The protracted and devastating war in Gaza, now entering its third year, has served as a critical stress test for the international system. While exposing profound crises of legitimacy and effectiveness within institutions like the United Nations Security Council, the conflict has simultaneously catalyzed unprecedented diplomatic initiatives and exposed the urgent need for systemic adaptation. This report analyzes how Gaza has pushed international institutions toward both existential crisis and potential, albeit fragile, renewal. The central finding is that the institutions themselves are at a crossroads: their response to Gaza could cement a shift toward great-power “rule by law” that marginalizes universal principles or, alternatively, galvanize a reformed multilateralism capable of upholding international humanitarian law and advancing political solutions.
The war’s staggering human cost—with over 70,000 Palestinians killed in Gaza, widespread destruction, and a persistent humanitarian catastrophe—has laid bare the limitations of existing mechanisms for civilian protection, conflict resolution, and accountability. Concurrently, diplomatic activity has intensified, resulting in a U.S.-backed Comprehensive Plan, a UN-authorized International Stabilization Force, and a significant surge in bilateral recognitions of Palestinian statehood. The path forward is contested between a framework that prioritizes stability and demilitarization, potentially at the expense of Palestinian self-determination, and one that insists on a rights-based approach centered on ending occupation and achieving a two-state solution.
The Crisis: Institutional Legitimacy Under Siege
The Gaza conflict has dramatically intensified long-standing challenges to the authority and credibility of core international institutions.
- The United Nations Security Council: Paralysis and Politicization
The Security Council’s handling of the war has underscored its structural vulnerabilities. For over a year, the Council was largely deadlocked, unable to pass a binding resolution demanding a ceasefire, primarily due to the veto power of the United States, a key Israeli ally. This paralysis fueled perceptions of selective application of international law and eroded the Council’s credibility, particularly in the Global South.
When the Council finally acted in late 2025 by adopting Resolution 2803, it endorsed the U.S.-crafted “Comprehensive Plan to End the Gaza Conflict” (CPEGC). However, this process sparked a new legitimacy crisis. Critics argue the resolution codifies a shift from “rule of law” to “rule by law,” where legal mechanisms are instrumentalized to legitimize power politics.
Conditional Sovereignty: The resolution makes Palestinian self-determination and governance contingent on meeting security benchmarks defined largely by Israel and the U.S.-led “Board of Peace”.
Marginalization of Palestinian Actors: The plan excludes all Palestinian political factions from governance roles in Gaza and offers only a vague future “political horizon” for statehood.
Contradiction with ICJ Rulings: The resolution stands in tension with multiple International Court of Justice (ICJ) rulings, which found a plausible risk of genocide, affirmed the illegality of occupation, and called for Palestinian self-determination.
As one analyst notes, the Council’s endorsement “legitimiz[es] indefinite Israeli control over Gaza in partnership with the United States”.
- The International Legal Order: Enforcement Versus Adjudication
A stark gap has emerged between legal adjudication and enforcement. While the ICJ has been active, its rulings have had limited tangible impact on the ground in Gaza. The inability of the international community to enforce the Court’s provisional measures or its findings on apartheid and occupation reveals a system strong on pronouncement but weak on implementation. This gap risks encouraging impunity and diminishing the deterrent value of international law.
- Humanitarian System: Overwhelmed and Undermined
The humanitarian response machinery has been overwhelmed by the scale of need and actively obstructed. Despite a ceasefire in October 2025, famine conditions persist, over 90% of the population remains displaced, and winter storms in late 2025 destroyed thousands of tents, compounding the misery. Aid delivery continues to face “opaque” and restrictive border policies. The war has also proven exceptionally deadly for aid workers, with over 300 UNRWA staff killed, demonstrating a severe failure in the protection of humanitarian space.
Table: Key Indicators of Humanitarian Crisis in Gaza (as of Dec 2025)
| Indicator | Scale/Number | Source |
| Palestinian fatalities reported | 70,668+ killed in Gaza | Gaza Ministry of Health |
| Displaced population | Over 90% of 2.3 million people | UN Reports |
| Housing units destroyed | Approx. 62% of all homes | World Bank/UN Assessment |
| UN staff killed | 309 UNRWA employees | UN Report |
| Population in acute food insecurity | 1.6 million people | UNRWA |
Seeds of Renewal? Adaptive Responses and New Dynamics
Despite the crisis, the intense pressure from the war has spurred significant diplomatic and political activity that suggests potential pathways for institutional adaptation.
