Gendered Starvation in Armed Conflict: What International Law Fails to See

[Dr. Nafees Ahmad holds a Ph.D. in International Refugee Law and Human Right), and is an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Legal Studies, South Asian University, New Delhi.

Saif Ali is an advocate at the Delhi High Court, New Delhi and holds a BALLB, and LL.M (International Law).]

The expression “gendered starvation” illustrates how intentional or methodical denial of food, water, and other necessities during armed conflicts excessively impacts people depending on their gender, frequently making the harm experienced by women, girls and other disadvantaged groups  even worse. Thus, the systemic analyses or policies often “camouflage” the disproportionate damages —such as brutality, economic harm, or adverse health effects— experienced by women, girls, and vulnerable groups in crises like conflict, starvation, or poverty, by concentrating on medians rather than particulars. Because of their social duties in caring, resource collection, and reproduction, women and girls may be particularly vulnerable in war zones, when starvation techniques exacerbate pre-existing disparities. To enforce compliance, starvation is resorted to as a weapon, which makes prostitution, forced marriages, sexual assault, rape and survival sex endemic in conflict. Blockades and sieges and barriers to aid have caused widespread hardship in locations like Gaza, Sudan, Ethiopia, and Yemen, leaving women without access to basic necessities.

This post examines how the social organisation of conflict, characterised by caregiving responsibilities, displacement, exposure to sexual violence and unequal access to objects indispensable to survival, ensures that women disproportionately suffer its grave and lasting consequences, even though biological resilience may not put women at higher risk of starvation. Ultimately, it seeks to understand why the existing legal framework fails to account for the gendered realities of food deprivation in armed conflict.

Starvation in International Law

Starvation has been used as a war tactic since the earliest forms of armed conflicts; however, its recognition within international law has been incremental and delayed. During the Nuremberg Trials, despite the explicit evidence of deliberate use of starvation on the civilian population, no direct indictment took place relating to starvation. It was explicitly prohibited as a method of warfare only in 1977 with the adoption of Additional Protocol I. However, it was not yet defined as a distinct international crime. Later, the criminalisation of starvation appeared in 2002 with the Rome Statute acknowledging the ‘intentional use of starvation as a method of warfare’ as a war crime.

This historical and normative silence highlights significant gaps in the legal and scholarly study of starvation. One such gap has to do with the gender dimension of starvation: how food deprivation intersects with sexual violence and the particular vulnerabilities women face during sieges. Starvation erodes human dignity, and the resulting absence of dignity breeds the vegetative existence of individuals during an armed conflict. It is within this context that the gendered effects of starvation need closer scrutiny.

The marginal note of article 54 of Additional Protocol 1 reads, “Protection of objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population”, and further prohibits the starvation of civilians as a method of warfare. Additionally, starvation is classified as a war crime under 8(2)(b)(xxv) if it is intentionally employed as a weapon of war against civilians. Further, its recognition as a crime against humanity, still, remains a subject of ongoing legal debate. These phrases, “civilians” and “population”, imply uniform exposure and impact; nonetheless, this is not an accusation of international law, but neutrality produces blindness. An Oxfam report indicates that 155 million people globally are experiencing a food insecurity crisis, predominantly as a consequence of armed conflict. The report further notes that women and girls among these numbers are disproportionately affected, as they encounter unusual dangers in securing food, and in many cases are frequently eating last and eating least.

During normal times, prevailing social expectations often position household food distribution that  places women last. Vaughen, in “The Story of an African Famine” asserts that the distribution of food among families during crises reveals the underlying tensions typically buried by the complexities of social relations. When practices like these persist during severe scarcity, they not only mirror social norms but also exacerbate misery, making women disproportionately vulnerable to the consequences of starvation. This unequal impact cannot be attributed to biological factors; rather, it stems from the social organisation of conflict, wherein gendered roles and expectations dictate access to food, care, and survival.

Alex de Waal, in Mass Starvation: The History and Future of Famine, argues that “famine is man-made,” and he has yet to find a single case of starvation deliberately caused, particularly by a woman; therefore, the use of the term “man-made famine” is intentional. Ironically, however, women are frequently the ones who suffer the most serious and long-lasting effects. This distinction between agency and suffering raises serious concerns regarding how starvation is conceptualised, scripted, and critically analysed under international law.

What International Law Fails to See?

