Abstract:

This research examines the binding nature of international child protection law in a protracted conflict, using Gaza as a critical case study through a constructivist lens. Despite a robust legal framework—including the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions—children in Gaza face systematic violations. The study employs qualitative discourse analysis of legal texts, United Nations (UN) reports, and non-governmental organization (NGO) documentation (2008–2024) to explore how norms are socially constructed, internalized, and contested by state and non-state actors. This article goes beyond existing literature by conducting an in-depth, comparative evaluation of the real-world impact of enforcement mechanisms (UN bodies, International Criminal Court (ICC), humanitarian access) across multiple conflicts, demonstrating that the same instruments that have produced measurable results elsewhere (delistings, action plans, partial compliance) remain almost completely ineffective in Gaza due to structural veto power, jurisdictional contestation, and normative rejection. Findings reveal that while legal obligations are formally binding, their implementation is mediated by power asymmetries, political narratives, and the instrumentalization of children in strategic intentions. Constructivism illuminates how normative gaps emerge from competing identity constructions and the failure of socialization mechanisms. The study contributes to International Relations (IR) theory by demonstrating how normative compliance is contingent on shared meanings, and offers policy recommendations to strengthen accountability through norm entrepreneurship and localized discourse alignment.

 

Keywords:

Constructivism, Discourses, Human Security, Norm Contestation, Normative Compliance

Full PDF:

PDF