Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Geography, Territory and Sovereignty in Cyber Warfare

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
New Technologies and the Law of Armed Conflict

Abstract

Cyberspace is a vital part of the modern world with much of our current economic prosperity relying on continued access to the internet. Cyberspace is also a place where conflict can occur, but where international law could be applied to control that conflict. Unlike other domains cyberspace is not exclusively physical and it does not have the same tangible properties of geography as land, sea and air. These differences lead to some difficulties in the application of the law of armed conflict to cyberspace. However, a pragmatic approach to interpretation allows the law of armed conflict to be applied to the ethereal geography of cyberspace. In particular, laws, such as neutrality and those controlling the use of force, that place geographic limits on international and non-international armed conflicts can be applied to limit the extent of these conflicts in cyberspace. Likewise, laws that govern naval blockade can, in some circumstances, usefully guide application of international law to a ‘cyber blockade’. These laws can be applied because, while cyberspace is not an entirely physical domain, actions within cyberspace will still have effects on people, places and objects that do exist in the physical world.

The author is a serving Legal Officer in the Royal Australian Navy. The views expressed are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Australian Government, the Department of Defence or the Royal Australian Navy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Buchan and Tsagourias 2012, p. 183.

  2. 2.

    Buchan and Tsagourias 2012, p. 183.

  3. 3.

    Applegate 2012.

  4. 4.

    Applegate 2012.

  5. 5.

    Schmitt 2012, p. 246.

  6. 6.

    Kobrin 2001.

  7. 7.

    Agnew 2005, p. 446.

  8. 8.

    Picciotto 1984.

  9. 9.

    Dinniss 2012, p. 135.

  10. 10.

    Nielsen 2012, p. 337.

  11. 11.

    Nielsen 2012, p. 337; Applegate 2012. See also, the comparison of logical and geographic boundaries and the utility of both in Schilling 2010.

  12. 12.

    Herrera 2007, p. 5.

  13. 13.

    Herrera 2007, p. 5.

  14. 14.

    Antolin-Jenkins 2005.

  15. 15.

    Herrera 2007.

  16. 16.

    Trachtman 1998, p. 568.

  17. 17.

    Barney 2001.

  18. 18.

    Nielsen 2012, p. 337.

  19. 19.

    Barney 2001.

  20. 20.

    For discussion, see, Kobrin 2001, pp. 688–689.

  21. 21.

    Kobrin 2001, p. 690.

  22. 22.

    Johnson and Post 1996, p. 1367. See also, Herrera 2007.

  23. 23.

    Watson 2011, p. 16.

  24. 24.

    Kanuck 2010, p. 1573. This view is also supported by Schmitt (ed) 2013, r. 1.

  25. 25.

    Schmitt (ed) 2013, r. 1.

  26. 26.

    Kanuck 2010, p. 1573.

  27. 27.

    Kanuck 2010, p. 1576.

  28. 28.

    See, Trachtman 1998 for further arguments.

  29. 29.

    Wu 1997, pp. 650–651.

  30. 30.

    For further information on the Chinese Firewall, see, Jyh-An and Ching Yi 2012, p. 125.

  31. 31.

    Jyh-An and Ching Yi 2012, p. 125.

  32. 32.

    Shackelford 2009, p. 210.

  33. 33.

    Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977, 1125 UNTS 3 (entered into force 7 December 1978) (‘Additional Protocol I’).

  34. 34.

    Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 31 (entered into force 21 October 1950); Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 85 (entered into force 21 October 1950); Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 12 August 1949 75 UNTS 135 (entered into force 21 October 1950) (‘Geneva Convetion III’); Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 287 (entered into force 21 October 1950) (‘Geneva Convention IV’).

  35. 35.

    Common Article 2 further states that ‘the Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance’.

  36. 36.

    Schmitt 2012, p. 249.

  37. 37.

    Additional Protocol I, Article 1(4).

  38. 38.

    Schmitt 2012, p. 249. See also, Paulus and Vashakmadze 2009.

  39. 39.

    Duffy 2005, p. 223.

  40. 40.

