Call to strike data centres: When can an object be a military target?

What the 12 October call refers to

News source reports the Lithuanian Prime Minister's statement about more strikes on data processing centres located in Russia, in the context of protecting elections from foreign interference. This is a political proposal. The report does not present evidence of the use of a specific centre or an independent legal assessment thereof.

Two conditions for a military object

Article 52 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions links the military status of an object to its effective contribution to military action and the specific military advantage gained by its neutralisation in the circumstances ruling at the time. Both conditions must be assessed together. General importance for a country's economy or political communication does not, in itself, prove these criteria.

What information is needed on a data centre

A server can simultaneously serve various users. The actual function of a specific object, its connection to a military system, and the reliability of information must be ascertained. The name of a building or the hosting of online content unacceptable to any government is not an automatic legal basis. A political objective cannot replace evidence.

It is also important what civilian services depend on the centre: hospital connections, payment systems, communication, or other essential services. Counting only the people inside the building cannot describe all possible civilian consequences. Disruption of a service can have broad and indirect consequences, the assessment of which requires specific facts.

Even military status does not make all attacks lawful

Article 51(5)(b) of the Protocol prohibits expected excessive incidental civilian harm in relation to the concrete military advantage anticipated; Article 57 requires feasible precautions. The ICRC legal report explains the importance of this assessment and its updating. The legal assessment of an attack does not end with the initial classification of the target.

If new information changes the status of an object or the anticipated harm, the assessment needs to be updated in accordance with the relevant rules. A general public call based on disputed data does not establish the legality of a specific operation. Technical options for military implementation are not discussed here; the issue is legal conditions.

Under which legal regime is the issue assessed

Additional Protocol I concerns international armed conflict, and its contractual application depends on the relevant parties and conditions. The application of customary humanitarian rules is also a separate legal basis. The ICRC commentary is an explanatory source and does not itself create a new treaty or judicial ruling.

The status of a physical server and building must be distinguished from the debate about the legal protection of data itself. Not all issues concerning the latter are uniformly resolved. Also to be distinguished is the assessment under international humanitarian law and the separate legal question of the permissibility of the use of force in general.

Conclusion

A data centre, by its name, is neither permanently military nor does it retain the same status in all circumstances. Specific use, military advantage, and anticipated civilian consequences require an independent assessment. For commercial obligations related to digital infrastructure, see Commercial Contracts.

Verification Date

Legislation and cited sources verified as of 12 October 2026. The analysis is based on available materials and does not automatically reflect developments subsequent to the published report.