Advertisement

Transnationale Verantwortung und Normemergenz im Cyberraum

Chapter
  • 1.3k Downloads

Zusammenfassung

Steigende Konfliktpotenziale im digitalen Raum erfordern die Schärfung transnationaler Verantwortung, sie erschweren diese aber auch. Aus völkerrechtlicher Perspektive wurde die Norm der Sorgfaltsverantwortung für den Cyberraum bereits umfänglich diskutiert. Wir knüpfen aus politikwissenschaftlicher Perspektive an diese Debatte an, indem wir die Bedingungen für eine Normemergenz zunächst theoretisch diskutieren und sodann die Staatenpraxis im engeren (vier kurze Fallstudien) und im weiteren Sinne (auf der Grundlage eines neuen Heidelberger Konfliktdatensatzes) untersuchen. Unsere Befunde zeigen, dass es zwar Ansätze für eine retrospektive Norm der Sorgfaltsverantwortung gibt, aber bislang kaum prospektive Normwirkung erkennbar ist. Die Staatenpraxis zentraler staatlicher „Normunternehmer“ verdeutlicht die bislang fehlende intersubjektive Anerkennung der Norm. Zudem legt der Abgleich mit systematisch erhobenen Cyber-Konfliktdaten der Jahre 2014–2016 nahe, dass insbesondere autoritäre Staaten wie Russland und China die regulative Wirkung der Norm durch den Einsatz von nicht-staatlichen Akteuren unterminieren. Insgesamt kann die noch im Frühstadium befindliche Normemergenz vor allem auf unterschiedliche Motivationen und Schwerpunktsetzungen der Normunternehmer in ihrem Agieren zurückgeführt werden.

Literatur

  1. Constantine Antonopoulos, State Responsibility in Cyberspace, in: Nicholas Tsagourias/Russell Buchan (Hrsg.), Research Handbook on International Law and Cyberspace, 2015, S. 55.Google Scholar
  2. Greg Austin, International Legal Norms in Cyberspace: Evolution of China’s National Security Motivations, in: Anna-Maria Osula/Henry Rõigas (Hrsg.), International Cyber Norms: Legal, Policy & Industry Perspectives, Tallinn: NATO CCD COE Publications, 2016, S. 171.Google Scholar
  3. Greg Austin, Cyber Policy in China, 1. Auflage, 2017.Google Scholar
  4. Karine Bannelier-Christakis, Cyber Diligence: A Low-Intensity Due Diligence Principle for Low-Intensity Cyber Operations?, in: Lauri Mälksoo/Ineta Ziemele/Dainius Žalimas, Baltic Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 14, 2014, S. 23.Google Scholar
  5. Annegret Bendiek, Sorgfaltsverantwortung im Cyberraum: Leitlinien für eine deutsche Cyber-Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik, SWP, 2016.Google Scholar
  6. Bundesministerium des Innern, (BMI), Cybersicherheitsstrategie für Deutschland, 2016, https://www.bmi.bund.de/cybersicherheitsstrategie/BMI_CyberSicherheitsStrategie.pdf, (letzter Zugriff: 02.09.2019).
  7. BRICS, Full Text of BRICS Leaders Xiamen Declaration, 2017, http://www.bricschn.org/English/2017-09/05/c_136583711_2.htm, (letzter Zugriff: 02.09.2019).
  8. Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik (BSI), Gesetz zur Umsetzung der NIS-Richtlinie, 2017, https://www.bsi.bund.de/DE/DasBSI/NIS-Richtlinie/NIS_Richtlinie_node.html, (letzter Zugriff: 02.09.2019).
  9. Mlada Bukanovsky/Ian Clark/Robyn Eckersley u. a., Special Responsibilities: Global Problems and American Power, 2012.Google Scholar
  10. Cuihong Cai, Cybersecurity in Chinese Context: Changing Concepts, Vital Interests and Cooperative Willingness, 9th Berlin Conference on Asian Security (BCAS) International Dimensions of National (In)Security Concepts, Challenges and Ways Forward, Berlin, 14–16. Juni 2015.Google Scholar
  11. Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS), Significant Cyber Incidents, 2017, https://www.csis.org/programs/cybersecurity-and-governance/technology-policy-program/other-projects-cybersecurity, (letzter Zugriff: 02.09.2019).
  12. Dean Cheng, Cyber Dragon: Inside China’s Information Warfare and Cyber Operations, 2017.Google Scholar
  13. Josh Chin, Inside the Slow Workings of the U.S.-China Cybersecurity Agreement, The Wallstreet Journal, 2016, https://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2016/06/15/inside-the-slow-workings-of-the-u-s-china-cybersecurity-agreement/, (letzter Zugriff: 02.09.2019).
  14. Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Cyber Operations Tracker, 2017, https://www.cfr.org/interactive/cyber-operations, (letzter Zugriff 02.09.2019).
  15. Correlates of War Project (COW), Data Sets, 2017, http://www.correlatesofwar.org/data-sets, (letzter Zugriff: 02.09.2019).
  16. Jean D’Aspremont/André Nollkaemper/Ilias Plakokefalos/Cedric Ryngaert, Sharing Responsibility between Non-State Actors and States in International Law: Introduction, Netherland International Law Review, Vol. 62, 2015, S. 49.Google Scholar
  17. Datenschutz Hessen, 2008, https://www.datenschutz.hessen.de/datenschutz.htm, (letzter Zugriff: 02.09.2019).
  18. Ronald Deibert, Tracking the Emerging Arms Race in Cyberspace, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 67, Issue 1, 2011, S. 1.Google Scholar
  19. Laura De Nardis, The Global War for Internet Governance, 2014.Google Scholar
  20. Department of State (DOS), Department of State International Cyberspace Policy Strategy, 2016, https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/255732.pdf, (letzter Zugriff: 02.09.2019).
  21. Kristen Eichensehr, Public-Private Cybersecurity, Texas Law Review, 95, 2017, S. 467.Google Scholar
  22. Toni Erskine/Madeline Carr, Beyond ‚Quasi-Norms‘: The Challenges and Potential of Engaging with Norms in Cyberspace, in: Anna-Maria Osula/Henry Rõigas (Hrsg.), International Cyber Norms: Legal, Policy & Industry Perspectives, NATO CCD COE Publications, Tallinn, 2016.Google Scholar
  23. Toni Erskine, Making Sense of Responsibility in International Relations: Key Questions and Concepts, in: Toni Erskine (Hrsg.), Can Institutions Have Responsibilities? Collective Moral Agency and International Relations, 2003, S. 1.Google Scholar
  24. EU-Kommission, European Commssion launches EU-U.S. Privacy Shield: Stronger Protection for Transatlantic Data Flows, 2016, http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-2461_en.htm, (letzter Zugriff: 02.09.2019).
  25. EU-Kommission, Gemeinsame Mitteilung an das Europäische Parlament, den Rat, den Europäischen Wirtschafts- und Sozialausschuss und den Ausschuss der Regionen: Cybersicherheitsstrategie der Europäischen Union – ein offener, sicherer und geschützter Cyberraum, 2013, http://www.eeas.europa.eu/archives/docs/policies/eu-cyber-security/cybsec_comm_de.pdf, (letzter Zugriff: 02.09.2019).
  26. David P. Fidler, The U.S. Election Hacks, Cybersecurity, and International Law, Articles by Maurer Faculty, Vol. 2607, 2017.Google Scholar
  27. David P. Fidler/Russell Buchan/Emily Crawford u. a., ILA Study Group Report on Cybersecurity, Terrorism and International Law, 2016.Google Scholar
  28. Martha Finnemore, Cybersecurity and the Concept of Norms, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2017.Google Scholar
  29. Martha Finnemore/Duncan B. Hollis, Constructing Norms for Global Cybersecurity, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 110, Issue 3, 2016, S. 425.Google Scholar
  30. Mervyn Frost, Ethics in International relations: A Constitutive Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1. Auflage, 1996.Google Scholar
  31. Mei Gechlik, Appropriate Norms of State Behavior in Cyberspace: Governance in China and Opportunities for US Businesses, Hoover Working Group on National Security, Technology and Law, Aegis Series Paper No. 1706, 2017.Google Scholar
  32. Oren Gross, Cyber Responsibility to Protect: Legal Obligations of States Directly Affected by Cyber-Incidents, Cornell International Law Journal, Vol. 48, 2015, S. 481.Google Scholar
  33. Feike Hacquebord, Zwei Jahre Pawn Storm: Analyse einer mehr in den Mittelpunkt rückenden Bedrohung, 2017, https://www.trendmicro.de/media/wp/operation-pawn-storm-whitepaper-de.pdf, (letzter Zugriff: 02.09.2019).
  34. Ludger Heidbrink, Definitionen und Voraussetzungen der Verantwortung, in: Ludger Heidbrink/Claus Langbehn/Janina Loh (Hrsg.), Handbuch Verantwortung, 2016.Google Scholar
  35. HIIK, Konfliktbarometer, 2016, http://hiik.de/de/konfliktbarometer/pdf/ConflictBarometer_2016.pdf, (letzter Zugriff: 02.09.2019).
  36. Geoffrey Hoffman, A Clash of Cyber Civilisations, ChinaFile, 2018, http://www.chinafile.com/reporting-opinion/viewpoint/clash-of-cyber-civilizations, (letzter Zugriff: 02.09.2019).
  37. Mirko Hohmann, Deutschland 4.0? Germany’s Digital Strategy Over the Next Four Years, Council on Foreign Relations, 2018, https://www.cfr.org/blog/deutschland-40-germanys-digital-strategy-over-next-four-years, (letzter Zugriff: 02.09.2019).
  38. Martin Holland, Zero Days: Bundesregierung prüft das Zurückhalten von Sicherheitslücken, heise online, 2017, https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Zero-Days-Bundesregierung-prueft-das-Zurueckhalten-von-Sicherheitsluecken-3852523.html, (letzter Zugriff: 02.09.2019)
  39. David Ignatius, Russia is pushing to control cyberspace. We should all be worried., The Washington Post, 2017, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/russia-is-pushing-to-control-cyberspace-we-should-all-be-worried/2017/10/24/7014bcc6-b8f1-11e7-be94-fabb0f1e9ffb_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.126d80609652, ((letzter Zugriff: 02.09.2019).
  40. ILA Study Group, ILA Study Group on Due Diligence, Second Report, Duncan French (Chair) and Tim Stephens (Rapporteur), 2016.Google Scholar
  41. UN General Assembly (2015), International Code of Conduct for Information Security, UN Doc. A/69/723.Google Scholar
  42. International Court of Justice, Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua vs. United States of America), ICJ Reports 1986, http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/70/070-19860627-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf, (letzter Zugriff 02.09.2019).
  43. International Law Commission (ILC), Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Yearbook of the International Law Commission, Vol. II, Part Two, 2001, S. 26.Google Scholar
  44. Eric T. Jensen/Sean Watts, A Cyber Duty of Due Diligence: Gentle Civilizer or Crude Destabilizer? Texas Law Review, Vol. 95, 2017, S. 1555.Google Scholar
  45. Ronald L. Jepperson/Alexander Wendt/Peter J. Katzenstein, Norms, Identity and Culture in National Security, in: Peter J. Katzenstein (Hrsg.). The culture of national security: Norms and identity in world politics, 1996, S. 33.Google Scholar
  46. Jing De Jong-Chen, China’s Evolving Cybersecurity andCyber Development Strategy, The International Bureau of Asian Research, 2017, http://nbr.org/downloads/pdfs/eta/Jong-Chen_commentary_032917.pdf, (letzter Zugriff: 02.09.2019).
  47. Marina Kaljurand, United Nations Group of Governmental Experts: The Estonian Perspective, in: Anna-Maria Osula/Henry Rõigas (Hrsg.), International Cyber Norms: Legal, Policy & Industry Perspectives, NATO CCD COE Publications, 2016, S. 111.Google Scholar
  48. Peter J. Katzenstein (Hrsg.), The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics, 1996.Google Scholar
  49. Matthias Kaufmann, Welches Eigentum gehört zum Menschenrecht auf Freiheit? in: Joachim Renzikowski (Hrsg.), Freiheit als Rechtsbegriff, 2016, S. 115.Google Scholar
  50. Lucas Kello, The Virtual Weapon and International Order, 2017.Google Scholar
  51. John Kerry, Text of John Kerry’s Remarks in Seoul on Open and Secure Internet, 2015, https://www.voanews.com/a/text-of-john-kerrys-remarks-in-seoul-on-open-and-secure-internet/2776139.html, (letzter Zugriff: 02.09.2019).
