Civiles, infraestructuras esenciales y escudos humanos: una reflexión a propósito de las cadenas humanas en Irán | Zenodo Skip to main Communities My dashboard Log in Sign up CODESEL Published April 1, 2026 | Version v1 Journal article Open Civiles, infraestructuras esenciales y escudos humanos: una reflexión a propósito de las cadenas humanas en Irán Authors/Creators Cisneros Cristóbal, Paula (Researcher) 1 Show affiliations 1.
Centro Universitario de la Defensa (Academia General Militar - Unizar) Description LEGAL REVIEW Cisneros Cristóbal, Paula. “Civiles, infraestructuras esenciales y escudos humanos: una reflexión a propósito de las cadenas humanas en Irán.” Boletín CODESEL, vol. 2, no. 8, April 2026, ISSN-e: 3045-7750. The article offers a doctrinally rigorous and analytically nuanced examination of the interaction between civilian populations, essential infrastructure, and the prohibition of human shields within the framework of International Humanitarian Law (IHL). Situated within the broader evolution of contemporary conflicts, the study addresses a central tension: the increasing difficulty of maintaining a clear separation between civilian and military spheres in environments characterized by strategic interdependence and societal mobilization. The starting point of the analysis is the principle of distinction, which remains the cornerstone of the legal regime governing the conduct of hostilities. The article correctly emphasizes that both civilians and civilian objects are protected against attack unless they meet the strict criteria established under Article 52(2) of Additional Protocol I. In this respect, the author provides a precise doctrinal clarification: infrastructure such as power plants, bridges, or energy installations does not lose its civilian character merely due to its strategic relevance for the State. Its qualification as a lawful military objective depends on whether, by its nature, location, purpose, or use, it effectively contributes to military action and whether its neutralization offers a definite military advantage . This distinction is essential in preventing an over-expansive interpretation of military objectives that would risk undermining the protective function of IHL. The article further develops this analysis by highlighting the specific legal and humanitarian sensitivity of essential infrastructure. Facilities that sustain the basic needs of the population—such as electricity generation, transport networks, and water supply—occupy a central position in the legal assessment of targeting decisions. Their destruction may produce cascading effects on civilian life, thereby intensifying the relevance of the proportionality principle. The author’s reference to the International Committee of the Red Cross reinforces this perspective, underscoring that attacks on essential infrastructure often have consequences that extend far beyond the immediate military objective and may approach the threshold of prohibited conduct under IHL. The doctrinal core of the article lies in its examination of human shields. The prohibition, as codified in Article 51(7) of Additional Protocol I and reflected in customary international law, is correctly presented as an absolute norm prohibiting the use of civilian presence to render military objectives immune from attack. However, the article avoids simplistic categorizations by carefully distinguishing between the mere presence of civilians and the intentional instrumentalization required to qualify conduct as unlawful human shielding. This analytical distinction is of particular importance in contemporary conflicts, where civilian proximity to infrastructure may arise from a variety of factors, including spontaneous collective behavior, state encouragement, or perceived necessity. A particularly relevant contribution is the treatment of the evidentiary threshold required to classify a situation as involving human shields. The article emphasizes that the mere concentration of civilians around a threatened object does not automatically satisfy the legal criteria for such a classification. Instead, it is necessary to demonstrate that the civilian presence is being used with the specific intent of protecting a military objective or obstructing military operations. This requirement introduces a degree of caution into legal analysis, preventing premature or unfounded characterizations in situations where information is incomplete or contested. The discussion of voluntary human shields adds further doctrinal depth. Drawing on the ICRC’s Interpretive Guidance on Direct Participation in Hostilities, the author highlights the difficulty of categorizing such individuals as direct participants, particularly when their presence does not amount to an effective impediment to military action. This reinforces the threshold-based nature of direct participation and ensures that civilian protection is not eroded through overly expansive interpretations. Even where civilian presence complicates targeting decisions, it does not automatically convert those individuals into lawful targets, thereby preserving the integrity of the principle of distinction. Another key aspect of the analysis is