Advertisement

The Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare: A Commentary on Chapter II—The Use of Force

Chapter
Part of the Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law book series (YIHL, volume 15)

Abstract

This paper provides a commentary on the jus ad bellum rules that apply to cyber war, as contained in Chapter II of the ‘Tallinn Manual’. More specifically, it critically examines the application to cyber attacks of the rule prohibiting the threat or use of force, the scope of self-defence against on-going or imminent cyber attacks, but it also deals with the question of attribution, the use of force by and against non-state actors as well as with the issue of non-intervention.

Keywords

Cyber attacks Threat and use of force Self-defence  Countermeasures Attribution Security Council Regional organisations Non-state actors 

References

Cases ICJ

  1. Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro) Judgment of 26 February 2007, (2007) 2007 ICJ, (Bosnia Genocide). Google Scholar
  2. Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda) Judgment of 19 December 2005, (2005) ICJ Rep. (Congo v. Uganda). Google Scholar
  3. Case Concerning Legality of Use of Force (Yugoslavia v. Belgium ) Verbatim Record, 10 May 1999, CR 99/15.Google Scholar
  4. Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Judgment of 27 June 1986, [1986] ICJ Rep. 14 (Nicaragua). Google Scholar
  5. Case concerning Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Judgment of 6 November 2003, (2003) ICJ Rep. 161 (Oil Platforms). Google Scholar
  6. Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgment of 25 September 1997, (1997) ICJ Rep. 7 (Hungary/Slovakia). Google Scholar
  7. Interpretation of the Agreement of 25 March 1951 between the WHO and Egypt, Advisory Opinion of 20 December 1980, (1980) ICJ Rep. 67 (WHO/Egypt). Google Scholar
  8. Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, Advisory Opinion of 9 July 2004, (2004) ICJ Rep.136 (Palestinian Wall). Google Scholar
  9. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion of 8 July 1996, (1996) ICJ Rep. 227 (Nuclear Weapons). Google Scholar
  10. Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion of 11 April 1949, (1949) ICJ Rep. 174 (Reparation for Injuries). Google Scholar

ECtHR

  1. Al-Jedda v. The United Kingdom, Application No. 27021/08, Judgment of 7 July 2011 (Al-Jedda) Nada v. Switzerland, Application No. 10593/08, Judgment, 12 September 2012.Google Scholar

ICTY

  1. Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadić, Appeal Judgement, ICTY Case No. IT-94-1-A, 15 July 1999 (Tadić Appeal Judgment 1999).Google Scholar

Arbitral Awards, Eritrea Ethiopia Claims Commission

  1. Partial Award, Jus Ad Bellum, Ethiopia’s Claims 18 between The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia And The State of Eritrea (2005) (Ethiopia/Eritrea Award).Google Scholar

