If only this was the case. Beer offers no empirical evidence that states interpret the law in this way. Yet, his legal analysis suggests that the vast majority if not all of the attacks on medical facilities that we describe in the article were illegal according to international law and constitute war crimes. If state actors agreed with Beer’s interpretation, then it would seem that the central issue might indeed be enforcement and compliance. But, as it emerges from a 2017 (cited by Beer), ‘attempts to accountability overseas data have largely failed’.

And as our historical reconstruction of hospital bombings

including the bombing of 17 hospitals, 56 primary health care facilities, and 45 ambulances in Gaza during the 2014 war – indicates, states tend to interpret the law as if it provides them with a green light to carry out the attack. Indeed, we specifically mention the Gaza strikes since the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs published a long legal report claiming that its 2014 attacks on medical facilities were carried out in accordance with IHL, and while spokespeople of other governments provide comparable justifications for such attacks we have not come across similar reports. An EJIL blog questioning the justifications provided by Israel and other states that have systematically bombed health facilities would be extremely important, but we fear such an intervention is unlikely to change the way states interpret the law.

Yet, the fallacy of Beer’s reply is not only based

On the fact that he does not appreciate the enormity of the empirical evidence regarding hospital bombings, the power of state actors to interpret the law, and the way in which they systematically interpret it to justify the use of lethal violence against health facilities. It also czechia businesses directory stems from the misrepresentation of our argument.

He writes that ‘granting absolute protection to a shielding hospital, whatever its harm may be, seems to binny jandu regional project manager undermine the distinction rule and its threat-based rationale’. We, however, are not advocating ‘granting absolute protection to shielding hospitals’, but rather promoting absolute protection to all hospitals. To be sure, absolute protection comes with a price.