What are the international laws regarding military use of civilian infrastructure?

1. Why the distinction between civilian and military objects still matters—and where it breaks down

International law draws a sharp legal line between civilian objects and military objectives: civilian infrastructure is protected unless used for military purposes that meet the Article 52 Additional Protocol test—direct contribution to military action and a concrete military advantage. The ICRC guidance reiterates that protection of civilian infrastructure is a core IHL principle and underscores the twin obligations of distinction and proportionality to minimize civilian harm ^{[2] [4]}. Contemporary practice complicates this bright-line rule because many infrastructures—power grids, bridges, telecoms—can serve both civilian life and military operations. Commentators warn that states’ expansive targeting of such “dual-use” objects effectively blurs the legal distinction, raising serious protection gaps for civilians and pressuring doctrinal reinterpretation ^{[3] [1]}.

2. The controversy over “dual-use”: legal doctrine vs. battlefield practice

Scholars and practitioners disagree on whether IHL formally recognizes a “dual-use” category and how that concept should affect targeting. Some states, notably the United States and Israel in practice, have treated entire structures containing military assets as legitimate military objectives, thereby expanding the pool of targetable infrastructure. Critics argue that this trend erodes civilian safeguards and expands acceptable military targets beyond what the Additional Protocol intended ^[3]. Alternative legal interpretations propose surgical targeting of military components where feasible, preserving the civilian character of unaffected parts and folding that assessment into proportionality analysis—an approach aimed at balancing military necessity with humanitarian protection ^[1].

3. Proportionality and precaution: the legal brakes on attacking infrastructure

Even when infrastructure qualifies as a military objective, IHL requires attackers to ensure that incidental civilian harm is not excessive relative to the anticipated concrete and direct military advantage. The ICRC and multiple legal analyses insist that proportionality and precaution are mandatory and operative limits, not optional policies; parties must take all feasible measures to verify targets and minimize civilian injury. State practice and investigations, including scrutiny of attacks on energy systems, show recurring disputes about whether proportionality was respected and whether attackers took adequate precautions—questions that can elevate alleged strikes into potential war crimes investigations ^{[2] [5]}.

4. Non-state actors and the practical problem of mixed-use environments

Armed groups increasingly position forces or military functions inside or near civilian infrastructure, creating a tactical dilemma: use of civilian infrastructure for military purposes can cause that infrastructure to lose protection under IHL, but the onus remains on attacking forces to verify and to limit civilian harm. ICRC guidance and treaty law do not excuse reckless attacks simply because adversaries exploit civilian space; rather, they require heightened care. The reality of urban and networked warfare means that distinguishing military from civilian function is often technically and morally fraught, with consequences for accountability and civilian suffering ^{[2] [6]}.

5. Accountability and the record: how states, courts, and the ICC respond

Legal instruments like the Rome Statute criminalize intentional attacks on civilians and infrastructure when disproportional or part of a policy to terrorize populations; the ICC’s investigations into conflict theaters illustrate how attacks on infrastructure can trigger international criminal scrutiny. Security Council debates and statements from states reflect frustration with repeated breaches and call for political will to enforce existing rules; the gap between legal standards and enforcement remains a central challenge, with accountability often limited by politics and evidentiary hurdles ^{[5] [7]}. Observers note that systemic targeting of civilian services—energy, water, health—can amount to prohibited tactics with possible criminal implications.

6. Paths forward: doctrinal clarification, better targeting information, and operational safeguards

Analysts converge on pragmatic remedies: clearer legal guidance on dual-use, improved intelligence and target verification, and stronger emphasis on surgical alternatives and civilian-preserving measures. The Yale Law Journal and ICRC both urge better factual collection about infrastructure functions before strike decisions and recommend that states adopt interpretations that keep civilian components protected where feasible. Reformers argue doctrinal clarity could curb the expansion of economically and socially damaging targets and help close the accountability gap; opponents, often states citing battlefield necessity, stress flexibility in targeting to address hybrid threats ^{[3] [1] [2]}.