Note: For practice concerning the provision of basic necessities to persons deprived of their liberty, see Rule 118.
Additional Protocol I
Article 54(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides: “Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited.”
Additional Protocol II
Article 14 of the 1977 Additional Protocol II provides: “Starvation of civilians as a method of combat is prohibited.”
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.
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.”
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”.
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.
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.
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.
Argentina
Under Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1989), it is “prohibited to starve the civilian population of the adversary”.
In addition, starvation of civilians as a method of combat is specifically prohibited in non-international armed conflicts.
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
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
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.”
The LOAC Manual (2006) replaces both the Defence Force Manual (1994) and the Commanders’ Guide (1994).
Belgium
Belgium’s Law of War Manual (1983) states that “starvation as a method of warfare against civilians” is prohibited.
Benin
Under Benin’s Military Manual (1995), it is prohibited “to starve civilians as a method of warfare”.
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”.
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”.
Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) states: “Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited.”
The manual also provides that “starvation of civilians as a method of combat is forbidden” in non-international armed conflicts.
Canada
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.
In its chapter on non-international armed conflicts, the manual states: “Starvation of civilians as a method of combat is forbidden.”
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”.
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”.
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.
In Book IV (Instruction of heads of division and company commanders), the Teaching Manual provides:
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.
Croatia
Under Croatia’s LOAC Compendium (1991), starvation is a prohibited method of warfare.
Djibouti
Djibouti’s Manual on International Humanitarian Law (2004) states: “It is prohibited to utilize famine as a method of warfare against civilians.”
France
France’s LOAC Summary Note (1992) states: “It is prohibited to use starvation as a method of warfare against civilian persons.”
France
France’s LOAC Manual (2001) states: “It is prohibited to use starvation against civilians as a method of warfare.”
The manual further states that the recourse to starvation as a method of warfare may constitute a war crime.
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.”
Hungary
Under Hungary’s Military Manual (1992), starvation is a prohibited method of warfare.
Indonesia
Indonesia’s Military Manual (1982) notes that starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited.
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
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.
The Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) is a second edition of the Manual on the Laws of War (1998).
Kenya
Kenya’s LOAC Manual (1997) states: “It is forbidden … to starve civilians as a method of warfare.”
Madagascar
Madagascar’s Military Manual (1994) states: “It is prohibited to starve the civilian population of the adversary.”
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.”
Netherlands
The Military Manual (1993) of the Netherlands provides that “starvation of civilians is prohibited”, regardless of the motive.
In addition, the manual states that starvation of civilians is specifically prohibited in non-international armed conflicts.
Netherlands
The Military Manual (2005) of the Netherlands states: “It is prohibited to starve civilians.”
In its chapter on non-international armed conflict, the manual states: “It is prohibited to starve the civilian population.”
New Zealand
New Zealand’s Military Manual (1992) provides: “Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited.”
The manual also states that Article 54 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I “expands the customary protection as follows: 1. Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited.”
The manual further stresses that the 1977 Additional Protocol II “forbids starvation as a method of combat”.
Nigeria
Under Nigeria’s Military Manual (1994), starvation of the civilian population is prohibited.
Peru
Peru’s IHL Manual (2004) states: “It is prohibited to use the starvation of civilians as a method of warfare.”
Peru
Peru’s IHL and Human Rights Manual (2010) states: “It is prohibited to use the starvation of civilians as a method of warfare.”
Republic of Korea
The Republic of Korea’s Operational Law Manual (1996) prohibits the starvation of the civilian population.
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
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.”
With regard to internal armed conflict, the Regulations states: “Starvation of civilians as a method of combat is prohibited.”
South Africa
South Africa’s LOAC Teaching Manual (2008) states:
[1977] Additional Protocol I article 54 grants special protection of objects that are objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population[;] this article determines the following:
- Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited.
…
Conclusion
…
Special protection is granted to objects that are indispensable to the survival of the civilian population in both international armed conflicts and civil war. … Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited.
The manual also states:
Prohibited Methods of Combat
The rule regarding methods of combat is that the survival of the civilian population must at all times be ensured as far as possible. (Additional Protocol I article 54.)
The starvation of civilian persons as a method of warfare is prohibited.
Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (1996) states: “It is prohibited … to starve civilian persons as a method of warfare.”
Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (2007) states: “Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited.”
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.
The manual adds:
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.
