Joint Declaration by International Law Experts on Israel’s Gaza Offensive

By Richard Falk
July 28, 2014

Richard Falk

Prefatory Note
Posted here is a Joint Declaration of 142 (as of now) international law experts from around the world who are listed below as endorsers. I am among the endorsers, and the text was initially drafted by Chantal Meloni who has served as rapporteur.
We welcome additional signatures that can be sent to me at falk@global.ucsb.edu with affiliation noted for identification, and names will be periodically added to the text.
I view this as an important expression of professional judgment and individual conscience relating to Israeli behavior in Gaza commencing on 8 July that has already taken so many innocent lives and caused such widespread devastation. Please join us and spread the word!

The International Community Must End Israel’s Collective Punishment of the Civilian Population in the Gaza Strip

As international and criminal law scholars, human rights defenders, legal experts and individuals who firmly believe in the rule of law and in the necessity for its respect in times of peace and more so in times of war, we feel the intellectual and moral duty to denounce the grave violations, mystification and disrespect of the most basic principles of the laws of armed conflict and of the fundamental human rights of the entire Palestinian population committed during the ongoing Israeli offensive on the Gaza Strip. We also condemn the launch of rockets from the Gaza Strip, as every indiscriminate attack against civilians, regardless of the identity of the perpetrators, is not only illegal under international law but also morally intolerable. However, as also implicitly noted by the UN Human Rights Council in its Resolution of the 23th July 2014, the two parties to the conflict cannot be considered equal, and their actions – once again – appear to be of incomparable magnitude.

Once again it is the unarmed civilian population, the ‘protected persons’ under International humanitarian law (IHL), who is in the eye of the storm. Gaza’s civilian population has been victimized in the name of a falsely construed right to self-defence, in the midst of an escalation of violence provoked in the face of the entire international community. The so-called Operation Protective Edge erupted during an ongoing armed conflict, in the context of a prolonged belligerent occupation that commenced in 1967. In the course of this ongoing conflict thousands of Palestinians have been killed and injured in the Gaza Strip during recurrent and ostensible ‘ceasefire’ periods since 2005, after Israel’s unilateral ‘disengagement’ from the Gaza Strip. The deaths caused by Israel’s provocative actions in the Gaza Strip prior to the latest escalation of hostilities must not be ignored as well.

According to UN sources, over the last two weeks, nearly 800 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed and more than 4,000 injured, of whom the vast majority were civilians. Several independent sources indicate that only 15 per cent of the casualties were combatants. Entire families have been murdered. Hospitals, clinics, as well as a rehabilitation centre for disabled persons have been targeted and severely damaged. During one single day, on Sunday 20th July, more than 100 Palestinian civilians were killed in Shuga’iya, a residential neighbourhood of Gaza City. This was one of the bloodiest and most aggressive operations ever conducted by Israel in the Gaza Strip, a form of urban violence constituting a total disrespect of civilian innocence. Sadly, this was followed only a couple of days later by an equally destructive attack on Khuza’a, East of Khan Younis.

Additionally, the offensive has already caused widespread destruction of buildings and infrastructure: according to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, over 3,300 houses have been targeted resulting in their destruction or severe damage.

As denounced by the UN Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) on the Gaza conflict in the aftermath of Israel’s ‘Operation Cast Lead’ in 2008-2009: “While the Israeli Government has sought to portray its operations as essentially a response to rocket attacks in the exercise of its right to self defence, the Mission considers the plan to have been directed, at least in part, at a different target: The people of Gaza as a whole” (A/HRC/12/48, par. 1680). The same can be said for the current Israeli offensive.

The civilian population in the Gaza Strip is under direct attack and many are forced to leave their homes. What was already a refugee and humanitarian crisis has worsened with a new wave of mass displacement of civilians: the number of IDPs has reached nearly 150,000, many of whom have obtained shelter in overcrowded UNRWA schools, which unfortunately are no safe areas as demonstrated by the repeated attacks on the UNRWA school in Beit Hanoun. Everyone in Gaza is traumatized and living in a state of constant terror. This result is intentional, as Israel is again relying on the ‘Dahiya doctrine’, which deliberately has recourse to disproportionate force to inflict suffering on the civilian population in order to achieve political (to exert pressure on the Hamas Government) rather than military goals.

