses as a form of response from the UN to violations of the use of human shields in war
(Kittrie, 2021). In accordance with the statement of The Israel Defense Forces (IDF), Hamas has
been proven to have committed violations with the characteristics of (1) vulgarly building a base
close to a kindergarten; (2) intentionally placing ammunition and weapons on civilians houses
and apartments; (3) the use of civilian residences and apartments as locations for military
planning; and (4) constructing the headquarters and weapons factories in the middle of densely
populated settlements. In supporting this statement, Israel proved it with photographic evidence
of Hamas violations, among that proves are (1) 14 rockets launched from the schoolyard in Gaza;
(2) a rocket launch site that is very close to residential areas; (3) rocket launches from school
buildings in Gaza; (4) there are military bases in the vicinity of schools and hospitals; (5)
military headquarters near kindergarten; (6) the entrance to the military headquarters is close to
tourist areas and lodging areas; and (7) military headquarters under the school building (FDD,
2021).

-bahas penggunaan human shield masih berlangsung -> beberapa resolusi belum berjalan dengan
sebagaimana mestinya -> dapat dikatakan UN belum berhasil menjembatani perdamaian antara
Hamas-Israel (FERDINAND)
The use of human shields in the current period is still used as a strategy for Hamas'
conflict with Israel. This is because the International Humanitarian Law should not provide
prisoner-of-war protection to combatants who do not seek to distinguish themselves from the
civilian population by carrying arms openly at all times or by displaying a distinctive insignia
that can be recognized from a distance (Article 3 of the Geneva Convention 1949) (Rosen ,
2009). In current law it is stated that the incentive to pay off by the use of human shields can
apply if there is a military loss, or, alternatively, to increase its military capacity to effectively
immunize military targets from attack by putting a sufficient number of civilians at risk, so that
benefit directly from violations of international law (Rubinstein & Roznai, 2011). This strategy
was successful in terms propaganda against Israel and although Israel also criticized the use of
human shields by Hamas, still Israel's actions were highlighted and faced a backlash from
propaganda and law (hostile UN investigation) over the number of Palestinian civilians injured
and damage to Gaza civilians. (Shamir & Hecht, 2014). In looking at the use of human shields
carried out by Hamas, the laws of war that have been made in the 1949 Geneva Conventions
cannot ensnare the perpetrators of these human shield actions. Hamas argued that the actions
taken were self-defense. In fact, when referring to the rules contained in the International
Humanitarian Law (IHL) as claimed by Douglas H. Fischer, “the willful failure by the protection
party to comply with the obligation to separate military targets from civilians is a crime that is
greater than the amount of incidental damage caused by the actions of civilians. defend
themselves, because justified self-defense actions have at least an acceptable purpose, while the
use of shields does not" (Rubinstein & Roznai, 2011) which requires that identification as
self-defense must not use civilians and civilians must be separated first.
In relation to the United Nations, it can be said that the conflict between Israel and
Palestine related to the use of human shields has yet to be resolved. This is because both parties
are persistent in their respective defenses. Meanwhile, if the United Nations wants to take action
against Israel, they will face challenges because Israel has the support of its ally, namely the
United States which is a member of the UN Security Council, which will certainly issue a veto if
the UN Security Council issues its reference to bring the Israeli-Palestinian case to the ICC
(Mahardika et al. al., 2021). The resolution produced by the United Nations is to give a mandate
to the UNHRC to resolve the alleged human shield in the conflict. UNHRC then appointed three
Committees Of Information to investigate Israel's alleged war crimes in Gaza, however bias and
prejudice are embedded in each of their mandates, which determine Israel's guilt even before the
investigation begins but the formulation of this mandate is unethical and unreasonable for two
reasons: first, they draw the conclusion that the COI is expected to arrive, and second, they
jeopardize the independence of the investigators by putting too much pressure on them to reach
this conclusion (Gilboa, 2021).
The bias that occurs in this case makes the United Nations as the largest international
institution unable to be said to have succeeded in bridging the peace of the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict, especially with regard to investigations regarding human shields. We see that the UN
should have considered the aspects of both parties and participated in seeing the case in
humanitarian law relating to violations that can be reviewed using the Geneva Convention (IV)
relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949. Matters
relating to the safety of the civilian population should be of particular concern to the United
Nations and involve other humanitarian organizations that have no ties to the two parties to the
conflict.

