Practice Relating to Rule 53. Starvation as a Method of Warfare
Note: For practice concerning the provision of basic necessities to persons deprived of their liberty, see Rule 118.
Quick navigation
Additional Protocol I
Article 54(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides: “Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited.” 
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), Geneva, 8 June 1977, Article 54(1). Article 54 was adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.42, 27 May 1977, p. 208.

Additional Protocol II
Article 14 of the 1977 Additional Protocol II provides: “Starvation of civilians as a method of combat is prohibited.” 
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), Geneva, 8 June 1977, Article 14. Article 14 was adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VII, CDDH/SR.52, 6 June 1977, p. 137.

ICC Statute
Pursuant to Article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the 1998 ICC Statute, “[i]ntentionally 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” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts. 
Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted by the UN Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Rome, 17 July 1998, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/9, Article 8(2)(b)(xxv).

Back to top
Lieber Code
Article 17 of the 1863 Lieber Code states: “It is lawful to starve the hostile belligerent, armed or unarmed, so that it leads to the speedier subjection of the enemy.” 
Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, prepared by Francis Lieber, promulgated as General Order No. 100 by President Abraham Lincoln, Washington D.C., 24 April 1863, Article 17.

Report of the Commission on Responsibility
Based on several documents supplying evidence of outrages committed during the First World War, the 1919 Report of the Commission on Responsibility lists violations of the laws and customs of war which should be subject to criminal prosecution, including “deliberate starvation of civilians”. 
Report submitted to the Preliminary Conference of Versailles by the Commission on Responsibility of the Authors of the War and on Enforcement of Penalties, Versailles, 29 March 1919.

Memorandum of Understanding on the Application of IHL between Croatia and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
Paragraph 6 of the 1991 Memorandum of Understanding on the Application of IHL between Croatia and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia requires that hostilities be conducted in accordance with Article 54(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I. 
Memorandum of Understanding on the Application of International Humanitarian Law between Croatia and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Geneva, 27 November 1991, § 6.

Agreement on the Application of IHL between the Parties to the Conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Paragraph 2.5 of the 1992 Agreement on the Application of IHL between the Parties to the Conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina requires that hostilities be conducted in accordance with Article 54(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I. 
Agreement between Representatives of Mr. Alija Izetbegović (President of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and President of the Party of Democratic Action), Representatives of Mr. Radovan Karadžić (President of the Serbian Democratic Party), and Representative of Mr. Miljenko Brkić (President of the Croatian Democratic Community), Geneva, 22 May 1992, § 2.5.

UNTAET Regulation No. 2000/15
The UNTAET Regulation No. 2000/15 establishes panels with exclusive jurisdiction over serious criminal offences, including war crimes. According to Section 6(1)(b)(xxv), “[i]ntentionally 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” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts. 
Regulation on the Establishment of Panels with Exclusive Jurisdiction over Serious Criminal Offences, UN Doc. UNTAET/REG/2000/15, Dili, 6 June 2000, Section 6(1)(b)(xxv).

Back to top
Argentina
Under Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1989), it is “prohibited to starve the civilian population of the adversary”. 
Argentina, Leyes de Guerra, PC-08-01, Público, Edición 1989, Estado Mayor Conjunto de las Fuerzas Armadas, aprobado por Resolución No. 489/89 del Ministerio de Defensa, 23 April 1990, § 4.03.

Australia
Australia’s Commanders’ Guide (1994) notes that the 1977 Additional Protocol I “prohibits starvation of civilians as a method of warfare … Military operations involving collateral deprivation are not unlawful as long as the object is not to starve the civilian population.” 
Australia, Law of Armed Conflict, Commanders’ Guide, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 Supplement 1 – Interim Edition, 7 March 1994, § 907.

Australia’s Defence Force Manual (1994) states: “Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited … This includes starving civilians or causing them to move away.” 
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, § 709; see also §§ 533, 923(c) and 930.

Australia’s LOAC Manual (2006) states: “Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited … This includes starving civilians or causing them to move away.” 
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 7.10; see also §§ 5.37 and 9.24.

Belgium
Belgium’s Law of War Manual (1983) states that “starvation as a method of warfare against civilians” is prohibited. 
Belgium, Droit Pénal et Disciplinaire Militaire et Droit de la Guerre, Deuxième Partie, Droit de la Guerre, Ecole Royale Militaire, par J. Maes, Chargé de cours, Avocat-général près la Cour Militaire, D/1983/1187/029, 1983, p. 28.

Benin
Under Benin’s Military Manual (1995), it is prohibited “to starve civilians as a method of warfare”. 
Benin, Le Droit de la Guerre, III fascicules, Forces Armées du Bénin, Ministère de la Défense nationale, 1995, Fascicule III, p. 12.

Burundi
Burundi’s Regulations on International Humanitarian Law (2007) states that “it is prohibited to utilize famine as a method of warfare against civilian populations”. 
Burundi, Règlement n° 98 sur le droit international humanitaire, Ministère de la Défense Nationale et des Anciens Combattants, Projet “Moralisation” (BDI/B-05), August 2007, Part I bis, p. 16; see also Part I bis, pp. 32, 40, 58, 81, 88 and 93.

Cameroon
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) states that “illicit methods of warfare [that may be] used by the parties to a conflict to obtain military advantage [include] the utilization of famine”. 
Cameroon, Droit des conflits armés et droit international humanitaire, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les forces de défense, Ministère de la Défense, Présidence de la République, Etat-major des Armées, 2006, p. 183, § 493.A.

Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) states: “Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited.” 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 6-4, § 41 (land warfare) and p. 7-3, § 25 (air warfare).

Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states in its chapter on land warfare:
Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited. Therefore, it is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population whatever the motive. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 618.

Central African Republic
The Central African Republic’s Instructor’s Manual (1999) states in Volume 3 (Instruction for non-commissioned officers studying for the level 1 and 2 certificates and for future officers of the criminal police): “The following prohibitions must be respected: … starvation of civilians as a method of combat”. 
Central African Republic, Le Droit de la Guerre, Fascicule No. 3: Formation pour l’obtention du Brevet d’Armes No. 1, du Brevet d’Armes No. 2 et le stage d’Officier de Police Judiciaire (OPJ), Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Centrafricaines, 1999, Chapter III, Section 1.

Colombia
Colombia’s Basic Military Manual (1995) states that it is prohibited to use starvation of the civilian population as a method of combat “in all armed conflicts”. 
Colombia, Derecho Internacional Humanitario – Manual Básico para las Personerías y las Fuerzas Armadas de Colombia, Ministerio de Defensa Nacional, 1995, p. 49.

Côte d’Ivoire
Côte d’Ivoire’s Teaching Manual (2007) provides in Book III, Volume 2 (Instruction of second-year trainee officers):
II.2.5. Protection of goods indispensable for the survival of the population
It is prohibited to use starvation as a method of warfare against the civilian population, i.e. to resort to the former concept of siege. It is therefore prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population. 
Côte d’Ivoire, Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre III, Tome 2: Instruction de l’élève officier d’active de 2ème année, Manuel de l’instructeur , Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, p. 31.

I.2.9. Recourse to the starvation of the civilian population
Starvation of civilians as a method of combat is prohibited. Consequently, it is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, whatever the motive. 
Côte d’Ivoire, Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre IV: Instruction du chef de section et du commandant de compagnie, Manuel de l’élève, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, p. 51.

Croatia
Under Croatia’s LOAC Compendium (1991), starvation is a prohibited method of warfare. 
Croatia, Compendium “Law of Armed Conflicts”, Republic of Croatia, Ministry of Defence, 1991, p. 40.

Djibouti
Djibouti’s Manual on International Humanitarian Law (2004) states: “It is prohibited to utilize famine as a method of warfare against civilians.” 
Djibouti, Manuel sur le droit international humanitaire et les droits de l’homme applicables au travail du policier, Ministère de l’Intérieur, Direction Générale de la Police, 2004, pp. 31–32.

France
France’s LOAC Summary Note (1992) states: “It is prohibited to use starvation as a method of warfare against civilian persons.” 
France, Fiche de Synthèse sur les Règles Applicables dans les Conflits Armés, Note No. 432/DEF/EMA/OL.2/NP, Général de Corps d’Armée Voinot (pour l’Amiral Lanxade, Chef d’Etat-major des Armées), 1992, § 4.2.

France’s LOAC Manual (2001) states: “It is prohibited to use starvation against civilians as a method of warfare.” 
France, Manuel de droit des conflits armés, Ministère de la Défense, Direction des Affaires Juridiques, Sous-Direction du droit international humanitaire et du droit européen, Bureau du droit des conflits armés, 2001, p. 30; see also p. 85.

Germany
Germany’s Military Manual (1992) provides: “Grave breaches of international humanitarian law are in particular: … starvation of civilians by destroying, removing or rendering useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population.” 
Germany, Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts – Manual, DSK VV207320067, edited by The Federal Ministry of Defence of the Federal Republic of Germany, VR II 3, August 1992, English translation of ZDv 15/2, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Handbuch, August 1992, § 1209.

Hungary
Under Hungary’s Military Manual (1992), starvation is a prohibited method of warfare. 
Hungary, A Hadijog, Jegyzet a Katonai, Föiskolák Hallgatói Részére, Magyar Honvédség Szolnoki Repülötiszti Föiskola, 1992, p. 64.

Indonesia
Indonesia’s Military Manual (1982) notes that starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited. 
Indonesia, The Basics of International Humanitarian Law, Legal Division of the Indonesian Armed Forces, 1982, p. 56, § 127(c).

Israel
Israel’s Manual on the Laws of War (1998) states that conducting a scorched earth policy “with a view to inflicting starvation or suffering on the civilian population … is forbidden”. 
Israel, Laws of War in the Battlefield, Manual, Military Advocate General Headquarters, Military School, 1998, p. 35.

Israel’s Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) states:
War must not be waged by means of a “scorched earth” policy, that is to say intentional attack on food products, farmland, sanitation facilities etc., at such a level as would lead to the starvation of the civilian population. 
Israel, Rules of Warfare on the Battlefield, Military Advocate-General’s Corps Command, IDF School of Military Law, Second Edition, 2006, p. 25.

Kenya
Kenya’s LOAC Manual (1997) states: “It is forbidden … to starve civilians as a method of warfare.” 
Kenya, Law of Armed Conflict, Military Basic Course (ORS), 4 Précis, The School of Military Police, 1997, Précis No. 4, p. 2.

Madagascar
Madagascar’s Military Manual (1994) states: “It is prohibited to starve the civilian population of the adversary.” 
Madagascar, Le Droit des Conflits Armés, Ministère des Forces Armées, August 1994, Fiche No. 2-T, § 27.

Mexico
Mexico’s Army and Air Force Manual (2009), in a section on the 1977 Additional Protocol I, states: “The starvation of civilians … [is] specifically prohibited.” 
Mexico, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para el Ejército y la Fuerza Área Mexicanos, Ministry of National Defence, June 2009, § 260; see also § 255.

