In Yarmouk, starvation was arguably not a byproduct of war, but part of the strategy of war itself. Emerging from the broader Syrian civil war following the 2011 uprising, Yarmouk—a densely populated Palestinian refugee district on the outskirts of Damascus—became increasingly entangled in a shifting constellation of armed actors, including Syrian government forces backing former president Bashar al-Assad, government-allied groups such as Hezbollah, Palestinian factions aligned both with and against the State, and various opposition forces including the Free Syrian Army. What began as intermittent clashes quickly escalated into a strategic encirclement by government forces and their allies trapping not only opposition forces but also residents inside of Yarmouk. By July 2013, pro-government forces had effectively besieged the area, preventing food, medical supplies, and other essential goods from entering. In February 2014, at least two-thirds of the civilian population reportedly died of starvation. Yarmouk residents described eating stray animals just to survive, while snipers positioned around the district targeted civilians attempting to forage for food. Medical infrastructure also collapsed after medical workers were arrested, and in some cases reportedly detained and tortured to death, leaving hospitals severely understaffed and some entirely non-operational. In 2015, extremist groups took over significant swathes of the camp, with civilian residents still trapped inside. The siege persisted for years until May 2018, when Yarmouk was effectively depopulated following a final offensive and the surrender of opposition groups.
Against the backdrop of these harrowing events, Germany has undertaken notable steps to secure accountability for a range of violations in Syria. One aspect of German policy that has contributed to this was the expansive asylum framework under Chancellor Angela Merkel, receiving over one million Syrian refugees under the slogan “Wir schaffen das” (“We can do this”). This policy reflected Germany’s constitutional human rights commitments, broader European migration dynamics, and domestic political and economic considerations. It is also the means by which many witnesses and survivors have been able to find safety and justice, and has contributed significantly to the availability of witnesses in upcoming domestic German cases concerning the Syrian civil war.
Under the German Code of Crimes Against International Law (Völkerstrafgesetzbuch – VStGB), German courts may exercise universal jurisdiction over genocide (§ 6), crimes against humanity (§ 7), and war crimes (§§ 8–12), regardless of where the conduct occurred or any nexus to Germany. Within this framework, Yarmouk has become central to assessing whether the deliberate deprivation of essential resources during siege warfare can constitute a prosecutable war crime, including in cases involving non-State actors. A trial currently underway in Germany concerning crimes committed during the siege of Yarmouk examines allegations of starvation, homicide, torture, the deprivation of liberty, and the use of prohibited methods of warfare by members of armed groups operating within the camp. The case is significant because it tests the extent to which courts are willing to apply universal jurisdiction to patterns of siege warfare and civilian deprivation, while also contributing to the broader development of accountability mechanisms for atrocities committed during the Syrian conflict.
International Legal Standards for Starvation
International humanitarian law (IHL) expressly prohibits starvation of civilians as a method of warfare. Article 54(1) of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions prohibits the use of starvation against civilians in international armed conflicts. Additional Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions extends certain protections to non-international armed conflicts, although its applicability depends on State ratification; Syria is not a party. Nevertheless, the absence of treaty ratification does not preclude criminal liability. The prohibition of starvation is generally regarded as part of customary international law grounded in consistent State practice and opinio juris, and confirmed as such by the International Committee of the Red Cross in its distillation of the customary rules of IHL. As such, it arguably binds all parties to an armed conflict, regardless of treaty status. Customary international law is therefore essential in translating humanitarian obligations into potential individual criminal responsibility. Nevertheless, aspects of the prohibition remain contested in scholarship and State practice, particularly regarding the legality of siege warfare when directed at legitimate military objectives and conducted in compliance with the principles of proportionality and distinction. In this context, siege warfare is not per se unlawful under IHL, and civilian hardship or deprivation resulting incidentally from a lawful siege does not automatically constitute prohibited starvation. Rather, the prohibition is engaged where deprivation of essential goods is employed intentionally as a method of warfare, including by denying or restricting access to food and humanitarian relief with the purpose of starving the civilian population.
At the international level, the International Criminal Court (ICC) could, in principle, prosecute starvation as a war crime. The Rome Statute criminalizes starvation in international armed conflicts under Article 8(2)(b)(xxv), and its 2019 amendment extended liability to non-international armed conflicts under Article 8(2)(e). Although the ICC Prosecutor possesses proprio motu authority under Article 15 of the Rome Statute to initiate investigations independently, the Court may only exercise such powers where jurisdictional requirements are satisfied. Because Syria is not a State Party to the Rome Statute, the ICC lacks territorial or personal jurisdiction absent a United Nations Security Council referral or Syria’s acceptance of jurisdiction—neither of which has occurred. This jurisdictional gap has left domestic courts, including those in Germany, to pursue accountability through universal jurisdiction, applying the VStGB where conduct also constitutes a war crime or crime against humanity under customary international law.
