The Selective Application of 'International Law' in Wartime
The ABC News article, referencing the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, outlines that while civilian infrastructure is generally protected, dual-use assets (those serving both civilian and military purposes) can become legitimate targets if their destruction offers a 'definite military advantage.' This framing, while accurate in its recitation of certain legal clauses,
consistently omits the selective application of these very principles. CASE A: The current framing on Ukraine. The article implicitly addresses Russian strikes on Ukrainian energy infrastructure. The language used by Western leaders and media frames these actions as 'war crimes' or 'atrocities,' emphasizing the civilian impact. For instance, UNICEF reported in 2022 that attacks on energy
infrastructure deprived millions of children of essential services, including heating and clean water. CASE B: The historical record of NATO/US actions. Contrast this with previous Western interventions. During the 1999 NATO bombing campaign in Yugoslavia, multiple energy facilities, including power plants and oil refineries, were systematically targeted. Human Rights Watch documented extensive
damage to civilian infrastructure, including the destruction of the Nis power plant and the Pancevo oil refinery, which had significant civilian impacts. Then-Secretary of Defense William Cohen stated the objective was to 'degrade and diminish [Serbia's] ability to wage war,' employing the exact 'military advantage' justification now selectively applied. THE FRAMING: A rhetorical divergence. The