Oil facilities can be legitimate targets, if they’re producing fuels, other petroleum products, or generating electricity, for military purposes. I don’t know which facilities are being discussed here, or whether those facilities are primarily military or civilian.
No, dual-use facilities are generally regarded as legitimate targets so long as civilian workers are not explicitly targeted in the way one might target enemy personnel.
The point is that the law is difficult to administer clearly because ‘dual-use’ is too vague. Russia’s been hitting electrical facilities all across Ukraine for over a year, and they’ve been saying they’re all legal military targets, even if they’re serving a major city (including hospitals, critical civilian services, ect). The more hawkish crowd here is pretty selective when classifying war crimes depending on the parties involved, and even the UNSC is unable to make clear rulings (they don’t have any teeth, anyway), especially when they involve an American-backed ally.
Israel has been hitting schools, Mosques, orphanages, ect, and they’ve thus far gotten away with it by arguing they were being used by Hamas. I wouldn’t put much stock in what’s being said is ‘fair-play’ or not. It’s all questionable and it’s all an escalation that nobody really wants.
For some people, “war crimes” isn’t a legal theory, but a moral outrage. In this case, they’ve painted themselves into a corner because Joe Biden is already fully responsible for genocide, so adjudicating a few war crimes seems petty and irrelevant.
Never mind that a conflict in the same time-zone as Israel, energy infrastructure is a primary target for both sides.
Oil facilities can be legitimate targets, if they’re producing fuels, other petroleum products, or generating electricity, for military purposes. I don’t know which facilities are being discussed here, or whether those facilities are primarily military or civilian.
Pretty sure their military uses electricity and water, too, so that means their electrical grid and water supply are fair game, right?
If they’re shared by civilian infrastructure then they’re probably using it as a shield, so that means it’s OK to hit them anyway
I don’t know. Has targeting those types of infrastructure historically been categorized as a war crime?
No, dual-use facilities are generally regarded as legitimate targets so long as civilian workers are not explicitly targeted in the way one might target enemy personnel.
The point is that the law is difficult to administer clearly because ‘dual-use’ is too vague. Russia’s been hitting electrical facilities all across Ukraine for over a year, and they’ve been saying they’re all legal military targets, even if they’re serving a major city (including hospitals, critical civilian services, ect). The more hawkish crowd here is pretty selective when classifying war crimes depending on the parties involved, and even the UNSC is unable to make clear rulings (they don’t have any teeth, anyway), especially when they involve an American-backed ally.
Israel has been hitting schools, Mosques, orphanages, ect, and they’ve thus far gotten away with it by arguing they were being used by Hamas. I wouldn’t put much stock in what’s being said is ‘fair-play’ or not. It’s all questionable and it’s all an escalation that nobody really wants.
For some people, “war crimes” isn’t a legal theory, but a moral outrage. In this case, they’ve painted themselves into a corner because Joe Biden is already fully responsible for genocide, so adjudicating a few war crimes seems petty and irrelevant.
Never mind that a conflict in the same time-zone as Israel, energy infrastructure is a primary target for both sides.