نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسنده
استاد دانشکده حقوق دانشگاه شهید بهشتی تهران
چکیده
تازه های تحقیق
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسنده [English]
Abstract
Introduction
Although assaults on critical infrastructure are not a new phenomenon, their occurrence has seen a significant rise in recent years. They might be deliberate, manifested as military attacks or intentional disruption, or unintentional, in the form of natural or technical disasters. In either case, they lead to catastrophic consequences, in particular for civilians, and in some situations may amount to international crimes such as forced displacement or even the deprivation of lives. Given these grave consequences, the current study addresses the main question of whether international law already contains rules prohibiting attacks on critical infrastructure or not. Since such attacks may take place during both armed conflict and peacetime, relevant international regulations must be examined in both contexts. It is also to be noted that, along with physical assaults, cyber operations can similarly target critical infrastructures.
Methods
To answer this question, the first issue to consider is whether international law provides a definition of critical infrastructure. The research hypothesis is that, despite the absence of a treaty-based definition, a customary one may be inferred from states practice and the positions of international organizations. Moreover, the prohibition of attacks on critical infrastructures in armed conflicts is confirmed by the principles of international humanitarian law—specifically the principle of distinction. This prohibition, though somewhat implicit, is also relevant in peacetime, since such acts may entail violations of the right to life, a fundamental human right.
Results and Discussions
The findings of the study confirm the research hypothesis that a customary definition of critical infrastructure can be identified under international law, and that attacks on such infrastructure are, in fact, prohibited during armed conflict and in times of peace. The international community has recently started taking action to reinforce this prohibition by recognizing attacks on critical infrastructure as international crimes (specifically, war crimes), though this recognition is currently confined to armed conflict. In this regard, reference is to be made to the two arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) against the Russian military authorities for their actions during the war against Ukraine. These warrants were issued as a result of the attacks on Ukraine’s critical infrastructures, which the ICC recognized as constituting war crimes. Although this represents an initial step, limited to the prosecution of attacks on critical infrastructures in armed conflicts, it should be regarded as a positive development, demonstrating that the international community has finally taken appropriate measures to uphold justice and address impunity.
Conclusion
Nevertheless, while the definition of critical infrastructure and the rules prohibiting attacks on it are reasonably clear, international law provides no explicit regulation concerning state construction projects that cause severe disruption to the critical infrastructure of neighboring states. For instance, Turkey’s construction of more than twenty dams and nineteen hydroelectric plants on the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers has significantly impaired the infrastructure of Syria, Iraq, and even Iran. According to the treaties concluded between Turkey and Syria on the one hand, and Turkey and Iraq on the other, a specific volume of water is required to flow into these two countries (i.e., Syria and Iraq). However, due to Turkey’s activities, the actual amount of water entering their territories has reportedly been reduced to one-tenth of the agreed quantity. It appears that the construction projects undertaken by Turkey have served multiple purposes simultaneously. Indeed, Turkey has not only sought to render the neighboring countries dependent upon it for access to freshwater resources and thereby establish a form of regional hegemony, but has also aimed to disperse opposing Kurdish populations by submerging their villages and residential areas. Furthermore, as a result of these projects, many areas have been inundated by the lakes formed behind the dams. These submerged regions were once the sites of great ancient civilizations and contain archaeological artifacts far older than those of the Ottoman era. By constructing these dams, Turkey has, in effect, contributed to the destruction of these relics, seemingly in an attempt to assert that the Ottoman civilization represents the earliest and most significant civilization in the region. Similarly, Afghanistan’s dam projects on the Helmand and Harirud Rivers have seriously disrupted infrastructure in Iran’s Sistan and Baluchestan and Khorasan Razavi provinces. By constructing a dam on the Hirmand River and preventing the flow of water into Iran- contrary to the provisions of the 1972 treaty between Iran and Afghanistan- Afghanistan has caused the drying up of the Hamun region of Iran, which lies downstream of the river. These actions have resulted in the displacement and forced migration of thousands of Iranian citizens, residing in that area. Additionally, the construction of a dam on the Harirud River by Afghanistan has severely disrupted the drinking water supply infrastructure of the city of Mashhad in Iran. These situations call for further research into how international law might address such state activities—beyond the mere requirement of consultation—in order to prevent serious harm to neighboring states’ critical infrastructure
کلیدواژهها [English]
کتاب
References
Books
Articles
)