Famine as a Weapon: The Climate–Conflict–Food Nexus in War Zones

It is almost unbearable to write the sentence plainly: food; the most elemental human need; is being used deliberately as a tool of war. In fields and markets, in hospitals and schools, in refugee camps and ruined city blocks, entire populations are being starved not merely by drought or market failure but by strategy. In this day and time, with satellites watching harvests from space and humanitarian logistics mapped down to the last pallet, how can we allow hunger to be turned into an instrument of control? What would it take for the global community; governments, international organisations, courts and even consumers; to put an end to such practices? And if the architects of these tactics are ever exposed, will they face justice?

These are not rhetorical flourishes. The answers or the absence of them shape life and death for millions in Sudan, Gaza, Yemen and other conflict-affected regions. The convergence of climate instability, failing governance and deliberate military tactics has created a new, more lethal overlay: an era in which climate shocks amplify vulnerabilities that belligerents then exploit, weaponizing scarcity and turning hunger into a means of domination.

The new arithmetic of hunger

Famine used to be perceived in a narrow way: a collapse of crops due to drought, pests or policy failure. Today’s famines are more complex, and they come with signatures of intent. Recent reporting and UN findings make the pattern clear: famine is rising again after decades of decline. Forces of fragmentation and conflict are not only breaking distribution systems; in many documented instances, parties to conflicts are actively obstructing aid, blockading supplies, redirecting food deliveries or looting grain stores; actions that amount to the use of starvation as a weapon of war. The Financial Times and other outlets have catalogued this resurgence and the troubling fact that famine deaths, virtually eliminated in the early 21st century, are rising once more. Financial Times

Climate change is magnifying these vulnerabilities. The IPCC and other scientific bodies have long warned that climate impacts; rising temperatures, more intense droughts and floods, shifting rainfall patterns are undermining food systems worldwide, particularly for rain-fed smallholder farmers. In fragile states where institutions are weak, these climatic shocks quickly translate into hunger. But the more pernicious trend is when armed actors use that vulnerability as leverage: blocking humanitarian corridors to punish populations, destroying irrigation and seed banks to deny future harvests, or laying siege to cities, cutting off water and power that sustain food storage and distribution. In short, climate change increases exposure; conflict converts that exposure into a weapon. IPCC

Sudan: siege, displacement and the deliberate denial of food

Sudan offers one of the most tragic case studies of this deadly marriage of conflict and hunger. Since the outbreak of intensified conflict in 2023 between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), millions have been displaced, supply chains have collapsed, and humanitarian access has become sporadic or impossible in many regions. UN agencies and human rights experts have repeatedly documented tactics that amount to the use of starvation as a weapon: roadblocks that prevent food convoys, seizures of humanitarian supplies, the cutting of water and fuel supplies that make food storage and cooking impossible, and the strategic occupation or burning of agricultural areas. The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and other UN bodies have urged that using starvation as a weapon in Sudan must stop. OCHAOHCHR

But why does starvation become a tactic? In a fragmented country, controlling breadbaskets, managing displacement, and denying access to cities can topple rivals by breaking popular support. Blockading towns, turning markets into deserts and hoarding or looting grain are blunt instruments of coercion. The immediate human toll is obvious-malnutrition, disease, children dying of preventable causes; but the social consequences are longer-lived: loss of livelihoods, the erosion of community solidarity, and a generation of children with permanent developmental damage.

Gaza: sieges, access denial and humanitarian catastrophe

Gaza provides perhaps the clearest contemporary example of how conflict tactics can precipitate famine-like conditions. Since October 2023 and the subsequent military operations, reports from UN agencies, humanitarian groups, and independent observers have described systematic obstruction to the flow of food, water and medicine. Reports and analyses; culminating in determinations by UN-connected authorities and famine monitoring bodies have warned that parts of Gaza are experiencing catastrophic levels of food insecurity and that famine is unfolding for hundreds of thousands of civilians. Measures such as prolonged siege, restricted crossings, destruction of agricultural land, and the targeting of aid convoys have exacerbated conditions to the point where death from starvation is a real and immediate risk. UN human rights observers describe repeated incidents where people seeking aid have been shot at or otherwise prevented from accessing food. United Nations

When the mechanisms of supply are politicised; when aid is allowed or denied as a function of territorial gains or punitive pressure, humanitarian agencies are placed in an impossible position. They must negotiate with multiple parties, often with little leverage, while their capacity to reach the most vulnerable is eroded. Even where corridors are agreed, the haphazard or conditional opening of routes means food may arrive too late, in the wrong amounts, or in places where it cannot be safely distributed.