4.Conclusion (FERDINAND)
 REFERENCES:
No, S. (2019). Executive Summary: Hamas’ Use of Human Shields in Gaza.
Foundation for Defense of Democracies. (2021). Hold Hamas Accountble for Human Shields
Use During The May 2021 Gaza War. Retrieved from fdd.org on Wednesday 3 Nov 2021.
Nurjannah, E. P., & Fakhruddin, M. (2019). Deklarasi Balfour: Awal Mula Konflik Israel
Palestina. PERIODE: Jurnal Sejarah dan Pendidikan Sejarah, 1(1), 15-26.
Gareis, S. B. (2012). The United nations. Macmillan International Higher Education.
Lopes, J. S. C., & Seben, L. B. EMERGENCY MEETING ON THE PALESTINIAN SITUATION.

Euro-mid Observer. (2014). Israel Matrix of Control: Use of Palestinian Civilians as Human Shields.
Euro-mid Observer.
Gordon, N., & Perugini, N. (2015). The politics of human shielding: On the resignification of space and the
constitution of civilians as shields in liberal wars. Environment and Planning D: Society and
Space .
Human Right Watch. (2010). Israel: Soldiers’ Punishment for Using Boy as ‘Human Shield’ Inadequate.
Retrieved November 27, 2020, from
https://www.hrw.org/news/2010/11/26/israel-soldiers-punishment-using-boy-human-shield-inadeq
uate
Kittrie, O. (2020). Time to Act on Human Shields. Retrieved November 27, 2020, from
https://www.fdd.org/2020/10/15/time-to-act-on-human-shields/
Muchsin, M. A. (2015). PALESTINA DAN ISRAEL: Sejarah, Konflik dan Masa Depan. MIQOT Vol. XXXIX
No. 2 Juli-Desember 2015 , 390-406.
Mustafha, A. R. (2002). Jejak-jejak Juang Palestina dari Oslo hingga Intifadah Al-Aqsha. Jakarta :
Penerbit Buku Kompas.
Rubinstein, A., & Roznai, Y. (2011). Human Shields In Modern Armed Conflicts: The Need For A
Proportionate Proportionality. Stanford Law and Policy Review. Vol. 22:1, p. 93-128.
Restuningtias, I. R., Hardiwinoto, S., & Warno, N. D. (2017). Analisis Yuridis Perlindungan Tawanan Anak
Dalam Perspektif Hukum Humaniter Internasional (Studi Kasus: Tawanan Anak Palestina Oleh
Tentara Israel). Diponegoro Law Journal, Volume 6 Nomor 2.
Schaak, B. V. (2016, December 7). Human Shields in International Humanitarian Law: A Guide to the
Legal Framework. Retrieved November 30, 2020, from www.justsecurity.org:
https://www.justsecurity.org/35263/human-shields-ihl-legal-framework/
Worrall, P. (2014). Does Hamas use civilians as human shields? Retrieved November 27, 2020, from
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-hamas-civilians-human-shields
Yuliantiningsih, A. (2009, Mei 2). Agresi Israel Terhadap Palestina Perspektif Hukum Humaniter
Internasional. Jurnal Dinamika Hukum.

Ari, E. B. (2009). Facing Child Soldiers, Moral Issues, and “Real Soldiering”: Anthropological
Perspectives on Professional Armed Forces. Journal of Military.

Singer, P. W. (2005). Child Soldiers The New Faces of War.

Johnson, T., & Heis, A. (2018). International Organization and Global Governance.

Nuruzzaman, M. (2009). Liberal Institutionalism and International Cooperation after 11

September 2001. Sage Journals.

Grieco, J. M. (2009). Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the Newest
Liberal Institutionalism.