How Trump’s Gaza Proposals Could Violate International Law

 Buildings lie in ruin in Gaza amid a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, as seen from Israel's border with Gaza, Israel February 5, 2025. (Reuters)
Buildings lie in ruin in Gaza amid a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, as seen from Israel's border with Gaza, Israel February 5, 2025. (Reuters)
TT

How Trump’s Gaza Proposals Could Violate International Law

 Buildings lie in ruin in Gaza amid a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, as seen from Israel's border with Gaza, Israel February 5, 2025. (Reuters)
Buildings lie in ruin in Gaza amid a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, as seen from Israel's border with Gaza, Israel February 5, 2025. (Reuters)

US President Donald Trump said he wants to resettle Palestinians from the Gaza Strip to Egypt and Jordan, demolish remaining buildings to make way for a Riviera-style development project and place the occupied territory under US "ownership".

Forcing people to leave their land and taking over territory are prohibited by longstanding treaties. Following is a look at the ramifications of Trump's plans under international law.

TAKING CONTROL OF TERRITORY

Trump said "the US will take over the Gaza Strip and we will do a job with it too.... I do see a long-term ownership position."

The Gaza Strip is recognized by the United Nations and its highest court, the International Court of Justice, as part of the Palestinian territories under Israeli military occupation.

International law prohibits the seizure of territory by force, which is defined as an act of aggression. The UN Charter says: "All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."

"Ultimately, President Trump’s proposal amounts to a blatant rejection of the core tenets of international law that have operated since at least the end of World War II and the adoption of the UN Charter," said Assistant Professor of International Human Rights Law Michael Becker at Trinity College, Dublin.

Were the United States to lay claim to the Gaza Strip, "this would amount to the unlawful annexation of territory. Nor does Israel have any right to cede Palestinian territory to the United States or to anyone else," said Becker.

Janina Dill, co-director of the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict and a specialist in international humanitarian law, said: "There are no circumstances in which it is permissible to seize territory by force. The argument that it benefits populations there or elsewhere is legally meaningless even if it were factually correct."

Under the UN Charter, responsibility for identifying acts of aggression and responding to them falls to the Security Council, where the United States is a permanent, veto-wielding member.

Aggression is also one of the crimes that can be prosecuted before the International Criminal Court. The United States and Israel are not members of the ICC, but the court has asserted jurisdiction over the Palestinian territories, including over acts committed there by countries that are not members.

MOVING PALESTINIANS OUT

"Forcibly resettling the Palestinians of Gaza would constitute the crime against humanity of deportation or forcible transfer," said Dill.

Trump has said Palestinian residents of Gaza would want to leave because it has become dangerous. But so far there has been no indication that the 2.3 million residents wish to go.

The Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 prohibits the forcible transfer or deportation of protected persons in occupied territory.

According to the founding document of the International Criminal Court, the Rome Statute, "the term 'forcibly' is not restricted to physical force, but may include threat of force or coercion, such as that caused by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or abuse of power against such person or persons or another person, or by taking advantage of a coercive environment."

Dill said it was also likely that removing Palestinians from Gaza would require carrying out other large-scale crimes against them.

"The scale of such an undertaking, the level of coercion and force required mean this would very likely meet the threshold of a large scale and systematic attack against the civilian population."

PREVENTING GAZANS FROM RETURNING

Trump has said that after Gaza residents leave, he does not envision them returning.

Preventing them from doing so would also amount to a violation of international legal principles under which displaced populations retain a right to return to lands they have fled.

Even a lawful evacuation by an occupying power "cannot involve sending people to a third country and it cannot be a pretext for ethnic cleansing or removing the population from the territory indefinitely or on a permanent basis," said Becker.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres told Al Arabiya TV that taking the population out of Gaza would "create a high risk that you make the Palestinian state impossible forever."



What Could Happen Next in Sudan's Civil War

Sudanese men walk past a bullet-riddled building in Khartoum's twin-city Omdurman on March 20, 2025. (Photo by Ebrahim Hamid / AFP)
Sudanese men walk past a bullet-riddled building in Khartoum's twin-city Omdurman on March 20, 2025. (Photo by Ebrahim Hamid / AFP)
TT

What Could Happen Next in Sudan's Civil War

Sudanese men walk past a bullet-riddled building in Khartoum's twin-city Omdurman on March 20, 2025. (Photo by Ebrahim Hamid / AFP)
Sudanese men walk past a bullet-riddled building in Khartoum's twin-city Omdurman on March 20, 2025. (Photo by Ebrahim Hamid / AFP)

The war in Sudan appears to be reaching a critical juncture after nearly two years of fighting that has killed tens of thousands, driven millions from their homes and spread famine.

In recent months, the military has been making steady advances against its rival, the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces, and it says it has wrested back control of the capital, Khartoum. That includes the iconic Republican Palace. The RSF has not acknowledged the loss.

While the war is unlikely to end soon, here is a look at what the developments could mean, according to The Associated Press

What’s happening on the ground? The war erupted in April 2023 between the military and the RSF with battles in Khartoum and around the country. The leaders of the two forces had been allies who were meant to have overseen the democratic transition after a popular uprising in 2019, but instead worked together to thwart a return to civilian rule.

However, tensions exploded into a bloody fight for power.

Since then, at least 28,000 people have been killed, though the number is likely far higher. The war has driven more than 14 million people from their homes and pushed parts of the country into famine.

Will this end the war? The military victory in Khartoum likely just moves the war into a new chapter, creating a de facto partition of Sudan into military- and RSF-run zones.

Military chief Gen. Abdel-Fattah Burhan has shown no sign of engaging in serious peace talks. The RSF, headed by Gen. Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, has seemed to be determined to keep fighting.

The RSF still holds much of western Sudan, particularly most of the Darfur region.

The advances in Khartoum may cause strains to break open in the military’s coalition. The military has been backed by a collection of armed factions — including former Darfur forces and armed brigades — that are historic rivals united only by the goal of fighting the RSF.

What is the significance of the RSF recently creating a ‘parallel government’? The RSF and its allies signed a charter in February in Kenya’s capital, Nairobi, establishing a parallel government.

Burhan also has spoken of setting up a transitional government, raising the potential for two rival administrations jockeying for support as their forces battle — entrenching Sudan’s effective partition.

The RSF’s 16-page charter calls for “a secular, democratic and decentralized state,” maintaining what it called Sudan’s “voluntary integrity of its territory and peoples” — a nod to Sudan’s many communities demanding autonomy from Khartoum.

The RSF grew out of the notorious Janjaweed militias, mobilized two decades ago by then-president Omar al-Bashir against populations that identify as Central or East African in Darfur. The Janjaweed were accused of mass killings, rapes and other atrocities.

In the current war, the RSF has been accused of numerous atrocities. The Biden administration slapped Dagalo with sanctions, saying the RSF and its proxies were committing genocide. The RSF has denied committing genocide.

The military has also been accused of abuses and denies that.