Netherlands
The Military Manual (1993) of the Netherlands provides that “starvation of civilians is prohibited”, regardless of the motive. 
Netherlands, Toepassing Humanitair Oorlogsrecht, Voorschift No. 27-412/1, Koninklijke Landmacht, Ministerie van Defensie, 1993, p. V-7.

The Military Manual (2005) of the Netherlands states: “It is prohibited to starve civilians.” 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 0534.

New Zealand
New Zealand’s Military Manual (1992) provides: “Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited.” 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 613(1).

Nigeria
Under Nigeria’s Military Manual (1994), starvation of the civilian population is prohibited. 
Nigeria, International Humanitarian Law (IHL), Directorate of Legal Services, Nigerian Army, 1994, p. 42, § 11.

Peru
Peru’s IHL Manual (2004) states: “It is prohibited to use the starvation of civilians as a method of warfare.” 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 27.d.(1).

Peru’s IHL and Human Rights Manual (2010) states: “It is prohibited to use the starvation of civilians as a method of warfare.” 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 28(d)(1), p. 238.

Republic of Korea
The Republic of Korea’s Operational Law Manual (1996) prohibits the starvation of the civilian population. 
Republic of Korea, Operational Law Manual, 1996, p. 42.

Russian Federation
Under the Russian Federation’s Military Manual, the “use of starvation among the civilian population” is a prohibited method of warfare. 
Russian Federation, Instructions on the Application of the Rules of International Humanitarian Law by the Armed Forces of the USSR, Appendix to Order of the USSR Defence Minister No. 75, 1990, § 5(r).

The Russian Federation’s Regulations on the Application of IHL (2001) states: “The prohibited methods of warfare include … using starvation of civilians to achieve military objectives.” 
Russian Federation, Regulations on the Application of International Humanitarian Law by the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation, Moscow, 8 August 2001, § 7.

Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (1996) states: “It is prohibited … to starve civilian persons as a method of warfare.” 
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Publicación OR7-004, 2 Tomos, aprobado por el Estado Mayor del Ejército, Division de Operaciones, 18 March 1996, Vol. I, § 3.3.b.(7).

Spain’s LOAC Manual (2007) states: “Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited.” 
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Tomo 1, Publicación OR7–004, (Edición Segunda), Mando de Adiestramiento y Doctrina, Dirección de Doctrina, Orgánica y Materiales, 2 November 2007, § 2.3.b.(3); see also §§ 3.3.b.(7) and 7.3.a.(1).

Sweden
Sweden’s IHL Manual (1991) considers that the “prohibition of starvation of the civilian population if the intention is to kill and not primarily to force a capitulation”, as defined in Article 54 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, is part of customary international law. 
Sweden, International Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflict, with reference to the Swedish Total Defence System, Swedish Ministry of Defence, January 1991, Section 2.2.3, p. 19.

It is … established that, up to 1977, international law contained no express prohibition of starvation as a method of warfare. With this in mind, the new Article 54 of Additional Protocol I must be seen as an important milestone in the development of international humanitarian law. This Article provides an explicit prohibition against using starvation of civilian populations as a method of warfare. 
Sweden, International Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflict, with reference to the Swedish Total Defence System, Swedish Ministry of Defence, January 1991, Section 3.2.1.5, p. 59.

Switzerland
Switzerland’s Basic Military Manual (1987) states with regard to civilians who are in the power of the troops at the time of combat: “It is prohibited to starve the civilian population by removing or rendering supplies useless, or by impeding relief actions in favour of the population in need.” 
Switzerland, Lois et coutumes de la guerre (Extrait et commentaire) , Règlement 51.7/II f, Armée Suisse, 1987, Article 147(b).

Togo
Under Togo’s Military Manual (1996), it is prohibited “to starve civilians as a method of warfare”. 
Togo, Le Droit de la Guerre, III fascicules, Etat-major Général des Forces Armées Togolaises, Ministère de la Défense nationale, 1996, Fascicule III, p. 12.

Ukraine
Ukraine’s IHL Manual (2004) states: “The following methods of warfare shall be prohibited … use of famine of the civilian population to achieve military objectives”. 
Ukraine, Manual on the Application of IHL Rules, Ministry of Defence, 11 September 2004, § 1.3.2.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK LOAC Pamphlet (1981) provides: “It is forbidden … to starve civilians as a method of warfare.” 
United Kingdom, The Law of Armed Conflict, D/DAT/13/35/66, Army Code 71130 (Revised 1981), Ministry of Defence, prepared under the Direction of The Chief of the General Staff, 1981, Section 4, p. 14, § 5(f).

The UK LOAC Manual (2004) states: “Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited.” 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 5.27.

15.19. Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited.
15.19.1. The right to life is a non-derogable human right. Violence to the life and person of civilians is prohibited, whatever method is adopted to achieve it. It follows that the destruction of crops, foodstuffs and water sources, to such an extent that starvation is likely to follow, is also prohibited. The same applies to sieges, blockades, embargoes, or the blocking of relief supplies with the intention of causing starvation. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, §§ 15.19–15.19.1.

United States of America
The Annotated Supplement to the US Naval Handbook (1997) states:
Art. 54(1) [of the 1977 Additional Protocol I] would create a new prohibition on the starvation of civilians as a method of warfare … which the United States believes should be observed and in due course recognized as customary law. 
United States of America, Annotated Supplement to the Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, prepared by the Oceans Law and Policy Department, Center for Naval Warfare Studies, Naval War College, Newport, Rhode Island, November 1997, § 8.1.2, footnote 15.

Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of
The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s Military Manual (1988) prohibits the starvation of the civilian population as a method of warfare. 
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Propisi o Primeri Pravila Medjunarodnog Ratnog Prava u Oruzanim Snagama SFRJ, PrU-2, Savezni Sekretarijat za Narodnu Odbranu (Pravna Uprava), 1988, § 107.

Back to top
Australia
Australia’s War Crimes Act (1945) considers “any war crime within the meaning of the instrument of appointment of the Board of Inquiry [set up to investigate war crimes committed by enemy subjects]” as a war crime, including deliberate starvation of civilians. 
Australia, War Crimes Act, 1945, Section 3.

Australia’s Criminal Code Act (1995), as amended to 2007, states with respect to serious war crimes that are committed in the course of an international armed conflict:
268.67 War crime – starvation as a method of warfare
(1) A person (the perpetrator) commits an offence if:
(a) the perpetrator uses as a method of warfare:
(b) if subparagraph (a)(ii) applies – the relief supplies are provided for under the Geneva Conventions; and
(c) the perpetrator’s conduct takes place in the context of, and is associated with, an international armed conflict.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 25 years.
(2) Strict liability applies to paragraph (1)(b). 
Australia, Criminal Code Act, 1995, as amended to 2007, Chapter 8, § 268.67, p. 345.

Australia’s ICC (Consequential Amendments) Act (2002) incorporates in the Criminal Code the war crimes defined in the 1998 ICC Statute, including “starvation as a method of warfare” in international armed conflicts. 
Australia, ICC (Consequential Amendments) Act, 2002, Schedule 1, § 268.67.

Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan’s Criminal Code (1999) provides that “starvation of civilians as a method of warfare” constitutes a war crime in international and non-international armed conflicts. 
Azerbaijan, Criminal Code, 1999, Article 116(4).

Belarus
Belarus’s Criminal Code (1999) provides that “the use of starvation among the civilian population as a method of warfare” is a war crime. 
Belarus, Criminal Code, 1999, Article 136(4).

Belgium
Belgium’s Penal Code (1867), as amended in 2003, provides:
War crimes envisaged in the 1949 [Geneva] Conventions … and in the [1977 Additional Protocols I and II] … , as well as in Article 8(2)(f) of the [1998 ICC Statute], and listed below, … constitute crimes under international law and shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the present title … :

10. intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare, by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including by wilfully impeding relief supplies as envisaged in the [1949] Geneva Conventions. 
Belgium, Penal Code, 1867, as amended on 5 August 2003, Chapter III, Title I bis, Article 136 quater, § 1(10).

Belgium’s Law relating to the Repression of Grave Breaches of International Humanitarian Law (1993), as amended in 2003, provides:
War crimes envisaged in the 1949 [Geneva] Conventions … and in the [1977 Additional Protocols I and II] … , as well as in Article 8(2)(f) of the [1998 ICC Statute], and listed below, … constitute crimes under international law and shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the present title … :

6 bis intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare, by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including by wilfully impeding relief supplies as envisaged in the [1949] Geneva Conventions. 
Belgium, Law relating to the Repression of Grave Breaches of International Humanitarian Law, 1993, as amended on 23 April 2003, Article 1 ter, § 1(6 bis).

Bosnia and Herzegovina
Under the Criminal Code (1998) of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, “starvation of the population” is a war crime. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Federation, Criminal Code, 1998, Article 154(1).

Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Criminal Code (2003) states that, in time of war, armed conflict or occupation, ordering or committing “starvation of the population”, in violation of international law, constitutes a war crime. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Criminal Code, 2003, Article 173(1)(f).

Burundi
Burundi’s Law on Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes (2003) states:
[The following are] considered as war crimes:

B. Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflicts, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:

x) 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. 
Burundi, Law on Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2003, Article 4(B)(x).

Burundi’s Penal Code (2009) states:
“War crimes” means crimes which are committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes, in particular:

2. … [S]erious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:
Canada
Canada’s Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act (2000) provides that the war crimes defined in Article 8(2) of the 1998 ICC Statute are “crimes according to customary international law” and, as such, indictable offences under the Act. 
Canada, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act, 2000, Section 4(1) and (4).

China
China’s Law Governing the Trial of War Criminals (1946) provides that “malicious killing of non-combatants by starvation” constitutes a war crime. 
China, Law Governing the Trial of War Criminals, 1946, Article 3(3).

Congo
The Congo’s Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity Act (1998) defines war crimes with reference to the categories of crimes defined in Article 8 of the 1998 ICC Statute. 
Congo, Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity Act, 1998, Article 4.

Côte d’Ivoire
Under Côte d’Ivoire’s Penal Code (1981), as amended in 1998, organizing, ordering or carrying out, in time of war or occupation, the “intentional reduction to starvation, destitution or ruination” of the civilian population constitutes a “crime against the civilian population”. 
Côte d’Ivoire, Penal Code, 1981, as amended in 1998, Article 138(2).

Croatia
Under Croatia’s Criminal Code (1997), the imposition of “starvation of the population” is a war crime. 
Croatia, Criminal Code, 1997, Article 158(1).

Croatia’s Criminal Code (1997), as amended to 2006, states that a war crime is committed by: “Whoever violates the rules of international law in time of war, armed conflict or occupation and orders … or subjects [the population] to … starvation”.  
Croatia, Criminal Code, 1997, as amended to 2006, Article 158(1).