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
Switzerland’s Regulation on Legal Bases for Conduct during an Engagement (2005) states:
14.4 Objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population
…
216 Starvation of the population as a method of warfare is prohibited.
…
15.2 Prohibited methods of warfare
…
226 Starvation of and threats against the civilian population … are prohibited in any place and at any time.
Togo
Under Togo’s Military Manual (1996), it is prohibited “to starve civilians as a method of warfare”.
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”.
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 of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK LOAC Manual (2004) states: “Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited.”
With regard to internal armed conflict, the manual provides:
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 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.
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.
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
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:
(i) any intentional deprivation of civilians of objects indispensable to their survival; or
(ii) without limiting subparagraph (i) – the wilful impeding of relief supplies for civilians; and
(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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Under the Criminal Code (1998) of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, “starvation of the population” is a war crime.
The Criminal Code (2000) of the Republika Srpska contains the same provision.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
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.
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
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:
…
26°. Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival.
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.
China
China’s Law Governing the Trial of War Criminals (1946) provides that “malicious killing of non-combatants by starvation” constitutes a war crime.
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.
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
Côte d’Ivoire’s Penal Code (1981), as amended in 2015, states:
Article 139
Whoever commits a war crime is punished with life imprisonment.
War crimes are:
…
2 - other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:
…
- 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[.]
Croatia
Under Croatia’s Criminal Code (1997), the imposition of “starvation of the population” is a war crime.
Croatia
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”.
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’s Military Criminal Code (2005) provides:
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].
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’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.
The Criminal Code of 2004 repealed Ethiopia’s Penal Code of 1957.
France
France’s Penal Code (1992), 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.”
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
Mali
Under Mali’s Penal Code (2001), “deliberately starving civilians as a method of warfare” is a war crime in international armed conflicts.
Netherlands
The Definition of War Crimes Decree (1946) of the Netherlands includes “deliberate starvation of civilians” in its list of war crimes.
Netherlands
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
This article is no longer in force. Along with certain other articles in this legislation, it was declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court (en banc decision for case file No. 0012-2006-PI-TC, 8 January 2007) because it does not stipulate a crime committed in the line of duty that would fall under the jurisdiction of a military court pursuant to Article 173 of Peru’s Constitution.
Peru
Peru’s Military and Police Criminal Code (2010), in a chapter entitled “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.
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.
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.
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.
Slovenia
Under Slovenia’s Penal Code (1994), “exposure to starvation” is a war crime against the civilian population.
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”.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.”
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”.
The Court also held that an “element of the principle of distinction is the prohibition against attacking objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, which includes the prohition to starve civilians”.

(footnote in original omitted)
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.
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
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.
South Africa
In 1987, in the Petane case, the Cape Provincial Division of South Africa’s Supreme Court dismissed the accused’s claim that the 1977 Additional Protocol I reflected customary international law. The Court stated:
The accused has been indicted before this Court on three counts of terrorism, that is to say, contraventions of s 54(1) of the Internal Security Act 74 of 1982. He has also been indicted on three counts of attempted murder.
…
The accused’s position is stated to be that this Court has no jurisdiction to try him.
…
… The point in its early formulation was this. By the terms of [the 1977 Additional] Protocol I to the [1949] Geneva Conventions the accused was entitled to be treated as a prisoner-of-war. A prisoner-of-war is entitled to have notice of an impending prosecution for an alleged offence given to the so-called “protecting power” appointed to watch over prisoners-of-war. Since, if such a notice were necessary, the trial could not proceed without it, Mr Donen suggested that the necessity or otherwise for giving such a notice should be determined before evidence was led. …
…
On 12 August 1949 there were concluded at Geneva in Switzerland four treaties known as the Geneva Conventions. …
South Africa was among the nations which concluded the treaties. … Except for the common art 3, which binds parties to observe a limited number of fundamental humanitarian principles in armed conflicts not of an international character, they apply to wars between States.
After the Second World War many conflicts arose which could not be characterised as international. It was therefore considered desirable by some States to extend and augment the provisions of the Geneva Conventions, so as to afford protection to victims of and combatants in conflicts which fell outside the ambit of these Conventions. The result of these endeavours was Protocol I and Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions, both of which came into force on 7 December 1978.
