핵심요약

• 이란 공습으로 500명 이상이 부상당하고 50명 이상이 사망함
• 미국은 전기 발전소, 다리 등 민간 기반 시설을 표적으로 삼아 공격 범위를 확대함
• 공습의 합법성은 '군사 작전에 대한 효과적인 기여'와 '과도한 민간인 피해 방지'라는 전쟁법 기준에 달려 있음
• 발전소와 같은 시설은 군사적 필요에 충분하여 군사 목표로 인정될 수 있음

도입

본 기사는 미국의 이란 공습이 국제법상 정당성 문제에 직면하고 있음을 지적합니다. 투자자 관점에서 이 사안은 지정학적 위험이 실제 경제 및 안보 환경에 미치는 영향을 분석하는 데 중요합니다. 군사적 행위의 법적 경계가 모호해질 때, 이는 국제 관계의 변동성과 에너지 공급망의 안정성에 직접적인 영향을 미치기 때문입니다.

본문 1: 국제법과 군사 목표의 재해석

미국이 민간 기반 시설을 공격하는 행위의 법적 정당성은 국제인도법(Law of War)의 기준에 따라 판단됩니다. 기사는 이러한 공격이 합법성을 얻기 위해서는 해당 시설이 '군사 작전에 대한 효과적인 기여'를 제공하는지, 그리고 민간인에게 예상되는 피해가 과도하지 않은지를 판단해야 한다고 주장합니다. 특히, 미국 국방부(DoD)의 전쟁법 매뉴얼에 따르면, 발전소와 같은 시설은 직접적인 군사 기지 역할을 하지 않더라도 통신, 운송, 산업 등 국가의 전쟁 필요에 충분한 중요성을 제공하므로 군사 목표로 인정될 수 있습니다. 이는 군사적 필요에 따라 민간 자원을 활용하는 것이 법적으로 허용될 수 있음을 시사합니다.

본문 2: 지정학적 위험과 에너지 시장의 연관성

공습의 합법성 논란은 단순한 법적 문제를 넘어 지정학적 위험을 증폭시킵니다. 이란과 같은 주요 에너지 생산국을 겨냥한 군사적 행동은 국제 에너지 시장의 변동성을 높이며, 에너지 공급망의 취약성을 드러냅니다. 만약 이러한 군사적 행동이 국제법적 테두리 내에서 이루어진다 하더라도, 이는 지역의 불안정성을 심화시키고 에너지 자원의 접근성에 대한 위험 프리미엄을 증가시킵니다. 따라서 투자자들은 법적 판단뿐만 아니라, 이러한 군사적 긴장이 에너지 가격과 장기적인 공급망 안정성에 미치는 파급 효과를 동시에 고려해야 합니다.

본문 3: 장기적 관점의 리스크와 전망

이러한 사안은 단기적인 법적 판단을 넘어 장기적인 국제 안보 구조에 대한 시사점을 제공합니다. 국가들이 군사적 목표와 민간 기반 시설의 경계를 어떻게 정의하느냐에 따라 미래의 국제 협력 및 갈등 해결 방식이 달라질 수 있습니다. 향후에도 분쟁 지역에서 민간 인프라의 역할과 보호 문제는 지속적으로 논의될 것이며, 이는 국제 안보 정책과 경제적 이해관계의 교차점에서 중요한 변수로 작용할 것입니다. 따라서 투자 분석 시에는 법적 해석과 더불어, 이러한 지정학적 긴장이 장기적인 투자 환경에 미치는 구조적 리스크를 면밀히 평가해야 합니다.

결론

결론적으로, 미국의 군사 작전이 국제법적 테두리 내에서 이루어질 수 있다는 논쟁은 군사적 행위의 정당성을 판단하는 기준이 얼마나 복잡한지를 보여줍니다. 이러한 법적 논쟁은 에너지 시장의 변동성과 지정학적 불안정성에 영향을 미치므로, 투자자들은 법적 해석과 더불어 실제적인 에너지 및 공급망 위험을 종합적으로 분석해야 할 것입니다. 향후 이 지역의 안정화 추세와 국제법적 기준의 적용 방식 변화에 주목할 필요가 있습니다.

---

원문 링크: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMidEFVX3lxTFBlUzFobnNuUHktSWtuVHlRLWZUS2NpS0RWMWduVjBmRWN0YVhtSExIU1UzQW9NQWJpcDlIdVVITEpVMXJUMGl5MUxiOVBLTUI0S3R5LThHOUlOWWJ5VjJhWkVoYlZ4c2RFWTFGclpRaGdvYUV4?oc=5

Opinion | The U.S. military's escalating strikes in Iran may be legal. That doesn’t make them justified. - MS NOW

