International humanitarian law: Starvation as a method of warfare

Approximate read time: 10 minutes

The House of Lords is scheduled to debate the following question for short debate on 16 October 2025:

Baroness Brown of Silvertown (Labour) to ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the use of starvation as a weapon of war globally, and what steps they are taking to ensure that international humanitarian law is upheld in this regard.

1. International humanitarian law

1.1 What is international humanitarian law?

International humanitarian law (IHL) is the body of rules which seeks, for humanitarian reasons, to limit the effects of armed conflict by protecting persons who are not, or are no longer, directly or actively participating in hostilities and by imposing limits on the methods or means of warfare.^[1] It is also known as the ‘law of war’ or the ‘law of armed conflict’.

There are two main sources of IHL: treaties and customary international law.^[2] The core IHL treaties are the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their additional protocols.^[3] Other treaties prohibit the use of certain methods of warfare and protect particular categories of persons and objects from the effects of hostilities.^[4] Treaties are legally binding on those states that have ratified them. All states are bound by the four Geneva Conventions, but not every state has ratified the additional protocols or all the other treaties relevant to IHL.

Customary international law refers to rules that derive from a general practice that is accepted as law.^[5] In the field of IHL, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) states that customary law “can fill gaps if treaty IHL is not applicable […] or where treaty law is less developed”.^[6] This is because “in principle, customary IHL binds all states and, in non-international armed conflicts, non-state parties to the conflict”.^[7] The ICRC maintains a database setting out the rules of customary IHL, based on those it identified in a study in 2005, and the state practice that underpins these rules.^[8] However, not all states endorse all the rules that the ICRC has identified as being part of customary IHL.^[9]

The ICRC notes that implementation of IHL is “primarily the responsibility of states”.^[10] As the UK government has put it, “ordinarily, international law regulates relationships between states, and it is states that incur responsibility when they violate applicable rules”.^[11] The International Court of Justice (ICJ), a UN body, settles disputes of a legal nature between countries where both parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the court, and gives advisory opinions on legal questions at the request of certain UN bodies.^[12] There is some ICJ case law that deals with questions of IHL.^[13] The International Criminal Court (ICC), established by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court of 1998, has jurisdiction to prosecute individuals for the most serious crimes of international concern, including war crimes. The jurisdiction of the ICC is intended to be “complementary” to national criminal jurisdictions, meaning that it comes into play “only when a state is genuinely unable or unwilling to prosecute alleged war criminals over which that state has jurisdiction”. Not all states are parties to the Rome Statute.

International human rights law is a separate branch of public international law from IHL, although there are similarities between some of the rules in the two bodies of law.^[14] International human rights law makes provision for rights and obligations relating to individuals within a state’s territory and it applies during both peacetime and armed conflicts (although it may be possible to derogate from some provisions during an armed conflict).^[15] The sources of international human rights law are also found in both treaties and custom. For example, the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide is an international human rights law treaty.^[16]

1.2 Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare

IHL sets out explicit prohibitions on the use of starvation of civilians as a method of warfare.

Additional Protocol 1 to the 1949 Geneva Conventions (AP 1) was signed in 1977. It relates to the protection of victims of international armed conflicts, in other words armed conflicts between two or more states. Article 54 provides that:

1. Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited.
2. It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as foodstuffs, agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive.

However, article 54 also specifies that these prohibitions do not apply where an adverse party uses such objects as:

• sustenance solely for the members of its armed forces, or
• in direct support of miliary action, as long as “in no event shall actions against these objects be taken which may be expected to leave the civilian population with such inadequate food or water as to cause its starvation or force its movement”.

Additional Protocol II (AP II), also signed in 1977, relates to the protection of victims of non-international armed conflicts. These are armed conflicts between a state and one or more organised armed groups, or between two or more armed groups. Article 14 provides that:

Starvation of civilians as a method of combat is prohibited. It is therefore prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless, for that purpose, objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as foodstuffs, agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies and irrigation works.

Article 14 does not address the use of objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population as sustenance for armed combatants or in direct support of military action.

