United Nations

Israel deliberately targeted Palestinian children in Gaza, resulting in genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, according to a new UN inquiry. The report says more than 20,000 children were killed between October 2023 and October 2025. Israel rejected the findings.

Israel is pushing humanitarian groups and rights defenders to scale down operations in Palestinian territories.

Children are “increasingly unprotected” as humanitarian groups and rights defenders are forced to scale back their operations in the Palestinian territories, the United Nations has warned.

Many civil society and aid organisations in Gaza and the West Bank have been labelled “terrorists” by pro-Israel groups or politicians, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child warned in a statement issued on Monday, noting that their absence leaves children vulnerable.

“For more than three decades, these organisations have played a vital role in defending Palestinian children, including in the Israeli military courts, and in documenting grave violations against Palestinian children at the hands of Israeli forces,” the committee said.

“Without them, Palestinian children will be even less protected, and violations of their rights risk continuing with impunity,” it added.

Issued by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), the statement noted that tactics used to delegitimise these human rights groups also include “military raids, travel bans, personal financial sanctions, threats of arrest, destruction of records, and even threats of secondary sanctions against partners who support their work”.

The committee said this made it “increasingly impossible for these organisations to operate safely or protect the children and families who turn to them for help”.

The committee urged the international community to hold Israeli authorities accountable for the attacks committed against Palestinian human rights defenders.

It urged the Israeli authorities to lift the restrictions faced by humanitarian individuals and groups.

“Despite grave risks and limited resources, child rights defenders have continued to stand with Palestinian children and families in extraordinarily dangerous conditions. They must be protected, not punished,” the committee said.

Israel has cracked down significantly on humanitarian operations in Gaza since the “ceasefire” that began on October 10, banning Doctors Without Borders, known by its French acronym MSF, after it failed to provide a list of its Palestinian staff, further depriving Palestinians in the besieged enclave of life-saving assistance.

In February this year, 17 international aid groups petitioned Israel’s Supreme Court to be allowed to keep working in the Gaza Strip and other areas in the occupied Palestinian territory. The Israeli government has planned to halt their life-saving work.

China’s foreign minister says that emerging economies remain underrepresented in global governance institutions.

Presenting China’s new white paper on making global governance more equitable, minister Wang Yi argued that the role of the United Nations should be strengthened and developing countries should have a stronger voice in the world body.

In Beijing’s stated view, all countries should have an equal voice in global affairs, which means the Global South should have more representation.

China’s call comes as the world is engulfed in many armed conflicts and facing serious economic challenges.

But is Beijing now presenting itself as a leader of the Global South? And will it be able to garner enough support to play that role?

Presenter: Sami Zeidan

Guests:

Steve Tsang – Director of the SOAS China Institute

Cobus van Staden – Head of research at the China-Global South Project

Allen Carlson – Associate professor in the Government Department at Cornell University

China has announced it will send a round of humanitarian aid to Lebanon and Iran and play an active role in fostering regional peace. The foreign ministry spokesman described Beijing as ‘deeply saddened’ by the humanitarian disaster.

A UN spokesman says forced evacuation orders issued across southern and eastern Lebanon are nearly impossible to follow safely, and calls into question whether Israel is complying with international humanitarian law.

Volker Turk, the high commissioner for human rights at the United Nations, has issued some of his harshest criticism yet of the recent sanctions the United States has imposed on Cuba.

On Monday, Turk drew a line between the increasing restrictions on the Cuban economy and reports of heightened death rates, particularly among children.

“The fuel restrictions imposed since early 2026 and recent tightening of extraterritorial sanctions, taken together, are directly harming Cubans, especially the most vulnerable,” Turk said in a statement.

“Children are dying because doctors lack access to essential medical supplies and medicines. This is unacceptable.”

Such “severe sanctions”, he added, run contrary to the “basic principles of international human rights law”. He called for them to be “lifted immediately”.

Turk’s comments are a direct response to the suite of actions taken under US President Donald Trump to tighten pressure on Cuba, a Caribbean island that has already weathered a decades-long US trade embargo.

Starting in January, the Trump administration moved to cut off Cuba’s foreign oil supply, a linchpin for its ageing energy grid.

First, it severed supplies of oil and funds from Venezuela. Then, on January 29, Trump issued an executive order declaring Cuba to be an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to US national security. As such, he said, any country that supplied it with oil would be subject to steep tariffs.

In the months since, the Trump administration has continued to layer sanctions on Cuba. In May, for instance, penalties were announced against Cuba’s Interior Ministry, its National Police and its Directorate of Intelligence.

Those were followed this month by sanctions targeting Cuba’s president, Miguel Diaz-Canel, as well as members of his family.

The sanctions are designed to penalise those “responsible for repression” in Cuba, an island whose communist government has been accused of stifling dissent, as well as imprisoning and torturing activists.

Turk on Monday acknowledged Cuba’s human rights record and called on the country to “release all those arbitrarily detained”.

But he also pointed to the mounting death toll associated with the US sanctions, which have isolated the island country from much of the world.

The sanctions freeze any US-based assets the target may have, but they also prohibit entities from conducting business with the sanctioned parties. That can result in difficulties accessing global financial systems and other international platforms.

The de facto oil blockade has also resulted in the increasing frequency of power outages, and essential services like public transportation and medical care have faced reductions. Turk pointed to those downstream effects in his remarks.

“Cuba faces increasing isolation,” he said. “Companies are leaving. Fewer airlines fly to the country. It is almost disconnected from international payment systems.”

