Violations of Sovereignty in “Cyberspace” Under the United Nations Charter

Keywords: cyberspace, Tallinn Manual 2.0, cyber operations, United Nations Charter, functional sovereignty, use of force, intervention, inherently governmental functions, critical infrastructure

Abstract

Affirming that violating State sovereignty through and against “cyber” infrastructure could be covered by the scope of Art. 2(4) and (7) of the United Nations Charter is one of the most pressing challenges that faces international law today. This article aims to address this issue by expanding on a general taxonomy outlined in the Tallinn Manual 2.0 on violations of sovereignty in “cyberspace”. These violations are categorised as conducts leading to either “infringement upon the target State’s territorial integrity” or “interference or usurpation of inherently governmental functions”. In order to map the taxonomy of the Tallinn Manual 2.0 onto Art. 2(4) and (7), it is necessary to highlight the convergence between territorial sovereignty and “cyberspace” that allows for extending the scope of application of Art. 2. Through recognising data as “assets” that can be subject to a functional sovereignty, that in turn could be subject to unlawful use of force in violation of the general ban codified in Art. 2(4) as an “infringement upon the target State’s territorial integrity”. Extending the scope of Art. 2(7) is contingent upon defining the concept of intervention as a conduct aiming to unlawfully assume an exclusive competence of a State by another State. Under this concept, intervention in “cyberspace” could be envisaged as attempts to gain control over the functionality of certain “cyberspace” infrastructure that is instrumental for the manifestation of State exclusive competences. A process that demands taking control of that entity to an extent impinging the regular functioning of the targeted entity beyond the mere manipulation of data. Under the proposed definition of intervention such conduct of “interference or usurpation of inherently governmental functions” can constitute a violation to the principle of non-intervention as codified by Art. 2(7).

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Alaa Assaf, Specialist in International Law

Specialist in International Law, Damascus, Syria

References

Banks W. (2021) Cyber Attribution and State Responsibility. International Law Studies, vol. 97, pp. 1039–1072.

Broeders D. et al. (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, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 97–135. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23738871.2022.2041061

Buchan R. (2018) Cyber Espionage and International Law, Bloomsbury.

Buchan R., Tsagourias N. (2021) Regulating the Use of Force in International Law: Stability and Change. Edward Elgar Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781786439925

Chircop L. (2019) Territorial Sovereignty in Cyberspace after “Tallinn Manual 2.0”. Melbourne Journal of International Law, vol. 20, no. 2. Available at: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MelbJlIntLaw/2019/14.html

Cho S. (2021) A Social Critique of Behavioral Approaches to International Law. AJIL Unbound, vol. 115, pp. 248–252. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2021.36

Conforti B. (1995) The Theory of Competence in Verdross. European Journal of International Law, vol. 6, pp. 70–77. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/6.1.70

Cox N. (2006) Technology and Legal Systems, Farnham, UK: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.

Crawford J. (2002) The International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility: Introduction, Text and Commentaries, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

d’Aspremont J. (2011) Formalism and the Sources of International Law: A Theory of the Ascertainment of Legal Rules, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199696314.001.0001

Deibert R., Rohozinski R., Crete-Nishihata M. (2012) Cyclones in Cyberspace: Information Shaping and Denial in the 2008 Russia–Georgia War. Security Dialogue, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 3–24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010611431079

Dukkipati R. V. (2007) Solving Engineering System Dynamics Problems with MATLAB, New Age International.

Foltz A. C. (2012) Stuxnet, Schmitt Analysis, and the Cyber Use-of-Force Debate. National Defense University, Joint Force Quarterly, vol. 47, pp. 40–48.

Goldsmith J., Wu T. (2006) Who Controls the Internet?: Illusions of a Borderless World. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195152661.001.0001

Gutmann A., Warner M. (2019) Fight to Be Forgotten: Exploring the Efficacy of Data Erasure in Popular Operating Systems. In: Naldi M. et. al. (eds.) Privacy Technologies and Policy, Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21752-5_4

Heckman K. E. et al. (2015) Cyber Denial, Deception and Counter Deception: A Framework for Supporting Active Cyber Defense, Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25133-2

Herzog S. (2011) Revisiting the Estonian Cyber Attacks: Digital Threats and Multinational Responses. Journal of Strategic Security, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 49–60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5038/1944-0472.4.2.3

Higgins R. (2009) Intervention and International Law: Themes and Theories, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hijmans H. (2020) Article 1 Subject-Matter and Objectives. In: Kuner C. et al (eds.) The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198826491.003.0003

Hummel P., Braun M., Dabrock P. (2021) Own Data? Ethical Reflections on Data Ownership. Philosophy & Technology, vol. 34, pp. 545–572. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-020-00404-9

Humphreys S. (2018) Data: The Given. In: Hohmann J., Joyce D. (eds.) International Law’s Objects, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Jeangène Vilmer J-B. (2014) De la mythologie française du droit d’ingérence à la responsabilité de protéger. Une clarification terminologique. Annuaire Fançais de Relations Internationales, vol. XIII, pp. 81–100. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3917/epas.haupa.2012.01.0081

Jurcys P., Donewald C., Fenwick M., Lampinen M., Smaliukas A. (2020) Ownership of User-Held Data: Why Property Law Is the Right Approach. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology Digest, vol. no. pp. 1—30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3711017

Käll J. (2020) The Materiality of Data as Property. Harvard International Law Journal Frontiers, vol. 61, pp. 1–11.

Kaur D. (2021) An Introduction to System Software, Alpha Science International.

O’ Keefe R. (2013) Jurisdictional Immunities. In: Tams C., Sloan J. (eds.) The Development of International Law by the International Court of Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199653218.003.0007

Kilovaty I. (2021) The International Law of Cyber Intervention. In: Tsagourias N., Buchan R. (eds.) Research Handbook on International Law and Cyberspace, Edward Elgar Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781789904253.00014

Kim D., Solomon M. G. (2021) Fundamentals of Information Systems Security, 4th ed., Jones & Bartlett Learning.

Korhonen O., Markovich E. (2021) Mapping Power in Cyberspace. In: Tsagourias N., Buchan R. (eds.) Research Handbook on International Law and Cyberspace, Edward Elgar Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781789904253.00012

Lahmann H. (2022) On the Politics and Ideologies of the Sovereignty Discourse in Cyberspace. Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law, vol. 32, pp. 61–107.

Maurer T. (2018) Cyber Mercenaries. Cambridge, MA, USA: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316422724

Mignon V. (2019) Blockchains – Perspectives and Challenges. In: Kraus D., Obrist T., Hari O. (eds.) Blockchains, Smart Contracts, Decentralised Autonomous Organisations and the Law. Edward Elgar Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788115131.00007

Moore D., Rid T. (2016) Cryptopolitik and the Darknet. Survival, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 7–38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00396338.2016.1142085

Morley D., Parker C. S. (2016) Understanding Computers: Today and Tomorrow, 16th ed., New York, NY, USA: Cengage Learning.

Murphy J. (2013) Cyber War and International Law: Does the International Legal Process Constitute a Threat to U.S. Vital Interests? International Law Studies, vol. 89, pp. 309–340.

Pardau S.L. (2018) The California Consumer Privacy Act: Towards a European-Style Privacy Regime in the United States. Journal of Technology Law & Policy, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 68–114.

Plakokefalos I. (2015) Causation in the Law of State Responsibility and the Problem of Overdetermination: In Search of Clarity. European Journal of International Law, vol. 26, pp. 471–492. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chv023

Radziwill Y. (2015) Cyber-Attacks and the Exploitable Imperfections of International Law, Brill. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004298309

Roscini M. (2014) Cyber Operations and the Use of Force in International Law, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199655014.001.0001

Roscini M. (2021) Cyber Operations as a Use of Force. In: Tsagourias N., Buchan R. (eds.) Research Handbook on International Law and Cyberspace, Edward Elgar Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781789904253.00025

Rosenau J. N. (1969) Intervention as a Scientific Concept. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 149–171. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/002200276901300201

Mcdougal M. (1953) International Law, Power, and Policy: A Contemporary Conception. Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law, Brill.

Schmitt M. (2021) Foreign Cyber Interference in Elections. International Law Studies, vol. 97, pp. 739–764.

Schmitt M. (2010) Cyber Operations in International Law: The Use of Force, Collective Security, Self-Defense, and Armed Conflict, National Academies Press.

Schmitt M. (ed.) Tallinn Manual 2.0 on The International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations. Cambridge, MA, USA: Cambridge University Press.

Sprankling J. G. (2014) The International Law of Property. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199654543.001.0001

Trapp K. (2018) Boots (on the Ground). In: Joyce D. (ed.) International Law’s Objects Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 151–161. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198798200.003.0012

Tsagourias N. (2021) The Legal Status of Cyberspace: Sovereignty Redux?. In: Tsagourias N., Buchan R. (eds.) Research Handbook on International Law and Cyberspace, Edward Elgar Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781789904253.00010

Tzeng P. (2016) The State’s Right to Property Under International Law. Yale Law Journal, vol. 125, no. 6, pp. 1805–1806.

Willis H. (1909) Subject-Matter. Columbia Law Review, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 419–426. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1109895

Published
2024-01-12
How to Cite
Assaf A. (2024). Violations of Sovereignty in “Cyberspace” Under the United Nations Charter . HSE University Journal of International Law, 1(3), 4–20. https://doi.org/10.17323/jil.2023.18848
Section
Theoretical Inquiries