Denmark
Denmark’s Military Criminal Code (1973), as amended in 1978, provides:
Any person who uses war instruments or procedures the application of which violates an international agreement entered into by Denmark or the general rules of international law, shall be liable to the same penalty [i.e. a fine, lenient imprisonment or up to 12 years’ imprisonment]. 
Denmark, Military Criminal Code, 1973, as amended in 1978, § 25(1).

Any person who deliberately uses war means [“krigsmiddel”] or procedures the application of which violates an international agreement entered into by Denmark or international customary law, shall be liable to the same penalty [i.e. imprisonment up to life imprisonment]. 
Denmark, Military Criminal Code, 2005, § 36(2).

Ethiopia
Under Ethiopia’s Penal Code (1957), it is a war crime to organize, order or engage in “wilful reduction to starvation” of the civilian population, in time of war, armed conflict or occupation. 
Ethiopia, Penal Code, 1957, Article 282(b).

Ethiopia’s Criminal Code (2004) states:
Article 270.- War Crimes against the Civilian Population.
Whoever, in time of war, armed conflict or occupation organizes, orders or engages in, against the civilian population and in violation of the rules of public international law and of international humanitarian conventions:

(b) wilful reduction to starvation, destitution or general ruination through the depreciation, counterfeiting or systematic debasement of the currency …

is punishable with rigorous imprisonment from five years to twenty-five years, or, in more serious cases, with life imprisonment or death. 
Ethiopia, Criminal Code, 2004, Article 270.

France
France’s Penal Code (1994), as amended in 2010, states in its section on war crimes related to international armed conflict: “Using the starvation of civilians as a method of warfare, by depriving them of objects indispensable for their survival … is punishable by life imprisonment.” 
France, Penal Code, 1994, as amended in 2010, Article 461-25.

Georgia
Under Georgia’s Criminal Code (1999), any war crime provided for by the 1998 ICC Statute, which is not explicitly mentioned in the Code, such as “intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare” in international armed conflicts, is a crime. 
Georgia, Criminal Code, 1999, Article 413(d).

Germany
Germany’s Law Introducing the International Crimes Code (2002) punishes anyone who, in connection with an international or non-international armed conflict, “uses starvation of civilians as a method of warfare”. 
Germany, Law Introducing the International Crimes Code, 2002, Article 1, § 11(1)(5).

Iraq
Iraq’s Law of the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal (2005) identifies the following as a serious violation of the laws and customs of war applicable in international armed conflicts:
Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of material indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under international law. 
Iraq, Law of the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal, 2005, Article 13(2)(Y).

Ireland
Ireland’s Geneva Conventions Act (1962), as amended in 1998, provides that any “minor breach” of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, including violations of Article 54(1), as well as any “contravention” of the 1977 Additional Protocol II, including violations of Article 14, are punishable offences. 
Ireland, Geneva Conventions Act, 1962, as amended in 1998, Section 4(1) and (4).

Lithuania
Under Lithuania’s Criminal Code (1961), as amended in 1998, “causing the threat of death from famine” in time of war, armed conflict or occupation is a war crime. 
Lithuania, Criminal Code, 1961, as amended in 1998, Article 336.

Mali
Under Mali’s Penal Code (2001), “deliberately starving civilians as a method of warfare” is a war crime in international armed conflicts. 
Mali, Penal Code, 2001, Article 31(i)(25).

Netherlands
The Definition of War Crimes Decree (1946) of the Netherlands includes “deliberate starvation of civilians” in its list of war crimes. 
Netherlands, Definition of War Crimes Decree, 1946, Article 1.

Under the International Crimes Act (2003) of the Netherlands, “intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare” is a crime when committed in an international armed conflict. 
Netherlands, International Crimes Act, 2003, Article 5(5)(l).

New Zealand
Under New Zealand’s International Crimes and ICC Act (2000), war crimes include the crime defined in Article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the 1998 ICC Statute. 
New Zealand, International Crimes and ICC Act, 2000, Section 11(2).

Norway
Norway’s Military Penal Code (1902), as amended in 1981, provides:
Anyone who contravenes or is accessory to the contravention of provisions relating to the protection of persons or property laid down in … the two additional protocols to [the 1949 Geneva] Conventions … is liable to imprisonment. 
Norway, Military Penal Code, 1902, as amended in 1981, § 108(b).

Norway’s Penal Code (1902), as amended in 2008, states:
Any person is liable to punishment for a war crime who in connection with an armed conflict … uses starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of, withholding from them or denying them access to food or objects indispensable to their survival, or impeding relief supplies in violation of international law. 
Norway, Penal Code, 1902, as amended in 2008, § 106(b).

Peru
Peru’s Regulations to the Law on Internal Displacement (2005) states with regard to the rights of internally displaced persons: “The following … [is] prohibited: starvation as a method of combat”. 
Peru, Regulations to the Law on Internal Displacement, 2005, Article 6(h).

Peru’s Code of Military and Police Justice (2006) states:
A member of the military or police shall be imprisoned for a period of no less than eight and no more than 15 years if he or she in the context of an international or non-international armed conflict:

5. Causes or maintains the starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival. 
Peru, Code of Military and Police Justice, 2006, Article 95(5).

Peru’s Military and Police Criminal Code (2010), in a chapter titled “Crimes involving the use of prohibited methods in the conduct of hostilities”, states:
A member of the military or the police shall be punished with deprivation of liberty of not less than six years and not more than twenty-five years if, in a state of emergency and when the Armed Forces assume control of the internal order, he or she:

5. Causes or maintains the starvation of civilians as a method of conducting hostilities by depriving them of objects essential for their survival. 
Peru, Military and Police Criminal Code, 2010, Article 91(5).

Republic of Korea
The Republic of Korea’s ICC Act (2007) provides for the punishment of anyone who commits the following war crime in both international and non-international armed conflicts:
Using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival or by impeding supplies of such objects in violation of international humanitarian law. 
Republic of Korea, ICC Act, 2007, Article 13(1)(5).

Rwanda
Rwanda’s Law Repressing the Crime of Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes (2003) provides:
Article: 10
“War crime” shall also mean any of the following acts committed in armed conflicts:

9° starving the civilian population and preventing humanitarian assistance from reaching it;

Article: 11
Anyone who commits one of the war crimes provided for in Article 10 of this law shall be punished by the following penalties:
1° the death penalty or life imprisonment where he has committed a crime provided for in point 1°, 4°, 5°, 6°, 9° or 10° of Article 10 of this law. 
Rwanda, Law Repressing the Crime of Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2003, Articles 10–11.

Serbia
Serbia’s Criminal Code (2005) states that ordering or committing the “starvation [of] the population”, in violation of international law, constitutes a war crime. 
Serbia, Criminal Code, 2005, Article 372(1).

Slovenia
Under Slovenia’s Penal Code (1994), “exposure to starvation” is a war crime against the civilian population. 
Slovenia, Penal Code, 1994, Article 374(1).

South Africa
South Africa’s ICC Act (2002) reproduces the war crimes listed in the 1998 ICC Statute, including in international armed conflicts: “intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival”. 
South Africa, ICC Act, 2002, Schedule 1, Part 3, § (b)(xxv).

Spain
Spain’s Penal Code (1995), as amended in 2003, states:
Anyone who [commits any of the following acts] during armed conflict shall be punished with three to seven years’ imprisonment:

3. … [D]epriving a protected person of indispensable food supplies or not providing such supplies. 
Spain, Penal Code, 1995, as amended on 25 November 2003, Article 612(3).

Spain’s Penal Code (1995), as amended in 2010, states:
Anyone who [commits any of the following acts] during armed conflict shall be punished with three to seven years’ imprisonment:

8. Intentionally using starvation of the civilian population as a method of warfare depriving it of indispensable supplies or not providing items indispensable for its survival. 
Spain, Penal Code, 1995, as amended on 23 June 2010, Article 612(8).

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Under the UK ICC Act (2001), it is a punishable offence to commit a war crime as defined in Article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the 1998 ICC Statute. 
United Kingdom, ICC Act, 2001, Sections 50(1) and 51(1) (England and Wales) and Section 58(1) (Northern Ireland).

Uruguay
Uruguay’s Law on Cooperation with the ICC (2006) states:
26.2. Persons and objects affected by the war crimes set out in the present provision are persons and objects which international law protects in international or internal armed conflict.
26.3. The following are war crimes:

33. Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare or of combat by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival. 
Uruguay, Law on Cooperation with the ICC, 2006, Article 26.2 and 26.3.33.

Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of
The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s Criminal Offences against the Nation and State Act (1945) considers that, during war or enemy occupation, “any person who caused the intentional starvation of the population” committed a war crime. 
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Criminal Offences against the Nation and State Act, 1945, Article 3(3).

Under the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s Penal Code (1976), as amended in 2001, “starvation of the population” is a war crime against the civilian population. 
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Penal Code, 1976, as amended in 2001, Article 142(1).

Back to top
Canada
In 2013, in the Sapkota case, Canada’s Federal Court dismissed a request for review of a decision denying refugee protection to the applicant on grounds of complicity in crimes against humanity in Nepal between 1991 and 2009. While reviewing the submissions of the respondent, Canada’s Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the Court stated: “The Respondent notes that the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court … is endorsed in Canada as a source of customary law.” 
Canada, Federal Court, Sapkota case, Reasons for Judgment and Judgment, 15 July 2013, § 28.

Colombia
In 2007, in the Constitutional Case No. C-291/07, the Plenary Chamber of Colombia’s Constitutional Court stated that the prohibition of starvation in the 1977 Additional Protocol II “has attained customary status, mainly due to its impact on State practice and on conflicts in the last decades”. 
Colombia, Constitutional Court, Constitutional Case No. C-291/07, Judgment of 25 April 2007, p. 69.

Croatia
In the Perišić and Others case before a Croatian district court in 1997, after a trial in absentia, several persons were convicted of ordering the shelling of the city of Zadar and its surroundings. The judgment was based, inter alia, on Article 14 of the 1977 Additional Protocol II, as incorporated in Article 120(1) of Croatia’s Criminal Code of 1993. 
Croatia, District Court of Zadar, Perišić and Others case, Judgment, 24 April 1997.

Israel
In its judgment in the Eichmann case in 1961, the District Court of Jerusalem held that starvation caused serious bodily or mental harm and, therefore, amounted to a violation of Israel’s Crime of Genocide (Prevention and Punishment) Law. 
Israel, District Court of Jerusalem, Eichmann case, Judgment, 12 December 1961.

In its judgment in the Albasyouni case in 2008, concerning a petition regarding the Israeli government’s decision to reduce or limit the supply of fuel and electricity to the Gaza Strip, Israel’s High Court of Justice stated:
13. … Finally, the Respondents referred in their brief also to Article 54 of the First Protocol [1977 Additional Protocol I], which prohibits the starvation of a civilian population as a means of warfare …

22. … [T]he State of Israel is required to act against the terrorist organizations within the framework of the law and in accordance with the dictates of international law, and to refrain from deliberately harming the civilian population located in the Gaza Strip. 
Israel, High Court of Justice, Albasyouni case, Judgment, 30 January 2008, §§ 13 and 22.