  52. Robert Kolb, Reflections on Due Diligence Duties and Cyberspace, German Yearbook of International Law 58, 2015, S. 113.Google Scholar
  53. Elaine Korzak, UN GEE on Cybersecurity: The End of an Era? – What the apparent GGE failure means for international norms and confidence-building measures in cyberspace, The Diplomat, 31. Juli 2017, https://thediplomat.com/2017/07/un-gge-on-cybersecurity-have-china-and-russia-just-made-cyberspace-less-safe/, (letzter Zugriff: 02.09.2019).
  54. Stefan Krempl, Cyberschläge: Bundesregierung prüft „Hack-Back-Strategie“ mit „digitalem Rettungsschuss“, heise online, 2017, https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Cyberschlaege-Bundesregierung-prueft-Hack-Back-Strategie-mit-digitalem-Rettungsschuss-3689279.html, (letzter Zugriff: 02.09.2019).
  55. Jeffrey W. Legro, Which Norms Matter? Revisiting the „Failure“ of Internationalism, International Organization, Vol. 51, Issue 1, 1997, S. 31.Google Scholar
  56. Ian Yuying Liu, State Responsibility and Cyberattacks: Defining Due Diligence Obligations, Indonesian Journal of International & Comparative Law, Vol. 4, 2017, S. 191.Google Scholar
  57. Jon R. Lindsay et al. (Hrsg.), China and Cybersecurity: Espionage, Strategy, and Politics in the Digital Domain, 2015.Google Scholar
  58. Kubo Mačák, From Cyber Norms to Cyber Rules: Re-engaging States as Lawmakers, Leiden Journal of International Law, Vol. 30, Issue 4, 2017, S. 877.Google Scholar
  59. Ryan C. Maness/Brandon Valeriano, Cyber Spillover Conflicts: Transitions from Cyber Conflict to Conventional Foreign Policy Disputes? In: Karsten Friis/Jens Ringsmose (Hrsg.), Routledge Studies in Conflict, Security and Technology: Conflict in Cyber Space: Theoretical, Strategic and Legal Perspectives, 2016, S. 45.Google Scholar
  60. Thilo Marauhn, Customary Rules of International Environmental Law: Can they Provide Guidance for Development a Peacetime Regime for Cyberspace? In: Katharina Ziolkowski (Hrsg.), Peacetime Regime for State Activities in Cyberspace – International Law, Foreign Affairs and Cyber-Diplomacy, Tallinn, 2013, S. 465.Google Scholar
  61. John Markoff/Andrew E. Kramer, In Shift, U.S. Talks to Russia on Internet Security, The New York Times, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/13/science/13cyber.html, (letzter Zugriff: 02.09.2019).
  62. Tim Maurer, Cyber Mercenaries: The State, Hackers, and Power, 2018.Google Scholar
  63. Tim Maurer, Cyber Norm Emergence at the United Nations: An Analysis of the Activities at the UN Regarding Cyber-Security, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Discussion Paper 11, 2011.Google Scholar
  64. Elinor Mills, FBI arrests 16 in Anonymous hacking investigation, cnet, 2011, https://www.cnet.com/news/fbi-arrests-16-in-anonymous-hacking-investigation/, (letzter Zugriff: 02.09.2019).
  65. Ellen Nakashima, Russia’s apparent meddling in U.S. election is not an act of war, cyber experts say, The Washington Post, 2017, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2017/02/07/russias-apparent-meddling-in-u-s-election-is-not-an-act-of-war-cyber-expert-says/?utm_term=.9a211f0b9a50, (letzter Zugriff: 02.09.2019).
  66. Ellen Nakashima, U.S. government officially accuses Russia of hacking campaign to interfere with elections, The Washington Post, 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-government-officially-accuses-russia-of-hacking-campaign-to-influence-elections/2016/10/07/4e0b9654-8cbf-11e6-875e-2c1bfe943b66_story.html?utm_term=.2be978a38684, (letzter Zugriff: 02.0.2019).
  67. National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC), US-CERT Federal Incident Notification Guidelines, 2016, https://www.us-cert.gov/incident-notification-guidelines, (letzter Zugriff: 02.09.2019).
  68. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity, 2014, https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cyberframework/cybersecurity-framework-021214.pdf, (letzter Zugriff: 02.09.2019).