In so doing, Israel is repeatedly and flagrantly violating the law of armed conflict, which establishes that combatants and military objectives may be targeted, i.e. ‘those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.’ Most of the recent heavy bombings in Gaza lack an acceptable military justification and, instead, appear to be designed to terrorize the civilian population. As the ICRC clarifies, deliberately causing terror is unequivocally illegal under customary international law.

In its Advisory Opinion in the Nuclear Weapons case, the ICJ stated that the principle of distinction, which requires belligerent States to distinguish between civilian and combatants, is one of the “cardinal principles” of international humanitarian law and one of the “intransgressible principles of international customary law”.

The principle of distinction is codified in Articles 48, 51(2) and 52(2) of the Additional Protocol I of 1977 to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, to which no reservations have been made. According to Additional Protocol I, “attacks” refer to “acts of violence against the adversary, whether in offence or in defence” (Article 49). Under both customary international law and treaty law, the prohibition on directing attacks against the civilian population or civilian objects is absolute. There is no discretion available to invoke military necessity as a justification.

Contrary to Israel’s claims, mistakes resulting in civilian casualties cannot be justified: in case of doubt as to the nature of the target, the law clearly establishes that an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes (such as schools, houses, places of worship and medical facilities), are presumed as not being used for military purposes. During these past weeks, UN officials and representatives have repeatedly called on Israel to strictly abide by the principle of precaution in carrying out attacks in the Gaza Strip, where risks are greatly aggravated by the very high population density, and maximum restraint must be exercised to avoid civilian casualties. HRW has noted that these rules exist to minimize mistakes “when such mistakes are repeated, it raises the concern of whether the rules are being disregarded.”

Moreover, even when targeting clear military objectives, Israel consistently violates the principle of proportionality: this is particularly evident with regard to the hundreds of civilian houses destroyed by the Israeli army during the current military operation in Gaza. With the declared intention to target a single member of Hamas, Israeli forces have bombed and destroyed houses although occupied as residencies by dozens of civilians, including women, children, and entire families.

It is inherently illegal under customary international law to intentionally target civilian objects, and the violation of such a fundamental tenet of law can amount to a war crime. Issuing a ‘warning’ – such as Israel’s so-called roof knocking technique, or sending an SMS five minutes before the attack – does not mitigate this: it remains illegal to wilfully attack a civilian home without a demonstration of military necessity as it amounts to a violation of the principle of proportionality. Moreover, not only are these ‘warnings’ generally ineffective, and can even result in further fatalities, they appear to be a pre-fabricated excuse by Israel to portray people who remain in their homes as ‘human shields’.

The indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks, the targeting of objectives providing no effective military advantage, and the intentional targeting of civilians and civilian houses have been persistent features of Israel’s long-standing policy of punishing the entire population of the Gaza Strip, which, for over seven years, has been virtually imprisoned by Israeli imposed closure. Such a regime amounts to a form of collective punishment, which violates the unconditional prohibition set forth in Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and has been internationally condemned for its illegality. However, far from being effectively opposed international actors, Israel’s illegal policy of absolute closure imposed on the Gaza Strip has relentlessly continued, under the complicit gaze of the international community of States.