United States of America
The Agent Orange case in 2005 involved a class action suit filed on behalf of various Vietnamese nationals and an organization, The Vietnamese Association for Victims of Agent Orange/Dioxin, against Dow Chemical and other US chemical manufacturers, for harms allegedly done to them and their land through the United States’ use of Agent Orange and other herbicides during the Vietnam War from 1965 to 1971 and by the South Vietnamese government’s subsequent use of such herbicides until 1975. In dismissing the claims, the Court found that, while recognizing the evolution of international law since 1975, the use of herbicides did not violate, at the time they were used, either customary or conventional international law binding on the United States. On the question of whether the destruction of the enemy’s food sources was prohibited, the Court stated:
The United States was seeking to aid the Vietnamese, not wipe them out. And there was no internationally recognized human right that would have required an armed force to refrain from using herbicides to protect its troops and those of its allies. No recognized source of international law that might have applied up to 1975 could have been interpreted as outlawing use of herbicides in the way they were utilized in Vietnam.
Nor, as to destruction of food sources, where this tactic has apparent military advantage, was there a generally accepted prohibitory rule of international law. Investiture of cities to starve the occupants (both military and civilian) into surrender was common. Collection of food and fodder from the country to feed troops and deny it to the enemy troops and civilians supporting those troops was accepted.
In World War I the British by their naval blockade attempted to starve the Germans. See, e.g., ARTHUR HERMAN, TO RULE THE WAVES: HOW THE BRITISH NAVY SHAPED THE MODERN WORLD 493, 513 (2004) (referring to “a long-distance blockade on Germany, in order to ‘strangle the whole national life of the enemy.’”); BENJAMIN A. VALENTINO, FINAL SOLUTIONS: MASS KILLINGS AND GENOCIDE IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY 85 (2004) (“During the First World War, more than 250,000 people died of starvation and malnutrition when the British blockaded Germany and Austria-Hungary in an effort to starve them into surrender.”). In World War II the Germans attempted to starve the British, and the United States to starve the Japanese, by unrestrained submarine warfare. HERMAN, supra, at 535, 545. Particularly where so much of the enemy force is guerilla in nature and lives off the land, as in the Vietnam War, destruction of crops supporting mobile forces can not be said to have been contrary to tradition up to 1975, even if the international view of its appropriateness may have changed subsequently. 
United States, Eastern States District Court (EDNY), Agent Orange case, Judgment, 28 March 2005, pp. 212–214.

Back to top
Angola
The Report on the Practice of Angola, with reference to a Human Rights Watch report, notes that starvation was used by both the governmental forces and the União Nacional para Independência Total de Angola (UNITA) as a method of warfare during the conflict in Angola. 
Report on the Practice of Angola, 1998, Chapter 4.1, referring to Human Rights Watch, Angola: Arms Trade and Violations of the Laws of War since the 1992 Elections, New York, November 1994, pp. 74–76.

Austria
In 1992, during a debate in the UN Security Council, Austria condemned the use of starvation in the conflict in the former Yugoslavia, stating that “the most dreadful violations of human rights are being perpetrated … and people are continuing to starve”. 
Austria, Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.3134, 13 November 1992, pp. 44–45.

Belgium
In 1969, in a statement before the UN General Assembly, the Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs condemned methods of warfare that led to the starvation of civilians in the context of the Nigerian civil war. 
Belgium, Statement by the Minister of Foreign Affairs before the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/PV.1765, 25 September 1969, §§ 132–133.

At the CDDH, Belgium qualified Article 48 of the draft Additional Protocol I (now Article 54) as “a step forward in the development of humanitarian law”. 
Belgium, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. XIV, CDDH/III/SR.31, 14 March 1975, p. 307, § 53.

The Report on the Practice of Belgium states that Belgium demonstrated support for the prohibition of starvation in international and non-international armed conflicts even before the adoption of the Additional Protocols in 1977. 
Report on the Practice of Belgium, 1997, Chapter 4.1.

Bosnia and Herzegovina
In its application instituting proceedings submitted to the ICJ in 1993 in the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide case (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Bosnia and Herzegovina, inter alia:
requests the Court to adjudge and declare …:
(q) That Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) … is under a particular duty to cease and desist immediately:

China
In 1990, in the UN Sanctions Committee on Iraq, China declared that “everyone agreed” that the inhabitants of Iraq and Kuwait “must not be left to starve”. 
China, Statement before the UN Security Council Committee Established by Resolution 661 (1990) concerning the Situation between Iraq and Kuwait, UN Doc. S/AC.25/SR.5, 12 September 1990, p. 5.

The Report on the Practice of China states that the “Chinese Government supports the protection of the civilian population against starvation” in both international and non-international armed conflicts. 
Report on the Practice of China, 1997, Chapter 4.1.

Colombia
In 1994, in reply to a questionnaire from the House of Representatives, Colombia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs quoted Article 14 of the 1977 Additional Protocol II. It added: “What this Article prohibits is the starvation of civilians.” 
Colombia, Presidency of the Republic, Office of the High Commissioner for Peace, National Plan for the Dissemination of IHL, Reply of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to Questionnaire No. 012 of Commission II of the House of Representatives, 7 October 1994, p. 6.

The Report on the Practice of Colombia refers to a draft internal working paper in which the Colombian government stated that it was prohibited “to make the civilian population suffer from hunger or thirst”. 
Report on the Practice of Colombia, 1998, Chapter 4.1, referring to Presidential Council, Proposal of the Government to the Coordinator Guerrillerra Simón Bolívar to humanize war, Draft Internal Working Paper, Part entitled “El Derecho Internacional Humanitario”, § 2(h).

Côte d’Ivoire
In 1990, in the UN Sanctions Committee on Iraq, Côte d’Ivoire stated that “no one wanted a famine in the area. Citizens should not be made to pay for the misdeeds of their Governments.” 
Côte d’Ivoire, Statement before the UN Security Council Committee Established by Resolution 661 (1990) concerning the Situation between Iraq and Kuwait, UN Doc. S/AC.25/SR.5, 12 September 1990, p. 5.

Cuba
In 1990, in the UN Sanctions Committee on Iraq, Cuba stressed that its government “could never accept any definition which would allow the supply of foodstuffs only to avert famine. Such an approach would be in direct violation of the international instruments which prohibited the use of hunger as a means of warfare.” 
Cuba, Statement before the UN Security Council Committee Established by Resolution 661 (1990) concerning the Situation between Iraq and Kuwait, UN Doc. S/AC.25/SR.2, 22 August 1990, p. 6.

Djibouti
In 2010, in the History and Geography Textbook for 8th Grade, Djibouti’s Ministry of National Education and Higher Education, under the heading “Basic rules of IHL” and in a section on “Treatment”, stated: “It is prohibited to starve the civilian population.” 
Djibouti, Ministry of National Education and Higher Education, History and Geography Textbook for 8th Grade, 2010, p. 194.

[A former combatant reports:] “The federal forces could not take over the villages. So, they prevented humanitarian aid to reach them. That is the strategy they use – create famine – and they do not have the right to do that.”
[A captured combatant states:] “To deprive the civilian population of food and water is a strategy of war. It is good to deprive them of food and water. This will weaken them.” 
Djibouti, Ministry of National Education and Higher Education, History and Geography Textbook for 8th Grade, 2010, p. 200.

In 2011, in the History and Geography Textbook for 9th Grade, Djibouti’s Ministry of National Education and Vocational Training, under the heading “[O]ffences related to violations of humanitarian law”, listed “[i]ntentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival”. 
Djibouti, Ministry of National Education and Vocational Training, History and Geography Textbook for 9th Grade, 2011, p. 210.

[1977] Additional Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions
Article 14 … 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. 
Djibouti, Ministry of National Education and Vocational Training, History and Geography Textbook for 9th Grade, 2011, p. 218.

Egypt
In 1992, in a letter addressed to the President of the UN Security Council, Egypt, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Senegal and Turkey deplored “a situation where perhaps one tenth of the population of Bosnia and Herzegovina will perish as a result of starvation, exposure and disease”. 
Egypt, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Senegal and Turkey, Letter dated 5 October 1992 to the President of the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/24620, 6 October 1992.

Finland
In 1990, in the UN Sanctions Committee on Iraq, Finland stated that Security Council Resolution 661 “must not be interpreted so strictly that famine would result. The shipment of foodstuffs must be resumed when humanitarian circumstances require.” 
Finland, Statement before the UN Security Council Committee Established by Resolution 661 (1990) concerning the Situation between Iraq and Kuwait, UN Doc. S/AC.25/SR.5, 12 September 1990, p. 4.

France
At the CDDH, the representative of France stated:
All Article 27 [now Article 14 of the 1977 Additional Protocol II] contained was a purely humanitarian provision, which no one should oppose … His delegation would vote for the article, whose importance was borne out by many examples in history. 
France, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VII, CDDH/SR.52, 6 June 1977, p. 137, § 86.

Germany
In 1991, during a debate in the German parliament on the situation in the Sudan, several speakers from various parties condemned the use of starvation. 
Germany, Parliamentary debate, 21 June 1991, Plenarprotokoll 12/35, pp. 2963, 2965, 2966 and 2973.

In 1993, during a parliamentary debate, the German Minister for Economic Cooperation and Development denounced the use of starvation by the parties to the conflict in the Sudan. 
Germany, Lower House of Parliament, Statement by the Minister for Economic Cooperation and Development, 14 January 1993, Plenarprotokoll 12/131, p. 11315.

In 1993, during a parliamentary debate on the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, a member of the German parliament, supported by a Minister of State, qualified the starvation of a part of the population of Srebrenica as a “genocidal act”. 
Germany, Lower House of Parliament, Statement by a Member of Parliament, 22 April 1993, Plenarprotokoll 12/152, p. 13075.

In 1993, the German Chancellor expressed the view that the use of starvation in armed conflict was “a violation of human dignity”. 
Germany, Statement by the Chancellor, Helmut Kohl, Berlin, 24 May 1993, Bulletin, No. 45, Presse- und Informationsamt der Bundesregierung, Bonn, 29 May 1993, p. 488.

At the 26th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent in 1995, Germany stated that the “deliberate and systematic starvation of the civilian population has been used repeatedly and has to be condemned”. 
Germany, Statement at the 26th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, Geneva, 3–7 December 1995.

At the Moscow Conference on Global Humanitarian Challenges in 1997, the German Minister of Interior Affairs held the use of starvation as a weapon to be “a breach of international law”. 
Germany, Statement by the Minister of Interior Affairs on the occasion of the CEP-Symposium, Moscow Conference on Global Humanitarian Challenges, April 1997, § 4.

