The Harm Prevention Rule in Cyberspace

Dr. Leonhard Kreuzer

doi:10.5771/9783748918844

Zusammenfassung

Die völkergewohnheitsrechtliche Schadenvermeidungspflicht – einschließlich ihrer Due Diligence-Anforderungen – wird in jüngster Zeit als potentiell wirkungsvolles völkerrechtliches Instrument zur Stabilisierung des Cyberspace gegen schädliche Cyberoperationen gehandelt. Bisher sind die völkergewohnheitsrechtliche Anerkennung, sowie der Inhalt und die konkrete Anwendung der Pflicht noch nicht hinreichend praxistauglich konturiert. Um diesem Problem zu begegnen, unternimmt das Buch die erste umfassende Untersuchung der Schadenvermeidungspflicht im Cyberspace. Es zeigt auf, unter welchen Voraussetzungen staatliche Due Diligence-Verpflichtungen zur Schadensvermeidung ausgelöst werden und welche Maßnahmen Staaten konkret ergreifen müssen.

Schlagworte

Publikation durchsuchen

Bibliographische Angaben

Copyrightjahr: 2024
ISBN-Print: 978-3-7560-1356-2
ISBN-Online: 978-3-7489-1884-4
Verlag: Nomos, Baden-Baden
Reihe: Beiträge zum ausländischen öffentlichen Recht und Völkerrecht
Band: 335
Sprache: Englisch
Seiten: 327
Produkttyp: Monographie

Inhaltsverzeichnis

KapitelSeiten

Titelei/InhaltsverzeichnisSeiten 1 - 20 Download Kapitel (PDF)
IntroductionSeiten 21 - 26 Download Kapitel (PDF)
Download Kapitel (PDF)
1. 1. I. Cyber espionage
  2. II. Cyber terrorism
  3. III. Cyber war
  4. IV. Cyber attack
  5. V. Cybercrime
  6. VI. Imprecision of categorical terms
2. 1. I. Cyber harm as exploitation of code vulnerability
  2. II. Means of causing cyber harm
  3. III. Exclusion: Human error, social engineering and content harm
3. 1. I. Intrusive access operations: Loss of confidentiality
  2. II. Disruptive operations: Impairment or loss of functionality
  3. III. Destructive operations: Physical harm
  4. IV. Other categorization of cyber harm effects
4. 1. I. Gradual recognition of the applicability of international law in cyberspace
  2. II. States’ preference for strategic ambiguity
  3. III. Filling the void: Non-state actor proposals
  4. IV. Turn to preventive approaches against cyber security risks
Download Kapitel (PDF)
1. 1. I. The evolution of the harm prevention rule in international law
  2. II. Holistic protection of interests of other states
  3. III. Territory, jurisdiction or control: Risk proximity as basis of accountability
  4. IV. Knowledge of risk of harm required
  5. 1. 1. Due diligence as an obligation of conduct
    2. 2. The preventive and remedial dimension of due diligence
  6. VI. The negative prohibitive dimension of the harm prevention rule
2. B. The harm prevention rule as the most suitable term for expressing the due diligence rationale
3. 1. I. The harm prevention rule as a customary rule of a general character
  2. II. The harm prevention rule as a general principle of international law
4. 1. I. The inductive approach and its limits
  2. II. Complementary deductive considerations
  3. III. Threshold for deductive considerations
  4. IV. Endorsement of deductive considerations in cyberspace
  5. V. Relevant state practice and opinio iuris in cyberspace
5. 1. I. Momentum towards recognition of the rule
  2. 1. 1. Concern about over-securitization
    2. 2. Capacity concerns
6. 1. I. Endorsement of the harm prevention rule in the UN GGE Reports
  2. 1. 1. Hortatory language of the UN GGE Reports
    2. 2. Permissive assertions of freedom of action
7. G. Need for specification in cyberspace
Download Kapitel (PDF)
1. 1. I. Risk of significant cyber harm
  2. II. Integrating acts reaching the threshold of prohibitive rules into the risk of harm threshold
  3. III. Interpretation of risk of significant harm in cyberspace
  4. IV. Non-physical harm as relevant harm under the harm prevention rule
  5. V. Cumulative harm as relevant harm under the harm prevention rule
  6. VI. Context-dependent flexible assessment of significant cyber harm
2. 1. 1. 1. Recognition of the prohibition on the use of force in cyberspace
    2. 2. Acts amounting to a use of force in cyberspace
    3. 3. Application of the threshold to specific cyber incidents
    4. 4. The exceptional implication of the threshold of prohibited force in cyberspace
  2. 1. 1. Recognition of the prohibition of intervention in cyberspace
    2. 2. Domaine réservé
    3. 1. 3.1 Interference with elections
      2. 3.2 Intervention in the fundamental operation of parliament
      3. 3.3 Cyber operations against critical infrastructure
      4. 3.4 Impacts on the stability of the financial system
      5. 3.5 Harm to the political and/or cultural system
      6. 3.6 Undermining the territorial state’s exclusive right to enforce the law
    4. 4. Lack of clarity regarding the threshold of prohibited intervention
  3. 1. 1. The suggestion of a sovereignty rule in cyberspace
    2. 2. Sovereignty as a fundamental principle of international law
    3. 3. ‘Violations of sovereignty’ in international practice
    4. 4. Concepts of sovereignty in cyberspace
    5. 1. 5.1 The absolutist ‘pure’ sovereigntist approach
      2. 5.2 Degree of infringement on territorial integrity
      3. 5.3 Interference with or usurpation of inherently governmental functions
      4. 5.4 Exercise of state power
      5. 5.5 Lack of sufficiently clear content of a sovereignty rule in cyberspace
    6. 6. Assessing risks and benefits of a sovereignty rule in cyberspace
3. 1. 1. 1. The problem of economic cyber harm
    2. 2. Increasing concern about economic cyber harm
    3. 1. 3.1 Violation of intellectual property rights and trade secrets
      2. 3.2 Further criteria for assessing the gravity of economic harm
    4. 4. Economic harm as an emerging category of significant cyber harm
  2. 1. 1. Increasing concern about cyber operations against critical infrastructure
    2. 2. Diverging definitions of critical infrastructure
  3. III. Increasing concern about harm to the public core of the internet
  4. 1. 1. The legality of espionage in international law
    2. 2. Increasing concern about harm caused by mass surveillance operations
    3. 3. Increasing concern about cyber espionage operations against governmental and international institutions
  5. V. Emerging legal yardsticks for risks of significant cyber harm
Download Kapitel (PDF)
1. 1. I. Restrictive formulation regarding attacks on critical infrastructure in the UN GGE Reports
  2. II. States’ negative obligations regarding all categories of significant cyber harm
2. 1. I. Due diligence as a capacity-dependent binding obligation of conduct
  2. II. Due diligence vs. ‘soft’ best practice standards
  3. III. Systematic interpretation of due diligence requirements in cyberspace
  4. IV. The relevance of the duty to protect under international human rights law
  5. V. Categories of due diligence measures
3. 1. 1. 1. Cooperation in international law
    2. 2. Cooperation and due diligence
    3. 3. Cooperation in cyberspace
    4. 4. Focus on specific cooperative duties preferable
  2. 1. 1. Duty to take action and due diligence
    2. 2. Duty to take action in cyberspace
    3. 3. Knowledge
    4. 4. Required measures
    5. 5. Widespread support of a due diligence obligation to take action in cyberspace
  3. 1. 1. Duty to notify in international law and with regard to due diligence
    2. 2. Duty to notify in cyberspace
    3. 3. Reluctance of states to commit to a duty to notify in cyberspace
    4. 4. Nascent emergence of a due diligence obligation to notify in cyberspace
  4. 1. 1. Prohibition of extraterritorial law enforcement as a challenge for cybercrime prosecution
    2. 2. Cooperation in legal instruments on cybercrime: Discussions on the UN level
    3. 3. Cooperation requirements in cybercrime treaties
    4. 1. 4.1 Formal cooperation: Mutual legal assistance
      2. 4.2 Principles and limits of mutual legal assistance
      3. 4.3 Informal cooperation