Trial of Jihad A., Mahmoud A., Mazhar J., Sameer S., and Wael S.
The proceedings before the Higher Regional Court of Koblenz build upon a broader trajectory of universal jurisdiction prosecutions arising from the Syrian conflict, including earlier proceedings in Germany such as the Koblenz “Al-Khatib” torture trial, as well as investigations and prosecutions undertaken in other European jurisdictions, including France, concerning torture, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Against this background, the present case regarding Yarmouk reflects both continuity and doctrinal development within Syria-related universal jurisdiction practice. Unlike earlier proceedings, which primarily centered on detention-related abuses and torture, this trial places the prohibition of starvation of civilians as a method of warfare at its core, thereby engaging more directly with questions of siege warfare, deprivation tactics, and the legal thresholds for attributing responsibility for starvation in armed conflict.
In 2014, the German Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office opened structural investigations into international crimes committed in Syria. These investigations ultimately led to an indictment on June 24, 2025 against Jihad A., Mahmoud A., Mazhar J., Sameer S., and Wael S, who are members of a pro-government militia that was involved in the siege on Yarmouk as well as one alleged Syrian government intelligence official. The defendants are charged with multiple counts of murder and attempted murder of civilians, crimes against humanity, and war crimes including torture. Several of the defendants also face charges relating to deprivation of liberty, while Mahmoud A. is additionally charged with war crimes involving prohibited methods of warfare. In July 2025, the Federal Prosecutor expanded the indictment to include starvation of civilians as a method of warfare. The trial, which began on Nov. 19, 2025 before the Higher Regional Court of Koblenz, has included extensive witness testimony describing attacks on civilians, including shootings of protestors and ambulances, bombardments of civilian areas, and armed patrols targeting hospitals and civilian infrastructure. Witnesses have also described the detention of medical workers and assaults on civilians, including shopkeepers punished for protest-related activity. As the trial continues, testimony regarding starvation is expected to take center stage.
Proving Starvation as Customary International Law
Among the charges at issue in this case, starvation as a method of warfare presents one of the most complex evidentiary burdens. Unlike individual cases of murder or torture, which can often be proven through direct testimony of discrete acts, genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes such as starvation require a broader evidentiary matrix combining testimonial, documentary, expert, and contextual evidence. Under German criminal procedure, guilt must be established to the standard of judicial conviction (freie richterliche Beweiswürdigung), requiring the court to be fully convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, prosecutors must establish not only that civilians in Yarmouk were deprived of food, water, medicine, and humanitarian relief, but that such deprivation was the result of a deliberate strategy attributable to the defendants, rather than incidental consequences of urban warfare, fragmentation of control, or general wartime collapse. This makes it very difficult to prosecute; in fact, very few national courts have deliberated on matters involving starvation. The one notable departure is Croatia, which tried and convicted in absentia Momčilo Perišić, a colonel in the Yugoslav National Army with starvation of civilians under the Croatian Penal Code. However, on appeal, he was acquitted of all charges on the basis that his military decisions were to support legitimate war efforts rather than facilitate war crimes.
The Koblenz proceedings also engage, indirectly, the practical development of customary international law on starvation as a method of warfare. While the prohibition is well established in treaty law, its status as customary law is reinforced through its consistent application in domestic prosecutions, including under universal jurisdiction frameworks such as Germany’s VStGB. Germany does not require a formal judicial declaration of custom. Instead, it operationalizes the norm through prosecution. By treating starvation as a prosecutable war crime, German authorities indicate their express belief that they are proceeding on the basis that the prohibition is sufficiently established in customary international law to support individual criminal liability. This contributes, helpfully, to further establishing opinio juris.
Setting Precedent for the Future
Prior Koblenz proceedings for Syrian cases invoking universal jurisdiction, such as the Al-Khatib trial have taken years to reach a final judgment. The Yarmouk-focused trial is expected to continue through extensive evidentiary hearings, witness testimony, and expert evidence surrounding the intent, conduct, and harm of the siege itself, as well as whether the starvation of civilians was an unfortunate byproduct of this type of warfare or a purposeful method of warfare. If the Koblenz court develops a clear framework for evidentiary standards, intent, and attribution of starvation crimes, its judgment may influence future prosecutions in both domestic and international settings. Its relevance extends far beyond Syria. Allegations of starvation as a method of warfare have emerged in multiple contemporary conflicts involving both State and non-State actors, including Gaza, and Sudan. A reasoned judgment from a German court could therefore shape how courts evaluate siege tactics, obstruction of humanitarian relief, and deprivation campaigns in future cases. More broadly, the proceedings highlight the expanding role of universal jurisdiction as a mechanism for enforcing IHL where territorial prosecutions are not feasible. In doing so, Koblenz functions not only as a forum for accountability in a single conflict, but as a site where the practical contours of starvation as a war crime are being tested and refined.
