Aggression and Self-Defense in Cyberwarfare: The Relevance of International Law
Keywords:
Aggression, Self-defense, International Humanitarian Law, Cyber Warfare, Cyberattack.Abstract
Inter-country confrontations in the international community have evolved from a traditional approach to war into domain-based and platform-based conflicts. These platforms have rapidly developed from conventional gravity bombs to Unmanned Area Vehicles (UAVs) and guided missiles. Today, armed conflicts between countries, and Non-State Actors have taken on yet a newer dimension. The growth of technology has given rise to the concepts of ‘Cyber-Attacks’ and ‘Cyberwarfare’. With a broad umbrella encapsulating a computer virus capable of disrupting the financial/stock market, shutting off a nuclear reactor, and/or causing a blackout in a country’s air traffic control system are all capable of causing economic or physical damage. Prior to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols, there was no overarching international legal framework aimed at the conduct of armed conflicts. These Conventions and Protocols served as the primary international legal framework on the conduct of armed conflicts – and it evolved with the development of warfare and weapons of war. However, cyberwarfare does not feature prominently in the Geneva Conventions and its Additional Protocols due to the absence of cyber-based weapons of war during the last century. This article aims to succinctly evaluate the existing legal framework stricto sensu against the cyberwarfare particularly as it relates to aggression and self-defense by addressing the question 'Is there a binding International Law Convention that regulates cyberwarfare'?, using the qualitative method and data from both primary and secondary sources. This article reveals that there is no binding legal International Law Convention stricto sensu that regulates cyberwarfare in the International Community. It further finds that influential States within the International Community are unwilling to agree on a common framework to define the extent of aggression as it relates to Cyberweapons and Cyberattacks; and therefore, concludes that it is imperative for the International Community especially the emerging power circle of US, China, Russia and their respective allies to define the rules of engagement when it comes to cyberwarfare.
Downloads
References
Ameli, S. R., Hosseini, H., & Noori, F. (2019). Militarization of Cyberspace, Changing Aspects of War in the 21st Century: The Case of Stuxnet Against Iran. Iranian Review of Foreign Affairs, 10(29), 99-136.
Baezner, M., & Robin, P. (2017). Stuxnet (No. 4). ETH Zurich.
Bannelier, K. (2021). Is the principle of distinction still relevant in cyberwarfare? From doctrinal discourse to States practice. In Research Handbook on International Law and Cyberspace (pp. 427-456). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Bhaiyat, H., & Sithungu, S. (2022, March). Cyberwarfare and its Effects on Critical Infrastructure. In International Conference on Cyber Warfare and Security (Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 536-543).
Broeders, D., de Busser, E., Cristiano, F., & Tropina, T. (2022). Revisiting past cyber operations in light of new cyber norms and interpretations of international law: inching towards lines in the sand? Journal of Cyber Policy, 7(1), 97-135.
Chimni, B. S. (2018). Customary international law: A third world perspective. American Journal of International Law, 112(1), 1-46.
Chin, W. (2019). Technology, war and the state: past, present and future. International Affairs, 95(4), 765-783.
Connell, M., & Vogler, S. (2016). Russia's approach to cyber warfare. Center for Naval Analyses Alexandria Va Alexandria United States.
Delibasis Fokas, D., & Klein, A. (2019). Cyberspace Operations & State Responsibility. Available at SSRN 3505428.
Dickeson, L. (2021). When Does a Cyber Crime Become an Act of Cyber Warfare.
Fassbender, B. (2009). The United Nations Charter as the constitution of the international community (Vol. 51). Netherlands: Brill.
Garrie, D. B. (2012). Cyberwarfare, What Are the Rules? . Journal of Law & Cyber Warfare, 1, 1-7.
Gervais, M. (2012). Cyber attacks and the laws of war. Journal of Law & Cyber Warfare, 1(1), 8-98.
Green, L. C. (2018). The contemporary law of armed conflict. In The contemporary law of armed conflict. Manchester University Press.
Healey, J. (2019). The implications of persistent (and permanent) engagement in cyberspace. Journal of Cybersecurity, 5(1), tyz008.
Howie, E. (2018). Protecting the human right to freedom of expression in international law. International journal of speech-language pathology, 20(1), 12-15.
Jordan, W. J. (2021). Controlling Cyberwarfare: International Laws of Armed Conflict and Human Rights in the Cyber Realm. http://hdl.handle.net/10012/17090.
Kaldor, M. (2013). In Defense of New Wars. Stability. International Journal of Security and Development, 2, 1-16.
Karasov, S. (2018). Collective self-defense in the NATO framework against cyberattacks and modern international law (Doctoral dissertation, Mykolo Romerio universitetas).
Kimani, K., Oduol, V., & Langat, K. (2019). Cyber security challenges for IoT-based smart grid networks. International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection, 25, 36-49.
Lotrionte, C. (2012). Cyber Operations: Conflict Under International Law. Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, 1, 15-24.
McDonnell, T. M. (2012). Sow what you reap: using predator and reaper drones to carry out assassinations or targeted killings of suspected islamic terrorists. Geo. Wash. Int'l L. Rev., 44, 243.
Moore, D. (2019). From spectre to spectrum: effective military offensive network operations (Doctoral dissertation, King's College London).
Mukama, R. J. (2020). Universal jurisdiction and the international criminal court in its quest for international criminal justice. BiLD Law Journal, 5(1), 43-67.
Mulbry, E. (2021). Arms Control 2.0: Updating the Cyberweapon Arms Control Framework. Mich. Tech. L. Rev., 28, 175.
Murat-Bors, A. (2018). Modern assumptions of the American ballistic missile defence system against the background of historical concepts and programmes. Security Defence Quarterly, 22(5), 99-131.
Okpaleke, F., & Burton, J. (2020). US grand strategy and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles during the George W. Bush administration. In Emerging technologies and international security (pp. 153-170). England: Routledge.
Pylypenko, V. F., Pylypyshyn, P. B., & Radanovych, N. M. (2021). Features of legal regulation of human rights in armed conflicts. Journal of the National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine, 28(1), 43-51.
Sagan, S. D., & Weiner, A. S. (2021). The rule of law and the role of strategy in US nuclear doctrine. International Security, 45(4), 126-166.
Shrivastava, A., Sharma, M. K., & Marimuthu, P. (2016). Internet use at workplaces and its effects on working style in indian context: An exploration. Indian Journal of Occupational Environmental Medicine, 20(2), 88.
Thürer, D. (2011). International humanitarian law: theory, practice, context (Vol. 338). Belgium: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Tortonesi, M., Wrona, K., & Suri, N. (2019). Secured distributed processing and dissemination of information in smart city environments. IEEE Internet of Things Magazine, 2(2), 38-43.
Valuch, J., Gábriš, T., & Hamuľák, O. (2017). Cyber attacks, information attacks, and postmodern warfare. Baltic Journal of Law Politics, 10(1), 63.
Van Dijk, B. (2018). Human rights in war: On the entangled Foundations of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. American Journal of International Law, 112(4), 553-582.
Wallace, D. (2018). Cyber weapon reviews under international humanitarian law: A critical analysis. Tallinn Paper, (11), 22.
Wood, M. (2018). The evolution and identification of the customary international law of armed conflict. Vand. J. Transnat'l L., 51, 727.
Published
Issue
Section
Categories
License
Copyright (c) 2023 The Authors
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