    5. 5. The challenge of assessing cybercrime cooperation standards beyond a minimum standard
  5. 1. 1. Definition of ICT vulnerabilities
    2. 2. Exploitation of ICT vulnerabilities by intelligence and law enforcement
    3. 1. 3.1 Reporting of ICT vulnerabilities
      2. 3.2 Information on remedies
    4. 4. Links of state exploitation to attacks on the integrity of the supply chain
    5. 5. The protection of the integrity of the supply chain in the UN GGE Report 2015
    6. 6. Emergence of best practice standards regarding ICT vulnerability disclosure
  6. VI. Summary on procedural due diligence obligations
4. 1. 1. 1. Criminal legislation and prosecution as due diligence requirements
    2. 2. Criminal legislation and prosecution under international human rights law
    3. 1. 3.1 Criminalization requirements under cybercrime treaties
      2. 3.2 Convergence on an international minimum standard
    4. 1. 4.1 Standard procedural measures
      2. 4.2 Divergences regarding human rights safeguards
      3. 4.3 Diverging capacities
      4. 4.4. The gradual emergence of an international minimum standard and associated risks
  2. 1. 1. No rebuttable presumption of knowledge
    2. 2. Duty to have known under the harm prevention rule
    3. 3. Content of a duty to have known in cyberspace
    4. 4. Practical implications
  3. 1. 1. 1.1 Spill-over effects of cyber harm to critical infrastructure
      2. 1.2 Duty to protect critical infrastructure under human rights law
      3. 1.3.1 Ensuring IT security standards
        1.3.2 Criminal legislation
        1.3.3 Inter-state and public-private cooperation
      4. 1.4 Non-binding best practice standards
    2. 2. Duty to prevent cyber harm to the critical infrastructure of other states
  4. 1. 1. Divergent understandings of emergency response teams and points of contact
    2. 2. Establishment of CERTs and points of contact as a due diligence requirement
    3. 3. Establishment of CERTs and points of contact under binding and non-binding norms
  5. V. Evolving due diligence standard regarding institutional capacity
Download Kapitel (PDF)
1. 1. I. Harm not a constituent element of an internationally wrongful act
  2. II. Complementary applicability of the prevention rules and the rules on state responsibility
2. 1. I. Compensation and reparation in cases of cyber harm
  2. II. Cessation
3. 1. I. Purpose and proportionality requirements
  2. II. Notification requirement
  3. III. Countermeasures against states
  4. IV. The problem of collective countermeasures
  5. V. The limited role of countermeasures for the enforcement of the harm prevention rule
Download Kapitel (PDF)
1. A. The potential of the harm prevention rule in cyberspace
2. B. Central findings
BibliographySeiten 307 - 324 Download Kapitel (PDF)
Table of CasesSeiten 325 - 327 Download Kapitel (PDF)

Literaturverzeichnis (280 Einträge)

Bibliography Google Scholar öffnen
Liisi Adamson, ‘Recommendation 13c’, in Enekken Tikk (ed.), Voluntary, Non-Binding Norms for Responsible State Behaviour in the Use of Information and Communications Technology – A Commentary (United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs 2017), 49–75 Google Scholar öffnen
Daniel Albrecht, ‘Chinese Cybersecurity Law Compared to EU-NIS-Directive and German IT-Security Act’, Computer Law Review International (2018), 1–5 Google Scholar öffnen
Anthony d’Amato, The Concept of Custom in International Law (Cornell University Press, 1971) Google Scholar öffnen
Elif Askin, ‘Economic and Social Rights, Extraterritorial Application’, in Rüdiger Wolfrum (ed.), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2019) Google Scholar öffnen
Helmut Philipp Aust/Prisca Feihle, ‘Due Diligence in the History of the Codification of the Law of State Responsibility’, in Heike Krieger/Anne Peters/Leonhard Kreuzer, Due Diligence in the International Legal Order (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2020), 42–58 Google Scholar öffnen
Helmut Philipp Aust, ‘Spionage im Zeitalter von Big Data – Globale Überwachung und der Schutz der Privatsphäre im Völkerrecht’, Archiv des Völkerrechts 52 (2014), 375–406 Google Scholar öffnen
Björnstjern Baade, ‘Due Diligence and the Duty to Protect Human Rights’, in Heike Krieger/Anne Peters/Leonhard Kreuzer, Due Diligence in the International Legal Order (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2020), 92–108 Google Scholar öffnen
Björnstjern Baade, ‘Fake News and International Law’, European Journal of International Law 29 (2018), 1357–1376 Google Scholar öffnen
Bjönstjern Baade, Der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte als Diskurswächter (Berlin: Springer 2017) Google Scholar öffnen
Jelena Bäumler, Das Schädigungsverbot im Völkerrecht (Berlin: Springer: 2017) Google Scholar öffnen
Jelena Bäumler, ‘Implementing the No Harm Principle in International Economic Law: A Comparison between Measure-Based Rules and Effect-Based Rules’, Journal of International Economic Law 20 (2017), 807–828 Google Scholar öffnen
Christopher D. Baker, ‘Tolerance of International Espionage: A Functional Approach’, American University International Law Review 19 (2003), 1091–1113 Google Scholar öffnen
Karine Bannelier/Theodore Christakis, ‘Prevention Reactions: The Role of States and Private Actors’ (Paris: Les Cahiers de la Revue Défense Nationale 2017) Google Scholar öffnen
Karine Bannelier-Christakis, ‘Cyber Diligence: A Low-Intensity Due Diligence Principle for Low-Intensity Cyber Operations’, Baltic Yearbook of International Law 14 (2014), 23–39 Google Scholar öffnen
Julio Barboza, ‘International Liability for the Injurious Consequences of Acts Not Prohibited by International Law and Protection of the Environment’, Recueil des Cours de l’Academie de Haye 247 (1998), 291–406 Google Scholar öffnen
Jens Bartelson, ‘Dating Sovereignty’, International Studies Review 20 (2018), 509–513 Google Scholar öffnen
Giulio Bartolini, ‘The Historical Roots of the Due Diligence Standard’, in Heike Krieger/Anne Peters/Leonhard Kreuzer (eds.), Due Diligence in the International Legal Order (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2020), 23–41 Google Scholar öffnen
Eyal Benvenisti, ‘Community Interests in International Adjudication’, in Eyal Benvenisti/Georg Nolte (eds.), Community Interests Across International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2018), 70–85 Google Scholar öffnen
Michael Berk, ‘Recommendations 13 (g) and (h)’, in Eneken Tikk (ed.), Voluntary, Non-Binding Norms for Responsible State Behaviour in the Use of Information and Communications Technology – A Commentary (United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs 2017), 191–222 Google Scholar öffnen
Antal Berkes, ‘Human Rights Obligations of the Territorial State in the Cyberspace of Areas Outside Its Effective Control’, Israel Law Review 52 (2019), 197–231 Google Scholar öffnen
Antal Berkes, ‘The Standard of ‘Due Diligence’ as a Result of Interchange between the Law of Armed Conflict and General International Law’, Journal of Conflict & Security Law 23 (2018), 433–460 Google Scholar öffnen
Samantha Besson, ‘La Due Diligence en Droit International’, Recueil des Cours de l’Académie de Droit International de la Haye 409 (2020) 153–398 Google Scholar öffnen
Samantha Besson, ‘Sovereignty’, in Rüdiger Wolfrum (ed.), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2011) Google Scholar öffnen
Alan E. Boyle, ‘State Responsibility and International Liability for Injurious Consequences of Acts not Prohibited by International Law: A Necessary Distinction?’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly 39 (1990), 1–26 Google Scholar öffnen
Jordan Branch, ‘What’s in a Name? Metaphors and Cybersecurity’, International Organization 75 (2021), 39–70 Google Scholar öffnen
Dennis Broeders, The Public Core of the Internet (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press 2015) Google Scholar öffnen
