World Food Day underlines the fundamental human right to food. A right which is consistently under threat in situations of armed conflict.
In situations of armed conflict, the right to food, guaranteed under international human rights law (IHRL), is often violated despite its continued applicability. We frequently see the deliberate withholding of food, or policies which impede access to humanitarian aid, the routine targeting of critical infrastructure and attacks on farmland or fisheries, all of which contravenes IHRL and International Humanitarian Law (IHL), which prohibits the starvation of civilians. When such actions are intentional and used as a tactic of war, they may also constitute the war crime of starvation under international criminal law (ICL).
The implicit acceptance of civilian starvation as an inevitable consequence of armed conflict has significantly shifted over the last decades, due to advancements in international law which is beginning to close some of the gaps in accountability options for this insidious violation.
This blog post explores three emerging trends, identified in GRC’s newly released and updated The Starvation Jurisprudence Digest, which was first developed by GRC in 2019, is a unique tool which analyses the findings of Commissions of Inquiry, International Courts, Panels of Experts and Fact-Finding missions. It provides relevant excerpts on situations of deprivation of food, blocking of humanitarian aid, attacks against objects indispensable for the survival of the population or the imposition of blockades or sieges. The Digest also focuses on violations of the right to food and water, as well as other violations of economic, social and cultural rights linked to famines, such as the right to health and shelter. The Digest contributes to a comprehensive and geographically diverse collection that includes within its scope nuanced analysis of starvation and related conduct, such as gendered impacts of starvation and cyclical patterns of violence and food insecurity.
The re-release of this cutting-edge resource coincides with growing international interest from courts and accountability mechanisms in investigating or prosecuting starvation, even as it continues to be widely used as a tactic in conflict.
The Digest is an invaluable, up-to-date reference, offering unmatched insight for practitioners seeking jurisprudence on how courts and accountability bodies have investigated and prosecuted starvation. The Digest will be regularly updated with the latest jurisprudence to keep pace with evolving legal developments. It has already been widely shared and utilised by various accountability mechanisms engaged with GRC and practitioners in the space.
Starvation Jurisprudence Digest – COIs and FFMs
Starvation Jurisprudence Digest – Courts and Tribunals
- Commissions of Inquiry and Fact-Finding Missions
The digest includes summaries of 38 COI and FFMs spanning from Yugoslavia to Gaza, highlighting the way various UN mandate holders have tackled violations relating to the right to food and the use of starvation as a method of warfare
While prosecutions help combat the deep-seated impunity for the crime of starvation and violations of the right to food, reports from Commissions of Inquiry (COI) and Fact-Finding Missions (FFM), who’s mandates usually center around human rights, offer crucial insights and metrics to understand how starvation is used by warring parties in armed conflict. A seminal COI report on starvation was produced by the South Sudan COI, in 2017, offering extensive coverage and in-depth technical analysis of the issue. This report builds on the 2014 investigation by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea COI which was one of the first to address starvation.
Over the years, GRC has consistently engaged with various mechanisms, including through training and advocacy efforts, leading to measurable change in how starvation is now incorporated into investigative mandates and reporting. For example, since 2018 onwards, multiple UN reports became to more frequently address starvation and starvation related crimes including attacks on farmland and on critical infrastructure, forced displacement, and humanitarian aid access violations.
In particular, the reports of several COIs discuss the method through which civilians obtain food. An emerging trend in this discussion centres around the way in which food is obtained, and how this intersects with the safety and dignity of individuals or communities. In fact, the reports of several COIs point out the vulnerability that accompanies the loss of a dignified means to ensure food security. GRC have currently expanded this idea to consider the intersection of gender-based violence including the threat of rape while attempting to obtain food or perform a livelihood activity as being a violation of the right to food itself. This idea of vulnerability has also simultaneously developed within the jurisprudence of human rights courts. Furthermore, reports of COIs and FFMs underline the reverberating effects of the crime of starvation, including the long term psychological and physical implications for communities and individuals and degradation of land resources resulting in food insecurity for years after the conflict. resulting in food insecurity for years after the conflict.
- International Criminal Court
Directly addressing the impunity of the actors violating the right to food during conflict, the prosecution of starvation and starvation related crimes at the international level has in recent months started to gain much needed traction. In May, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) filed applications for arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Minister of Defence, Yoav Gallant. The suspects are believed to bear criminal responsibility for the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare under article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the Rome Statute as well as other war crimes and crimes against humanity associated with the use of civilian starvation. The filing marks the first time that the ICC Prosecutor has filed an application for arrest warrants on the war crime of civilian starvation as a stand-alone charge under international criminal law [see here for GRC media coverage on the applications in the Associated Press and The Telegraph.] The applications come at the heels of another set of arrest warrants issued against a lieutenant general of the Russian Federation, Sergei Ivanovich Kobylash and an admiral of the Russian Navy, Viktor Nikolayevich Sokolov by the ICC, for their roles in attacks against Ukraine’s energy infrastructure.
