The IAEA fears disaster from the shelling of Ukraine’s nuclear power plants, but international law says nuclear power plants can be legitimate military targets. Under what conditions?
On the night of Monday, September 19, Russian troops launched a missile attack on the South Ukrainian nuclear power plant, reported Energoatom, the operator of Ukrainian nuclear power plants. “A strong explosion occurred just 300 meters from the nuclear power plant reactors. The nuclear power plant building was damaged by the shock wave, more than 100 windows were broken,” the message published on Energoatom’s Telegram channel.
“A disaster could happen”
“We are playing with fire, something very bad can happen,” – these are the words of Rafael Grossi, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), describing the situation around the Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant (ZAES) in Ukraine , that He recently, after long negotiations, visited with experts from the department. Since March, Europe’s largest nuclear power plant has been under Russian control, but Ukrainian personnel are still working there. True, under the protection of Russian soldiers.
At the end of August, after another shelling, ZNPP was cut off from the Ukrainian energy system for the first time in its history. This means that the cooling of the fuel rods must occur at the expense of the sources of reserve power supply of the station itself. If they fail, there is a risk of melting the rods and leaking radiation.
In its security report after visiting the Zaporizhzhya NPP, the IAEA left open the question of who fired at the plant. The Russian and Ukrainian sides blame each other for this.
Nuclear power plant in war conditions
Regardless of which side is telling the truth, the question is: how should international law deal with nuclear power plants in times of war?
There are clear rules for this. The 1949 Geneva Convention and later additional protocols govern the conduct of armed conflicts and are designed to limit their consequences. Article 56 of the First Additional Protocol of 1977 speaks of “the protection of installations and structures containing dangerous forces”. In addition to dams and dams, it clearly mentions nuclear power plants.
Since the Russian Federation and Ukraine are parties to the convention and have not expressed any reservations to the 1st Additional Protocol, these rules must be applied by both states.
They explicitly stated that nuclear power plants could not be attacked, “even if they were military targets, provided that such an attack could release dangerous forces (radiation) and thus cause severe civilian population losses.” Here, of course, radioactive radiation is meant.
This is one of the principles of international humanitarian law: the distinction between military and civilian targets. Only military targets can be attacked, and even then only under certain conditions. The civilian population must be protected in any case.
In what case can a nuclear power plant be attacked?
This protocol also makes it clear that attacks on nuclear power plants are prohibited, but only if “such an attack is likely to … result in heavy civilian casualties.” That is, it follows that, under certain circumstances, an attack can be authorized.
Paragraph 2 further regulates what may be the circumstances. For example, if nuclear power plants “provide electricity for the regular, significant and direct support of military operations and if such an attack is the only practical means of terminating such support.”
The problem with the first point is that almost all nuclear power plants supply electricity for civilian consumers and military operations. It is almost impossible to separate these two concepts. But does it provide “substantial” support for wartime operations? So, whether a nuclear power plant can be considered a legitimate military target under certain circumstances is a matter of interpretation.
Primary objective: protection of civilians
It is also difficult to assess whether an attack on a nuclear power plant is “the only practical way” to end support for war actions. But even if all the circumstances justify an attack in the eyes of the belligerent, paragraph 3 reads: “The civilian population (…) continues to have the right to any (… ) protection afforded by international law.” Therefore, the attacking side still needs to do everything possible to protect the civilian population from radiation, for example, start evacuating the surrounding areas.
The danger of different interpretations
The position of the Zaporozhye NPP shows what role international law plays in specific cases and how interpretation can affect the situation. For example, paragraph 5 of the Additional Protocol states: “The Parties to the conflict shall endeavor not to establish military objectives in the vicinity of the installations or installations referred to in paragraph 1 of this article.”
UN Secretary-General António Guterres apparently had this in mind when he called on the UN Security Council for a “demilitarized zone” around the nuclear power plant. He demanded “a commitment on the part of Russian forces to withdraw all military personnel and equipment (from this zone) and a commitment on the part of Ukrainian forces not to advance into this zone.” The Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the UN Vasily Nebenzya immediately rejected this request: “The Ukrainians will immediately enter there and destroy everything. We are protecting the facility. It is not militarized. There is no military equipment there.” However, neither Guterres nor Nebenzia specified what military equipment meant: Tanks? Trucks?
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, in contrast, mentioned in his speech to the country that the IAEA report contained a “clear indication” of the presence of Russian troops and military equipment at the station. He called on the IAEA to unequivocally support Ukraine’s position, according to which all Russian troops should be withdrawn from the ZNPP. But the IAEA will likely do everything to avoid taking sides in a military confrontation.
Source: korrespondent
I am David Wyatt, a professional writer and journalist for Buna Times. I specialize in the world section of news coverage, where I bring to light stories and issues that affect us globally. As a graduate of Journalism, I have always had the passion to spread knowledge through writing.