On Wednesday, Israel and Lebanon announced yet another ceasefire – after they had seemingly already agreed to a truce on April 16.
Iran and the United States have formally had a ceasefire in place since April 8. And Israel and Hamas, the Palestinian group, have had a ceasefire in Gaza since October 10, 2025.
Yet Israel’s attacks on Lebanon continue unchecked, with strikes on the Naqoura and Nabatieh districts of southern Lebanon on Friday, resulting in at least one death. Iran and the US have continued to trade periodic attacks that have picked up in intensity in recent days. The Iranian military has also fired missiles and drones at Gulf nations such as the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Bahrain, which it accuses of enabling US attacks on Iran during the ceasefire.
And in Gaza, Israel continues to carry out bombings, including one that killed nine people in a residential building this week, despite a supposed truce aimed at ending its genocidal war on the Palestinian territory.
So what does it mean for a ceasefire to be in place when fighting continues? What does international law say? And why do violations so rarely lead to consequences?
We speak to legal experts to understand:
What is a ceasefire?
Simply put, it’s a pause in fighting designed to create space for negotiations, explained Mark Kersten, assistant professor of criminal justice and criminology at the University of the Fraser Valley.
“A ceasefire is effectively a cessation of hostilities, but typically not understood to be a permanent one,” he told Al Jazeera.
It is also often fundamentally a political agreement rather than a strongly enforceable legal instrument, said Michael Lynk, an emeritus professor at Western University in Canada.
Unlike peace treaties, which often have guarantors responsible for oversight and enforcement, ceasefires can be breached with few immediate legal consequences, Lynk told Al Jazeera.
This is especially true in Gaza and Lebanon, where the United States has acted as the principal broker and overseer. While some countries have criticised Israeli strikes in Lebanon, Lynk says there has been little pressure on Washington for allowing repeated violations.
“A number of Global North countries have criticised the continuing Israeli attacks on Lebanon despite the ceasefire, but they have not called out the US for allowing Israel to repeatedly breach the ceasefires in Gaza and Lebanon.”
So are ceasefires legally binding – or not?
Yes, they are, argues Toby Cadman, a British international human rights lawyer and cofounder of Guernica 37 Chambers.
But, like Kersten and Lynk, Cadman said that ceasefires – which he described as the “temporary, military and diplomatic suspension of military operations” – are inherently fragile. Unlike peace treaties, ceasefires do not resolve the underlying conflict or end the legal state of war.
“It suspends the fighting; it does not end the state of armed conflict,” he said.
Where there is a broader peace agreement, such as in Gaza, the ceasefire too stands – at least in theory – on a stronger footing, said Lynk. The Gaza peace plan that accompanied the ceasefire was endorsed by the UN Security Council through Resolution 2803, which calls for the agreement to be implemented “in its entirety, in good faith and without delay”.
In theory, states could ask the Security Council to sanction parties violating the Gaza agreement. In practice, Lynk explained, the US veto on the body means that neither Israel, nor the US itself, can realistically be censured.
“This is why ceasefires and peace treaties are ultimately political documents because it requires political will to enforce them,” Lynk said.
Who decides when a ceasefire has been violated?
Palestinians have repeatedly pointed to the violation of the Gaza ceasefire by Israel. The US and Iran routinely accuse each other of breaching their truce. And Israel and Lebanon do the same when it comes to their ceasefire.
So who decides whether a ceasefire has been violated – and by whom?
The answer, according to Cadman, is that “there is no neutral arbiter empowered to determine, with binding effect, who has breached.”
Monitoring mechanisms do exist, but they are largely political bodies overseen by the same states that brokered and guaranteed the agreements. In the case of Gaza and Lebanon, that is the United States. But Washington occupies the unusual position of mediator, guarantor and Israel’s closest military and diplomatic ally.
That means allegations of violations are often filtered through political calculations rather than assessed by an independent legal authority, say experts.
What about international law?
For Kersten, Gaza and Lebanon expose a fundamental contradiction within the international legal system. On paper, international law has succeeded in establishing a broad consensus about the legality of what is taking place.
“The vast majority of the world recognises that what is happening in both contexts is not just wrong, but illegal – thanks to international law.”
Yet recognition has done little to halt the violence. “Little is being done to save lives and stop the carnage,” he said.
The result is a widening gap between legal findings and political action. Courts can investigate, collect evidence and issue rulings as the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice have both done against Israel, but that does not stop bombs from falling or guarantee compliance on the ground.
For Kersten and Lynk, the problem is not a lack of legal standards; it is the persistent failure of states to enforce them, particularly when powerful actors are involved.
“The lack of effective accountability is the hole in the heart of international law and our modern international political system,” Lynk said.
But Kersten said what was clear was that international humanitarian law, human rights law and international criminal law remain fully applicable during a ceasefire.
“Ceasefire provides no legal cover to commit atrocities against civilians.”
That means allegations of war crimes can still be investigated and prosecuted even while a ceasefire is in effect.
Is ‘self-defence’ a justification for attacks during a ceasefire?
Cadman highlights the legal argument most frequently used to justify continued strikes by Israel on Gaza and Lebanon, and by the US against Iran: self-defence.
These arguments rest on Article 51 of the UN Charter, which carves out the right for states to launch unilateral military action against other nations if they are acting in self-defence.
But Cadman said the interpretation of that clause is heavily contested.
“Article 51 answers an armed attack that has happened or is genuinely imminent; it is not a standing licence for preventive strikes.”
So why do countries feel they can get away with attacks during a ceasefire?
Asked by reporters on Wednesday how he defined a ceasefire, given the continuing – though sporadic – attacks that the US and Iran have exchanged in recent weeks, US President Donald Trump said: “It’s a different part of the world, you know. I’d say in that part of a ceasefire is when you’re shooting in a more moderate manner.”
Trump’s comments underscore what legal experts say is at the heart of the persisting violence in Gaza, Lebanon and the Gulf: The lack of any meaningful enforcement mechanism.
The Security Council is constrained by veto powers. The ICJ can issue binding orders but cannot enforce them. The ICC can issue arrest warrants, but depends on states to carry them out.
“The unifying theme is an enforcement deficit,” Cadman said.
Cadman argued that the problem is not that international law lacks rules. Rather, those rules are often applied selectively. “The law is not formally different for Israel or the US; its application is selective.”
