 Israel's ground assault on Gaza this month has killed more than 1,000 Palestinians, mostly civilians and children. Palestinian militants have also been condemned for firing rockets and mortars into Israel. We spoke to Professor Hilary Charlesworth for her views on what international humanitarian law may have been breached since the conflict began on the 8th of July. It's fairly clear from some of the actions that have taken place in the past few days that there has been a violation of a cardinal principle of international humanitarian law, which was called the principle of distinction, and that simply means the distinction between military targets and civilian targets. And I think that there is evidence that both sides in this conflict have gone very, very close to breaching the principle of distinction. Last week, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon appeared in a joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to call for an immediate ceasefire. Well, of course Ban Ki-moon has a lot of credibility and I think his intervention and his calling for a ceasefire is very, very significant. On the other hand, we know that there are complex politics both within Israel and also within Palestine, which suggests that there may be some groups who don't see a political advantage in a ceasefire. And I'm not an expert on the Middle East, but it's pretty clear that simply the call from an authoritative figure may not be enough to actually get to the point of a ceasefire. From a humanitarian or civilian perspective, a ceasefire seems absolutely vital. What role can the UN play? Well, the UN has a complex role here. I mean the UN is deeply engaged in Palestine through the UN which has been there really since the creation of the State of Israel. It runs many of the major refugee camps in Gaza and so on. The real problem here though, as I say, is perhaps the internal politics of the two protagonists in this conflict which may make the resolution of it very, very difficult. The UN Human Rights Council a couple of days ago passed a resolution, a controversial resolution, calling for an inquiry into all breaches of humanitarian law that had attracted a very polarized vote. It was essentially voted for by most Arab states and third world states. The United States voted against it, the single vote against it, but there were many European and other nations which abstained. Of course, what's important is that both Israel is a party to the four Geneva Conventions that set out the basic rules of humanitarian law. And interestingly, this year, in April this year, Palestine also signed on to those treaties. So in this case, you've got both the protagonists formally a party to the treaties. The trouble is, of course, each put forward alternative interpretations of the treaties that, as it were, suit their positions. But I do note that the International Committee of the Red Cross which in the region of international humanitarian law is regarded as a truly neutral arbiter that it has indicated that it's very concerned about breaches of the Geneva Conventions by both sides in the conflict.