Beyond single-theory explanations: offensive realism and role theory in analysing US and South African responses to international humanitarian law violations during the Israel-Gaza War

Abstract

This mini dissertation challenges the pattern of selective theoretical application in International Relations (IR) scholarship regarding state responses to International Humanitarian Law (IHL) violations. In analysing state responses to the Israel-Gaza war, it was observed that existing literature predominantly explains the United States of America’s (US) actions as motivated by material concerns such as security, but attributes South Africa’s actions to ideational factors such as historical experiences, despite both states reacting to the same situation. As a result, this study questions what the benefits and limitations of applying both offensive realism and role theory to IHL implementation cases are, when compared to a single-theory approach. In addressing this question, this research employed a multiple case study approach, systematically applying both theoretical frameworks to analyse US and South African responses to IHL violations during the Israel-Gaza war. Additionally, an analysis of government documents released by both states was conducted using a custom Python program to identify role conceptions. The findings reveal that neither theoretical framework alone fully captures either state’s behaviour. Role theory is useful in explaining actions that align with a state’s identity and values but lack strategic motivations. Conversely, offensive realism effectively explains actions that serve a strategic purpose but appear inconsistent with state values. Applying both frameworks to the case studies enhances explanatory and predictive power by better capturing the complexity of state actions and accounting for unexpected or contradictory behaviour. This study, therefore, advocates for theoretical pluralism in future IR research on state responses to IHL violations.