Gary Brown/Keira Poellet, ‘The Customary International Law of Cyberspace’, Strategic Studies Quarterly 6 (2012), 126–145 Google Scholar öffnen
Jutta Brunnée, ‘Procedure and Substance in International Environmental Law’, Recueil des Cours de l’Académie de Droit International de la Haye 405 (2020), 77–240 Google Scholar öffnen
Jutta Brunnée/Stephen J. Toope, Legitimacy and Legality in International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2010) Google Scholar öffnen
Russell Buchan, Cyber Espionage and International Law (Oxford: Hart Publishing 2018) Google Scholar öffnen
Russell Buchan, ‘The International Legal Regulation of Cyber Espionage’, in Anna Maria Osula/Henry Rõigas (eds.) International Cyber Norms: Legal, Policy & Industry Perspectives (NATO CCD COE Publications 2016), 65–86 Google Scholar öffnen
Russell Buchan, ‘Cyberspace, Non-State Actors and the Obligation to Prevent Transboundary Harm’, Journal of Conflict & Security Law 21 (2016), 429–453 Google Scholar öffnen
Russell Buchan, ‘Cyber Attacks: Unlawful Uses of Force or Prohibited Interventions’, Journal of Conflict & Security Law 17 (2012), 211–227 Google Scholar öffnen
Els de Busser, ‘Recommendation 13d’, in Enekken Tikk (ed.), Voluntary, Non-Binding Norms for Responsible State Behaviour in the Use of Information and Communications Technology – A Commentary (United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs 2017), 77–94 Google Scholar öffnen
Christian Calliess/Ansgar Baumgarten, ‘Cybersecurity in the EU The Example of the Financial Sector: A Legal Perspective’, German Law Journal 21 (2020), 1149–1179 Google Scholar öffnen
Simon Chesterman, ‘Secret Intelligence’, in Rüdiger Wolfrum (ed.), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2009) Google Scholar öffnen
Luke Chircop, ‘A Due Diligence Standard of Attribution in Cyberspace’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly 67 (2018), 1–26 Google Scholar öffnen
Luke Chircop, ‘Territorial Sovereignty in Cyberspace after Tallinn Manual 2.0’, Melbourne Journal of International Law 20 (2019), 349–377 Google Scholar öffnen
Theodore Christakis/Fabien Terpan, ‘EU–US negotiations on law enforcement access to data: divergences, challenges and EU law procedures and options’, International Data Privacy Law 11 (2021), 81–106 Google Scholar öffnen
Jonathan Clough, ‘A World of Difference: The Budapest Convention on Cybercrime and the Challenges of Harmonisation’, Monash University Law Review 40 (2015), 698–736 Google Scholar öffnen
Talita de Souza Dias/Antonio Coco, Cyber Due Diligence in International Law (Print version: Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict 2021) Google Scholar öffnen
Antonio Coco/Talita de Souza Dias, ‘“Cyber Due Diligence”: A Patchwork of Protective Obligations in International Law’, European Journal of International Law 32 (2021), 771–805 Google Scholar öffnen
Antonio Coco/Talita de Souza Dias/Tsvetelina van Benthem, ‘Illegal: The SolarWinds Hack under International Law’, European Journal of International Law 33 (2022), 1275–1286 Google Scholar öffnen
Gary P. Corn/Robert Taylor, ‘Sovereignty in the Age of Cyber’, AJIL Unbound 111 (2017), 207–212 Google Scholar öffnen
Olivier Corten, The Law against War – The Prohibition on the Use of Force in Contemporary International Law (Oxford: Hart 2010) Google Scholar öffnen
James Crawford, Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2019) Google Scholar öffnen
James Crawford, Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law, 8th edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2012) Google Scholar öffnen
Rebecca Crootof, ‘International Cybertorts: Expanding State Accountability in Cyberspace’, Cornell Law Review 103 (2018), 565–644 Google Scholar öffnen
Georg Dahm/Jost Delbrück/Rüdiger Wolfrum, Völkerrecht vol 1/1 Die Grundlagen: Die Völkerrechtssubjekte (2nd edition, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter 1989) Google Scholar öffnen
François Delerue, Cyber Operations and International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2020) Google Scholar öffnen
François Delerue, ‘Covid-19 and the Cyber Pandemic: A Plea for International Law and the Rule of Sovereignty in Cyberspace’, in Taťána Jančárková/Lauri Lindström et al. (eds.), Going Viral (NATO CCDCOE 2021), 9–24 Google Scholar öffnen
Hollin Dickerson, ‘Best Practices’, in Rüdiger Wolfrum (ed.), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2010) Google Scholar öffnen
Oliver Dörr, ‘Prohibition of Use of Force’, in Rüdiger Wolfrum (ed.), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2019) Google Scholar öffnen
Julia Dornbusch, Das Kampfführungsrecht im internationalen Cyberkrieg (Baden-Baden: Nomos 2018) Google Scholar öffnen
Pierre-Marie Dupuy/Cristina Hoss, ‘Trail Smelter and Terrorism: International Mechanism to Combat Transboundary Harm’, in Rebecca M. Bratspies/Russell A. Miller (eds.), Transboundary Harm in International Law: Lessons from the Trail Smelter Arbitration (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2006), 225–239 Google Scholar öffnen
Leslie-Anne Duvic-Paoli, The Prevention Principle in International Environmental Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2018) Google Scholar öffnen
Dan Efrony/Yuval Shany, ‘A Rule Book on the Shelf? Tallinn Manual 2.0 on Cyberoperations and Subsequent State Practice’, The American Journal of International Law 112 (2018), 583–657 Google Scholar öffnen
Isabel Feichtner, ‘Community Interest’, in Rüdiger Wolfrum (ed.), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2007) Google Scholar öffnen
David P. Fidler, ‘Cyberspace, Terrorism and International Law’, Journal of Conflict & Security Law 21 (2016), 475–493 Google Scholar öffnen
Martha Finnemore/Duncan B. Hollis, ‘Constructing Norms for Global Cybersecurity’, American Journal of International 110 (2016), 425–478 Google Scholar öffnen
Martha Finnemore/Kathryn Sikkink, ‘International Norm Dynamics and Political Change’, International Organization 52 (1998), 887–917 Google Scholar öffnen
Caroline E. Foster, Science and the Precautionary Principle in International Courts and Tribunals. Expert Evidence, Burden of Proof and Finality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2011) Google Scholar öffnen
Danielle Flonk/Markus Jachtenfuchs/Aanke S. Obendiek, ‘Authority Conflicts in Internet Governance: Liberals vs. Sovereigntists?’, Global Constitutionalism 9 (2020), 364–386 Google Scholar öffnen
Wolfgang Friedman, The Changing Structure of International Law (London: Stevens 1964) Google Scholar öffnen
Marco Gercke, ‘The Slow Wake of A Global Approach Against Cybercrime’, Computer Law Review International 5 (2006), 140–145 Google Scholar öffnen
Terry D. Gill, ‘Non-intervention in the Cyber Context’, in Katharina Ziolkowski (ed.) Peacetime Regime for State Activities in Cyberspace (NATO CCDCOE 2013), 217–238 Google Scholar öffnen
Oren Gross, ‘Cyber Responsibility to Protect: Legal Obligations of States Directly Affected by Cyber-Incidents’, Cornell International Law Journal 48 (2015), 481–511 Google Scholar öffnen
Kari Hakapää, ‘Innocent Passage’, in Rüdiger Wolfrum (ed.), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2013) Google Scholar öffnen
Oona Hathaway et al, ‘The Law of Cyber Attack’, California Law Review 100 (2012), 817–885 Google Scholar öffnen
Melissa Hathaway, ‘Introduction: International Engagement on Cyber V: Securing Critical Infrastructure’, Georgetown Journal of International Affairs (2015), 3–7 Google Scholar öffnen
Sarah Heathcote, ‘State Omissions and Due Diligence: Aspects of Fault, Damage and Contribution to Injury in the Law of State Responsibility’, in Karine Bannelier/Theodore Christakis/Sarah Heathcote (eds.), The ICJ and the Evolution of International Law: The Enduring Impact of the Corfu Channel Case (London et al.: Routledge 2012), 295–314 Google Scholar öffnen
