The use of force against
energy installations at sea
under international law
Kiara Neri
Maître de conférences
Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3
 I- Jus ad bellum rules
 II- Law of naval warfare
I- Jus ad bellum rules
 General prohibition of the use of force 2(4) UN Charter
 Exceptions:
 focus on Self Defense art. 51 UN Charter applicable at sea
 San Remo Manual : SECTION II : ARMED CONFLICTS AND
THE LAW OF SELF-DEFENCE 3. The exercise of the right
of individual or collective self-defence recognized in
Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations is
subject to the conditions and limitations laid down in
the Charter, and arising from general international law,
including in particular the principles of necessity and
proportionality.
Self defense
 Paragraphs 3 to 6 of the Manual recall the conditions for
the use of force in self-defense at sea, including against
off shore installations:
 the existence of a prior armed attack
 the necessity of the response
 the proportionality of the response
Armed attack
 prior existence of an armed attack is the condition sine
qua non required for the exercise of the right to
individual or collective self-defense
 ICJ Nicaragua case:
 the assistance received by the Salvadorian armed
opposition from Nicaragua could not be seen as an armed
attack under international law
 THUS it could not justify the mining of the Nicaraguan
ports and the attacks on oil installations by the US
 Guyana v. Surinam Award:
 Law of countermeasures to justify the threat to the use of
force against the energy exploration crews
 Not accepted by the Tribunal
Necessity
 Is considered to be necessary the use of force that is
 able to respond to the armed attack
 able to stop it. This criteria refers to the jus in bello
principle of distinction that we will discuss infra.
 taken immediately after the attack (sometimes difficult at
sea) ICJ, Nicaragua case (para.237)
Proportionality
 No clear definition but clues:
 San Remo Manual: The intensity of a State’s military
actions against the enemy will depend upon the intensity
and scale of the armed attack for which the enemy is
responsible and the gravity of the threat posed (para. 5)
 Therefore, a use of force is proportionate if 2
conditions are met :
 it is consistent with the characteristics of the armed
attack, in terms of scale, type of weapon used, or the
extend of the damages.
 it uses means that are appropriate to achieve the aim
sought by the response
 Examples
 ICJ Nicaragua case: the attacks against the energy
installations and the ports were a disproportionate
response to the aid and assistance of rebels
 ICJ Oil platform case:
 The attack on Reshadat’s platform could have been a
proportionate response to the attack on a US civilian ship : Sea
Isle City
 The attacks on Nasr and Salman’ oil platforms where, on the
contrary, a disproportionate reaction to the attack against an
American warship (USS Samuel B Roberts)
II- Law of naval warfare
 During an armed conflict at sea, energy installations are
at risk because of their location, in zones were hostile
action is authorized
 Hostile actions are authorized, under the law of
naval warfare on:
 Internal waters; Territorial waters of the belligerent State
(para. 10a San Remo Manual)
 Exclusive economic zone and Continental shelf of belligerent
States (para. 10a San Remo Manual)
 EEZ and CS of neutral States (para. 10c San Remo Manual)
 Are they protected by the law of armed conflicts at sea?
 Under the general principle of distinction?
 Under the environment protection rules?
1. The general principle of
distinction
 San Remo Manual applies the IHL general principle at
sea: Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish
between civilians or other protected persons and
combatants and between civilian or exempt objects and
military objectives” Paragraph 39
 A military objective is an object which (Article 52(2) of
the 1977 Additional Protocol I and 40 of Sam Remo
Manual):
 make an effective contribution to military action
AND
 whose partial or total destruction offers a clear military
advantage
 As a result:
 Neutral States’ installations are protected (San Remo
Manual, para 35 and 35)
 Belligerant States’ installations: case-to-case assessment
 Energy installations are to be regarded, in general, as
commercial in nature, ICJ Oil plateforms case (para 86)
 BUT HIL recognized the possibility to qualify energy
installations as military objectives IF THEY make an effective
contribution to military action and if their destruction offers a
clear military advantage
 Examples:
 Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission: the Hirgigo electric
power station is a military objective because
 it was used to supply power to the port of Massawa which is,
without any doubt a military objective.
 Eritrea placed anti-aircraft guns in the vicinity of the power
which indicated that Eritrean military authorities themselves
viewed the station as having military significance
 ICJ Oil plateforms case: the Reshadat oil platforms is NOT a
military objective because
 The presense of military personnel on the plateform is not
sufficient to prove the military purposes of the plateform
 According to the Court the platform was a "target of
opportunity", not one previously identified as an appropriate
military target (para. 76)
2. The protection of the marine
environment
 International armed conflicts
 Prohibition of API 1977 to use of methods or means of warfare
which are intended or may be expected to cause damage to
the natural environment (art. 55 and 35)
 Oil and gas installations are protected
 Non international armed conflicts
 No such prohibition in APII (art. 14 and 15 offer a indirect
protection of the natural environment but not relevant here)
 Energy installations are not protected
 San Remo Manual encourages belligerants, even when they do
not have a clear obligation to do so, to employ methods and
means of warfare with due regard for the natural
environment and rare or fragile ecosystems (para. 44 and 11)