Israel-Iran War: Can A Nation Bomb Another's Nuclear Site? Article 56 Of Geneva Convention Explained

Last Updated:June 19, 2025, 17:53 IST

Article 56 was added in 1977 to the Geneva Conventions as part of the Additional Protocols meant to protect civilian lives during armed conflict

Israel argues that Iranian nuclear sites, especially Fordow and Natanz, are not purely civilian in nature. (news18 Hindi)

As the Israel-Iran conflict enters its second week, the skies above the Middle East remain lit with the fire of missiles and drones. Among the most controversial developments is Israel’s repeated strikes on what it claims are Iranian nuclear facilities, including the heavily fortified Fordow plant. Iran has responded with missile barrages of its own, calling the attacks a blatant violation of sovereignty.

But as the dust settles over charred terrain and the world watches anxiously, a critical question has surfaced in diplomatic circles: Can a country legally attack another’s nuclear facilities during war? And what does Article 56 of the Geneva Convention say about such actions?

Article 56 Of Geneva Convention

Article 56 was added in 1977 to the Geneva Conventions as part of the Additional Protocols meant to protect civilian lives during armed conflict. It specifically prohibits attacks on installations “containing dangerous forces", such as dams, dykes, and nuclear electrical generating stations, unless those facilities are being used in direct military operations and no other means exist to halt them.

The clause was designed with one purpose, i.e. to prevent environmental disasters and mass civilian casualties caused by the release of hazardous forces, especially radiation. If a strike on a nuclear plant were to cause a meltdown or the leakage of radioactive material, such an act would be considered a war crime under international humanitarian law.

The Exception Clause

However, like many international laws, Article 56 comes with an exception that provides a legal grey zone. If a nuclear site is being used for direct military action, and there is no feasible alternative to neutralise the threat, then an attack may be permissible, provided the military advantage outweighs potential civilian harm.

Israel appears to be leaning on this very exception. Its security establishment argues that Iranian nuclear sites, especially Fordow and Natanz, are not purely civilian in nature. Instead, they allege these facilities are being used to enrich uranium for weapons, a claim Iran consistently denies.

In Israel’s view, targeting these sites is a preemptive act of self-defence. But under international law, proving such intent is notoriously difficult, and launching strikes out of revenge or strategic intimidation is not a legitimate justification.

Do These Laws Even Apply?

There’s a more fundamental issue. Israel is not legally bound by Article 56. Neither Israel, the United States, nor India has ratified the 1977 Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions. This means that while Article 56 exists on paper, it holds no binding authority over Israeli military decisions.

That legal loophole has real-world consequences. Over the years, Israel has targeted Iranian nuclear infrastructure multiple times. The Natanz facility, for instance, was struck by a cyberattack in 2010 and more recently by a blast in 2021, widely attributed to Mossad. In both cases, Israel justified its actions by citing the existential threat posed by a nuclear-armed Iran.

The Natanz Precedent

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed that radiation levels remained stable after the Natanz incident. But military analysts warn that this may not always be the case. Fordow, for example, is built deep within the Zagros Mountains and is believed to be impervious to conventional strikes, leading to speculation that Israel may seek American bunker-busting bombs to breach it.

If such weapons were used, and radioactive material released, it could unleash not just regional fallout but a humanitarian disaster, exactly what Article 56 was intended to prevent.

Iran has described Israel’s actions as a declaration of war and has retaliated accordingly. While the United States maintains that it is not directly involved in the fighting, it has reaffirmed its support for Israel’s right to self-defence.

The international response has been predictably fragmented. European powers have issued statements calling for restraint, but have stopped short of condemning either side. Russia and China have denounced the Israeli strikes, but without backing their words with meaningful action. At the UN Security Council, concerns have been raised, but no resolutions passed.

In essence, the Geneva Conventions, once considered the bedrock of wartime ethics, are being tested, if not ignored altogether.

Some analysts argue that Israel’s ultimate aim isn’t just to delay Iran’s nuclear program, but to weaken the Islamic Republic politically and militarily. Iran, meanwhile, frames the assaults as violations of its national sovereignty, and has used the attacks to rally domestic support.

Location :

First Published:

News world Israel-Iran War: Can A Nation Bomb Another's Nuclear Site? Article 56 Of Geneva Convention Explained