International Humanitarian Law (IHL), specifically Article 18 of the IV Geneva Convention, affords special protection to civilian hospitals. This special protection is waived, however, under certain circumstances specified in Article 19. Such conditions to waive the special protection of hospitals are now being used by Israel to justify the attack on civilian hospitals and healthcare institutions in Gaza. This paper critically evaluates Article 19 and the conditions for the removal of the immunity of hospitals in general and in the specific case of Gaza. The substance and language of Article 19 are found to be flawed in this case. The paper thus argues that Article 19 should be revised to better reflect the special protection hospitals generally and in Gaza specifically should have. This paper is primarily geared at fellow bioethicists who wish to contribute to and lament the injustices occurring in Gaza and elsewhere but are unsure as to how ethical arguments may do so. This paper also addresses international law scholars, inviting further commentary on a novel and ambitious ethical argument to revise long-standing international law. Additionally, the paper is a call to the wider, global public and healthcare providers to actively condemn unjust attacks on healthcare in Gaza and elsewhere in the world. Lastly, the paper is written in a meager attempt at standing in solidarity with the People in Gaza and elsewhere whose healthcare systems are being targeted by unjust governments.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zohar Lederman (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched one closely related paper. Consider it for comparative context: