Sudan's Aid Crisis Is Also a Crisis of Accountability

Sudan's escalating humanitarian crisis is profoundly exacerbated by the deliberate obstruction of aid, a practice that constitutes grave violations of international humanitarian law (IHL) and may amount to war crimes or crimes against humanity. Both the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) have been implicated in blocking access, looting supplies, and targeting humanitarian personnel, leading to widespread starvation and displacement. This article examines the legal framework governing humanitarian access in armed conflict, particularly the prohibition against starvation as a method of warfare, and highlights the critical accountability deficit. Despite the International Criminal Court's (ICC) jurisdiction over Darfur and numerous UN Security Council resolutions, effective enforcement and perpetrator accountability remain elusive, necessitating urgent and concerted international legal and diplomatic action.

The protracted conflict in Sudan has plunged the nation into a catastrophic humanitarian crisis, with millions facing acute food insecurity and displacement. While the sheer scale of human suffering is undeniable, a critical, yet often overlooked, dimension of this crisis is the systemic obstruction of humanitarian aid. This deliberate impediment to life-saving assistance by warring parties not only deepens the humanitarian catastrophe but also raises profound questions of international legal accountability.

The obstruction of aid, including the blocking of routes, bureaucratic hurdles, and direct attacks on relief efforts, is not merely a logistical challenge; it represents a direct violation of established international humanitarian law. The failure to hold perpetrators accountable for these actions perpetuates a cycle of impunity, undermining the very principles designed to protect civilians in armed conflict. This article argues that the ongoing aid crisis in Sudan is fundamentally a crisis of accountability, demanding a robust re-evaluation of international legal enforcement mechanisms and a renewed commitment to justice for those most affected.

The thesis of this article is that the deliberate obstruction of humanitarian aid in Sudan by both the SAF and RSF constitutes serious international crimes, including war crimes and potentially crimes against humanity, under the framework of International Humanitarian Law and the Rome Statute. The current international response, while acknowledging the violations, has largely failed to establish effective accountability, thereby necessitating a stronger, more coordinated approach to enforce existing legal norms and ensure justice.

The legal framework governing humanitarian assistance in armed conflict is primarily rooted in International Humanitarian Law (IHL), codified in the 1949 Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols. These instruments establish fundamental principles, including humanity, impartiality, and the right of civilians to receive assistance. Specifically, parties to an armed conflict bear the primary responsibility for meeting the needs of the population under their control. Should they be unable or unwilling to do so, they are obligated to consent to and facilitate impartial humanitarian relief operations.

Key provisions include Article 23 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which obliges parties to allow free passage of goods for civilians, and Article 70 of Additional Protocol I, which mandates allowing and facilitating rapid and unimpeded passage of relief consignments. Crucially, the deliberate use of starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is explicitly prohibited under Article 54 of Additional Protocol I and Article 14 of Additional Protocol II, applicable to non-international armed conflicts. This prohibition is further enshrined in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which classifies intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare, including wilfully impeding relief supplies, as a war crime.

In the context of Sudan, the International Criminal Court's jurisdiction over the situation in Darfur was established by a UN Security Council referral in 2005, through Resolution 1593. This referral grants the ICC jurisdiction over alleged genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity committed in Darfur since July 1, 2002, despite Sudan not being a State Party to the Rome Statute. This historical context of international legal intervention in Sudan underscores a long-standing recognition of grave violations and the need for accountability.

The current conflict in Sudan, primarily between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), has seen widespread and systematic obstruction of humanitarian aid, directly contravening the aforementioned IHL principles. Reports indicate that both parties have engaged in tactics such as denying access, imposing bureaucratic impediments, looting aid warehouses, seizing relief trucks, and harassing, detaining, and even killing humanitarian workers. These actions have led to a dire food crisis, with millions facing severe hunger and famine conditions in several regions.

The deliberate nature of these obstructions, coupled with the resulting severe deprivation, strongly suggests that starvation is being used as a method of warfare. International legal precedent and the Rome Statute clearly define such acts as war crimes. Article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the Rome Statute explicitly criminalizes "intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies." While originally applicable to international armed conflicts, a 2019 amendment to the Rome Statute extended this prohibition to non-international armed conflicts, directly relevant to the situation in Sudan.

Despite the clear legal prohibitions, a significant gap exists between the articulation of these norms and their effective enforcement. The ICC's jurisdiction in Sudan, stemming from the 2005 UN Security Council referral, has been interpreted broadly to cover crimes committed after April 2023 in Darfur and other regions, provided a "sufficient link" exists to the original referred situation. This offers a pathway for prosecuting recent atrocities, including aid obstruction and starvation. However, challenges persist, including the non-cooperation of Sudanese authorities in surrendering suspects and the practical difficulties of evidence collection in an active conflict zone.

Furthermore, while the SAF and RSF signed the Jeddah Declaration in May 2023, committing to protect civilians and facilitate humanitarian assistance, violations have continued unabated, demonstrating a blatant disregard for their own commitments and international law. The international community, including the UN Security Council, has repeatedly condemned these actions and called for unimpeded access and accountability, notably through Resolution 2736 (2024) which demanded an immediate halt to fighting in El Fasher and humanitarian access. However, these condemnations have yet to translate into concrete, effective accountability measures sufficient to deter the warring parties.

The ongoing aid crisis in Sudan is a stark illustration of the devastating consequences when international legal obligations are flouted with impunity. The deliberate obstruction of humanitarian assistance by both the SAF and RSF constitutes grave violations of IHL, amounting to war crimes and potentially crimes against humanity, particularly through the use of starvation as a method of warfare. The current international response, while acknowledging these atrocities, has fallen short in creating a credible deterrent and ensuring accountability.

For legal practitioners, the Sudan crisis underscores the urgent need for meticulous documentation of violations, robust advocacy for international investigations, and innovative strategies to leverage existing legal frameworks, such as the ICC's Darfur referral. It highlights the imperative for states with influence to move beyond condemnations to impose targeted sanctions on individuals and entities responsible for aid obstruction and to actively support mechanisms for evidence gathering and prosecution. The international community must define clear "red lines" and be willing to escalate responses when these are crossed, publicly and collectively, to ensure that the legal protections afforded to civilians and humanitarian aid are not merely aspirational but are rigorously enforced. The future of millions in Sudan depends on a renewed commitment to accountability and justice.