Existing safeguards aside, malnutrition is frequently left out of international law as a gender-neutral issue, as opposed to one shaped by patriarchal structures. Such provisions tend to be utilitarian and anthropocentric, emphasising survival essentials without adequately accounting for what deprivation looks like for different genders. Reproductive health services, for example, are not classified as “objects indispensable to survival (OIS).” This oversight prompts questions as to whether assaults on medical facilities or the denial of obstetric care are classified as crimes of starvation. Among unresolved issues are the nature of “deprivation,” which indicates intent under indirect circumstances, and how long-term indirect effects, such as environmental degradation, can impact women’s roles and health. The law’s continued failure to take gender into account in its proportionality or risk assessments leaves them poorly protected. Experts working on famine, gender-based violence (GBV), displacement and healthcare attacks do not all communicate well, resulting in piecemeal strategies. International Humanitarian Law (IHL), for instance, seldom takes into account gendered vulnerabilities such as heightened risk of violence during periods of resource shortage, even though it prohibits environmental degradation that causes “widespread, long-term, and severe” suffering. Recent interpretative guidance — including the ICRC’s 2022 report on gendered impacts — emphasises these disparities but lacks legal enforceability.

Within the confines of international law, attacks on healthcare facilities and the denial of obstetric care are usually not considered starvation crimes. Instead, such acts are deemed distinct offences, such as war crimes against protected entities (e.g., hospitals) or obstruction of medical assistance. It could be fundamental breaches of the Geneva Conventions and the offences on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), with particular reference to Articles 8(2)(a)(iii) concerning the intentional infliction of severe suffering and 8(2)(b)(ix), which addresses attacks on health workers and hospitals. In addition, such acts might be connected from one kind of crime to another, such as reproductive or GBV, the latter of which, in some instances, might rise to the level of genocide or crimes against humanity. However, these practices can also overlap with, and even constitute acts in accordance with IHL that constitute a war crime of starvation under Article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the Rome Statute if they intentionally withhold from OIS.

OIS, by clear interpretation and practice in the ICC, includes materials such as food, water, and other material resources (agriculture), and—what is known from authority and customary practice in the ICC—medical supplies (including drugs) and necessary infrastructure or services to promote survival. To cite one example, an assault on healthcare facilities that disables essential medical goods and equipment may qualify as starvation by deprivation of OIS. This has been claimed in places like Gaza, where attacks such as these have been mentioned alongside a denial of ICC arrest warrants against those who committed starvation offences. But they are primarily acts of attacking protected objects; defining a specific intent to starve civilians is indispensable for those acts to be treated as related to starvation. 

Denial of obstetric care and other vital medical services involved in pregnancy, childbirth, and maternal health that may result in death, severe distress, or reproductive problems. Although frequently framed in the context of reproductive violence or lack of humanitarian access—which could be classified as a war crime under Articles 8(2)(a)(iii) or 8(2)(e)(viii)—it can be categorised as starvation when it infringes on OIS, e.g., access to health equipment essential for breastfeeding mothers or needy individuals. This may be especially important when it leads to life-threatening problems like malnutrition, if not treated with health conditions and complications. The ICC observes that the denial of nutrition can be prosecuted under a broader legal framework that includes starvation when starvation is related to reproductive matters. The concept of judging whether an action constitutes starvation is only as strict as one’s intent and context in determining whether it results in depriving OIS; however, when these transgressions were committed, these crimes are typically prosecuted under different standards than for attacks on hospitals or denial of health care services.

Gendered Starvation: Law and Practice Disconnect

UN Resolution 2417 (2018) links civilian protection to the denunciation of famine in wars. Recent cases before the ICC and the ICJ that address famine are under consideration, and relate to the situation in Gaza. These cases however do not specifically pertain to the gendered dimensions of starvation.

The most significant case concerning starvation and famine in international courts pertains to Gaza in  South Africa v. Israel before the International Court of Justice. This case asserts that the Israeli actions in Gaza are a gross contravention of the 1948 Genocide Convention, specifically with respect to factors leading to famine and starvation. The ICJ has issued several provisional measures emphasising the necessity of humanitarian access and the prevention of famine, such as the January 26, 2024 Order, which highlighted that genocide constitutes a credible risk. The ICJ further ordered Israel to take steps to prevent genocidal acts, particularly by providing access to essential humanitarian aid to Palestinians in Gaza to avoid starvation and accompanying violence. Under the March 28, 2024, Order, as the situation escalated, the ICJ unanimously ordered Israel to allow the unhindered passage of food, water, medical materials, and other resources to Palestinians in Gaza. The ICJ stressed that “famine and starvation are spreading,” noting the “worsening living conditions” suffered by Palestinians. This Order strengthened earlier orders for Israel and the United Nations to engage in cooperation, requiring the United Nations to support humanitarian aid to prevent famine. Under the Order of May 24, 2024, the ICJ commanded Israel to stop military operations in Rafah that could escalate conditions that put the existence of Palestinians at risk, linking this Order back to continued threats of starvation.

By mid-2025, it was reported that Israel failed to fulfil these orders in full and continued to limit its aid provision to exacerbate the famine, with reports indicating that these restrictions had become widespread. At this stage, fourteen countries had intervened or sought to intervene in these matters, such as a campaign of starvation and forced migration. The merits phase is still in progress. In a separate advisory opinion of 2024, the ICJ assessed Israel’s obligations as an occupying power in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and found that these responsibilities include securing access to necessities such as food and water, and they extend beyond famine.  

In March 2021, the ICC commenced its investigation into Palestine following allegations dating back to June 2014 over various settlements and territories in Gaza. In November 2024, Pre-Trial Chamber-I issued arrest warrants on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant for using starvation as a weapon for committing war crimes, crimes against humanity, such as murder and persecution, among other heinous offences. The Chamber found enough reasons to find they intentionally deprived civilians in Gaza of crucial needs — food, water, medicine, fuel, and electricity — from October 8, 2023, to at least May 20, 2024, resulting in malnutrition-related deaths by dehydration. These allegations by the ICC explicitly define starvation as a war crime by and of itself and create a precedent in international law frameworks. Three Hamas senior leaders also faced arrest warrants as of May 2024, with charges that included murder and hostage-taking, but specifically not ones connected to the war against famine. As early as mid-2025, no trials have begun mainly because of enforcement difficulties stemming from Israel’s refusal to adhere to the ICC’s procedures.

The proceedings before the ICJ and the ICC do not address the gendered dimensions of starvation. However, the situation on the ground calls for such an analysis.

 The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) findings confirm an imminent famine in Gaza and caution against a significant increase in mortality and malnutrition. The report further indicates that, by the end of September 2025, over 640,000 people, approximately one in three Gazans, are anticipated to experience catastrophic levels of food insecurity (IPC Phase 5). Additionally, UN Women reports that at least 557,000 women in Gaza are currently suffering severe food insecurity. Complementing this assessment, the Women’s Refugee Commission (WRC) documents that women in Gaza systematically self-ration food to ensure their children and younger family members can eat. The report further indicates that women without male relatives, older women, and those responsible for child care are predominantly marginalised from humanitarian access, resulting in the entire household being deprived of food.

In addition to these immediate effects, the WRC highlights disproportionate impact and long-term physical and psychological damage endured by women, including exposure to coercion, harassment, and transactional sex for survival. Therefore, it is accurate to assert that starvation is legally recognised by quantifiable metrics rather than lived realities. UN, national governments, courts, etc, define and recognize what constitutes “starvation” primarily through objective, data-driven standards—like particular thresholds for caloric intake, body mass index (BMI), poverty indices, or statistical benchmarks for famine declaration—instead of the subjective, day-to-day lives and struggles facing individuals or communities. Lived realities capture the personal, qualitative aspects of suffering, such as chronic hunger’s emotional toll, cultural impacts, or the nuanced ways it manifests in daily life, which are often overlooked in favor of “evidence-based” legal or policy responses. Thus, it  overlooks dignity, agency, long-term social damage, and gendered survival mechanisms.

Conclusion Wider interpretations are thus needed to address these shortcomings, both by including reproductive impoverishment and by disseminating interdisciplinary research to court-related institutions. This would be more consistent with famine being used as a form of gendered oppression and not merely as part and parcel of warfare. Famine discussions are relevant matters to be analysed within deliberations that occur together using ICJ and ICC, and are particularly relevant to incidents primarily in Gaza. The ICRC is among the international organisations that stress that such deprivations may not lead to direct death, but harm victims and violate prohibitions against using starvation as a warfare tactic. For dealing with gendered starvation during armed conflicts, we need to  comprehend the interaction between gender, conflict and environment properly – and then put IHL in place to do so appropriately.

Photo attribution: by Tom Rogers on Unsplash