What International Law Says About Attacking Energy Infrastructure During War

Modern wars increasingly involve attacks on power grids, fuel depots, and electricity networks that sustain daily civilian life. International humanitarian law does not automatically forbid striking energy infrastructure, but it places strict limits on when and how such targets may be attacked. The legal framework hinges on distinction, proportionality, and whether an installation serves a genuine military purpose.

Armed conflicts in the 21st century have highlighted how energy systems sit at the heart of both civilian survival and military capability. Electricity powers hospitals, water treatment plants, communication systems, transportation networks, and homes. At the same time, it also sustains factories, logistics chains, and command structures used by armed forces.

This dual-use character places energy infrastructure in one of the most complex legal categories under the laws of war. International humanitarian law (IHL), including the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, does not classify all power stations or transmission grids as untouchable civilian objects. Nor does it give combatants unlimited latitude to destroy them.

Instead, the law draws careful distinctions based on function, intent, and the foreseeable effects on civilians. Understanding how this framework operates requires examining the core principles of IHL and how they apply to modern energy systems.

The principle of distinction

At the heart of international humanitarian law is the principle of distinction. Parties to a conflict must always distinguish between civilian objects and military objectives. Civilian objects are protected from attack unless and for such time as they become military objectives.

Under Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, a military objective is defined as an object which, by its nature, location, purpose, or use, makes an effective contribution to military action and whose destruction offers a definite military advantage.

Energy facilities do not automatically fall into either category. A power plant supplying electricity to homes, hospitals, and schools is presumptively a civilian object. However, if that same facility also supplies power directly to military production sites, command centers, or weapons manufacturing, it may be considered a military objective.

This is where legal interpretation becomes fact-specific and highly contested during conflicts. The burden is on the attacking party to assess whether the installation genuinely meets the criteria of a military objective at the time of the attack.

Dual-use infrastructure and legal complexity

Most modern energy systems are interconnected. Electricity generated at a single plant flows into national grids that distribute power widely. Fuel depots, transmission substations, and transformers rarely serve only one type of user.

Because of this, many energy facilities are considered “dual-use” objects. They support both civilian life and military operations. International humanitarian law recognizes this reality but does not remove protections for civilians simply because infrastructure has some military relevance.

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has consistently emphasized that parts of energy systems providing essential services to civilians are in principle civilian objects and remain protected. Even if an installation qualifies as a military objective, additional legal rules come into play.

Proportionality and excessive civilian harm

The principle of proportionality prohibits attacks expected to cause incidental civilian harm that would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

This rule is central when assessing strikes on energy infrastructure. Destroying a substation may disrupt power to military facilities, but it may also leave entire cities without heating, water, or medical care. The foreseeable humanitarian impact must be weighed against the military gain.

If the expected civilian suffering — including loss of essential services — is judged to outweigh the military benefit, the attack would be unlawful under international law.

Importantly, proportionality assessments must be made in advance, based on the information reasonably available to commanders at the time. The law does not require perfect foresight, but it does require serious evaluation of civilian consequences.

Objects indispensable to civilian survival

Additional Protocol I also provides special protection for objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population. These include drinking water installations, irrigation works, and food supplies.

While electricity systems are not explicitly listed, they are often directly tied to the operation of water treatment plants, hospitals, and heating systems, particularly in cold climates. Legal scholars and humanitarian organizations increasingly interpret certain energy facilities as falling within this broader protective logic when their destruction threatens basic civilian survival.

The deliberate targeting of infrastructure with the purpose of denying civilians essential services can violate this rule, especially if the intent is to starve, freeze, or otherwise coerce the population.

The prohibition on terrorizing civilians

International humanitarian law prohibits acts or threats of violence whose primary purpose is to spread terror among the civilian population.

If attacks on energy infrastructure are carried out not primarily for military gain but to demoralize civilians by plunging them into darkness, cold, or hardship, such actions may violate this prohibition.

Determining intent is complex and often disputed, but patterns of repeated strikes against facilities primarily serving civilians can become legally significant in post-conflict investigations.

Precautions in attack

Attackers are also required to take feasible precautions to minimize harm to civilians and civilian objects. This includes verifying targets, choosing means and methods of warfare that reduce collateral damage, and giving effective warnings when possible.

In the context of energy infrastructure, this could involve targeting specific components believed to serve military purposes rather than destroying entire facilities, or timing attacks to reduce civilian impact.

Failure to take such precautions can render an otherwise lawful attack unlawful.

Accountability and international courts

Questions about attacks on energy infrastructure have increasingly appeared before international legal bodies. The International Criminal Court (ICC) has indicated that strikes on electricity systems may constitute war crimes if they are directed against civilian objects or cause clearly excessive civilian harm.

Although enforcement depends on jurisdiction and political realities, the legal scrutiny surrounding such attacks has grown. Investigations often examine whether facilities truly qualified as military objectives and whether proportionality assessments were properly conducted.

This evolving body of casework is shaping how the law is interpreted in modern conflicts.

Why modern warfare challenges old legal categories

When the Geneva Conventions were drafted, energy systems were less complex and less central to daily civilian life. Today, electricity underpins nearly every aspect of survival and governance.

This creates tension between traditional legal definitions and modern realities. A single strike on a transformer can have cascading effects across hospitals, sanitation systems, and communication networks far from any battlefield.

Legal experts increasingly note that the interconnected nature of infrastructure makes proportionality assessments more difficult and raises the humanitarian stakes of such attacks.

How states justify strikes on energy targets

States that attack energy facilities typically argue that these sites support military production, logistics, or command structures. They assert that the facilities therefore meet the definition of military objectives.

They may also argue that disruptions to civilian life are unintended consequences of legitimate military operations. These arguments hinge on the claim that the primary purpose of the attack is military, not punitive or coercive.

Opposing parties often counter that the scale and pattern of damage demonstrate a broader intent to undermine civilian life rather than achieve specific military advantages.

The role of evidence and post-conflict assessment

Because the legality of these strikes depends heavily on intent, use, and proportionality, much of the legal determination happens after the fact. Investigators examine satellite imagery, military communications, targeting data, and the practical effects on civilians.

International organizations and courts assess whether claims of military necessity were credible and whether commanders had sufficient information to anticipate civilian consequences.

These assessments can take years and often become part of war crimes investigations or historical records of the conflict.

Why energy infrastructure remains a legal gray zone

Energy facilities sit at the intersection of civilian necessity and military utility. International law does not provide a simple prohibition or permission. Instead, it applies a layered set of principles that require careful judgment in each case.

This gray zone is not a loophole but a reflection of how modern societies function. The law attempts to balance military necessity with humanitarian protection, but the outcome depends heavily on facts, intent, and proportionality.

Conclusion

International humanitarian law allows attacks on energy infrastructure only under narrow and carefully defined conditions. Such facilities may be lawful targets if they genuinely contribute to military action, but even then, attackers must ensure that civilian harm is not excessive and that precautions are taken. The dual-use nature of modern power systems makes these assessments difficult and often contentious. As conflicts increasingly affect interconnected civilian networks, legal scrutiny of energy strikes has intensified. What remains unresolved in many cases is not the law itself, but whether the facts on the ground meet its strict requirements.

 – JN –