Armed conflict frequently produces civilian starvation, medical deprivation and restricted access to essential relief. International humanitarian law permits impartial humanitarian actors to offer assistance, but cross-border relief ordinarily remains conditioned on the consent of the territorial State or the parties concerned. The difficulty arises where consent is refused or delayed without lawful justification while civilians remain in urgent need. This article adopts a doctrinal legal method, examining treaty rules, customary international humanitarian law, judicial authority, United Nations practice and secondary rules on State responsibility. It considers five possible legal bases for overcoming obstructive refusal: the consent framework under humanitarian law, Security Council authorisation, necessity under Article 25 of the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, abuse of rights and the relevance of peremptory norms, particularly where starvation is used as a method of warfare. The article finds that each basis performs an important but limited function. Humanitarian law restricts arbitrary withholding of consent but does not itself create a general right of territorial entry. Security Council authorisation may permit cross-border relief, but its availability depends on political agreement. Necessity is exceptional and temporary, while abuse of rights and peremptory norms may establish wrongfulness without supplying a complete operational remedy. The article therefore identifies a remedial gap between the illegality of arbitrary refusal and the absence of a standing, non-forcible access mechanism. It proposes Servitus Humanitatis as lex ferenda: a treaty-based regime allowing strictly humanitarian, non-forcible and time-bound cross-border access after independent verification. The proposed Independent Humanitarian Arbitrariness Verification Commission would assess urgency, arbitrariness, alternatives and safeguards before relief proceeds.