Abbas Hamidi – Expert in International Law

Historical Evolution of the Prohibition: From the Ethics of War to a Binding Rule

International humanitarian law, in response to the devastating experiences of modern warfare—particularly since the twentieth century—has undergone a gradual process of norm-setting, imposing limitations on state conduct during armed conflicts. One of the most significant of these limitations is the prohibition on attacks against civilian infrastructure, rooted in the principle of distinction. This principle has been enshrined in the Geneva Conventions and, most notably, in Article 48 of Additional Protocol I, obliging parties to a conflict to distinguish at all times between military objectives and civilian objects.

Complementing this rule, Article 52 of the same Protocol explicitly stipulates that civilian objects, including public infrastructure, shall not be made the object of attack unless they effectively contribute to military action. Furthermore, Article 51, by prohibiting indiscriminate attacks, deems unlawful any attack that is not conducted with distinction between military and civilian objectives.

These rules emerged in response to experiences such as the widespread bombing of cities during the Second World War, which demonstrated that the destruction of infrastructure effectively results in the collective punishment of civilians. Consequently, the international community has moved toward transforming these limitations into binding customary rules.

The Legal and Humanitarian Rationale Behind the Prohibition of Attacks on Infrastructure

The prohibition on attacks on infrastructure is not based on a single rule but rather on a set of complementary principles. The principle of proportionality, emphasized in Article 51 of Additional Protocol I, prohibits attacks that may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, or damage to civilian objects that would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

Alongside this, Article 54 of the Protocol explicitly prohibits attacks on objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as water installations, foodstuffs, and agricultural resources. This rule is of particular significance, as infrastructure is often indirectly but vitally linked to the survival of civilian society.

Moreover, Article 56 specifically protects dangerous installations such as dams and nuclear power plants, restricting attacks on them because of their potentially catastrophic humanitarian consequences. In the realm of protecting medical services, the provisions of the Geneva Conventions and related customary rules also prohibit attacks on hospitals and medical facilities. Collectively, these rules demonstrate that international humanitarian law has sought to establish a coherent normative network to safeguard the infrastructure upon which civilian life depends.

Enforcement of Rules and the Challenge of Punishment: From Nuremberg to the International Criminal Court

Despite the clarity of these rules, their enforcement has consistently faced challenges. At the end of the Second World War, the Nuremberg Tribunals, for the first time, recognized individual criminal responsibility for violations of the laws of war and examined attacks against civilian objectives as war crimes.

In subsequent decades, international criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia, in cases such as the siege of Sarajevo, pursued attacks against civilian infrastructure as serious violations of humanitarian law. This trajectory continued with the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the adoption of the Rome Statute, which, in Article 8, classifies intentional attacks against civilian objects as war crimes.

Nevertheless, practical experience has shown that these mechanisms face serious limitations. Dependence on state cooperation, geopolitical considerations, and double standards in the administration of justice have led to many violations going unaddressed.

From the Ineffectiveness of Enforcement Mechanisms to the Necessity of Self-Help and Deterrence

The gap between norm and implementation represents one of the most fundamental challenges of contemporary international law. When formal mechanisms fail to punish aggressors, states are compelled to resort to self-help. This concept, recognized within the framework of the law of state responsibility, enables the adoption of countermeasures to compel the violating party to comply with its obligations.

In the reality of international politics, many states have concluded that mere reliance on legal rules, without the backing of power, cannot prevent attacks on infrastructure. Consequently, deterrence has emerged as an essential complement to international law. Effective deterrence requires that the threat of response be credible, enforceable, and costly. Only under such conditions will an aggressor refrain from violating the rules. Although this logic may appear distant from legal ideals on the surface, in practice, it constitutes one of the few effective tools for protecting critical infrastructure.

Conclusion

The prohibition of attacks on infrastructure is the product of a complex historical and normative process that has evolved in response to the catastrophic experiences of modern warfare. This prohibition, embodied in a set of explicit and customary rules, seeks to protect civilians and their living conditions during times of war.

However, experience demonstrates that without effective enforcement mechanisms, these rules remain vulnerable to the realities of power. Under such circumstances, the combination of international law with deterrence emerges as a strategic necessity. Only through this combination can the transformation of infrastructure into legitimate military targets be prevented, and a minimum standard of humanity be preserved amidst armed conflicts.