If parties to a conflict had more respect for them while planning and carrying out their military operations, the impacts of armed conflict on food insecurity in the world could be better mitigated. There are many more rules on the conduct of hostilities that apply. On top of that, the presence of explosive remnants of war render fields inaccessible for planting or harvesting, wreaking havoc in agriculture and trade long after hostilities have ceased. Suffering is exacerbated when warring parties employ pillage, sieges or blockades, or delay or block humanitarian assistance. All of this leads to enormous suffering, ranging from acute malnutrition among at-risk groups to famine in a whole population. Putting aside the legal element here, we know it's been common practice since the origin of warfare to poison wells, burn crops or deprive civilians of sustenance in other ways beyond these tactics, conflicts also drive food insecurity more indirectly – for example, by making trade and travel routes unsafe, forcing displacement of people and livestock, or causing damage to critical infrastructure, among other impacts. The 2023 Global Report on Food Crises suggests that conflicts pushed over 117 million people into acute food insecurity, followed only by economic shocks (84 million) and weather extremes (over 56 million).

While there are many interconnected drivers of food insecurity, armed conflicts are the main driver.

How do armed conflicts disrupt the civilian population's access to food and water? ICRC legal expert Abby Zeith explains what international humanitarian law (IHL) has to say on the subject.

Journal of armed conflict law