
Starvation is a war crime, but will justice ever be done?
"[Famine] is a weapon of war being wielded across the globe at the moment. But this has to stop, it's against international humanitarian law," Shayna Lewis, senior adviser on Sudan for the US-based group PAEMA (Preventing and Ending Mass Atrocities) told DW recently.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
She was talking about the Sudanese city of El Fasher, which has been under siege for a year now and where food is running out for around 30,000 people trapped there.
"It is a crime internationally and it needs to be prosecuted as such," Lewis argued.
Human rights groups, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have said similar about Israel's blockade of aid and food into the Gaza Strip.
"Israel is starving Gaza.
It's genocide. It's a crime against humanity. It's a war crime," Michael Fakhri, the United Nations' special rapporteur on the right to food, told UK newspaper the Guardian last week.
Food as a weapon of war
Experts say that part of the reason there are now more calls to prosecute starvation of civilians as a war crime, is that there is more famine being caused by conflict.
Over the first decade of this century, there was very little famine, researchers at the World Peace Foundation, or WPF, wrote in a 2022 collection of essays, "Accountability for Starvation."
But more recently that has changed.
"This is an ancient phenomenon, warring parties have been using it for centuries," Rebecca Bakos Blumenthal, a legal adviser with the Starvation Accountability project run by Netherlands-based law foundation, Global Rights Compliance, or GRC, says. After 2015, this kind of tactic has re-emerged, she noted.
Over the past decade, there have been conflict-related famines in Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
Food security experts suggest Russian attacks on Ukraine's agricultural sector could also be seen as criminal attempts to weaponize food.
Basically there's just more of this war crime happening again, they argue.
"Even while global food security is improving, the incidence of famines is increasing," Alex de Waal, a professor at Tufts University in the US and head of the WPF's research into mass starvation, wrote last week.
"This tells us that the global food security is more volatile and unequal. That's consistent with hunger being used as a weapon."
The deliberate withholding of food or other essentials needed for civilians' survival is categorized as a war crime by many nations as well as in various iterations of international law, including the Geneva Conventions and the Rome Statute (which is applied by the International Criminal Court, or ICC).
But so far, those who wield that "weapon" have never been brought to trial: The war crime of starvation has never been prosecuted in an international court on its own, only as a part of around 20 other war crimes cases.
And just because civilians are going hungry in a conflict, doesn't mean a crime was committed.
"One of the issues in law is the question of intent," de Waal told DW. "The war crime of starvation requires that the perpetrator is acting with intent."
Starvation happens over the longer term, de Waal points out, and some legal scholars have argued it must be proven that a perpetrator intended to starve people from the very beginning of, for example, a siege or blockade.
But most legal experts believe there could also be "indirect intent," de Waal explains. That is, it's clear that starvation will occur "in the normal course of events," and the perpetrator knows that, they've had opportunities to prevent it, but didn't do so.
Another issue for any legal case involving starvation is the lack of precedent, and which international or national courts have jurisdiction over the alleged war criminals.
Changing views on starvation as war crime
Up until a couple of years ago, starvation was often seen as a developmental or humanitarian issue, GRC's Blumenthal explains. But now there is more attention being paid to its criminal aspects.
"I've worked on this issue for quite a few years now and these things do move slowly," concedes Blumenthal, who's been looking at the topic since 2020.
"But I do think the needle is moving and there have been some consequential steps taken over the past 10 years."
In 2018, the UN Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 2417, "condemning the starving of civilians as a method of warfare."
In 2019, changes were made to the Rome Statute, making starvation a war crime in non-international armed conflicts too, rather than just international. There have also been UN commissions of inquiry on conflicts in South Sudan and Ethiopia-Tigray specifically focusing on the topic of starvation as a war crime, Blumenthal points out.
"We're seeing a lot more international and local organizations, together with accountability mechanisms, calling this out and certain striking examples, like the case of Gaza today, have really amplified awareness around the crime as well," she notes.
In fact, the ICC warrants issued against Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli defense minister Yoav Gallant in November 2024, which specifically mention the war crime of starvation, are a "historic milestone," Blumenthal notes.
It's the first time that international warrants have been issued for starvation as a stand-alone crime. The ICC also has an open investigation into Sudan going, she adds.
"The issue has undoubtedly gained more attention over the last 10 years," de Waal confirms. "The legal frameworks are all in place. What's lacking is the political will to act."
Will perpetrators of starvation ever end up in court?
There are still jurisdictional challenges, de Waal told DW. "But I am confident that there are many cases for which conviction is possible.
It just requires getting the accused in court."
Blumenthal agrees. "There are misconceptions around this and so many people think [starvation] is an inevitable part of war," she says. "But during our in-depth investigations, it's surprising how quickly it becomes clear that actually these patterns are very stark and in many situations, you can discern a deliberate strategy."
Blumenthal is cautiously optimistic that one day soon those who deliberately starve civilians will face justice.
"That is certainly the hope," she concludes. "That's what we are all working towards."
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)

Business Standard
7 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Trump faces setbacks in Putin diplomacy as no ceasefire agreed at Alaska
Trump was the one who stood down, dropping his demand for a ceasefire in favour of pursuing a full peace accord a position that aligns with Putin's AP New York President Donald Trump walked into a summit with Russia's Vladimir Putin pressing for a ceasefire deal and threatening severe consequences and tough new sanctions if the Kremlin leader failed to agree to halt the fighting in Ukraine. Instead, Trump was the one who stood down, dropping his demand for a ceasefire in favour of pursuing a full peace accord a position that aligns with Putin's. After calls with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and European leaders, Trump wrote as he flew home from Friday's meeting in Alaska that it had been determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Ceasefire Agreement, which often times do not hold up. It was a dramatic reversal that laid bare the challenges of dealing with Putin, a cunning adversary, as well as the complexities of a conflict that Trump had repeatedly boasted during his campaign that he could solve within 24 hours. Trump's position after the summit with Putin Few details have emerged about what the two leaders discussed or what constituted the progress they both touted. The White House did not respond to messages seeking comment Saturday. While European leaders were relieved that Trump did not agree to a deal that ceded territory or otherwise favoured Moscow, the summit allowed Putin to reclaim his place on the world stage and may have bought Russia more time to push forward with its offensive in Ukraine. We're back to where we were before without him having gone to Alaska, said Fiona Hill, who served as Trump's senior adviser on Russia at the National Security Council during his first term, including when he last met Putin in Helsinki in 2018. In an interview, Hill argued that Trump had emerged from the meeting in a weaker position on the world stage because of his reversal. Other leaders, she said, might now look at the US president and think he's not the big guy that he thinks he is and certainly not the dealmaking genius. All the way along, Trump was convinced he has incredible forces of persuasion, she said, but he came out of the meeting without a ceasefire the one thing he had been pushing for, even after he gave the Russian leader the red carpet treatment." Trump has run up against a rock in the form of Putin, who doesn't want anything from him apart from Ukraine," she said. Democrats call for consequences for Putin At home, Democrats expressed alarm at what at times seemed like a day of deference, with Trump clapping for Putin as he walked down a red carpet during an elaborate ceremony welcoming him to US soil for the first time in a decade. The two rode together in the presidential limousine and exchanged compliments. Trump seemed to revel in particular in Putin echoing his oft-repeated assertion that Russia never would have invaded Ukraine if Trump had been in office instead of Democrat Joe Biden at the time. Before news cameras, Trump did not use the opportunity to castigate Putin for launching the largest ground invasion in Europe since World War II or human rights abuses he's been accused of committing. Instead, Putin was the one who spoke first, and invited Trump to join him in Moscow next. President Trump appears to have been played yet again by Vladimir Putin," said Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The President rolled out a red carpet and warmly greeted a murderous dictator on American soil and reports indicate he got nothing concrete in return. Enough is enough," she went on. If President Trump won't act, Congress must do so decisively by passing crushing sanctions when we return in the coming weeks. Sen. Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat who is the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he supports diplomacy but peacemaking must be done responsibly. Instead of caving to Putin, the US should join our allies in levying tough, targeted new sanctions on Russia to intensify the economic pressure, he said. Republicans and Trump allies offer little response so far In Washington, the summit was met by little response from Trump's allies. Republican lawmakers who spoke out were largely reserved and generally called for continued talks and constructive actions from the Trump administration. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican, wrote on social media after the summit that while the press conference offered few details about their meeting" she was "cautiously optimistic about the signals that some level of progress was made." Murkowski said it was also encouraging to hear both presidents reference future meetings" but that Ukraine must be part of any negotiated settlement and must freely agree to its terms. Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican and close Trump ally, offered that he was very proud of Trump for having had the face-to-face meeting and was cautiously optimistic that the war might end well before Christmas if a trilateral meeting between Trump, Zelenskyy and Putin transpires. I have all the confidence in the world that Donald Trump will make it clear to Putin this war will never start again. If it does, you're going to pay a heavy price, he said on Fox News. For some Trump allies, the very act of him meeting with Putin was success enough: conservative activist and podcaster Charlie Kirk called it a great thing. Some see a Putin win and a Trump loss But in Europe, the summit was seen as a major diplomatic coup for Putin, who has been eager to emerge from geopolitical isolation. Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, deputy head of Russia's Security Council, praised the summit as a breakthrough in restoring high-level dialogue between Moscow and Washington, describing the talks as calm, without ultimatums and threats. Former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt said the summit was a distinct win for Putin. He didn't yield an inch but was also a distinct setback for Trump. No ceasefire in sight. What the world sees is a weak and wobbling America, Bildt posted on X.
&w=3840&q=100)

First Post
7 minutes ago
- First Post
UK's Nigel Farage's social media adviser says Britain should not have fought against Nazis in WW2
An adviser used by the UK's Reform Party leader, Nigel Farage, along with other politicians from the party to boost their social media popularity, has suggested that Britain would be better off had it stayed neutral during the Second World War instead of fighting against Nazi Germany An adviser used by the UK's Reform Party leader, Nigel Farage, along with other politicians from the party to boost their social media popularity, has suggested that Britain would be better off had it stayed neutral during the Second World War instead of fighting against Nazi Germany. Jack Anderton, who ran Farage's hugely successful TikTok account and went on to help Luke Campbell become the Reform mayor of Hull and East Yorkshire, also noted that the United Kingdom should not support Ukraine in its fight against Russian aggression. In a post on his blog about the UK's foreign policy, Anderton suggested that the UK could 'regain' former colonies such as Australia, Canada and South Africa. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD He went on to state that the UK should copy the policy of mass incarceration carried out by El Salvador's president, Nayib Bukele, which has been widely condemned as a violation of human rights all around the world. Why it matters It is pertinent to note that Anderson has never been employed by the Reform Party. However, the 23-year-old established Farage on TikTok, where he now has 1.3 million followers, before working closely on Campbell's election campaign. After his victory, Anderson continues to remain a central part of Campbell's circle. According to The Guardian, the newly-elected mayor is known to have made efforts to get him on his roster of staff, which have been thwarted because he cannot have political appointees. In his latest personal blog titled Britain Needs Change, Anderson included an entry from last year about what he called 'a self-interested British foreign policy'. He insisted that the only conflict of the last century that was in the UK's interest was the Falklands War. 'Trillions of pounds of British taxes have been spent in foreign lands in the pursuit of 'democracy', 'human rights' and 'doing what is right',' the post said. 'More than a million British lives have been lost since WW1 in wars and battles that have never once been fought by British men, on this island," it added. 'UK should not have fought in WW2': Anderson In the post, Anderson argued that both world wars ensured that the UK was no longer a great power in the international arena. 'We impoverished ourselves for decades; we didn't finish paying the loans off to America until 2006. Our economy stagnated, we lost an empire, and we are pushed around by America. And Germany, a country we beat, has been richer than us since the 1970s," he wrote. 'Alternative history is interesting; if Britain had not fought in WW1 and WW2, it would not have had to rely on America for economic support, and it would have had the independence to act accordingly. Britain could have developed India, Cyprus, Fiji, Malta, Saint Lucia, Seychelles, the Bahamas, Australia, Canada, South Africa, Ireland and New Zealand. In the coming meritocracy, perhaps Britain could regain some of these nations.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD In the same post, he also opposed London providing support for Ukraine after Russia's invasion: 'We are sending billions of pounds (that we cannot afford) to prop up a country that we have no allegiance to. Russia is not our enemy; they have not attacked Britain.' Anderson's radical rant also included a call for a shake-up of the Foreign Office so that all decisions are made purely based on whether or not they benefit Britain: 'Instead, what we have are people who should be working for the UN or a charity rather than working in the British Foreign Office.' When asked about the matter, Reform UK told The Guardian that Anderson is neither employed by the party nor the mayor.
&w=3840&q=100)

First Post
7 minutes ago
- First Post
This Week in Explainers: Did Putin convince Trump not to slap additional tariffs on India?
United States President Donald Trump held talks with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, in Alaska in a momentous summit in Alaska. After the meeting, Trump hinted that he may not impose additional secondary tariffs on countries purchasing Russian crude oil, which includes India. All this and more in our weekly roundup from around the globe US President Donald Trump looks on next to Russian President Vladimir Putin during a press conference following their meeting to negotiate an end to the war in Ukraine, at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, in Anchorage, Alaska. Reuters The world witnessed the much-awaited summit between United States President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on August 15. All eyes, including India's, were on the meeting as the two leaders discussed the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Pakistan has ramped up its nuclear threats against India. After the country's Army Chief Asim Munir, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and former Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto warned New Delhi over the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty following the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Trump's announcement of additional 25 per cent tariffs on India for purchasing Russian oil stands in stark contrast to his handling of China, which is among the top buyers of crude from Russia. What explains the different treatment? Here's all this and much more in our weekly wrap from the world. 1. US President Trump hosted his Russian counterpart at the American military's Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage, Alaska. This was Putin's first visit to the US in a decade, as well as the first-ever visit of a Russian leader to Alaska. Ahead of the high-stakes summit, Trump had described it as a 'feel-out' meeting and threatened Moscow with 'serious consequences' if Putin did not agree to a ceasefire. The two leaders met to find common ground to ensure a lasting ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine after a three-year-long war, albeit in the absence of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. So what came out of it? This story explains. 2. The world was glued to the high-stakes summit, which held a special interest for India. On Friday, Donald Trump claimed that Russia lost India as one of its oil clients. But after meeting Putin, the US president indicated that he may not impose secondary tariffs on countries like India that procure crude oil from Russia. Here is what this could mean for New Delhi. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD US President Donald Trump walks to shake the hand of Russia's Vladimir Putin during a joint press conference at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska, on Friday. After a three-hour meeting, Trump said 'we didn't get there' on a Ukraine deal. AP 3. Pakistan is back at its war rhetoric against India. After Pakistan Army chief Munir's nuclear threat to India on US soil, PM Sharif and politician Bilawal Bhutto also issued warnings to New Delhi. Targeting India for pausing the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), Sharif said that Pakistan will teach a 'lesson' to the 'enemy' that 'you will never forget.' Bilawal Bhutto also threatened India with war if New Delhi continues making changes to the decades-old pact with Islamabad. Do these threats hold weight, or are they hollow? Read our story to know more. 4. Trump has earlier publicly hit out at India for buying Russian crude oil even as trade talks continue between Washington and New Delhi. He has also imposed 25 per cent tariffs on Indian imports to the US, while threatening an additional 25 per cent levy (which he says he may now reconsider). The discussions to reach a bilateral trade agreement have hit a stalemate over India's reluctance to open its markets to US agriculture and dairy products. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Moreover, the US president has not attacked China, similarly, for purchasing Russian oil. Instead, this week, he granted a 90-day extension to the existing tariff pause between Washington and Beijing. What's behind Trump's starkly different approaches toward two of America's largest trading partners? We explain here. 5. Israel killed Al Jazeera correspondent Anas al-Sharif, along with four other journalists, while they were resting inside a tent for the press outside Al-Shifa Hospital's main gate in Gaza. Al Jazeera journalist Anas Al Sharif was killed by a targeted Israeli airstrike. Image Courtesy: Al Jazeera/X After the strike, the Israeli military claimed Anas was a 'terrorist' and 'served as the head of a terrorist cell in Hamas'. Al Jazeera vehemently rejected these claims, calling their reporter 'one of Gaza's bravest journalists.' So, was he a 'terrorist' or a journalist? Here's our story. 6. The young, unemployed people in China are paying to pretend to have jobs. Like any regular worker, they get up in the morning, dress up and leave for their 'offices'. However, no one is paying them, and they don't have to produce any results. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD There has been a rise in companies offering a 'pretend to work' service in China. Some say they prefer this popular trend to being stuck at home until they get a job. However, others have called it 'escapism'. Why are the young, jobless Chinese paying to pretend to be employed? We take a look here. 7. A video has gone viral on social media of a killer whale purportedly attacking and killing a marine trainer named Jessica Radcliffe during a live show. The incident sparked a flood of reactions online, with netizens expressing shock, outrage, and grief. I have jessica radcliffe video orca, jessica radcliffe orca attack video, video jessica accident orque!! 6 minutes video 👇 — Burhan Khizer (@MeerKp20450) August 11, 2025 STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD However, here's the twist: none of it was real. The video was all an elaborate hoax. Read our story to find out the truth behind the viral clip. This is all we have for you this week. If you like how we explain the news, you can bookmark this page to stay informed.