  69. Martin Ney/Andreas Zimmermann, Cyber-Security beyond the Military Perspective: International Law, Cyberspace, and the Concept of Due Diligence Focus, German Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 49, 2015, S. 51.Google Scholar
  70. Julien Nocetti, Contest and Conquest: Russia and Global Internet Governance, International Affairs, Vol. 91, Issue 1, 2015, S. 111.Google Scholar
  71. Jens David Ohlin, Did Russian Cyber Interference in the 2016 Election Violate International Law?, Texas Law Review, Vol. 95, 2017, S. 1579.Google Scholar
  72. Anna-Maria Osula/Henry Rõigas, Introduction, in: Anna-Maria Osula/Henry Rõigas (Hrsg.), International Cyber Norms: Legal, Policy & Industry Perspectives, NATO CCD COE Publications, Tallinn, 2016, S. 11.Google Scholar
  73. Valentin Rauer, Distribuierte Handlungsträgerschaft: Verantwortungsdiffusion als Problem der Digitalisierung sozialen Handelns, in: Christopher Daase/Julian Junk/Stefan Kroll/Valentin Rauer (Hrsg.), Politik und Verantwortung: Analysen zum Wandel politischer Entscheidungs- und Rechtfertigungspraktiken, PVS-Sonderheft 52/2017, 2017, S. 436.Google Scholar
  74. August Reinisch/Markus Beham, Mitigating Risks: Inter-State Due Diligence Obligations in Case of Harmful Cyber Incidents and Malicious Cyber Activity – Obligations of the Transit State, German Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 54, 2015, S. 101.Google Scholar
  75. Thomas Risse, Konstruktivismus, Rationalismus und Theorien Internationaler Beziehungen – Warum empirisch nichts so heiß gegessen wird, wie es theoretisch gekocht wurde, in: Gunther Hellmann/Klaus Dieter Wolf/Michael Zürn (Hrsg.), Die neuen Internationalen Beziehungen: Forschungsstand und Perspektiven in Deutschland, 2003, S. 99.Google Scholar
  76. Russian Federation, Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the People’s Republic of China on cooperation in ensuring international information security, 2015, https://cyber-peace.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/RUS-CHN_CyberSecurityAgreement201504_InofficialTranslation.pdf, (letzter Zugriff: 02.09.2019).
  77. David E. Sanger, White House Confirms Pre-Election Warning to Russia over Hacking, The New York Times, 2016, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/17/us/politics/white-house-confirms-pre-election-warning-to-russia-over-hacking.html?_r=0, (letzter Zugriff: 02.09.2019).
  78. Christian Schaller, Internationale Sicherheit und Völkerrecht im Cyberspace: Für klarere Regeln und mehr Verantwortung, SWP-Studie 8/2014, 2014, S. 1.Google Scholar
  79. Hans-Joachim Schmidt/Harald Müller, Zwischen nationaler Selbstbehauptung und Kooperationssignalen: Zur Einschätzung der neuen russischen Militärdoktrin, HSFK-Report, Bd. 1, 2010.Google Scholar
  80. Michael Schmitt (Hrsg.), Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the international law applicable to cyber operations, 2017.Google Scholar
  81. Michael Schmitt, In Defense of Due Diligence in Cyberspace, Yale Law Journal Forum, Vol. 125, 2015, S. 68.Google Scholar
  82. Michael Schmitt, Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare, 2013.Google Scholar
  83. Michael Schmitt/Liis Vihul, The Nature of International Law Cyber Norms, Tallinn Paper No. 5, Special Expanded Issue, CCDCOE, Tallinn, 2014.Google Scholar
  84. Adam Segal, Chinese Cyber Diplomacy in a New Era of Uncertainty, Hoover Working Group on National security, Technology, and Law, Aegis Paper Series No. 1703, 2017.Google Scholar
  85. Anja Seibert-Fohr, Die völkerrechtliche Verantwortung des Staats für das Handeln von Privaten: Bedarf nach Neuorientierung?, in: Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht, Bd. 73, 2013, S. 37.Google Scholar
  86. Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), Agreement between the Governments of the Member States of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in the Field of International Information Security, 2009, http://www.ccdcoe.org/sites/default/files/documents/SCO-090616-IISAgreement.pdf, (letzter Zugriff: 02.09.2019).