    Jensen 2012, p. 818.

  41. 41.

    Specifically, Hague Convention (V) Respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in the Case of War on Land, 18 October 1907, 105 CTS 305 (entered into force 26 January 1910) (‘Hague Convention V’) and the Hague Convention (XIII) Concerning the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War, 18 October 1907, 205 CTS 395 (entered into force 26 January 1910). See also, Jensen 2012, p. 819.

  42. 42.

    Jensen 2012, p. 821.

  43. 43.

    Bridgeman 2010, p. 1188.

  44. 44.

    See, for example, Geneva Convention IV, Articles 3, 13, 15 and 16.

  45. 45.

    Geneva Convention III; Bridgeman 2010, p. 1207.

  46. 46.

    Schmitt (ed) 2013, r. 21.

  47. 47.

    Doswald-Beck 2002, p. 173.

  48. 48.

    Jessup 1936, p. 156.

  49. 49.

    Blank 2010, p. 9.

  50. 50.

    Doswald-Beck 2002, p. 173.

  51. 51.

    Hague Convention V, Article 1. See also, Article 5 for the duties of the neutral state.

  52. 52.

    Blank 2010, pp. 10, 22.

  53. 53.

    Schmitt (ed) 2013, r. 91.

  54. 54.

    Schmitt (ed) 2013, r. 92.

  55. 55.

    Kanuck 2010, p. 1593; Walker 2002, p. 236.

  56. 56.

    Kanuck 2010, p. 1593.

  57. 57.

    Kanuck 2010, p. 1593.

  58. 58.

    Jensen 2012, p. 825.

  59. 59.

    Jensen 2012, p. 825.

  60. 60.

    Jensen 2012, p. 825.

  61. 61.

    Hague Convention V, Articles 3, 8 and 9.

  62. 62.

    See, Chap. 5 by Boothby in this volume.

  63. 63.

    Schmitt (ed) 2013, r. 51 commentary 12.

  64. 64.

    Holtzoff 1916, p. 53.

  65. 65.

    Holtzoff 1916, p. 53.

  66. 66.

    Holtzoff 1916, p. 53.

  67. 67.

    Holzoff 1916, p. 53. See also, Doswald-Beck et al. 1995, s. II.

  68. 68.

    Doswald-Beck et al. 1995, cl. 99, 100 and 104.

  69. 69.

    Doswald-Beck et al. 1995, cl. 102.

  70. 70.

    Toth 2011, p. 10.

  71. 71.

    Toth 2011, p. 11.

  72. 72.

    Benatar and Gombeer 2011, p. 8.

  73. 73.

    Lin 2010.

  74. 74.

    Antolin-Jenkins 2005, p. 135.

  75. 75.

    For information relating to the exclusion of economic pressure from the prohibition on the use of force, see Randelzhofer 2002, pp. 118–120.

  76. 76.

    Interestingly, on the assurance of access, the use of a cyber-blockade may fall foul of an emerging right within international human rights law for people to have access to the internet: Benatar and Gombeer 2011, p. 20.

  77. 77.

    Doswald-Beck et al. 1995, s. II.

  78. 78.

    Holtzoff 1916.

  79. 79.

    Vite 2009.

  80. 80.

    Jensen 2012, p. 835. Jensen also argues that the law of neutrality should be provided to non-international armed conflict in order to provide greater geographic certainty: Jensen 2012, p. 839.

  81. 81.

    Jensen 2012, p. 834. Both Additional Protocol II, Article 1 and Geneva Conventions, common Article 3 limit their scope of application to conflicts not of an international character occurring within the territory of a High-Contracting Party, but this does not limit the extent of non-international armed conflict, but merely affects the application of those laws. Additionally, Additional Protocol II, Article 3 specifically references state sovereignty and the principle against intervention as continuing to apply in non-international armed conflict.

  82. 82.

    Daskal 2013.

  83. 83.

    See, Prosecutor v Tadic (Jurisdiction of the Tribunal), International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Appeals Chamber, Case No. IT-94-1-AR72, 2 October 1995, para 67.

