Advanced Journal of Management, Humanity and Social Science

Legal Dimensions of the Prohibition of Attacks on Infrastructure under International Law: The 2026 US-Israel Strikes on Iran's Critical Infrastructure and Legal Avenues for Litigation in International Courts

Document Type : Original Article

Author

Mehdi Nematolahi

Member of the Bar Association of Fars Province

10.5281/zenodo.22129202
Abstract
Attacks on critical infrastructure, whether kinetic or cyber, constitute one of the most pressing challenges in contemporary international law. The 2026 joint military strikes by the United States and Israel against Iran's nuclear facilities, energy infrastructure, bridges, and transportation networks, combined with concurrent cyber operations targeting communication systems, have reignited debate over the legal framework governing such attacks. This article examines the legal dimensions of the prohibition on infrastructure attacks under international law, analyzing the US-Israel strikes as a case study and exploring available legal avenues for Iran to seek recourse before international judicial bodies. Using a descriptive-analytical methodology grounded in treaty interpretation, customary international law analysis, and judicial precedent, this research finds that while international humanitarian law (IHL) provides a robust framework through the principles of distinction, proportionality, and precaution, the concept of "dual-use" objects—objects with both civilian and military applications—creates significant interpretive ambiguity . Despite this ambiguity, Article 56 of Additional Protocol I explicitly protects nuclear power plants from attack where such attacks may cause dangerous force release, and the International Criminal Court (ICC) has established precedent by issuing arrest warrants for attacks on Ukrainian critical infrastructure. The research identifies four principal legal avenues: proceedings before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), prosecution before the ICC, arbitration through bilateral dispute resolution mechanisms, and domestic litigation. However, significant obstacles persist, including the United States' withdrawal from the 1955 Treaty of Amity with Iran, non-membership in the Rome Statute, attribution challenges for cyber operations, and evidentiary difficulties. The article concludes that while international law prohibits attacks on critical infrastructure, enforcement mechanisms remain inadequate, and the most effective long-term strategy involves strengthening multilateral cooperation and developing a dedicated convention on critical infrastructure protection.

Graphical Abstract

Legal Dimensions of the Prohibition of Attacks on Infrastructure under International Law: The 2026 US-Israel Strikes on Irans Critical Infrastructure and Legal Avenues for Litigation in International Courts

Keywords

Critical infrastructure
international humanitarian law
principle of distinction
dual-use objects
state responsibility
Subjects
[1]                Beigzadeh, E. (2025). Assaults on critical infrastructure and international law. Journal of Legal Research.  
[2]                Capone, F. (2025). Dual-use objects under international humanitarian law: Towards a paradigm shift. T.M.C. Asser Press.               
[3]                Hollis, D. B., & Sukumar, A. (2026). PIL Discussion Group: New challenges and new concepts? Prepositioning and civilian critical infrastructure in international law. University of Oxford.
[4]                International Court of Justice. (2003). Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Judgment.
[5]                Mazaraki, N., & Honcharova, Y. (2022). Cyber dimension of hybrid wars: Escaping a 'grey zone' of international law to address economic damages. Baltic Journal of Economic Studies, 8(2), 115-120.
[6]                Kachuriner, V. L. (2025). International legal standards for protecting critical energy infrastructure during armed conflict. Uzhhorod National University Herald. Series Law, *90*(5), 119-125.   
[7]                Lattimer, M. (2026). Dual-use objects and dual-purpose attacks. Lieber Institute West Point, Articles of War.             
[8]                Poposka, V. (2025). Applicable legal regime for protection of critical infrastructure and critical entities in conflict zones. Proceedings of the UKLO Annual International Scientific Conference 2024.       
[9]                Renault, C.-E. (2026). Strategy of darkness: A weapon of war. International Bar Association.
[10]             Abbasi, A. Y. (2026). Oil infrastructure as military objectives: Environmental harm and reverberating effects in the proportionality assessment.               Völkerrechtsblog.
[11]             Thilakarathna, A. (2026). Energy law, security, and strategic adaptation: Lessons from the Iran conflict. The Morning.               
[12]             Anderson, S. R. (2026). Using military force in Iran: Domestic and international law questions. Brookings Institution.               
[13]             BBC News. (2026). US denies Iranian claims it hit civilian infrastructure in latest strikes.
[14]             The Sunday Times. (2026). When do attacks on civilian installations amount to war crimes?
[15]             Parsons Today. (2026). Iravani: U.S. aggression against Iran a clear violation of Article 2(4) of U.N. Charter.             
[16]             International Court of Justice. (2003). Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Judgment.
Advanced Journal of Management, Humanity and Social Science
Volume 2, Issue 4
July 2026
Pages 295-309

Home

Editorial Board

Guide for Authors

Submit Manuscript

Contact Us