Weaponization: tactics and legal frameworks

What does it mean, legally and morally, to weaponize food? Under international humanitarian law, deliberately starving civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited. Geneva Conventions and customary law bar acts that would “starve” civilians or deny them objects indispensable to survival. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court recognizes; in extremis, the use of starvation as a war crime. Yet enforcement is complicated. Determining intent in chaotic wars is difficult; proving that obstruction was deliberate rather than negligence or collateral damage requires forensic evidence and access- exactly the things that belligerents most often deny investigators. 

Moreover, modern conflicts blur the boundaries. Non-state actors, militias, paramilitaries, and fragmented chains of command make accountability messy. States may claim security imperatives; rebel groups may hide amid civilian populations; humanitarian actors may be accused of partiality. These factors complicate the application of legal norms and the pursuit of justice.

Climate as multiplier: drought, floods, markets and migration

In the background to deliberate tactics is the quiet, planetary pressure of climate change. Drought shrinks harvests; flooding wipes out seed stocks; heatwaves reduce yields and kill livestock. Food prices skyrocket. Those effects are felt acutely in countries with marginal agricultural systems and limited capacity for irrigation or cold storage. According to recent reports and synthesis studies, climate extremes are already contributing to food insecurity and intensifying the conditions under which conflict can erupt or deepen. As livelihoods fail, people move internally and across borders; putting stress on host communities and creating competition for scarce resources. The result is a feedback loop: climate shocks heighten food insecurity; insecurity raises the stakes of conflict; conflict begets more food insecurity. commonspace.eu

Humanitarian constraints: logistics, funding and politics

Humanitarian response is rarely merely a matter of trucks and warehouses. It is political theatre played out on dangerous roads. In addition to being blocked physically, aid flows are often strangled financially. Global funding shortfalls make it impossible for UN agencies and NGOs to scale response to match need; donors prioritise other crises or halt funding for political reasons. Meanwhile, data gaps and suspensions in monitoring systems limit early warning. For example, the suspension of key famine early warning networks has left some crises under-detected, delaying critical response. The results are predictable: fragmented aid, logistical bottlenecks, and people dying because the system meant to protect them is underfunded, politicised, and obstructed. Financial Times

The moral question: in this day and time, how can we allow this?

This question must be central. We have the tools to prevent large-scale famine: satellite monitoring of crops, global logistics chains, airlift capacity, and dozens of experienced humanitarian organisations. We have laws that prohibit starving civilians. We have international courts and mechanisms for sanctions and accountability. Yet warlords and states still weaponise food. Is it the case that our political will is the missing ingredient? Or is the problem deeper; structural inequalities, geopolitical rivalries and a collective exhaustion that makes meaningful intervention politically costly?

Change requires confronting inconvenient truths. When major powers see strategic value in permitting siege tactics, or when arms sales are prioritised over sanctions, the moral calculus skews toward impunity. When donor fatigue and competing crises siphon funding away from prevention and response, humanitarian systems become tragically reactive. And when climate change continues to expand the population at risk, the baseline vulnerability rises so that even a limited blockade can have disproportionate lethal effects.

Who is responsible and who should be held to account?

Responsibility is layered. Direct perpetrators; parties to conflicts who block food, destroy infrastructure or attack humanitarian workers bear immediate moral and legal culpability. But responsibility also extends to external actors who enable or equip belligerents, and to states that obstruct multilateral action for geopolitical reasons.

International law offers pathways to accountability through the International Criminal Court or ad hoc tribunals but these paths are slow and contingent on political will. UN agencies can document crimes and press member states, but they cannot prosecute. Sanctions regimes, arms embargoes, asset freezes and travel bans can be effective tools, but their imposition requires consensus and sustained political courage. Will those responsible ever face consequences? History gives mixed answers; sometimes justice follows (as in some tribunals after the Balkans conflicts), but often economic and political interests shield perpetrators. The current moment calls for more decisive collective action: targeted sanctions against those who systematically deny aid, legal referrals for credible cases of war crimes, and political pressure to enforce maritime and overland access to life-saving supplies. 