***

As affirmed in 2009 by the UN Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict: “Justice and respect for the rule of law are the indispensable basis for peace. The prolonged situation has created a justice crisis in the Occupied Palestinian Territory that warrants action” (A/HRC/12/48, para. 1958) Indeed: “long-standing impunity has been a key factor in the perpetuation of violence in the region and in the reoccurrence of violations, as well as in the erosion of confidence among Palestinians and many Israelis concerning prospects for justice and a peaceful solution to the conflict”. (A/HRC/12/48, para. 1964)

Therefore…

We welcome the Resolution adopted on 23 July 2014 by the UN Human Rights Council, in which an independent, international commission of inquiry was established to investigate all violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

We call upon the United Nations, the Arab League, the European Union, individual States, in particular the United States of America, and the international community in its entirety and with its collective power to take action in the spirit of the utmost urgency to put an end to the escalation of violence against the civilian population of the Gaza Strip, and to activate procedures to hold accountable all those responsible for violations of international law, including political leaders and military commanders. In particular:

All regional and international actors should support the immediate conclusion of a durable, comprehensive, and mutually agreed ceasefire agreement, which must secure the rapid facilitation and access of humanitarian aid and the opening of borders to and from Gaza;

All High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions must be urgently and unconditionally called upon to comply with their fundamental obligations, binding at all times, and to act under common Article 1, to take all measures necessary for the suppression of grave breaches, as clearly imposed by Article 146 and Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention; these rules are applicable by all interested parties as well;

Moreover, we denounce the shameful political pressures exerted by several UN Member States and the UN on President Mahmoud Abbas, to discourage recourse to the International Criminal Court (ICC), and we urge the Governmental leaders of Palestine to invoke the jurisdiction of the ICC, by ratifying the ICC treaty and in the interim by resubmitting the declaration under Article 12(3) of the Rome Statute, in order to investigate and prosecute the serious international crimes committed on the Palestinian territory by all parties to the conflict; and

The UN Security Council must finally exercise its responsibilities in relation to peace and justice by referring the situation in Palestine to the Prosecutor of the ICC.

***

Please note that institutional affiliations are for identification purposes only.

