A new legal research paper from the University of Oxford argues that the international community must refocus on restraining Gaza war in the present.

In a paper on international law in Gaza, Professor Janina Dill of the Blavatnik School of Government, Oxford University and co-author Tom Dannenbaum (Fletcher School, Tufts University) argue that the role of law in restraining war risks being stifled by too much focus on the threshold for retrospective accountability for war crimes.

They argue that, when applying the right threshold, Israel is in violation of international humanitarian law and that outside countries should suspend material assistance such as selling weapons.

"A lot of the Gaza discussion is focussed on concepts and institutional frameworks that relate to retrospective accountability," said Professor Dill, who is professor of global security at Oxford’s Blavatnik School of Government.

READ MORE: 'Sadness' expressed over vandalism of Oxford war memorial

"If Hamas's and/or Israel's leaders have committed war crimes and are to be held accountable for them by the International Criminal Court, that is many years away – and the threshold for being found guilty is rightly very high.

"What we should focus on now is the real-time legal assessments of whether or not current or imminent acts are lawful.

"These serve the different – and urgent – purpose of preventing and constraining unlawful harm.

"More attention is needed on such assessments and on which thresholds are relevant to them."

The paper states that both Hamas and Israel have committed multiple violations of international humanitarian law, and that while this is rarely denied in relation to Hamas, Israel is different.

University of Oxford (Image: Newsquest) Critics may refer to war crimes (as opposed to 'mere' violations of international law) in order to express stronger disapproval.

The authors argue that this then invokes the standards and burden of proof that being found guilty of a war crime through the International Criminal Court demands – which can lead to a distracting debate about those standards that isn't always relevant to preventing or constraining violations of law in the present.

READ MORE: Oxford Half entry costs now nearly match London Marathon

The paper acknowledges that 'in war, information is partial, cognitive biases are primed, and propaganda machines operate at full tilt.'

But, the authors say, 'international humanitarian law is also meant to constrain belligerents’ actions in advance and to help third states evaluate these actions so they can concurrently meet their own obligations.

The paper, International Law in Gaza: Belligerent Intent and Provisional Measures, offers 'views and analysis on issues of intent, of recklessness, of the distinction between military and civilian people or objects, of genocide allegations, and of aims versus means'.

The authors make clear that they do not agree with Israel's 'claims of compliance with international humanitarian law'.