  84. 84.

    Milokević 2000, pp. 432–433. See also, Charter of the United Nations, 26 June 1945, 1 UNTS XVI (entered into force 24 October 1945) (‘UN Charter’), Article 2(4).

  85. 85.

    O’Connell 2012.

  86. 86.

    Buchan 2012, p. 221.

  87. 87.

    GA Res 36/103 (9 December 1981).

  88. 88.

    GA Res 36/103 (9 December 1981), principle 1.

  89. 89.

    GA Res 36/103 (9 December 1981), principle 2, II, (o).

  90. 90.

    See, GA Res 36/103 (9 December 1981), principles 5 and 6.

  91. 91.

    Buchan 2012, p. 222.

  92. 92.

    Milokević 2000.

  93. 93.

    Buchan 2012, p. 222.

  94. 94.

    Buchan 2012, p. 222.

  95. 95.

    Buchan 2012, p. 223.

  96. 96.

    Buchan 2012, p. 223.

  97. 97.

    Applegate 2012.

  98. 98.

    Koh 2012.

  99. 99.

    Daskal 2013.

  100. 100.

    Schmitt (ed) 2013, r. 21, commentary 3.

  101. 101.

    Daskal 2013, p. 1175.

  102. 102.

    Daskal 2013, p. 1175.

  103. 103.

    Daskal 2013, pp. 1181–1182.

  104. 104.

    Blum and Heymann 2010; Daskal 2013.

  105. 105.

    Daskal 2013.

References

  • Agnew J (2005) Sovereignty regimes: territoriality and state authority in contemporary world politics. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 95(2):437–461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antolin-Jenkins V (2005) Defining the parameters of cyberwar operations: looking for law in all the wrong places? Naval Law Rev 51:132–174

    Google Scholar 

  • Applegate S (2012) The Principle of manoeuvrer in cyber operations. Paper presented at the 4th International Conference on Cyber Conflict, Tallinn, Estonia. http://www.academia.edu/1436096/The_Principle_of_Maneuver_in_Cyber_Operations. Accessed 30 April 2013

  • Barney S (2001) Innocent packets? Applying navigational regimes from the Law of the Sea Convention by analogy to the realm of cyberspace. Naval Law Rev 48:56–83

    Google Scholar 

  • Benatar M, Gombeer K (2011) Cyber sanctions: exploring a blind spot in the current legal debate. European Society of International Law: Conference Paper Series 9. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1989786. Accessed 30 April 2013

  • Blank L (2010) Defining the battlefield in contemporary conflict and counterterrorism: understanding the parameters of the zone of combat. Ga J Int Comp Law 39:1–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Blum G, Heymann P (2010) Law and policy of targeted killing. Harv Natl Secur J 1:145–170

    Google Scholar 

  • Bridgeman T (2010) The law of neutrality and the conflict with Al Qaeda. N Y Univ Law Rev 85:1186–1224

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchan R (2012) Cyber attacks: unlawful uses of force or prohibited interventions? J Confl Secur Law 17(2):212–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchan R, Tsagourias N (2012) Editorial—cyber war and international law. J Confl Secur Law 17(2):183–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daskal J (2013) The geography of the battlefield: a framework for detention and targeting outside the ‘hot’ conflict zone. Univ Pa Law Rev 161:1165–1234

    Google Scholar 

  • Dinniss HH (2012) Cyber warfare and the laws of war. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Doswald-Beck L (2002) Some thoughts on computer network attack and the international law of armed conflict. In: Schmitt M, O’Donnell B (eds) Computer network attack and international law. US Naval War College International Law Studies, vol 76. Naval War College, Newport, pp 163–186

    Google Scholar 

  • Doswald-Beck L et al (1995) San Remo Manual on international law applicable to armed conflicts at sea. Cambridge University Press/International Institute of Humanitarian Law, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Duffy H (2005) The ‘war on terror’ and the framework of international law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Herrera G (2007) Cyberspace and sovereignty: thoughts on physical space and digital space. In: Cavelty M, Mauer V, Krishna-Hensel S (eds) Power and security in the information age: investigating the role of the state in cyberspace. Ashgate, Surrey, pp 67–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Holtzoff A (1916) Some phases of the law of blockade. Am J Int Law 10(1):53–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen E (2012) Sovereignty and neutrality in cyber conflict. Fordham Int Law J 35:815–841

