President Trump’s proposal for the United States to take over Gaza, transfer its population to Egypt and Jordan and redevelop it into the “Riviera of the Middle East” would unquestionably be a severe violation of international law, experts say.
Forced deportation or transfer of a civilian population is a violation of international humanitarian law, a war crime and a crime against humanity. The prohibition against forced deportations of civilians has been a part of the law of war since the Lieber Code, a set of rules on the conduct of hostilities, was promulgated by Union forces during the U.S. Civil War. It is prohibited by multiple provisions of the Geneva Conventions, and the Nuremberg Tribunal after World War II defined it as a war crime.
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court lists forcible population transfers as both a war crime and a crime against humanity. And if the displacement is focused on a particular group based on their ethnic, religious or national identity, then it is also persecution — an additional crime. (Because Palestine is a party to the International Criminal Court, the court has jurisdiction over those crimes if they take place within Gaza, even if they are committed by citizens of the United States, which is not a member of the court.)
When Mr. Trump was asked how much of Gaza’s population he wanted to move, he said, “all of them,” adding, “I would think that they would be thrilled.” And when he was pressed on whether he would force them to go even if they did not want to, Mr. Trump said, “I don’t think they’re going to tell me no.”
Janina Dill, the co-director of the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict, said in a statement that forcing Gazans to leave would be a crime: “The scale of such an undertaking, the level of coercion and force required, hence the gravity, make this a straightforward crime against humanity.”
It would be a further, severe violation for the United States to permanently take over the territory of Gaza. The specifics of that violation would depend partly on whether Palestine is considered a state, said Marko Milanovic, a professor of international law at the University of Reading in England. The United Nations has recognized Palestinian statehood, but the United States has not.
The prohibition on one state annexing all or part of another state’s territory is one of the most important, foundational principles of international law. “There’s a clear rule,” Professor Milanovic said. “You cannot conquer someone else’s territory.” It is rare for states to violate that rule, and when they have, as in the case of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the response has been widespread global condemnation.
Aggression, which the International Criminal Court defines as a state using force “against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations,” is also a crime. The court would not be able to prosecute Mr. Trump or other U.S. officials for that crime, because unlike with other war crimes, it can only prosecute aggression if it is committed by a citizen of a member state. But lack of jurisdiction would not mean that the conduct itself is legal.
And even if Gaza is not considered part of a state, U.S. annexation of the territory would still violate the civilian population’s right to self-determination. The International Court of Justice has ruled twice that the Palestinian people are entitled to that right within Gaza.
“If you take it without their consent, you’re violating their right to self-determination,” Professor Milanovic said. “There’s really no doubt about that.”
Mr. Trump seemed unconcerned with how his proposal might be viewed by the institutions that underpin the international legal system, and he has shown little interest in having the United States participate in those institutions. On Tuesday, he signed an executive order calling for a general review of U.S. funding for and involvement in the United Nations, raising questions about the U.S. commitment to that global body. He also withdrew the United States from the U.N. Human Rights Council.
Even if Mr. Trump’s Gaza plan ultimately does not move forward, his attitude toward international law could have serious consequences for U.S. interests around the world, Professor Dill said.
“Trump is just casually making major international crimes into policy proposals,” she said. “He just normalizes violating, or proposing to violate, the absolute bedrock principles of international law.”
By appearing to disregard the value of those rules, Mr. Trump could send a message that he is not strongly committed to defending them in other contexts, such as a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan, Professor Dill said.
“If we live in a world where conquest is normalized and the legal rule is simply set aside, we live in a completely different world, in a world that’s incredibly dangerous also for Americans,” she said.
Forced deportation or transfer of a civilian population is a violation of international humanitarian law, a war crime and a crime against humanity. The prohibition against forced deportations of civilians has been a part of the law of war since the Lieber Code, a set of rules on the conduct of hostilities, was promulgated by Union forces during the U.S. Civil War. It is prohibited by multiple provisions of the Geneva Conventions, and the Nuremberg Tribunal after World War II defined it as a war crime.
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court lists forcible population transfers as both a war crime and a crime against humanity. And if the displacement is focused on a particular group based on their ethnic, religious or national identity, then it is also persecution — an additional crime. (Because Palestine is a party to the International Criminal Court, the court has jurisdiction over those crimes if they take place within Gaza, even if they are committed by citizens of the United States, which is not a member of the court.)
When Mr. Trump was asked how much of Gaza’s population he wanted to move, he said, “all of them,” adding, “I would think that they would be thrilled.” And when he was pressed on whether he would force them to go even if they did not want to, Mr. Trump said, “I don’t think they’re going to tell me no.”
Janina Dill, the co-director of the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict, said in a statement that forcing Gazans to leave would be a crime: “The scale of such an undertaking, the level of coercion and force required, hence the gravity, make this a straightforward crime against humanity.”
It would be a further, severe violation for the United States to permanently take over the territory of Gaza. The specifics of that violation would depend partly on whether Palestine is considered a state, said Marko Milanovic, a professor of international law at the University of Reading in England. The United Nations has recognized Palestinian statehood, but the United States has not.
The prohibition on one state annexing all or part of another state’s territory is one of the most important, foundational principles of international law. “There’s a clear rule,” Professor Milanovic said. “You cannot conquer someone else’s territory.” It is rare for states to violate that rule, and when they have, as in the case of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the response has been widespread global condemnation.
Aggression, which the International Criminal Court defines as a state using force “against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations,” is also a crime. The court would not be able to prosecute Mr. Trump or other U.S. officials for that crime, because unlike with other war crimes, it can only prosecute aggression if it is committed by a citizen of a member state. But lack of jurisdiction would not mean that the conduct itself is legal.
And even if Gaza is not considered part of a state, U.S. annexation of the territory would still violate the civilian population’s right to self-determination. The International Court of Justice has ruled twice that the Palestinian people are entitled to that right within Gaza.
“If you take it without their consent, you’re violating their right to self-determination,” Professor Milanovic said. “There’s really no doubt about that.”
Mr. Trump seemed unconcerned with how his proposal might be viewed by the institutions that underpin the international legal system, and he has shown little interest in having the United States participate in those institutions. On Tuesday, he signed an executive order calling for a general review of U.S. funding for and involvement in the United Nations, raising questions about the U.S. commitment to that global body. He also withdrew the United States from the U.N. Human Rights Council.
Even if Mr. Trump’s Gaza plan ultimately does not move forward, his attitude toward international law could have serious consequences for U.S. interests around the world, Professor Dill said.
“Trump is just casually making major international crimes into policy proposals,” she said. “He just normalizes violating, or proposing to violate, the absolute bedrock principles of international law.”
By appearing to disregard the value of those rules, Mr. Trump could send a message that he is not strongly committed to defending them in other contexts, such as a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan, Professor Dill said.
“If we live in a world where conquest is normalized and the legal rule is simply set aside, we live in a completely different world, in a world that’s incredibly dangerous also for Americans,” she said.