Wolf Heintschel von Heinegg, ‘Legal Implications of Territorial Sovereignty in Cyberspace’, in Christian Czosseck/Rain Ottis/Katharina Ziolkowski (eds.), International Conference on Cyber Conflict (2012), 7–19 Google Scholar öffnen
Caitriona Heinl, ‘Recommendation para. 13i’, in Enekken Tikk (ed.), Voluntary, Non-Binding Norms for Responsible State Behaviour in the Use of Information and Communications Technology – A Commentary (United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs 2017), 223–239 Google Scholar öffnen
Kevin Jon Heller, ‘In Defense of Pure Sovereignty in Cyberspace’, International Law Studies 97 (2021), 1432–1499 Google Scholar öffnen
An Hertogen, ‘Letting Lotus Bloom’, European Journal of International Law 26 (2015), 901–926 Google Scholar öffnen
Stephen C. Hicks, ‘International Order and Article 38(1)(c) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice’, Suffolk Transnational Law Journal 2 (1978), 1–42 Google Scholar öffnen
Zine Homburger, ‘Recommendation 13a’, in Eneken Tikk (ed.) Voluntary, Non-Binding Norms for Responsible State Behaviour in the Use of Information and Communications Technology – A Commentary, (United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs 2017), 9–25 Google Scholar öffnen
Eric Hutchins/Michael J. Cloppert/Rohan M. Amin, ‘Reconnnaisance, Weaponization, Delivery, Exploitation, Installation, Command and Control and Action on objective’, in Information Warfare & Security Research 1 (2011), 1–14 Google Scholar öffnen
Eric Talbot Jensen, ‘Computer Attacks on Critical National Infrastructure: A Use of Force Invoking the Right to Self-Defense’, Stanford Journal of International Law (38) 2002, 207–240 Google Scholar öffnen
Jason D. Jolley, ‘Recommendation para. 13f’, in Enekken Tikk (ed.), Voluntary, Non-Binding Norms for Responsible State Behaviour in the Use of Information and Communications Technology – A Commentary (United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs 2017), 169–190 Google Scholar öffnen
Jason D. Jolley, Attribution, State Responsibility, and the Duty to Prevent Malicious Cyber-Attacks in International Law (University of Glasgow 2017) Google Scholar öffnen
Christopher C. Joyner, ‘Coercion’, in Rüdiger Wolfrum (ed.), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2006) Google Scholar öffnen
Asaf Lubin, ‘The Liberty to Spy’, Harvard International Law Journal 61 (2020), 185–243 Google Scholar öffnen
Jörn Axel Kämmerer, ‘Comity’, in Rüdiger Wolfrum (ed.), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2020) Google Scholar öffnen
Krešimir Kamber, ‘Substantive and Procedural Criminal Law Protection of Human Rights in the Law of the European Convention on Human Rights’, Human Rights Law Review 20 (2020), 75–100 Google Scholar öffnen
Jörg Kammerhofer, ‘Uncertainty in the Formal Sources of International Law: Customary International Law and Some of Its Problems’, European Journal of International Law 15 (2004), 523–553 Google Scholar öffnen
Menno T. Kamminga, ‘Extraterritoriality’, in Rüdiger Wolfrum (ed.), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2012) Google Scholar öffnen
Helen Keller, ‘Friendly Relations Declaration (1970)’, in Anne Peters (ed.), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2021) Google Scholar öffnen
Ido Kilovaty, ‘The Elephant in the Room: Coercion’, AJIL Unbound 113 (2019), 87–91 Google Scholar öffnen
Frederic L. Kirgis, ‘Custom on a Sliding Scale’, American Journal of International Law 81 (1987), 146–151 Google Scholar öffnen
Uta Kohl, ‘Jurisdiction in Cyberspace’, in Nicholas Tsagourias/Russell Buchan (eds.) Research Handbook on International Law and Cyberspace (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing 2015), 30–54 Google Scholar öffnen
Jeff Kosseff, ‘Collective Countermeasures in Cyberspace’, in Notre Dame Journal of International and Comparative Law 10 (2020), 18–39 Google Scholar öffnen
Jan Kleijssen/Pierluigi Perri, ‘Cybercrime, Evidence and Territoriality: Issues and Options’, in Martin Kuijer/Wouter Werner (eds.), The Changing Nature of Territoriality in International Law (Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 2016), 147–173 Google Scholar öffnen
Thomas Kleinlein, ‘Customary International Law and General Principles Rethinking Their Relationship’, in Brian D. Lepard (ed.) Reexamining Customary International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres 2017), 131–158 Google Scholar öffnen
Stephen D. Krasner, Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy (Princeton: Princeton University Press 1999) Google Scholar öffnen
Markus Krajewski, ‘Due Diligence in International Trade Law’, in Heike Krieger/Anne Peters/Leonhard Kreuzer, Due Diligence in the International Legal Order (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2020), 312–328 Google Scholar öffnen
Leonhard Kreuzer, ‘Sovereignty in Cyberspace – A Rule Without Content?, in Antonio Segura Serrano (ed.), Global Cybersecurity and International Law (London: Routledge 2024), 29–43. Google Scholar öffnen
Leonhard Kreuzer, ‘Hobbesscher Naturzustand im Cyberspace? Enge Grenzen der Völkerrechtsdurchsetzung bei Cyberangriffen’, in Ines-Jacqueline Werkner/Niklas Schörnig (eds.), Cyberwar – die Digitalisierung der Kriegsführung (Wiesbaden: Springer 2019), 63–86 Google Scholar öffnen
Heike Krieger/Jonas Püschmann, ‘Law-making and legitimacy in international humanitarian law’, in Heike Krieger (ed.), Law-Making and Legitimacy in International Humanitarian Law (Cheltenham et al.: Edward Elgar 2021), 1–14 Google Scholar öffnen
Heike Krieger/Anne Peters, ‘Due Diligence and Structural Change in the International Legal Order’, in Heike Krieger/Anne Peters/Leonhard Kreuzer, Due Diligence in the International Legal Order (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2020), 351–390 Google Scholar öffnen
Heike Krieger, ‘Conceptualizing Cyberwar, Changing the Law by Imagining Extreme Conditions?’, in Thomas Eger/Stefan Oeter/Stefan Voigt (eds), International Law and the Rule of Law under Extreme Conditions: An Economic Perspective (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2017), 195–212 Google Scholar öffnen
Heike Krieger/Georg Nolte, ‘The International Rule of Law – Rise or Decline? – Approaching Current Foundational Challenges’, in Heike Krieger/Georg Nolte/Andreas Zimmermann (eds.), The International Rule of Law: Rise or Decline? (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2019), 3–30. Google Scholar öffnen
Heike Krieger/Anne Peters/Leonhard Kreuzer, Due Diligence in the International Legal Order (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2020) Google Scholar öffnen
Heike Krieger, ‘Positive Verpflichtungen unter der EMRK: Unentbehrliches Element einer gemeineuropäischen Grundrechtsdogmatik, leeres Versprechen oder Grenze der Justiziabilität?’, Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 74 (2014), 187–213 Google Scholar öffnen
Heike Krieger, ‘Krieg gegen anonymous’, Archiv des Völkerrechts 50 (2012), 1–20 Google Scholar öffnen
Philip Kunig, ‘Prohibition of Intervention’, in Rüdiger Wolfrum (ed.), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2008) Google Scholar öffnen
Henning Christian Lahmann, ‘On the Politics and Ideologies of the Sovereignty Discourse in Cyberspace’, Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law 32 (2021), 61–107 Google Scholar öffnen
Henning Christian Lahmann, Unilateral Remedies to Cyber Operations: Self-Defence, Countermeasures, Necessity, and the Question of Attribution (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2020) Google Scholar öffnen
Henning Lahmann/Robin Geiß, ‘Freedom and Security in Cyberspace: Non-Forcible Countermeasures and Collective Threat-Prevention’, in Katharina Ziolkowski (ed.) Peacetime Regime for State Activities in Cyberspace (NATO CCDCOE 2013), 621–657 Google Scholar öffnen
