The Place of Cities in the Evolution of International Humanitarian Law

The increasing interest on the global dimension of cities and their engagement with international law has coincided with the emergence of a new wave of scholarship covering the main legal challenges related to urban warfare. In recent years, the devastating humanitarian consequences of war in cities have raised new questions regarding how relevant rules of international humanitarian law are interpreted and applied: cities are portrayed not only as the seat of political leadership or as cultural property but increasingly also as ‘populated areas’ and an ‘interconnected infrastructure of essential services’. Urban fighting is uniquely characterized by the proximity of military objectives with civilians and civilian objects: the question of the use of explosive weapons against military objectives in populated areas reflects the need for further clarification with respect to the application of the relevant rules of international humanitarian law (IHL). Much debate has been directed on the further legal implications of the contemporary resurgence of sieges of cities. Given that sieges are not per se an explicitly prohibited method of warfare under IHL, a key topic has been the precise scope of the ‘starvation of civilians’ as a method of combat, for the purposes of the prohibition under Article 54(1) of Additional Protocol I and customary law. It is worth considering to what extent the specific representation of what amounts to a city has been considered as a factor in the current debate