The recent escalation in the Iran conflict has resulted in airstrikes on vital infrastructure throughout the Middle East and threats to target oil facilities, electricity production sites, and desalination plants crucial for civilian populations. Some experts have raised concerns that these actions could constitute war crimes if carried out.
What does international law say?
The 1949 Geneva Conventions, which outline rules for humanitarian conduct during war, explicitly prohibit attacks on sites critical for civilian well-being. These rules state that actions must not jeopardize the availability of food or water that could lead to starvation or mass displacement of civilians.
The conventions also forbid attacks on essential objects such as food supplies, agricultural areas, water sources, and irrigation systems vital for civilian survival.
Have warrants been issued for targeting infrastructure in past conflicts?
The International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued arrest warrants for political and military leaders in Russia based on attacks on critical infrastructure, such as electricity and fuel plants, in Ukraine. These warrants accused them of committing war crimes.
In a separate case, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faced an ICC arrest warrant for deliberately depriving the civilian population in Gaza of essential resources like food, water, medicine, fuel, and electricity. The actions were found to have severe consequences, resulting in civilian deaths due to lack of basic necessities.
While denying allegations of war crimes, both Russia and Israel stated that their military actions were in self-defence against perceived threats.
Could these targets be justified as ‘military targets’?
The Geneva Conventions and additional protocols emphasize the need to distinguish between civilian objects and military targets in armed conflicts. They clearly prohibit attacks on civilian infrastructure and codify these rules in the Rome Statute of the ICC.
The Conventions allow for certain civilian-owned infrastructure to be considered legitimate military objectives, but only if their destruction or capture significantly benefits military operations.
Where could violations be prosecuted?
In the context of the current Middle East conflict, the likelihood of a war crimes court trial remains low. None of the involved parties are members of the ICC, and there is no other institution with clear jurisdiction over war crimes in the region.
The division within the UN Security Council further diminishes the chances of referring a case to The Hague. While national authorities could prosecute alleged war crimes under universal jurisdiction laws, no public cases have emerged so far.