In its recent strikes in Iran, the United States widened its targeting aperture to bomb sites directly serving the Iranian population, such as electrical power plants, bridges, railway stations and roads. By doing so, the U.S. deliberately chose to inflict greater suffering on Iranian civilians. Over 500 Iranians have reportedly been injured this month, and more than 50 people, including children, have been killed. And those numbers don’t capture the full harm, such as sheer terror, caused by the destruction of items and resources vital to daily civilian life. Attacking facilities and places that contribute to Iranian military action or are expected to do so in the future, and whose destruction provides the attacker military advantage, can be lawful — even if on a day-to-day basis such facilities and places serve ordinary civilians. That is, strikes are lawful if U.S. commanders reasonably assess that such targeted infrastructure meet the law of war’s “effective contribution to military action” test and that expected harm to civilians isn’t excessive. Regardless of legality, the U.S. targeting Iranian infrastructure used by civilians is likely to cause far more civilian deaths than those caused by targeting purely military objects. According to the law of war, “military action” is quite broad and can be indirect, such as a war-supporting activities and, for the U.S, even so-called war-sustaining activities. Power plants can be considered lawful military objectives even if they don’t directly serve a military base, because, according to the Department of Defense’s Law of War manual, they “are generally recognized to be of sufficient importance to a State’s capacity to meet its wartime needs of communication, transport, and industry so as usually to qualify as military objectives during armed conflicts.” But a country cannot rely only on what’s lawful to avoid international outrage. Russia struck Ukrainian electrical power plants in the middle of winter in that ongoing war, leaving thousands of Ukrainian civilians without power. Many in the international community, including the International Criminal Court, have considered that a war crime, given that attack’s grave impact on Ukrainian civilians. This underscores that context matters. Regardless of legality, the U.S. targeting Iranian infrastructure used by civilians is likely to cause far more civilian deaths than those caused by targeting purely military objects. And waves of attacks against such military targets earlier in this war already inflicted tremendous civilian harm. U.S. and Israeli strikes killed more than 1,400 Iranian civilians in the first three weeks of the Iran war alone. That was mostly because even purely military assets were often located in cities and towns, and the law of war permits a disturbingly high level of collateral damage in allowing their destruction. And at the start of the war, a strike on an Iranian girls’ school killed 175 people, mostly children. Reports overwhelmingly have pointed to the U.S. as responsible, but the U.S. has yet to release an investigation into the strike. (That girls’ school strike could constitute a crime if reports are true that commanders knowingly relied on grossly outdated intelligence when ordering the strike. The military penal code would consider such deaths reckless killings, even if the strike didn’t amount to the international war crime of directly attacking civilians, given that the school didn’t appear to have been intentionally targeted as a civilian school.) An expansion of targets to so-called “dual-use” targets that also serve civilians inches the U.S. closer to total war, one in which greater and greater civilian harm is considered acceptable. President Donald Trump has literally threatened total war since the spring, calling for war crimes and issuing threats to obliterate Iranian civilization and send Iran “back to the stone ages.” Iran, unsurprisingly, is retaliating against Gulf States’ civilian infrastructure, seemingly with far less adherence to the law of war than the U.S. This has led to an intensifying death spiral, with civilians figuratively and, in some instances, literally caught in the crosshairs. The Iran war was not thrust upon America. It was and is a war of choice, even if the Iranian government is uniquely egregious. Its regime killed its own citizens by the thousands this year, has sponsored terrorism in the region for decades, has constantly threatened and fomented violence against Israel and was seemingly committed to developing nuclear weapons capability. Even so, Iran did not pose an imminent threat on Feb. 28. The Trump administration initiated this war in violation of international law (and without congressional approval), and it has waged the war without a clear strategy for success — and without American support. The Iran war was not thrust upon America. It was and is a war of choice, even if the Iranian government is uniquely egregious. It’s important to emphasize that targeting civilian infrastructure is only lawful after a case-by-case determination is made that such object makes an effective contribution to military action; and that its destruction offers a military advantage. Additionally, before a strike is considered lawful, commanders must direct all feasible precautions to minimize civilian harm. For example, a military might strike a bridge at night when fewer civilians are expected to be in the vicinity. Finally, even after precautions (such as warnings) are considered, the planned attack is only lawful if the anticipated civilian harm (to people and objects) is not excessive relative to the expected concrete and direct military advantage to be gained from the strike. You might wonder about water desalination plants, given Trump’s threats against them and because of reports of attacks against them. Strikes against such facilities would likely be considered a war crime if intentionally targeted, because they are indispensable to the survival of the civilian population. That affords them heightened protection under the law of war. While Iran has reportedly struck numerous such sites as recently as last week, the U.S. reportedly struck one in Iran last week. The law of war allows for a great deal of violence, including a great deal of harm to civilians and civilian objects. But even if such strikes against civilian infrastructure are lawful, given both the civilian suffering they cause and the movement toward total war they represent, they should only be ordered when demanded by imperative military necessity — that is, as the last resort. The U.S. is nowhere near that point in Iran.

Source: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMidEFVX3lxTFBlUzFobnNuUHktSWtuVHlRLWZUS2NpS0RWMWduVjBmRWN0YVhtSExIU1UzQW9NQWJpcDlIdVVITEpVMXJUMGl5MUxiOVBLTUI0S3R5LThHOUlOWWJ5VjJhWkVoYlZ4c2RFWTFGclpRaGdvYUV4?oc=5