Collateral Damage Estimates and the Acceptability of Attacks on Industrial Sites

Jul 3, 2015 | Doug Weir
View Original

The deliberate or inadvertent damage or destruction of industrial facilities during conflict has the potential to cause severe environmental damage and create acute and long-term risks to civilians. Can such attacks ever be justified, particularly when the consequences of attacks may be difficult to anticipate with any degree of certainty?

Global population growth, and with it increasing levels of industrialisation, is increasing the likelihood that in any given conflict, fighting may occur in areas containing industrial infrastructure. Consequently, the likelihood of damage to such sites is increasing. Industrial sites whose products are utilised by militaries, such as petrochemical plants or processors, may be viewed as bona fide targets under international law, yet over the last two decades there are numerous examples where the direct military benefits from deliberate attacks have at times been difficult to determine.

While international humanitarian law seeks to provide some measure of prohibition on attacks against infrastructure containing ‘dangerous forces’, such as nuclear power plants or dams, is this broad enough? Should facilities manufacturing or using chemicals also be viewed as containing dangerous forces? The evidence from peacetime incidents in Seveso, Bhopal, Pasadena, Enschede and Baia Mara could all be viewed as evidence that they should.