Protocol II relates to the protection of victims of non-international armed conflicts. Since the State of affairs which exists in South Africa has by Protocol I been characterised as an international armed conflict, Protocol II does not concern me at all.
…
The extension of the scope of art 2 of the Geneva Conventions was, at the time of its adoption, controversial. …
The article has remained controversial. More debate has raged about its field of operation than about any other articles in Protocol I. …
South Africa is one of the countries which has not acceded to Protocol I. Nevertheless, I am asked to decide, as I indicated earlier, as a preliminary point, whether Protocol I has become part of customary international law. If so, it is argued that it would have been incorporated into South African law. If it has been so incorporated it would have to be proved by one or other of the parties that the turmoil which existed at the time when the accused is alleged to have committed his offences was such that it could properly be described as an “armed conflict” conducted by “peoples” against a “ra[c]ist regime” in the exercise of their “right of self-determination”. Once all this has been shown it would have to be demonstrated to the Court that the accused conducted himself in such a manner as to become entitled to the benefits conferred by Protocol I on combatants, for example that, broadly speaking, he had, while he was launching an attack, distinguished himself from civilians and had not attacked civilian targets. …
…
… I am prepared to accept that where a rule of customary international law is recognised as such by international law it will be so recognised by our law.
…
To my way of thinking, the trouble with the first Protocol giving rise to State practice is that its terms have not been capable of being observed by all that many States. At the end of 1977 when the treaty first lay open for ratification there were few States which were involved in colonial domination or the occupation of other States and there were only two, South Africa and Israel, which were considered to fall within the third category of ra[c]ist regimes. Accordingly, the situation sought to be regulated by the first Protocol was one faced by few countries; too few countries in my view, to permit any general usage in dealing with armed conflicts of the kind envisaged by the Protocol to develop.
…
Mr Donen contended that the provisions of multilateral treaties can become customary international law under certain circumstances. I accept that this is so. There seems in principle to be no reason why treaty rules cannot acquire wider application than among the parties to the treaty.
Brownlie Principles of International Law 3rd ed at 13 agrees that non-parties to a treaty may by their conduct accept the provisions of a multilateral convention as representing general international law. …
…
I incline to the view that non-ratification of a treaty is strong evidence of non-acceptance.
…
It is interesting to note that the first Protocol makes extensive provision for the protection of civilians in armed conflict. …
…
In this sense, Protocol I may be described as an enlightened humanitarian document. If the strife in South Africa should deteriorate into an armed conflict we may all one day find it a cause for regret that the ideologically provocative tone of s 1(4) has made it impossible for the Government to accept its terms.
…
To my mind it can hardly be said that Protocol I has been greeted with acclaim by the States of the world. Their lack of enthusiasm must be due to the bizarre mixture of political and humanitarian objects sought to be realised by the Protocol. …
…
According to the International Review of the Red Cross (January/February 1987) No 256, as at December 1986, 66 States were parties to Protocol I and 60 to Protocol II, which, it will be remembered, deals with internal non-international armed conflicts. With the exception of France, which acceded only to Protocol II, not one of the world’s major powers has acceded to or ratified either of the Protocols. This position should be compared to the 165 States which are parties to the Geneva Conventions.
This approach of the world community to Protocol I is, on principle, far too half-hearted to justify an inference that its principles have been so widely accepted as to qualify them as rules of customary international law. The reasons for this are, I imagine, not far to seek. For those States which are contending with “peoples[’]” struggles for self-determination, adoption of the Protocol may prove awkward. For liberation movements who rely on strategies of urban terror for achieving their aims the terms of the Protocol, with its emphasis on the protection of civilians, may prove disastrously restrictive. I therefore do not find it altogether surprising that Mr Donen was unable to refer me to any statement in the published literature that Protocol I has attained the status o[f] customary international [law].
…
I have not been persuaded by the arguments which I have heard on behalf of the accused that the assessment of Professor Dugard, writing in the Annual Survey of South African Law (1983) at 66, that “it is argued with growing conviction that under contemporary international law members of SWAPO [South-West Africa People’s Organisation] and the ANC [African National Congress] are members of liberation movements entitled to prisoner-of-war status, in terms of a new customary rule spawned by the 1977 Protocols”, is correct. On what I have heard in argument I disagree with his assessment that there is growing support for the view that the Protocols reflect a new rule of customary international law. No writer has been cited who supports this proposition. Here and there someone says that it may one day come about. I am not sure that the provisions relating to the field of application of Protocol I are capable of ever becoming a rule of customary international law, but I need not decide that point today.