Books, Articles and Internet Sources

  1. Barkham (2001) Information Warfare and International Law on the Use of Force. New York University Journal of International Law and Politics 34:57–113.Google Scholar
  2. Buchan R (2012) Cyber Attacks: Unlawful Uses of Force or Prohibited Interventions? Journal of Conflict and Security Law 17:212–227.Google Scholar
  3. Boebert E (2010) A Survey of Challenges in Attribution. In Proceedings of a Workshop on Deterring Cyberattacks: Informing Strategies and Developing Options for US Policy. National Research Council, National Academies Press, pp 41–54.Google Scholar
  4. Bowett D (1972) Reprisals Involving Recourse to Armed Force. American Journal of International Law 66:1–36.Google Scholar
  5. Bowett (2009) Self-Defence in International Law. The Lawbook Exchange, ltd. Originally published: Praeger, New York (1958).Google Scholar
  6. Brownlie I (1963) International Law and the Use of Force by States. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  7. Brown G (2011) Why Iran Didn’t Admit Stuxnet Was an Attack. Joint Force Quarterly, NDU press, Washington 63:70–73.Google Scholar
  8. Bull H (1984) Intervention in World Politics. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  9. Clark D and Landau S (2010) Untangling Attribution. In Proceedings of a Workshop on Deterring Cyberattacks: Informing Strategies and Developing Options for US Policy. National Research Council, National Academies Press, pp 25–40.Google Scholar
  10. Chatham House Principles of International Law on the Use of Force in Self-Defence. (2006) International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 55:963–972.Google Scholar
  11. Dinstein Y (2002) Computer Network Attacks and Self-defence. In: Schmitt and O’Donnell, Computer Network Attack and International Law. International Law Studies – Naval War College 76:99–119.Google Scholar
  12. Dinstein Y (2010) War, Aggression and Self-Defence. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Dutch Advisory Council on International Affairs and the Advisory Committee on Issues of Public International Law (2008) Netherlands Yearbook of International Law, T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague.Google Scholar
  14. European Commission, Sanctions or Restrictive Measures (2008) http://eeas.europa.eu/cfsp/sanctions/index_en.htm. Accessed 26 February 2013.
  15. Foltz A (2012) Stuxnet, Schmitt Analysis, and the Cyber “Use-of-Force” Debate, Joint Force Quarterly 67:40. http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/jfq/foltz_stuxnet_schmitt_oct2012.pdf, Accessed 28 February 2013.
  16. Gardam J (2004) Necessity, Proportionality and the Use of Force by States. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  17. Gazzini T (2006) The Changing Rules on the Use of Force in International Law. Manchester University Press, Manchester.Google Scholar
  18. Gorman S and Barnes J (2011) Cyber Combat: Act of War. The Wall Street Journal.Google Scholar
  19. Gray C (2008) International Law and the Use of Force, 3rd ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  20. Greenwood C (2012) Self-Defence. Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law online.Google Scholar
  21. Hargrove J (1987) The Nicaragua Judgment and the Future of the Law of Self-Defence, American Journal of International Law 81:135–143.Google Scholar
  22. Jennings R, Watts A (2008) Oppenheim’s International Law. Vol 1 Peace. 9th edn, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  23. Jensen E (2002) Computer Attacks on Critical State Infrastructure: A Use of Force Invoking the Right of Self-Defence. Stanford Journal of International Law, 38:207–240.Google Scholar
  24. Lin H (2010) Offensive Cyber Operations and the Use of Force. Journal of National Security Law and Policy 4:63–86.Google Scholar
  25. Lubell N (2010) Extraterritorial Use of Force Against Non-State Actors. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  26. Roscini M (2010) World Wide Warfare—Jus ad Bellum and the Use of Cyber Force. 14 Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law 14:85–130.Google Scholar
  27. Ruys T (2010) ‘Armed Attack’ and Article 51 of the UN Charter: Evolutions in Customary Law and Practice. Cambrige University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  28. Sadurska R (1988) Threats of Force. American Journal of International Law 82:239 et seq. Google Scholar
  29. Schmitt MN (1999) Computer Network Attack and the Use of Force in International Law: Thoughts on a Normative Framework. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 37:885–937.Google Scholar
  30. Schmitt MN (2011) Cyber Operations and the Jus Ad Bellum Revised. Villanova Law Review 56:576 et seq.Google Scholar
  31. Schmitt MN (2012) The ‘Use of Force’ in Cyberspace: A Reply to Dr Ziolkowski. 4th International Conference on Cyber Conflict, available at http://www.ccdcoe.org/publications/2012proceedings/5_4_Schmidt_ResponseToZiolkowski.pdf. Accessed 26 February 2013.
  32. Sharp WG (1999) Cyberspace and the Use of Force. Aegis Research Corporation, Falls Church.Google Scholar
  33. Simma B, Khan D-E, Nolte G, Paulus A (ed) (2012) The Charter of the United Nations. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  34. Schachter (1984) The Right of States to Use Armed Force. Michigan Law Review 82:1620 et seq.Google Scholar
  35. Sloan RD (2012) On the Use and Abuse of Necessity in the Law of State Responsibility. American Journal of International Law 106:447–508.Google Scholar
  36. Tams C (2009) The Use of Force against Terrorists. European Journal of International law 20:359–397.Google Scholar
  37. Trump K (2011) State Responsibility for International Terrorism. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  38. Tsagourias N (2010) Necessity and the Use of Force: A Special Regime. Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 41:11–44.Google Scholar
  39. Tsagourias N (2011) Non-State Actors and the Use of Force. In D’Aspremont J (ed), Participants in the International Legal System: Theoretical Perspectives. Routledge, London, p 326 et seq. Google Scholar
  40. Tsagourias N (2012) Cyberattacks, Self-defence and the Problem of Attribution. Journal of Conflict and Security Law 17:229–245.Google Scholar
  41. Waxman (2011) Cyber-Attacks and the Use of Force: Back to the Future of Article 2(4). 36 Yale Journal of International Law 36:421 et seq. Google Scholar
  42. Wedgwood R (1999) Legal personality and the role of non-governmental organisations and non-state political entities in the United Nations system. In Hofmann R (ed) (1999) Non-State Actors as New Subjects of International Law, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, pp 21–36.Google Scholar
  43. Wet E de, Vidmar J (2012) Hierarchy in International Law: The Place of Human Rights, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  44. Ziolkowski K (2012) Jus ad bellum in Cyberspace – Some Thoughts on the “Schmitt-Criteria” for Use of Force. 4th International Conference on Cyber Conflict, NATO CCD COE Publications, Tallinn. http://www.ccdcoe.org/publications/2012proceedings/5_3_Ziolkowski_IusAdBellumInCyberspace.pdf. Accessed 26 February 2013.

Copyright information

© T.M.C. ASSER PRESS, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the author(s) 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of SheffieldSheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations