magnify
Home Posts tagged "starvation"

Time to fix the Rome Statute and add the crime of starvation in non-international armed conflicts!

Published on December 3, 2019        Author: 

This week the Assembly of State Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ASP) meets in The Hague for its 18th session. On the agenda is the Swiss proposal to amend Article 8 (“War crimes”) of the Rome Statute by adding a non-international armed conflict version of the war crime of starvation of civilians as a method of warfare. The present post discusses the Swiss proposal and explains why it is high time to amend the Rome Statute as per the Swiss proposal, and that in fact the drafting history of the Statute shows that the omission to include this crime into Article 8(2)(e) was accidental, making it even more important to now fix this mistake.

In 1998, the States negotiating the Rome Statute included the war crime of “[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” in Article 8(2)(c), a paragraph that lists “serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict”, “[o]ther” than the grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions included in the first paragraph, which also concern international armed conflict (IAC). As readers will know, the question whether the Rome Statute should include war crimes committed in times of non-international armed conflict (NIAC) was hotly debated by the delegates in Rome. Fortunately, with the ICTY’s case law and the scope of the ICTR Statute having paved the way, the States reached consensus to include NIAC war crimes. Violations of Common Article 3 to the 1949 Geneva Conventions were listed in Article 8(2)(c), and a large number of the ‘other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in times of international armed conflict’, listed in Article 8(2)(b) of the ICC Statute, were reproduced in Article 8(2)(e), which relates to NIAC. However, among the crimes that were not reproduced was the war crime of starvation and impeding humanitarian access.

The failure to do so has been criticised for good reason (e.g., Werle, Kress, and more recently, Bartels, and D’Alessandra and Gillett). In addition to the war crimes related to prohibited weapons (addressed below), the only other violations not included for NIAC are the conduct of hostilities crimes Article 8(2)(c)(ii), intentionally directing attacks at civilian objects, Article 8(2)(b)(iv), the crime of causing excessive collateral damage, and Articles 8(2)(viii), (xiv), and (xv). The last three provisions deal with occupation and “nationals of the hostile party”, and therefore obviously do not have a NIAC equivalent. The Additional Protocol I general prohibition to attack civilian objects and the prohibition to launch attacks that may be expected to cause incidental damage that would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated, which both apply during IACs, do not appear in Additional Protocol II relating to NIACs. As a result, it was hard in 1998 for the proponents of a more extensive set of NIAC crimes to argue that these prohibitions constituted customary IHL also in time of NIAC, and no NIAC versions of these war crimes were included in Article 8 (see Bartels, pp 292-293). However, the foregoing makes the omission of a NIAC crime of starvation all the more puzzling, because Additional Protocol II does explicitly prohibit the starvation of the civilian population.

Read the rest of this entry…

 

Clarifying the Contours of the Crime of Starvation

Published on June 27, 2019        Author:  and

The Lack of Prosecutions

Starving civilians as a method of warfare has long been prohibited and criminalised across the full spectrum of international legal frameworks, yet despite this criminalisation and its grave human cost, there has yet to be a prosecution of starvation on the international level. Consequently, the crime and its intersection with a wide range of other violations remain entirely unexplored.

The crimes that have oc­cupied the international courts are those most frequently associated with an ongoing armed conflict. Whether the persecutory rapes in Bosnia, the slaughter in Rwanda, or the amputations of civilians in Freetown in Sierra Leone. This is the type of criminal conduct that appears to have shaped the perception of the type of deaths and injury that are most appropriate for prosecution in modern international criminal courts, with starvation languishing on the margins of prosecutorial imagination and practice.

In a legal policy paper recently issued by Global Rights Compliance (GRC), we set out in more detail the reasons behind the dearth of prosecutions and explore the paths to prohibition and accountability for the widespread and systematic death and suffering that it causes worldwide, with a focus on criminal prosecutions.

The F Word – The Return of Famines

Famines have returned and they strike where accountability (political or criminal) fails. In 2017 the UN identified four situations of acute food insecurity that threatened famine or breached that threshold, in north-eastern Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan and Yemen. In December 2018 famine was formally declared across regions of Yemen, this is likely to be the famine that will define this era. Starvation is also being used as a weapon of war in Syria and the Democratic Republic of Congo. The Gaza Strip and in Venezuela also suffer from the manipulation, obstruction and politicization of food and humanitarian aid. Read the rest of this entry…

 
Comments Off on Clarifying the Contours of the Crime of Starvation

Joint Blog Series on International Law and Armed Conflict: Are Sieges Prohibited under Contemporary IHL?

Published on January 30, 2019        Author: 

Editor’s Note: This post the final post in the joint series hosted by the ICRC Humanitarian Law & Policy BlogEJIL Talk! and Lawfare, and arising out of the 6th Transatlantic Workshop on International Law and Armed Conflict held at the European University Institute in Florence in July.

Contemporary armed conflicts in Syria, Yemen or Iraq have seen a resurgence of sieges of cities and other densely populated areas. This ancient—some would say archaic or medieval—method of warfare is expected to be increasingly used in future urban conflicts. The catastrophic humanitarian consequences of recent prolonged sieges—such as in Ghouta (Syria), where civilians are starving because of lack of access to objects indispensable to their survival—have led to widespread condemnations by the international community (see e.g., UN Security Council Resolution 2139 (2014)). The question discussed here is what does international humanitarian law (IHL) say about siege warfare? Is it explicitly ruled out? How might IHL rules and principles constrain siege warfare?

No explicit IHL rules against siege warfare

Sieges are not per se an explicitly prohibited method of warfare under IHL. On the contrary, one could say that IHL implicitly allow sieges by merely mentioning steps to be taken to mitigate their negative effects on civilians and civilian objects (Art 27 1907 Hague Regulations; Art 15 GCI; Art 18 GCII; Art 17 GCIV).

Sieges have been used throughout history and military doctrine usually regards sieges as essential to the effective conduct of hostilities in order to control a defended locality and obtain surrender or otherwise defeat the enemy through isolation. Since sieges are a harsh method of warfare and are based on almost complete isolation of the besieged locality, their use will almost inevitably involve frictions with numerous rules and principles of IHL—at least when the besieged area involves civilian presence.

Numerous constraints on siege warfare

There are a number of IHL prohibitions that may constrain siege warfare. These include the prohibition against terrorizing the civilian population (Art 51(2) API; Art 13(2) APII; CIHL Study, Rule 2), the prohibition of collective punishment (Art 75 API; Art 4 APII; CIHL Study, Rule 103) or the prohibition of human shields (Art. 51(5) API; CIHL Study, Rule 97). The most obvious prohibition that impacts siege warfare, however, is the prohibition of starvation of civilians (Art 54(1) API; Art 14 APII).There is also a question as to whether conduct of hostilities rules, and the principle of proportionality in particular, may serve as an additional constrain on siege warfare Article 51(5)(b) of API CIHL Study, Rule 14). The present blog post will focus on the latter two—the prohibition against starving civilians, purposefully or incidentally, and the principle of proportionality.   Read the rest of this entry…