For the reasons which I have given I have concluded that the provisions of Protocol I have not been accepted in customary international law. They accordingly form no part of South African law.
This conclusion has made it unnecessary for me to give a decision on the question of whether rules of customary international law which conflict with the statutory or common law of this country will be enforced by its courts.
In the result, the preliminary point is dismissed. The trial must proceed.
South Africa
In 2010, in the Boeremag case, South Africa’s North Gauteng High Court stated:
In Petane, … Conradie J found that the provisions of [the 1977 Additional] Protocol I are not part of customary international law, and therefore are also not part of South African law.
…
Referring to the fact that in December 1986 only 66 of the 165 States party to the Geneva Conventions had ratified Protocol I, the Court [in Petane] stated:
This approach of the world community to Protocol I is, on principle, far too half-hearted to justify an inference that its principles have been so widely accepted as to qualify them as rules of customary international law. The reasons for this are, I imagine, not far to seek. For those States which are contending with “peoples[’]” struggles for self-determination, adoption of the Protocol may prove awkward. For liberation movements who rely on strategies of urban terror for achieving their aims the terms of the Protocol, with its emphasis on the protection of civilians, may prove disastrously restrictive. I therefore do not find it altogether surprising that Mr Donen was unable to refer me to any statement in the published literature that Protocol I has attained the status of customary international law.
Important changes with respect to certain aspects applicable at the time of Petane have taken place. The ANC [African National Congress] has become South Africa’s ruling party and in 1995 ratified Protocol I. The total number of States that have ratified it, is now … 162.
This last aspect forms the basis on which the First Respondent [the State] and the applicants agree that Protocol I forms part of customary international law as well as of South African law. As requested, this position is accepted for the purposes of the decision, without deciding on the matter.
Despite these changes, it remains debatable whether the provisions of Protocol I have become a part of South African law in this way.
The consensus of both parties to the conflict is required. See Petane … and Article 96 of Protocol I. …
Parliament’s failure to incorporate Protocol I into legislation in accordance with Article 231(4) of the Constitution in fact points to the contrary, and is indicative that the requirements of
usus and/or
opinio juris have not been met. See
Petane.

[footnotes in original omitted]
The Court also held:
If the [1977 Additional Protocol I] applies in South Africa as customary international law, the two requirements that form the basis of customary law must be met. It is arguable that the requirement of
usus has been met by the vast number of States that have acceded or ratified it. By ratifying Protocol I the Republic of South Africa has indicated its intention to apply the Protocol, thereby fulfilling the requirement of
opinio juris.
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.
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.
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”.
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
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
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.
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:
…
- from the starvation of the civilian population in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
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
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.
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
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”.
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.”
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.”
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.”
In an exercise asking students to identify IHL violations, the ministry provided the following examples:
[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
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”.
The ministry also stated:
[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.
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”.
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.”
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.
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
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
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
In 1993, the German Chancellor expressed the view that the use of starvation in armed conflict was “a violation of human dignity”.
Germany
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
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
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”.
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?
The Holy See called upon Pakistan to withdraw its amendment and suggested in the alternative a roll-call vote on Article 27.
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”.
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”.
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”.
Jordan
According to the Report on the Practice of Jordan, “Islamic law proscribes starvation as a method of warfare”.
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.
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
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.
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).

The government denied the allegations.
According to the report, this denial confirms that Nigerian practice recognizes the protection of the civilian population against starvation. The report considers that Nigeria’s
opinio juris is that the protection of the civilian population against starvation is part of customary international law.
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
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”.
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”.
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”.
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.
The report concludes that the prohibition on using starvation as a method of warfare is regarded by Rwanda as part of customary international law.
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”.
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”.
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”.
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”.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s ABC of International Humanitarian Law (2009) states: “Even in war not everything is allowed. Various means and methods are prohibited, including … starvation”.
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”.
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 of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
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.
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 of America
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 of America
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 of America
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.
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”.
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
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.”
Yemen
In 1990, in the UN Sanctions Committee on Iraq, Yemen declared that “hunger … must be prevented on humanitarian grounds”.
Yemen added: “On humanitarian grounds the Iraqi and Kuwaiti peoples must not be allowed to face the prospect of famine. They must be able to obtain the necessary foodstuffs, such as cereals, cooking oil and milk for children.”
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 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 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.
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”.
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.
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”.
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 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”.
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”.
No data.
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”.
ICRC
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.”
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”.
Council of Delegates (1991)
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”.
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
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.
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.”
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”.
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”.
According to the Report on SPLM/A Practice, there have been several incidents in which the SPLM/A has nevertheless used starvation as a method of warfare. The SPLM/A diverted UN food supplies destined for the civilian population in southern Sudan. It also drove away virtually all livestock from some communities in southern Sudan (Gajack Nuer in 1984, Murle in 1985 and Bar Dinka in 1991), thus causing widespread starvation among those tribes or ethnic groups.
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.
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.
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.”
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
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
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.
The LOAC Manual (2006) replaces both the Defence Force Manual (1994) and the Commanders’ Guide (1994).
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
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.
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.
France
France’s LOAC Manual (2001), under the definition of siege, states: “The starvation of civilian populations as a method of warfare is prohibited.”
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
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.
The Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) is a second edition of the Manual on the Laws of War (1998).
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”.
In a section on siege warfare, the manual further provides 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 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.
With regard to internal armed conflict, the manual states:
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 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”.
No data.
No data.
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.
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”.
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”.
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
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
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
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 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.
The call upon the Bosnian Serb party to lift the siege of Sarajevo was repeated in a resolution on the same topic adopted in 1994.
The siege of Sarajevo and other Bosnian towns was condemned again a few weeks later.
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 (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.
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”.
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”.
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.
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.
No data.
No data.
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.
No data.
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.
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
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
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.
The LOAC Manual (2006) replaces both the Defence Force Manual (1994) and the Commanders’ Guide (1994).
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
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.
In its glossary, the manual defines “blockade” as “the surrounding or blocking of a place such as a port to prevent entry and exit of supplies”.
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.”
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”.
Germany
Germany’s Military Manual (1992), in a section on blockades, states: “Starvation of the civilian population as a method of warfare is prohibited.”
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”.
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
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.
South Africa
South Africa’s LOAC Teaching Manual (2008) states:
4.1 LOAC [law of armed conflict] in Naval Warfare
…
- 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 or 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.
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.
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.
With regard to internal armed conflict, the manual states:
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 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 of America
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”.
No data.
No data.
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.
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.
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.
Viet Nam
In 2012, in a statement before the Fourth Committee of the UN General Assembly on Agenda Item 52: United Nations Relief and Works Agency for the Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), the deputy permanent representative of Viet Nam stated:
My delegation remains gravely concerned about the lack of progress in the Middle East peace process, the volatile situation in the Gaza Strip and the issue of Palestine refugees. It is heartfelt to know from the Report [of the Commissioner-General of the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, 1 January–31 December 2011] that in the Gaza Strip, poverty remained high, with 54 per cent of the population food insecure and over 75 per cent, or 1 million Gazans, dependent on international aid. The blockade of the Gaza Strip, eased but not lifted since June 2010, the conduction of hundreds of military operations against the Gaza Strip, the land confiscations, construction and expansion of settlements, the demolitions and destruction of homes and economic assets by the Israeli authorities as the Occupying Power [are] still affecting the life of the entire Palestinian civilian population, impeding the socioeconomic and humanitarian conditions of the refugee community and on the work of UNRWA.
In this connection, we call upon Israel to cease all military and the settlement activities in [the] Palestinian Territory, and end its blockade to provide immediate protection for the Palestinian population in Gaza in accordance with international humanitarian laws. We again appeal [to] all parties concerned to abide by international humanitarian and human rights laws and extend the necessary cooperation to humanitarian relief operations with a view to mitigating [the] pains and hardships of [the] Palestinian people. We emphasize the need to give staff members of UNRWA convenient and safe conditions to carry out their difficult work, so that the agency could meet better the needs of the Palestine refugees.
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
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 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
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
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 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
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 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)
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”.
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”.
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.
ECOWAS cut off food supplies to the NPFL, arguing that relief convoys were used by the NPFL to smuggle arms and ammunition into Liberia.
Although this allegation was denied and the blockade was claimed to have caused considerable deprivation and hardship to the civilian population, ECOWAS maintained this siege until the Cotonou Agreement on Liberia was concluded in 1993.
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.
No data.
No data.
No data.
No data.