    Google Scholar 

  • Jessup P (1936) Neutrality, today and tomorrow (Volume 4). Columbia University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson D, Post D (1996) Law and borders: the rise of law in cyberspace. Stanf Law Rev 48:1367–1402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jyh-An L, Ching-Yi L (2012) Forbidden City enclosed by the great firewall: the law and power of internet filtering in China. Minn J Law Sci Technol 13(1):125–151

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanuck S (2010) Sovereign discourse on cyber conflict. Tex Law Rev 88:1571–1598

    Google Scholar 

  • Kobrin S (2001) Territoriality and the governance of cyberspace. J Int Bus Stud 32(4):687–704

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koh H (2012) International law in cyberspace. Paper presented at the United States Cyber Command Inter-Agency Legal Conference on the applicability of international law to cyberspace, Fort Meade. http://www.state.gov/s/l/releases/remarks/197924.htm. Accessed 30 April 2013

  • Lin H (2010) Offensive cyber operations and the use of force. J Natl Secur Law Policy 4:63–86

    Google Scholar 

  • Milokević M (2000) The principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of states. Law Politics 1(4):427–447

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen S (2012) Pursuing security in cyberspace: strategic and organizational challenges. Orbis 56(3):336–356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connell M (2012) Cyber security without cyber war. J Confl Secur Law 17(2):187–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paulus A, Vashakmadze M (2009) Asymmetrical war and the notion of armed conflict—a tentative conceptualization. Int Rev Red Cross 91:95–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Picciotto S (1984) Jurisdictional conflicts, international law and the international state system. In: Massey D, Allen J (eds) Geography matters!: a reader. Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Randelzhofer A (2002) Article 2(4). In: Simma B (ed) The Charter of the United Nations: a commentary, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 112–136

    Google Scholar 

  • Schilling J (2010) Defining our national cyberspace boundaries. US Army War College, Pennsylvania

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt MN (2012) Classification of cyber conflict. J Confl Secur Law 17(2):245–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt MN (ed) (2013) Tallinn manual on the international law applicable to cyber warfare. International Group of Experts at the Invitation of the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence/Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Shackelford S (2009) From nuclear war to net war: analogizing cyber attacks in international law. Berkely J Int Law 27(1):192–252

    Google Scholar 

  • Toth M (2011) Maritime trade warfare in the 21st century. Naval War College, Rhode Island

    Google Scholar 

  • Trachtman J (1998) Cyberspace, sovereignty, jurisdiction and modernism. Indiana J Global Legal Stud 5(2):561–581

    Google Scholar 

  • Vite S (2009) Typology of armed conflicts in international humanitarian law: legal concepts and actual situations. Int Rev Red Cross 91:89–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker G (2002) Neutrality and information warfare. In: Schmitt M, O’Donnell B (eds) Computer network attack and international law. US Naval War College International Law studies, vol 76. Naval War College, Newport, pp 233–264

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson K (2011) The new geography: the map, the satellite and the computer. US Army War College, Pennsylvania

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu T (1997) Cyberspace sovereignty?—the internet and the international system. Harv J Law Technol 10(3):647–666

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Royal Australian Navy, Canberra, ACT, Australia

    David Midson

Authors
  1. David Midson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Midson .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, The ANU College of Law Australian National University, Canberra, Aust Capital Terr, Australia

    Hitoshi Nasu

  2. ANU College of Law, The ANU College of Law Australian National University, Canberra, Aust Capital Terr, Australia

    Robert McLaughlin

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Midson, D. (2014). Geography, Territory and Sovereignty in Cyber Warfare. In: Nasu, H., McLaughlin, R. (eds) New Technologies and the Law of Armed Conflict. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-933-7_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation