While international humanitarian law (IHL) offers protections for infrastructure indispensable to civilian survival, the personnel who operate, maintain and repair these systems remain largely invisible in legal frameworks and humanitarian discourse. Drawing on operational experience, this article examines the systemic threats faced by essential services personnel in contemporary urban warfare, including direct attacks, mobility constraints and the cumulative effect of protracted conflict, all of which undermine the resilience of essential services. Through exploring existing legal frameworks, recent political initiatives and practical measures already undertaken by humanitarian actors and service providers to enhance personnel safety, the article argues that safeguarding essential services personnel is not only a legal and moral imperative but also an operational necessity for preserving civilian life during conflict. While the authors acknowledge the lack of explicit special protection of essential services personnel under IHL, they advocate for a principled, good-faith interpretation and application of IHL that embraces its humanitarian spirit, arguing that the protection of “objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population” must logically extend to the people who keep those objects and services functioning. The article concludes by proposing future avenues for strengthening protection, including improved visibility, multidisciplinary and essential service provider-centred preparedness planning, and the potential recognition of a distinctive sign for essential services personnel. Ultimately, the article calls for essential services personnel to be better recognized as indispensable to the survival of civilian populations and urges all actors to move beyond infrastructure to protect the systems – including the people – that sustain life in war.

Around 50 million people across the world are affected by urban warfare. When conflict occurs in cities, the natural environment has historically been relegated to an afterthought, but both the immediate and long-term environmental consequences of urban warfare are serious. This article looks at actions that can be taken to protect the natural environment – and through this, the population – against the effects of urban warfare when fighting in urban areas. It is intended to be a part of the conversation about what parties to armed conflict can and should do to give effect to their legal obligations under international humanitarian law and international law more broadly, with a specific focus on the natural environment when fighting in urban areas.

Dr Eirini Giorgou is a Legal Adviser in the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Arms and Conduct of Hostilities Unit, where she works, among other issues, on explosive weapons in populated areas and on nuclear weapons. She has several years’ experience in multilateral disarmament and arms control diplomacy and negotiations outside the ICRC. She is a licensed lawyer and holds a PhD in international law from the University of Geneva.

Siege warfare and its devastating humanitarian consequences have been one of the defining features of contemporary armed conflicts. While the most apparent restriction of siege warfare appears to be provided by the prohibition against starvation of the civilian population as a method of warfare, the prevailing restrictive interpretation of this prohibition has left civilians remaining in a besieged area unprotected from the hardships they endure. This article demonstrates that shifting the focus from the prohibition against starvation to the rules regulating humanitarian relief operations does not seem helpful due to the ambiguities regarding the requirement of consent and the right of control of the besieging party. In remedying this protection gap, this article examines whether and how the principle of proportionality applies in the context of a siege. After analyzing whether the encirclement and isolation aspect of a siege can be considered an attack in the sense of Article 49(1) of Additional Protocol I (AP I), to which the proportionality principle applies, the article investigates how this principle operates in the context of a siege. It will be demonstrated that Article 57(2)(b) of AP I requires that the proportionality of a siege must be continuously monitored.

Contemporary warfare is increasingly waged in urban settings and is often characterized by asymmetry between the parties. This trend is only likely to continue in light of a more and more urbanized world. It is compounded by the fact that belligerents often avoid facing their enemies in the open, intermingling instead with the civilian population, putting civilian lives and infrastructure at risk.

Eyal Weizman is an architect and academic who has spent much of his career writing and thinking about the interaction of violence and the built environment. He has worked extensively on the ways in which war is fought in built-up areas and on how architecture can design an environment that is either more or less conducive to urban warfare. Most recently, he has been developing the new field of forensic architecture, which aims to research incidents that unfold in urban areas, examine the architectural aspects involved and draw patterns from those stories. In this interview, Professor Weizman shares some of his reflections on war in cities with the Review.

The rising pressures of urbanization in fragile and conflict-affected countries have increased concerns about the vulnerability of cities to armed threats. Changes in the character of armed conflict during the twenty-first century and its effects on cities in the developing world have exposed gaps in the planning and practice of peace and security, which retain a “nation-State bias” that circumvents local perspectives and agencies. Whereas full-scale use of military power in cities remains as destructive today as it has ever been, international organizations such as the United Nations have called for changed approaches to State tactics in urban areas. Mechanisms designed to prevent conflict or to help countries transition back to peace are particularly key if massive human and economic damages are to be avoided in a world of increasingly dense cities. Another key concern is the vulnerability of developing-world cities to low-intensity, if protracted, forms of violence by non-State actors, particularly in post-conflict contexts. Conflict prevention and peace transitions in cities (including mainstream international tools such as peacekeeping, stability and reconstruction aid) are affected by specifically urban pressures linked to rising populations, migration, ethnic tensions, institutional deterioration and the weakening of urban services. Therefore, the physical and social characteristics of cities interact with military and developmental policies in unique ways. An understanding of key local actors, services and institutions affecting urban drivers of armed conflict – an urban strategic environment – can help practitioners and strategists to craft comprehensive policies.