In 1997, during an open debate in the UN Security Council, Germany expressed concern about behaviour the consequences of which ranged “from brutal death by starvation … to massive displacements of whole populations striving for survival”. 
Germany, Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.3778 (Resumption 1), 21 May 1997, p. 18.

Holy See
At the CDDH, in response to Pakistan’s proposed amendment to delete Article 27 of the draft Additional Protocol II (now Article 14), the representative of the Holy See declared that:
He was watching with increasing concern the dismantling, article by article, of draft Protocol II … It was all the more serious in that the deleted articles were perhaps among the most significant and valuable from the standpoint of humanitarian law … Now that the Conference was being called on to decide whether or not to delete Article 27 [now Article 14], which was essentially concerned with food and water supplies for the civilian population, the delegation of the Holy See, as well as others, had to face a problem of conscience, for the protection of the civilian population was one of the aims, possibly even the main aim, of the two Additional Protocols. Since, as had often been stated, the civilian population was the main victim in modern conflicts, how could Article 27, which was indispensable to its survival, be light-heartedly deleted?
Iraq
At the CDDH, Iraq stated that Article 27 of the draft Additional Protocol II (now Article 14) “was of great humanitarian value, and there was certainly a place for it in Protocol II”. 
Iraq, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VII, CDDH/SR.52, 6 June 1977, p. 137, § 88.

Islamic Republic of Iran
In 1992, in a letter addressed to the President of the UN Security Council, Egypt, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Senegal and Turkey deplored “a situation where perhaps one tenth of the population of Bosnia and Herzegovina will perish as a result of starvation, exposure and disease”. 
Egypt, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Senegal and Turkey, Letter dated 5 October 1992 to the President of the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/24620, 6 October 1992.

Israel
According to the Report on the Practice of Israel, “the IDF [Israel Defense Forces] does not condone or practice starvation of the civilian population as a method of warfare”. 
Report on the Practice of Israel, 1997, Chapter 4.1.

Jordan
According to the Report on the Practice of Jordan, “Islamic law proscribes starvation as a method of warfare”. 
Report on the Practice of Jordan, 1997, Chapter 4.1.

Kuwait
The Report on the Practice of Kuwait explains that it is the opinio juris of Kuwait that, during an armed conflict, the civilian population be able to maintain its “normal life” or at least “a minimum of normal life” and this includes the prohibition of the use of starvation as a method of warfare. 
Report on the Practice of Kuwait, 1997, Chapter 4.1.

Malaysia
In 1990, in the UN Sanctions Committee on Iraq, Malaysia stated that “famine must not be used as a weapon to implement” Security Council Resolution 661 (1990). 
Malaysia, Statement before the UN Security Council Committee Established by Resolution 661 (1990) concerning the Situation between Iraq and Kuwait, UN Doc. S/AC.25/SR.5, 12 September 1990, p. 6.

According to the Report on the Practice of Malaysia, “starvation was never employed as a method of warfare” by Malaysia’s armed forces during the conflict against the communist opposition. 
Report on the Practice of Malaysia, 1997, Chapter 4.1.

Nigeria
According to the Report on the Practice of Nigeria, the government was accused of using starvation as a method of warfare during the Nigerian civil war (1966–1970). 
Report on the Practice of Nigeria, 1997, Chapter 4.1, referring to Biafra offers truce to help peace talks, The Observer, 4 August 1968.
The government denied the allegations. 
Report on the Practice of Nigeria, 1997, Chapter 4.1, referring to Federal Ministry of Information, Press Release No. F 1290, Lagos, 11 July 1968.

Pakistan
At the CDDH, Pakistan proposed deleting Article 27 of the draft Additional Protocol II (now Article 14) because the prohibition of starvation of civilians as a method of warfare should not be included in a protocol for non-international armed conflicts. 
Pakistan, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. IV, CDDH/427, 31 May 1975, p. 87, § 78.

In 1992, in a letter addressed to the President of the UN Security Council, Egypt, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Senegal and Turkey deplored “a situation where perhaps one tenth of the population of Bosnia and Herzegovina will perish as a result of starvation, exposure and disease”. 
Egypt, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Senegal and Turkey, Letter dated 5 October 1992 to the President of the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/24620, 6 October 1992.

Philippines
In 1991, a circular from the Office of the President of the Philippines stipulated that “only in cases of tactical operations may control of the movement of non-combatants and the delivery of goods and services be imposed for safety reasons, provided that in no case should such control lead to the starvation of civilians”. 
Philippines, Office of the President, Memorandum Circular No. 139 Prescribing the Guidelines for the Implementation of Memorandum Order No. 398, 26 September 1991, § 3.

Republic of Korea
The Report on the Practice of the Republic of Korea states that the “protection of [the] civilian population against starvation can be regarded as an established rule of customary international law in [the] Republic of Korea”. 
Report on the Practice of the Republic of Korea, 1997, Chapter 4.1.

Rwanda
On the basis of the replies by Rwandan army officers to a questionnaire, the Report on the Practice of Rwanda emphasizes that the use of starvation as a method of warfare is regarded as a war crime in Rwanda. 
Report on the Practice of Rwanda, 1997, Replies from Rwandan army officers to a questionnaire, Chapter 4.1.

Saudi Arabia
In 1992, in a letter addressed to the President of the UN Security Council, Egypt, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Senegal and Turkey deplored “a situation where perhaps one tenth of the population of Bosnia and Herzegovina will perish as a result of starvation, exposure and disease”. 
Egypt, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Senegal and Turkey, Letter dated 5 October 1992 to the President of the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/24620, 6 October 1992.

Senegal
In 1992, in a letter addressed to the President of the UN Security Council, Egypt, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Senegal and Turkey deplored “a situation where perhaps one tenth of the population of Bosnia and Herzegovina will perish as a result of starvation, exposure and disease”. 
Egypt, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Senegal and Turkey, Letter dated 5 October 1992 to the President of the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/24620, 6 October 1992.

Somalia
In 2011, in its report to the Human Rights Council, Somalia stated: “The Government forces are … bound to respect customary IHL rules relating to the prohibited methods and means of warfare including … the use of starvation as a method of warfare”. 
Somalia, Report to the Human Rights Council, 11 April 2011, UN Doc. A/HRC/WG.6/11/SOM/1, § 76.

Sweden
At the CDDH, the Swedish delegate appealed “urgently to all delegations, particularly those of the Western and Others Group, to consider [Article 27 of the draft Additional Protocol II (now Article 14)] carefully and to adopt it”. 
Sweden, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VII, CDDH/SR.52, 6 June 1977, p. 137, § 85.

Turkey
In 1992, in a letter addressed to the President of the UN Security Council, Egypt, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Senegal and Turkey deplored “a situation where perhaps one tenth of the population of Bosnia and Herzegovina will perish as a result of starvation, exposure and disease”. 
Egypt, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Senegal and Turkey, Letter dated 5 October 1992 to the President of the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/24620, 6 October 1992.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 1990, in the UN Sanctions Committee on Iraq, the United Kingdom considered that “no one favoured allowing the inhabitants of Kuwait and Iraq to starve”. 
United Kingdom, Statement before the UN Security Council Committee Established by Resolution 661 (1990) concerning the Situation between Iraq and Kuwait, UN Doc. S/AC.25/SR.5, 12 September 1990, p. 5.

According to the Report on UK Practice, the United Kingdom supports the protection of civilians against starvation and the condemnation of starvation of civilians as a tactic in armed conflict. 
Report on UK Practice, 1997, Chapter 4.1.

United States of America
In 1987, the Deputy Legal Adviser of the US Department of State affirmed: “We support the principle that starvation of civilians not be used as a method of warfare.” 
United States, Remarks of Michael J. Matheson, Deputy Legal Adviser, US Department of State, The Sixth Annual American Red Cross-Washington College of Law Conference on International Humanitarian Law: A Workshop on Customary International Law and the 1977 Protocols Additional to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, American University Journal of International Law and Policy, Vol. 2, 1987, p. 426.

In 1987, the Legal Adviser of the US Department of State, referring, inter alia, to the protection of the civilian population against deliberate starvation as contained in the 1977 Additional Protocol II, stated:
For the most part, the obligations contained in Protocol II are no more than a restatement of the rules of conduct with which the United States military forces would almost certainly comply as a matter of national policy, constitutional and legal protections, and common decency. 
United States, Remarks of Judge Abraham Sofaer, Legal Adviser, US Department of State, The Sixth Annual American Red Cross-Washington College of Law Conference on International Humanitarian Law: A Workshop on Customary International Law and the 1977 Protocols Additional to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, American University Journal of International Law and Policy, Vol. 2, 1987, pp. 461 and 462.

In 1991, in response to an ICRC memorandum on the applicability of IHL in the Gulf region, the US Department of the Army stated: “U.S. practice does not involve methods of warfare that have as their intention the starvation of the enemy civilian population.” 
United States, Letter from the Department of the Army to the legal adviser of the US Army forces deployed in the Gulf region, 11 January 1991, § 8(O), Report on US Practice, 1997, Chapter 4.1.

According to the Report on US Practice, it is the opinio juris of the United States that the starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited. 
Report on US Practice, 1997, Chapter 4.1.

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
At the CDDH, the representative of the USSR declared that he “wholeheartedly supported” the Holy See’s position not to delete Article 27 of the draft Additional Protocol II (now Article 14), “for it was one of the most humane provisions in the entire field of humanitarian law”. 
USSR, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VII, CDDH/SR.52, 6 June 1977, p. 136, § 84.

In 1990, in the UN Sanctions Committee on Iraq, the USSR stated: “Foodstuffs should be supplied to Iraq on the basis of humanitarian considerations, without waiting for a disaster to occur.” 
USSR, Statement before the UN Security Council Committee Established by Resolution 661 (1990) concerning the Situation between Iraq and Kuwait, UN Doc. S/AC.25/SR.5, 12 September 1990, p. 4.

Yemen
In 1990, in the UN Sanctions Committee on Iraq, Yemen declared that “hunger … must be prevented on humanitarian grounds”. 
Yemen, Statement before the UN Security Council Committee Established by Resolution 661 (1990) concerning the Situation between Iraq and Kuwait, UN Doc. S/AC.25/SR.2, 22 August 1990, p. 6.

Back to top
UN Secretary-General
In 2001, in a report on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, the UN Secretary-General took “the deliberate starvation of the civilian population in Somalia” as an example of how “in modern warfare, particularly internal conflicts, civilians are often targeted as part of a political strategy”.  
UN Secretary-General, Report on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, UN Doc. S/2001/331, 30 March 2001, § 14.

UN Commission on Human Rights (Special Rapporteur)
In 1995, in a report on the situation of human rights in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, the Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights stressed:
Sarajevo has been the scene of some of the gravest violations of human rights in the course of this conflict … The humanitarian situation has also been extremely serious, with acute food shortages and problems with utilities which have frequently been used as a weapon of war. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Former Yugoslavia, Periodic report, UN Doc. S/1995/933-A/50/727, 7 November 1995, § 54.