John Dugard, Former UN Special Rapporteur on human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory
Richard Falk, Former UN Special Rapporteur on human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory
Alain Pellet, Professor of Public International Law, University Paris Ouest, former Member of the United Nations International Law Commission, France
Georges Abi-Saab, Emeritus Professor of International Law, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva, Former Judge on the ICTY
Vera Gowlland-Debbas, Emeritus Professor of International Law, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva, Switzerland
Chantal Meloni, Adjunct Professor of International Criminal Law, University of Milan, Italy (Rapporteur, Joint Declaration)
Roy Abbott, Consultant in International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law, Australia
Lama Abu-Odeh, Law Professor, Georgetown University Law Center, USA
Susan M. Akram, Clinical Professor and supervising attorney, International Human rights Program, Boston University School of Law, USA
Taris Ahmad, Solicitor at Jones Day, London, UK
Maria Anagnostaki, PhD candidate, Law School University of Athens, Greece
Antony Anghie, Professor of Law, University of Utah, USA
Nizar Ayoub, Director, Al-Marsad, Arab Human Rights Centre in Golan Heights
Valentina Azarov, Lecturer in Human Rights and International Law, Al Quds Bard College, Palestine
Ammar Bajboj, Lecturer in Law, University of Damascus, Syria
Samia Bano, SOAS School of Law, London, UK
Asli Ü Bali, Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law, USA
Jakub Michał Baranowski, Phd Candidate, Universita’ degli Studi Roma Tre, Italy
Frank Barat, Russell Tribunal on Palestine
Emma Bell, Coordinator of the European Group for the Study of Deviance and Social Control, Université de Savoie, France
Barbara Giovanna Bello, Post-doc Fellow, University of Milan, Italy
Brenna Bhandar, Senior lecturer in Law, SOAS School of Law, London, UK
George Bisharat, Professor of Law, UC Hastings College of Law, USA
Barbara Blok, LLM Candidate, University of Essex, UK
John Braithwaite, Professor of Criminology, Australian National University, Australia
Michelle Burgis-Kasthala, lecturer in international law, University of Edinburgh, UK
Eddie Bruce-Jones, Lecturer in Law, University of London, Birkbeck College, UK
Sandy Camlann, LLM Candidate, Université Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense, France
Grazia Careccia, Human Rights Advocate, London, UK
Baris Cayli, Impact Fellow, University of Stirling, UK
Antonio Cavaliere, Professor of Criminal Law, University Federico II, Naples, Italy
Kathleen Cavanaugh, Senior Lecturer, Irish Center for Human Rights, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland
Elizabeth Chadwick, Reader in International Law, Nottingham, UK
Donna R. Cline, Attorney at Law, USA
Karen Corteen, Senior Lecturer in Criminology, University of Chester, UK
Andrew Dahdal, Lecturer, Faculty of Business and Economics, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
Teresa Dagenhardt, Reader in Criminology, Queen’s University Belfast, Northern Ireland
Luigi Daniele, PhD candidate in Law, Italy
Alessandro De Giorgi, Professor of Justice Studies, San Josè State University, USA
Paul de Waart, Professor Emeritus of International Law, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Gabriele della Morte, Senior Lecturer in International Law, University Cattolica, Milan, Italy
Max du Plessis, Professor of Law, University of Kwazulu-Natal, and Barrister, South Africa and London, UK
Noura Erakat, Georgetown University, USA
Mohammad Fadel, Associate Professor of Law, University of Toronto Faculty of Law, Canada
Mireille Fanon-Mendés France, Independent Expert UNO, Frantz Fanon Foundation, France
Michelle Farrell, lecturer in law, School of Law and Social Justice, University of Liverpool, UK
Daniel Feierstein, Professor and President International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS), Argentina
Eleonor Fernández Muñoz, Costa Rica
Tenny Fernando, Attorney at Law, Sri Lanka
Amelia Festa, LLM Candidate, University of Naples Federico II, Italy
Katherine Franke, Professor of Law, Columbia Law School, USA
Jacques Gaillot, Bishop in partibus of Patenia
Katherine Gallagher, Vice President FIDH, senior attorney, Centre for Constitutional Rights (CCR), New York, USA
Avo Sevag Garabet, LLM, University of Groningen, the Netherlands
Jose Garcia Anon, Professor of Law, Human Rights Institute, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain
Irene Gasparini, PhD candidate, Universitá Cattolica, Milan, Italy
Stratos Georgoulas, Assistant Professor, University of the Aegean, Greece
Haluk Gerger, Professor, Turkey
Hedda Giersten, Professor, Universitet I Oslo, Norway
Javier Giraldo, Director Banco de Datos CINEP, Colombia
Carmen G. Gonzales, Professor of Law, Seattle University School of Law, USA
Penny Green, Professor of Law and Criminology, Director of the State Crime Initiative, King’s College London, UK
Katy Hayward, Senior Lecturer in Sociology, Queen’s University Belfast, Northern Ireland
Andrew Henley, PhD candidate, Keele University, UK
Christiane Hessel, Paris, France
Paddy Hillyard, Professor Emeritus, Queen’s University Belfast, Northern Ireland
Ata Hindi, Institute of Law, Birzeit University, Palestine
Francois Houtart, Professor, National Institute of Higher Studies, Quito, Ecuador
Deena R. Hurwitz, Professor, General Faculty, Director International Human Rights Law Clinic, University of Virginia School of Law, USA
Perfecto Andrés Ibánes, Magistrado Tribunal Supremo de Espagna, Spain
