Prosecuting the Starvation War Crime in Germany: The Yarmouk Case

On 6 June 2024, the Investigative Judge at the Federal Court of Justice issued arrest warrants for five individuals apprehended in Germany. The suspects, taken into custody a month later, allegedly committed war crimes and crimes against humanity in connection with the protracted siege and suppression of civilians in the Yarmouk district of Damascus, Syria. The suspects are alleged members of the “Free Palestine Movement,” a pro-government militia that controlled parts of Damascus in close cooperation with the Syrian regime. Between mid-2011 and April 2015, the Yarmouk district, originally a Palestinian refugee camp, became one of the most symbolically charged and heavily besieged areas of the Syrian conflict.

The arrest warrants, issued under universal jurisdiction as provided for by the Code of Crimes Against International Law (Völkerstrafgesetzbuch (VStGB)), initially included charges of murder, torture, unlawful deprivation of liberty, and other violations amounting to crimes against humanity and war crimes. Notably absent, however, was a charge under section 11(1)(5) VStGB: the war crime of using civilian starvation as a method of warfare. The omission attracted this author’s attention, seeing as the press release from last year strongly indicated that some of the suspects allegedly enforced and maintained a blockade of humanitarian supplies to the population of Yarmouk, resulting in widespread deprivation and civilian deaths.

According to a press release of 16 July 2025, the Federal Public Prosecutor has now filed an indictment that includes the starvation charge. One of the five accused will now face trial for having used a prohibited method of warfare, specifically the intentional starvation of civilians in violation of section 11(1)(5) VStGB. The indictment indicates that the suspect engaged in the systematic isolation of the civilians living in the Yarmouk district, thereby intentionally depriving them of essential supplies such as food, water, and medical care. It is the only case in the world to investigate the deliberate starvation of Syrian civilians, making it a landmark trial. And yet, the prosecutorial challenges ahead should not be underestimated.

Prosecuting Starvation in NIAC as the ICC’s Jurisdictional Achilles Heel

The addition of the starvation charge marks a significant development in the prosecution of war crimes. It highlights the importance of investigating starvation as a method of warfare not just at the international but also at the domestic level. The relevant German statutory provision, section 11(1)(5) VStGB, resembles Article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), in that it criminalizes the intentional use of starvation against civilians by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival. But the States Parties only amended the Rome Statute to apply this war crime to non-international armed conflicts (NIAC) (Article 8(2)(e)(xix)) in 2019, and to date only 21 States Parties to the ICC have ratified this amendment. Germany ratified it in 2021.

Germany is one of the States to align its domestic international armed conflict (IAC) and NIAC war crimes regimes beyond the Rome Statute. Even before the VStGB’s inception, Germany argued there was significant evidence to support a customary harmonization of the law governing serious wrongs committed in IAC as well as NIAC (see here, p. 23). The German war crimes regime has therefore always provided a basis to prosecute civilian starvation in NIAC where the ICC’s hands would have been tied by jurisdictional obstacles. Though the provision lay dormant for over two decades, it now gives the German Federal Public Prosecutor the opportunity to join the momentum created by proceedings before the ICC, which is currently prosecuting its own first case of starvation in Gaza. Coincidentally, the German case may also support recognition of civilian starvation as a serious breach of international humanitarian law (IHL).

Still, the German prosecution faces an uphill battle. The factual and legal challenges associated with starvation charges are steep. The problem is the complex legal nature of siege operations, in which starvation practices usually unfold. Siege warfare is not per se unlawful under IHL, possibly even when it affects civilians (see here). Depending on the siege strategy pursued and whether it is primarily directed at a legitimate military objective, an operation that complies with the principles of distinction, proportionality, and precaution, may be lawful.

And while IHL prohibits the use of starvation as a method of warfare against civilians, there is no consensus on the contours of that prohibition (for in-depth discussion, see here, here and here). Additionally, Syria has not ratified the provision applicable in NIAC (art. 14 of Additional Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions) that explicitly prohibits the starvation of civilians as a means of combat. To convict the perpetrator on the grounds of starvation, the German Federal Public Prosecutor must prove that the prohibition is part of customary IHL, a proposition which, despite Rule 53 of the International Committee of the Red Cross’s 2005 Customary IHL Study indicating as much, is uncertain.

