3 ms·

This is really very new and incredibly interesting. I've always believed that attacks on infrastructure were permitted almost always, and this flips that compl

This is really very new and incredibly interesting. I've always believed that attacks on infrastructure were permitted almost always, and this flips that completely.

thereddaikon 2y ago
It's complicated. Dual use infrastructure can become valid military targets. It's also easier to make claim military justification for a limited strike meant to aide a specific operation. But repeated strikes broadly on civilian infrastructure is terror bombing and pretty indefensible.
mschuster91 2y ago
It was illegal before as well, it's just nobody really cared about Serbia, Afghanistan or Iraq (or any of the myriad of other warzones such as Libya). At least in the case of Serbia though, an argument can be made that the NATO bombings back then were to stop a war of aggression in the first place.
- jowea 2y ago
  There's actually an ICC investigation into Afghanistan, not sure what they're looking into but I don't remember bombing of civilian infrastructure being a big part of that war? As for Iraq, seems like there really were attacks on power distribution (not generation) that don't seem to be all that remembered. But it's still significantly different from what is happening in Ukraine. https://casebook.icrc.org/case-study/united-statesunited-kingdom-conduct-2003-war-iraq https://casebook.icrc.org/case-study/united-statesunited-kin... https://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/usa1203/4.5.htm https://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/usa1203/4.5.htm As for Yugoslavia, it doesn't seem like "nobody cared", but it does feel like Western pressure led to some things not being prosecuted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_of_the_NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_of_the_NATO_bombing... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_International_Commission_on_Kosovo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_International_Comm... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Tribunal_for_the_former_Yugoslavia#Controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Tribuna... edit: other poster linked to the ICTY investigation and it seems the bombings were of power distribution linked to military objectives: https://www.icty.org/en/press/final-report-prosecutor-committee-established-review-nato-bombing-campaign-against-federal https://www.icty.org/en/press/final-report-prosecutor-commit...
  - mschuster91 2y ago
    > There's actually an ICC investigation into Afghanistan, not sure what they're looking into but I don't remember bombing of civilian infrastructure being a big part of that war? There wasn't much infrastructure in Afghanistan to begin with, my point (as well as with the other examples I named) is rather that there haven't been many consequences for the war crimes that did happen - quite a few of which have been exposed by WikiLeaks and others, and quite a few of the perpetrators got pardoned by Trump or not prosecuted at all like the Australian units [1]. The ICC in theory is an awesome progress in the history of humankind, but it's ... a bit pointless to have when it's just ignored by those in power. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brereton_Report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brereton_Report
    - _djo_ 2y ago
      It's not that simple. It's not the ICC's role to investigate and prosecute every single instance of a possible war crime, as that would be impractical and beyond the means of even a massive staff. Instead, what they're looking for are cases of larger scale and sustained abuses, especially at the direction of senior leadership. Also importantly, the ICC is a 'court of last resort' meaning it complements existing national judicial systems rather than replacing them. So in cases like the Brereton Report there's no need for the ICC to step in because the Australian judiciary is already handling the situation adequately. It's not a court in the traditional national sense. Afghanistan for instance requested deferrals in the ICC's investigation of actions on its territory, with the ICC resuming the investigation only in 2022 after determining that the Afghan judiciary was neither pursuing its own investigations nor interested in requesting an extension of the deferral. The ICC's jurisdiction is also dependent on various factors such as whether the alleged crimes happened either on the territory of a state party or were committed by or against one, and that's not always the case. For instance it only has jurisdiction over actions committed after 1 May 2003 in Afghanistan, as that was when Afghanistan became a formal state party to the ICC Treaty.
kiba 2y ago
That is not permitted if the target either doesn't have military value or collateral damage exceeds the proportional value of a military target. Not only it's unnecessary, unlawful and immoral, it also means that you're bad at war.
perihelions 2y ago
A major part of WW2 strategy was Allied raids targeting Axis power plants, since electricity was a critical component for military factories (i.e., energy-intensive steelmaking). There was a mini-arms race around hydroelectric dam tactics—defensive nets to entangle bombs, vs. "bouncing bombs" that skipped across the surface of the water, circumventing the nets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chastise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chastise The dam bombings in Norway, at Telemark, were extra special: that was a critical component of Hitler's semi-serious nuclear weapons program. Vast amounts of electricity were being secretly used to separate deuterium from water, on the understanding that was necessary to produce working nuclear fission reactors for the purpose of creating plutonium. (This was an error; the US correctly figured out that ordinary graphite was sufficient, for this type of nuclear reactor). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_heavy_water_sabotage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_heavy_water_sabotage (No implied commentary on the OP story).
Steven420 2y ago
Anything done by Russia is not permitted and considered to be war crimes

