Anay Mehrotra examines how the famine in Gaza, resulting from Israel’s blockade and aid obstruction, may amount to a war crime under international law and argues for reparations as a step toward justice and structural redress
In December 2023, the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (“IPC”) assessment found that 93 per cent of Gaza’s population was in a state of crisis, emergency, or catastrophe. By March 2024, the number in “catastrophe” nearly doubled, and famine was projected as imminent without immediate cessation of hostilities and access to aid. The Famine Early Warning Systems Network (FEWS NET) similarly reported that famine likely began in northern Gaza in April 2024 and will persist without significant intervention. These dire conditions stem from the “complete siege” imposed on Gaza after the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel, with aid delivery disrupted and over 1.1 million Palestinians facing catastrophic living conditions.
The conflict-induced famine in Gaza may constitute a war crime under International Law, specifically given its potential violations of the Geneva Conventions and the Rome Statute. Israeli forces have reportedly obstructed the delivery of food, water and fuel, destroyed agricultural land, and impeded humanitarian aid—actions that deprive civilians of essential means of survival.
David Marcus, one of the first scholars to conceptualise famine as a crime under International Law, categorises famine crimes into two degrees: first-degree (when individuals knowingly create conditions leading to starvation) and second-degree (when individuals recklessly continue to pursue policies after learning they lead to starvation). Depending on intent, these actions may constitute war crimes or crimes against humanity. International law prohibits such acts in war under the Geneva Conventions and the Rome Statute, and they are condemned in UN Security Council Resolution 2417.
Given these legal frameworks, the deliberate or reckless deprivation of food and humanitarian aid in Gaza may not only violate international norms but also rise to the level of prosecutable war crimes. While the immediate priority is to end the violence and alleviate suffering, a longer-term response must include legal accountability and reparations to uphold humanitarian law, deliver justice to victims, and deter future violations.
The need for reparations in Gaza has become increasingly urgent due to the unprecedented destruction caused by the conflict. The Israeli blockade and military actions have decimated Gaza’s food supply and infrastructure. Agricultural devastation has led to the damage or destruction of 75 per cent of fields once used to grow crops. Over two-thirds of agricultural wells are no longer functional, crippling irrigation. Livestock losses exceed 70 per cent and over 40 per cent of croplands have been damaged, with some areas permanently affected by seawater flooding. The healthcare system, vital for mitigating diseases such as diarrhoea and cholera, is operating at only 16 of 36 hospitals, with their collective capacity merely above 1,800 beds.
Even before the recent escalation on October 23, food insecurity in Gaza was severe but not catastrophic. By early 2024, as per the IPC the entire Gaza Strip had reached Phase 4 of the hunger scale, with some households already at Phase 5 of acute food insecurity—55 per cent in the north, 25 per cent in central Gaza, and 25 per cent in the south. This marks a significant shift from pre-conflict conditions.
The International Court of Justice established reparations as a legal obligation in the 1928 judgement in the Factory at Chorzów case. This case established modern reparations principles under International Law, emphasising the need to fully address harm through both prosecuting offenders and compensating victims to uphold justice and accountability. This framework is crucial for Gaza as prosecutions of offenders offer significant symbolic justice to victims by transforming their suffering into a recognised crime, sending a message that such actions will not go unpunished and compelling the Israeli government to reassess its policies and acknowledge its role.
Under International Law, during an ongoing conflict, states may be obligated to provide compensation for wrongful acts, particularly when such compensation is specifically requested by the injured party. This principle is rooted in customary international law and outlined in the 1907 Hague Convention and Additional Protocol I. It also appears in ARSIWA, which stresses that compensation should be provided when restoring the original situation is not possible. This responsibility has been reinforced by numerous United Nations resolutions. ARSIWA also permits individuals to seek reparations through either unilateral state acts or national courts.
In Gaza, however, seeking reparations through national courts or direct negotiations is largely unfeasible. Israel has consistently rejected legal responsibility for the humanitarian crisis, and affected individuals lack effective legal avenues to claim compensation due to restrictions on access to international courts and Israel’s broad assertion of sovereign immunity. Given these barriers, the obligation to provide compensation must be upheld through international mechanisms, such as UN-led restitution programs, international tribunals, or third-party state intervention. In the absence of voluntary compliance, enforcement through sanctions or diplomatic measures may be necessary to ensure accountability and redress for the victims of the famine in Gaza.
Reparations by Israel would serve a dual purpose: first, to provide a legal and moral acknowledgement of the harm inflicted, in line with IL; and second, to address the long-term consequences of the conflict. Compensation could help rebuild Gaza’s agricultural sector, healthcare system, and critical infrastructure.
The famine in Gaza, and the international community’s response to it, highlights the urgent need to bridge the gap between established legal norms and their enforcement. Holding Israel accountable under International Law for its role in this humanitarian catastrophe is not only a legal obligation but also a moral imperative. Reparations must go beyond a mere acknowledgement of harm—they must aim for systemic transformation to prevent future atrocities.
To move from condemnation to accountability, specific actions are necessary. International legal mechanisms, such as the ICC, should prioritise investigations into the deliberate denial of humanitarian aid as a potential war crime. Governments must exert diplomatic pressure to lift the siege and ensure unfettered access for aid organisations. Advocacy groups and civil society must amplify the voices of affected populations, lobbying for policy changes that address the use of famine as a weapon of war.
As we witness the consequences of inaction, we must ask: How can the world move from condemnation to accountability? Can legal systems rise to protect the vulnerable? The path forward demands collective effort — advocating for justice, amplifying voices, and making accountability real. The time to act is now.
All articles posted on this blog give the views of the author(s), and not the position of the Department of Sociology, LSE Human Rights, nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Image credit: Alun McDonald/Oxfam
The post Famine as a war crime in Gaza: Israel’s legal liability, reparations, and structural justice under International Law first appeared on LSE Human Rights.
This post was originally published on LSE Human Rights.