UN Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Paragraph 1 of Security Council Resolution 935 (1994)
In 1994, in its interim report on grave violations of IHL in Rwanda, the UN Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Paragraph 1 of Security Council Resolution 935 (1994) determined that massive and systematic violations of several provisions of the 1977 Additional Protocol II had been perpetrated, including violations of Article 14. 
UN Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Paragraph 1 of Security Council Resolution 935 (1994), Interim report, UN Doc. S/1994/1125, 4 October 1994, Annex, § 107.

Back to top
OAU Conference of African Ministers of Health
In a resolution on health and war adopted in 1995, the OAU Conference of African Ministers of Health called upon member States to “ban … the use of famine as a method of war against civilians”. 
OAU, Conference of African Ministers of Health, 26–28 April 1995, Res. 14 (V), § 5(b).

Southern African Development Community
In 1998, in a statement before the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, South Africa declared on behalf of SADC that the 1998 ICC Statute
would also serve as a reminder that even during armed conflict the rule of law must be upheld. For example, it was unlawful … for the starvation of civilians to be intentionally used as a method of warfare. [This act was] a war crime and would be punished. 
SADC, Statement by South Africa on behalf of the SADC before the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.6/53/SR.9, 21 October 1998, § 13.

Back to top
Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts
The report of the CDDH Working Group responsible for the elaboration of Article 48 of the draft Additional Protocol I (now Article 54) stated that draft Article 48 “reflected the almost unanimous view of the Working Group, which considered it one of the most important articles of humanitarian law relating to the protection of the civilian population”. 
CDDH, Official Records, Vol. XIV, CDDH/III/SR.31, 14 March 1975, p. 300, § 8.

International Conference for the Protection of War Victims
In the Final Declaration of the International Conference for the Protection of War Victims in 1993, the participants declared that they refused to accept that “civilians [are] starved as a method of warfare”. 
International Conference for the Protection of War Victims, Geneva, 30 August–1 September 1993, Final Declaration, § I(1), ILM, Vol. 33, 1994, p. 298.

International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent (1995)
In 1995, the 26th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent adopted a resolution on the protection of the civilian population in period of armed conflict in which it strongly condemned “attempts to starve civilian populations in armed conflicts” and stressed “the prohibition on using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare”. 
26th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, Geneva, 3–7 December 1995, Res. II, § E(a) and (b).

International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent (1999)
The Plan of Action for the years 2000–2003 adopted in 1999 by the 27th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent proposed that “States stress the provisions of international humanitarian law prohibiting the use of starvation of civilians as a method of warfare”. 
27th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, Geneva, 31 October–6 November 1999, Res. I, Annex 2, Plan of Action for the years 2000–2003, Actions proposed for final goal 1.1, § 2.

Back to top
No data.
Back to top
ICRC
The ICRC Commentary on the Additional Protocols emphasizes that the statement of the general principle not to use starvation as a method of warfare “is innovative and a significant progress of the law”. 
Yves Sandoz et al. (eds.), Commentary on the Additional Protocols, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, § 2091.

To fulfil its task of disseminating IHL, the ICRC has delegates around the world teaching armed and security forces that: “Starvation as a method of warfare against civilian persons is prohibited.” 
Frédéric de Mulinen, Handbook on the Law of War for Armed Forces, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, § 396.

Council of Delegates (1991)
At its Budapest Session in 1991, the Council of Delegates adopted a resolution on humanitarian assistance in situations of armed conflict in which it called upon all parties to armed conflicts and, where applicable, any High Contracting Party “to respect and ensure respect for the rules of international humanitarian law … that prohibit the use of starvation of civilians as a method of combat”. 
International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, Council of Delegates, Budapest Session, 28–30 November 1991, Res. 12, § a.

At its Budapest Session in 1991, the Council of Delegates adopted a resolution on the protection of the civilian population against famine in situations of armed conflict in which it reminded “the authorities concerned and the armed forces under their command of their obligation to apply international humanitarian law, in particular … the prohibition of starvation of civilians as a method of combat”. 
International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, Council of Delegates, Budapest Session, 28–30 November 1991, Res. 13, § 1.

ICRC
In a communication to the press issued in 1993 in the context of the conflict in Liberia, the ICRC expressed concern that “over 110,000 people living in the area between Kakata and Totota, in central Liberia, are threatened by starvation”. 
ICRC, Communication to the Press No. 93/22, Liberia: ICRC Concerned about 110,000 People Facing Starvation, 22 July 1993.

In a working paper on war crimes submitted in 1997 to the Preparatory Committee for the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, the ICRC included “starvation of civilians”, when committed in an international or a non-international armed conflict, in its list of war crimes to be subject to the jurisdiction of the Court. 
ICRC, Working paper on war crimes submitted to the Preparatory Committee for the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, New York, 14 February 1997, §§ 2(iv) and 3(xi).

Back to top
Bothe, Partsch and Solf
In their commentary on the 1977 Additional Protocols, Bothe, Partsch and Solf state: “By prohibiting starvation of civilians as a method of warfare, Art. 54 [of the 1977 Additional Protocol I] establishes a substantial new principle of international law applicable in armed conflict.” 
Michael Bothe, Karl Joseph Partsch, Waldemar A. Solf (eds.), New Rules for Victims of Armed Conflict, Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, 1982, p. 336.

Aldrich
In an article in 1986, Ambassador George Aldrich, head of the US delegation to the CDDH, stated that Article 54 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I ranked among those provisions “most warmly welcomed by the United States in 1977”. 
George H. Aldrich, “Progressive Development of the Laws of War: A Reply to Criticisms of the 1977 Geneva Protocol I”, Virginia Journal of International Law, 1986, Vol. 26, p. 699.

Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A)
The SPLM/A Penal and Disciplinary Laws provide that members of the SPLM/A “shall ensure that citizens [under their control] … produce sufficient food for themselves”. In addition, it severely punishes “any member of the [SPLA] or affiliated organizations who compels citizens to surrender food materials”. 
SPLM/A, Penal and Disciplinary Laws, 4 July 1984, §§ 54(3) and 68, Report on SPLM/A Practice, 1998, Chapter 4.1.

Quick navigation
Geneva Convention IV
Article 23 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides:
Each High Contracting Party shall allow the free passage of all consignments of medical and hospital stores and objects necessary for religious worship intended only for civilians of another High Contracting Party, even if the latter is its adversary. It shall likewise permit the free passage of all consignments of essential foodstuffs, clothing and tonics intended for children under fifteen, expectant mothers and maternity cases.
The obligation of a High Contracting Party to allow the free passage of the consignments indicated in the preceding paragraph is subject to the condition that this Party is satisfied that there are no serious reasons for fearing:
(a) that the consignments may be diverted from their destination,
(b) that the control may not be effective, or
(c) that a definite advantage may accrue to the military efforts or economy of the enemy through the substitution of the above-mentioned consignments for goods which would otherwise be provided or produced by the enemy or through the release of such material, services or facilities as would otherwise be required for the production of such goods.
The Power which allows the passage of the consignments indicated in the first paragraph of this Article may make such permission conditional on the distribution to the persons benefited thereby being made under the local supervision of the Protecting Powers.
Such consignments shall be forwarded as rapidly as possible, and the Power which permits their free passage shall have the right to prescribe the technical arrangements under which such passage is allowed.  
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 23.

Back to top
Lieber Code
Article 18 of the 1863 Lieber Code provides:
When a commander of a besieged place expels the noncombatants, in order to lessen the number of those who consume his stock of provisions, it is lawful, though an extreme measure, to drive them back, so as to hasten on the surrender. 
Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, prepared by Francis Lieber, promulgated as General Order No. 100 by President Abraham Lincoln, Washington D.C., 24 April 1863, Article 18.

Back to top
Argentina
Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1969), in a chapter dealing, inter alia, with siege warfare, provides: “Belligerent forces must try and conclude agreements which facilitate … the free passage of … essential foodstuffs and clothing.” 
Argentina, Leyes de Guerra, RC-46-1, Público, II Edición 1969, Ejército Argentino, Edición original aprobado por el Comandante en Jefe del Ejército, 9 May 1967, § 1.014.

Australia
Australia’s Commanders’ Guide (1994), in a section on siege warfare, provides that, in such a situation, “provision is … made for the passage … of essential foodstuffs, clothing, tonics intended for children under 15, expectant mothers and maternity cases”. 
Australia, Law of Armed Conflict, Commanders’ Guide, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 Supplement 1 – Interim Edition, 7 March 1994, § 926.

Australia’s Defence Force Manual (1994), in a section on siege warfare, states:
The opposing parties are required to try and conclude local agreements … for the passage … of essential foodstuffs, clothing and tonics intended for children under 15, expectant mothers and maternity cases. 
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, § 735.

Australia’s LOAC Manual (2006) states that, in the context of siege warfare:
The opposing parties are required to try and conclude local agreements … for the passage … of essential foodstuffs, clothing and tonics intended for children under 15, expectant mothers and maternity cases. 
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 7.38.

Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999), in a section on siege warfare, stresses:
If circumstances permit, … the parties should … permit passage to these [besieged] areas of … essential foodstuffs, clothing, and tonics intended for children under the age of 15, expectant mothers, and maternity cases. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 6-4, § 35(e).

Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states in its chapter on land warfare:
If circumstances permit, the parties to a conflict must endeavour to conclude local agreements for the removal from besieged areas of wounded, sick, infirm, and aged persons, children and maternity cases.
The parties should also permit passage to these areas of:

e. essential foodstuffs, clothing, and tonics intended for children under the age of 15, expectant mothers, and maternity cases. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 614.6.e.

Côte d’Ivoire
Côte d’Ivoire’s Teaching Manual (2007) provides in Book III, Volume 1 (Instruction of first-year trainee officers):
IV.3. During a siege operation
… The law which applies to siege operations is essentially only a combination of elements already addressed. Thus, in case of attack, the rules governing offensive operations apply. In the case of defence, the rules covering defensive operations apply.
The key aspects are described below.

IV.3.2. The civilian population staying

If the civilians do not leave the town under siege, this does not signify that the commander who directs the attack is dispensed from his duties to take all the usual precautions listed above. For all these reasons, a ceasefire allowing for evacuation seems to constitute a logical solution. Sure, violators could consider that it is in their interest to hold back the civilian population, or parts of that population, to serve as human shields, or to elicit the sympathy of international opinion regarding the humanitarian situation of the population and thereby to discredit the enemy. Nevertheless, the force leading the attack can easily thwart these proceedings by respecting the law, giving warnings, giving time for an evacuation in the form of a ceasefire, and by ensuring that the civilians are granted passage in safe conditions towards a protected zone or place.
The general prohibition of starvation as a method of warfare against the civilian population implies that consignments of food and medical supplies, drinking water and other objects indispensable for its survival are not impeded, under the condition that they are distributed only to the civilian population of the town under siege and not to armed forces defending it. This rule completely prohibits the strategies traditionally employed in sieges, because the besieger often starved the population of enemy towns. 
Côte d’Ivoire, Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre III, Tome 1: Instruction de l’élève officier d’active de 1ère année, Manuel de l’élève, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, pp. 50–52; see also Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre IV: Instruction du chef de section et du commandant de compagnie, Manuel de l’élève, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, pp. 72–73.