Starving the Syrian Population—An Unpunished Wrong

On the other hand, however, the conduct alleged in the Yarmouk case appears to fall squarely within the scope of the prohibition of starving civilians as a method of warfare. The siege imposed by Syrian forces and affiliated militias, including the accused, was characterized by the systematic and prolonged denial of essential goods to a civilian population that was effectively trapped. Humanitarian actors repeatedly raised alarms about the resulting malnutrition, medical emergencies, and starvation-related deaths. Even the divided United Nations Security Council (UNSC) unanimously called upon all actors in the Syrian armed conflict to “lift the sieges of populated areas, including in […] Yarmouk (Damascus)” (see UNSC Res 2139 [2014]). And yet, Syrian forces and the militias repeatedly obstructed access to humanitarian aid; even when they allowed limited deliveries, they  often controlled and distributed the deliveries selectively, allegedly to coerce or punish segments of the population (for readers interested in an extensive report, see here).

From the perspective of individual criminal responsibility according to German law, inclusion of the starvation charge requires the prosecution to establish both the objective elements of the offence regarding the deprivation of indispensable objects, and the mens rea element of intent. Here, the accused need not have physically enforced every act of deprivation. Rather, it is sufficient if they exercised control over the conditions that led to starvation and did so with the knowledge and purpose of inflicting it (though the question of intent may prove particularly thorny). In this case, the prosecution will likely contend the accused coordinated with Syrian security services and actively participated in the enforcement of a siege designed to cause civilian suffering through deprivation. Such conduct, if proven, could meet the threshold for criminal responsibility.

The Yarmouk indictment thus presents a timely opportunity to develop domestic jurisprudence on the starvation of civilians as a war crime. To date, few domestic or international tribunals have addressed starvation conduct. Though the trial judgment in the Galič case touched upon starvation as one of the severe consequences of the conduct for which the accused was indicted, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia filed no charges of starvation specifically. The ICC has yet to hand down a conviction for starvation, although recent proceedings, specifically the arrest warrants issued on November 21, 2024, in relation to the Gaza conflict, have drawn significant attention to this war crime.

The German case could contribute valuable interpretive guidance on several of the contested issues, ranging from the definition of “objects indispensable to survival,” the evidentiary standards for proving intent, the role of indirect methods of deprivation (such as the obstruction of aid), and the threshold at which a lawful siege becomes an unlawful method of warfare.

All Eyes on the Yarmouk Case

In addition to its legal significance, the prosecution also carries symbolic and normative weight. Starvation, though historically widespread in armed conflict, has been under-prosecuted. Its slow-onset character, the difficulty of documenting causal chains, and the frequent use of bureaucratic or indirect means of enforcement all contribute to its invisibility in accountability frameworks. Yet starvation remains among the most devastating forms of violence in war, as it inflicts suffering on civilians desperate for help.

German cases based on universal jurisdiction demonstrate how domestic legal systems can play a pivotal role in operationalizing international legal norms. Through the VStGB, German authorities have created significant precedent in multiple international criminal cases, particularly when it comes to the armed conflict in Syria. In this case, they may also prove their capability to address even complex, large-scale violations of IHL. The decision to expand the indictment in the Yarmouk case underscores Germany’s willingness to engage with emerging issues of international criminal law, uphold universal jurisdiction, and advance the prosecution of international crimes.

As the case progresses, further questions may arise concerning evidentiary requirements, procedural safeguards, and the interplay between national and international legal doctrines. However, the inclusion of the starvation charge aligns Germany with broader efforts to ensure that all methods of warfare, including those that deprive slowly rather than destroy quickly, are subject to legal scrutiny. In doing so, it may reconcile one of the most sensitive desiderata in international criminal caselaw: the Syrian population’s plight through deliberate deprivation, which has yet to be brought to trial.

***

Rosa-Lena Lauterbach is a PhD Candidate at the University of Cologne and a former Visiting Researcher at the Lieber Institute and Columbia Law School and a thematic editor for Articles of War.

The views expressed are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the United States Military Academy, Department of the Army, or Department of Defense. 

Articles of War is a forum for professionals to share opinions and cultivate ideas. Articles of War does not screen articles to fit a particular editorial agenda, nor endorse or advocate material that is published.