Here’s What International Law Says About Striking Energy Facilities in War

Amid repeated attacks on energy infrastructure during the Russia‑Ukraine war, legal experts and international institutions have weighed in on when striking energy facilities is lawful under the laws of armed conflict — emphasizing protections for civilian systems and limits on acceptable military targets.

By Maria Rodriguez – Senior Staff Writer

Last Updated: Feb. 3, 2026

Legal Framework Governing Targets in War

Under international humanitarian law, warring parties may strike an opponent’s energy facilities **only if the attack is directed at a legitimate military objective and does not cause disproportionate civilian harm**. Combatants must distinguish between military targets and civilian objects, and they must avoid attacks in which expected civilian suffering outweighs any military advantage. This principle forms a core part of the law of armed conflict and is reflected in guidelines from bodies such as the International Committee of the Red Cross. :contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}

Energy Systems Usually Count as Civilian Objects

Most components of a nation’s energy infrastructure — including power grids, substations, and facilities that supply electricity and heating — are classified as **civilian objects** under international law. As such, they are protected from direct attacks unless they make an effective contribution to military action and their neutralization offers a definite military advantage to the attacker. Damage solely to civilian energy systems without clear military justification is widely considered unlawful. :contentReference[oaicite:1]{index=1}

Limits on Civilian Harm and Proportionality

Even if an energy facility does have connection to an enemy’s military capabilities, attacking it remains restricted by the **proportionality rule**. This legal principle forbids attacks where anticipated civilian harm — such as death, suffering, or loss of essential services — would be excessive compared with the concrete military advantage gained. Strikes that plunge civilians into freezing conditions or severe hardship can violate this standard, even if the target offers some broader strategic benefit. :contentReference[oaicite:2]{index=2}

International Criminal Court and Accountability

The **International Criminal Court (ICC)** has played a role in clarifying these legal standards. In 2024, pretrial judges at the ICC issued arrest warrants for top Russian military leaders — including former Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu — on the basis that missile strikes hitting electricity infrastructure appeared to be directed against civilian objects and caused excessive harm relative to military advantage. These actions signal that senior commanders could face criminal responsibility for unlawful strikes on critical civilian infrastructure. :contentReference[oaicite:3]{index=3}

Contentions and State Positions

States engaged in conflict often dispute these legal interpretations. For example, Russia has asserted that many of its strikes on Ukrainian energy infrastructure aimed at systems supporting Ukraine’s military logistics and war efforts, not civilians per se. Kyiv and its allies, as well as human rights advocates, disagree — arguing that repeated targeting of power grids and substations, especially in winter, verges on unlawful and may constitute war crimes. These divergent claims underscore ongoing tensions between military strategy and humanitarian legal obligations in modern warfare. :contentReference[oaicite:4]{index=4}