FeaturesTwo years into Israel’s military campaign against Hamas, tens of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza are dead, and the rest of the population is facing increasingly dire humanitarian circumstances.
Food scarcity experts at the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) on Tuesday said “the worst-case scenario of Famine is currently playing out in the Gaza Strip,” and reported “widespread starvation, malnutrition, and disease are driving a rise in hunger-related deaths,” with the famine threshold reached in most areas.
And on Monday, two revered Israeli human rights organizations—B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights-Israel—accused their own government of genocide. “Israel is taking coordinated, deliberate action to destroy Palestinian society in the Gaza Strip. In other words, Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip,” the organizations reported.
These latest developments occur against a backdrop of international criminal cases, geopolitical pressure, and diplomatic maneuvers aimed at stopping the violence and suffering in Palestine. But what else can and should the international community do to protect vulnerable civilians in Gaza? In this explainer, we will explore the legal obligations of the international community.
What’s happening in Gaza?
On October 7, 2023, Hamas launched the deadliest attack on Israeli civilians in the country’s history, killing approximately 1,200 people and taking about 250 hostages to Gaza. Israel responded with an intensive military campaign in Gaza that has endured for nearly two years. Gaza’s health ministry, which is part of the territory’s Hamas-run government, placed the latest death toll at more than 60,000 since the start of hostilities. As noted in PBS reporting, the toll did not distinguish between civilians and fighters, but did state that women and children comprised about half of the dead. The violence has displaced most of the territory’s 2.3 million residents. International efforts to broker a lasting ceasefire and address the broader conflict have repeatedly stalled, while humanitarian organizations have warned of a severe crisis in Gaza due to restrictions on aid and the destruction of civilian infrastructure.
Experts have warned of an impending famine since the start of the conflict. But these calls have taken on a new urgency in recent weeks, as the global community has been confronted with reports and images of civilians—including children—starving to death or being killed while attempting to gain access to food. With Israel appearing largely impervious to diplomatic pressure, the international community is left to consider its options under international law.
What does international humanitarian law require?
International Humanitarian Law (IHL), binding on all states, establishes fundamental protections for civilians in armed conflict. The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols, ratified by nearly all countries, prohibit starvation of civilians as a method of warfare.
Article 54 of Additional Protocol I explicitly prohibits attacking, destroying, or removing objects indispensable to civilian survival, including foodstuffs, agricultural areas, crops, livestock, and drinking water installations. Article 18 mandates that relief actions for civilians in need “shall be undertaken,” and that parties must allow and facilitate rapid passage of humanitarian relief.
The occupying power bears special obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention. Article 55 states:
To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring the food and medical supplies of the population; it should, in particular, bring in the necessary foodstuffs, medical stores and other articles if the resources of the occupied territory are inadequate.
Article 59 mandates accepting relief schemes when the population is inadequately supplied.
If the whole or part of the population of an occupied territory is inadequately supplied, the Occupying Power shall agree to relief schemes on behalf of the said population, and shall facilitate them by all the means at its disposal.
These obligations apply to Israel as the occupying power in Gaza under international law.
All states are bound by common Article 1 of the Geneva Conventions to “ensure respect” for IHL.
How do human rights treaties apply to famine?
Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), ratified by 173 countries, enshrines the right to adequate food. States must respect (not violate), protect (prevent violations by others), and fulfill (take positive steps to realize) this right.
The extraterritorial dimension is crucial during famine. UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights General Comment 12 clarifies that states must not use food as political or economic pressure and should provide international assistance during emergencies. This creates obligations for wealthy nations to provide humanitarian aid and for all states to refrain from actions that impede food access.
Non-derogable core obligations persist even during armed conflict, including ensuring freedom from hunger and providing emergency food aid.
What about the Genocide Convention?
The 1948 Genocide Convention, ratified by 153 countries, prohibits “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.” Using starvation to destroy a protected group constitutes genocide under Article II(c).
