Helfen statt Blockieren
DEENES
Menu

Articles, Explainer

When the blockade is war: siege, naval blockade and the prohibition of starvation

· Helfen statt Blockieren editorial team

A sanction in peacetime and a blockade in war often share a word but follow different law. This article first explains the rules that protect civilians from hunger in armed conflict, and then how independent experts assess the situation in Gaza and Sudan and what the parties say about it.

Art. 54Additional Protocol I: starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibitedGeneva Conventions, Additional Protocol I, 1977
23states had accepted by April 2026 to treat starvation in civil wars as a war crimeGuide humanitarian law, as of 10 May 2026
0areas in Gaza classified in famine in July 2026, after a determination in August 2025IPC, 23 Jul 2026
19.5 mpeople in Sudan in acute food insecurity (Phase 3 or worse)IPC via UNICEF, FAO, WFP, 15 May 2026

Two bodies of law, one word

The word “blockade” is in the name of this website. It refers there to peacetime measures that block trade, payments and travel, such as the US embargo on Cuba, which the Cuban government calls “bloqueo”. Whether such measures are permitted is a question of the law of peace; see “Permitted, prohibited, disputed”. In armed conflict, by contrast, international humanitarian law applies. There the blockade is a method of warfare, and its limits are drawn more precisely than in peacetime. Anyone comparing Cuba with Gaza mixes two bodies of law; anyone speaking about Cuba should also name both halves: the US embargo and the responsibility of the Cuban leadership, under which Prisoners Defenders counted 1,351 political prisoners (September 2026).

The rules

Naval blockade. In an international armed conflict a party may close the enemy’s coast. Under the San Remo Manual of 1994, drafted by experts in the law of naval warfare and not itself a treaty, a blockade must be declared, effective and notified, with start, area and a period for neutral vessels to leave (paragraphs 93 and 94). Paragraph 102 prohibits a blockade if its sole purpose is to starve the civilian population or deny it other objects essential for survival, or if the expected damage to civilians exceeds the concrete military advantage. If the civilian population is inadequately supplied, the blockading party must under paragraph 103 allow free passage of food and other essential supplies. It may set the technical arrangements, including search, and require distribution under the supervision of an impartial humanitarian organisation.

Starvation. Article 54 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1977 prohibits starvation of civilians as a method of warfare; foodstuffs, crops, livestock and drinking water installations may not be destroyed for that purpose. According to the International Committee of the Red Cross study of customary law, the prohibition applies to all parties to a conflict as Rule 53. Relief that is exclusively humanitarian and impartial must be allowed through (Articles 70 and 71); according to the Guide humanitarian law of Médecins Sans Frontières, the law admits no exception for imperative military necessity here.

Criminal liability. Under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, intentionally starving civilians in international conflict is a war crime (Article 8(2)(b)(xxv)). Since a 2019 amendment this also applies in non-international conflict, that is, civil war (Article 8(2)(e)(xix)), but only for states that have accepted the amendment; according to the Guide there were 23 in April 2026.

Security Council. On 24 May 2018 the Security Council unanimously condemned in Resolution 2417 the starvation of civilians as a method of warfare and the unlawful denial of humanitarian access.

Siege. Whether sieges as such are prohibited is disputed. Gloria Gaggioli, an international lawyer at the University of Geneva, summarised the prevailing view in 2019 on the ICRC blog: sieges are not prohibited even if they cause starvation, as long as their purpose is a military objective and not starvation. She herself considers proof of purpose barely possible and proposes that failing to evacuate civilians together with denying relief should suffice to indicate the prohibited intent.

