A/HRC/42/CRP.1 considered as an international humanitarian law violation, it has to be used as a strategy to defeat the other party to the conflict. Within the scope of military operations, the prohibition of starvation may be violated by siege-like warfare, the arbitrary denial of access of humanitarian aid to civilians in need, as well as by attacking objects indispensable to the survival of the population. 742. The link between the prohibition on starvation and the prohibition of attacks on objects indispensable to the survival is demonstrated by the fact that both prohibitions appear in the same respective provisions of the Additional Protocols.1186 They are also linked to provisions related to humanitarian access because, when there is a lack of indispensable objects, parties must authorize and facilitate international relief actions, 1187 as long as they comply with the requirements set by the law, in order to fulfil their obligations enshrined in Article 14 of Additional Protocol II. Military necessity cannot be invoked to justify the starving of the civilian population. Hence, other violations of international humanitarian law can constitute violations of the prohibition of starvation, in particular attacks against objects indispensable to the survival of the population, as well as denial of humanitarian access. 743. The scope of the requirement for intent to starve the civilian population has been the subject of different interpretations. Some say that starvation has to be the primary purpose of an operation in order to violate international humanitarian law, while others argue that even if the resulting starvation is only incidental, it still violates the spirit of international humanitarian law.1188 744. As regards attacks against objects indispensable to the survival of the population, based on the wording of both relevant provisions in Additional Protocols I and II, 1189 a broader intent to starve a population is not necessary when the operations deprive the population of objects essential to its survival “for the specific purpose of denying them of their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive”.1190 The wording of Article 54 of Additional Protocol I implies that it is sufficient to have an intention to damage, destroy or remove the object in order to deprive civilians of its sustenance value, i.e. its specific contribution to the survival of the population. 745. A similar reasoning applies when humanitarian relief is deliberately impeded, with the result of starving the population. Indeed, parties to the conflict must allow and facilitate rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian relief for civilians in need, provided the relief is impartial and humanitarian in character and subject to the parties’ right of control.1191 The withholding of consent to humanitarian access that leads to starvation is considered arbitrary, hence unlawful.1192 746. For siege-like warfare, as well as blockades, the determination with respect to the purpose is less straight forward and subject to debate among scholars and practitioners. 1193 1186 Art. 14 Additional Protocol II, Art. 54(2) Additional Protocol I. Art. 18 Additional Protocol II, Art. 70(2) Additional Protocol I. 1188 See for example Mark Lattimer, “Can Incidental Starvation of Civilians be Lawful under IHL?”, March 2019, EJIL:Talk!, Blog of the European Journal of International Law (https://www.ejiltalk.org/can-incidental-starvation-of-civilians-be-lawful-under-ihl/). 1189 Art. 14 Additional Protocol II, Art. 54(2) Additional Protocol I. 1190 Art. 54(2) Additional Protocol I; although Article 14 of Additional Protocol II contains less details than Article 54 of Additional Protocol I, the respective ICRC commentary of 1987 to both provisions suggests a similar interpretation. 1191 Art. 18 Additional Protocol II; see ICRC Study on customary IHL, rule 55. 1192 See Oxford Guidance on the Law Relating to Humanitarian Relief Operations in Situations of Armed Conflict, Commissioned by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, p. 23-24. (https://www.unocha.org/sites/unocha/files/Oxford%20Guidance%20pdf.pdf); see also ICRC Study on customary IHL, rule 55 (on Consent). 1193 As suggested by Beth Van Shaack, “Siege Warfare remains lawful under contemporary law so long as it is directed only at combatants and those directly participating in hostilities, and only in so far as other provisions of the law are adhered to – a major challenge when both combatants and civilians depend on the same necessities”, in “Siege Warfare and the Starvation of Civilians as a Weapon of War and War Crime”, Just Security, 4 February 2016 1187 178