Franco Ippolito, President of the Permanent People’s Tribunal, Italy
Ruth Jamieson, Honorary Lecturer, School of Law, Queen’s University, Belfast, Northern Ireland
Helen Jarvis, former member Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC), member of IAGS, Cambodia
Ioannis Kalpouzos, Lecturer in Law, City Law School, London, UK
Victor Kattan, post-doctoral fellow, Law Faculty, National University of Singapore
Michael Kearney, PhD, Lecturer in Law, University of Sussex, UK
Yousuf Syed Khan, USA
Tarik Kochi, Senior Lecturer in Law, School of Law, Politics and Sociology, University of Sussex, UK
Anna Koppel, MSt Candidate in International Human Rights Law, University of Oxford, UK
Karim Lahidji, President of the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and lawyer
Giulia Lanza, PhD Candidate, Università degli Studi di Verona, Italy
Daniel Machover, solicitor, Hickman & Rose, London, UK
Tayyab Mahmud, Professor of Law, Director of the Centre for Global Justice, Seattle University School of Law, USA
Maria C. LaHood, Senior Staff Attorney, CCR, New York, USA
Louise Mallinder, Reader in Human Rights and International Law, University of Ulster, UK
Triestino Mariniello, Lecturer in International Criminal Law, Edge Hill University, UK
Mazen Masri, Lecturer in Law, The City Law School, City University, London, UK
Siobhan McAlister, School of Sociology, Queen’s University Belfast, Northern Ireland
Liam McCann, Principal Lecturer in Criminology, University of Lincoln, UK
Jude McCulloch, Professor of Criminology, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
Yvonne McDermott Rees, Lecturer in Law, University of Bangor, UK
Cahal McLaughlin, Professor, School of Creative Arts, Queen’s University Belfast, Northern Ireland
Araks Melkonyan, LLM Candidate, University of Essex, UK
Antonio Menna, PhD Candidate, Second University of Naples, Caserta, Italy
Naomi Mezey, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center, USA
Michele Miravalle, PhD candidate, University of Torino, Italy
Sergio Moccia, Professor of Criminal Law, University Federico II, Naples, Italy
Kerry Moore, Lecturer, Cardiff University
Giuseppe Mosconi, Professor of Sociology, University of Padova, Italy
Usha Natarajan, Assistant Professor, Department of Law & Centre for Migration and Refugee Studies, The American University in Cairo, Egypt
Miren Odriozola Gurrutxaga, PhD Candidate, University of the Basque Country, Donostia – San Sebastián, Spain
Georgios Papanicolaou, Reader in Criminology, Teesside University, UK
Marco Pertile, Senior Lecturer in International Law,
Faculty of Law, University of Trento, Italy
Andreas Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos, Professor of Law and Theory, LLM, The Westminster Law and Theory Centre, UK
Antoni Pigrau Solé, Universitat Rovira i Virgili de Tarragona, Spain
Joseph Powderly, Assistant Professor of Public International Law, Leiden University, The Netherlands
Tony Platt, Visiting Professor of Justice Studies, San Jose State University, USA
Scott Poynting, Professor in Criminology, University of Auckland, New Zeeland
Chris Powell, Professor of Criminology, University S.Maine, USA
Bill Quigley, Professor, Loyola University, New Orleans College of Law, USA
John Quigley, Professor of Law, Ohio State University
Zouhair Racheha, PhD Candidate, University Jean Moulin Lyon 3, France
Laura Raymond, International Human Rights Advocacy Program Manager, CCR, New York, USA
Véronique Rocheleau-Brosseau, LLM candidate, Laval University, Canada
David Rodríguez Goyes, Lecturer, Antonio Nariño and Santo Tomás Universities, Colombia
Alessandro Rosanò, PhD Candidate, Università degli Studi di Padova, Italy
Jamil Salem, Director Institute of Law, Birzeit University, Palestine
Mahmood Salimi, LLM Candidate, Moofid University, Iran
Nahed Samour, doctoral fellow, Humboldt University, Faculty of Law, Berlin, Germany
Iain GM Scobbie, Professor of Public International Law, University of Manchester, UK
David Scott, Senior Lecturer in Criminology, Liverpool John Moores University, UK
Phil Scraton, Professor of Criminology, Belfast, Ireland
Rachel Seoighe, PhD Candidate, Legal Consultant, King’s College London, UK
Tanya Serisier, School of Sociology, Queen’s University Belfast, Northern Ireland
Mohammad Shahabuddin, PdD, Visiting researcher, Graduate School of International Social Sciences, Yokohama National University, Japan
Dean Spade, Seattle University School of Law, USA
Per Stadig, lawyer, Sweden
Chantal Thomas, Professor of Law, Cornell University, USA
Kendall Thomas, Nash Professor of Law, Columbia University, USA
Gianni Tognoni, Lelio Basso Foundation, Rome, Italy
Steve Tombs, Professor of Criminology, The Open University, UK
Paul Troop, Barrister, Garden Court Chambers, UK
Valeria Verdolini, Reader in Sociology, University of Milan, Italy
Francesca Vianello, University of Padova, Italy
Aimilia Voulvouli, Assistant Professor of Sociology, Fatih University, Turkey
Namita Wahi, Fellow, Centre for Policy Research, Dharma Marg, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi, India
Sharon Weill, PhD, Science Po, Paris/ CERAH, Geneva, Switzerland
Peter Weiss, Vice President of Centre for Constitutional Rights (CCR), New York, USA
David Whyte, Reader in Sociology, University of Liverpool, UK
Jeanne M. Woods, Henry F. Bonura, Jr. Distinguished Professor of Law, Loyola University College of Law, New Orleans, USA
William Thomas Worster, Lecturer, International Law, The Hague University of Applied Sciences, The Netherlands
Maung Zarni, Judge, PPT on Sri Lanka and Visiting Fellow, London School of Economics and Political Science