Current legal proceedings underscore these obligations. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has issued multiple provisional measures orders since January 2024 in South Africa’s genocide case against Israel. The Court observed in March 2024 that “Palestinians in Gaza are no longer facing only a risk of famine…but that famine is setting in.” In May 2024, the ICJ ordered Israel to “immediately halt its military offensive…in the Rafah Governorate, which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction.”
These orders are legally binding on Israel and create obligations for all UN member states under Article 94 of the UN Charter to comply with ICJ decisions.
What role do international criminal courts play?
The International Criminal Court (ICC) provides individual accountability for mass atrocity crimes. In November 2024, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for war crimes and crimes against humanity, including “starvation as a method of warfare,” murder, and persecution.
All 124 ICC member states are legally obligated under the Rome Statute to arrest and surrender individuals subject to ICC warrants if they enter their territory.
The ICC also issued a warrant for Hamas military commander Mohammed Deif for war crimes and crimes against humanity, though the warrant was later withdrawn after Hamas confirmed his death in early 2025.
What are third-party state obligations?
Beyond direct legal obligations, states face several duties regarding famine in Gaza:
Responsibility to Protect (R2P), while not legally binding, creates moral and political obligations when a state fails to protect its population from mass atrocities. The UN General Assembly unanimously endorsed R2P in 2005, establishing that the international community should take collective action when national authorities fail to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing.
Arms embargo obligations arise under international law when weapons may be used to commit war crimes. Several countries have restricted arms sales to Israel, citing legal obligations under the Arms Trade Treaty and customary international law.
Universal jurisdiction allows any state to prosecute individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide regardless of where committed. Some European countries have initiated investigations into Gaza-related crimes under universal jurisdiction principles.
What enforcement mechanisms exist and what are their limitations?
The UN Security Council holds primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Upon determining the existence of a threat to peace, breach of peace, or act of aggression, it could impose a broad range of interventions, from binding sanctions to military intervention. However, these moves would require unanimity, and after years of simmering geopolitical tensions between several of the UNSC’s permanent members, they have tended to remain deadlocked on major issues, including Gaza.
As mentioned above, the ICJ has already ordered provisional measures, but it lacks direct enforcement mechanisms. Compliance depends on political pressure and the good faith of states. While ICJ orders are legally binding, Israel has continued military operations despite multiple provisional measures orders.
As also discussed above, the ICC has issued arrest warrants and has jurisdiction to try individuals, but in doing so, it relies entirely on the willingness of states to help facilitate arrests, which can be variable. Meanwhile, Netanyahu is able to travel freely to countries that have not ratified the statute, including the US.
Individual state action remains the most immediate enforcement mechanism through diplomatic pressure, economic sanctions, arms embargoes, and domestic prosecution under universal jurisdiction.
What does customary international law say about civilian starvation?
Rule 53 of the International Committee of the Red Cross’s Customary International Humanitarian Rules explicitly bans starvation as a method of warfare. It proscribes not only intentional starvation, but also sieges, blockades, and embargoes that cause starvation. Rule 54 bans “attacks against objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population,” including food and drinking water. Rules 55 and 56 impose the requirements of granting access to humanitarian relief and aid workers.
What does this all mean in practice?
The question posed at the outset—what can and should the international community do—has a clear answer: the extensive framework of international humanitarian law, human rights treaties, and genocide prevention mechanisms outlined above exists for precisely this moment—to prevent the deliberate starvation of civilian populations and protect vulnerable communities from mass atrocities. Yet as famine engulfs Gaza and legal obligations go unheeded, the international community faces a defining test of whether these carefully constructed legal architectures represent genuine commitments to human dignity or merely aspirational documents. The choice before world leaders is stark: honor the binding legal obligations that form the foundation of the post-World War II international order, or allow geopolitical calculations and diplomatic convenience to override the fundamental principle that civilian lives must be protected regardless of nationality, religion, or political affiliation. The legal pathways exist, the moral imperative is clear, and the human cost of inaction grows more catastrophic each day—what remains is the political will to act on the solemn promises enshrined in international law.
