Doha, May 07 (QNA) - Ten years after the adoption of a landmark UN resolution aimed at protecting healthcare during armed conflicts, hospitals, medical workers, ambulances, and patients continue to face relentless attacks across global conflict zones.
Senior international officials and major health organizations warned that commitments made under international law have yet to translate into meaningful protection on the ground, stressing that healthcare must never become a casualty of war.
The warning comes amid continued assaults on medical infrastructure through bombardment, sieges, and deliberate destruction, leaving hospitals in many conflict areas unsafe and depriving civilians of critical medical care in what rights groups describe as grave violations of international humanitarian law.
The World Health Organization (WHO), the International Committee of the Red Cross, and Medecins Sans Frontieres said attacks on healthcare facilities and personnel have intensified in recent years, raising serious questions about the effectiveness of international legal protections.
UN Security Council Resolution 2286, adopted in May 2016, condemned attacks on medical facilities and personnel and called on warring parties to respect international humanitarian law, ensure safe access for medical teams, and investigate violations.
Speaking to Qatar News Agency (QNA), Assistant Professor of International Affairs at Qatar University Dr. Abdullah Bandar Al Otaibi said structural flaws have prevented the resolution from becoming an enforceable reality.
Legally, he said, the resolution lacks an independent enforcement mechanism and relies on states and conflict parties to ensure compliance without imposing automatic penalties on violators.
Al Otaibi added that political divisions within the UN Security Council, particularly the use of veto power, have further weakened accountability efforts, turning the protection of healthcare into a bargaining tool rather than an unconditional obligation.
He stressed that the principle that healthcare is not a target remains fully binding under international law, citing the Fourth Geneva Convention and customary international law.
What the world is witnessing in Gaza as well as in Ukraine, Syria, Yemen, and Sudan, he stressed, shows that the problem is not the law itself, but the absence of real consequences for violations. 
When hospitals are attacked without legal or political accountability, he continued, the principle risks being reduced from a deterrent into a moral slogan. 
On the effectiveness of international accountability mechanisms in deterring attacks on healthcare infrastructure and medical personnel, Assistant Professor of International Affairs at Qatar University Dr. Abdullah Bandar Al Otaibi said existing international accountability mechanisms have largely failed to deter attacks on healthcare infrastructure and medical personnel in conflict zones.
Speaking to QNA, Al Otaibi said institutions such as the International Criminal Court, UN investigative bodies, and targeted sanctions retain symbolic and legal importance, but remain hindered by limited jurisdiction, slow procedures, and political pressure from major powers.
He added that current accountability mechanisms deliver delayed and partial deterrence rather than preventive deterrence, stressing that meaningful effectiveness requires independence from geopolitical calculations.
Al Otaibi described preventive diplomacy as the missing link between international legal texts and real-world enforcement, calling for explicit protections for healthcare facilities in all ceasefire agreements and peace negotiations.
He also urged the activation of early-warning systems enabling the United Nations and the World Health Organization to monitor violations in real time and intervene before escalation.
According to Al Otaibi, genuine political leadership requires states to move beyond rhetoric by linking military and economic assistance to respect for healthcare infrastructure and applying collective diplomatic pressure on violators regardless of alliances.
He highlighted Qatar's mediation role as a notable example of humanitarian diplomacy aimed at safeguarding medical neutrality during conflicts, suggesting that such efforts could form the basis of a broader coalition advocating for the protection of healthcare systems.
On whether new legal instruments are needed, Al Otaibi said the core problem lies primarily in weak political will rather than a lack of legislation, noting that existing international laws already criminalize attacks on hospitals, medical staff, and patients.
However, he said updated legal frameworks could address emerging threats, including cyberattacks targeting hospital systems, the use of artificial intelligence and drones near medical facilities, and the misuse of dual-use claims to justify strikes on hospitals.
Al Otaibi warned that the continued absence of accountability carries profound legal and humanitarian consequences, eroding the principle of distinction between civilians and combatants, a cornerstone of international humanitarian law.
When violations become normalized, he underlined, what was once considered a war crime risks being redefined as collateral damage, and eventually viewed as a legitimate tactic.
He added that the collapse of healthcare systems leaves generational scars, reviving preventable diseases, depriving communities of medical care for decades, and deepening public distrust in international institutions and global justice systems.
The real challenge facing the international community, he concluded, is not only saving hospitals in today's wars, but preserving the very principle that war must have moral and legal limits. If healthcare loses its protected status, what remains untouchable after that? (QNA)