Professor Falk became an adviser to TFF when it was established in 1985.

Related Posts

It’s a matter of principles, courage, vision and pulling together – while the militarist world is falling apart… Peter Langille October 3, 2026 “Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?”The Bertrand Russell—Albert Einstein Manifesto, July 9, 1955 ⁕ The forecast for what’s ahead is worrisome. The sharp rise in armed conflicts over the past three years is adding to what was already the highest level in over seventy years. Genocides, which should be prevented are supported. A shared climate emergency that jeopardises survival is ignored. Diverse polls now suggest that people are war-weary, worried and interested in a more effective United Nations. And, there are viable policy options for a more secure world! Yet governments are doubling-down, betting on more war and investing heavily. If current trends persist,...
Johan Galtung 1930-2024October 2015 Published here on October 3, 2026 Let us focus on Civilization for conflict analysis and remedies. Major forms of disorder use violence; war is state organized violence. The most belligerent states are the United States of America and Israel, both with civilization roots. National Evangelism, the US Protestant Christian civilization– more national than evangelical–justifies US warfare as exceptionalism of a people chosen by God, with a manifest destiny to run the world. Orthodox Judaism justifies Israeli warfare to conquer and expand from Nile to Euphrates as a religious right and duty to the Eternal One. The third most belligerent country, the UK, no longer believes it is God-chosen but chosen by the USA; not quite the same but something. But the root cause of global disorder lies in the Occident–with Islam–seeing itself as the single, universal civilization valid for all at all times, all others being...
How Oxford University Press allowed a personality‑driven narrative to masquerade as scholarship. Jan Oberg, dr hc, TFF director This article has also been published on TFF Substack where more readers react and withdraw their interviews from the project. A Special Issue in a scholarly journal is not an ordinary publication. It is a collective, curated […]

