Attacks on Steel Industries in Armed Conflicts: Legal Assessment of Legitimacy, Consequences, and International Responsibility

Military attacks against steel industries as dual-use infrastructure have, under certain expansive interpretations of military necessity, weakened the fundamental distinction between civilian objects and military objectives, thereby undermining the Principle of Distinction in International Humanitarian Law (IHL). This study examines the legal feasibility of classifying steel industries as military objectives and assesses the scope of international responsibility of states and operational commanders for such attacks, as well as the available mechanisms for reparation. The article advances the hypothesis that steel industries, particularly major industrial complexes such as Mobarakeh Steel Company and Khuzestan Steel Company, are inherently civilian in nature and that reliance on the concept of “dual-use” to justify attacks against them lacks legal legitimacy. Employing a descriptive-analytical methodology, the research draws upon library sources, international legal instruments, and the analysis of contemporary armed conflict practices. The findings demonstrate that the classification of these facilities as military objectives is conceivable only in highly exceptional circumstances requiring the simultaneous fulfillment of strict criteria, including a direct, immediate, and effective contribution to military operations. Consequently, attempts to justify attacks on steel industries on the basis of their alleged dual-use character are inconsistent with the fundamental principles of distinction, proportionality, and military necessity and therefore cannot serve as a valid legal basis for targeting. Such attacks may constitute violations of international law, giving rise to the international responsibility of the attacking state. The study further concludes that strengthening documentation mechanisms through a comprehensive infrastructure damage registry and pursuing the criminal responsibility of commanders and decision-makers constitute realistic avenues for safeguarding the right to development and securing accountability for the destruction of critical economic infrastructure.