the reaffirmation of the non-reciprocal character of IHL obligations. The article correctly stresses that even if one party violates the prohibition of human shields, the opposing party remains bound by its obligations under IHL. Article 51(8) of Additional Protocol I explicitly prevents the erosion of civilian protection through reciprocal violations, ensuring that the principles of distinction, proportionality, and precaution continue to apply. This doctrinal point is of fundamental importance in maintaining the humanitarian logic of the legal framework, particularly in situations where adversaries engage in unlawful practices. From a broader strategic perspective, the article captures a defining feature of contemporary conflict: the increasing ambiguity surrounding the status of both persons and objects. The phenomena described do not fit neatly within traditional legal categories, reflecting instead a hybrid interaction between state policy, civilian agency, and the protection of critical infrastructure. This ambiguity generates significant operational challenges, as military decision-makers must assess legality under conditions of uncertainty while remaining bound by strict normative constraints. In its concluding reflections, the article underscores that the central issue is not the obsolescence of IHL, but rather the growing strain placed upon its interpretative frameworks by evolving patterns of conflict. The normalization of civilian presence around threatened infrastructure complicates the application of legal principles and risks diluting the clarity of the distinction between combatants and civilians. At the same time, the persistence of core obligations—particularly those relating to proportionality and precaution—demonstrates the resilience of the legal framework, even in the face of increasingly complex operational environments. The article represents a significant contribution to the doctrinal analysis of targeting law and civilian protection. Its strength lies in its capacity to navigate the grey zones of contemporary conflict without abandoning normative precision, offering a balanced and analytically robust framework for understanding the legal implications of civilian presence in proximity to essential infrastructure. Files CISNEROS_CRISTOBAL_Civiles_infraestructuras_esenciales_y_escudos_humanos_Iran_CODESEL_Boletin_2026_8.pdf Files (304.1 kB) Name Size Download all CISNEROS_CRISTOBAL_Civiles_infraestructuras_esenciales_y_escudos_humanos_Iran_CODESEL_Boletin_2026_8.pdf md5:773a6392a7cb53a66eb5885e334b3ffd 304.1 kB Preview Download 24 Views 22 Downloads Show more details All versions This version Views Total views 24 24 Downloads Total downloads 22 22 Data volume Total data volume 7.3 MB 7.3 MB More info on how stats are collected.... Versions External resources Indexed in OpenAIRE Communities Keywords and subjects Keywords International humanitarian law Military objectives Critical infrastructure Security policy Risk governance Conflict regulation Human shields Legal framework War Jurisprudence Internationality Civilian Population Infrastructure Accountability Law of armed conflict Legal analysis Conflict studies Strategic studies Defence studies Civil protection Infrastructure security EuroSciVoc Armed conflicts International law Governance GEMET Civilian protection War Jurisprudence Risk assessment Ethics International law Public international law MeSH Armed Conflicts Armed Conflicts/ethics Armed Conflicts/trends Armed Conflicts/prevention & control Armed Conflicts/legislation & jurisprudence Warfare and Armed Conflicts Warfare and Armed Conflicts/ethics Warfare and Armed Conflicts/trends Jurisprudence Public Policy Internationality Internationality/legislation & jurisprudence Decision Making Risk Assessment Ethics International Law Details DOI DOI Badge DOI 10.5281/zenodo.19680175 Markdown [](https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19680175) reStructuredText .. image:: https://zenodo.org/badge/DOI/10.5281/zenodo.19680175.svg :target: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19680175 HTML <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19680175"><img src="https://zenodo.org/badge/DOI/10.5281/zenodo.19680175.svg" alt="DOI"></a> Image URL https://zenodo.org/badge/DOI/10.5281/zenodo.19680175.svg Target URL https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19680175 Resource type Journal article Publisher CODESEL Published in Boletín CODESEL, 2(8), 64-66, ISSN: 3045-7750, 2026. Languages Spanish Rights License Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International The Creative Commons Attribution license allows re-distribution and re-use of a licensed work on the condition that the creator is appropriately credited. Read more Citation Export Technical metadata Created April 21, 2026 Modified April 21, 2026 Jump up About About Policies Infrastructure Principles Projects Roadmap Contact Blog Blog Support Help FAQ Developers REST API OAI-PMH Contribute GitHub Donate Funded by Powered by CERN Data Centre & InvenioRDM Status Privacy policy Cookie policy Terms of Use This site uses cookies. Find out more on how we use cookies Accept all cookies Accept only essential cookies