- Diplomatic Mobilization and the “Two-State” Surge
A countervailing trend to Security Council realpolitik is the accelerated bilateral recognition of Palestinian statehood. Led by European nations like France, Spain, Ireland, and the United Kingdom, this movement represents a concerted effort to use diplomatic tools to preserve the political horizon of a two-state solution. France framed its recognition as a “strong diplomatic act” contributing to a necessary “political horizon,” directly responding to facts on the ground that undermine a negotiated peace. This creates a new diplomatic reality and a form of multilateral pressure outside the frozen Security Council.
- The Stabilization Experiment: A New Model of Intervention?
UNSC Resolution 2803 authorizes an International Stabilization Force (ISF) for Gaza, a novel operational venture. Its mandate—to secure Gaza, oversee demilitarization, and protect aid corridors—represents an attempt at a new form of international administration, albeit one with a controversial political framework. Its success or failure will be a major test for future conflict management. However, its legitimacy is already questioned, as it was established without the explicit consent of the governed population and operates under a plan that many Palestinian factions reject.
- Global Civil Society and Public Opinion as a Driving Force
Sustained global public mobilization has been a defining feature of this conflict, influencing national politics and, indirectly, international diplomacy. Widespread protests have kept the crisis on the global agenda, pressured governments to reconsider arms sales, and fueled the push for statehood recognition. This represents a form of bottom-up renewal pressure on international norms, insisting that institutions adhere to their stated principles of human rights and self-determination.
The Central Tension: Stabilization vs. Justice
The future of international institutions will be shaped by how they navigate the core tension exposed by Gaza. Two competing paradigms are now in direct conflict:
The “Stability-First” Paradigm (CPEGC Model): Prioritizes ending active hostilities, demilitarizing Gaza, and delivering humanitarian aid through a technocratic, security-focused framework. It postpones fundamental political questions of sovereignty and justice to an indefinite future, conditioning them on performance metrics. This approach is embodied in the U.S. plan and the UNSC resolution.
The “Rights-Based” Paradigm: Insists that any sustainable solution must be grounded in immediate steps to end the occupation, ensure Palestinian self-determination, and provide accountability for violations of international law, as outlined by the ICJ and the New York Declaration. This approach is championed by a majority of UN member states and global civil society.
The risk of crisis lies in the triumph of the first paradigm without accommodating the second, which would signal that powerful states can reshape international law to suit their strategic interests. The potential for renewal lies in synthesizing these approaches—using stabilization mechanisms to create space for a genuine political process that addresses root causes and rights.
Scenarios for Institutional Trajectories
Scenario 1: Managed Decline. The CPEGC model is implemented as designed, with indefinite security control and no political horizon. The UN becomes further associated with managing rather than resolving conflicts, leading to deeper disillusionment.
Scenario 2: Fractured Multilateralism. The world splits into blocs: one supporting the U.S./Israel-led order, and another (including many Global South and European states) pursuing alternative recognition and accountability mechanisms via the UN General Assembly and ICJ.
Scenario 3: Adaptive Renewal. The flaws in Resolution 2803 force a mid-course correction. The ISF’s mandate is reinterpreted by contributing states to actively facilitate the return of a legitimate Palestinian authority and the ISF is ultimately given the task of rebuilding infrastructure and the healthcare system. Diplomatic recognition creates irresistible momentum for Security Council action to admit Palestine as a full UN member.
Conclusion
The Gaza war has not merely posed a challenge to international institutions; it has acted as a revealing agent, exposing their deepest flaws—politicization, inequity, and enforcement gaps—while also activating adaptive mechanisms like diplomatic coalitions and new forms of public pressure. The system is simultaneously in crisis and renewal. The ultimate outcome depends on whether the stability-oriented model currently ascendant can be forced to converge with the justice-oriented model demanded by international law and a majority of the world’s nations. The institutions will not emerge unchanged. They will either be reforged into more equitable and effective tools for peace, or they will be further diminished, giving way to an international order where power reigns largely unchecked by law.
Tags: GazaWar；UnitedNations；SecurityCouncil；TwoStateSolution；HumanitarianCrisis；MiddleEastPolitics ；GlobalGovernance
Leave a Reply