The use of starvation of the civilian population as a method of warfare is also prohibited as a rule of customary international law in both international and non-international armed conflicts.^[17]

The Rome Statute of the ICC specifies the following is a war crime in the case of international armed conflicts:

Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions […]^[18]

In 2019, the ICC Assembly of States Parties adopted an amendment to the Rome Statute to add the starvation of civilians in non-international armed conflicts as a war crime.^[19] Although the UK supported the amendment, it has not yet ratified it; primary legislation will be needed to do so.^[20]

Additionally, in 2018 the UN Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution, UNSCR 2417, on conflict-induced food insecurity.^[21] Among other things, this called on all parties to armed conflicts to comply with their obligations under international humanitarian law and strongly condemned “the use of starvation of civilians as a method of warfare in a number of conflict situations”. This resolution has been described as “reiterating, but not expanding, international humanitarian law”.^[22]

The ICC has not convicted any individual for the specific crime of starvation.^[23] There is debate among legal commentators about the complexities of successfully bringing a prosecution. For example, there is a lack of consensus about whether the prohibition on starvation of civilians relates only to “situations where the belligerent resorting to this method of warfare has the purpose of starving the civilian population”, or also to “situations where, although not the purpose of a particular course of action, the starvation of the civilian population is its foreseeable consequence”.^[24] There is also debate about how to determine whether humanitarian relief operations have been “impeded” in a way that would violate IHL, and whether foreseeable civilian starvation resulting from attacks, sieges, and blockades of legitimate military targets is criminal.^[25]

2. UK government position on international humanitarian law

The government has reiterated that it is the longstanding position of UK governments that “determinations of breaches of international humanitarian law are a matter for courts, and not for governments”.^[26]

The government stated in September 2025 that it “remains steadfast in its commitment to upholding international humanitarian law (IHL) and protecting civilians in conflict”.^[27] It said the UK was “clear that all parties to armed conflict must respect IHL irrespective of the conduct of other parties”. It stated that UK support for accountability and for international criminal justice “remains a fundamental element of our foreign policy”.^[28] It said the UK was “vigilant in raising the alarm where we see signs that violations of IHL may occur—directly with other countries involved, with nearby nations, and through international organisations”. It also explained the UK, acting publicly and in private, “systematically uses diplomatic tools to encourage parties to consent to humanitarian relief operations, facilitate unimpeded access, protect civilians […] and comply with their relevant obligations under international law”.^[29]

The government has not published an assessment of the use of starvation as a weapon of war, but it has published documents on the broader question of how armed conflict impacts food security and how this relates to IHL.

In October 2024, the government published a voluntary report on the UK’s domestic implementation of IHL.^[30] In a section on addressing conflict-induced food insecurity, the government emphasised its support for UNSCR 2417 and the ‘white note’ early warning reporting system under the resolution. It said that white notes, issued to the security council by the UN secretary general, “frequently identify lack of compliance with IHL as one [of] the main factors contributing to increased risk of famine”. The government said the UK “consistently supports this process and will continue to make strong calls for IHL compliance when white notes are discussed at the security council and in other UN fora”.

This report also recalled that in May 2023 the UK had committed to developing a legal handbook to help tackle conflict-induced hunger by bringing a greater focus on relevant aspects of IHL.^[31]

The government published ‘Conflict, hunger and international humanitarian law: A practitioner’s legal handbook’ in April 2025. The handbook is intended to present “the rules of IHL that contribute to avoiding and addressing food insecurity in situations of armed conflict”.^[32] It sets out the UK’s view of the law and attempts to clarify areas of legal uncertainty. The handbook contains a chapter specifically on starvation as a method of warfare, analysing the relevant IHL provisions. Other chapters examine other provisions of IHL that may be relevant to conflict-induced food insecurity, including humanitarian access and restrictions on the conduct of warfare (for example, blockades and sieges). Each chapter explains what the relevant rules and war crimes are.

Lord Collins of Highbury, then parliamentary under secretary at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), said the handbook “firmly backs” the agenda set out in UNSCR 2417 by:

• helping parties comply with the law
• making policy discussions more informed
• equipping partners with the necessary information to promote compliance with the law^[33]

The handbook takes a broad approach to food insecurity and armed conflict, not just looking at starvation as a method of warfare. It notes that “contemporary armed conflicts impact civilians’ access to food in complex and multifaceted ways”.^[34] It acknowledges that “not every factor that contributes to food insecurity in situations of armed conflict is a violation of IHL” but also argues that when parties to an armed conflict comply with their obligations it can “play a key role in avoiding or at least reducing food insecurity”.^[35]

---

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay