Source: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/print/v2_rul_rule53
Timestamp: 2019-09-20 23:29:25
Document Index: 790672479

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 7', '§ 907', '§ 709', '§ 533', '§ 7', '§ 5', '§ 493', '§ 41', '§ 25', '§ 38', '§ 618', '§ 1721', '§ 4', '§ 127', '§ 27', '§ 260', '§ 255', '§ 0534', '§ 1033', '§ 613', '§ 504', '§ 1820', '§ 27', '§ 28', '§ 5', '§ 3', '§ 2', '§ 3', '§ 216', 'Art. 54', '§ 8', '§ 107', '§ 268', '§ 268', 'art 3', '§ 13', '§ 132', '§ 53', '§ 135', '§ 86', '§ 79', '§ 88', '§ 78', '§ 3', '§ 85', '§ 8', '§ 84', '§ 14', '§ 54', '§ 107', '§ 5', '§ 13', '§ 8', '§ 2', '§ 2091', '§ 396', '§ 1', '§ 2', 'Art. 54', '§ 54', '§ 35', '§ 504', '§ 44', '§ 50', '§ 30', '§ 6', '§ 4', '§ 5', '§ 54', '§ 7', '§ 47', '§ 102', '§ 850', '§ 665', '§ 6', '§ 67', '§ 850', '§ 7', '§ 1051', '§ 134', '§ 125', '§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 9', '§ 10', '§ 4', '§ 6', '§ 4', '§ 94', '§ 40', '§ 6']

Customary IHL - Practice Relating to Rule 53. Starvation as a Method of Warfare
2. Practice\Rule 53
Note: For practice concerning the provision of basic necessities to persons deprived of their liberty, see Rule 118.
Article 54(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides: “Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited.”
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), Geneva, 8 June 1977, Article 54(1). Article 54 was adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.42, 27 May 1977, p. 208.
Article 14 of the 1977 Additional Protocol II provides: “Starvation of civilians as a method of combat is prohibited.”
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), Geneva, 8 June 1977, Article 14. Article 14 was adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VII, CDDH/SR.52, 6 June 1977, p. 137.
Pursuant to Article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the 1998 ICC Statute, “[i]ntentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts.
Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted by the UN Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Rome, 17 July 1998, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/9, Article 8(2)(b)(xxv).
Article 17 of the 1863 Lieber Code states: “It is lawful to starve the hostile belligerent, armed or unarmed, so that it leads to the speedier subjection of the enemy.”
Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, prepared by Francis Lieber, promulgated as General Order No. 100 by President Abraham Lincoln, Washington D.C., 24 April 1863, Article 17.
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”.
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.
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.
The UNTAET Regulation No. 2000/15 establishes panels with exclusive jurisdiction over serious criminal offences, including war crimes. According to Section 6(1)(b)(xxv), “[i]ntentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts.
Regulation on the Establishment of Panels with Exclusive Jurisdiction over Serious Criminal Offences, UN Doc. UNTAET/REG/2000/15, Dili, 6 June 2000, Section 6(1)(b)(xxv).
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.
Argentina, Leyes de Guerra, PC-08-01, Público, Edición 1989, Estado Mayor Conjunto de las Fuerzas Armadas, aprobado por Resolución No. 489/89 del Ministerio de Defensa, 23 April 1990, § 7.08.
Australia’s Commanders’ Guide (1994) notes that the 1977 Additional Protocol I “prohibits starvation of civilians as a method of warfare … Military operations involving collateral deprivation are not unlawful as long as the object is not to starve the civilian population.”
Australia, Law of Armed Conflict, Commanders’ Guide, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 Supplement 1 – Interim Edition, 7 March 1994, § 907.
Australia’s Defence Force Manual (1994) states: “Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited … This includes starving civilians or causing them to move away.”
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, § 709; see also §§ 533, 923(c) and 930.
Australia’s LOAC Manual (2006) states: “Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited … This includes starving civilians or causing them to move away.”
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 7.10; see also §§ 5.37 and 9.24.
Belgium’s Law of War Manual (1983) states that “starvation as a method of warfare against civilians” is prohibited.
Under Benin’s Military Manual (1995), it is prohibited “to starve civilians as a method of warfare”.
Burundi’s Regulations on International Humanitarian Law (2007) states that “it is prohibited to utilize famine as a method of warfare against civilian populations”.
Burundi, Règlement n° 98 sur le droit international humanitaire, Ministère de la Défense Nationale et des Anciens Combattants, Projet “Moralisation” (BDI/B-05), August 2007, Part I bis, p. 16; see also Part I bis, pp. 32, 40, 58, 81, 88 and 93.
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) states that “illicit methods of warfare [that may be] used by the parties to a conflict to obtain military advantage [include] the utilization of famine”.
Cameroon, Droit des conflits armés et droit international humanitaire, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les forces de défense, Ministère de la Défense, Présidence de la République, Etat-major des Armées, 2006, p. 183, § 493.A.
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) states: “Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited.”
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 6-4, § 41 (land warfare) and p. 7-3, § 25 (air warfare).
The manual also provides that “starvation of civilians as a method of combat is forbidden” in non-international armed conflicts.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 17-5, § 38.
Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited. Therefore, it is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population whatever the motive.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 618.
In its chapter on non-international armed conflicts, the manual states: “Starvation of civilians as a method of combat is forbidden.”
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1721.
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”.
Under Croatia’s LOAC Compendium (1991), starvation is a prohibited method of warfare.
Croatia, Compendium “Law of Armed Conflicts”, Republic of Croatia, Ministry of Defence, 1991, p. 40.
France’s LOAC Summary Note (1992) states: “It is prohibited to use starvation as a method of warfare against civilian persons.”
France, Fiche de Synthèse sur les Règles Applicables dans les Conflits Armés, Note No. 432/DEF/EMA/OL.2/NP, Général de Corps d’Armée Voinot (pour l’Amiral Lanxade, Chef d’Etat-major des Armées), 1992, § 4.2.
France’s LOAC Manual (2001) states: “It is prohibited to use starvation against civilians as a method of warfare.”
France, Manuel de droit des conflits armés, Ministère de la Défense, Direction des Affaires Juridiques, Sous-Direction du droit international humanitaire et du droit européen, Bureau du droit des conflits armés, 2001, p. 30; see also p. 85.
The manual further states that the recourse to starvation as a method of warfare may constitute a war crime.
Under Hungary’s Military Manual (1992), starvation is a prohibited method of warfare.
Hungary, A Hadijog, Jegyzet a Katonai, Föiskolák Hallgatói Részére, Magyar Honvédség Szolnoki Repülötiszti Föiskola, 1992, p. 64.
Indonesia’s Military Manual (1982) notes that starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited.
Indonesia, The Basics of International Humanitarian Law, Legal Division of the Indonesian Armed Forces, 1982, p. 56, § 127(c).
Israel’s Manual on the Laws of War (1998) states that conducting a scorched earth policy “with a view to inflicting starvation or suffering on the civilian population … is forbidden”.
Israel, Laws of War in the Battlefield, Manual, Military Advocate General Headquarters, Military School, 1998, p. 35.
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.
Kenya’s LOAC Manual (1997) states: “It is forbidden … to starve civilians as a method of warfare.”
Madagascar’s Military Manual (1994) states: “It is prohibited to starve the civilian population of the adversary.”
Madagascar, Le Droit des Conflits Armés, Ministère des Forces Armées, August 1994, Fiche No. 2-T, § 27.
Mexico’s Army and Air Force Manual (2009), in a section on the 1977 Additional Protocol I, states: “The starvation of civilians … [is] specifically prohibited.”
Mexico, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para el Ejército y la Fuerza Área Mexicanos, Ministry of National Defence, June 2009, § 260; see also § 255.
The Military Manual (1993) of the Netherlands provides that “starvation of civilians is prohibited”, regardless of the motive.
Netherlands, Toepassing Humanitair Oorlogsrecht, Voorschift No. 27-412/1, Koninklijke Landmacht, Ministerie van Defensie, 1993, p. V-7.
In addition, the manual states that starvation of civilians is specifically prohibited in non-international armed conflicts.
The Military Manual (2005) of the Netherlands states: “It is prohibited to starve civilians.”
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 0534.
In its chapter on non-international armed conflict, the manual states: “It is prohibited to starve the civilian population.”
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 1033.
New Zealand’s Military Manual (1992) provides: “Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited.”
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 613(1).
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.”
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 504(2).
The manual further stresses that the 1977 Additional Protocol II “forbids starvation as a method of combat”.
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 1820.
Under Nigeria’s Military Manual (1994), starvation of the civilian population is prohibited.
Peru’s IHL Manual (2004) states: “It is prohibited to use the starvation of civilians as a method of warfare.”
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 27.d.(1).
Peru’s IHL and Human Rights Manual (2010) states: “It is prohibited to use the starvation of civilians as a method of warfare.”
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 28(d)(1), p. 238.
The Republic of Korea’s Operational Law Manual (1996) prohibits the starvation of the civilian population.
Republic of Korea, Operational Law Manual, 1996, p. 42.
Under the Russian Federation’s Military Manual, the “use of starvation among the civilian population” is a prohibited method of warfare.
Russian Federation, Instructions on the Application of the Rules of International Humanitarian Law by the Armed Forces of the USSR, Appendix to Order of the USSR Defence Minister No. 75, 1990, § 5(r).
The Russian Federation’s Regulations on the Application of IHL (2001) states: “The prohibited methods of warfare include … using starvation of civilians to achieve military objectives.”
With regard to internal armed conflict, the Regulations states: “Starvation of civilians as a method of combat is prohibited.”
[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.
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.
South Africa, Advanced Law of Armed Conflict Teaching Manual, School of Military Justice, 1 April 2008, as amended to 25 October 2013, Learning Unit 2, pp. 115 and 123.
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.
South Africa, Advanced Law of Armed Conflict Teaching Manual, School of Military Justice, 1 April 2008, as amended to 25 October 2013, Learning Unit 3, p. 180.
Spain’s LOAC Manual (1996) states: “It is prohibited … to starve civilian persons as a method of warfare.”
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Publicación OR7-004, 2 Tomos, aprobado por el Estado Mayor del Ejército, Division de Operaciones, 18 March 1996, Vol. I, § 3.3.b.(7).
Spain’s LOAC Manual (2007) states: “Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited.”
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Tomo 1, Publicación OR7–004, (Edición Segunda), Mando de Adiestramiento y Doctrina, Dirección de Doctrina, Orgánica y Materiales, 2 November 2007, § 2.3.b.(3); see also §§ 3.3.b.(7) and 7.3.a.(1).
Sweden’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.
It is … established that, up to 1977, international law contained no express prohibition of starvation as a method of warfare. With this in mind, the new Article 54 of Additional Protocol I must be seen as an important milestone in the development of international humanitarian law. This Article provides an explicit prohibition against using starvation of civilian populations as a method of warfare.
Sweden, International Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflict, with reference to the Swedish Total Defence System, Swedish Ministry of Defence, January 1991, Section 3.2.1.5, p. 59.
Switzerland’s Basic Military Manual (1987) states with regard to civilians who are in the power of the troops at the time of combat: “It is prohibited to starve the civilian population by removing or rendering supplies useless, or by impeding relief actions in favour of the population in need.”
Switzerland, Lois et coutumes de la guerre (Extrait et commentaire), Règlement 51.7/II f, Armée Suisse, 1987, Article 147(b).
14.4 Objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population
216 Starvation of the population as a method of warfare is prohibited.
226 Starvation of and threats against the civilian population … are prohibited in any place and at any time.
Switzerland, Bases légales du comportement à l’engagement (BCE), Règlement 51.007/IVf, Swiss Army, issued based on Article 10 of the Ordinance on the Organization of the Federal Department for Defence, Civil Protection and Sports of 7 March 2003, entry into force on 1 July 2005, §§ 216 and 226.
Under Togo’s Military Manual (1996), it is prohibited “to starve civilians as a method of warfare”.
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”.
Art. 54(1) [of the 1977 Additional Protocol I] would create a new prohibition on the starvation of civilians as a method of warfare … which the United States believes should be observed and in due course recognized as customary law.
United States of America, Annotated Supplement to the Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, prepared by the Oceans Law and Policy Department, Center for Naval Warfare Studies, Naval War College, Newport, Rhode Island, November 1997, § 8.1.2, footnote 15.
The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s Military Manual (1988) prohibits the starvation of the civilian population as a method of warfare.
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Propisi o Primeri Pravila Medjunarodnog Ratnog Prava u Oruzanim Snagama SFRJ, PrU-2, Savezni Sekretarijat za Narodnu Odbranu (Pravna Uprava), 1988, § 107.
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.
268.67 War crime – starvation as a method of warfare
(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
Australia, Criminal Code Act, 1995, as amended to 2007, Chapter 8, § 268.67, p. 345.
Australia’s ICC (Consequential Amendments) Act (2002) incorporates in the Criminal Code the war crimes defined in the 1998 ICC Statute, including “starvation as a method of warfare” in international armed conflicts.
Australia, ICC (Consequential Amendments) Act, 2002, Schedule 1, § 268.67.
Azerbaijan’s Criminal Code (1999) provides that “starvation of civilians as a method of warfare” constitutes a war crime in international and non-international armed conflicts.
Azerbaijan, Criminal Code, 1999, Article 116(4).
Belarus’s Criminal Code (1999) provides that “the use of starvation among the civilian population as a method of warfare” is a war crime.
Belarus, Criminal Code, 1999, Article 136(4).
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’s Criminal Code (2003) states that, in time of war, armed conflict or occupation, ordering or committing “starvation of the population”, in violation of international law, constitutes a war crime.
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Criminal Code, 2003, Article 173(1)(f).
x) intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions.
Burundi, Law on Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2003, Article 4(B)(x).
26°. Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival.
Burundi, Penal Code, 2009, Article 198(2)(26°).
China’s Law Governing the Trial of War Criminals (1946) provides that “malicious killing of non-combatants by starvation” constitutes a war crime.
China, Law Governing the Trial of War Criminals, 1946, Article 3(3).
Under Croatia’s Criminal Code (1997), the imposition of “starvation of the population” is a war crime.
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”.
Under Ethiopia’s Penal Code (1957), it is a war crime to organize, order or engage in “wilful reduction to starvation” of the civilian population, in time of war, armed conflict or occupation.
Ethiopia, Penal Code, 1957, Article 282(b).
(b) wilful reduction to starvation, destitution or general ruination through the depreciation, counterfeiting or systematic debasement of the currency …
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.”
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.
Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of material indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under international law.
Iraq, Law of the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal, 2005, Article 13(2)(Y).
Ireland’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.
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.
Under Mali’s Penal Code (2001), “deliberately starving civilians as a method of warfare” is a war crime in international armed conflicts.
Mali, Penal Code, 2001, Article 31(i)(25).
The Definition of War Crimes Decree (1946) of the Netherlands includes “deliberate starvation of civilians” in its list of war crimes.
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.
Peru’s Regulations to the Law on Internal Displacement (2005) states with regard to the rights of internally displaced persons: “The following … [is] prohibited: starvation as a method of combat”.
Peru, Regulations to the Law on Internal Displacement, 2005, Article 6(h).
5. Causes or maintains the starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival.
Peru, Code of Military and Police Justice, 2006, Article 95(5).
5. Causes or maintains the starvation of civilians as a method of conducting hostilities by depriving them of objects essential for their survival.
Peru, Military and Police Criminal Code, 2010, Article 91(5).
Using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival or by impeding supplies of such objects in violation of international humanitarian law.
Republic of Korea, ICC Act, 2007, Article 13(1)(5).
9° starving the civilian population and preventing humanitarian assistance from reaching it;
Serbia’s Criminal Code (2005) states that ordering or committing the “starvation [of] the population”, in violation of international law, constitutes a war crime.
Under Slovenia’s Penal Code (1994), “exposure to starvation” is a war crime against the civilian population.
South Africa’s ICC Act (2002) reproduces the war crimes listed in the 1998 ICC Statute, including in international armed conflicts: “intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival”.
South Africa, ICC Act, 2002, Schedule 1, Part 3, § (b)(xxv).
3. … [D]epriving a protected person of indispensable food supplies or not providing such supplies.
8. Intentionally using starvation of the civilian population as a method of warfare depriving it of indispensable supplies or not providing items indispensable for its survival.
Spain, Penal Code, 1995, as amended on 23 June 2010, Article 612(8).
33. Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare or of combat by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival.
Uruguay, Law on Cooperation with the ICC, 2006, Article 26.2 and 26.3.33.
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.
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.
In the Perišić and Others case before a Croatian district court in 1997, after a trial in absentia, several persons were convicted of ordering the shelling of the city of Zadar and its surroundings. The judgment was based, inter alia, on Article 14 of the 1977 Additional Protocol II, as incorporated in Article 120(1) of Croatia’s Criminal Code of 1993.
Croatia, District Court of Zadar, Perišić and Others case, Judgment, 24 April 1997.
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.
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 …
Israel, High Court of Justice, Albasyouni case, Judgment, 30 January 2008, §§ 13 and 22.
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:
Nor, as to destruction of food sources, where this tactic has apparent military advantage, was there a generally accepted prohibitory rule of international law. Investiture of cities to starve the occupants (both military and civilian) into surrender was common. Collection of food and fodder from the country to feed troops and deny it to the enemy troops and civilians supporting those troops was accepted.
In World War I the British by their naval blockade attempted to starve the Germans. See, e.g., ARTHUR HERMAN, TO RULE THE WAVES: HOW THE BRITISH NAVY SHAPED THE MODERN WORLD 493, 513 (2004) (referring to “a long-distance blockade on Germany, in order to ‘strangle the whole national life of the enemy.’”); BENJAMIN A. VALENTINO, FINAL SOLUTIONS: MASS KILLINGS AND GENOCIDE IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY 85 (2004) (“During the First World War, more than 250,000 people died of starvation and malnutrition when the British blockaded Germany and Austria-Hungary in an effort to starve them into surrender.”). In World War II the Germans attempted to starve the British, and the United States to starve the Japanese, by unrestrained submarine warfare. HERMAN, supra, at 535, 545. Particularly where so much of the enemy force is guerilla in nature and lives off the land, as in the Vietnam War, destruction of crops supporting mobile forces can not be said to have been contrary to tradition up to 1975, even if the international view of its appropriateness may have changed subsequently.
United States, Eastern States District Court (EDNY), Agent Orange case, Judgment, 28 March 2005, pp. 212–214.
The Report on the Practice of Angola, with reference to a Human Rights Watch report, notes that starvation was used by both the governmental forces and the União Nacional para Independência Total de Angola (UNITA) as a method of warfare during the conflict in Angola.
Report on the Practice of Angola, 1998, Chapter 4.1, referring to Human Rights Watch, Angola: Arms Trade and Violations of the Laws of War since the 1992 Elections, New York, November 1994, pp. 74–76.
In 1992, during a debate in the UN Security Council, Austria condemned the use of starvation in the conflict in the former Yugoslavia, stating that “the most dreadful violations of human rights are being perpetrated … and people are continuing to starve”.
Austria, Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.3134, 13 November 1992, pp. 44–45.
In 1969, in a statement before the UN General Assembly, the Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs condemned methods of warfare that led to the starvation of civilians in the context of the Nigerian civil war.
Belgium, Statement by the Minister of Foreign Affairs before the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/PV.1765, 25 September 1969, §§ 132–133.
At the CDDH, Belgium qualified Article 48 of the draft Additional Protocol I (now Article 54) as “a step forward in the development of humanitarian law”.
Belgium, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. XIV, CDDH/III/SR.31, 14 March 1975, p. 307, § 53.
The Report on the Practice of Belgium states that Belgium demonstrated support for the prohibition of starvation in international and non-international armed conflicts even before the adoption of the Additional Protocols in 1977.
Report on the Practice of Belgium, 1997, Chapter 4.1.
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.
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Application Instituting Proceedings submitted to the ICJ, 20 March 1993, § 135.
In 1990, in the UN Sanctions Committee on Iraq, China declared that “everyone agreed” that the inhabitants of Iraq and Kuwait “must not be left to starve”.
China, Statement before the UN Security Council Committee Established by Resolution 661 (1990) concerning the Situation between Iraq and Kuwait, UN Doc. S/AC.25/SR.5, 12 September 1990, p. 5.
The Report on the Practice of China states that the “Chinese Government supports the protection of the civilian population against starvation” in both international and non-international armed conflicts.
Report on the Practice of China, 1997, Chapter 4.1.
In 1990, in the UN Sanctions Committee on Iraq, Cuba stressed that its government “could never accept any definition which would allow the supply of foodstuffs only to avert famine. Such an approach would be in direct violation of the international instruments which prohibited the use of hunger as a means of warfare.”
Cuba, Statement before the UN Security Council Committee Established by Resolution 661 (1990) concerning the Situation between Iraq and Kuwait, UN Doc. S/AC.25/SR.2, 22 August 1990, p. 6.
In 1992, in a letter addressed to the President of the UN Security Council, Egypt, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Senegal and Turkey deplored “a situation where perhaps one tenth of the population of Bosnia and Herzegovina will perish as a result of starvation, exposure and disease”.
Egypt, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Senegal and Turkey, Letter dated 5 October 1992 to the President of the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/24620, 6 October 1992.
In 1990, in the UN Sanctions Committee on Iraq, Finland stated that Security Council Resolution 661 “must not be interpreted so strictly that famine would result. The shipment of foodstuffs must be resumed when humanitarian circumstances require.”
Finland, Statement before the UN Security Council Committee Established by Resolution 661 (1990) concerning the Situation between Iraq and Kuwait, UN Doc. S/AC.25/SR.5, 12 September 1990, p. 4.
At the CDDH, the representative of France stated:
All Article 27 [now Article 14 of the 1977 Additional Protocol II] contained was a purely humanitarian provision, which no one should oppose … His delegation would vote for the article, whose importance was borne out by many examples in history.
France, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VII, CDDH/SR.52, 6 June 1977, p. 137, § 86.
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.
Holy See, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VII, CDDH/SR.52, 6 June 1977, pp. 135–136, §§ 79 and 83.
At the CDDH, Iraq stated that Article 27 of the draft Additional Protocol II (now Article 14) “was of great humanitarian value, and there was certainly a place for it in Protocol II”.
Iraq, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VII, CDDH/SR.52, 6 June 1977, p. 137, § 88.
According to the Report on the Practice of Israel, “the IDF [Israel Defense Forces] does not condone or practice starvation of the civilian population as a method of warfare”.
Report on the Practice of Israel, 1997, Chapter 4.1.
According to the Report on the Practice of Jordan, “Islamic law proscribes starvation as a method of warfare”.
Report on the Practice of Jordan, 1997, Chapter 4.1.
The Report on the Practice of Kuwait explains that it is the opinio juris of Kuwait that, during an armed conflict, the civilian population be able to maintain its “normal life” or at least “a minimum of normal life” and this includes the prohibition of the use of starvation as a method of warfare.
Report on the Practice of Kuwait, 1997, Chapter 4.1.
In 1990, in the UN Sanctions Committee on Iraq, Malaysia stated that “famine must not be used as a weapon to implement” Security Council Resolution 661 (1990).
Malaysia, Statement before the UN Security Council Committee Established by Resolution 661 (1990) concerning the Situation between Iraq and Kuwait, UN Doc. S/AC.25/SR.5, 12 September 1990, p. 6.
According to the Report on the Practice of Malaysia, “starvation was never employed as a method of warfare” by Malaysia’s armed forces during the conflict against the communist opposition.
Report on the Practice of Malaysia, 1997, Chapter 4.1.
According to the Report on the Practice of Nigeria, the government was accused of using starvation as a method of warfare during the Nigerian civil war (1966–1970).
Report on the Practice of Nigeria, 1997, Chapter 4.1, referring to Biafra offers truce to help peace talks, The Observer, 4 August 1968.
Report on the Practice of Nigeria, 1997, Chapter 4.1, referring to Federal Ministry of Information, Press Release No. F 1290, Lagos, 11 July 1968.
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.
Report on the Practice of Nigeria, 1997, Chapter 4.1.
At the CDDH, Pakistan proposed deleting Article 27 of the draft Additional Protocol II (now Article 14) because the prohibition of starvation of civilians as a method of warfare should not be included in a protocol for non-international armed conflicts.
Pakistan, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. IV, CDDH/427, 31 May 1975, p. 87, § 78.
In 1991, a circular from the Office of the President of the Philippines stipulated that “only in cases of tactical operations may control of the movement of non-combatants and the delivery of goods and services be imposed for safety reasons, provided that in no case should such control lead to the starvation of civilians”.
Philippines, Office of the President, Memorandum Circular No. 139 Prescribing the Guidelines for the Implementation of Memorandum Order No. 398, 26 September 1991, § 3.
The Report on the Practice of the Republic of Korea states that the “protection of [the] civilian population against starvation can be regarded as an established rule of customary international law in [the] Republic of Korea”.
Report on the Practice of the Republic of Korea, 1997, Chapter 4.1.
On the basis of the replies by Rwandan army officers to a questionnaire, the Report on the Practice of Rwanda emphasizes that the use of starvation as a method of warfare is regarded as a war crime in Rwanda.
Report on the Practice of Rwanda, 1997, Replies from Rwandan army officers to a questionnaire, Chapter 4.1.
The report concludes that the prohibition on using starvation as a method of warfare is regarded by Rwanda as part of customary international law.
Report on the Practice of Rwanda, 1997, Chapter 4.1.
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”.
At the CDDH, the Swedish delegate appealed “urgently to all delegations, particularly those of the Western and Others Group, to consider [Article 27 of the draft Additional Protocol II (now Article 14)] carefully and to adopt it”.
Sweden, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VII, CDDH/SR.52, 6 June 1977, p. 137, § 85.
Switzerland’s ABC of International Humanitarian Law (2009) states: “Even in war not everything is allowed. Various means and methods are prohibited, including … starvation”.
In 1987, the Deputy Legal Adviser of the US Department of State affirmed: “We support the principle that starvation of civilians not be used as a method of warfare.”
United States, Remarks of Michael J. Matheson, Deputy Legal Adviser, US Department of State, The Sixth Annual American Red Cross-Washington College of Law Conference on International Humanitarian Law: A Workshop on Customary International Law and the 1977 Protocols Additional to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, American University Journal of International Law and Policy, Vol. 2, 1987, p. 426.
In 1987, the Legal Adviser of the US Department of State, referring, inter alia, to the protection of the civilian population against deliberate starvation as contained in the 1977 Additional Protocol II, stated:
For the most part, the obligations contained in Protocol II are no more than a restatement of the rules of conduct with which the United States military forces would almost certainly comply as a matter of national policy, constitutional and legal protections, and common decency.
United States, Remarks of Judge Abraham Sofaer, Legal Adviser, US Department of State, The Sixth Annual American Red Cross-Washington College of Law Conference on International Humanitarian Law: A Workshop on Customary International Law and the 1977 Protocols Additional to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, American University Journal of International Law and Policy, Vol. 2, 1987, pp. 461 and 462.
In 1991, in response to an ICRC memorandum on the applicability of IHL in the Gulf region, the US Department of the Army stated: “U.S. practice does not involve methods of warfare that have as their intention the starvation of the enemy civilian population.”
United States, Letter from the Department of the Army to the legal adviser of the US Army forces deployed in the Gulf region, 11 January 1991, § 8(O), Report on US Practice, 1997, Chapter 4.1.
According to the Report on US Practice, it is the opinio juris of the United States that the starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited.
Report on US Practice, 1997, Chapter 4.1.
At the CDDH, the representative of the USSR declared that he “wholeheartedly supported” the Holy See’s position not to delete Article 27 of the draft Additional Protocol II (now Article 14), “for it was one of the most humane provisions in the entire field of humanitarian law”.
USSR, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VII, CDDH/SR.52, 6 June 1977, p. 136, § 84.
In 1990, in the UN Sanctions Committee on Iraq, the USSR stated: “Foodstuffs should be supplied to Iraq on the basis of humanitarian considerations, without waiting for a disaster to occur.”
USSR, Statement before the UN Security Council Committee Established by Resolution 661 (1990) concerning the Situation between Iraq and Kuwait, UN Doc. S/AC.25/SR.5, 12 September 1990, p. 4.
In 1990, in the UN Sanctions Committee on Iraq, Yemen declared that “hunger … must be prevented on humanitarian grounds”.
Yemen, Statement before the UN Security Council Committee Established by Resolution 661 (1990) concerning the Situation between Iraq and Kuwait, UN Doc. S/AC.25/SR.2, 22 August 1990, p. 6.
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.”
Yemen, Statement before the UN Security Council Committee Established by Resolution 661 (1990) concerning the Situation between Iraq and Kuwait, UN Doc. S/AC.25/SR.5, 12 September 1990, p. 3; see also p. 6.
In 2001, in a report on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, the UN Secretary-General took “the deliberate starvation of the civilian population in Somalia” as an example of how “in modern warfare, particularly internal conflicts, civilians are often targeted as part of a political strategy”.
UN Secretary-General, Report on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, UN Doc. S/2001/331, 30 March 2001, § 14.
In 1995, in a report on the situation of human rights in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, the Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights stressed:
Sarajevo has been the scene of some of the gravest violations of human rights in the course of this conflict … The humanitarian situation has also been extremely serious, with acute food shortages and problems with utilities which have frequently been used as a weapon of war.
UN Commission on Human Rights, Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Former Yugoslavia, Periodic report, UN Doc. S/1995/933-A/50/727, 7 November 1995, § 54.
UN Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Paragraph 1 of Security Council Resolution 935 (1994)
In 1994, in its interim report on grave violations of IHL in Rwanda, the UN Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Paragraph 1 of Security Council Resolution 935 (1994) determined that massive and systematic violations of several provisions of the 1977 Additional Protocol II had been perpetrated, including violations of Article 14.
UN Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Paragraph 1 of Security Council Resolution 935 (1994), Interim report, UN Doc. S/1994/1125, 4 October 1994, Annex, § 107.
OAU Conference of African Ministers of Health
In a resolution on health and war adopted in 1995, the OAU Conference of African Ministers of Health called upon member States to “ban … the use of famine as a method of war against civilians”.
OAU, Conference of African Ministers of Health, 26–28 April 1995, Res. 14 (V), § 5(b).
In 1998, in a statement before the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, South Africa declared on behalf of SADC that the 1998 ICC Statute
would also serve as a reminder that even during armed conflict the rule of law must be upheld. For example, it was unlawful … for the starvation of civilians to be intentionally used as a method of warfare. [This act was] a war crime and would be punished.
SADC, Statement by South Africa on behalf of the SADC before the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.6/53/SR.9, 21 October 1998, § 13.
The report of the CDDH Working Group responsible for the elaboration of Article 48 of the draft Additional Protocol I (now Article 54) stated that draft Article 48 “reflected the almost unanimous view of the Working Group, which considered it one of the most important articles of humanitarian law relating to the protection of the civilian population”.
CDDH, Official Records, Vol. XIV, CDDH/III/SR.31, 14 March 1975, p. 300, § 8.
In the Final Declaration of the International Conference for the Protection of War Victims in 1993, the participants declared that they refused to accept that “civilians [are] starved as a method of warfare”.
International Conference for the Protection of War Victims, Geneva, 30 August–1 September 1993, Final Declaration, § I(1), ILM, Vol. 33, 1994, p. 298.
In 1995, the 26th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent adopted a resolution on the protection of the civilian population in period of armed conflict in which it strongly condemned “attempts to starve civilian populations in armed conflicts” and stressed “the prohibition on using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare”.
26th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, Geneva, 3–7 December 1995, Res. II, § E(a) and (b).
International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent (1999)
The Plan of Action for the years 2000–2003 adopted in 1999 by the 27th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent proposed that “States stress the provisions of international humanitarian law prohibiting the use of starvation of civilians as a method of warfare”.
27th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, Geneva, 31 October–6 November 1999, Res. I, Annex 2, Plan of Action for the years 2000–2003, Actions proposed for final goal 1.1, § 2.
The ICRC Commentary on the Additional Protocols emphasizes that the statement of the general principle not to use starvation as a method of warfare “is innovative and a significant progress of the law”.
Yves Sandoz et al. (eds.), Commentary on the Additional Protocols, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, § 2091.
To fulfil its task of disseminating IHL, the ICRC has delegates around the world teaching armed and security forces that: “Starvation as a method of warfare against civilian persons is prohibited.”
Frédéric de Mulinen, Handbook on the Law of War for Armed Forces, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, § 396.
Council of Delegates (1991)
At its Budapest Session in 1991, the Council of Delegates adopted a resolution on humanitarian assistance in situations of armed conflict in which it called upon all parties to armed conflicts and, where applicable, any High Contracting Party “to respect and ensure respect for the rules of international humanitarian law … that prohibit the use of starvation of civilians as a method of combat”.
International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, Council of Delegates, Budapest Session, 28–30 November 1991, Res. 12, § a.
At its Budapest Session in 1991, the Council of Delegates adopted a resolution on the protection of the civilian population against famine in situations of armed conflict in which it reminded “the authorities concerned and the armed forces under their command of their obligation to apply international humanitarian law, in particular … the prohibition of starvation of civilians as a method of combat”.
International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, Council of Delegates, Budapest Session, 28–30 November 1991, Res. 13, § 1.
In a communication to the press issued in 1993 in the context of the conflict in Liberia, the ICRC expressed concern that “over 110,000 people living in the area between Kakata and Totota, in central Liberia, are threatened by starvation”.
ICRC, Communication to the Press No. 93/22, Liberia: ICRC Concerned about 110,000 People Facing Starvation, 22 July 1993.
In a working paper on war crimes submitted in 1997 to the Preparatory Committee for the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, the ICRC included “starvation of civilians”, when committed in an international or a non-international armed conflict, in its list of war crimes to be subject to the jurisdiction of the Court.
ICRC, Working paper on war crimes submitted to the Preparatory Committee for the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, New York, 14 February 1997, §§ 2(iv) and 3(xi).
In their commentary on the 1977 Additional Protocols, Bothe, Partsch and Solf state: “By prohibiting starvation of civilians as a method of warfare, Art. 54 [of the 1977 Additional Protocol I] establishes a substantial new principle of international law applicable in armed conflict.”
Michael Bothe, Karl Joseph Partsch, Waldemar A. Solf (eds.), New Rules for Victims of Armed Conflict, Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, 1982, p. 336.
In an article in 1986, Ambassador George Aldrich, head of the US delegation to the CDDH, stated that Article 54 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I ranked among those provisions “most warmly welcomed by the United States in 1977”.
George H. Aldrich, “Progressive Development of the Laws of War: A Reply to Criticisms of the 1977 Geneva Protocol I”, Virginia Journal of International Law, 1986, Vol. 26, p. 699.
The SPLM/A Penal and Disciplinary Laws provide that members of the SPLM/A “shall ensure that citizens [under their control] … produce sufficient food for themselves”. In addition, it severely punishes “any member of the [SPLA] or affiliated organizations who compels citizens to surrender food materials”.
SPLM/A, Penal and Disciplinary Laws, 4 July 1984, §§ 54(3) and 68, Report on SPLM/A Practice, 1998, Chapter 4.1.
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.
Report on SPLM/A Practice, 1998, Chapter 4.1.
Article 23 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides:
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 23.
Article 18 of the 1863 Lieber Code provides:
When a commander of a besieged place expels the noncombatants, in order to lessen the number of those who consume his stock of provisions, it is lawful, though an extreme measure, to drive them back, so as to hasten on the surrender.
Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, prepared by Francis Lieber, promulgated as General Order No. 100 by President Abraham Lincoln, Washington D.C., 24 April 1863, Article 18.
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.”
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999), in a section on siege warfare, stresses:
If circumstances permit, … the parties should … permit passage to these [besieged] areas of … essential foodstuffs, clothing, and tonics intended for children under the age of 15, expectant mothers, and maternity cases.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 6-4, § 35(e).
The parties should also permit passage to these areas of:
France’s LOAC Manual (2001), under the definition of siege, states: “The starvation of civilian populations as a method of warfare is prohibited.”
France, Manuel de droit des conflits armés, Ministère de la Défense, Direction des Affaires Juridiques, Sous-Direction du droit international humanitaire et du droit européen, Bureau du droit des conflits armés, 2001, p. 117.
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.
A siege of a military target is a completely legitimate means of warfare, even if it involves the starvation of the besieged soldiers. A question arises in the case of a military siege of a populated town. Until recently, there were no rules attached to this method of warfare, and it was permitted to exploit the suffering of the local population in order to overcome the enemy. The [1977] Additional Protocols to the Geneva Convention contain a provision banning starvation of the civilian population in battle. The meaning to be extracted from this provision is that the residents of a city need to be allowed to leave it if it is besieged. In cases where civilians do not have the opportunity to leave the besieged city, a duty arises to supply them with food, water and humanitarian aid.
Israel, Rules of Warfare on the Battlefield, Military Advocate-General’s Corps Command, IDF School of Military Law, Second Edition, 2006, p. 37.
New Zealand’s Military Manual (1992) notes that siege is not prohibited “even if it causes some collateral deprivation to the civilian population, so long as starvation is not the specific purpose”.
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 504(2), footnote 9.
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”.
The US Field Manual (1956), in a chapter dealing, inter alia, with siege warfare, states that, in such a situation, “provision is … made in Article 23 [of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV] for the passage … of essential foodstuffs, clothing, and tonics intended for children under 15, expectant mothers, and maternity cases”.
United States, Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare, US Department of the Army, 18 July 1956, as modified by Change No. 1, 15 July 1976, § 44.
In 1992, during a debate in the UN Security Council on the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Albania stated:
Many cities in Bosnia and Herzegovina have been besieged for several months, and their population is under constant artillery fire and left without food, electricity, water supply and medicine. All this will certainly leave a scar on the population for several generations, and the evil is beyond remedy.
Albania, Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.3136, 16 November 1992, § 50.
In 1995, in a statement before the UN General Assembly on Germany’s appreciation of UN achievements, the German Foreign Minister praised the efforts of peacekeepers “who keep the beleaguered people from starving”.
Germany, Statement before the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/50/PV.8, 27 September 1995, pp. 4 and 5.
In 1993, during a debate in the UN Security Council on the establishment of a no-fly zone in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Pakistan declared that “we have witnessed with mounting horror and revulsion … the use of siege and the cutting off of supplies of food and other essentials to civilian population centres”.
Pakistan, Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.3191, 31 March 1993, § 30.
In a resolution adopted in June 1992 on deployment of additional elements of UNPROFOR in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the UN Security Council underlined “the urgency of quick delivery of humanitarian assistance to [besieged] Sarajevo and its environs”.
UN Security Council, Res. 761, 29 June 1992, preamble, voting record: 15-0-0.
In a resolution adopted in July 1992 on deployment of additional elements of UNPROFOR in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the UN Security Council stated that it was “deeply disturbed by the situation which now prevails in [besieged] Sarajevo” and deplored the continuation of the fighting “which is rendering difficult the provision of humanitarian aid in Sarajevo”.
UN Security Council, Res. 764, 13 July 1992, preamble, voting record: 15-0-0.
In a resolution adopted in 1993 on a comprehensive political settlement of the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the UN Security Council expressed its “concern” about the continuing siege of Sarajevo and strongly condemned “the disruption of public utilities (including water, electricity, fuel and communications)”.
UN Security Council, Res. 859, 24 August 1993, preamble, voting record: 15-0-0.
In 1994, in a statement by its President, the UN Security Council expressed grave concern at the continuing hostilities in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and especially deplored “the rapidly deteriorating situation in the Maglaj area and the threat it poses to the survival of the remaining civilian population”. It noted that “this intolerable situation has been perpetuated by the intensity of the nine-month siege of the town” and demanded that “the siege of Maglaj be ended immediately”.
In a resolution adopted in 1993 on the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the UN General Assembly:
Expressing its concern about the continuing siege of Sarajevo and other Bosnian cities and of “safe areas” which endangers the well-being and safety of their inhabitants,
6. Demands that the Bosnian Serb party lift forthwith the siege of Sarajevo and other “safe areas”, as well as other besieged Bosnian towns.
UN General Assembly, Res. 48/88, 20 December 1993, preamble and § 6, voting record: 109-0-57-18.
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.
UN General Assembly, Res. 49/10, 3 November 1994, § 4, voting record: 97-0-61-26.
The siege of Sarajevo and other Bosnian towns was condemned again a few weeks later.
In a resolution adopted in 1994 on the situation of human rights in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, the UN Commission on Human Rights demanded “immediate, firm and resolute action by the international community to stop all human rights violations, including … strangulation of cities in Bosnia”.
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1994/72, 9 March 1994, § 5, adopted without a vote.
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:
UN Commission on Human Rights, Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Former Yugoslavia, Periodic report, UN Doc. S/1995/933-A/50/727, 7 November 1995, Annex, § 54.
In 1992, in a report on the crisis in the former Yugoslavia, the rapporteur of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly declared that “the siege and the systematic shelling of Sarajevo … are actions unanimously condemned by the international community”.
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Report on the crisis in the former Yugoslavia, Doc. 6639, 29 June 1992, § II 9.
In 1994, in a plenary session of the UN General Assembly on the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the EU expressed its concern about “the situation in Sarajevo and the danger of its strangulation”.
EU, Statement by Germany on behalf of the EU before the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/49/PV.50, 3 November 1994, p. 19.
Western European Union Presidential Committee
In 1994, the Presidential Committee of the WEU adopted a declaration on the situation in the former Yugoslavia and called for an immediate end to the siege of Sarajevo.
WEU, Presidential Committee, Declaration on the situation in the former Yugoslavia, PRCO Doc 1413, 26 April 1994.
In a Special Declaration on Bosnia and Herzegovina, the World Conference on Human Rights in 1993 urged the world community and all international bodies, in particular the UN Security Council,
to take forceful and decisive steps for effective measures of peace-making in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina with a view to … extending immediate humanitarian help for the relief of persons in besieged towns and cities as well as other victims.
World Conference on Human Rights, Vienna, 14-25 June 1993, Special Declaration on Bosnia and Herzegovina, § 7, UN Doc. A/CONF.157/24 (Part I), 13 October 1993, Chapter IV.B, § 47.
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.
The 1994 San Remo Manual states:
a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival.
103. If the civilian population of the blockaded territory is inadequately provided with food and other objects essential for its survival, the blockading party must provide for free passage of such foodstuffs and other essential supplies.
Louise Doswald-Beck (ed.), San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994, Prepared by international lawyers and naval experts convened by the International Institute of Humanitarian Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995, §§ 102–103.
In so far as the purpose of a blockade is to deprive the enemy population of foodstuffs, so as to starve them in the hope that they would apply pressure to their government to seek peace, it would now appear to be illegal in accordance with Article 54(1) [of the 1977 Additional Protocol I].
Australia, Law of Armed Conflict, Commanders’ Guide, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 Supplement 1 – Interim Edition, 7 March 1994, § 850, footnote 5.
a. it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects indispensable for its survival.
If the civilian population of the blockaded territory is inadequately provided with food and other objects essential for its survival, the blockading party must provide for free passage of such foodstuffs and other essential supplies.
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, §§ 665 and 666.
6.65 The declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if:
• it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival;
6.66 If the civilian population of the blockaded territory is inadequately provided with food and other objects essential for its survival, the blockading party must provide for free passage of such foodstuffs and other essential supplies.
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, §§ 6.65–6.66.
a. it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival;
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 8-9, §§ 67 and 68.
Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states in its chapter on naval warfare:
850. Circumstances in which a blockade is prohibited
1. The declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if:
a. it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival; or
851. Food and other objects essential to the survival of the civilian population
1. If the civilian population of the blockaded territory is inadequately provided with food and other objects essential for its survival, the blockading party must provide for free passage of such foodstuffs and other essential supplies, subject to:
a. the right to prescribe the technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted; and
b. the condition that the distribution of such supplies shall be made under the local supervision of a Protecting Power or a humanitarian organization which offers guarantees of impartiality, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, §§ 850 and 851.1.
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”.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, Glossary, p. GL-2.
Ecuador’s Naval Manual (1989) states: “Neutral vessels and aircraft engaged in the carriage of qualifying relief supplies for the civilian population … should be authorized to pass through the blockade cordon.”
Ecuador, Aspectos Importantes del Derecho Internacional Marítimo que Deben Tener Presente los Comandantes de los Buques, Academia de Guerra Naval, 1989, § 7.7.3.
France’s LOAC Manual (2001) states that when carrying out a blockade, there is an obligation “to allow free passage for relief indispensable to the survival of the civilian population”.
France, Manuel de droit des conflits armés, Ministère de la Défense, Direction des Affaires Juridiques, Sous-Direction du droit international humanitaire et du droit européen, Bureau du droit des conflits armés, 2001, p. 33.
Germany’s Military Manual (1992), in a section on blockades, states: “Starvation of the civilian population as a method of warfare is prohibited.”
Germany, Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts – Manual, DSK VV207320067, edited by The Federal Ministry of Defence of the Federal Republic of Germany, VR II 3, August 1992, English translation of ZDv 15/2, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Handbuch, August 1992, § 1051.
New Zealand’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”.
(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;
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 134.a.(10).
a. Blockade.
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 125(a)(10), p. 317.
South Africa, Advanced Law of Armed Conflict Teaching Manual, School of Military Justice, 1 April 2008, as amended to 25 October 2013, Learning Unit 4, pp. 198 and 206.
Certain states have maintained that the prohibition against starvation shall apply without exception which would also mean its application against blockade in naval warfare. Other states have claimed that this method of warfare is the province of the international law of naval warfare, which, according to Article 49:3, shall not be affected by the new rules of Additional Protocol I. There is thus no consensus that the prohibition of starvation shall be considered to include maritime blockade.
Sweden, International Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflict, with reference to the Swedish Total Defence System, Swedish Ministry of Defence, January 1991, Section 3.2.1.5, pp. 59 and 60.
The US Naval Handbook (1995) states: “Neutral vessels and aircraft engaged in the carriage of qualifying relief supplies for the civilian population … should be authorized to pass through the blockade cordon.”
United States, The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, NWP 1-14M/MCWP 5-2.1/COMDTPUB P5800.7, issued by the Department of the Navy, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and Headquarters, US Marine Corps, and Department of Transportation, US Coast Guard, October 1995 (formerly NWP 9 (Rev. A)/FMFM 1-10, October 1989), § 7.7.3.
The US Naval Handbook (2007) states that “neutral vessels and aircraft engaged in the carriage of qualifying relief supplies for the civilian population … should be authorized to pass through the blockade cordon”.
United States, The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, NWP 1-14M/MCWP 5-12.1/COMDTPUB P5800.7, issued by the Department of the Navy, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and Headquarters, US Marine Corps, and Department of Homeland Security, US Coast Guard, July 2007, § 7.7.3.
According to the Report on the Practice of Iraq, refraining from the use of embargoes on food and medicine as a weapon by one of the conflicting parties is a fixed and established principle which has been applied by the Iraqi armed forces in armed conflicts.
Report on the Practice of Iraq, 1998, Chapter 4.1.
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.
In 1973, a Deputy Legal Adviser of the US Department of State expressed the hope that
new rules can … be developed to reduce or eliminate the possibility that starvation will result from blockade, perhaps by requiring the passage of food supplies provided only that distribution is made solely to civilians and is supervised by the ICRC or some other appropriate external body.
United States, Address by George H. Aldrich, Deputy Legal Adviser of the Department of State, 13 April 1973, reprinted in Arthur W. Rovine, Digest of United States Practice in International Law, 1973, Department of State Publication 8756, Washington, D.C., 1974, pp. 503–504.
In 1996, in a statement by its President on the situation in Afghanistan, the UN Security Council declared that it was particularly concerned about “the blockade of [Kabul], which has prevented the delivery of foodstuffs, fuel and other humanitarian items to its population”.
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/1996/6, 15 February 1996, p. 1.
In 1998, in a statement by its President on the situation in Afghanistan, the UN Security Council stated:
The Security Council is also concerned with the sharp deterioration of the humanitarian situation in several areas in Central and Northern Afghanistan, which is caused by the Taliban-imposed blockade of the Bamyan region remaining in place despite appeals by the United Nations and several of its Member States to lift it, as well as by the lack of supplies coming in from the northern route owing to insecurity and looting.
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/1998/9, 6 April 1998, p. 2.
In a resolution adopted in 1994 on the situation of human rights in Iraq, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Further expresses its special alarm at all internal embargoes which permit essentially no exceptions for humanitarian needs and which prevent the equitable enjoyment of basic foodstuffs and medical supplies, and calls upon Iraq, which has sole responsibility in this regard, to remove them and to take such steps as to cooperate with international humanitarian agencies in the provision of relief to those in need throughout Iraq.
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1994/74, 9 March 1994, § 9; voting record: 34-1-18
In a resolution adopted in 1995 on the situation of human rights in Iraq, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Again expresses its special alarm at all internal embargoes which permit essentially no exceptions for humanitarian needs and which prevent the equitable enjoyment of basic foodstuffs and medical supplies, and calls upon Iraq, which has sole responsibility in this regard, to remove them and to take steps to cooperate with international humanitarian agencies in the provision of relief to those in need throughout Iraq.
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1995/76, 8 March 1995, § 10, voting record: 31-1-21.
4. Strongly condemns the repeated practices of members of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), such as:
(c) Attempts to blockade Kathmandu and other urban areas with a view to cutting off supplies of food and other essential supplies to the civilian population.
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2005/78, 20 April 2005, § 4(c), adopted without a vote.
In a resolution adopted in 1995 on the situation of human rights in Iraq, the UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights expressed its concern about “the serious deterioration of the health and nutritional situation from which the majority of citizens with limited income suffer as victims of the international embargo”. The Sub-Commission was also deeply concerned by “the internal embargo maintained by the Government against the Kurdish population in the north of Iraq and the Arab Shiah population in the southern marshlands”. It called upon the government “to cease its internal embargo … and to re-establish the electricity supply to both regions”.
UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1995/3, 18 August 1995, preamble and § 6.
In a resolution adopted in 1996 on the situation of human rights in Iraq, the UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights expressed its concern about “the serious deterioration of the health and nutritional situation from which the majority of citizens with limited income suffer as victims of the international embargo”. The Sub-Commission further called upon the Iraqi Government “to cease its internal embargo against the north and the Shiah populations in the south, areas which are both still under siege, and to re-establish the electricity supply to both regions”.
UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1996/5, 19 August 1996, preamble and § 4.
In 1993, in a report on the situation of human rights in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, the Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights included in the recommendations that “blockades of cities and enclaves should be ended immediately and humanitarian corridors opened”.
UN Commission on Human Rights, Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Former Yugoslavia, Fifth periodic report, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1994/47, 17 November 1993, § 94(b).
In 1996, in a report on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights included a section on violations of the right to life during armed conflicts. In the report, he expressed his alarm that “many thousands of people not participating in armed confrontations have lost their lives as direct victims of conflicts … or indirectly as a consequence of blocking of the flow of water, food and medical supplies”.
UN Commission on Human Rights, Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Report, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1997/60, 24 December 1996, § 40.
In a resolution adopted in 1994 on the humanitarian situation and needs of the displaced Iraqi Kurdish population, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly called upon the Iraqi Government to “put an immediate end to … its embargo on the supplies to the region”.
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Res. 1022, 27 January 1994, § 6.
In 1990, ECOWAS sent a peacekeeping contingent, ECOMOG, to Liberia. The National Patriotic Front of Liberia (NPFL) fought against ECOMOG and controlled a considerable part of Liberia. In order to compel the NPFL to surrender, ECOWAS imposed a blockade on all parts of Liberia under the control of the NPFL.
Kofi Oteng Kufuor, “Starvation as a method of warfare in the Liberian conflict”, NILR, Vol. 41, 1994, p. 317.
ECOWAS cut off food supplies to the NPFL, arguing that relief convoys were used by the NPFL to smuggle arms and ammunition into Liberia.
ECOWAS, Comments reported in Africa Research Bulletin (Political Series), Vol. 30, No. 5, 1993, p. 11015.
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.
OIC, Conference of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Res. 1/7-P (IS), 13–15 December 1994.