France
France’s LOAC Manual (2001), under the definition of siege, states: “The starvation of civilian populations as a method of warfare is prohibited.” 
France, Manuel de droit des conflits armés, Ministère de la Défense, Direction des Affaires Juridiques, Sous-Direction du droit international humanitaire et du droit européen, Bureau du droit des conflits armés, 2001, p. 117.

Israel
Israel’s Manual on the Laws of War (1998) states:
Siege as a method of warfare vis-a-vis a military objective is an absolutely legal method even if it involves the starvation of the besieged or preventing the transfer of medications in order to achieve surrender.
A question arises in the case of a military siege of an inhabited city. Until recently there were no rules relating to this method of warfare, and it was allowed to exploit the suffering of the local population in order to subdue the enemy. Following the Second World War, a provision was set in the Additional Protocols of 1977, forbidding the starvation of a civilian population in war. This provision clearly implies that the city’s inhabitants must be allowed to leave the city during a siege. 
Israel, Laws of War in the Battlefield, Manual, Military Advocate General Headquarters, Military School, 1998, p. 59.

Israel’s Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) states:
A siege of a military target is a completely legitimate means of warfare, even if it involves the starvation of the besieged soldiers. A question arises in the case of a military siege of a populated town. Until recently, there were no rules attached to this method of warfare, and it was permitted to exploit the suffering of the local population in order to overcome the enemy. The [1977] Additional Protocols to the Geneva Convention contain a provision banning starvation of the civilian population in battle. The meaning to be extracted from this provision is that the residents of a city need to be allowed to leave it if it is besieged. In cases where civilians do not have the opportunity to leave the besieged city, a duty arises to supply them with food, water and humanitarian aid. 
Israel, Rules of Warfare on the Battlefield, Military Advocate-General’s Corps Command, IDF School of Military Law, Second Edition, 2006, p. 37.

New Zealand
New Zealand’s Military Manual (1992) notes that siege is not prohibited “even if it causes some collateral deprivation to the civilian population, so long as starvation is not the specific purpose”. 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 504(2), footnote 9.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK LOAC Manual (2004) states:
5.34. The principles of the law of armed conflict, particularly the rules relating to attacks, apply equally to situations of siege or encirclement.

5.34.2. Encirclement poses problems for the attacking commander if there are civilians in the encircled area, especially if the encircled area is, or contains, a town which is inhabited by civilians but is defended by enemy armed forces. In any bombardment, the normal rules on precautions in attack apply. So do the rules preventing starvation of the civilian population as a method of warfare or those protecting supplies indispensable for the survival of the civilian population. There is also an obligation to allow essential relief supplies through to the civilian population. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, §§ 5.34. and 5.34.2.

15.19. Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited.
15.19.1. The right to life is a non-derogable human right. Violence to the life and person of civilians is prohibited, whatever method is adopted to achieve it. It follows that the destruction of crops, foodstuffs and water sources, to such an extent that starvation is likely to follow, is also prohibited. The same applies to sieges, blockades, embargoes, or the blocking of relief supplies with the intention of causing starvation. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, §§ 15.19–15.19.1.

United States of America
The US Field Manual (1956), in a chapter dealing, inter alia, with siege warfare, states that, in such a situation, “provision is … made in Article 23 [of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV] for the passage … of essential foodstuffs, clothing, and tonics intended for children under 15, expectant mothers, and maternity cases”. 
United States, Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare, US Department of the Army, 18 July 1956, as modified by Change No. 1, 15 July 1976, § 44.

Back to top
No data.
Back to top
No data.
Back to top
Albania
In 1992, during a debate in the UN Security Council on the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Albania stated:
Many cities in Bosnia and Herzegovina have been besieged for several months, and their population is under constant artillery fire and left without food, electricity, water supply and medicine. All this will certainly leave a scar on the population for several generations, and the evil is beyond remedy. 
Albania, Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.3136, 16 November 1992, § 50.

Germany
In 1995, in a statement before the UN General Assembly on Germany’s appreciation of UN achievements, the German Foreign Minister praised the efforts of peacekeepers “who keep the beleaguered people from starving”. 
Germany, Statement before the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/50/PV.8, 27 September 1995, pp. 4 and 5.

Pakistan
In 1993, during a debate in the UN Security Council on the establishment of a no-fly zone in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Pakistan declared that “we have witnessed with mounting horror and revulsion … the use of siege and the cutting off of supplies of food and other essentials to civilian population centres”. 
Pakistan, Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.3191, 31 March 1993, § 30.

Back to top
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in June 1992 on deployment of additional elements of UNPROFOR in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the UN Security Council underlined “the urgency of quick delivery of humanitarian assistance to [besieged] Sarajevo and its environs”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 761, 29 June 1992, preamble, voting record: 15-0-0.

In a resolution adopted in July 1992 on deployment of additional elements of UNPROFOR in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the UN Security Council stated that it was “deeply disturbed by the situation which now prevails in [besieged] Sarajevo” and deplored the continuation of the fighting “which is rendering difficult the provision of humanitarian aid in Sarajevo”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 764, 13 July 1992, preamble, voting record: 15-0-0.

In a resolution adopted in 1993 on a comprehensive political settlement of the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the UN Security Council expressed its “concern” about the continuing siege of Sarajevo and strongly condemned “the disruption of public utilities (including water, electricity, fuel and communications)”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 859, 24 August 1993, preamble, voting record: 15-0-0.

In 1994, in a statement by its President, the UN Security Council expressed grave concern at the continuing hostilities in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and especially deplored “the rapidly deteriorating situation in the Maglaj area and the threat it poses to the survival of the remaining civilian population”. It noted that “this intolerable situation has been perpetuated by the intensity of the nine-month siege of the town” and demanded that “the siege of Maglaj be ended immediately”. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/1994/11, 14 March 1994, p. 1.

UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1993 on the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the UN General Assembly:
Expressing its concern about the continuing siege of Sarajevo and other Bosnian cities and of “safe areas” which endangers the well-being and safety of their inhabitants,

6. Demands that the Bosnian Serb party lift forthwith the siege of Sarajevo and other “safe areas”, as well as other besieged Bosnian towns. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 48/88, 20 December 1993, preamble and § 6, voting record: 109-0-57-18.

UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 1994 on the situation of human rights in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, the UN Commission on Human Rights demanded “immediate, firm and resolute action by the international community to stop all human rights violations, including … strangulation of cities in Bosnia”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1994/72, 9 March 1994, § 5, adopted without a vote.

UN Commission on Human Rights (Special Rapporteur)
In 1995, in a report on the situation of human rights in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, the Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights stated:
Sarajevo has been the scene of some of the gravest violations of human rights in the course of this conflict … The humanitarian situation has also been extremely serious, with acute food shortages and problems with utilities which have frequently been used as a weapon of war. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Former Yugoslavia, Periodic report, UN Doc. S/1995/933-A/50/727, 7 November 1995, Annex, § 54.

Back to top
Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly (Rapporteur)
In 1992, in a report on the crisis in the former Yugoslavia, the rapporteur of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly declared that “the siege and the systematic shelling of Sarajevo … are actions unanimously condemned by the international community”. 
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Report on the crisis in the former Yugoslavia, Doc. 6639, 29 June 1992, § II 9.

European Union
In 1994, in a plenary session of the UN General Assembly on the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the EU expressed its concern about “the situation in Sarajevo and the danger of its strangulation”. 
EU, Statement by Germany on behalf of the EU before the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/49/PV.50, 3 November 1994, p. 19.

Western European Union Presidential Committee
In 1994, the Presidential Committee of the WEU adopted a declaration on the situation in the former Yugoslavia and called for an immediate end to the siege of Sarajevo. 
WEU, Presidential Committee, Declaration on the situation in the former Yugoslavia, PRCO Doc 1413, 26 April 1994.

Back to top
World Conference on Human Rights
In a Special Declaration on Bosnia and Herzegovina, the World Conference on Human Rights in 1993 urged the world community and all international bodies, in particular the UN Security Council,
to take forceful and decisive steps for effective measures of peace-making in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina with a view to … extending immediate humanitarian help for the relief of persons in besieged towns and cities as well as other victims. 
World Conference on Human Rights, Vienna, 14-25 June 1993, Special Declaration on Bosnia and Herzegovina, § 7, UN Doc. A/CONF.157/24 (Part I), 13 October 1993, Chapter IV.B, § 47.

Back to top
No data.
Back to top
No data.
Back to top
Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A)
According to the Report on SPLM/A Practice, one of the popular practices employed by the SPLM/A against the Sudanese government is to besiege garrison towns held by the Sudanese army. The report points out that the main strategy is to force the government army of the garrison to surrender, but that the civilian population living in these garrisons and towns is also greatly affected. 
Report on SPLM/A Practice, 1998, Chapter 4.1.

Quick navigation
No data.
Back to top
San Remo Manual
The 1994 San Remo Manual states:
102. The declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if:
a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival.

103. If the civilian population of the blockaded territory is inadequately provided with food and other objects essential for its survival, the blockading party must provide for free passage of such foodstuffs and other essential supplies. 
Louise Doswald-Beck (ed.), San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994, Prepared by international lawyers and naval experts convened by the International Institute of Humanitarian Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995, §§ 102–103.

Back to top
Australia
Australia’s Commanders’ Guide (1994) provides:
In so far as the purpose of a blockade is to deprive the enemy population of foodstuffs, so as to starve them in the hope that they would apply pressure to their government to seek peace, it would now appear to be illegal in accordance with Article 54(1) [of the 1977 Additional Protocol I]. 
Australia, Law of Armed Conflict, Commanders’ Guide, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 Supplement 1 – Interim Edition, 7 March 1994, § 850, footnote 5.

Australia’s Defence Force Manual (1994) states:
The declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if:
a. it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects indispensable for its survival.

If the civilian population of the blockaded territory is inadequately provided with food and other objects essential for its survival, the blockading party must provide for free passage of such foodstuffs and other essential supplies. 
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, §§ 665 and 666.

Australia’s LOAC Manual (2006) states:
6.65 The declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if:
• it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival;

6.66 If the civilian population of the blockaded territory is inadequately provided with food and other objects essential for its survival, the blockading party must provide for free passage of such foodstuffs and other essential supplies. 
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, §§ 6.65–6.66.

Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) provides:
The declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if:
a. it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival;

If the civilian population of the blockaded territory is inadequately provided with food and other objects essential for its survival, the blockading party must provide for free passage of such foodstuffs and other essential supplies. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 8-9, §§ 67 and 68.

Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states in its chapter on naval warfare:
850. Circumstances in which a blockade is prohibited
1. The declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if:
a. it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival; or
b. the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade.
851. Food and other objects essential to the survival of the civilian population
1. If the civilian population of the blockaded territory is inadequately provided with food and other objects essential for its survival, the blockading party must provide for free passage of such foodstuffs and other essential supplies, subject to:
a. the right to prescribe the technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted; and
b. the condition that the distribution of such supplies shall be made under the local supervision of a Protecting Power or a humanitarian organization which offers guarantees of impartiality, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, §§ 850 and 851.1.

Ecuador
Ecuador’s Naval Manual (1989) states: “Neutral vessels and aircraft engaged in the carriage of qualifying relief supplies for the civilian population … should be authorized to pass through the blockade cordon.” 
Ecuador, Aspectos Importantes del Derecho Internacional Marítimo que Deben Tener Presente los Comandantes de los Buques, Academia de Guerra Naval, 1989, § 7.7.3.

France
France’s LOAC Manual (2001) states that when carrying out a blockade, there is an obligation “to allow free passage for relief indispensable to the survival of the civilian population”. 
France, Manuel de droit des conflits armés, Ministère de la Défense, Direction des Affaires Juridiques, Sous-Direction du droit international humanitaire et du droit européen, Bureau du droit des conflits armés, 2001, p. 33.

Germany
Germany’s Military Manual (1992), in a section on blockades, states: “Starvation of the civilian population as a method of warfare is prohibited.” 
Germany, Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts – Manual, DSK VV207320067, edited by The Federal Ministry of Defence of the Federal Republic of Germany, VR II 3, August 1992, English translation of ZDv 15/2, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Handbuch, August 1992, § 1051.

New Zealand
New Zealand’s Military Manual (1992) states that blockade is not prohibited “even if it causes some collateral deprivation to the civilian population, so long as starvation is not the specific purpose”. 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 504(2), footnote 9.

Peru
Peru’s IHL Manual (2004) states:
Blockade.

(10) The declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if:
(a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival;
(b) the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 134.a.(10).

Peru’s IHL and Human Rights Manual (2010) states:
a. Blockade.

(10) The declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if:
(a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival;
(b) the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 125(a)(10), p. 317.

Sweden
Sweden’s IHL Manual (1991) states:
Certain states have maintained that the prohibition against starvation shall apply without exception which would also mean its application against blockade in naval warfare. Other states have claimed that this method of warfare is the province of the international law of naval warfare, which, according to Article 49:3, shall not be affected by the new rules of Additional Protocol I. There is thus no consensus that the prohibition of starvation shall be considered to include maritime blockade. 
Sweden, International Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflict, with reference to the Swedish Total Defence System, Swedish Ministry of Defence, January 1991, Section 3.2.1.5, pp. 59 and 60.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK LOAC Manual (2004) states:
The declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if:
a. it is intended to starve the civilian population or deny it objects essential for its survival; or
b. the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 13.74.

15.19. Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited.
15.19.1. The right to life is a non-derogable human right. Violence to the life and person of civilians is prohibited, whatever method is adopted to achieve it. It follows that the destruction of crops, foodstuffs and water sources, to such an extent that starvation is likely to follow, is also prohibited. The same applies to sieges, blockades, embargoes, or the blocking of relief supplies with the intention of causing starvation. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, §§ 15.19–15.19.1.

United States of America
The US Naval Handbook (1995) states: “Neutral vessels and aircraft engaged in the carriage of qualifying relief supplies for the civilian population … should be authorized to pass through the blockade cordon.” 
United States, The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, NWP 1-14M/MCWP 5-2.1/COMDTPUB P5800.7, issued by the Department of the Navy, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and Headquarters, US Marine Corps, and Department of Transportation, US Coast Guard, October 1995 (formerly NWP 9 (Rev. A)/FMFM 1-10, October 1989), § 7.7.3.

The US Naval Handbook (2007) states that “neutral vessels and aircraft engaged in the carriage of qualifying relief supplies for the civilian population … should be authorized to pass through the blockade cordon”. 
United States, The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, NWP 1-14M/MCWP 5-12.1/COMDTPUB P5800.7, issued by the Department of the Navy, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and Headquarters, US Marine Corps, and Department of Homeland Security, US Coast Guard, July 2007, § 7.7.3.

Back to top
No data.
Back to top
No data.
Back to top
Iraq
According to the Report on the Practice of Iraq, refraining from the use of embargoes on food and medicine as a weapon by one of the conflicting parties is a fixed and established principle which has been applied by the Iraqi armed forces in armed conflicts. 
Report on the Practice of Iraq, 1998, Chapter 4.1.

Malaysia
In 2010, during the consideration of the status of the 1977 Additional Protocols by the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, a statement of the delegation of Malaysia was summarized by the Committee in its records as follows:
8. [The delegate of Malaysia] said that …

10 … [t]he laws of naval warfare incorporated the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law, including necessity and proportionality …
11. [and that]…[u]nder the established laws of naval blockade, a blockade was prohibited if its sole purpose was to starve the civilian population or to deny that population other objects essential for survival, if the damage was excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage. 
Malaysia, Statement by the delegation of Malaysia before the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly on the Status of the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and relating to the protection of victims of armed conflict, 18 October 2010, as published in the summary record of the 13th meeting, 8 December 2010, UN Doc. A/C.6/65/SR.13, §§ 8, 10 and 11.

United States of America
In 1973, a Deputy Legal Adviser of the US Department of State expressed the hope that
new rules can … be developed to reduce or eliminate the possibility that starvation will result from blockade, perhaps by requiring the passage of food supplies provided only that distribution is made solely to civilians and is supervised by the ICRC or some other appropriate external body. 
United States, Address by George H. Aldrich, Deputy Legal Adviser of the Department of State, 13 April 1973, reprinted in Arthur W. Rovine, Digest of United States Practice in International Law, 1973, Department of State Publication 8756, Washington, D.C., 1974, pp. 503–504.

Back to top
UN Security Council
In 1996, in a statement by its President on the situation in Afghanistan, the UN Security Council declared that it was particularly concerned about “the blockade of [Kabul], which has prevented the delivery of foodstuffs, fuel and other humanitarian items to its population”. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/1996/6, 15 February 1996, p. 1.

In 1998, in a statement by its President on the situation in Afghanistan, the UN Security Council stated:
The Security Council is also concerned with the sharp deterioration of the humanitarian situation in several areas in Central and Northern Afghanistan, which is caused by the Taliban-imposed blockade of the Bamyan region remaining in place despite appeals by the United Nations and several of its Member States to lift it, as well as by the lack of supplies coming in from the northern route owing to insecurity and looting. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/1998/9, 6 April 1998, p. 2.

UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 1994 on the situation of human rights in Iraq, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Further expresses its special alarm at all internal embargoes which permit essentially no exceptions for humanitarian needs and which prevent the equitable enjoyment of basic foodstuffs and medical supplies, and calls upon Iraq, which has sole responsibility in this regard, to remove them and to take such steps as to cooperate with international humanitarian agencies in the provision of relief to those in need throughout Iraq. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1994/74, 9 March 1994, § 9; voting record: 34-1-18

In a resolution adopted in 1995 on the situation of human rights in Iraq, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Again expresses its special alarm at all internal embargoes which permit essentially no exceptions for humanitarian needs and which prevent the equitable enjoyment of basic foodstuffs and medical supplies, and calls upon Iraq, which has sole responsibility in this regard, to remove them and to take steps to cooperate with international humanitarian agencies in the provision of relief to those in need throughout Iraq. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1995/76, 8 March 1995, § 10, voting record: 31-1-21.

In a resolution adopted in 2005 on technical cooperation and advisory services in Nepal, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
4. Strongly condemns the repeated practices of members of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), such as:

(c) Attempts to blockade Kathmandu and other urban areas with a view to cutting off supplies of food and other essential supplies to the civilian population. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2005/78, 20 April 2005, § 4(c), adopted without a vote.

UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 1995 on the situation of human rights in Iraq, the UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights expressed its concern about “the serious deterioration of the health and nutritional situation from which the majority of citizens with limited income suffer as victims of the international embargo”. The Sub-Commission was also deeply concerned by “the internal embargo maintained by the Government against the Kurdish population in the north of Iraq and the Arab Shiah population in the southern marshlands”. It called upon the government “to cease its internal embargo … and to re-establish the electricity supply to both regions”. 
UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1995/3, 18 August 1995, preamble and § 6.

In a resolution adopted in 1996 on the situation of human rights in Iraq, the UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights expressed its concern about “the serious deterioration of the health and nutritional situation from which the majority of citizens with limited income suffer as victims of the international embargo”. The Sub-Commission further called upon the Iraqi government “to cease its internal embargo against the north and the Shiah populations in the south, areas which are both still under siege, and to re-establish the electricity supply to both regions”. 
UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1996/5, 19 August 1996, preamble and § 4.

UN Commission on Human Rights (Special Rapporteur)
In 1993, in a report on the situation of human rights in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, the Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights included in the recommendations that “blockades of cities and enclaves should be ended immediately and humanitarian corridors opened”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Former Yugoslavia, Fifth periodic report, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1994/47, 17 November 1993, § 94(b).

In 1996, in a report on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights included a section on violations of the right to life during armed conflicts. In the report, he expressed his alarm that “many thousands of people not participating in armed confrontations have lost their lives as direct victims of conflicts … or indirectly as a consequence of blocking of the flow of water, food and medical supplies”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Report, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1997/60, 24 December 1996, § 40.

Back to top
Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1994 on the humanitarian situation and needs of the displaced Iraqi Kurdish population, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly called upon the Iraqi government to “put an immediate end to … its embargo on the supplies to the region”. 
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Res. 1022, 27 January 1994, § 6.

Economic Community of West African States
In 1990, ECOWAS sent a peacekeeping contingent, ECOMOG, to Liberia. The National Patriotic Front of Liberia (NPFL) fought against ECOMOG and controlled a considerable part of Liberia. In order to compel the NPFL to surrender, ECOWAS imposed a blockade on all parts of Liberia under the control of the NPFL. 
Kofi Oteng Kufuor, “Starvation as a method of warfare in the Liberian conflict”, NILR, Vol. 41, 1994, p. 317.

OIC Conference of Ministers of Foreign Affairs
In a resolution adopted in 1994 on the Palestinian cause and the Arab-Israeli conflict, the OIC Conference of Ministers of Foreign Affairs strongly condemned Israeli practices in the occupied territories. Among the practices condemned was the blockade of Al-Qods Al-Sharif. 
OIC, Conference of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Res. 1/7-P (IS), 13–15 December 1994.

Back to top
No data.
Back to top
No data.
Back to top
No data.
Back to top
No data.