  87. Scott Shackelford/Scott Russell, Operationalizing Cybersecurity Due Diligence: A Transatlantic Comparative Case Study, University of South Carolina Law Review, Vol. 67, Issue 1, 2016, S. 1.Google Scholar
  88. Scott Shackelford/Scott Russell/Andreas Kuehn, Unpacking International Law on Cybersecurity Due Diligence: Lessons from the Public and Private Sectors, Chicago Journal of International Law, Vol. 17, Issue 1, 2016, S. 1.Google Scholar
  89. Scott Shackelford/Andrew Proia/Brenton Martell/Amanda Craig, Toward a Global Cybersecurity Standard of Care? Exploring the Implications of the 2014 NIST Cybersecurity Framework on Shaping Reasonable National and International Cybersecurity Practices, Texas International Law Journal, Vol. 50, 2015, S. 303.Google Scholar
  90. Beth Simmons, Mobilizing for Human Rights, 2009.Google Scholar
  91. Stefan Steiger/Sebastian Harnisch/Kerstin Zettl/Johannes Lohmann, Conceptualising Conflicts in Cyberspace, Journal of Cyber Policy, Vol. 3, Issue 1, 2018, S. 77.Google Scholar
  92. Cass Sunstein, Incompletely Theorized Agreements in Constitutional Law, University of Chicago Public Law & Legal Theory Working Paper No. 147, 2007.Google Scholar
  93. Kevin Townsend, China May Delay Vulnerability Disclosures For Use in Attacs, Securityweek, 2017, https://www.securityweek.com/china-may-delay-vulnerability-disclosures-use-attacks, (letzter Zugriff: 02.09.2019).
  94. Nicholas Tsagourias, Non-State Actors, Ungoverned Spaces and International Responsibility for Cyber Acts, Journal of Conflict and Security Law, Vol. 21, Issue 3, 2016, S. 455.Google Scholar
  95. Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP), 2017, www.ucdp.uu.se/database, (letzter Zugriff: 02.09.2019).
  96. UN GGE, Report of the Group of Governmental Experts on Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security, UN Doc. A/70/174, 2015.Google Scholar
  97. Brandon Valeriano/Ryan C. Maness, Cyber War Versus Cyber Realities: Cyber Conflict in the International System, 2015.Google Scholar
  98. Brandon Valeriano/Ryan C. Maness, The Dynamics of Cyber Conflict between Rival Antagonists, 2001–11, Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 51, Issue 3, 2014, S. 347.Google Scholar
  99. Mark Ward, Anti-Sec: Who are the world’s most wanted hackers?, bbc, 2012, http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-17548704, (letzter Zugriff: 02.09.2019).
  100. White House, National Security Strategy oft he United States, 2017, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/NSS-Final-12-18-2017-0905.pdf, (letzter Zugriff: 02.09.2019).
  101. White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Statement by the President on Actions in Response to Russian Malicious Cyber Activity and Harassment, 2016, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/12/29/statement-president-actions-response-russian-malicious-cyber-activity, (letzter Zugriff: 02.09.2019).
  102. White House, Office of the Press Secretary, FACT SHEET: President Xi Jinpings State Visit to the United States, 2015, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/09/25/fact-sheet-president-xi-jinpings-state-visit-united-states, (letzter Zugriff: 02.09.2019).
  103. White House, International Strategy for Cyberspace, 2011, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/international_strategy_for_cyberspace.pdf, (letzter Zugriff: 02.09.2019).
  104. Robert D. Williams, The ‚China, Inc.+‘ Challenge to Cyberspace Norms, Hoover Working Group on National Security, Technology, and Law, Aegis Series Paper No. 1803, 2018.Google Scholar
  105. Samon Yuen, Becoming a Cyber Power: China’s Cybersecurity Upgrade and its Consequences, China Perspectives, Vol. 2, 2015, S. 53.Google Scholar
  106. Katharina Ziolkowski, General Principles of International Law as Applicable in Cyberspace, in: Katharina Ziolkowski (Hrsg.), Peacetime Regime for State Activities in Cyberspace – International Law, Foreign Affairs and Cyber-Diplomacy, Tallinn, 2013, S. 135.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Deutschland, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universität HeidelbergInstitut für Politische WissenschaftHeidelbergDeutschland
  2. 2.Institute of Political ScienceHeidelberg UniversityHeidelbergDeutschland

Personalised recommendations