Laurens Lavrysen, Human Rights in a Positive State (Cambridge et al.: intersentia 2017) Google Scholar öffnen
Brian Lepard (ed.), Re-examining Customary International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016) Google Scholar öffnen
Martin C. Libicki, ‘Cyberspace is not a Warfighting Domain’, I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society 8 (2012), 321–336 Google Scholar öffnen
Andreas Lichter/Max Löffler/Sebastian Siegloch, ‘The Long-Term Costs of Government Surveillance’, Journal of the European Economic Association 19 (2021), 741–789 Google Scholar öffnen
Kubo Mačák, ‘From Cyber Norms to Cyber Rules: Re-engaging States as Law-makers ‘, Leiden Journal of International Law 30 (2017), 877–899 Google Scholar öffnen
Ian H. Mack, Towards Intelligent Self-Defence: Bringing Peacetime Espionage in From the Cold and Under the Rubric of the Right of Self-Defence (Sydney Law School 2013) Google Scholar öffnen
Dieter Martiny, ‘Mutual Legal Assistance in Civil and Commercial Matters’, in Rüdiger Wolfrum (ed.), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2009) Google Scholar öffnen
Nele Matz-Lück, ‘Norm Interpretation across International Regimes: Competences and Legitimacy’, in Margaret A. Young (ed.), Regime Interaction in International Law – Facing Fragmentation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2012), 201–234 Google Scholar öffnen
Neil McDonald, ‘The Role of Due Diligence in International Law’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly 68 (2019), 1041–1054 Google Scholar öffnen
Alexander Melnitzky, ‘Defending America against Chinese Cyber Espionage Though the Use of Active Defences’, Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law 20 (2012), 537–570 Google Scholar öffnen
Nils Melzer, Cyberwarfare and International Law (United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, Ideas for Peace and Security-Resources 2011) Google Scholar öffnen
Marko Milanovic/Michael Schmitt, ‘Cyber Attacks and Cyber (Mis)information Operations during a Pandemic’, Journal of National Security Law & Policy 11 (2020), 247–284 Google Scholar öffnen
Marko Milanovic, Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties: Law, Principles, and Policy (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2011) Google Scholar öffnen
Alex Mills, ‘Rethinking Jurisdiction in International Law’, British Yearbook of International Law 84 (2014), 187–239 Google Scholar öffnen
Maria Monnheimer, Due Diligence Obligations in International Human Rights Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2021) Google Scholar öffnen
Milton L. Mueller, ‘Against Sovereignty in Cyberspace’, International Studies Review 22 (2020), 779–801 Google Scholar öffnen
Martin Ney/Andreas Zimmermann, ‘Cyber-Security Beyond the Military Perspective: International Law, “Cyberspace” and the Concept of Due Diligence’, German Yearbook of International Law 58 (2015), 51–66 Google Scholar öffnen
Jens David Ohlin, ‘Did Russian Cyber Interference in the 2016 Election Violate International Law?’, Texas Law Review (95) 2017, 1579–1598 Google Scholar öffnen
Alice Ollino, Due Diligence Obligations in International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2022) Google Scholar öffnen
Phoebe Okowa, ‘Procedural Obligations in International Environmental Agreements’, British Yearbook of International Law 67 (1997), 275–336 Google Scholar öffnen
Lassa Oppenheim, International Law. A Treatise, Vol. II, War and Neutrality (New York/Bombay: Longmans, Green and Co. 1906) Google Scholar öffnen
Bernard H. Oxman, ‘Jurisdiction of States’, in Rüdiger Wolfrum (ed.), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2007) Google Scholar öffnen
Andreas Paulus, ‘The Judge and International Custom’, Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 12 (2013), 253–265 Google Scholar öffnen
Anne Peters/Heike Krieger/Leonhard Kreuzer, ‘Due diligence: the risky risk management tool in international law’, Cambridge Journal of International Law 9 (2020), 121–136 Google Scholar öffnen
Anne Peters/Heike Krieger/Leonhard Kreuzer, ‘Dissecting the Leitmotif of Current Accountability Debates: Due Diligence in the International Legal Order’, in Heike Krieger/Anne Peters/Leonhard Kreuzer, Due Diligence in the International Legal Order (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2020), 1–19 Google Scholar öffnen
Anne Peters, ‘Corruption as a Violation of International Human Rights’, European Journal of International Law 29 (2018), 1251–1287 Google Scholar öffnen
Anne Peters, ‘The Refinement of International Law: From Fragmentation to Regime Interaction and Politicization’, International Journal of Constitutional Law 15 (2017), 671–704 Google Scholar öffnen
Niels Petersen, ‘The Role of Consent and Uncertainty in the Formation of Customary International Law’, in Brian D. Lepard (ed.) Reexamining Customary International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2017), 111–130 Google Scholar öffnen
Anton Petrov, Expert Laws of War Restating and Making Law in Expert Processes (Cheltenham et al.: Edward Elgar 2020) Google Scholar öffnen
Benedikt Pirker, ‘Territorial Sovereignty and Integrity and the Challenges of Cyberspace’, in: Katharina Ziolkowski (ed.), Peacetime Regime for State Activities in Cyberspace (NATO CCDCOE 2013), 189–216 Google Scholar öffnen
Mark A. Pollack/Gregory C. Shaffer, ‘The Interaction of Formal and Informal International Lawmaking, in Joost Pauwelyn/Ramses A. Wessel/Jan Wouters (eds), Informal International Lawmaking (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2012), 241–270 Google Scholar öffnen
Lavanya Rajamani, ‘Due Diligence in International Change Law’, in Heike Krieger/Anne Peters/Leonhard Kreuzer, Due Diligence in the International Legal Order (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2020), 163–180 Google Scholar öffnen
Elspeth Reid, ‘Liability for Dangerous Activities: A Comparative Analysis’, International Comparative Law Quarterly 48 (1999), 731–756 Google Scholar öffnen
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 58 (2015), 101–112 Google Scholar öffnen
Thomas Rid, Cyber War Will Not Take Place (Hurst 2017) Google Scholar öffnen
Anthea Roberts, ‘Traditional and Modern Approaches to Customary International Law: A Reconciliation’, American Journal of International Law 95 (2001) 757–791 Google Scholar öffnen
Przemysław Roguski, ‘An Inspection Regime for Cyber Weapons: A Challenge Too Far?, AJIL Unbound 115 (2021) 110–115 Google Scholar öffnen
Przemysław Roguski, ‘Violations of Territorial Sovereignty in Cyberspace – an Intrusion-Based Approach’, in Dennis Broeders/Bibi van den Berg (eds.), Governing Cyberspace: Behaviour, Power and Diplomacy (London: Rowman & Littlefield 2020), 65–84 Google Scholar öffnen
Przemysław Roguski, ‘Collective Countermeasures in Cyberspace – Lex Lata, Progressive Development or a Bad Idea?’ in Taťána Jančárková/Lauri Lindström et al. (eds.), 20/20 Vision: The Next Decade (NATO CCDCOE 2020), 25–42 Google Scholar öffnen
Marco Roscini, ‘Military Objectives in Cyber Warfare’, in Mariarosaria Taddeo/Ludovica Glorioso (ed.), Ethics and Policies for Cyber Operations (NATO CCDCO 2017), 99–114 Google Scholar öffnen
Marco Roscini, Cyber Operations and the Use of Force in International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2014) Google Scholar öffnen
Tom Ruys, ‘The Meaning of Force and the Boundaries of the Jus ad Bellum’, American Journal of International Law 108 (2014) 159–210 Google Scholar öffnen
Time René Salomon, ‘Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters’, in Rüdiger Wolfrum (ed.), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2013) Google Scholar öffnen
Barrie Sander, ‘Democracy Under The Influence: Paradigms of State Responsibility for Cyber Influence Operations on Elections’, Chinese Journal of International Law 18 (2019), 1–56 Google Scholar öffnen
