Introduction
The ongoing aid blockade in Gaza, particularly with regard to the draconian restrictions on humanitarian relief imposed during the recent escalations, has sparked serious concern, not just on account of the obvious pain inflicted upon humanity but equally because of the serious implications under international law. While humanitarian crises in conflict zones unfortunately occur too often, the intentional withholding of food, water, and medicine – an act that too often falls hardest upon the weakest – is an issue that must be examined in the light of international humanitarian law (IHL) and international human rights law (IHRL).
This paper maintains that the blockade of Gaza, especially the use of starvation as a tactic, stands above the levels of what could be considered a political or security concern; it is rather a matter of legal accountability and moral urgency. It also reflects, on the larger scale, an erosion of international law and the protection of civilian populations in conflict situations and affected areas worldwide.
International Law and the Prohibition on Starvation
Under customary international humanitarian law, as well as under treaties like the Fourth Geneva Convention and Additional Protocol I, starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is unequivocally prohibited. Article 54(1) of Additional Protocol I states that, “Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited. It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population.”
Similarly, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Article 8(2)(b)(xxv)) classifies, “(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 a war crime in international armed conflicts.
These provisions are not merely theoretical concepts or abstract principles – they are binding norms meant to restrain belligerents from targeting the very basis of civilian life. That means, if a state or occupying power deliberately impedes food and medical supplies with full awareness of the consequences, such conduct may invariably meet the threshold for criminal liability under international law.
Lex Specialis and the Continuing Role of Human Rights Law
Some argue that international humanitarian law (IHL), with its lex specialis status,by which it is the “special law” governing conduct in wartimes, displaces international human rights law
(IHRL) in cases of armed conflicts. However, this does not imply a blanket override. Rather, as held by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in its 2004 Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Wall, ‘human rights obligations do not cease to exist during armed conflicts’, and instead coexist with the IHL.
This relationship especially has important implications for the rights of women, children, persons with disabilities, and other marginalized groups. These groups should continue to be afforded protection under core human rights treaties such as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) for core, basic human rights including, but not limited to, the right to life, rights to food and water, health rights, and the rights to dignity. These rights are considered non-derogable or only subject to very narrowly defined restrictions, even in times of emergency.
Thus, in this specific context, even if Israel invokes military necessity, that does not negate its human rights obligations to ensure access to essential services for civilians under its effective control or occupation.
Vulnerability as a Legal and Ethical Category
Starvation disproportionately affects women and children. This is a relevant legal issue, and not a secondary concern. Certain groups are recognized in international law as requiring special protection because of their specific vulnerabilities. The Geneva Conventions deal with these situations and grant preferential treatment to children, pregnant women, and the wounded or sick. The Committees on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women and on the Rights of the Child have both stressed on the duty of states to ensure that during conflicts, such protected groups are not denied access to food, healthcare, or shelter.
Furthermore, regarding this specific context of Gaza, new studies spearheaded by the Women’s Initiatives for Gender Justice and Human Rights Watch, indicate that the systematic denial of reproductive care and child nutrition in Gaza could amount to gender-based persecution and reproductive violence, which are recognized in international criminal law, in certain circumstances, as crimes against humanity.
These are not mere collateral issues. They constitute a pattern of harm that demands both legal accountability and policy redress.
Francesca Albanese and the Concept of a “Protected People”
Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, has repeatedly stated that the Palestinian people constitute a ‘protected group’ under international law. In her reports, she has emphasized that the ongoing conditions; marked by occupation, blockade, displacement, and violence are not random but rather constitute a form of institutionalized oppression that may even rise to the level of persecution.
By framing Palestinians as a protected group, Albanese underscores that this is not merely a humanitarian emergency, but also a legal crisis involving the systematic denial of fundamental rights. This framing aligns with broader understandings under the Genocide Convention and the jurisprudence of international tribunals, where the concept of a ‘protected group’ includes
those targeted based on national, ethnic, racial, or religious identities.
Keeping this in mind, if the international community continues to treat Palestinians as passive victims rather than active rights-holders, it risks reinforcing impunity and undermining the very foundations of the international legal protection framework.
Conclusion: Legal and Moral Implications
Beyond the immediate suffering in Gaza, the legitimacy and relevance of international law are seriously threatened by the selective suspension of international norms and the use of starvation tactics. It erodes enforcement mechanisms and sends a dangerous signal to other regimes when powerful states or allies break the law with impunity. It is not merely theoretical that these norms are eroding – in fact, starvation tactics have also been seen in recent years in the Yemeni, Ethiopian, and Syrian conflicts. A global environment where the intentional targeting of civilian sustenance is normalised is strengthened by the lack of consistent accountability across these cases.
In order for international law to remain effective, it must be consistently applied, irrespective of the political affiliations of those who violate it. Selective justice delegitimizes the institutions which are meant to protect civilians, and might as well be no justice at all. What is happening in Gaza is not simply a humanitarian crisis – it is a legal emergency that demands robust accountability. Starvation, when weaponized, is a war crime. When it disproportionately targets women, children, and other vulnerable populations, it also gives rise to a wider array of violations under both humanitarian and human rights law. The law is clear, and the suffering is evident. To ignore either is to betray not only the people of Gaza but the entire international legal order designed to protect human dignity in times of war.
References
Albanese, F. (2024). Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 (A/HRC/55/73). United Nations Human Rights Council. https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/reports/ahrc5573
Associated Press. (2024, February 22). Palestinians in Gaza struggle to get food even as aid trickles in. https://apnews.com/article/f063a9f614c8c149defff662b54f1e54
Human Rights Watch. (2023, December 18). Israel: Starvation used as weapon of war in Gaza. https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/12/18/israel-starvation-used-weapon-war-gaza
International Committee of the Red Cross. (n.d.). Civilians and international humanitarian law. https://www.icrc.org/en/law-and-policy/protected-persons-civilians
International Committee of the Red Cross. (n.d.). Starvation. ICRC Casebook. https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/starvation
International Criminal Court. (1998). Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. United Nations. https://www.icc-cpi.int/resource-library/documents/rs-eng.pdf
International Court of Justice. (2004). Legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory: Advisory Opinion. ICJ Reports 136. https://www.icj cij.org/en/case/131
Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. (2025, May 30). Israel aid blockage making Gaza “hungriest region on earth,” UN office says. Reuters. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-aid-blockage-making-gaza-hungriest region-earth-un-office-says-2025-05-30/
UN Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner. (2023, October 31). UN experts alarmed by Israel’s aid blockade in Gaza, calling it “weaponizing starvation”. https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/10/un-experts-alarmed-israels-aid-blockade gaza-calling-it-weaponizing
Women’s Initiatives for Gender Justice. (2023, November 10). Reproductive violence in Gaza: A gendered atrocity under international law. https://4genderjustice.org/our-latest posts/reproductive-violence-in-gaza-a-gendered-atrocity-under-international-law/
World Health Organization. (2025, May 12). People in Gaza starving, sick and dying as aid blockade continues [News release]. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/news/item/12-05- 2025-people-in-gaza-starving–sick-and-dying-as-aid-blockade-continues