Both cases, point towards the ICC paying more attention to the crime of starvation and its associated crimes. The move towards accountability for the deprivation of ‘Foods’ reinforces the aim encapsulated by the World Food Day in ensuring that conflict does not entail Carte Blanche to violate the right to food.
Aside from the ICC applications for arrest, the digest covers numerous cases from other tribunals where the issue of starvation has been addressed, albeit under alternative crimes. From the ECCC, ICTY, and ICTR, to now the ICC taking it up directly for the first time, the digest provides a comprehensive overview of how starvation has been considered across international legal bodies.
- International Court of Justice (ICJ)
State-based litigation is also increasingly starting to consider the crime of starvation, with The Gambia v. Myanmar marking a key case at the ICJ. Based on evidence of Myanmar’s denial of access to food, shelter, and other essentials of life to the Rohingya, the ICJ issued provisional measures in 2020 under the Genocide Convention, with starvation recognised as one of the underlying acts of genocide. [1]
More recently, this focus has extended to the Gaza case before the ICJ, which also fall under the Genocide Convention. Significant evidence of deliberate starvation tactics, has been presented by the parties to the Court, which is highlighted and summarised in GRC’s digest and GRC media coverage on the issue. In South Africa v. Israel the Court partly based its provisional measures, issued on 26 January 2024, on the risk posed by the crime of starvation.
Similarly, NGOs have used evidence of starvation and obstruction of humanitarian aid to support cases calling for the suspension of weapons shipments to Israel, which in some cases, courts have accepted. While this trend does not directly prosecute the war crime of starvation, leading to individual criminal responsibility, it does symbolise a robust response to the use unlawful use of starvation as a method of warfare and that impunity for such tactics will no longer be accepted.
There is a long road ahead to arrive at a point where the use of starvation as a method of warfare is recognised and where appropriate investigated and prosecuted. However, the emerging trends in the last few years show promise that different stakeholders are beginning to view the issue of starvation in armed conflict as critical.
Starvation Jurisprudence Digest – COIs and FFMs
Starvation Jurisprudence Digest – Courts and Tribunals
It is hoped that the digest will continue to be used as a key resource for practitioners, researchers, and policymakers seeking to understand and address starvation and its related impacts in armed conflict settings. It aims to support legal arguments and advocacy efforts by providing comprehensive analyses and the latest jurisprudence, ultimately enhancing accountability and informing effective interventions.
Since 2017 Global Rights Compliance (GRC) through its innovative and dedicated Starvation and Humanitarian Crisis Division,1 has become the leading legal organisation on prohibiting, preventing, and seeking accountability for mass starvation and associated violations. The Starvation and Humanitarian Crisis Division possesses unrivalled expertise and granular knowledge of the crime of starvation, derived from a dedicated portfolio of analysis, accountability, and investigative work. We have conducted multiple starvation investigations with partners, including local grassroots organisations and OSINT providers, and pursued advocacy and accountability accurately and sensitively with often unseen datasets and political nuance. Our principal geographic focus to date has been Yemen, Syria, Ethiopia (Tigray), South Sudan, Ukraine, and more recently Palestine.
Through this process, the team has built solid relationships with, and contributed to, the investigations and work of a wide range of accountability mechanisms including several UN-mandated Commissions of Inquiries and Fact-Finding Missions, Special Rapporteurs, the International Criminal Court, and European War Crimes Unit, including our long-standing partnership with investigative and prosecutorial authorities in Ukraine. Moreover, the success of the Division has also been based around our sustained engagement with humanitarian actors and UN food-based agencies. This has comprised information sharing, advisory work, as well and skills sharing, to elevate the protection of humanitarian workers.
For additional information please contact:
GRC’s Communications Manager – Inna.Kovalova@grcompliance.org
[1] Describing this underlying act as genocide by “measures of slow death,” see Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/39/CRP.2, ¶ 1400 (Sept. 17, 2018). Identifying starvation methods as potentially genocidal via this underlying act, see ICC Elements of Crimes, supra note 80, at 3 n.4; Prosecutor v. Tolimir, Case No. IT-05-88/2-A, Appeal Judgment, ¶ 226 (Int’l Crim. Trib. for the Former Yugoslavia, Apr. 8, 2015); Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, Trial Judgment, ¶ 506 (Sept. 2, 1998); Ventura, supra note 75, at 810 (noting that this category “matches [starvation] perfectly”).
LINK WHEN READY
