The ongoing war in Gaza has subjected women to grave violations, including sexual violence, forced displacement, indiscriminate attacks, and denial of essential services. These acts breach core principles of International Humanitarian Law (IHL), including the Geneva Conventions, Additional Protocols, and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). This study employs a doctrinal and interdisciplinary methodology to examine war crimes committed against women in Gaza through a gender-based lens, grounded in international legal and human rights frameworks. Despite existing legal protections for civilians, women in Gaza continue to suffer disproportionately, enduring physical harm, psychological trauma, and heightened economic vulnerability. This research explores documented violations, the erosion of international accountability, and the urgent need for effective global intervention. It also investigates humanitarian consequences such as the destruction of health infrastructure and disruption of social support systems, which compound women's suffering. Drawing on reports from judicial authorities and human rights organizations, the study highlights the failure to prosecute perpetrators and the inadequacy of current protection mechanisms. These gaps demand stronger legal enforcement, increased humanitarian support, and greater international advocacy. Urgent action is essential to prevent further abuses, ensure justice for victims, and reinforce protection for women in armed conflict zones like Gaza.

This study explores the profound impact of armed conflict on women in Gaza, focusing on the legal and humanitarian challenges they face. As one of the most vulnerable groups in conflict zones, women in Gaza endure a wide spectrum of hardships, including gender-based violence, displacement, exploitation, and the collapse of essential services such as healthcare and education. The protracted blockade, repeated military operations, and destruction of infrastructure have intensified their vulnerability and deepened existing gender inequalities. This research adopts an analytical-legal approach to examine the extent to which international legal frameworks particularly the Geneva Conventions, their Additional Protocols, and UN Security Council Resolution 1325 address the protection of women in armed conflict. Despite these legal commitments, implementation in Gaza remains inadequate due to political, logistical, and security constraints, with little accountability for violations. The study also evaluates the role of local women’s rights groups in responding to these challenges. It concludes that stronger international accountability, effective enforcement of legal obligations, and greater inclusion of women in peacebuilding and reconstruction efforts are essential. By highlighting the specific vulnerabilities of women in Gaza, this research aims to contribute to more comprehensive and gender-sensitive strategies in conflict and post-conflict settings.

This paper examines the alarming practice of child soldier recruitment by the Houthi movement in Yemen’s ongoing armed conflict, highlighting the widespread and systematic nature of this war crime. The study focuses on the methods used by the Houthis to recruit children, some as young as eight years old, for both combat and auxiliary support roles. It delves into the devastating physical, psychological, and social consequences these children face, including injuries, permanent disabilities, and long-term trauma such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The objective of this research is to analyze the recruitment and use of child soldiers by the Houthis, framing these actions as clear violations of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and human rights conventions, such as the Geneva Conventions, the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The methodology employs a qualitative approach, utilizing reports from international human rights organizations, UN documentation, and eyewitness testimonies to assess the scope of these violations. The study aims to raise awareness about the unlawful use of children in armed conflict by the Houthis and the broader societal impact on Yemen. The findings indicate that the Houthi movement systematically violates international law by conscripting and deploying child soldiers. In conclusion, the paper calls for urgent international action, including legal accountability, child protection policies, and comprehensive rehabilitation programs for former child soldiers.

International criminal proceedings have been consistently criticized due to the lack of an international legislative system, mandatory competent courts, and organized enforcement mechanisms. These factors are essential for establishing a comprehensive and credible legal framework. These shortcomings were particularly evident during the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials, where reliance on the concept of "justice" could not fill the void left by the absence of "legality." The criticisms raised during and after these trials highlighted the importance of the principles of legality of crimes and punishments within international criminal law. Although the process of accepting and establishing these principles has been slow, it has progressed steadily. A historical examination of international criminal proceedings—from the Leipzig High Court in the early 20th century, the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials in the mid-century, the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda in the 1990s, and ad hoc tribunals like the Special Court for Sierra Leone to the International Criminal Court (ICC) at the beginning of the 21st century—demonstrates a profound and gradual evolution in the acceptance and implementation of the principles of legality of crimes and punishments. This process began with denial and initial indifference to these principles and ultimately reached a point where adherence to them was explicitly stated as a legal necessity. This evolution reflects the continuous efforts of the international community to strengthen the legal foundations of international criminal proceedings and ensure the rights of the accused.

The civil liability of physicians in Islamic jurisprudence and the statutory laws of Afghanistan is one of the complex and sensitive issues in medical law, referring to the responsibility of doctors towards patients and the consequences resulting from their medical actions. Civil liability of a physician means their obligation to compensate for financial, physical, or emotional damages caused to patients. This liability typically arises when a doctor fails to fulfill their duties or performs unauthorized or negligent medical procedures. The aim of this study is to examine the conditions and circumstances under which physicians are held civilly liable under Islamic jurisprudence and Afghan statutory law. The central question of this research is: under what conditions and circumstances is a physician liable according to Islamic jurisprudence and Afghanistan’s laws? It appears that if a physician causes harm to a patient due to negligence, lack of caution, or excessive treatment, they are considered liable. This research is conducted through library-based sources and employs a descriptive-analytical method. The findings indicate that a physician cannot be deemed absolutely liable or entirely acquitted; rather, they are liable in cases where they fail to obtain prior consent (discharge of liability), lack sufficient expertise, or commit negligence. Otherwise, they are not considered liable.