AFU one by one neutralize the transport arteries that the Russian Federation uses to implement genocidal intent and terror of the civilian population of Ukraine. Read more in the exclusive blog for Channel 24 website.
Now – the neutralization of the infrastructure monster, which was illegally built by the aggressor state in Crimea in 2016-2018. How does International Humanitarian Law (IHL) qualify the “cotton” on the Crimean Bridge and will Ukraine be held responsible for its destruction?
The Crimean Bridge is a dual-use object
One of the fundamental principles of IHL is the principle of distinction: the division of people into civilian (not participating in hostilities) and combatants (participating), as well as objects – into civilian and military. IHL provides for an absolute prohibition against attacks on civilians and objects. At the same time, in the dynamic context of an armed conflict, given the characteristics of objects, objects can often have a dual purpose, making it difficult to answer the question of the legitimacy of an attack. the following principles:
- Distinction.
- Military necessity.
- Proportionality.
Test for legality of destruction< /h3>
The bridge as a transport artery can be used by both civilians and military. In the event that, under the circumstances, the destruction of a bridge would provide a military advantage, it is a legitimate target. In the ICRC Commentary on the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions, “lines and means of communication (railways, bridges, tunnels and canals) of fundamental military importance” are considered military objectives.
The activities of the Russian group in southern Ukraine directly depend on supplies via the Crimean bridge, through which both personnel and weapons and ammunition are transported. The destruction of the bridge will be important in reducing the offensive potential of the enemy and preventing him from committing new war crimes and crimes against humanity. Therefore, the “clap” on the bridge responds to the principles of distinction and military necessity.
Regarding the principle of proportionality, given that the Crimean Bridge is also used by civilians, the Armed Forces of Ukraine must make every possible effort to reduce damage to the civilian population and civilian objects. In particular, the operational pause between “claps” in Crimea, together with the statements of the political elite of Ukraine, should be interpreted as an action that ensures the civilian population, in particular the Russian colonialists, the right to leave the peninsula.
The practice of UAF strikes on other bridges also confirms the Ukrainian military's attempt to minimize damage to civilian vehicles. At the same time, as Israeli lawyer Ori Pomson aptly put it, attacks on “dual-use” infrastructure can often have negative consequences, so damage to civilians and objects should be considered.
Provided that every possible effort is made to prevent such damage on the part of the attacking side (compliance with the principle of due diligence), it should be excluded from the proportionality analysis. Therefore, if the Armed Forces of Ukraine destroy the Crimean bridge at night, but at the same time a civilian vehicle is also hit, and also if the bridgehead fortifications are destroyed along with the bridge, which will cause damage to civilian objects nearby, violations of IHL, and thus there will be no more war crime.
Ownership of the Crimean bridge: can Russia drag Ukraine into investment arbitration
The cost of construction and commissioning of the Crimean bridge is 227.92 billion rubles. It is likely that Russia will try to initiate production in order to receive compensation for damage as a result of the destruction of the infrastructure monster, especially since the intergovernmental agreement on mutual protection and investment promotion between Ukraine and Russia remains in force, and Crimea is Ukraine, which is subject to the territorial scope of this contract.
But there is one aspect. Crimean Bridge – illegalan investment built without the necessary permits from the competent authorities of Ukraine, which, moreover, violates national environmental legislation and relevant human rights. In addition to a legitimate military purpose, the use of the bridge may be impossible as an object of amateur (illegal) construction.
Hence, ex mala causa non oritur actio – no right arises from an illegal transaction to a lawsuit, so Russia will never receive any compensation from Ukraine. What can not be said about the opposite.
The destruction of the Crimean bridge has not only colossal military significance, but also symbolic. This infrastructural structure is a shackle that chained the temporarily occupied Crimean peninsula to the aggressor state, becoming an artery through which Russia let toxic people and harmful substances in, pumping Ukrainian territory with weapons and using it as a springboard for an attack on the Motherland. By breaking these chains, we will also break the history of 8 years of international crimes against Ukrainian citizens and Ukraine as a whole.