Recent Articles

Tony Robinson October 4, 2026 Violence is easy to recognise when someone is being beaten, shot or killed. It becomes more difficult when nobody is holding a weapon. Poverty, discrimination, exploitation and repression can restrict a human life just as effectively, although they do so in very different ways and with very different consequences. Simply adding more categories to an ever-growing list of forms of violence does not really solve the problem. The more interesting question is what all these different situations have in common and why it makes sense to describe them using the same word. Human beings do not simply react to what happens around them. They remember the past, imagine things that do not yet exist, make plans and undertake projects. Workers organise because they imagine different working conditions; people migrate because they imagine another life somewhere else; social movements emerge because people refuse to accept the...
It’s a matter of principles, courage, vision and pulling together – while the militarist world is falling apart… Peter Langille October 3, 2026 “Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?”The Bertrand Russell—Albert Einstein Manifesto, July 9, 1955 ⁕ The forecast for what’s ahead is worrisome. The sharp rise in armed conflicts over the past three years is adding to what was already the highest level in over seventy years. Genocides, which should be prevented are supported. A shared climate emergency that jeopardises survival is ignored. Diverse polls now suggest that people are war-weary, worried and interested in a more effective United Nations. And, there are viable policy options for a more secure world! Yet governments are doubling-down, betting on more war and investing heavily. If current trends persist,...
Johan Galtung 1930-2024October 2015 Published here on October 3, 2026 Let us focus on Civilization for conflict analysis and remedies. Major forms of disorder use violence; war is state organized violence. The most belligerent states are the United States of America and Israel, both with civilization roots. National Evangelism, the US Protestant Christian civilization– more national than evangelical–justifies US warfare as exceptionalism of a people chosen by God, with a manifest destiny to run the world. Orthodox Judaism justifies Israeli warfare to conquer and expand from Nile to Euphrates as a religious right and duty to the Eternal One. The third most belligerent country, the UK, no longer believes it is God-chosen but chosen by the USA; not quite the same but something. But the root cause of global disorder lies in the Occident–with Islam–seeing itself as the single, universal civilization valid for all at all times, all others being...