Beth van Schaack, ‘The United States’ Position on the Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Obligations: Now is the Time for Change’, International Law Studies 90 (2014), 20–65 Google Scholar öffnen
Oscar Schachter, International Law in Theory and Practice (Dordrecht et al.: Martinus Nijhoff 1991) Google Scholar öffnen
Stein Schjolberg/Solange Ghernaouti-Hélie, A Global Treaty on Cybersecurity and Cybercrime (2nd edition, Oslo: AiTOslo 2011) Google Scholar öffnen
Michael N. Schmitt (ed.), Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2017) Google Scholar öffnen
Michael N. Schmitt/Liis Vihul, ‘Respect for Sovereignty in Cyberspace’, Texas Law Review 95 (2017), 1639–1670 Google Scholar öffnen
Michael N. Schmitt, ‘In Defense of Due Diligence in Cyberspace’, Yale Law Journal Forum 125 (2015), 68–81 Google Scholar öffnen
Sven-Hendrik Schulze, Cyber-»War« – Testfall der Staatenverantwortlichkeit (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2015) Google Scholar öffnen
Antonio Segura-Serrano, ‘The Challenge of Global Cybersecurity’, in: Antonio Segura-Serrano (ed.), Global Cybersecurity and International Law (Routledge 2024), 1–9 Google Scholar öffnen
Anja Seibert-Fohr, ‘From Complicity to Due Diligence: When Do States Incur Responsibility for Their Involvement in Serious International Wrongdoing?’, German Yearbook of International Law 60 (2017), 667–708 Google Scholar öffnen
Yuval Shany, ‘Taking Universality Seriously: A Functional Approach to Extraterritoriality in International Human Rights Law’, The Law & Ethics of Human Rights 7 (2013), 47–71 Google Scholar öffnen
Dinah L. Shelton, ‘Law, Non-Law and the Problem of “Soft Law”’, in Dina L. Shelton (ed.) Commitment and Compliance: The Role of Non‐Binding Norms in the International Legal System (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2000), 1–20 Google Scholar öffnen
Christina Parajon Skinner, ‘An International Law Response to Economic Cyber Espionage’, Connecticut Law Review 46 (2014) 1165–1207 Google Scholar öffnen
Matthew Sklerov, ‘Solving the Dilemma of State Response to Cyberattacks’, Military Law Review 201 (2009), 1–85 Google Scholar öffnen
Peter Stockburger, ‘From Grey Zone to Customary International Law: How Adopting the Precautionary Principle May Help Crystallize the Due Diligence Principle in Cyberspace’, in Tomás̆ Minárik/Raik Jakschis/Lauri Lindström (eds.), 10th International Conference on Cyber Conflict CyCon X: Maximising Effects 2018 (NATO CCD COE 2018), 245–262 Google Scholar öffnen
Vladislava Stoyanova, ‘Fault, Knowledge and Risk Within the Framework of Positive Obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights’, Leiden Journal of International Law 33 (2020), 601–620 Google Scholar öffnen
Jamie Strawbridge, ‘The Big Bluff: Obama, Cyber Economic Espionage, and the Threat of WTO Litigation’, Georgetown Journal of International Law 47 (2016), 833–870 Google Scholar öffnen
Milan Tahraoui, ‘Surveillance des flux de données: juridiction ou compétences de l’État, des notions à refonder’, in Matthias Audit/Etienne Pataut (eds.), L'extraterritorialité (Paris: Pedone 2020), 141–194 Google Scholar öffnen
Stefan Talmon, ‘Determining Customary International Law: The ICJ’s Methodology between Induction, Deduction and Assertion’, European Journal of International Law 26 (2015), 417–443 Google Scholar öffnen
Christian Tams, Enforcing Obligations Erga Omnes in International Law (Cambridge University Press 2009) Google Scholar öffnen
Attila Tanzi, ‘Liability for Lawful Acts’, in Rüdiger Wolfrum (ed.), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2010) Google Scholar öffnen
Hugh W.A Thirlway, International Customary Law and Codification: An Examination of the Continuing Role of Custom in the Present Period of Codification of International Law (Leiden: Sijthoff 1972) Google Scholar öffnen
Eneken Tikk, ‘Introduction’, in Enekken Tikk (ed.), Voluntary, Non-Binding Norms for Responsible State Behaviour in the Use of Information and Communications Technology – A Commentary (United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs 2017) Google Scholar öffnen
Eneken Tikk/Kadri Kaska/Liis Vihul, International Cyber Incidents – Legal Considerations (NATO CCDCOE 2010) Google Scholar öffnen
Stephen Townley, ‘The Rise of Risk in International Law’, Chicago Journal of International Law 18 (2018), 594–646 Google Scholar öffnen
Arie Trouwborst, Precautionary Rights and Duties of States (Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff 2006) Google Scholar öffnen
Nicholas Tsagourias/Michael Farrell, ‘Cyber Attribution: Technical and Legal Approaches and Challenges’, European Journal of International Law 31 (2020), 941–967 Google Scholar öffnen
Nicholas Tsagourias, ‘Recommendation 13j’, in Enekken Tikk (ed.), Voluntary, Non-Binding Norms for Responsible State Behaviour in the Use of Information and Communications Technology – A Commentary (United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs 2017), 241–264 Google Scholar öffnen
Bobby Vedral, ‘The Vulnerability of the Financial System to a Systemic Cyberattack’, in Taťána Jančárková/Lauri Lindström et al. (eds.), Going Viral (NATO CCDCOE 2021), 95–110 Google Scholar öffnen
Eleonora Viganò/Michele Loi/Emad Yaghmaei, ‘Cybersecurity of Critical Infrastructure’, in Markus Christen Bert Gordijn Michele Loi (eds.), The Ethics of Cybersecurity (Berlin: Springer Nature 2020), 157–178 Google Scholar öffnen
Federica Violi, ‘The Function of the Triad “Territory”, “Jurisdiction”, and “Control” in Due Diligence Obligations’, in Heike Krieger/Anne Peters/Leonhard Kreuzer, Due Diligence in the International Legal Order (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2020), 75–91 Google Scholar öffnen
Silja Vöneky, ‘Analogy’, in Anne Peters (ed.), Max Planck Encyclopedia for Public International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2020) Google Scholar öffnen
Beatrice A. Walton, ‘Duties Owed: Low-Intensity Cyber Attacks and Liability for Transboundary Torts in International Law’, Yale Law Journal 126 (2017), 1460–1519 Google Scholar öffnen
Sean Watts, ‘Low-Intensity Cyber Operations and the Principle of Non-Intervention,’ in Jens D. Ohlin/Kevin Govern/Claire Finkelstein, Cyber War: Law and Ethics for Virtual Conflicts (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2015), 249–270 Google Scholar öffnen
Stephan Wilske, ‘Abduction’, in Rüdiger Wolfrum (ed.), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2019) Google Scholar öffnen
Thomas Wischmeyer, Informationssicherheit (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2023) Google Scholar öffnen
Rüdiger Wolfrum/Mirka Möldner, ‘International Courts and Tribunals, Evidence’, in Rüdiger Wolfrum (ed.), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2013) Google Scholar öffnen
Rüdiger Wolfrum, ‘International Law of Cooperation’, in Rüdiger Wolfrum (ed.), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2010) Google Scholar öffnen
Johann-Christoph Woltag, Cyber Warfare: Military Cross-Border Computer Network Operations Under International Law (Cambridge et al.: Intersentia 2014) Google Scholar öffnen
Michael Wood, ‘Customary International Law and the General Principles of Law Recognized by Civilized Nations’, International Community Law Review 21 (2019) 307–324 Google Scholar öffnen
William Thomas Worster, ‘The Inductive and Deductive Methods in Customary International Law Analysis: Traditional and Modern Approaches’, Georgetown Journal of International Law 45 (2014), 445–521 Google Scholar öffnen
Quincy Wright, ‘Espionage and the Doctrine of Non-Intervention in Internal Affairs’, in Roland J. Stanger (ed.), Essays on Espionage and International Law (Columbus: Ohio State University Press 1962) Google Scholar öffnen
Li Zhang, ‘A Chinese Perspective on Cyber War’, International Review of the Red Cross 94 (2012), 801–807 Google Scholar öffnen