This is really very new and incredibly interesting. I've always believed that attacks on infrastructure were permitted almost always, and this flips that completely.

thereddaikon 2y ago

It's complicated. Dual use infrastructure can become valid military targets. It's also easier to make claim military justification for a limited strike meant to aide a specific operation. But repeated strikes broadly on civilian infrastructure is terror bombing and pretty indefensible.

mschuster91 2y ago

It was illegal before as well, it's just nobody really cared about Serbia, Afghanistan or Iraq (or any of the myriad of other warzones such as Libya). At least in the case of Serbia though, an argument can be made that the NATO bombings back then were to stop a war of aggression in the first place.

jowea 2y ago
There's actually an ICC investigation into Afghanistan, not sure what they're looking into but I don't remember bombing of civilian infrastructure being a big part of that war? As for Iraq, seems like there really were attacks on power distribution (not generation) that don't seem to be all that remembered. But it's still significantly different from what is happening in Ukraine. https://casebook.icrc.org/case-study/united-statesunited-kingdom-conduct-2003-war-iraq https://casebook.icrc.org/case-study/united-statesunited-kin... https://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/usa1203/4.5.htm https://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/usa1203/4.5.htm As for Yugoslavia, it doesn't seem like "nobody cared", but it does feel like Western pressure led to some things not being prosecuted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_of_the_NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_of_the_NATO_bombing... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_International_Commission_on_Kosovo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_International_Comm... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Tribunal_for_the_former_Yugoslavia#Controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Tribuna... edit: other poster linked to the ICTY investigation and it seems the bombings were of power distribution linked to military objectives: https://www.icty.org/en/press/final-report-prosecutor-committee-established-review-nato-bombing-campaign-against-federal https://www.icty.org/en/press/final-report-prosecutor-commit...
- mschuster91 2y ago
  > There's actually an ICC investigation into Afghanistan, not sure what they're looking into but I don't remember bombing of civilian infrastructure being a big part of that war? There wasn't much infrastructure in Afghanistan to begin with, my point (as well as with the other examples I named) is rather that there haven't been many consequences for the war crimes that did happen - quite a few of which have been exposed by WikiLeaks and others, and quite a few of the perpetrators got pardoned by Trump or not prosecuted at all like the Australian units [1]. The ICC in theory is an awesome progress in the history of humankind, but it's ... a bit pointless to have when it's just ignored by those in power. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brereton_Report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brereton_Report
  - _djo_ 2y ago
    It's not that simple. It's not the ICC's role to investigate and prosecute every single instance of a possible war crime, as that would be impractical and beyond the means of even a massive staff. Instead, what they're looking for are cases of larger scale and sustained abuses, especially at the direction of senior leadership. Also importantly, the ICC is a 'court of last resort' meaning it complements existing national judicial systems rather than replacing them. So in cases like the Brereton Report there's no need for the ICC to step in because the Australian judiciary is already handling the situation adequately. It's not a court in the traditional national sense. Afghanistan for instance requested deferrals in the ICC's investigation of actions on its territory, with the ICC resuming the investigation only in 2022 after determining that the Afghan judiciary was neither pursuing its own investigations nor interested in requesting an extension of the deferral. The ICC's jurisdiction is also dependent on various factors such as whether the alleged crimes happened either on the territory of a state party or were committed by or against one, and that's not always the case. For instance it only has jurisdiction over actions committed after 1 May 2003 in Afghanistan, as that was when Afghanistan became a formal state party to the ICC Treaty.

kiba 2y ago

That is not permitted if the target either doesn't have military value or collateral damage exceeds the proportional value of a military target. Not only it's unnecessary, unlawful and immoral, it also means that you're bad at war.

perihelions 2y ago

A major part of WW2 strategy was Allied raids targeting Axis power plants, since electricity was a critical component for military factories (i.e., energy-intensive steelmaking). There was a mini-arms race around hydroelectric dam tactics—defensive nets to entangle bombs, vs. "bouncing bombs" that skipped across the surface of the water, circumventing the nets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chastise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chastise The dam bombings in Norway, at Telemark, were extra special: that was a critical component of Hitler's semi-serious nuclear weapons program. Vast amounts of electricity were being secretly used to separate deuterium from water, on the understanding that was necessary to produce working nuclear fission reactors for the purpose of creating plutonium. (This was an error; the US correctly figured out that ordinary graphite was sufficient, for this type of nuclear reactor). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_heavy_water_sabotage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_heavy_water_sabotage (No implied commentary on the OP story).

Steven420 2y ago

Anything done by Russia is not permitted and considered to be war crimes