TFF on Substack

Discover and subscribe to more peace materials on TFF Substack

Most Popular

Tony Robinson October 4, 2026 Violence is easy to recognise when someone is being beaten, shot or killed. It becomes more difficult when nobody is holding a weapon. Poverty, discrimination, exploitation and repression can restrict a human life just as effectively, although they do so in very different ways and with very different consequences. Simply adding more categories to an ever-growing list of forms of violence does not really solve the problem. The more interesting question is what all these different situations have in common and why it makes sense to describe them using the same word. Human beings do not simply react to what happens around them. They remember the past, imagine things that do not yet exist, make plans and undertake projects. Workers organise because they imagine different working conditions; people migrate because they imagine another life somewhere else; social movements emerge because people refuse to accept the...
It’s a matter of principles, courage, vision and pulling together – while the militarist world is falling apart… Peter Langille October 3, 2026 “Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?”The Bertrand Russell—Albert Einstein Manifesto, July 9, 1955 ⁕ The forecast for what’s ahead is worrisome. The sharp rise in armed conflicts over the past three years is adding to what was already the highest level in over seventy years. Genocides, which should be prevented are supported. A shared climate emergency that jeopardises survival is ignored. Diverse polls now suggest that people are war-weary, worried and interested in a more effective United Nations. And, there are viable policy options for a more secure world! Yet governments are doubling-down, betting on more war and investing heavily. If current trends persist,...
Johan Galtung 1930-2024October 2015 Published here on October 3, 2026 Let us focus on Civilization for conflict analysis and remedies. Major forms of disorder use violence; war is state organized violence. The most belligerent states are the United States of America and Israel, both with civilization roots. National Evangelism, the US Protestant Christian civilization– more national than evangelical–justifies US warfare as exceptionalism of a people chosen by God, with a manifest destiny to run the world. Orthodox Judaism justifies Israeli warfare to conquer and expand from Nile to Euphrates as a religious right and duty to the Eternal One. The third most belligerent country, the UK, no longer believes it is God-chosen but chosen by the USA; not quite the same but something. But the root cause of global disorder lies in the Occident–with Islam–seeing itself as the single, universal civilization valid for all at all times, all others being...
Read More
Living-Peace-Sign-Budapest-copy
Tony Robinson October 4, 2026 Violence is easy to recognise when someone is being beaten, shot or killed. It becomes more difficult when nobody is holding a weapon. Poverty, discrimination, exploitation and repression can restrict a human life just as effectively, although they do so in very different ways and with very different consequences. Simply adding more categories to an ever-growing list of forms of violence does not really solve the problem. The more interesting question is what all these different situations have in common and why it makes sense to describe them using the same word. Human beings do not simply react to what happens around them. They remember the past, imagine things that do not yet exist, make plans and undertake projects. Workers organise because they imagine different working conditions; people migrate because they imagine another life somewhere else; social movements emerge because people refuse to accept the...
b54a1f10-8c65-4f0b-9dd5-4abc0a7d04cc_2659x2659
It’s a matter of principles, courage, vision and pulling together – while the militarist world is falling apart… Peter Langille October 3, 2026 “Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?”The Bertrand Russell—Albert Einstein Manifesto, July 9, 1955 ⁕ The forecast for what’s ahead is worrisome. The sharp rise in armed conflicts over the past three years is adding to what was already the highest level in over seventy years. Genocides, which should be prevented are supported. A shared climate emergency that jeopardises survival is ignored. Diverse polls now suggest that people are war-weary, worried and interested in a more effective United Nations. And, there are viable policy options for a more secure world! Yet governments are doubling-down, betting on more war and investing heavily. If current trends persist,...
010
Johan Galtung 1930-2024October 2015 Published here on October 3, 2026 Let us focus on Civilization for conflict analysis and remedies. Major forms of disorder use violence; war is state organized violence. The most belligerent states are the United States of America and Israel, both with civilization roots. National Evangelism, the US Protestant Christian civilization– more national than evangelical–justifies US warfare as exceptionalism of a people chosen by God, with a manifest destiny to run the world. Orthodox Judaism justifies Israeli warfare to conquer and expand from Nile to Euphrates as a religious right and duty to the Eternal One. The third most belligerent country, the UK, no longer believes it is God-chosen but chosen by the USA; not quite the same but something. But the root cause of global disorder lies in the Occident–with Islam–seeing itself as the single, universal civilization valid for all at all times, all others being...
Screenshot 2026-10-02 011738
Jan ObergPhD, director, The Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research, TFFLund, Sweden October 2, 2026 This is my full original manuscript. The Chinese Academy of Social Science, CASS, makes two publications out if it. 1. China’s Five-year plan emphasized the capabilities of basic research and original innovation. It is regarded as the goal of the future social development, which, as required, should be significantly enhanced. Can you comment on the importance of original innovation in research and academic study? I believe it is easier to define “original innovation” in the natural sciences than in social sciences. The breaking points of what constitutes something new, or innovative, are not quite as sharp in the latter. But in both fields it is about opening up something that was closed, unseen, unexplored before – making manifest what was earlier latent. Innovations come in many forms and shapes – naming something that was not...
arctic-circle-map
The agreement is catastrophic both because of what it says and what it doesn’t mention. It reduces further the major asset of security policies: Freedom of action. Jan Oberg TFF director September 25, 2026 A couple of hours before the agreement was signed on September 22, 2026, I published the following 13 hypotheses about what it would most likely contain on TFF Substack (in English). I was wrong on only the first point. Contrary to what Trump had written on his Truth Social platform, it does not appear to come into force immediately. In fact, it turned out to be worse than even I had anticipated. After these hypotheses now come a number of reflections in light of what the agreement actually contains, and does not contain, as well as the way in which it has generally been presented by major media outlets and by the public-service broadcaster DR. My...
girl-5894831_1280
Below are TFF-related media mentions, comments, videos and social media posts published elsewhere but not on this homepage. We happen to catch and list only a fraction. Regarding video comments and debates, we recommend that you go to the TFF Video Channel on Substack where many of them are reproduced. Jan Oberg is a contributor to China Daily – 52 million daily clicks – and Global Times, CGTN and CCTV (the national television), China Investment, Xinhua News Agency and several others. Articles and videos on these media very often multiply into countless Chinese (and Western media) that re-post them from these main media. Thanks to The China Academy, his analyses, interviews and comments are frequently posted on YouTube channels such as Thinkers Forum and Wave Media. These videos are often re-posted on Bilibili (China’s YouTube), the China Content Center on TikTok, and on the Chinese edition of TikTok, Douyin.com. This means reaching hundreds of millions of viewers worldwide over a year. While there are too many to catch on all these...