Zhixiong Huang/Kubo Mačák, ‘Towards the International Rule of Law in Cyberspace: Contrasting Chinese and Western Approaches’, Chinese Journal of International Law 16 (2017), 271–310 Google Scholar öffnen
Katharina Ziolkowski, ‘General Principles of International Law as Applicable in Cyberspace’ in Katharina Ziolkowski (ed.) Peacetime Regime for State Activities in Cyberspace (NATO CCDCOE 2013), 135–188 Google Scholar öffnen
Blogposts Google Scholar öffnen
Dapo Akande/Antonio Coco/Talita de Souza Dias, ‘Old Habits Die Hard: Applying Existing International Law in Cyberspace and Beyond’, 5 January 2021, EJIL:Talk!, available at: https://www.ejiltalk.org/old-habits-die-hard-applying-existing-international-law-in-cyberspace-and-beyond/ Google Scholar öffnen
Prableen Bajpai, ‘The 5 Largest Economies In The World And Their Growth In 2020’, Nasdaq, 22 January 2020, available at: https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/the-5-largest-economies-in-the-world-and-their-growth-in-2020-2020-01-22 Google Scholar öffnen
Russell Buchan, ‘Eye on the Spy: International Law, Digital Supply Chains and the SolarWinds and Microsoft Hacks’, Völkerrechtsblog, 31 March 2021, available at: https://voelkerrechtsblog.org/de/eye-on-the-spy/ Google Scholar öffnen
Gary Corn, ‘Covert Deception, Strategic Fraud, and the Rule of Prohibited Intervention’, LawfareBlog, 24 September 2020, available at: https://www.lawfareblog.com/covert-deception-strategic-fraud-and-rule-prohibited-intervention Google Scholar öffnen
Kristen Eichensehr, ‘Three Questions on the WannaCry Attribution to North Korea’, JustSecurity, 20 December 2017, available at: https://www.justsecurity.org/49889/questions-wannacry-attribution-north-korea Google Scholar öffnen
Tomaso Falchetta, ‘The Draft UN Cybercrime Treaty Is Overbroad and Falls Short On Human Rights Protection’, JustSecurity, 22 January 2024, available at: https://www.justsecurity.org/91318/the-draft-un-cybercrime-treaty-is-overbroad-and-falls-short-on-human-rights-protection/ Google Scholar öffnen
Michael P. Fischerkeller, ‘Current International Law Is Not an Adequate Regime for Cyberspace’, LawfareBlog, 22 April 2021, available at: https://www.lawfareblog.com/current-international-law-not-adequate-regime-cyberspace Google Scholar öffnen
Jack Goldsmith, ‘Self-Delusion on the Russia Hack’, 18 December 2020, The Dispatch, available at: https://thedispatch.com/p/self-delusion-on-the-russia-hack?s=r Google Scholar öffnen
Oona Hathaway/Alasdair Phillips-Robins, ‘COVID-19 and International Law Series: Vaccine Theft, Disinformation, the Law Governing Cyber Operations’, JustSecurity, 4 December 2020, available at: https://www.justsecurity.org/73699/covid-19-and-international-law-series-vaccine-theft-disinformation-the-law-governing-cyber-operations/ Google Scholar öffnen
Sven Herpig/Ari Schwartz, ‘The Future of Vulnerabilities Equities Processes Around the World’, Lawfare, 4 January 2019, available at: https://www.lawfareblog.com/future-vulnerabilities-equities-processes-around-world Google Scholar öffnen
Leonhard Kreuzer, ‘Disentangling the Cyber Security Debate’, Völkerrechtsblog, 20 June 2018, available at: https://voelkerrechtsblog.org/de/disentangling-the-cyber-security-debate/ Google Scholar öffnen
Heike Krieger, ‘Sovereignty – an Empty Vessel?’, EJIL:Talk!, 7 July 2020, available at: https://www.ejiltalk.org/sovereignty-an-empty-vessel/ Google Scholar öffnen
Marko Milanovic, ‘Wieder and Guarnieri v UK: A Justifiably Expansive Approach to the Extraterritorial Application of the Right to Privacy in Surveillance Cases’, EJIL:Talk!, 21 March 2024, available at: https://www.ejiltalk.org/wieder-and-guarnieri-v-uk-a-justifiably-expansive-approach-to-the-extraterritorial-application-of-the-right-to-privacy-in-surveillance-cases/ Google Scholar öffnen
Marko Milanovic, ‘The Grand Normalization of Mass Surveillance: ECtHR Grand Chamber Judgments in Big Brother Watch and Centrum för rättvisa’, EJIL:Talk!, 26 May 2021 available at: https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-grand-normalization-of-mass-surveillance-ecthr-grand-chamber-judgments-in-big-brother-watch-and-centrum-for-rattvisa/ Google Scholar öffnen
Anne Peters, ‘Surveillance Without Borders? The Unlawfulness of the NSA-Panopticon, Part II’, Ejil:Talk!, 4 November 2013, available at: https://www.ejiltalk.org/surveillance-without-borders-the-unlawfulness-of-the-nsa-panopticon-part-ii/ Google Scholar öffnen
Mark Pomerleau, ‘What is ‘sovereignty’ in cyberspace? Depends who you ask’, FifthDomain, 21 November 2019, available at: https://www.c4isrnet.com/international/2019/11/21/what-is-sovereignty-in-cyberspace-depends-who-you-ask/ Google Scholar öffnen
Przemysław Roguski, ‘The Importance of New Statements on Sovereignty in Cyberspace by Austria, the Czech Republic and United States’, 11 May 2020, JustSecurity, available at: https://www.justsecurity.org/70108/the-importance-of-new-statements-on-sovereignty-in-cyberspace-by-austria-the-czech-republic-and-united-states/ Google Scholar öffnen
Michael N. Schmitt, ‘Three International Law Rules for Responding Effectively to Hostile Cyber Operations’, JustSecurity, 13 July 2021, available at: https://www.justsecurity.org/77402/three-international-law-rules-for-responding-effectively-to-hostile-cyber-operations/ Google Scholar öffnen
Michael N. Schmitt, ‘The Sixth United Nations GGE and International Law in Cyberspace’, JustSecurity, 10 June 2021, available at: https://www.justsecurity.org/76864/the-sixth-united-nations-gge-and-international-law-in-cyberspace/ Google Scholar öffnen
Michael N. Schmitt, ‘Terminological Precision and International Cyber Law’, Articles of War, 29 July 2021, available at: https://lieber.westpoint.edu/terminological-precision-international-cyber-law/ Google Scholar öffnen
Michael N. Schmitt, ‘Russia’s SolarWinds Operation and International Law’, JustSecurity, 21 December 2020, available at: https://www.justsecurity.org/73946/russias-solarwinds-operation-and-international-law/ Google Scholar öffnen
Michael N. Schmitt, ‘In Defense of Sovereignty in Cyberspace’, JustSecurity, 8 May 2018, available at: https://www.justsecurity.org/55876/defense-sovereignty-cyberspace/ Google Scholar öffnen
Alexis Steffaro, ‘Detour or Deadlock? Decoding the Suspended UN Cybercrime Treaty Negotiations’, 4 March 2024, available at: https://www.centerforcybersecuritypolicy.org/insights-and-research/detour-or-deadlock-decoding-the-suspended-un-cybercrime-treaty-negotiations/ Google Scholar öffnen
Yevgeny Vindman, ‘Is the SolarWinds Cyberattack an Act of War? It Is, If the United States Says It Is’, JustSecurity, available at: https://www.lawfareblog.com/solarwinds-cyberattack-act-war-it-if-united-states-says-it/ Google Scholar öffnen
Research paper Google Scholar öffnen
Annegret Bendiek, ‘Due Diligence in Cyberspace – Guidelines for International and European Cyber Policy and Cybersecurity Policy’, Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik – Research Paper 2016 Google Scholar öffnen
Carme Colomina/Héctor Sanchez Margalef/Richard Youngs, ‘The Impact of Disinformation on Democratic Processes and Human Rights in the World’, Study Requested by the DROI subcommittee (European Parliament), April 2021 Google Scholar öffnen
David P. Fidler, ‘Economic Cyber Espionage and International Law: Controversies Involving Government Acquisition of Trade Secrets Through Cyber Technologies’, ASIL Insights 17 (2013) Google Scholar öffnen
Sven Herpig, Active Cyber Defense – Toward Operational Norms (Stiftung Neue Verantwortung 2023) Google Scholar öffnen
Sven Herpig, A Framework for Government Hacking in Criminal Investigations (Stiftung Neue Verantwortung 2018) Google Scholar öffnen
Klaus Lenssen, ‘…on the Ground: An Industry Perspective’, in Ingolf Pernice/Jörg Pohle (eds.), Privacy and Cyber Security on the Books and on the Ground (Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society 2018), 107–110 Google Scholar öffnen
