Kharg Island strikes present 'complex' two-part legal test

Professor Michael Schmitt is an expert in international law rules governing warfare at the School of Law, University of Reading. 

He has co-written a detailed analysis of how the law of armed conflict (LOAC) governs the military action in Iran and the surrounding states (with colleagues Dr Tess Bridgeman and Professor Ryan Goodman at New York University School of Law).

Read the article on Just Security: Expert Q&A: A Targeting Primer on Iran War

Highlighting the analysis, Professor Schmitt said:

"The threatened seizure of Kharg Island and the prospect of strikes on Iran's oil infrastructure raise serious questions under international law. Kharg Island handles around 90% of Iran's crude exports, but oil infrastructure is not automatically a lawful military target. Under the law of armed conflict, it must first meet a strict two-part test: strikes must make an effective contribution to military action, and its destruction must offer a definite military advantage.

"The dual-use nature of oil facilities makes this genuinely complex. Fuel supplies armed forces, but it also keeps hospitals running, food distributed and civilian transport moving. Any attack has to account for those foreseeable civilian consequences through the proportionality rule, and in a country the size of Iran, the downstream effects on ordinary people could be enormous.

"Power infrastructure raises the same concern, but potentially more acutely. Electricity grids are interconnected systems. Damaging one component can cascade across water treatment, healthcare and emergency services in ways that are entirely foreseeable. President Trump has reportedly threatened to strike power plants and energy facilities if no deal is reached. The law is clear: the scale of military advantage does not override the obligation to minimise harm to civilians."

For interviews, contact the University of Reading Press Office on 0118 378 5757 or pressoffice@reading.ac.uk.