+

Legal Regulation of the

Use of Force against
Offshore Energy
Installations

Dr. Kiara NERI

Maitre de confrences-Universit Lyon 3

Introduction

Interest of the subject

Definition of terms : what are we talking about?

Introduction

Interest of the subject : why do we need to focus on the legal

regulations of the use of force against off-shore platforms

Because of the strategic and economic importance of those

installations
Because of the content of the law of naval warfare/law of armed
conflicts at sea:
Hostile actions are authorized, under the law of naval warfare on
maritime zones that may content off-shore energy installations:
IW; TS of the belligerent State (para. 10a San Remo Manual)
EEZ and CS of belligerent State (para. 10a San Remo Manual)
EEZ and CS of neutral States (para. 10c San Remo Manual)
As a result off shore installations on the continental Shelf or EEZ of
belligerent States are potentially subject to attack, because of their
location : in a zone where hostile action may take place.

Introduction

Definition of terms : what are we talking about?

What do we mean by use of force ?

Art. 24 UN Charter against the territorial integrity or political

independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with
the Purposes of the United Nations.
As opposed to law enforcement.
We will focus on the legal framework provided by International Law
of Armed Conflicts (both jus ad bellum and jus in bello).

Which kind of off shore installations are we talking about?

Off-shore Oil platforms

Renewable energy installations (i.e. offshore wind farms)

I- The Use of Force against

Offshore Energy Installations in
the framework of the jus ad
bellum
1.

Jus ad bellum general rules

2.

The application of these rules to the issue of off shore

energy installation

I- The Use of Force against

Offshore Energy Installations in
the framework of the jus ad
bellum
Jus ad bellum general rules

1.

Prohibition of the use of force (24 UN Charter)

Exception :

Security Council authorization (Chapter VII UN Charter-art. 42)

Solicited intervention

Decolonization/fight against unlawful occupation

Self defense (only relevant option here)

I- The Use of Force against

Offshore Energy Installations in
the framework of the jus ad
bellum
2.

The application of these rules to the issue of off shore

energy installation

I- The Use of Force against

Offshore Energy Installations in
the framework of the jus ad
bellum

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

condition sine qua non required for the exercise of the right
to individual or collective self-defense

ICJ Nicaragua Case : attacks on nicaraguyan oil installations

US tried to justify by the right to collective self-defense in

response of an alleged armed attack on the part of Nicaragua
against El Salvador

BUT no prior Armed attack demonstrate

Guyana v. Surinam Arbitration (2007)

Law of countermeasures to justify the threat to the use of force

Not accepted by the Tribunal

Necessity of the armed response

Oil plaform case (2003):

In the case both of the attack on the Sea Isle City and the mining of
the USS Samuel B. Roberts, the Court is not satisfied that the attacks
on the platforms were necessary to respond to these incidents

because there is no evidence that the United States complained to

Iran of the military activities of the platforms, in the same way
as it complained repeatedly of minelaying and attacks on
neutral shipping, which does not suggest that the targeting of
the platforms was seen as a necessary act. The Court would also
observe that in the case of the attack of 19 October 1987, the United
States forces attacked the R-4 platform as a "target of opportunity",
not one previously identified as an appropriate military target (see
paragraph 47 above)

Proportionality of the armed

response

Oil platform case:

As to the requirement of proportionality, the attack of 19 October

1987 might, had the Court found that it was necessary in response to
the Sea Isle City incident as an armed attack committed by Iran,
have been considered proportionate.

Attack of 19 October 1987 on Reshadats platform was

proportionate ; Attacks of 18 April 1988 on Nasr and Salman oil
platforms where, on the contrary, disproportionate.

Why? they formed part of a much more extensive military action,

designated Operation Praying Mantis, conducted by the United
States against a number of targets, including the destruction of
two Iranian frigates and other Iranian naval vessels and aircraft.

II- The Use of Force against

Offshore Energy Installations in
the framework of the jus in bello
1.
2.

Military objective

Protection of the environment

1. Military objective

Two cumulative criteria have to be met (Article 52(2) of the

1977 Additional Protocol I ):

to make an effective contribution to military action

AND

an object whose partial or total destruction offers a definite

military advantage

Neutral States off shore installations : NOT a military

objective

Belligerent States off shore installation : are military

objective if they are used for military purposes

2. The protection of the

environment

San Remo Manual :

Methods and means of warfare should be employed with due regard

for the natural environment taking into account the relevant rules of
international law. Damage to or destruction of the natural environment
not justified by military necessity and carried out want only is
prohibited (para 44).

Additional Protocol (I) to the Geneva Conventions, 1977

Care shall be taken in warfare to protect the natural environment

against widespread, long-term and severe damage. This protection
includes a prohibition of the use of methods or means of warfare which
are intended or may be expected to cause such damage to the natural
environment and thereby to prejudice the health or survival of the
population. Attacks against the natural environment by way of reprisals
are prohibited (art. 55).
It is prohibited to employ methods or means of warfare which are
intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and
severe damage to the natural environment (art. 353).