James Lewis, ‘Assessing the Risks of Cyber Terrorism, Cyber War and Other Cyber Threats’, Center for Strategic and International Studies 2002 Google Scholar öffnen
Tambiama Madiega, ‘Digital Sovereignty for Europe’, EPRS – European Parliamentary Research Service, July 2020 Google Scholar öffnen
Zhanna Malekos Smith/Eugenia Lostri/James A. Lewis (Project Director), McAfee, ‘The Hidden Costs of Cybercrime’, 9 December 2020 Google Scholar öffnen
Tim Maurer/Robert Morgus, Tipping the Scale: An Analysis of Global Swing States in the Internet Governance Debate (The Centre for International Governance Innovation and the Royal Institute for International Affairs 2014) Google Scholar öffnen
Harriet Moynihan, ‘The Application of International Law to State Cyberattacks Sovereignty and Non-intervention’, Chatham House – Research Paper, 2019 Google Scholar öffnen
Przemysław Roguski, ‘Application of International Law to Cyber Operations: A Comparative Analysis of States’ Views’, The Hague Program for Cyber Norms, Policy Brief, 2020 Google Scholar öffnen
Christina Rupp/Alexandra Paulus, Official Public Political Attribution of Cyber Operations – State of Play and Policy Options (Stiftung Neue Verantwortung 2023) Google Scholar öffnen
Stefan Talmon, ‘Das Abhören des Kanzlerhandys und das Völkerrecht’, Bonn Research Papers on Public International Law 3 (2013) Google Scholar öffnen
Enekken Tikk/Mika Kerttunen, ‘The Alleged Demise of the UN GGE: An Autopsy and Eulogy’, Cyber Policy Institute, 2017 Google Scholar öffnen
Ann Valjataga, ‘Tracing Opinio Juris in National Cyber Security Strategy Documents‘, NATO CCDCOE 2018, 1–18 Google Scholar öffnen
Expert testimonies Google Scholar öffnen
Helmut Philipp Aust, 1. Untersuchungsausschuss der 18. Wahlperiode des Deutschen Bundestages Stellungnahme zur Sachverständigenanhörung am 5. Juni 2014 Google Scholar öffnen
Non-legal articles/news (online) Google Scholar öffnen
Ronen Bergman/David M Halbfinger, ‘Israel Hack of Iran Port Is Latest Salvo in Exchange of Cyberattacks’, NYTimes, 18 May 2021 Google Scholar öffnen
Ronen Bergman/Rick Gladstone/Farnaz Fassihi’, Blackout Hits Iran Nuclear Site in What Appears to Be Israeli Sabotage, New York Times, 11 April 2021 Google Scholar öffnen
Patrick Beuth, ‘Der Spionagefall des Jahres’, Der Spiegel, 18 December 2020 Google Scholar öffnen
Russell Brandom, ‘UK Hospitals Hit with Massive Ransomware Attack’, The Verge, 12 May 2017, available at: https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/12/15630354/nhs-hospitals-ransomware-hack-wannacry-bitcoin Google Scholar öffnen
Gary D. Brown/Owen W. Tullos, ‘On the Spectrum of Cyberspace Operations’, Small Wars Journal, 11 December 2012, available at: https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/on-the-spectrum-of-cyberspace-operations Google Scholar öffnen
Kellen Browning, ‘Hundreds of Businesses, From Sweden to U.S., Affected by Cyberattack’, New York Times, 2 July 2021 Google Scholar öffnen
Tom Burt, ‘New Cyberattacks Targeting U.S. Elections’, MicrosoftBlog, 10 September 2020 Google Scholar öffnen
Adrian Croft, ‘EU Threatens to Suspend Data-sharing with U.S. over Spying Reports’, Reuters, 5 July 2013, available at: https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-security-eu-idINDEE96409F20130705 Google Scholar öffnen
Grace Dobush, ‘20-year-old German Hacker Confesses in Doxxing Case’, Handelsblatt, 1 August 2019 Google Scholar öffnen
Ryan Dube, ‘What Is Binary Code and How Does It Work?’, Lifewire, 2 March 2022, available at: https://www.lifewire.com/what-is-binary-and-how-does-it-work-4692749 Google Scholar öffnen
Myriam Dunn Cavelty/Jacqueline Eggenschwiler, ‘Behavioral Norms in Cyberspace’, The Security Times, February 2019 Google Scholar öffnen
Melissa Eddy/Nicole Pelroth, ‘Cyber Attack Suspected in German Woman’s Death’, New York Times, 18 September 2020, Google Scholar öffnen
Josh Frühliner, ‘The CIA Triad: Definition, Components and Examples’, CSO Online, 10 February 2020, available at: https://www.csoonline.com/article/3519908/the-cia-triad-definition-components-and-examples.html Google Scholar öffnen
Alex Grigsby, ‘The United Nations Doubles Its Workload on Cyber Norms, and Not Everyone Is Pleased’, Council on Foreign Relations, 15 November 2018, available at: https://www.cfr.org/blog/united-nations-doubles-its-workload-cyber-norms-and-not-everyone-pleased Google Scholar öffnen
Thomas Holt, ‘What Are Software Vulnerabilities, and Why Are There so Many of Them?’, The Conversation, 23 May 2017 Google Scholar öffnen
Michael Knigge, ‘NSA Surveillance Eroded Transatlantic Trust’, DW, 27 December 2013, available at: https://www.dw.com/en/nsa-surveillance-eroded-transatlantic-trust/a-17311216 Google Scholar öffnen
Meike Laaff, ‘Wie eine Cyberattacke einen ganzen Landkreis lahmlegt’, ZEIT Online, 12 July 2021 Google Scholar öffnen
Steve Morgan, ‘Cybercrime To Cost The World $10.5 Trillion Annually By 2025’, 13 November 2020, available at: https://cybersecurityventures.com/cybercrime-damage-costs-10-trillion-by-2025/ Google Scholar öffnen
Olga Pavlova, ‘Putin says Russia Prepared to Extradite Cyber Criminals to US on Reciprocal Basis’, CNN, 13 June 2021 Google Scholar öffnen
Chad Perrin, ‘The CIA Triad’, TechRepublic, 30 June 2008, available at: https://www.techrepublic.com/article/the-cia-triad/ Google Scholar öffnen
Ian Phillips/Vladimir Isachenkov, ‘Putin: Russia Doesn’t Hack but “Patriotic” Individuals Might’, APNews, 1 June 2017 Google Scholar öffnen
James Risen/Eric Lichtblau, ‘How the U.S. Uses Technology to Mine More Data More Quickly’, New York Times, 8 June 2013 Google Scholar öffnen
Irina Rizmal, ‘Cyberterrorism: What Are We (not) Talking About?’, Diplo, 3 August 2017 Google Scholar öffnen
Jordan Robertson/Laurence Arnold, ‘Cyberwar: How Nations Attack Without Bullets or Bombs’, Washington Post, 14 December 2020 Google Scholar öffnen
Dan Sabbagh/Andrew Roth, ‘Russian State-Sponsored Hackers Target Covid-19 Vaccine Researchers’, Guardian, 16 July 2020 Google Scholar öffnen
David E. Sanger/Nicole Perlroth/Eric Schmitt, ‘Scope of Russian Hacking Becomes Clear: Multiple U.S. Agencies Were Hit’, New York Times, 9 September 2021 Google Scholar öffnen
Bruce Schneier, ‘Class Breaks’, Schneier on Security, 3 January 2017 Google Scholar öffnen
Bruce Schneier, ‘Simultaneous Discovery of Vulnerabilities’, Schneier on Security, 15 February 2016 Google Scholar öffnen
Vladimir Soldatkin/Humeyra Pamuk, ‘Biden Tells Putin Certain Cyberattacks Should be 'off-limits'’, Reuters, 17 June 2021 Google Scholar öffnen
Robert Sprague/Sean Valentine, ‘Due Diligence’, Encyclopædia Britannica, 4 October 2018. Google Scholar öffnen
Mehul Srivastava, ‘WhatsApp voice calls used to inject Israeli spyware on phones’, Financial Times, 14 May 2019 Google Scholar öffnen
Friedel Taube, ‘Russia-Ukraine Conflict: What Role Do Cyberattacks Play?’, Deutsche Welle, 28 February 2022, available at: https://www.dw.com/en/russia-ukraine-conflict-what-role-do-cyberattacks-play/a-60945572. Google Scholar öffnen
Ian Tennant/Summer Walker, ‘Cyber, Fire and Fury’, Global Initiative, 17 March 2022, available at: https://globalinitiative.net/analysis/un-cybercrime-treaty/. Google Scholar öffnen
Maegan Vazquez/Allie Malloy, ‘Biden Will Discuss Recent Cyber Attack on Meat Producer with Putin in Geneva’, CNN, 2 June 2021 Google Scholar öffnen
Kim Zetter, ‘Inside the Cunning, Unprecedented Hack of Ukraine's Power Grid’, Wired, 3 March 2016 Google Scholar öffnen
Unnamed: ‘Pegasus: Spyware Sold to Governments 'Targets Activists'’, BBC, 19 July 2021, available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-57881364 Google Scholar öffnen
Unnamed: ‘How the Dutch Foiled Russian “Cyber-attack” on OPCW’, BBC, 4 October 2018, available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45747472 Google Scholar öffnen