Rule, source, who is bound
RuleSourceWho is bound
Naval blockade only if declared, effective and notifiedSan Remo Manual paras. 93 and 94the Manual is not a treaty; its authors consider it a restatement of customary law
Blockade prohibited if its sole purpose is starvation or civilian harm exceeds the military advantageSan Remo Manual para. 102as above
Free passage of food in case of inadequate supply, with right of search and supervisionSan Remo Manual para. 103as above
Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare prohibitedAdditional Protocol I Art. 54; ICRC customary Rule 53states parties; according to the ICRC all parties to a conflict
Allow impartial humanitarian reliefAdditional Protocol I Arts. 70 and 71; ICRC Rules 55 and 56as above; no exception for military necessity according to the Guide
Starvation as a war crime in international conflictRome Statute Art. 8(2)(b)(xxv)states parties to the International Criminal Court
the same in non-international conflictRome Statute Art. 8(2)(e)(xix) (2019 amendment)only states that have accepted it (23 by April 2026)
Condemnation of starvation, duty of accessUN Security Council Resolution 2417, 24 May 2018political commitment of all members

Compiled by Helfen statt Blockieren from Guide humanitarian law (Médecins Sans Frontières), McLaughlin 2026, UN Digital Library.

The situations: what independent experts find

Whether there is hunger somewhere is usually assessed by the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC), a system jointly run by UN agencies and aid organisations. Phase 5 means catastrophe; famine is classified when certain thresholds for food consumption, malnutrition and mortality are exceeded in an area. Whether a party to a conflict is using starvation is not decided by the IPC but, if disputed, by a court.

Gaza. On 22 August 2025 the IPC for the first time classified famine in Gaza Governorate; more than 500,000 people were in catastrophic conditions. The Israeli authority COGAT, responsible for civilian affairs in Gaza, rejected the finding the same day and accused the IPC of lowering its standards. After the October 2025 ceasefire and more deliveries, the IPC found no famine on 19 December 2025, but about 1.6 million people in Phase 3 or worse and over 100,000 in Phase 5; COGAT called this report biased too, for disregarding the quantities delivered. On 23 July 2026 the IPC counted 1,239,657 people in Phase 3 or worse for April to June 2026 and no one in Phase 5; by the end of 2026 it expects 1,412,421 people, two thirds of the population, in Phase 3 or worse. The gains are “highly fragile”, it said, because aid has been declining since February 2026.

Sudan. On 3 November 2025 the IPC classified famine in El Fasher and Kadugli. In February 2026 it reported famine for the localities of Umm Baru and Kernoi in Darfur, with acute malnutrition among 53 and 32 percent of children. The May 2026 analysis found no area in famine any more, but about 19.5 million people in Phase 3 or worse, about 135,000 in Phase 5 and 14 areas at risk. Independent UN experts stated on 26 June 2024 that both warring parties, the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces, were using food as a weapon; the AP report records no response from the parties to requests for comment.

Situations under the IPC system, as stated in the sources
Area and periodPhase 3 or worsePhase 5 (catastrophe)Famine classifiedpublished
Gaza, Gaza Governorate, August 2025not statedover 500,000yes22 Aug 2025
Gaza, 16 Oct to 30 Nov 2025about 1.6 millionover 100,000no19 Dec 2025
Gaza, 16 Apr to 30 Jun 20261,239,6570no23 Jul 2026
Gaza, projection 1 Jul to 31 Dec 20261,412,4210no23 Jul 2026
Sudan, analysis of 3 Nov 2025not statednot statedyes, El Fasher and Kadugli3 Nov 2025
Sudan, analysis May 2026about 19.5 millionabout 135,000no; 14 areas at risk15 May 2026

Sources: UNISPAL 22 Aug 2025; The National 19 Dec 2025; IPC Special Snapshot Gaza 23 Jul 2026; CGIAR 13 Nov 2025; UNICEF, FAO, WFP 15 May 2026. The situation changes; check the latest IPC analysis before any use.

Black Sea. A counter-example of a negotiated solution: on 22 July 2022 Russia, Ukraine, Türkiye and the United Nations agreed in Istanbul on an initiative that enabled grain exports from Ukrainian ports despite the war. It was not renewed after it expired on 17 July 2023.

What follows

The rules are clearer than in peacetime: starvation is prohibited, relief must get through, and violations can be criminal. Disputes concern the facts and the intent. That is why this article gives the IPC findings with dates and, next to them, the response of the government or party concerned, and draws no conclusion that only a court can draw. How humanitarian exemptions work in peacetime sanctions law is explained in “Humanitarian exemptions”.

This article is information, not legal advice. It relies on the sources listed; where experts disagree, it names the positions and who holds them. “Helfen statt Blockieren” is non-partisan.

Sources

All online sources accessed on 3 November 2026.

All articles