Regional stability and the global food system

The use of starvation as a weapon has ripple effects beyond the immediately besieged areas. As people flee famine, regional neighbours confront refugee flows that strain fragile public services and can ignite new tensions. Disrupted agricultural production in major producing regions can inflate global food prices, increasing vulnerability in distant import-dependent countries. The 2024–25 period has already shown how interconnected the global food system is; climate-related crop shocks in one region, combined with conflict in another, cascade through commodity markets and supply chains. This means that weaponising food is not only a local crime; it is an act that destabilises whole regions and tests the resilience of global systems. weatheringrisk.org

Solutions, prevention and the policy menu

What would it take to stop famine-as-a-weapon? There is no simple fix, but a policy menu can be assembled with immediate, medium and long-term components.

Short-term: guarantee humanitarian access. This requires unequivocal diplomatic pressure, monitored corridors, and robust mechanisms to ensure the security of aid workers and convoys. It also means pre-positioning supplies and investing in airlift capacity that bypasses blockades when possible. Funding is essential; emergency appeals must be fully met by donor governments and private philanthropies. NRC

Medium-term: create enforceable deterrents. The international community can combine smart sanctions with legal referrals when credible evidence emerges that starvation is being used deliberately. Arms embargoes, financial sanctions on commanders, and asset freezes can increase the political cost of weaponising food. Donor governments should condition development and reconstruction assistance on demonstrable protection of civilians. Independent monitoring and investigation teams must be granted access and protection. 

Long-term: address the climate-fragility nexus. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is indispensable. But adaptation matters too: invest in resilient food systems, climate-smart agriculture, irrigation, seed banks, early-warning systems and mobile safety nets that keep markets functioning when shocks hit. International finance should prioritise smallholder resilience and social protection in fragile states, not just post-crisis recovery. The IPCC’s synthesis of climate risks makes clear that without mitigation and adaptation, food systems will become ever more brittle, multiplying the risk that climatic shocks will be exploited by belligerents. IPCC

The role of civil society, media and consumers

Accountability is not only the province of states and courts. Civil society organisations, investigative journalists, and consumers wield power. Documented evidence and public pressure have historically moved governments to act; imagery of starving children or blocked convoys galvanises public outrage in ways that economic briefs often do not. Businesses that source commodities from conflicted regions must be held to higher standards; supply chains should be audited for complicity in forced displacement or resource theft. Consumers, too, can push for transparency and corporate responsibility through advocacy and purchasing choices.

A moral test for our age

We can no longer accept the comforting fiction that famine is inevitable or purely climatic. In many modern crises, famine is manufactured, prolonged and weaponised. The moral imperative is to name this for what it is and to act accordingly. The world has used humanitarian intervention, sanctions, tribunals and diplomatic ostracism in the past; the question is whether it will bring the same seriousness to bear when the crime is not simply an atrocity against bodies but a systematic denial of nutrition that kills slowly and noiselessly.

Will those responsible ever face consequences? The cautious answer is: sometimes. International law has teeth, but they are rarely quick. Political will is the real accelerant of justice. Will the global community muster that will when powerful states have geopolitical interests at stake? That is the deeper and terrifying question.

What readers must understand

First: famine in today’s conflicts is rarely a single cause problem. It arises at the intersection of climate stress, economic fragility and deliberate policy or military choices. Second: the tools to prevent it exist, but require coordinated political will, funding and legal pressure. Third: the consequences of inaction are not contained to the besieged area; they reverberate across regions and economies. Finally: accountability is not automatic; it must be demanded and enforced.

Conclusion: time, law and conscience

There are practical, policy and legal pathways to reduce the risk and incidence of famine-as-a-weapon. But they require honest confrontation with the political realities of modern conflict. It is not enough to deploy aid; the international community must prevent the conditions that make that aid impossible. It must pursue accountability where evidence shows deliberate deprivation, and it must invest in resilient food systems so that climate shocks do not become instruments of warfare. Otherwise, we will see more hunger deliberately wrought, more children malnourished, more societies scarred for generations.

In the end, the crisis of hunger in war zones is also a crisis of conscience. When powerful actors can marshal weapons and starving civilians is one of them, what will it take for the global community to say; with deeds, not rhetoric; “never again”? If you read these words and feel outraged, act: pressure your representatives, support reputable humanitarian organisations, demand transparency from companies and ask the hard questions of those who hold power. The lives at stake are not statistics; they are children who should not have to die because men in uniform decided that hunger would be their chosen instrument of domination.