Turk’s office has also highlighted the human costs of the sanctions. According to the statistics it cited, infant death rates have doubled, reaching 9.9 for every 1,000 births. The survival rate for childhood cancer, meanwhile, has declined from 85 to 65 percent.

In March, the Cuban government also warned of medical needs going unanswered as a result of the energy shortage. It estimated that there was a backlog of 96,387 people awaiting surgery, 11,193 of whom were minors.

It also underscored that 16,000 patients needed radiotherapy, and another 2,888 required dialysis, two treatments that depend on steady electrical supplies.

Turk’s remarks also pointed to the risks posed by the Atlantic hurricane season and other natural disasters. Within hours of his remarks, western Cuba was rattled by a powerful 6.1-magnitude earthquake. Summer heat alone could cost lives, he explained.

“Rising summer temperatures risk increasing the spread of vector borne and waterborne diseases,” Turk said.

“The hurricane season further increases exposure. This creates a perfect storm for social and economic deterioration and suffering for the Cuban people.”

Trump has repeatedly suggested that he is considering military action in Cuba to remove its leadership after the US-Israel war on Iran reaches an end.

Since January, only one Russian oil tanker has been allowed to reach the island, leaving its foreign fuel supplies largely depleted.

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.”

Bangladeshi Foreign Minister Khalilur Rahman has been elected as the 81st president of the 193-member United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). He will assume office when the UNGA session opens in September.

Rahman, who earlier held several portfolios at the UN, won the presidency after defeating Cyprus’s Ambassador Andreas Kakouris in a closely contested vote, taking the helm of the world’s most representative diplomatic body during a time of global geopolitical turmoil.

Who is Khalilur Rahman?

A career diplomat, Rahman joined Bangladesh’s foreign service in 1979. He also held senior UN positions in New York and Geneva, including as the spokesperson for the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and as special adviser to the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD).

Between 1986 and 1991, he served as the first secretary at the Permanent Mission of Bangladesh to the UN.

Rahman became foreign minister in February, when the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) won the country’s first election since a student-led uprising ousted Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina in 2024.

He previously served as national security adviser and the high representative on the Rohingya issue in the interim government led by Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus.

Rahman’s presidency will coincide with one of the most consequential processes on the UN calendar – the selection of Secretary-General Antonio Guterres’s successor – as his term expires at the end of this year.

“The UN will commence its ninth decade at a time when trust in our organisation is being tested on multiple fronts,” he told diplomats assembled at the UNGA as he accepted the new role. “Taken together, these challenges tend to undermine the public trust and confidence in the ability of our organisation to deliver its promises.”

Guterres congratulated Rahman, saying, “Your remarkable political and diplomatic experience are a guarantee of success not only to the General Assembly but to the United Nations as a whole.”

How is the UNGA president selected?

While the presidency of the UNGA is largely ceremonial, it is also prestigious. It is the UN organ where countries large and small can speak, and it is the scene of the world’s largest annual diplomatic gathering.

The UNGA president is normally chosen by acclamation, meaning member states agree on a candidate by broad consensus. If no consensus can be reached, a secret ballot is held; in that rare case, the candidate who wins a simple majority of votes becomes president.

Before this year, the last contested UNGA presidential election was in 2016, when Fijian diplomat Peter Thomson won the presidency of the 71st session in a secret ballot, defeating Cyprus’s candidate by four votes. In 2012, Serbia’s Vuk Jeremic narrowly beat Lithuania’s candidate in another secret ballot. In 1991, Saudi Arabia’s candidate, Samir Shihabi, won the presidency in a contested vote against candidates from Yemen and Papua New Guinea.

In the secret ballot, Rahman secured 99 votes, eight more than his competitor Kakouris. A total of 190 ballots were cast, with no invalid votes or abstentions.

The presidency rotates among the UN’s five regional groups, and the 81st session falls to the Asia Pacific group. Rahman will serve a one-year term starting on September 8, the UN said.

Outgoing UNGA President Annalena Baerbock, Germany’s foreign minister, highlighted how trust towards multilateralism is under growing strain.

The UN is facing “not only headwinds, but immense pressure”, with consensus increasingly difficult to achieve and defence of the UN Charter becoming “a daily necessity”.

“The role of the president of the General Assembly is no longer simply procedural,” she said.

The US administration under President Donald Trump has tried to undermine the UN system, resorting to unilateral actions to tackle complex global geopolitical issues. Washington has withdrawn from several UN organisations, such as the World Health Organization and the Human Rights Council, and cut funding to the global body.

The US president has called the UN a “talking shop”, questioning its purpose during his speech at the annual UNGA meeting last September. “The UN has such tremendous potential … but it’s not even coming close to living up to that potential,” he said.

What is the UNGA?

The General Assembly is the UN’s most representative body, bringing together all 193 member states, each with one vote. Its annual gathering in September in New York is the only UN forum where world leaders from all countries can speak.

The UNGA controls the UN budget, adopts treaties, addresses global issues from poverty to corruption and passes numerous resolutions that, while not legally binding, almost always reflect global opinion.

The UNGA also makes key decisions for the UN, including appointing the secretary-general on the recommendation of the UN Security Council (UNSC) and electing the nonpermanent members of the council.

The coming UNGA session will open on September 8.

On Wednesday, the UNGA elected Austria, Kyrgyzstan, Portugal, Trinidad and Tobago and Zimbabwe to the 15-member UNSC for two-year terms starting on January 1, 2027.

Germany, which had lobbied hard for a seat, failed to win the UNSC seat in a major setback for Chancellor Friedrich Merz.

The council is the only UN body that can make legally binding decisions, such as imposing sanctions and authorising the use of force. It has five permanent veto-wielding members: China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.