In the lead-up to the ceasefire with Iran, President Donald Trump and his administration ramped up their rhetoric, issuing increasingly aggressive threats against the nation. These included statements about returning Iran to the “stone age,” targeting its essential power facilities, and even suggesting the complete obliteration of Iranian civilization. Should any of these threats have been enacted, they could potentially be classified as war crimes under international law.
While the classification of certain actions, such as bombing civilian populations, as war crimes is relatively straightforward, the legal implications surrounding attacks on power plants are less clear-cut.
To grasp the concept of a “war crime,” it is essential to recognize that this term represents a formal legal definition, firmly established in international law. It is distinct from terms like “crimes against humanity” and “genocide.” So, what constitutes a war crime? Here’s a detailed explanation.
War crimes refer to significant violations of humanitarian law occurring during armed conflicts. This definition is rooted in the 1949 Geneva Conventions and was further refined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 1998.
The Geneva Conventions serve as the foundation for international humanitarian law (IHL), which outlines the regulations governing warfare. Both the Geneva Conventions and IHL are integral components of international law.
The IHL is built on three fundamental principles: distinction, proportionality, and precaution. The principle of distinction mandates that combatants must differentiate between civilians and military targets. Proportionality prohibits responses that are excessively forceful in relation to the initial attack. Precaution requires all parties engaged in conflict to take measures to minimize civilian harm.
While IHL strives to limit the devastation and suffering caused by war, the Rome Statute delineates the penalties for individuals who violate these laws, holding them accountable for their actions on behalf of their state.
The Rome Statute grants the ICC jurisdiction over four related but legally distinct categories of crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression.
According to Article 6 of the Rome Statute, “genocide” encompasses acts intended to fully or partially destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. Article 7 outlines crimes against humanity, which include systematic attacks against civilians, such as murder and forced displacement. Article 8b characterizes the crime of aggression as the planning or execution of aggressive acts. Article 8 specifically addresses war crimes, providing a clear definition.
These four categories differ not only in severity but also in context. Genocide and crimes against humanity can occur during peacetime or in situations where a military is aggressing against an unarmed group. Conversely, war crimes occur within the context of an armed conflict or war between states.
So, what specific actions could be classified as war crimes? The ICC’s “Elements of Crimes” framework identifies numerous acts that may qualify. These include willful killings, torture, hostage-taking, and sexual violence.
Relevant to the threats made by Trump are acts such as attacking civilians and civilian objects—those not involved in military operations. Consequently, Iranian infrastructure like bridges and power plants could fall under this category unless they were being utilized for military purposes, which, in this case, does not appear to be true.
As articulated by former UK judge advocate general officers, Margaret Donovan and Rachel VanLandingham, in an article for Just Security, “Iranian power plants and other critical civilian infrastructure are safeguarded against attacks under the law of war established by the United States post-World War II. Such infrastructure can only lose this protection if it is actively employed for military purposes, and its destruction must provide a clear military advantage. Even then, a thorough analysis is required to ensure that the anticipated military benefit outweighs the civilian suffering that would result.”
Erika Guevara-Rosas, Amnesty International’s Senior Director of Research, Advocacy, Policy, and Campaigns, emphasized that even if such infrastructure were deemed military targets, it would still be unlawful to attack power plants if it would result in disproportionate harm to civilian populations. “Given that power plants are vital for the basic needs and livelihoods of millions, targeting them would be considered disproportionate and illegal under international humanitarian law, potentially constituting a war crime,” she stated.
Guevara-Rosas further elaborated on the ramifications of such attacks, highlighting that the collapse of power plants would lead to severe consequences: water supply disruptions, increased disease outbreaks, hospital shutdowns, and widespread food shortages, ultimately causing economic turmoil and job losses.
Moreover, the U.S. Department of Defense’s own Law of War Manual advises against attacks aimed solely at undermining civilian morale.
The IHL explicitly prohibits intimidation or terror tactics against civilian populations, including acts or threats of violence intended to instill fear. When Trump suggested the annihilation of Iranian civilization, it arguably falls under the definition of genocide rather than a war crime.
Agnès Callamard, Secretary General of Amnesty International, remarked that such threats could be interpreted as a potential incitement to genocide, a crime defined by both the Genocide Convention and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
