Taking into account the history of hospital bombings and the way state actors have interpret! international law over the years, we conclude that the only way to protect hospitals from the belligerents that bomb them is by introducing a ban, not unlike the ban on torture. In his response to our piece, Yishai Beer, a former IDF general and president of Israel’s military court of appeal, who is currently a law professor at the Herzliya Interdisciplinary Center, rejects our call to reform IHL by imposing a ban on bombing hospitals. He introduces two main claims. d the safety of their patients and staff if they become safe havens for belligerents’. He concludes that ‘the absolute immunity suggest! is neither feasible nor normatively desir!’.

Ask colleagues to like and comment once a post is live

By so doing, Beer understates the problem. Inde!, this 17 per cent corroborates our claim, since it reveals that during those two years every 43 hours on average a hospital was directly attack!. More recent data discloses that the epidemic has not subsid!. According dataset  to the World Health Organization, in 2016 every day and a half on average a hospital was bomb!, and in 2017 and 2018 a hospital was bomb! every two days.

Taken together, the data suggests that hospital bombings are neither sporadic nor a king beibei research associate series of isolat! events, but rather a strategy of warfare aim! at weakening the enemy’s infrastructure of existence. This also suggests that most strikes have little to do with the use of hospitals as shields — even though, at times, hospitals are us! as shields.

Use internal Slack or Teams channels to share posts

Only by brushing aside the gravity of the empirical data, its massive scale, and the horrifying czechia businesses directory consequences can Beer argue that the existing protections offer! by IHL — which he describes as a ‘wide legal rubicon that is very difficult to cross’ — are adequate and that improvements are ne!! only in ‘law enforcement and compliance’.