Nuclear power plants in war: hardly any protection under international law | Europe | DW

Infographic map with nuclear reactors in Ukraine

Rafael Grossi, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), is continuing to push for a demilitarized security zone around the Zaporizhia nuclear power plant. It is the largest nuclear power plant in Europe and is located directly on the front in southern Ukraine on the lower reaches of the Dnieper. In March, Russian troops took control of the power plant, and since then it has been repeatedly shelled; both sides blame each other for it.

Infographic map with nuclear reactors in Ukraine

Zaporizhia is not the only, but by far the largest Ukrainian nuclear power plant

“We must do everything in our power to avoid a nuclear accident,” said Grossi at the annual meeting of the IAEA member states in Vienna: “If something happens there, we will not be able to blame a natural disaster, only our own inaction .”

The IAEA was able to send an observer mission to the power plant in early September, which is still operated by Ukrainian technicians but under the eyes of Russian soldiers.

IAEA Director Grossi speaks into microphones

IAEA Director Grossi is trying to negotiate a security zone around the power plant, so far in vain

Except for two members, the IAEA delegation then left again. The attacks on the plant continued anyway. The Atomic Energy Agency called the accident risk “significant” in its investigation report.

Amazingly accurate rules

But it’s not just about a possible accident. A nuclear power plant can also be a war target. And under certain, very limited circumstances, this is even covered by international law.

There are surprisingly detailed rules for this. They were laid down in 1977 in the 1st additional protocol to the Geneva Convention, which regulates the conduct of armed conflicts and is intended to minimize damage to the civilian population. Because the Russian Federation and Ukraine are contracting parties and have not expressed any reservations, the regulations apply to both states.

Numerous people sit and stand behind a table with document folders

The Geneva Convention (signed here in 1949) regulates the conduct of armed conflicts; an additional protocol from 1977 also contains statements on how to deal with nuclear power plants in war

Article 56 of the Additional Protocol states that nuclear power plants may not be attacked “even if they represent military targets, if such an attack could unleash dangerous forces and thereby cause serious casualties among the civilian population”. Radiation is undoubtedly in mind here.

This is about one of the principles of international humanitarian law: the distinction between military and civilian objectives. Only military targets may be attacked and only under certain conditions. In any case, the civilian population must be protected.

Nuclear power plants as “supporters of acts of war”

However, the passage also states that attacks on nuclear power plants are only outlawed “if such an attack can unleash dangerous forces and thereby cause serious casualties among the civilian population”. This means: If this is not to be expected, an attack may be allowed under certain circumstances.

Paragraph 2 even specifies what circumstances that may be, namely when the power plants are “supplying electrical power for regular, significant and immediate support of operations of war and when such an attack is the only practicable means of terminating such support”.

Two people in dark suits, vests and caps look at a destroyed building

The area around the power station is fiercely contested. A rocket hit a parking lot in the city of Zaporizhia last week

The Hamburg lawyer Anne Dienelt wrote in the “Völkerrechtsblog” as early as March after the Russian capture of Zaporizhia: “There can be constellations in which the military advantage of an attack outweighs this, even in the case of nuclear power plants. It is also taken into account here that nuclear power plants have so-called dual can represent use objects, i.e. serve civil and military use at the same time.”

Primary goal: protection of the civilian population

But an attack on a nuclear power plant, to be covered by international law, would also have to be “the only practical means” to end support for the war.

Person in military clothes and gloves holds a Geiger counter in his hands

A Russian soldier measures the radioactivity at the power plant. So far she was said to be harmless

Anne Dienelt interprets it as follows: “Even if it is difficult to think about ‘milder’ means in such a case, international humanitarian law can grant such an action due to the military advantage.”

She differentiates: “Before the nuclear power plant and its reactors can be lawfully attacked, the infrastructure to the nuclear power plant (e.g. power lines or transformers) could be lawfully attacked with less serious consequences than in the case of a nuclear catastrophe, in order to restrict the energy supply of the opposing armed forces . (…) After all, ‘disabling’ is not prohibited by Art. 56 of the 1st Additional Protocol.”

Dienelt points out that an interruption in the power supply for the population, especially in winter, could have serious consequences.

Two hands with painted fingernails hold iodine tablets

Iodine tablets have already been distributed in schools in Zaporizhia – in case of exposure to radiation

In addition, nuclear power plants not only generate electricity, they also need it themselves for cooling. When the power supply in Zaporizhia was destroyed by hostilities in early September, the last of the six reactors had to be shut down. Diesel generators supplied the electricity for cooling, but this was not permanent. The lines have been repaired. A longer-term failure of the cooling system would eventually lead to a serious nuclear accident.

New situation through sham referendums

In war, the rules of international law are mostly purely theoretical. The indications of the most serious war crimes in Bucha in the spring and near Kharkiv in the past few weeks show how little they apply to the Ukraine war.

What gives the arguments about the Zaporizhia nuclear power plant a new twist are the controversial so-called referenda in the Russian-occupied areas of Ukraine, including in the province of Zaporizhia. Observers speak of bogus referendums because of the intimidation of the people and the expulsions. According to Russian data, 93 percent of the residents of Zaporizhia voted in favor of joining the Russian Federation.

In the foreground the back of a soldier with a rifle over his shoulder, in the background several women with voting documents

Armed soldiers accompany the votes in the conquered areas on joining Russia

The area is likely to be annexed by Russia soon. According to the Kremlin, attempts at reconquest by Ukraine would be attacks on Russia. Last week President Vladimir Putin indicated he was ready to use nuclear weapons to defend Russia’s “territorial integrity”. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, on the other hand, wants to reconquer all Russian-occupied territories, including Crimea.

After a Russian annexation of the conquered areas, the Zaporizhia nuclear power plant would be right on the “border” – and thus on the front line. The nuclear threat remains – not just from Russian nuclear weapons, but also from the deliberate or accidental destruction of Europe’s largest nuclear power plant.


LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here