Multiple Ceasefires Fail to Halt Fighting as Experts Point to 'Gaps' in Enforcement

This week, Israel and Lebanon announced yet another ceasefire agreement, following a similar deal reached on April 16. Iran and the US also formally entered a ceasefire on April 8. Israel and Hamas, the Palestinian armed group, had a Gaza ceasefire in place since October 10, 2025. Yet the battlefield reality tells a starkly different story.

Israeli attacks on Lebanon have continued unabated, with airstrikes on the southern districts of Naqoura and Nabatieh last Friday killing at least one person. Iran and the US have kept up mutual strikes, even escalating in recent days. Iran's military also launched missiles and drones at Gulf states such as the UAE, Kuwait, and Bahrain, accusing them of facilitating US attacks on Iran during the ceasefire.

In Gaza, Israel has carried out bombings, including one that killed nine people in a residential building this week, despite a ceasefire supposedly aimed at ending the genocidal war on Palestinian territory.

What is a ceasefire and is it legally binding?

Mark Kersten, assistant professor of criminal justice and criminology at the University of Fraser Valley, explains: “A ceasefire is essentially a pause in fighting, usually not permanent.” It is often a political agreement rather than a strongly enforceable legal tool, according to Michael Lynk, professor emeritus at Western University in Canada.

Unlike peace treaties that typically have a guarantor responsible for monitoring and enforcement, ceasefires can be violated with few immediate legal consequences. The US, as the main broker and monitor in Gaza and Lebanon, faces almost no pressure, despite some countries criticizing Israeli attacks.

British international human rights lawyer Toby Cadman argues that ceasefires are legally binding. He describes a ceasefire as “a temporary suspension of military activities” that “does not end the state of armed conflict.” The peace plan for Gaza was adopted by the UN Security Council under Resolution 2803, calling for “full, good-faith, and timely implementation.” In practice, however, enforcement remains stalled due to the US veto power.

Who decides when a ceasefire is violated?

According to Cadman, “no neutral arbiter is empowered to determine violations in a binding manner.” Monitoring mechanisms exist but are primarily political bodies run by states that sponsor and guarantee the deals. In the cases of Gaza and Lebanon, the US serves as both mediator and guarantor, as well as Israel's closest military and diplomatic ally. Consequently, allegations of violations are often viewed through a political lens rather than by an independent legal body.

What does international law say?

Experts assert that international humanitarian law, human rights law, and international criminal law remain fully applicable during ceasefires. Kersten stresses: “A ceasefire does not provide legal cover for committing crimes against civilians.” However, the gap between legal rulings and political action has grown increasingly wide. Courts can investigate, gather evidence, and deliver judgments, but that does not stop bombs from falling. Lynk observes: “The lack of effective accountability is the central gap in international law and our modern international political system.”

Is 'self-defense' a valid justification?

Parties often invoke Article 51 of the UN Charter on the right to self-defense to justify their attacks. Yet Cadman notes that interpretation of this article is fiercely contested: “Article 51 responds to an armed attack that has occurred or is imminent; it is not a permanent license for preemptive strikes.”

Why can countries 'get away' with violations?

Experts point to the core issue of a lack of enforcement mechanisms. The Security Council is limited by the veto power. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) can issue rulings but cannot enforce them. The International Criminal Court (ICC) can issue arrest warrants but depends on states to act. Cadman concludes: “The common thread is the enforcement deficit. The law is not formally different for Israel or the US; its application is what is selective.”